- Email: [email protected]
Reviewing public relations research and scholarship in the 21st century
Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Commentary
Reviewing public relations research and scholarship in the 21st century Anne Gregory ∗ Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 August 2011 Received in revised form 10 October 2011 Accepted 14 October 2011
I have been prompted to write this Commentary piece following a period of reflection on the field of public relations as a whole. My thoughts have been focused by sharing Meet the Editor platforms with a number of respected colleagues including Ray Hiebert, the long-standing editor of this journal and an analysis of papers coming to my own journal and to others where I serve as an editorial board member. It is also informed by attending numerous academic conferences around the world, an ongoing involvement with the practitioner community over the past 10 years and my current role as Chair Elect of the Global Alliance.1 After the first decade of the 21st century it is appropriate to take stock of our field. The main lens through which I do this, the papers that are being submitted to journals in the field, provides an insight into what topics are taking up the time and energy of many in the academy, and the too few practitioners that submit their work to our refereed publications. This Commentary might also partially explain the dearth of practitioner contributions to our journals and it is certainly a plea for more. I confess I have been goaded into writing this piece, partly out of frustration about what I see as some issues in our field of scholarship that are not being honestly confronted, and partly because I see many opportunities being missed. My wish is that this piece stimulates debate, possibly even a conference to address some of the topics raised. It is driven out of a deep desire for our field to advance, to be respected and to take its place as an academic field of note and a practice of the same standing. I make no apology about the stance I take in this Commentary as an academic who has spent many years in practice and who happily straddles the divide between the academy and those who work in the increasingly challenging and complex world of practice. We are an academic field that has arisen from the practice and my unashamed ambition is for the practice to be more rigorous and respected. I also recognise there are many areas left unconsidered in this piece, but I am hopeful it will serve as a starting point and others will delve below the surface I have skimmed, and venture much wider. 1. Introduction It is evident that ours is a vibrant field. The number of papers being submitted to journals is rising and the number of article downloads is also increasing. For example, downloads of full text articles from Public Relations Review have tripled from 106,617 in 2006 to 356,658 in 2010 (see Fig. 1 below). There are more journals in the field, including those published online. This year, the Canadian Journal of Public Relations and Communication Management and Public Relations Inquiry have been launched. There are growing numbers of academic
∗ Tel.: +44 0113 283. E-mail address: [email protected] 1 For further information about the Global Alliance please see http://www.globalalliancepr.org/content/1/3/about. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.003
2
A. Gregory / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
Fig. 1. Full text downloads from Public Relations Review for the last decade.
conferences indicating a healthy interest in sometimes more specialist areas. For example the International History of Public Relations Conference held in Bournemouth, UK is now in its second year, and the International Public Relations Conference in Barcelona which was launched in June 2011 intends to run annually. There is mounting evidence that practitioners are embracing a more rigorous and theoretically supported approach to public relations as exampled by the Stockholm Accords2 which was agreed at the World Public Relations Forum in 2010. Prompted by research undertaken in Sweden, it will be revised following feedback, in 2012 at the Melbourne Forum. The Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles3 also agreed by practitioners in 2010 seeks to establish a minimum benchmark for evaluation and again is research-based. At the organisational level, numerous for profit, public sector and not-for-profit organisations have taken on board more scientifically based approaches. The publicly available Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy document4 from the US Joint Forces Command is but one example of this. I now make some more specific observations about the field of public relations, based more particularly on conclusions I have drawn from my reading of dozens of submitted journal papers. 2. Diversity First, there are an increasing number of contributions from authors either based in or writing about countries and cultures from which we have had no or limited contributions in the past. Our scholarship has been too ethnocentric to date and this new scholarship gives us opportunity to reflect on scholarship and practice around the world and to ponder whether or not a global theory of public relations is either possible or desirable. Much remains to be done. Second, there is an increasingly diversity of theoretical views and concepts coming from other fields such as sociology, economics and politics. Furthermore there is a healthy debate on the positivist versus social constructionist worldviews which is enriching. Nonetheless, in my view the growing number of scholars who claim public relations is ‘all about meaning’ need to confront the realities of practice more directly. Those families who deal with death as a result of a crisis see the world through cause and effect eyes and are not interested in meaning in the sense that many papers imply: they are interested in reasons, accountability and reparation. The ‘meaning’ of death is absolute, not a social construction. That is not to say that sense-making of such events is unimportant, it clearly is, but it not the whole story and it is disingenuous to claim it is. In addition, I would suggest to those growing numbers of critical scholars that only half the task has been completed so far. Many papers deconstruct and criticise the work of others in skilful and insightful ways, but this is not enough. It is the responsibility of scholars to advance knowledge, not just by pointing out flaws in the arguments and scholarship of others, but by offering something that is potentially better and which in turn is open to criticism and debate. From that healthy clash there might be a basis on which to move the field forward. I throw down a challenge to those scholars to whom this applies: it is not good enough to stand on the sidelines and criticise, you have to come up with a viable alternative. Again my reflection is that we can now detect two different motivations for scholarship. First, those scholars who have public relations as a practice at the forefront of their minds and who see the job of academia as being to support, explain, frame and develop the practice and drive it forward. Second, those scholars who have a particular theoretical perspective as their passion and choose public relations as a field in which to explore those perspectives, but who could equally choose any other field. There is the potential for real conflict here where those scholars who ‘live in the real world’ are seen in opposition to those scholars who are ‘the real academics’ and each claim to be ‘better’ than the other. I see the warning
2
Available at http://www.stockholmaccords.org/accords-text. Available at http://www.amecorg.com/amec/Barcelona%20Principles%20for%20PR%20Measurement.pdf. 4 Available at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/Strategic%20Communication%20Handbook%20Ver%203%20-%20June%202010% 20JFCOM.pdf. 3
A. Gregory / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
3
signs of a battle ground where winning philosophical or theoretical ascendancy is becoming the most important thing in and of itself, rather than having a debate with the common purpose and desire to move the field as a whole forward. Given the various research assessment exercises that academics have to be involved in these days, academic respectability and making ‘a name’ is indeed important and of course the practice will not advance without rigorous debate. However, it is my increasing perception that some of these battles are more about academic careers and personal agendas than about the field itself and this is one reason, as practitioner colleagues tell me frequently, why the academy appears increasingly irrelevant to the practice from which it was born. I would argue that just as public relations practice has a primary duty to serve the public interest, academics too have a wider responsibility to serve the whole of the field: the academy and the practice. Drawing these thoughts together, an analogy might help. It seems to me that our academic field is going through adolescence. The theories that were developed in the 1980s and 1990s are being challenged, as they should be, and a whole range of new approaches and perspectives are being introduced into the field, again, as they should be. Teenagers, in the process of reaching adulthood, move away from their parents and try to forge their own multifaceted identities. In the process there is experimentation, falling out and even some bad behaviour. Many papers I receive not only challenge, but also disparage alternative insights, particularly of the founding scholars. This is not right: all deserve respect for the contributions they have made. At some stage no doubt there will be some ‘settling’ in the field where some of ‘the old’ will be regarded as having great worth while new and powerful insights take root and rightfully gain acceptance as the field matures, but hopefully never stultifies. Meanwhile, respectful debate, disagreement, challenge and discovery are all required in a field that is developing and going through its own growing pains towards adulthood.
3. Methodologies There appears to be a growing methodological divide in our field which I acknowledge is driven partly by the different academic systems that we operate within. As an editor and reviewer I receive significant numbers of papers from young scholars, particularly from America where the topic of study is very narrow and there is a predominant quantitative methodology. Clearly young scholars have to prove their mastery of methodologies and methods, but it is evident that some PhD and Masters students are involved in larger studies with their ‘slice of the action’ appearing to contribute very little to the body of knowledge, but whose purpose is to prove their methodological competence and a narrow and particular point. As a reviewer I am driven to the question “so what?” of these papers and am left facing an uncomfortable truth: that their individual work will never be publishable in its own right. Of course quantitative methodologies are entirely appropriate for many studies, but the question has to be asked: are these papers about proving methodological mastery, or about topics that matter to the field? As a group of scholars we need to be more alert to our responsibilities to young academics coming into the field, to support them and give them every opportunity to work on topics that are intrinsically worthwhile, amenable to publication and of benefit to them. More generally, there are questions that have to be asked about the rigour of some studies. There are an increasing number of large studies, often with extremely diverse groups involved, admittedly with a note on the study’s limitations, but from which conclusions are drawn which cannot be substantiated from the data. At the other extreme, very small studies from which sweeping generalisations are made. In addition, a particular favoured group for surveys are university and college students: clearly accessible to academics, but almost always not representative, open to influence and without proper recognition being given to this. I am therefore driven to a paradoxical conclusion: some young scholars are methodologically over-rigorous on topics of questionable worth, while the reverse can be said of more mature researchers.
4. Obsessions There are a number of recurring themes in the scholarship which, while very important, can be classified as ongoing obsessions. These include roles research, evaluation, ‘new’ media, ethics and, increasingly definitions and the naming of the field. While it is right that we engage with those areas which are the ongoing concerns of our professional colleagues, we also have a responsibility to open up and lead discussion in less explored areas. There is a notable lack of engagement on some of the wider issues which should be considered by academics in the field. For example, there is much scholarship on the role of public relations in organisations and indeed a growing subdivision of the field called corporate communications. There is also considerable writing about the role of public relations in society; what it could be, what it is and its relationship to, for example, economic and power structures. However there is little linkage between these two areas. There is not enough scholarship from our field about some of the big issues facing the world such as those raised by the business leaders, think tanks and politicians at the World Economic Forum. The implications of globalisation, interdependence, interconnection (not just because of IT), global shifts in power and complexity and the concomitant fallout such as the potential for intergenerational conflict, security, resource wars and the inability of nations and organisations to deal with these issues, offer opportunities for research and scholarship. These issues have real impacts on the lives of our practitioner colleagues. They struggle with the implications of the ongoing economic crisis in Europe and America, world-wide accountability and increasing youth and political activism. Our obsessions seem small compared to the challenges facing practitioners who are called upon to counsel their organisations and governments as they try to engage with these critical and complex issues.
4
A. Gregory / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
5. Opportunities for the field I will close this Commentary by outlining what I think are some of the more fruitful areas for endeavour both now and in the future and to indicate some encouraging developments in the field. First, as already mentioned, there is increasing diversity in the field and that is to be applauded. In addition, there has been an influx of new scholars in the field as it expands, as the number of PhD programmes grows and as more practitioners make the transfer from industry to the academy. They too, will bring new contributions and perspectives which can only be enriching. Second, there are an increasing number of public relations practitioners on the boards of organisations and many more with public relations qualifications at undergraduate and postgraduate level who are achieving senior positions. Anecdotally, a substantial number of them appreciate the role of research and theory in public relations practice and are a healthy antidote to the anti-intellectualism which still pervades much of the profession at senior levels. As they advance, there are more opportunities for practitioners and academics to work together to develop the underpinnings of the field. As mentioned earlier, many practitioners have profound insights into their own profession and have much to teach the academy on applied high-calibre conceptualisations and theory grounded-in-action. The stronger this bridge becomes the better for all. More generally in business, in government and in non-profit organisations, there is recognition that public relations and communication is fundamental to the way that they operate, define themselves and are defined by others. The opportunities for our field have never been greater in practice and this provides a significant opening for the academy. Again, positive indications of the desire for practice to work with the academy are ample, from organisations collaborating in research projects, to the many practitioners who attend and indeed sponsor academic conferences. Third, there are the glimmerings that the field is being more recognised in other academic disciplines and fields. There is a constant battle for us to increase the status of our own academic journals and given the requirements of the various research assessment exercises, we have to recognise many scholars in the field will seek to publish outside our recognised journals in more highly ranked publications. However citations from the public relations literature, particularly in the management and communications fields are beginning to increase and it is important that we keep faith with our field by fighting the tyranny of the current ranking criteria which are being increasingly questioned with some success in countries like Australia and the UK. 6. Final thoughts As we begin the second decade of the 21st century, it is time for us to reflect on what is happening in the academy in particular, but also in practice. We have the opportunity to be in the vanguard as an academic field given the major changes in society and the demand for some contributions that would inform action and thinking, but we cannot do that as adolescents. It is time for an adult discussion about where our academic field is heading, where it should go and about where the new theoretical developments in the field are and can take us. It is time for us to think through and be confident and robust in using the most appropriate methodologies, and time for us to give up our small obsessions. Through this Commentary piece I am asking for that debate to be joined.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Commentary
Reviewing public relations research and scholarship in the 21st century Anne Gregory ∗ Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 August 2011 Received in revised form 10 October 2011 Accepted 14 October 2011
I have been prompted to write this Commentary piece following a period of reflection on the field of public relations as a whole. My thoughts have been focused by sharing Meet the Editor platforms with a number of respected colleagues including Ray Hiebert, the long-standing editor of this journal and an analysis of papers coming to my own journal and to others where I serve as an editorial board member. It is also informed by attending numerous academic conferences around the world, an ongoing involvement with the practitioner community over the past 10 years and my current role as Chair Elect of the Global Alliance.1 After the first decade of the 21st century it is appropriate to take stock of our field. The main lens through which I do this, the papers that are being submitted to journals in the field, provides an insight into what topics are taking up the time and energy of many in the academy, and the too few practitioners that submit their work to our refereed publications. This Commentary might also partially explain the dearth of practitioner contributions to our journals and it is certainly a plea for more. I confess I have been goaded into writing this piece, partly out of frustration about what I see as some issues in our field of scholarship that are not being honestly confronted, and partly because I see many opportunities being missed. My wish is that this piece stimulates debate, possibly even a conference to address some of the topics raised. It is driven out of a deep desire for our field to advance, to be respected and to take its place as an academic field of note and a practice of the same standing. I make no apology about the stance I take in this Commentary as an academic who has spent many years in practice and who happily straddles the divide between the academy and those who work in the increasingly challenging and complex world of practice. We are an academic field that has arisen from the practice and my unashamed ambition is for the practice to be more rigorous and respected. I also recognise there are many areas left unconsidered in this piece, but I am hopeful it will serve as a starting point and others will delve below the surface I have skimmed, and venture much wider. 1. Introduction It is evident that ours is a vibrant field. The number of papers being submitted to journals is rising and the number of article downloads is also increasing. For example, downloads of full text articles from Public Relations Review have tripled from 106,617 in 2006 to 356,658 in 2010 (see Fig. 1 below). There are more journals in the field, including those published online. This year, the Canadian Journal of Public Relations and Communication Management and Public Relations Inquiry have been launched. There are growing numbers of academic
∗ Tel.: +44 0113 283. E-mail address: [email protected] 1 For further information about the Global Alliance please see http://www.globalalliancepr.org/content/1/3/about. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.003
2
A. Gregory / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
Fig. 1. Full text downloads from Public Relations Review for the last decade.
conferences indicating a healthy interest in sometimes more specialist areas. For example the International History of Public Relations Conference held in Bournemouth, UK is now in its second year, and the International Public Relations Conference in Barcelona which was launched in June 2011 intends to run annually. There is mounting evidence that practitioners are embracing a more rigorous and theoretically supported approach to public relations as exampled by the Stockholm Accords2 which was agreed at the World Public Relations Forum in 2010. Prompted by research undertaken in Sweden, it will be revised following feedback, in 2012 at the Melbourne Forum. The Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles3 also agreed by practitioners in 2010 seeks to establish a minimum benchmark for evaluation and again is research-based. At the organisational level, numerous for profit, public sector and not-for-profit organisations have taken on board more scientifically based approaches. The publicly available Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy document4 from the US Joint Forces Command is but one example of this. I now make some more specific observations about the field of public relations, based more particularly on conclusions I have drawn from my reading of dozens of submitted journal papers. 2. Diversity First, there are an increasing number of contributions from authors either based in or writing about countries and cultures from which we have had no or limited contributions in the past. Our scholarship has been too ethnocentric to date and this new scholarship gives us opportunity to reflect on scholarship and practice around the world and to ponder whether or not a global theory of public relations is either possible or desirable. Much remains to be done. Second, there is an increasingly diversity of theoretical views and concepts coming from other fields such as sociology, economics and politics. Furthermore there is a healthy debate on the positivist versus social constructionist worldviews which is enriching. Nonetheless, in my view the growing number of scholars who claim public relations is ‘all about meaning’ need to confront the realities of practice more directly. Those families who deal with death as a result of a crisis see the world through cause and effect eyes and are not interested in meaning in the sense that many papers imply: they are interested in reasons, accountability and reparation. The ‘meaning’ of death is absolute, not a social construction. That is not to say that sense-making of such events is unimportant, it clearly is, but it not the whole story and it is disingenuous to claim it is. In addition, I would suggest to those growing numbers of critical scholars that only half the task has been completed so far. Many papers deconstruct and criticise the work of others in skilful and insightful ways, but this is not enough. It is the responsibility of scholars to advance knowledge, not just by pointing out flaws in the arguments and scholarship of others, but by offering something that is potentially better and which in turn is open to criticism and debate. From that healthy clash there might be a basis on which to move the field forward. I throw down a challenge to those scholars to whom this applies: it is not good enough to stand on the sidelines and criticise, you have to come up with a viable alternative. Again my reflection is that we can now detect two different motivations for scholarship. First, those scholars who have public relations as a practice at the forefront of their minds and who see the job of academia as being to support, explain, frame and develop the practice and drive it forward. Second, those scholars who have a particular theoretical perspective as their passion and choose public relations as a field in which to explore those perspectives, but who could equally choose any other field. There is the potential for real conflict here where those scholars who ‘live in the real world’ are seen in opposition to those scholars who are ‘the real academics’ and each claim to be ‘better’ than the other. I see the warning
2
Available at http://www.stockholmaccords.org/accords-text. Available at http://www.amecorg.com/amec/Barcelona%20Principles%20for%20PR%20Measurement.pdf. 4 Available at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/Strategic%20Communication%20Handbook%20Ver%203%20-%20June%202010% 20JFCOM.pdf. 3
A. Gregory / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
3
signs of a battle ground where winning philosophical or theoretical ascendancy is becoming the most important thing in and of itself, rather than having a debate with the common purpose and desire to move the field as a whole forward. Given the various research assessment exercises that academics have to be involved in these days, academic respectability and making ‘a name’ is indeed important and of course the practice will not advance without rigorous debate. However, it is my increasing perception that some of these battles are more about academic careers and personal agendas than about the field itself and this is one reason, as practitioner colleagues tell me frequently, why the academy appears increasingly irrelevant to the practice from which it was born. I would argue that just as public relations practice has a primary duty to serve the public interest, academics too have a wider responsibility to serve the whole of the field: the academy and the practice. Drawing these thoughts together, an analogy might help. It seems to me that our academic field is going through adolescence. The theories that were developed in the 1980s and 1990s are being challenged, as they should be, and a whole range of new approaches and perspectives are being introduced into the field, again, as they should be. Teenagers, in the process of reaching adulthood, move away from their parents and try to forge their own multifaceted identities. In the process there is experimentation, falling out and even some bad behaviour. Many papers I receive not only challenge, but also disparage alternative insights, particularly of the founding scholars. This is not right: all deserve respect for the contributions they have made. At some stage no doubt there will be some ‘settling’ in the field where some of ‘the old’ will be regarded as having great worth while new and powerful insights take root and rightfully gain acceptance as the field matures, but hopefully never stultifies. Meanwhile, respectful debate, disagreement, challenge and discovery are all required in a field that is developing and going through its own growing pains towards adulthood.
3. Methodologies There appears to be a growing methodological divide in our field which I acknowledge is driven partly by the different academic systems that we operate within. As an editor and reviewer I receive significant numbers of papers from young scholars, particularly from America where the topic of study is very narrow and there is a predominant quantitative methodology. Clearly young scholars have to prove their mastery of methodologies and methods, but it is evident that some PhD and Masters students are involved in larger studies with their ‘slice of the action’ appearing to contribute very little to the body of knowledge, but whose purpose is to prove their methodological competence and a narrow and particular point. As a reviewer I am driven to the question “so what?” of these papers and am left facing an uncomfortable truth: that their individual work will never be publishable in its own right. Of course quantitative methodologies are entirely appropriate for many studies, but the question has to be asked: are these papers about proving methodological mastery, or about topics that matter to the field? As a group of scholars we need to be more alert to our responsibilities to young academics coming into the field, to support them and give them every opportunity to work on topics that are intrinsically worthwhile, amenable to publication and of benefit to them. More generally, there are questions that have to be asked about the rigour of some studies. There are an increasing number of large studies, often with extremely diverse groups involved, admittedly with a note on the study’s limitations, but from which conclusions are drawn which cannot be substantiated from the data. At the other extreme, very small studies from which sweeping generalisations are made. In addition, a particular favoured group for surveys are university and college students: clearly accessible to academics, but almost always not representative, open to influence and without proper recognition being given to this. I am therefore driven to a paradoxical conclusion: some young scholars are methodologically over-rigorous on topics of questionable worth, while the reverse can be said of more mature researchers.
4. Obsessions There are a number of recurring themes in the scholarship which, while very important, can be classified as ongoing obsessions. These include roles research, evaluation, ‘new’ media, ethics and, increasingly definitions and the naming of the field. While it is right that we engage with those areas which are the ongoing concerns of our professional colleagues, we also have a responsibility to open up and lead discussion in less explored areas. There is a notable lack of engagement on some of the wider issues which should be considered by academics in the field. For example, there is much scholarship on the role of public relations in organisations and indeed a growing subdivision of the field called corporate communications. There is also considerable writing about the role of public relations in society; what it could be, what it is and its relationship to, for example, economic and power structures. However there is little linkage between these two areas. There is not enough scholarship from our field about some of the big issues facing the world such as those raised by the business leaders, think tanks and politicians at the World Economic Forum. The implications of globalisation, interdependence, interconnection (not just because of IT), global shifts in power and complexity and the concomitant fallout such as the potential for intergenerational conflict, security, resource wars and the inability of nations and organisations to deal with these issues, offer opportunities for research and scholarship. These issues have real impacts on the lives of our practitioner colleagues. They struggle with the implications of the ongoing economic crisis in Europe and America, world-wide accountability and increasing youth and political activism. Our obsessions seem small compared to the challenges facing practitioners who are called upon to counsel their organisations and governments as they try to engage with these critical and complex issues.
4
A. Gregory / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 1–4
5. Opportunities for the field I will close this Commentary by outlining what I think are some of the more fruitful areas for endeavour both now and in the future and to indicate some encouraging developments in the field. First, as already mentioned, there is increasing diversity in the field and that is to be applauded. In addition, there has been an influx of new scholars in the field as it expands, as the number of PhD programmes grows and as more practitioners make the transfer from industry to the academy. They too, will bring new contributions and perspectives which can only be enriching. Second, there are an increasing number of public relations practitioners on the boards of organisations and many more with public relations qualifications at undergraduate and postgraduate level who are achieving senior positions. Anecdotally, a substantial number of them appreciate the role of research and theory in public relations practice and are a healthy antidote to the anti-intellectualism which still pervades much of the profession at senior levels. As they advance, there are more opportunities for practitioners and academics to work together to develop the underpinnings of the field. As mentioned earlier, many practitioners have profound insights into their own profession and have much to teach the academy on applied high-calibre conceptualisations and theory grounded-in-action. The stronger this bridge becomes the better for all. More generally in business, in government and in non-profit organisations, there is recognition that public relations and communication is fundamental to the way that they operate, define themselves and are defined by others. The opportunities for our field have never been greater in practice and this provides a significant opening for the academy. Again, positive indications of the desire for practice to work with the academy are ample, from organisations collaborating in research projects, to the many practitioners who attend and indeed sponsor academic conferences. Third, there are the glimmerings that the field is being more recognised in other academic disciplines and fields. There is a constant battle for us to increase the status of our own academic journals and given the requirements of the various research assessment exercises, we have to recognise many scholars in the field will seek to publish outside our recognised journals in more highly ranked publications. However citations from the public relations literature, particularly in the management and communications fields are beginning to increase and it is important that we keep faith with our field by fighting the tyranny of the current ranking criteria which are being increasingly questioned with some success in countries like Australia and the UK. 6. Final thoughts As we begin the second decade of the 21st century, it is time for us to reflect on what is happening in the academy in particular, but also in practice. We have the opportunity to be in the vanguard as an academic field given the major changes in society and the demand for some contributions that would inform action and thinking, but we cannot do that as adolescents. It is time for an adult discussion about where our academic field is heading, where it should go and about where the new theoretical developments in the field are and can take us. It is time for us to think through and be confident and robust in using the most appropriate methodologies, and time for us to give up our small obsessions. Through this Commentary piece I am asking for that debate to be joined.