Highlights Archives - Page 6 of 10

Category: Highlights

26 May 2020

Free launch event: ECM 2020 report, May 29 – register now!

Coming soon… The European Communication Monitor 2020 Report will be launched on May 29!

Register now

for the free launch event, an online conference hosted by the European Association of Communication Directors on Friday May 29, 12:30 – 1:30 PM (CEST). Professor Ralph Tench from the research team will present key insights of the study and discuss them with inhouse communication director Zaida Espana (Arup), agency CEO Alexandra Gross (Fink & Fuchs), and Thomas Leitner (Cision) representing the communication service industry.

Be prepared for interesting and thought-provoking insights into the development of strategic communication and public relations on the continent. The study surveyed more than 2,300 professionals in 44 countries. Topics researched this year include ethics in digital communications, cyber security, technology and data competences, gender issues in the profession, and the changing importance of strategic issues and communication channels over time.

The European Communication Monitor is an academic study organised annually by EUPRERA and the European Association of Communication Directors – EACD, supported by premium partner Cision Insights, digital communications partner Fink Fuchs, and media partner Communication Director magazine. The core research team Ansgar Zerfaß, Piet Verhoeven, Dejan Verčič, Ángeles Moreno and Ralph Tench is supported by a group of renowned researchers from key universities in the region.

The communication monitor series is known as the most comprehensive research in the field worldwide covering more than 80 countries – the European survey is complemented by bi-annual surveys in other regions like Asia-Pacific, Latin America and North America.

17 April 2020

EUPRERA Experts’ Knowledge: #education

∼ We invite EUPRERA members to complete this collection of literature contacting dpra@epurera.org ∼

From projects led by our members

ECOPSI

ECOPSI (European Communication Professionals Skills and Innovation) aims to map and understand the actions and activities of communicators to build knowledge and understanding of what practitioners do, but also what skills and knowledge they need to develop to have a shared meaning and understanding of the practice. Interesting highlights from ECOPSI:

Tench, R., Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Verčič, D., Moreno, A., & Okay, A. (2013). Competencies and Role Requirements of Communication Professionals in Europe. Insights from quantitative and qualitative studies. Read
Tench, R., Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Verčič, D. (2012). ECOPSI Benchmarking Preliminary Report. Report for the Europe Communication Skills and Innovation Program. Read
Moreno, R. T. A. (2012). Mapping communication management competencies for European practitioners: ECOPSI an EU study. JCOM, 0092. Read

ECM

A new benchmark is in progress, based on the ECM 2020 survey: the Practitioners Competences Benchmark, to be launched later in June here.

MARPE

MARPE (Master in European Public Relations) is a pan-European network of academics and professionals aiming to expand students’ understanding of public relations and its practice in the EU and global contexts. More info

Scientific papers by EUPRERA’s authors

Cotton, A. M., & Van Betsbrugge, E. (2016). Communication and Management: An Obvious Relationship? The BA Curricula in Communication Management in Flanders’, The Management Game of Communication (Advances in Public Relations and Communication Management, Volume 1). Read
Cotton, A. M., & Spoelders, M. Educational discourse and digital media. Case study: Erasmus Intensive Programme: Government Affairs and Lobbying in a European Perspective. Read
Watson, T. (Ed.). (2015). Western European perspectives on the development of public relations: Other voices. Springer. Read
Moreno, Á., Tench, R., & Okay, A. (2017). Re-fuelling the talent tank. A qualitative study of key deficiencies, future needs, and life-long learning needs of communication management professionals in Europe. Communication & Society, 30(3). Read (NOA)
Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., & Hasina, J. (2015). Turn around when possible: Mapping European communication competences. Studies in Media and Communication, 3(2). Read
Tench, R., Laville, L., & Kiesenbauer, J. (2016). Exploring the magic of mentoring; Career planning for the public relations profession. The Management Game of Communication, 205-223. Read (NOA)
Tench, R., & Topić, M. (2018). Strategic Competencies. The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, 1-14. Read
Tench, R., Verčič, D., Zerfass, A., Moreno, Á., & Verhoeven, P. (2017). Commandment 7. In Communication Excellence (pp. 135-152). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Read (NOA)
Sievert, H., Rademacher, L., & Weber, A. (2016). Business Knowledge as a Limited Success Factor for Communication Managers: Results of a Survey in the German-Speaking Context. The management game of communication, 3-22. Read (NOA)
Gonçalves, G., de Carvalho Spínola, S., & Padamo, C. (2013). Analysing public relations education through international standards: The Portuguese case. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 612-614. Read (should you need to contact the authors, please note Susana de Carvalho Spínola’s new affilliation: Universidad de Lisboa, sspinola@iscsp.ulisboa.pt)
Moreno, Á., Carrasco, Á., & Saperas, E. (2014). Los efectos del proceso Bolonia en el currículum de Relaciones Públicas. Análisis del estado de la cuestión. Sphera Publica, 163-184. Read
Spiller, R., Weinacht, S., & Köhler, A. (2016). Communication Courses in MBA Programmes: An Analysis of Curricula of Business Schools in the United States and Europe’, The Management Game of Communication (Advances in Public Relations and Communication Management, Volume 1). Read (NOA)
Crookes, A. (2017). Educating society’s future PR practitioners: An exploration of ‘Preparedness’ as a qualitative indicator of higher education performance How Strategic Communication Shapes Value and Innovation in Society (pp. 1-21). Read (NOA)
Jugo, D., Ciboci, L., & Alavanja, M. (2017). Trends in education of communication professionals: The perspective of educators and employers in Croatia. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 998-1006. Read

23 March 2020

Risk society at times of Covid-19

by Valérie Carayol
Université Bordeaux Montaigne, France

The health warning of Coronavirus and its many consequences affect us all in a brutal way, in our lifestyles and working relationships. We had to deal with the cancellation of colleagues’ visits, the reprogramming or setting up of seminars, meetings, expert missions, the fear of our international students not being able to go home— and we must now face the closure of all schools and universities in France.

Everywhere and in a very differentiated way from one country to another, we are witnessing the implementation of crisis communication by public institutions and work organizations, which some in our scientific community will, of course, be able to dissect at leisure.

In a context of exacerbated globalization and deinstitutionalization, we see strong expectations arise towards national public institutions and in particular health institutions, which depend on infrastructure and public policies. If the systemic effects of the crisis are displayed on the international stock market indices, citizens’ eyes turn to the states. In search of security, citizens seem to have renewed expectations of their states, expectations of their hypothetical borders against the virus, bringing to light renewed populist temptations and new forms of discrimination against people.

Crisis communication takes on the appearance of war communication, prevention and survival are becoming collective challenges in front of our eyes.

While this health crisis is, for some, both frightening and unprecedented in its magnitude and its possible systemic effects on all economic and social systems, for others it is an important opportunity. It could be the trigger and timely impetus for accelerated dematerialization of labor relations, medical relations, education, which would allow us to fulfill our ecological commitments for a more preserved planet.

The whole panoply of “remote” uses of technologies is, in fact, mobilized to meet the needs of daily work: telemedicine, teleconferences, webinars, distance education. This boost in the use of communication technologies to avoid displacement and promiscuity will have certain consequences. The alternatives are shrinking and the use of ICT is now becoming a must, with consequences for work communications that we only see today, despite the abundance of research on this subject. This crisis becomes an accelerator of transformations, to be documented and studied.

New forms of sociality are also being created before our very eyes as a result of health prevention policies: to stand at a distance, not to kiss, not to shake hands, so many new social codes to be appropriated that remind us that our ways of doing “society”, especially at work, are a matter of communication know-how and of civility which is the common ground of our exchanges, today re-questioned.

The conference we are organizing in Bordeaux in May on the transformation of civility and incivility in the workplace under the grip of digital technology, may not be held in person, but in the form of a webinar. There is no doubt that we will already be able to comment on the first moments of this health crisis, which affects us all, researchers and communication professionals, a crisis for which we must all be given priority to caring for each other.

26 February 2020

Professionalisation and EU Research projects: a full-time job

by Anne-Marie Cotton
Arteveldehogeschool, Belgium

One of the main motivations the founding fathers of EUPRERA shared back in 2000 when they launched the association was to facilitate networking activities amongst academics and practitioners in our field, allowing the building of a European Body of Knowledge in Public Relations.

The past two decades show their aim has been fulfilled. EUPRERA members identify their peers and fruitful projects are developed under the association’s umbrella.

Being one of the “Euprera Project Leader” I have been confronted both to the noble goal of knowledge creation and the labyrinth of EU-project management. Another common experience amongst EUPRERA members… I want to share the approach the MARPE Network* developed when it comes to reflect on how an EU-project must be evaluated. A recurrent element in each EU-project. The aim is enlightening the implicit professionalisation of academics related to the management of EU-project.

When we – the MARPE partners- defined the theme of our 2019-2021 Erasmus+ application “Developing a European Higher Education curriculum in public, corporate and civic diplomacy”, we determined a well-structured “issue management plan” as a result of an in-depth risk analysis. Our monitoring included 8 area where risks could occur: administration, management, project, legal and finances, techniques and developments, human resources, scientific data, scientific. For each, we identified potential threats and remedies.

After 18 months it is time for a first introspective reflection: did we identified the right issues and were we able to address them the way we planned?

Risk area 1: Administration
Coordinating a multitude of tasks due to the nature and the number of participants

Organisation and distribution of work packages and definition of the respective tasks of each partner

Administrative support provided in each establishment and with the bearer.

We identified “Administration” as the conditio sine qua non to be able to start the project. Experience learn this to be a basic condition to be fulfilled and to be carefully discussed before starting any negotiations between partners. As the MARPE partners know each other sometimes since more than 25 years, discussions were easy to overcome. And as French use to say: “les bons comptes font les bons amis ».

Risk area 2: Management
Acknowledging the dimension of “time” in academic environments when it comes to discuss agreements and schedule signatures, to follow-up of retro planning in combination with academic paths, a critical path.
Acknowledging the dimension of “space” with a MARPE Network multi-site management, with geographical dispersion of project holder versus project managers

Precise and shared process.

Students: responsibility by country of convention of each partner.

Identification of and responsible project leader. Direct meeting with partners.

Collaborative tools online and implemented as soon as the project is shared.

Supportive co-worker and strong administrative support.

Project tracking tool.

A shared characteristic of EU-projects is their “time” and “space” dimensions. Partners must adapt their working habits and adopt different collaborative perspectives. This sometimes leads to disruptive ways of thinking and acting. Embracing EU-projects is also applying the agile approach present in each organisation dealing with change management. It is therefor crucial to define a project tracking tool supporting the project development especially when you are dealing with different publics as we do (academics, students, practitioners and associations/organisations).

Risk area 3: Project
Mobilizing several participants (students, associates, partners), anticipating stakeholder agreement over time, as well as availability of participants, and managing interactions or unforeseen events, developing a project website, planning work and production in English.

In the project several partners have experience of project management and monitoring and use of an ASANA project management tool. The project pilots are relayed in each country to animate and follow.

Convention: each partner has provided a substitute relay that participates in the work.

Agreement, commitment, follow-up of timesheets by the project manager to frame.

Project manager, project planning and management tools, stakeholder engagement.

The site is already identified, the skills available.

Mastery of English by consortium members, use of subtitling when needed on online courses.

Based on our previous EU-experiences, we knew what it takes to organise the appropriate environment optimising the implementation of project management. This third risk follows directly the second as it deals with the publics we are bringing together. We experienced that agreeing on engagement specifications is compulsory to secure the project over its entire active period.

Risk area 4: Legal & finances
Drawing budget drift and budget control, monitoring expenditure, defining intellectual property of results and products.

Shared internal control process at each partner and annual monitoring audit.

Content licensed creative commons, conventional and clear project on the subject including for participating students.

Specific convention.

In our field, we are particularly sensitive to legal issues dealing with copyrights and the GDPR, the EU data protection law. Aiming the co-creation of intellectual products and the organisation of an academic conference in April 2021, we definitively paid attention to reflect on different issues and potential developments. EU-projects aim open-source outcomes: a perspective that is not always shared with some institutional goals. It is important to evaluate the entire process with your internal publics when writing the proposal.

Risk area 5: Technical & development
Determining the availability of online courses to a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), a “owned” online platform to co-build this body of knowledge (state of the art, case study, practical sharing, reflexive articles).

Use open platform of the University; skills and tools available in the group: solid.

Competence and resource (remote space, online site)

Requirement for shared access control between multiple partners.

Starting an EU-project with new partners equals the start of any relationship: you will have to discover the other. To avoid basic misunderstanding, it is imperative to have strong insights in technological understanding, competences and resources. Once the project starts, there is little time to organise extra training to acquire new skills amongst project partners. Be prepared and be sure you have a plan B. We implemented plan B this academic year, planning option A for next one.

Risk area 6: Human resources
Multi-culturalism, risk of conflicts (students and/or teachers …) during the annual intensive programs.

Students: sequence of information on the interculturality (in their countries of origin) and at the beginning of the intensive program.

Teachers: experience of the subject; experts act as mediator.

When it comes to the core of our educational duty, most of us already have some multi-cultural experience via Erasmus exchanges. However, as our Erasmus+ project includes an Intensive study programme, we enhanced this dimension based on previous Intensive Programmes’ evaluation.

Risk area 7: Scientific data
Defining the availability of external and internal scientific data, the quality of scientific data, but also securing, storing and saving scientific data.

Access to the corpus by European institutions, Quality of networks of professional partners in and around the project

Qualification of the researchers who are members of the project and co-construction of the methodologies, Quality of methodological support for students

Using secured University data storage facilities with rules in force to store, save and access, Systematic filing procedure and commitment of partners

Organising an EU-project requires being able to rely on both external and internal sources. Project management starts beyond its launch: we led a substantial analysis allowing us to identify potential external alliances enabling and reinforcing the co-creative approach of our project.

Risk area 8: Scientific
Major disciplinary diversity and schools of thought, new field of knowledge, dissemination and appropriation of results (swarming).

Space for consultation, co-construction of the team on pedagogical and research aspects (steering committee).

Shared terminology, and ongoing work on the meaning of concept, notions, Steering Committee.

Connection with European companies; Participation in annual conferences of learned societies.

Last but not least, there are great risks of misunderstandings, if boundaries are not correctly established at the start. Even if formal instruments are set to use it, for instance via the steering committee, these risks should be the subject of a particular and continual attention by the project leader. Therefor we added this last area to our risk analysis.

Our learning, as a team, is that it definitively requires professional skills and competences to design an EU-project. Some universities have dedicated profiles, others don’t. We were able to be endorsed from time to time and want to thank our colleagues from the internationalisation departments for their dedicated support and precious advice. However, theirs could obviously not reflect on the relevance of the content. Our 8 risk areas derived from another best practice including different ones but inspiring us to pro-actively -and professionally- prepare our first draft back in 2018.

To conclude: these risk areas are not exhaustive and are not compulsory. Each project has its own specificities and must be addressed in its way. However, from a reflective perspective, it can always be relevant to gain insights from peers’ experiences.

*The MARPE Network is composed of (in alphabetical order): Anca Anton (University of Bucharest), Anne-Marie Cotton (Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, Ghent), Hélène Boulanger (Université de Lorraine), Pepe Martinez (Universidad Cardenal Herrera, Valencia) and Susana Carvalho (Universidade de Lisboa).

7 February 2020

#EthicsMatters: our contribution to the First Ever Global Ethics Month

EUPRERA interviews Øyvind Ihlen, Jim Macnamara and Ralph Tench asking them a short insight on ethics. These interviews are part of the First Ever Global Ethics Month, launched by the Global Alliance for PR and Communication Management.

The campaign #EthicsMatter will bring attention to the importance of ethics in communication in all areas of business, government, non-profit and education and showcase all that our members are doing to educate and empower public relations professionals.

Øyvind Ihlen

Watch the 3-min insight on #PostTruth society, #legitimacy and #professionalism

Jim Macnamara

Watch the 3-min insight on #PublicTrust, #professionalism and #manipulation

Ralph Tench

Watch the 5-min insight on why and how #EthicsMatters in EUPRERA’s #research and community

More info on the
First Ever Global Ethics Month

20 January 2020

European Communication Monitor 2020 launched

The European Communication Monitor 2020 survey is now open and will be available until February 22 at www.communicationmonitor.net and we need your help.

The European Communication Monitor is led by professors from renowned universities within the framework of the EUPRERA together with the European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), supported by Cision Insights and Fink & Fuchs.

The survey seeks answers from PR professionals working in communication departments and agencies (not from academics).

Please have a look and answer the survey, if you belong to this group, and please forward it to friends and colleagues in the profession. It will take you between 10 and 12 minutes to answer the questions. All participants are entitled to receive the full report for free and can enter a prize draw for 5 Fujifilm Instax Mini 9 instant film cameras – a must-have gadget.

The European Communication Monitor, now in its 14th year, addresses highly debated topics such as ethical challenges, cyber security and gender issues in communications, as well as competence development and current strategic issues in the profession. The survey will identify characteristics of excellent communication departments and explore commonalities and differences across Europe. Country-to-country comparisons and benchmarks of different types of organisations (private and joint-stock companies, non-profit, governmental, agencies, etc.) will make the results relevant for everybody in the field.

The study is undertaken for scientific purposes, in an attempt to map out the future of the communication profession. You will receive a report and the EUPRERA community has full access to the data. Your information will not be used for any other purpose. All information is submitted anonymously.

We thank you for your input and participation!

Contact
info@communicationmonitor.eu

7 January 2020

President of EUPRERA 2020-2021: inaugural letter

Dear fellow members, colleagues and friends,

On behalf of EUPRERA, the Board of Directors and in my own name, I wish you a productive, successful and, first and foremost, a happy New Year 2020!

We have the privilege of living in exciting times. We began a new decade with plenty of promising changes, opportunities and experiences. Our field, more than ever, is expanding both in academic and professional terms. The management of communications is more and more important to the operation of the companies, public institutions and agencies and every kind of political, civil and non-profit organization. Communication departments and CCOs have a great influence on management boards and decision-making tables with the evolution to more complex and strategic ways of influence. The increase of the consultancy market is expected to hit 20 billion dollars this year. This expansion of the professional field will surely have also interesting implications for our academic field.

As usual, changes are not exempt from difficulties and challenges. This new decade finds Public Relations and Strategic Communication’s scholars in the ever-competitive scenario with some interesting issues like the non-solved duality of areas of knowledge, the “hunter games” of editorials and international ranking systems, the competition of other specialities’ scholars to attract resources or re-placing Public Relations’ objects of study into their fields, etc, etc. In a broad political and social perspective, expert knowledge has become today suspicious for many groups of polarized citizens and there are claims for clarifying and justifying the applicable utility of research. This claim is particularly addressed to the social sciences and sometimes even a shared with scholars from the natural sciences.

From this point, EUPRERA starts from an advantageous position. The contribution of our association and our members to the knowledge and social and industrial transference of this knowledge is very well-known around the world. We currently have behind our label some of the most prestigious projects in the world from global studies to innovative EU funded projects in communication education. We are very proud of each and every one of the contributions, publications, recognitions and internal, national and overseas visibility of our members. We are especially proud of our recent and younger members with their powerful work frequently recognised in awards as well as the exciting and inspiring contributions of our PhD network.

The respect for diversity along with the very sense of community are two of the specific values and identity of EUPRERA, based in a European context. Could we imagine some years ago that the quality of Universities or academic publications will be assessed and certified in part because of their social media outreach? The scenario for the new decade will require more than ever a solid and friendly real community where we can face together the new challenges and opportunities and support each other in the achievement of our individual and shared commitments. In the last few years the Board of Directors has tried to anticipate some of these new challenges and have expanded the network of influence to diverse academic and professional associations all over the world. We have also standardised EUPRERA’s networks and projects for a better support and equal contribution, attracting new European and overseas scholars. Recently, we also launched a new research study to feed further well-founded and informed discussions about the issues of publishing systems in our field.

But certainly, the new decade will require new ideas and solutions. Members are the lifeblood of EUPRERA. Engaged and active members have historically been a particular characteristic of EUPRERA in contrast with some other associations. The board invites every one of you to start new projects and networks between members, to invite your academic contacts to join the association and participate in new initiatives, to include EUPRERA as social or expert partners in your bids for project funding. Civil associations, research groups, editorials, women’s networks, professional bodies, agencies and companies with interest in expert knowledge and applied research in Strategic Communication are also welcome to contact us to explore ways of cooperation. We warmly invite lecturers and younger scholars to be engaged with us and to bring fresh ideas and new critical thinking to our community.

Please, save the date 8-10 of October as a first entry on your new 2020 calendar! The EUPRERA Annual Congress will take place this year in Pamplona (Spain) with a very inspiring topic to start the decade: The Camino of Strategic Communication: (re)discovering the human element in public relations. Diverse and broad subthemes are included in the call for papers to ensure your current research will fit in one or more of them and we are willing to listen to you. Abstract deadline: February 29.

The EUPRERA Annual Congress is one of the most prestigious academic meetings for public relations and strategic communications scholars and it’s an opportunity to connect and make contact with researchers from across the continent and prominent figures from all over the world. Most of our most famous projects and initiatives have being conceived in these productive face-to-face meetings. We will have two full days to catch a sense of the latest original quality research and to critically discuss trends of research and education in Public Relations and Strategic Communication. However, in addition, our colleagues from the University of Navarra are also working hard with the board to welcome us in their northern-southern amiable city. On Saturday, we will visit the Castel of Olite and for wine testing and a farewell meal. As we are accustomed to in our annual meetings, these three days will be the right combination between hard work and fun with old and new friends.

To finish I would like to thank our past-president, Ralph Tench, for his remarkable supportive and inclusive leadership. He has devoted his managerial experience to our association for a long period of time in diverse roles and we are glad to have his support for one more year. For the current year we will continue carefully serving our members and our organization along with Diana Ingenhoff, Stefania Romenti, Etienne Claes (finances) and the precious work of our DPRA, Virginia Villa. Please, contact any of us for new projects and initiatives and let’s build together a splendid 2020.

Yours,
Ángeles Moreno
President of EUPRERA

2 December 2019

Sustainability Communication #NoTimeToWaste

Prof. Wim J.L. Elving,
Hanze University of Applied Sciences
Groningen, The Netherlands

It is a fact that the communication branch has been involved in a big variety of unethical practices. Greenwashing exists because we in communications and our colleagues (mainly our colleagues of course J) made text and communication materials to let the green intentions of a company shine, by not including all the facts. Fortunately for the world we have NGO’s that did starting to check companies CSR efforts and intentions and CSR communication became more serious and based on facts and not only on intentions.

Lobbyists and public affairs, of course adopted by us as being part of the communication profession, helped in enlarging the economic space for organizations without giving attention to the ecological limits. And our extensive knowledge and cooperation with the marketing profession made that we forced (persuaded) consumers to buy stuff that they actually didn’t need.

The climate crisis is real and leaves us little or no time to actually make a difference. As communication scholars and professionals, we can and should have a positive impact, and we, in my humble opinion, should cooperate more to make the world more sustainable. So, what are the good examples you experienced in your work, but also what are the worst cases and the lessons you as a professional learned that you want to share with your colleagues. For instance, we are working a lot with raising awareness, and designing testing and applying communicative interventions to raise awareness. If individuals receive feedback on how much energy their fridge and other devices are using, you are able to make decisions to buy more energy efficient devices. But there must be more and other ways of raising awareness and other examples.

There are several ways for us as profession in how to make a difference. We have been able to present the nicest communication materials, text, video and other products that really made a difference on a wide variety of subjects. Why don’t we use our joint force to create even better ones to tackle the climate crisis? Do we have any other option?

The European Union declared the climate crisis as a big emergency, action is needed. As communication professionals we are not only able to create and design fabulous communication products, but we also gained insights in how we can build bridges between various standpoints and proofed that we can make a difference. So, let’s join forces, let’s share good practices, ideas, cases etcetera, so we all can learn and we all can contribute in overcoming the current climate emergency.

We haven’t been able to create a platform already, please email me your examples, and I will persuade EUPRERA and other organizations to post these on their websites as soon as possible. We do not have to limit ourselves on English language examples, we will find ways to learn from other languages examples as well and maybe we can find ways in including national associations as well. Please email me your examples and email me if you want to be part of this very emergent and urgent call (w.j.l.elving@pl.hanze.nl). Let’s start the movement soon.

#NoTimeToWaste

23 October 2019

Trust in Communicators Study results launched today

Trust survey reveals it’s not what is said but who said it that matters –
External advocates more trusted than communications professionals

External experts the most trusted by the general public
Trust gap between journalists and PR/marketing people still exists but not as wide as expected and is closing
Organisational leaders (executives) least trusted by general population
General population have high level distrust of communication and public relations professionals
Communication professionals in the UK trusted and recognised higher than in Germany and Italy
Fuzzy perceptions about the goals and activities of public relations by the general population
Communication professional overestimate the trust in them by the general population

October 23, 2019 – A new report reveals that there are high levels of distrust in organisational spokespeople but that external experts are the most trusted advocates in the general population. External advocates for organisations are trusted more than top executives, public relations professionals and marketers by the public. A team of European researchers explored what this changing picture means for communications professionals and the organisational trust-building process.

The study was led by renowned researchers from Leipzig University, Leeds Beckett University, and IULM University Milan, and facilitated by Cision Insights and Fink & Fuchs. The researchers from Germany, the UK and Italy conducted representative polls in each of their respective countries. The polls aimed to investigate how much trust the public have in leaders of organisations, journalists, public relations (PR) and marketing professionals. They compared this with trust in other advocates speaking on behalf of organisations. The researchers also carried out a survey among communication professionals in the same countries. This survey aimed to understand how practitioners assess public trust in them as professionals.

The public poll highlighted that communication and PR professionals are trusted and recognised more highly in the UK than in Germany or Italy. However, the general public has a high-level of distrust in these professionals (see Figure 1). A trust gap was identified between communications and PR professionals and journalists, but it was not as wide as expected and is closing.

Figure 1

Information about organisations is often spread by people who are not acting in a professional communication role – i.e. organisational advocates such as supportive customers (fans, brand ambassadors), experts in the field (academics, consultants) or activists with overlapping interests. The polls found that external experts are the most trusted of these advocates, but all are trusted more highly than communication and PR professionals (see Figure 2). Efforts should be focussed on enabling these advocacy groups to promote the trust-building process.

Figure 2

The polls revealed that the general population has fuzzy perceptions about the goals and activities of PR professionals (see Figure 3). Whilst communication and PR professionals misperceive the public’s opinion about them and overestimate public trust. These professionals also misjudge their role in the trust-building process and ignore public trust in external advocates.

Figure 3

Commenting on the new study, research leader Prof. Zerfass said: “This study has asked both the general public and organisational communicators about trust in companies. The results show clear divergence in trust perceptions. For those professionals working in the communications sector and representing organisations we urge them to take on board the implications of the study’s findings and place greater importance on internal and external influencers to support the important organisational trust-building process.”

About the study

The Trust in Communicators study is in two parts. Firstly, we have talked to organisational communicators through a quantitative study in three countries, Germany, Italy and the UK to understand communicators’ trust perceptions. We have compared their opinions with the trust perceptions of communication professionals in the same countries by the general population.

Based on former studies and existing literature on trust in communication professionals, a statement list was constructed to survey the amount of trust or distrust in all kinds of public communicators who can speak on behalf of an organisation as well as journalists when they report about organisations. Also, statements regarding public relations activities were outlined. The survey is based on a representative sample of adults aged 16 to 64 from Germany, Italy and the UK (interviewed via an internet omnibus in spring 2019 by Kantar TNS). In addition, communication professionals were surveyed as part of the annual European Communication Monitor in the same time (communicationmonitor.eu).

Published by

EUPRERA European Public Relations Education and Research Association
Brussels, www.euprera.org

This study was facilitated by Cision Insights and Fink & Fuchs

Citation of this publication (APA style)

Zerfass, A., Wiesenberg, M., Tench, R., & Romenti, S. (2019). Trust in communicators. How the general population trusts journalists, public relations professionals, marketeers and other communicators: A comparative study in Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Brussels: EUPRERA.

Short quotation to be used in legends (charts/graphics):

Source: Trust in Communicators 2019 study (www.euprera.org).

Study contacts

General information and Germany: Dr. Markus Wiesenberg (☏ +49 341 97 35040 | tics19@euprera.org)
Italy: Prof. Dr. Stefania Romenti (☏ +39 289 1412 755 | stefania.romenti@iulm.it)
United Kingdom: Prof. Dr. Ralph Tench (☏ +44 113 81 27539 | r.tench@leedsbeckett.ac.uk)

Download

Ambiguity among communication professionals: strategic choice or professional kismet?

Chiara Valentini
Professor of Corporate Communication
JSBE, University of Jyäskylä, Finland

In his book The Post-Truth Era. Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life (2004), Ralph Keyes depicts our society as one interviewed by deception and ambiguity. Already in his opening sentence, he notes how humans are intrinsically using vagueness and deceiving as a way to cope.

“During years of studying deceptive behaver, psychologist Robert Feldman has made some intriguing discoveries. The older children get, the more deft they grow at lying. Popular teenagers are better liars than unpopular ones. We’re more likely to lie when our self-esteem is threatened.” (Keyes, 2004, p. 3)

I came to think about this first line when reflecting on the current image and reputation of public relations and communication professionals among the general public. Could this offer some points of reflections for why the profession is recursively caught to behave in ambiguous, and sometimes deceptive manners?

In a post-truth era, the question of deception and ambiguity has gained traction in popular media. A recent study of mine conducted together with Dean Kruckeberg from the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA and presented at the 2^nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on the Dark Side of Communication, Aalborg, Denmark, on public relations and deception shows how the profession of public relations is historically perceived to be mostly a manipulative, deceptive organizational practice, rather than a transparent communication practice bridging with publics and their concerns. Furthermore, early studies on deception and public relations have scant and often vague discussions on what the profession is, what it does, and stands for, thus these studies are very often unclear when attributing deception to the profession.

To add to this, real-life situations and contemporary cases, fake and alternative news, spin on behalf of politicians, corporate greenwashing etc., have raised public attention and also critique towards public relations and other related communication professions, their function in organizations, and their practices; the latter are often described as highly questionable.

Why cannot a profession that should take care of the reputation and image of an organization, individual, client or organized entity take care of own professional image and reputation? Why is public perception of how communication professionals operate often poor?

For some, this question is primarily an issue of lack of ethical conduct and professional bodies sanctioning bad practices. I would like, however, to move over the “bad apple” cases and instead focus on the general issue of ambiguity shrouding our profession and impacting general public perception.

The concept of ambiguity has been historically studied by organizational communication scholars in light of certain internal communication practices in organizations and as contrasting standpoint to the mainstream idea of superiority of consistency and clarity in organizational communications (cf. Eisenberg, 1984; Johansen, 2018). Yet, a lot of those insights are highly applicable to, and offer theoretically grounded justifications to the issue of ambiguity among public relations and related communication professionals. In this respect, I would like to raise the attention to the fact that communication professionals have and are often using ambiguity either as strategic choice or professional kismet in defining their competences, functions and above all practices. This, I would argue, is a way to cope with societal complexity, and organizational and stakeholder expectations. But what is ambiguity?

It is often defined as indirectness, vagueness, unclarity (as in lack of transparency), and disqualification (Eisenberg, 1984). It resides in the source’s intention, receiver’s interpretation and message itself. In that, it is a “relational variable which arises through a combination of source, message and receiver factors” (ibid, p. 7). Furthermore, ambiguity is contextual and constructed.

Ambiguity can be the results of unintentional actions, but it can also be a strategic choice. As a strategic choice ambiguity should not be considered purely deviational but a contribution to normal interactions in and outside organizations. Eisenberg in his seminal work Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication (1984) identifies four major strengths in using ambiguity in organizational communication contexts. Ambiguity can a) promote a unified diversity, b) preserve privilege positions, c) foster deniability and d) facilitate organizational changes.

Ambiguity is used to strategically foster agreement on abstractions without limiting specific interpretations. Hence it can reduce conflict among parties and thus serve to hold strained relations because it increases and allows multiple interpretations. As a result, ambiguity can increase group agreement, since it allows to represent the ideas and opinions of otherwise divergent individuals in a unified manner.

Furthermore, ambiguity can foster creativity and innovation, as it nurture multiple viewpoints in organizations. Yet, ambiguity expands organizational and professional freedom to alter operations, practices, goals, without looking unwise or inconsistent. Thus, it offers deniability by increasing a person’s alternatives. At the same time, ambiguity helps in maintaining personal credibility among others. Research shows that people cope with ambiguous information by relying on own existing views, aligning the new information with pre-existing believes (Eisenberg, 1984). Thus, credible speakers can strategically use ambiguity to maintain positive perceptions.

Translating these ideas to the question of why ambiguity in communication professionals’ practices and/or behaviors, we could come with a number of possible interpretations.

For example, the fact that there is no clear agreement on what public relations is, and how similar and different it is from other organizational communication functions and the fact that there has not been substantial professional interest in clarifying the identity is often a strategic ambiguity choice. Professionals tend not to stick to a specific label, as a professional brand. They frequently adapt, change and present themselves under different terms depending on whom they are interacting to or for whom they are working. Hence, sometimes they are public relations managers, or strategic communication or corporate communication managers, other times public affairs or public information/communication officer, etc. Similarly, for some the profession’s “core” is about image/reputation management, for others, relationship building, but also event and promotion management, or media outreach, public information, and so on.

Second, strategic ambiguity seems to explain some of the professionals’ behaviors in the boardroom. In this respect, it functions as a coping strategy. To be accepted and be considered part of the dominant coalition, professionals tend to adopt a managerial logic which may imply deniability of a communication logic – at least for the time they are interacting with other managers, and so a new language, a managerial vocabulary is embraced. This allow them to fuse with other, non-communication managers.

Third, and perhaps the most visible behavior, ambiguity is used to preserve and even reinforce stakeholders’ perceptions. There are plenty of situations when ambiguous communication is used by professionals to convince stakeholders about something. Ambiguity allows to address individual stakeholders and their different levels of knowledge, attitudes and values in different manners. Instead of offering and appearing to have twenty different positions on something, by speaking metaphorically, using a language that allows professionals to be understood differently by different stakeholders, professionals do not appear to contradict themselves. They maintain credibility.

In short ambiguity seems to be a valuable strategic choice among communication professionals to adjust to organizational, societal and professional challenges. The fact that ambiguity allows malleability, flexibility and, to some extent, deniability, offers great opportunities to address variations of issues and situations. Yet, it can turn into a professional nightmare; it can undermine the professional legitimacy when ambiguity leads to an imprecise and unclear definition of what the profession is and stand for.

But maybe ambiguity can be seen as a professional kismet, expanding our understanding of what this profession is all about. As Frank Herbert nicely put it “The truth always carries the ambiguity of words used to express it”.

References

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242

Herbert, F. (2019). God Emperor of Dune Quotes. New York, Ace Books

Johansen, W. (2018). Strategic Ambiguity. In R. Heath & W. Johansen (Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication. Wiley & Son

Keyes, R. (2004). The Post-Truth Era. Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life. New York, St Martins Press

« First ‹ Prev 3 4 567 8 9 Next ›Last »