- Email: [email protected]
Reflections on the absence of formal reflection in public relations education and practice
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev
Reflections on the absence of formal reflection in public relations education and practice Pip Mules Auckland University of Technology, 55 Wellesley St. East, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand
AR TI CLE I NF O
AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Public relations Public relations teaching Reflection Reflective practice Professionalism Public relations curricula Textbooks
This content analysis is a part of wider research into the value of reflective practice in public relations education and practice. Examination of this topic is important given that reflective practice is widely recognised as an essential element for claims of professionalism (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983, 1987), and professionalism remains an elusive goal for PR practitioners (L’Etang, 2009). This article examines the extent to which the terms and processes associated with reflective practice are formally included in the contents of a range of widely used and well regarded public relations textbooks. The aim is to provide insight into the significance (or lack of it) of reflective practice in contemporary public relations curricula. Given that textbooks are highly influential teaching media that both reflect and shape curricula, conclusions about the emphasis of reflective practice in public relations teaching can be drawn as a result of this analysis. The findings indicate that – based on the content of the textbooks analysed – reflective practice is not formally included in the public relations teaching curriculum. Further research is needed to determine whether this omission also reflects the situation in public relations practice. This research has relevance for public relations educators given that they play a significant role in influencing future generations of public relations professionals. It concludes with a call for a shift in public relations education that includes greater emphasis on reflective practice.
1. Introduction Formally reflecting on practice is a widely recognised and researched strategy for learning from complex and challenging situations that arise in the workplace (Boud, Cressey & Docherty, 2006; Fook & Gardner, 2007, 2012; Moon, 1999; Osteman & Kottkamp, 1993). It is a systemised approach to helping practitioners in all fields develop higher levels of self-awareness, and to create opportunities for professional growth and quality improvement. Reflective practice addresses profound, often unasked, questions such as ‘what am I doing, why did it happen that way, what hidden assumptions are operating here, and what do I need to do in order to do better next time?’ Formal reflective practice can be carried out either alone or in group settings, depending on the context. This research considers the extent to which reflective practice is formally included in public relations teaching programmes, in light of industry aspirations of professionalism. Reflective practice is recognised as an essential element of professionalism (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983; Schön, 1987). The field of public relations is evolving rapidly from being primarily concerned with the achievement of specific campaign outputs for clients towards dialogic co-creation of meaning and a concern with questions of professionalism such as the ethics of engagement with clients and publics, and the moral and political implications of practice (Grunig, 2006; Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006; van Ruler, 2015).
E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.09.008 Received 15 May 2017; Received in revised form 7 August 2017; Accepted 13 September 2017 0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Mules, P.P., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.09.008
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
The extent to which reflective practice is formally included in public relations curricula is examined through review of the contents of ten widely used public relations textbooks written by well-regarded authors, most of whom are both industry experts and public relations theorists. The textbooks were all published in Britain, America, Australia or New Zealand between 2009 and 2017. Implicit in this research approach is acknowledgment of the powerful mediating influence of textbooks in critical debates and contemporary pedagogical practice. 2. Reflection in public relations teaching and practice As long ago as the 4th Century, Socrates recognised the value of reflection in personal life, when he claimed that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’. Today there is scholarly recognition that ongoing engagement in formal reflective practice is an important element of professional life. This recognition can be traced to the writing of John Dewey (1933) who was an early advocate of reflective practice as a systemised form of enquiry in the workplace. More recently, Schön (1983), Schön (1987) advocated for formal reflective practice as a way of developing ‘actionable schema’ that provide ways of handling uncertainty in times of change and for navigating the ‘messy swamps of practice’ (1987, p.3). He described reflective practice as a process of “problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique” (1983, p. 21). Reflection provides practitioners with strategies for examining their own ‘theories in use’, particularly to resolve the tension between values-based professional practice, and economically and technically focused outcomes (Schön, 1983). Reflective practice is similar to critical reflection but there is a key difference in focus. Both are formal approaches that are theorised as challenging personal assumptions that may have been made in the course of workplace experience, and both operate in a reflexive space of honesty, critique and embracing change. However, critical reflection is typically theorised as an emancipatory form of reflection concerned with transforming wider society (Cotter, 2014), whereas reflective practice is more concerned with transforming interpersonal and organisational practices (Fook & Gardner, 2007; Moon, 1999). Reflective practice is widely recognised as an essential competency domain for claims of professionalism (Boud & Garrick, 1999; Fook & Gardner, 2007; Schön, 1983,1987). Fook and Gardner, writing particularly in the human services field, describe reflection as the process by which professionals, alone and with others, acquire and develop the knowledge, skills and emotional intelligence essential to high-quality professional thinking, planning and practice. Schön advocates formal workplace reflection as a way of resolving the division between technical rationality and ethical, artistic and intuitive thinking. He claims that this division is artificial and unacceptable in professional practice, given that professionals claim to contribute to social wellbeing and hold themselves accountable for standards of competence and morality (1983). Boud and Garrick claim that a key benefit of reflective practice is that it provides individuals with a way of finding their own meanings within a community of professional discourse. Fook and Gardner make the point that although many professional courses require students to be reflective, there is often no literature provided on the topic, or no specific part of the course that focuses on how reflective practice is carried out. Reflective practice is regarded not only as an important element of professionalism, but also as an important element of deep learning (Boud, Cressey, & Docherty, 2006; Dewey, 1933; Driscoll, 1994; Ghaye, 2010; Kolb, 1984; Lave & Wenger, 2002). The reflective nature of learning is central to Lave and Wenger’s (2002) research into the developmental transition from the knowledge of the novice to the knowledge of the expert in the workplace. Lave and Wenger saw learning as a process of socialisation within communities of practice where participants share ideas and experiences over extended timeframes. Central to this process of socialisation is the shift from experiencing the workplace as a sequence of chronological events towards learning through a process of purposeful reflection based on daily experience. A review of the literature reveals hundreds of articles that discuss the significance of reflective practice in the fields of education and health, for example Brookfield (1999), Bruster and Peterson (2013), Fitzpatrick and Spiller (2010), Fook and Gardner (2012), Gibbs (1988), Glendenning and Cartwright (2011), Hinett and Weeden (2000), Joyce (2015), Maloney and Campbell-Evans (2002), Moon (1999), Osteman and Kottkamp (1993), and Zwozdiak-Myers (2012). A similar literature review in the field of public relations reveals that the value of reflection is widely recognised at a theoretical or philosophical level as the discipline seeks to understand its role in an increasingly complex social and communicative environment (Burger, 2009; Holmström, 2004; Holmström, 2005; Holmström, 2009; L’Etang, 2013; L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006; Marsh, 2010; van Ruler, 2015; van Ruler & Vercic, 2005). Holmström (2009), considering the role of public relations within the systems framework of Niklas Luhmann, claims that reflection is essential to public relations practice in late modernity as organizations seek to earn and sustain social legitimacy. She says that reflection provides a way of anticipating and navigating potential conflicts and transforming the consequences of these conflicts into organisational learning (2004). Van Ruler and Vercic (2005) argue for a reflective approach to communication management that puts the counseling role at the centre of public relations activity. While the value of reflection is widely recognised at a theoretical or philosophical level there is very little research into the role of formal reflection in the daily practice of public relations practitioners and public relations curricula. Sheehan (2008) and Fitch (2011) have researched public relations internships and advocate for reflective practice as way of integrating academic and workplace learning. L’Etang and Pieczka (2006) also discuss the need for increased reflection in public relations education. They call for teachers to encourage students to “be curious, to play ‘devil's advocate’, question received truths, and develop moral courage—all qualities they will need as public relations counselors” (p. 442). In other words, although they do not specifically use the term ‘reflective practice’, L’Etang and Pieczka are calling for students to be more reflective and challenge professional assumptions. Reflective practice is an element of what L’Etang (2013) calls for in a new epistemology of practice in which public relations practitioners can become more open learning systems capable of reflecting and adapting rather than solely focusing on outcomes. A similar lack of formal recognition or inclusion of reflective practice in public relations education is evident in professional 2
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
public relations bodies. This can be seen, in particular, in the 2015 Recommendations of the Commission on Public Relations Education workshop that addressed the question: “We need someone with an undergraduate public relations degree at the entry level who can….?” (Commission on Public Relations Education, May 12, 2015). The report includes a wide cross section of key industryeducator representatives, including from public relations professional and academic associations such as the Public Relations Society of America, the Public Relations Council, the Institute of Public Relations, the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, the National Communication Association, and the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The report recommended the inclusion of a range of interpersonal skills related to reflective practice, such as selfawareness, adaptability and assertiveness, and ethics. However it did not include any explicit reference to formal reflective practice—or even informal reflection. The recommendations appear focused on outputs with no recognition of the value of formal inclusion of reflection on practice in public relations education. 3. Methodology This study asks, what emphasis is placed on reflective practice in contemporary public relations curricula? It analyses the contents of ten public relations textbooks to identify whether they formally incorporate reflective practice into their suggested teaching programmes. Implicit in this methodological approach is the acknowledgement that the inclusion of specific areas of content in textbooks indicates not only formal inclusion in the curricula, but also that textbooks are powerful shapers of curricula and fields of knowledge (Callison, 2003; Kress, 2003; Kuhn, 1962; Levinson, 1997; Ong, 2004; Ong, 2012). Callison developed the idea that textbooks are not neutral carriers of content, arguing that “…no other instructional technology has had more influence on teaching over the past 100 years than the textbook” (p. 31). Pieczka also acknowledged the powerful mediating influence of textbooks in critical debates and in the accepted conventions of contemporary public relations practice. Writing specifically about the influence of textbooks in the field of public relations, she pointed out: “…a textbook is firmly associated with the establishment, in the sense of representing the views central to the field and containing an up-to-date body of knowledge…[It] serves as a medium through which the direction of the development of the field is reaffirmed, and also functions as a mechanism for self-perpetuation” (2006, p.145). Despite the well-recognised pedagogical influence of textbooks, the increased digitsation of educational media is reducing this influence. Until recently it was common practice to confine students’ studies to one primary textbook – generally referred to as the ‘prescribed text’. Increasingly at a tertiary education level, and particularly in the humanities and social sciences, there is a clear trend away from focusing on one standalone textbook (Jobrack, 2011). Research into the changing literacy practices of tertiary students indicates that instead of using a single textbook they are increasingly using a diverse range of texts in their studies (Fasso, Knight & Knight, 2013; Haven, 2009; Keller, 2013). Another indicator of the influence of the textbook is the current state of the textbook market. Sales performance data suggests the situation varies significantly from country to country. Some industry sources claim that the US tertiary textbook sector is experiencing a production boom that has not been seen since the early 1990s, as digital versions of books are rapidly outselling the physical versions, and sales of textbooks that can be reconstituted as e-books or other digital versions are growing at a rapid rate (Cooper, 2012; Schulz, 2013). In Australia, despite the increased number of digitised versions being sold, the printed textbook industry is reported to remain prosperous, and tertiary educational publishing currently represents about 30 percent of Australia’s publishing output (Horsley & Brien, 2013). 3.1. Method In order to address the research question, the contents of ten widely used public relations textbooks (listed below) were analysed. Each of these books was written between 2009 and 2017. Each specifically aimed to prepare students for a career in public relations. The texts were written and published in five countries: America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Europe and New Zealand. Each was aimed at tertiary level students—primarily undergraduate, but some were also recommended for postgraduate students. The textbooks selected for analysis in this research have sufficient similarities to allow them to be discussed collectively. They are all written to a well-recognised ‘textbook’ formula; they are all associated with a formal course of study; and they each, to some extent, simplify the diverse field of public relations to make the content more accessible to students. They are divided into carefully graduated sections and subsections, each of which has a bolded heading that reflects the topic and the content. They all fit within a recognisable instructional continuum. At one end of the continuum, the field of public relations is presented as a finite body of knowledge and skills with a prescribed (closed) set of learning outcomes. At the other end of the continuum, there is a more openended learning and teaching approach and less closely-defined knowledge and skills. Chesser (2003), taking a tongue-in-cheek view of the common elements of such texts, makes the point that textbooks are all, on some perceptual level, regardless of the age at which they are directed: “…some version of a twelve-inch, seven-pound, hard-covered, glossy-paged, pulp doorstop. Third-grade math or graduate medicine, it is likely composed of many short units and peppered with colorful illustrations, tables, and exercises. It supports the study of a finite subject area, and it will very effectively fill the average backpack, if not the average brain.” (p. 3) The textbooks are all written by highly regarded public relations scholars, most of whom, in the course of their careers, have been both public relations practitioners and academics. Each of the textbooks includes some variation on a planning model where public 3
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
relations practice is divided into a number of workable actions (or differentiated stages) such as research, strategy, tactics, measurement and evaluation. The ten textbooks selected for analysis are: 1. Broom, G. M., Sha, B., Seshadrinathan, S., Centre, A. H., & Cutlip, S. r. (2013). Cutlip & Centre's effective public relations. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. 2. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2010). PR strategy and application: Managing influence. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell. 3. Gregory, A. (2015). Planning and managing public relations campaigns (4th ed). London, UK: Kogan Page Limited. 4. Gregory, A., & Willis, P. A. (2013). Strategic public relations leadership. New York, NY: Routledge. 5. Gordon, A. (2011). Public relations. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 6. L’Etang, J. (2009). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK: Sage. 7. Seitel, F. P. (2017) The practice of public relations. Boston, MA: Pearson. 8. Theaker, A., & Yaxley, H. (2013). The public relations strategic toolkit: An essential guide to successful public relations practice. New York, NY: Routledge. 9. Mersham, G., Theunissen, P., & Peart, J. (2009). Public relations and communication management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. North Shore, New Zealand: Pearson. 10. Wilcox, D. L. (2013). Think public relations. Boston, MA: Pearson. Fook and Gardner (2007) identify a number of key terms associated with reflection and reflective practice. The ten textbooks were searched for each of these key terms. − ‘reflection', ‘reflective practice', ‘reflexivity', ‘assumption’, ‘critical’, ‘critical thinking’, ‘discrepancy/ies’, ‘dissatisfaction/s’, ‘discernment’, ‘judging’, ‘judgment’, ‘problem solving’, ‘questioning’, ‘uncertainty/ies' and ‘shift/s’. Searches for these terms were carried out in the contents pages, the indexes, the promotional material printed on the front and back covers of the textbooks, and within the contents of the textbook.
3.2. Limitations of this research The research approach applied in this article had two main limitations. One of these was the limited sample size. The ten textbooks were chosen for analysis because they were well regarded and widely used, but this research makes no claim that all possible textbooks had been included. Rather an indicative sample was chosen. Another limitation is that, while textbooks are highly influential in both representing and shaping course content and curricula, it is entirely possible that public relations teachers incorporate reflective practice into their classroom above and beyond what is indicated by the contents of their course textbooks. More in-depth qualitative research, such as one-to-one interviews with teachers, would be necessary in order to assess this.
4. Findings The search for keywords that was carried out on the ten sample textbooks revealed that, with the exception of L’Etang’s (2013) textbook, there were no references to reflective practice itself, or the key terms associated with reflective practice. The L’Etang text focuses on critical reflection rather than reflection associated with workplace reflection. Each chapter concludes with a question based on a specific ‘critical reflection’ such as “am I comfortable working like a lawyer and working for my client to the best of my professional ability?” and “am I comfortable representing an organisation, cause or product which does not align with my personal views?” (p. 42). In Broom et al. (2013) there is a section titled ‘Reflection’ on page 35. However in this case ‘reflection’ is used in an entirely different sense, and refers to reviewing the previous section of the text rather than reflective practice. With the exception of the L’Etang text the selected textbooks tend to be predominantly focused on outputs. The Gregory (2015) text is described on the back cover as one of the best ‘how-to’ guides for students and practitioners. The Gregory and Willis (2013) textbook is promoted as “suitable for aspiring practitioners, MBA and other masters qualifications in public relations – especially for those students who wish to pursue a successful career as a PR specialist able to operate strategically at the top of successful organizations” (p. i). Gordon’s (2011) text is described as “building upon the fundamental theories of PR and communications, it goes on to explore the essential tools of the trade and how to develop an effective PR campaign” (back cover). Mersham et al. (2009) is described on the back cover as being at the forefront of current practice, and the Coombs and Holladay (2010) textbook is described as “essential reading for students and professionals, this book provides a strong foundation for the fundamentals of public relations while exploring significant emerging disciplines of the field” (back cover). This latter text is described as offering “extensive discussions of exciting contemporary issues often neglected in other texts, including transparency, corporate social responsibility, reputation management, activism, risk communication, and social marketing” (back cover). The Wilcox (2013) text, which includes a planning model, states that public relations is still dominated by a technician mentality, but no specific solutions to this are offered. While the textbooks chosen for analysis may implicitly include some degree of focus on process − the L’Etang (2013) textbook is the only one that has a strong, specific emphasis on process as well as outcomes. It is described as suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate students (back cover). It includes a section on the traditional planning model; however, rather than endorsing this model, the L’Etang text critiques the model in order to examine the tensions between a functionalist and critical approach. L’Etang’s primary criticism of the traditional planning model is that it approaches the planning cycle purely from the organisation’s perspective rather than the client’s or a wider social perspective.
4
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
5. Discussion The research question asked what emphasis is placed on reflective practice in contemporary public relations curricula? In order to address this question the contents of ten well regarded contemporary public relations textbooks were analysed to assess the extent to which they included key words related to reflection or reflexivity. The findings reveal that, with the exception of the L’Etang (2013) text, nine of the ten textbooks did not include any such reference. While L’Etang does not specifically mention reflective practice, this text includes a section on critical thinking and challenging assumptions, specifically in relation to the role of public relations in reinforcing or challenging imbalances of power or representation. Each of the textbooks analysed or incorporated a planning model that divided public relations activities into a number of stages, but in none of these stages was any element of reflective practice formally incorporated, or even discussed. While it is important to note that this is in no way a reflection on the quality of the textbooks, it does indicate that the focus of most public relations teaching is very activity and outcomes based. This article has taken the position that textbooks both reflect and shape curricula. Despite the fact that public relations makes increasing and numerous claims to call itself a profession, it is highly significant that reflective practice is not included as an element of the public relations curriculum in the popular public relations textbooks that were analysed. The implication is that public relations educators and practitioners place little value on reflective practice. Compared with the education and health care professions, the lack of research and attention to the role of reflective practice in public relations points to a lack of formal recognition of the value of embedding reflective practice within public relations culture, mores and discourse. This indicates a significant professional gap. The literature review draws on seminal literature that has discussed how the formal inclusion of reflective practice in the university curriculum has the potential to contribute to a culture of professionalism. Capabilities in reflective thinking and process enable practitioners to be creative, think critically and analytically, and communicate about the results of enquiry are among the most important outcomes. There are additionally indications that reflecting on practice is important to help practitioners deal with increased levels of uncertainty and complexity in an increasingly online and social media environment. This research calls for a higher level of attention to the value of reflective practice in public relations teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, to balance the current predominant focus on outputs. References Brookfield, S. D. (1999). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Broom, G. M., Sha, B., Seshadrinathan, S., Centre, A. H., & Cutlip, S. (2013). Cutlip & Centre’s effective public relations. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Bruster, B., & Peterson, B. (2013). Using critical incidents in teaching to promote reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 14(2), 170–182. Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work. London, UK: Routledge. Boud, D., Cressey, P., & Docherty, P. (2006). Productive reflection at work: Learning for changing organizations. New York, NY: Routledge. Burger, M. (2009). Businesses’ social involvement through public relations: A critical comparison of the market-oriented and reflective paradigms of public relations, Communication. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 35(1), 101–118. Callison, D. (2003). Textbook. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 19(8), 31–40. Commission on Public Relations Education Industry-Educator Summit. https://www.commpred.org/_uploads/industry-educator-summit-summar.report.pdf May 12, 2015. Coombs, W., & Holladay, S. (2010). PR strategy and application: Managing influence. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell. Cotter, R. J. (2014). Reflexive spaces of appearance: Rethinking critical reflection in the workplace. Human Resource Development International, 17(4), 459–474. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.93209. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Heath & Co. Driscoll J. (1994). Reflective practice for practice. Senior nurse 13 (Jan/Feb): 47–50. Fasso, W., Knight, C., & Knight, B. (2013). A design framework for enhancing on-line learning. In C. Boyle (Ed.). Student learning: Improving practice. Education in a competitive and globalizing world (pp. 59–77). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Fitch, K. (2011). Developing professionals: Student experiences of a real-client project. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(4), 491–503. Fitzpatrick, M., & Spiller, D. (2010). The teaching portfolio: Institutional imperative or teacher’s personal journey? Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2), 167–178. Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection in context: Applications in health and social care. New York: Routledge. Ghaye, T. (2010). Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for positive action (2nd ed.). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge. Glendenning, F., & Cartwright, L. (2011). How can you make the best use of feedback on your teaching? In D. McGregor, & L. Cartwright (Eds.). Developing reflective practice: A guide for beginning teachers (pp. 165–186). Berkshire England: McGraw-Hill Education. Gregory, A. (2015). Planning and managing public relations campaigns (4th ed.). London. UK: Kogan Page Limited. Gregory, A., & Willis, P. A. (2013). Strategic public relations leadership. New York, NY: Routledge. Grunig, J. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151–176. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning in doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford, London: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Polytechnic. Gordon, A. (2011). Public relations. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Haven, C. (2009, October 2012). The new literacy: Stanford study finds richness and complexity in students' writing. Stanford Report. Retrieved from http://news. stanford.edu /. Hinett, K., & Weeden, P. (2000). How am I doing? Developing critical self-evaluation in trainee teachers. Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 245–257 [16 Reflective Practice.]. Horsley, M., & Brien, D. L. (2013). Editorial introduction: textbooks and educational texts in the 21 st century writing, publishing and reading. Australasian Association of Writing Programs, 17(2), 1–5. Holmström, S. (2004). The reflective paradigm of public relations. In B. van Ruler, & D. Vercic (Eds.). Public relations and communication management in Europe. A nation-by-nation introduction to public relations theory and practice (pp. 121–133). New York, NY: Mouton de Grouter. Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organisational legitimization. Public Relations Review, 31(12), 497–504.
5
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
Holmström, S. (2009). On Luhmann: contingency, risk, trust and reflection. In O. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.). Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 187–212). New York. NY: Taylor & Francis. Jobrack, B. (2011). Tyranny of the textbook: An insider exposes how educational materials undermine reforms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Joyce, P. (2015). Reflective practice: Methods and tools for supporting teaching, learning and professional development. Wellington, NZ: AKO Aotearoa. Keller, D. (2013). Chasing Literacy: Reading and writing in an age of acceleration. Salt Lake City, UT: University Press of Colorado. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. L’Etang, J. (2009). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK: Sage. L'Etang, J. (2013). Public relations: A discipline in transformation. Sociology Compass, 7(10), 799–817. L'Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (2006). Public relations and the question of professionalism. In J. L'Etang, & M. Pieczka (Eds.). Public relations: critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 265–279). New York, NY: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, P. (1997). The soft edge: A natural history and future of the information revolution. New York, NY: Routledge. Maloney, C., & Campbell-Evans, G. (2002). Using interactive journal writing as a strategy for professional growth. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 39–50. Marsh, C. (2010). Precepts of reflective public relations: an Isocratean model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4), 359–377. Mersham, G., Theunissen, P., & Peart, J. (2009). Public relations and communication management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. Pearson: North Shore, New Zealand. Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London, UK: Kogan Page. Ong, W. (2004). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue: From the art of discourse to the art of reason (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [Original work published 1958]. Ong, W. (2012). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, NY: Routledge [Original work published 1982]. Osteman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators −Improving schooling through professional development. Newbury Park: Corwin press. van Ruler, B. (2015). Agile public relations planning: the Reflective communication scrum. Public Relations Review, 41, 187–194 [Digital Publics]. van Ruler, B., & Vercic, D. (2005). Reflective communication management: future ways for public relations research. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.). Communication yearbook 29 (pp. 238–273). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schulz, A.C. (2013). The next generation of custom textbooks. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.publishersweekly.com . Sheehan, M. (2008). Implementing elements of Schön’s reflective practitioner in an undergraduate public relations program. In E. Tilley, & E. Tilley (Eds.). Power and place: refereed proceedings of the australian and New Zealand communication association conference. Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). Teacher’s reflective practice handbook: becoming an extended professional through capturing evidence-informed practice. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev
Reflections on the absence of formal reflection in public relations education and practice Pip Mules Auckland University of Technology, 55 Wellesley St. East, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand
AR TI CLE I NF O
AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Public relations Public relations teaching Reflection Reflective practice Professionalism Public relations curricula Textbooks
This content analysis is a part of wider research into the value of reflective practice in public relations education and practice. Examination of this topic is important given that reflective practice is widely recognised as an essential element for claims of professionalism (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983, 1987), and professionalism remains an elusive goal for PR practitioners (L’Etang, 2009). This article examines the extent to which the terms and processes associated with reflective practice are formally included in the contents of a range of widely used and well regarded public relations textbooks. The aim is to provide insight into the significance (or lack of it) of reflective practice in contemporary public relations curricula. Given that textbooks are highly influential teaching media that both reflect and shape curricula, conclusions about the emphasis of reflective practice in public relations teaching can be drawn as a result of this analysis. The findings indicate that – based on the content of the textbooks analysed – reflective practice is not formally included in the public relations teaching curriculum. Further research is needed to determine whether this omission also reflects the situation in public relations practice. This research has relevance for public relations educators given that they play a significant role in influencing future generations of public relations professionals. It concludes with a call for a shift in public relations education that includes greater emphasis on reflective practice.
1. Introduction Formally reflecting on practice is a widely recognised and researched strategy for learning from complex and challenging situations that arise in the workplace (Boud, Cressey & Docherty, 2006; Fook & Gardner, 2007, 2012; Moon, 1999; Osteman & Kottkamp, 1993). It is a systemised approach to helping practitioners in all fields develop higher levels of self-awareness, and to create opportunities for professional growth and quality improvement. Reflective practice addresses profound, often unasked, questions such as ‘what am I doing, why did it happen that way, what hidden assumptions are operating here, and what do I need to do in order to do better next time?’ Formal reflective practice can be carried out either alone or in group settings, depending on the context. This research considers the extent to which reflective practice is formally included in public relations teaching programmes, in light of industry aspirations of professionalism. Reflective practice is recognised as an essential element of professionalism (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983; Schön, 1987). The field of public relations is evolving rapidly from being primarily concerned with the achievement of specific campaign outputs for clients towards dialogic co-creation of meaning and a concern with questions of professionalism such as the ethics of engagement with clients and publics, and the moral and political implications of practice (Grunig, 2006; Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006; van Ruler, 2015).
E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.09.008 Received 15 May 2017; Received in revised form 7 August 2017; Accepted 13 September 2017 0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Mules, P.P., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.09.008
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
The extent to which reflective practice is formally included in public relations curricula is examined through review of the contents of ten widely used public relations textbooks written by well-regarded authors, most of whom are both industry experts and public relations theorists. The textbooks were all published in Britain, America, Australia or New Zealand between 2009 and 2017. Implicit in this research approach is acknowledgment of the powerful mediating influence of textbooks in critical debates and contemporary pedagogical practice. 2. Reflection in public relations teaching and practice As long ago as the 4th Century, Socrates recognised the value of reflection in personal life, when he claimed that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’. Today there is scholarly recognition that ongoing engagement in formal reflective practice is an important element of professional life. This recognition can be traced to the writing of John Dewey (1933) who was an early advocate of reflective practice as a systemised form of enquiry in the workplace. More recently, Schön (1983), Schön (1987) advocated for formal reflective practice as a way of developing ‘actionable schema’ that provide ways of handling uncertainty in times of change and for navigating the ‘messy swamps of practice’ (1987, p.3). He described reflective practice as a process of “problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique” (1983, p. 21). Reflection provides practitioners with strategies for examining their own ‘theories in use’, particularly to resolve the tension between values-based professional practice, and economically and technically focused outcomes (Schön, 1983). Reflective practice is similar to critical reflection but there is a key difference in focus. Both are formal approaches that are theorised as challenging personal assumptions that may have been made in the course of workplace experience, and both operate in a reflexive space of honesty, critique and embracing change. However, critical reflection is typically theorised as an emancipatory form of reflection concerned with transforming wider society (Cotter, 2014), whereas reflective practice is more concerned with transforming interpersonal and organisational practices (Fook & Gardner, 2007; Moon, 1999). Reflective practice is widely recognised as an essential competency domain for claims of professionalism (Boud & Garrick, 1999; Fook & Gardner, 2007; Schön, 1983,1987). Fook and Gardner, writing particularly in the human services field, describe reflection as the process by which professionals, alone and with others, acquire and develop the knowledge, skills and emotional intelligence essential to high-quality professional thinking, planning and practice. Schön advocates formal workplace reflection as a way of resolving the division between technical rationality and ethical, artistic and intuitive thinking. He claims that this division is artificial and unacceptable in professional practice, given that professionals claim to contribute to social wellbeing and hold themselves accountable for standards of competence and morality (1983). Boud and Garrick claim that a key benefit of reflective practice is that it provides individuals with a way of finding their own meanings within a community of professional discourse. Fook and Gardner make the point that although many professional courses require students to be reflective, there is often no literature provided on the topic, or no specific part of the course that focuses on how reflective practice is carried out. Reflective practice is regarded not only as an important element of professionalism, but also as an important element of deep learning (Boud, Cressey, & Docherty, 2006; Dewey, 1933; Driscoll, 1994; Ghaye, 2010; Kolb, 1984; Lave & Wenger, 2002). The reflective nature of learning is central to Lave and Wenger’s (2002) research into the developmental transition from the knowledge of the novice to the knowledge of the expert in the workplace. Lave and Wenger saw learning as a process of socialisation within communities of practice where participants share ideas and experiences over extended timeframes. Central to this process of socialisation is the shift from experiencing the workplace as a sequence of chronological events towards learning through a process of purposeful reflection based on daily experience. A review of the literature reveals hundreds of articles that discuss the significance of reflective practice in the fields of education and health, for example Brookfield (1999), Bruster and Peterson (2013), Fitzpatrick and Spiller (2010), Fook and Gardner (2012), Gibbs (1988), Glendenning and Cartwright (2011), Hinett and Weeden (2000), Joyce (2015), Maloney and Campbell-Evans (2002), Moon (1999), Osteman and Kottkamp (1993), and Zwozdiak-Myers (2012). A similar literature review in the field of public relations reveals that the value of reflection is widely recognised at a theoretical or philosophical level as the discipline seeks to understand its role in an increasingly complex social and communicative environment (Burger, 2009; Holmström, 2004; Holmström, 2005; Holmström, 2009; L’Etang, 2013; L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006; Marsh, 2010; van Ruler, 2015; van Ruler & Vercic, 2005). Holmström (2009), considering the role of public relations within the systems framework of Niklas Luhmann, claims that reflection is essential to public relations practice in late modernity as organizations seek to earn and sustain social legitimacy. She says that reflection provides a way of anticipating and navigating potential conflicts and transforming the consequences of these conflicts into organisational learning (2004). Van Ruler and Vercic (2005) argue for a reflective approach to communication management that puts the counseling role at the centre of public relations activity. While the value of reflection is widely recognised at a theoretical or philosophical level there is very little research into the role of formal reflection in the daily practice of public relations practitioners and public relations curricula. Sheehan (2008) and Fitch (2011) have researched public relations internships and advocate for reflective practice as way of integrating academic and workplace learning. L’Etang and Pieczka (2006) also discuss the need for increased reflection in public relations education. They call for teachers to encourage students to “be curious, to play ‘devil's advocate’, question received truths, and develop moral courage—all qualities they will need as public relations counselors” (p. 442). In other words, although they do not specifically use the term ‘reflective practice’, L’Etang and Pieczka are calling for students to be more reflective and challenge professional assumptions. Reflective practice is an element of what L’Etang (2013) calls for in a new epistemology of practice in which public relations practitioners can become more open learning systems capable of reflecting and adapting rather than solely focusing on outcomes. A similar lack of formal recognition or inclusion of reflective practice in public relations education is evident in professional 2
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
public relations bodies. This can be seen, in particular, in the 2015 Recommendations of the Commission on Public Relations Education workshop that addressed the question: “We need someone with an undergraduate public relations degree at the entry level who can….?” (Commission on Public Relations Education, May 12, 2015). The report includes a wide cross section of key industryeducator representatives, including from public relations professional and academic associations such as the Public Relations Society of America, the Public Relations Council, the Institute of Public Relations, the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, the National Communication Association, and the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The report recommended the inclusion of a range of interpersonal skills related to reflective practice, such as selfawareness, adaptability and assertiveness, and ethics. However it did not include any explicit reference to formal reflective practice—or even informal reflection. The recommendations appear focused on outputs with no recognition of the value of formal inclusion of reflection on practice in public relations education. 3. Methodology This study asks, what emphasis is placed on reflective practice in contemporary public relations curricula? It analyses the contents of ten public relations textbooks to identify whether they formally incorporate reflective practice into their suggested teaching programmes. Implicit in this methodological approach is the acknowledgement that the inclusion of specific areas of content in textbooks indicates not only formal inclusion in the curricula, but also that textbooks are powerful shapers of curricula and fields of knowledge (Callison, 2003; Kress, 2003; Kuhn, 1962; Levinson, 1997; Ong, 2004; Ong, 2012). Callison developed the idea that textbooks are not neutral carriers of content, arguing that “…no other instructional technology has had more influence on teaching over the past 100 years than the textbook” (p. 31). Pieczka also acknowledged the powerful mediating influence of textbooks in critical debates and in the accepted conventions of contemporary public relations practice. Writing specifically about the influence of textbooks in the field of public relations, she pointed out: “…a textbook is firmly associated with the establishment, in the sense of representing the views central to the field and containing an up-to-date body of knowledge…[It] serves as a medium through which the direction of the development of the field is reaffirmed, and also functions as a mechanism for self-perpetuation” (2006, p.145). Despite the well-recognised pedagogical influence of textbooks, the increased digitsation of educational media is reducing this influence. Until recently it was common practice to confine students’ studies to one primary textbook – generally referred to as the ‘prescribed text’. Increasingly at a tertiary education level, and particularly in the humanities and social sciences, there is a clear trend away from focusing on one standalone textbook (Jobrack, 2011). Research into the changing literacy practices of tertiary students indicates that instead of using a single textbook they are increasingly using a diverse range of texts in their studies (Fasso, Knight & Knight, 2013; Haven, 2009; Keller, 2013). Another indicator of the influence of the textbook is the current state of the textbook market. Sales performance data suggests the situation varies significantly from country to country. Some industry sources claim that the US tertiary textbook sector is experiencing a production boom that has not been seen since the early 1990s, as digital versions of books are rapidly outselling the physical versions, and sales of textbooks that can be reconstituted as e-books or other digital versions are growing at a rapid rate (Cooper, 2012; Schulz, 2013). In Australia, despite the increased number of digitised versions being sold, the printed textbook industry is reported to remain prosperous, and tertiary educational publishing currently represents about 30 percent of Australia’s publishing output (Horsley & Brien, 2013). 3.1. Method In order to address the research question, the contents of ten widely used public relations textbooks (listed below) were analysed. Each of these books was written between 2009 and 2017. Each specifically aimed to prepare students for a career in public relations. The texts were written and published in five countries: America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Europe and New Zealand. Each was aimed at tertiary level students—primarily undergraduate, but some were also recommended for postgraduate students. The textbooks selected for analysis in this research have sufficient similarities to allow them to be discussed collectively. They are all written to a well-recognised ‘textbook’ formula; they are all associated with a formal course of study; and they each, to some extent, simplify the diverse field of public relations to make the content more accessible to students. They are divided into carefully graduated sections and subsections, each of which has a bolded heading that reflects the topic and the content. They all fit within a recognisable instructional continuum. At one end of the continuum, the field of public relations is presented as a finite body of knowledge and skills with a prescribed (closed) set of learning outcomes. At the other end of the continuum, there is a more openended learning and teaching approach and less closely-defined knowledge and skills. Chesser (2003), taking a tongue-in-cheek view of the common elements of such texts, makes the point that textbooks are all, on some perceptual level, regardless of the age at which they are directed: “…some version of a twelve-inch, seven-pound, hard-covered, glossy-paged, pulp doorstop. Third-grade math or graduate medicine, it is likely composed of many short units and peppered with colorful illustrations, tables, and exercises. It supports the study of a finite subject area, and it will very effectively fill the average backpack, if not the average brain.” (p. 3) The textbooks are all written by highly regarded public relations scholars, most of whom, in the course of their careers, have been both public relations practitioners and academics. Each of the textbooks includes some variation on a planning model where public 3
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
relations practice is divided into a number of workable actions (or differentiated stages) such as research, strategy, tactics, measurement and evaluation. The ten textbooks selected for analysis are: 1. Broom, G. M., Sha, B., Seshadrinathan, S., Centre, A. H., & Cutlip, S. r. (2013). Cutlip & Centre's effective public relations. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. 2. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2010). PR strategy and application: Managing influence. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell. 3. Gregory, A. (2015). Planning and managing public relations campaigns (4th ed). London, UK: Kogan Page Limited. 4. Gregory, A., & Willis, P. A. (2013). Strategic public relations leadership. New York, NY: Routledge. 5. Gordon, A. (2011). Public relations. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 6. L’Etang, J. (2009). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK: Sage. 7. Seitel, F. P. (2017) The practice of public relations. Boston, MA: Pearson. 8. Theaker, A., & Yaxley, H. (2013). The public relations strategic toolkit: An essential guide to successful public relations practice. New York, NY: Routledge. 9. Mersham, G., Theunissen, P., & Peart, J. (2009). Public relations and communication management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. North Shore, New Zealand: Pearson. 10. Wilcox, D. L. (2013). Think public relations. Boston, MA: Pearson. Fook and Gardner (2007) identify a number of key terms associated with reflection and reflective practice. The ten textbooks were searched for each of these key terms. − ‘reflection', ‘reflective practice', ‘reflexivity', ‘assumption’, ‘critical’, ‘critical thinking’, ‘discrepancy/ies’, ‘dissatisfaction/s’, ‘discernment’, ‘judging’, ‘judgment’, ‘problem solving’, ‘questioning’, ‘uncertainty/ies' and ‘shift/s’. Searches for these terms were carried out in the contents pages, the indexes, the promotional material printed on the front and back covers of the textbooks, and within the contents of the textbook.
3.2. Limitations of this research The research approach applied in this article had two main limitations. One of these was the limited sample size. The ten textbooks were chosen for analysis because they were well regarded and widely used, but this research makes no claim that all possible textbooks had been included. Rather an indicative sample was chosen. Another limitation is that, while textbooks are highly influential in both representing and shaping course content and curricula, it is entirely possible that public relations teachers incorporate reflective practice into their classroom above and beyond what is indicated by the contents of their course textbooks. More in-depth qualitative research, such as one-to-one interviews with teachers, would be necessary in order to assess this.
4. Findings The search for keywords that was carried out on the ten sample textbooks revealed that, with the exception of L’Etang’s (2013) textbook, there were no references to reflective practice itself, or the key terms associated with reflective practice. The L’Etang text focuses on critical reflection rather than reflection associated with workplace reflection. Each chapter concludes with a question based on a specific ‘critical reflection’ such as “am I comfortable working like a lawyer and working for my client to the best of my professional ability?” and “am I comfortable representing an organisation, cause or product which does not align with my personal views?” (p. 42). In Broom et al. (2013) there is a section titled ‘Reflection’ on page 35. However in this case ‘reflection’ is used in an entirely different sense, and refers to reviewing the previous section of the text rather than reflective practice. With the exception of the L’Etang text the selected textbooks tend to be predominantly focused on outputs. The Gregory (2015) text is described on the back cover as one of the best ‘how-to’ guides for students and practitioners. The Gregory and Willis (2013) textbook is promoted as “suitable for aspiring practitioners, MBA and other masters qualifications in public relations – especially for those students who wish to pursue a successful career as a PR specialist able to operate strategically at the top of successful organizations” (p. i). Gordon’s (2011) text is described as “building upon the fundamental theories of PR and communications, it goes on to explore the essential tools of the trade and how to develop an effective PR campaign” (back cover). Mersham et al. (2009) is described on the back cover as being at the forefront of current practice, and the Coombs and Holladay (2010) textbook is described as “essential reading for students and professionals, this book provides a strong foundation for the fundamentals of public relations while exploring significant emerging disciplines of the field” (back cover). This latter text is described as offering “extensive discussions of exciting contemporary issues often neglected in other texts, including transparency, corporate social responsibility, reputation management, activism, risk communication, and social marketing” (back cover). The Wilcox (2013) text, which includes a planning model, states that public relations is still dominated by a technician mentality, but no specific solutions to this are offered. While the textbooks chosen for analysis may implicitly include some degree of focus on process − the L’Etang (2013) textbook is the only one that has a strong, specific emphasis on process as well as outcomes. It is described as suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate students (back cover). It includes a section on the traditional planning model; however, rather than endorsing this model, the L’Etang text critiques the model in order to examine the tensions between a functionalist and critical approach. L’Etang’s primary criticism of the traditional planning model is that it approaches the planning cycle purely from the organisation’s perspective rather than the client’s or a wider social perspective.
4
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
5. Discussion The research question asked what emphasis is placed on reflective practice in contemporary public relations curricula? In order to address this question the contents of ten well regarded contemporary public relations textbooks were analysed to assess the extent to which they included key words related to reflection or reflexivity. The findings reveal that, with the exception of the L’Etang (2013) text, nine of the ten textbooks did not include any such reference. While L’Etang does not specifically mention reflective practice, this text includes a section on critical thinking and challenging assumptions, specifically in relation to the role of public relations in reinforcing or challenging imbalances of power or representation. Each of the textbooks analysed or incorporated a planning model that divided public relations activities into a number of stages, but in none of these stages was any element of reflective practice formally incorporated, or even discussed. While it is important to note that this is in no way a reflection on the quality of the textbooks, it does indicate that the focus of most public relations teaching is very activity and outcomes based. This article has taken the position that textbooks both reflect and shape curricula. Despite the fact that public relations makes increasing and numerous claims to call itself a profession, it is highly significant that reflective practice is not included as an element of the public relations curriculum in the popular public relations textbooks that were analysed. The implication is that public relations educators and practitioners place little value on reflective practice. Compared with the education and health care professions, the lack of research and attention to the role of reflective practice in public relations points to a lack of formal recognition of the value of embedding reflective practice within public relations culture, mores and discourse. This indicates a significant professional gap. The literature review draws on seminal literature that has discussed how the formal inclusion of reflective practice in the university curriculum has the potential to contribute to a culture of professionalism. Capabilities in reflective thinking and process enable practitioners to be creative, think critically and analytically, and communicate about the results of enquiry are among the most important outcomes. There are additionally indications that reflecting on practice is important to help practitioners deal with increased levels of uncertainty and complexity in an increasingly online and social media environment. This research calls for a higher level of attention to the value of reflective practice in public relations teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, to balance the current predominant focus on outputs. References Brookfield, S. D. (1999). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Broom, G. M., Sha, B., Seshadrinathan, S., Centre, A. H., & Cutlip, S. (2013). Cutlip & Centre’s effective public relations. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Bruster, B., & Peterson, B. (2013). Using critical incidents in teaching to promote reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 14(2), 170–182. Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work. London, UK: Routledge. Boud, D., Cressey, P., & Docherty, P. (2006). Productive reflection at work: Learning for changing organizations. New York, NY: Routledge. Burger, M. (2009). Businesses’ social involvement through public relations: A critical comparison of the market-oriented and reflective paradigms of public relations, Communication. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 35(1), 101–118. Callison, D. (2003). Textbook. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 19(8), 31–40. Commission on Public Relations Education Industry-Educator Summit. https://www.commpred.org/_uploads/industry-educator-summit-summar.report.pdf May 12, 2015. Coombs, W., & Holladay, S. (2010). PR strategy and application: Managing influence. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell. Cotter, R. J. (2014). Reflexive spaces of appearance: Rethinking critical reflection in the workplace. Human Resource Development International, 17(4), 459–474. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.93209. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Heath & Co. Driscoll J. (1994). Reflective practice for practice. Senior nurse 13 (Jan/Feb): 47–50. Fasso, W., Knight, C., & Knight, B. (2013). A design framework for enhancing on-line learning. In C. Boyle (Ed.). Student learning: Improving practice. Education in a competitive and globalizing world (pp. 59–77). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Fitch, K. (2011). Developing professionals: Student experiences of a real-client project. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(4), 491–503. Fitzpatrick, M., & Spiller, D. (2010). The teaching portfolio: Institutional imperative or teacher’s personal journey? Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2), 167–178. Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection in context: Applications in health and social care. New York: Routledge. Ghaye, T. (2010). Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for positive action (2nd ed.). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge. Glendenning, F., & Cartwright, L. (2011). How can you make the best use of feedback on your teaching? In D. McGregor, & L. Cartwright (Eds.). Developing reflective practice: A guide for beginning teachers (pp. 165–186). Berkshire England: McGraw-Hill Education. Gregory, A. (2015). Planning and managing public relations campaigns (4th ed.). London. UK: Kogan Page Limited. Gregory, A., & Willis, P. A. (2013). Strategic public relations leadership. New York, NY: Routledge. Grunig, J. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151–176. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning in doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford, London: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Polytechnic. Gordon, A. (2011). Public relations. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Haven, C. (2009, October 2012). The new literacy: Stanford study finds richness and complexity in students' writing. Stanford Report. Retrieved from http://news. stanford.edu /. Hinett, K., & Weeden, P. (2000). How am I doing? Developing critical self-evaluation in trainee teachers. Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 245–257 [16 Reflective Practice.]. Horsley, M., & Brien, D. L. (2013). Editorial introduction: textbooks and educational texts in the 21 st century writing, publishing and reading. Australasian Association of Writing Programs, 17(2), 1–5. Holmström, S. (2004). The reflective paradigm of public relations. In B. van Ruler, & D. Vercic (Eds.). Public relations and communication management in Europe. A nation-by-nation introduction to public relations theory and practice (pp. 121–133). New York, NY: Mouton de Grouter. Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organisational legitimization. Public Relations Review, 31(12), 497–504.
5
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
P. Mules
Holmström, S. (2009). On Luhmann: contingency, risk, trust and reflection. In O. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.). Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 187–212). New York. NY: Taylor & Francis. Jobrack, B. (2011). Tyranny of the textbook: An insider exposes how educational materials undermine reforms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Joyce, P. (2015). Reflective practice: Methods and tools for supporting teaching, learning and professional development. Wellington, NZ: AKO Aotearoa. Keller, D. (2013). Chasing Literacy: Reading and writing in an age of acceleration. Salt Lake City, UT: University Press of Colorado. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. L’Etang, J. (2009). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK: Sage. L'Etang, J. (2013). Public relations: A discipline in transformation. Sociology Compass, 7(10), 799–817. L'Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (2006). Public relations and the question of professionalism. In J. L'Etang, & M. Pieczka (Eds.). Public relations: critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 265–279). New York, NY: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, P. (1997). The soft edge: A natural history and future of the information revolution. New York, NY: Routledge. Maloney, C., & Campbell-Evans, G. (2002). Using interactive journal writing as a strategy for professional growth. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 39–50. Marsh, C. (2010). Precepts of reflective public relations: an Isocratean model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4), 359–377. Mersham, G., Theunissen, P., & Peart, J. (2009). Public relations and communication management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. Pearson: North Shore, New Zealand. Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London, UK: Kogan Page. Ong, W. (2004). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue: From the art of discourse to the art of reason (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [Original work published 1958]. Ong, W. (2012). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, NY: Routledge [Original work published 1982]. Osteman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators −Improving schooling through professional development. Newbury Park: Corwin press. van Ruler, B. (2015). Agile public relations planning: the Reflective communication scrum. Public Relations Review, 41, 187–194 [Digital Publics]. van Ruler, B., & Vercic, D. (2005). Reflective communication management: future ways for public relations research. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.). Communication yearbook 29 (pp. 238–273). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schulz, A.C. (2013). The next generation of custom textbooks. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.publishersweekly.com . Sheehan, M. (2008). Implementing elements of Schön’s reflective practitioner in an undergraduate public relations program. In E. Tilley, & E. Tilley (Eds.). Power and place: refereed proceedings of the australian and New Zealand communication association conference. Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). Teacher’s reflective practice handbook: becoming an extended professional through capturing evidence-informed practice. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
6