Call for Papers – The International History of Public Relations Conference (July 9-10, 2024)
Academics, practitioners and research students are invited to submit competitive abstracts for presentation at the 13th International History of Public Relations Conference (IHPRC) which will again be held at Bournemouth University.
Since 2010, IHPRC has been the premier international conference addressing the history of public relations and related disciplines. It has attracted papers from around the world and led to a major expansion of publishing on the public relations history field in academic journals and research books.
Submissions – Deadline for consideration: 16 February 2024.
For IHPRC 2024, the conference’s academic committee is especially keen to receive submissions based on archival research or which consider the theory and practice of archival research in the history of public relations.
Papers for presentation at IHPRC 2024 will be selected, after peer review, on the basis of abstracts. Authors are invited to submit a single Word document.
The first page of the word document should include the title of the paper, author(s) name(s) and affiliations.
Page two onwards will include the abstract. The abstract will be of no more than two pages total length, including references.
The abstract should express the purpose, methodology, findings and implications of the research. Author and affiliation details are to be presented only in first page and should not be identified in the abstract.
Abstracts must be presented in Word format, 12-point font size, single spacing with a 1-inch (25mm) margin on A4 page size. Submissions and enquiries should go to atheofilou@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Conference registration and conference hotel
Given that the IHPRC will be taking place as from now on biennially (ie every second year rather than every year) the conference will be held in person rather than any other format.
Registration fees are: £250 standard and £150 for students.
info@euprera.org
Facebook
YouTube









This paper significantly contributes to the realm of public affairs by providing valuable insights into how politicians and lobbyists in Norway use the concept of public interest to advocate for or against energy and environmental issues. The paper is well constructed, rigorous and well-argued. It offers a comprehensive, relevant, and coherent theoretical framework that thoroughly examines the utilization of “topos” in the communicative interactions of these influential social actors. The theoretical framework is highly valuable in that it can be used to analyze a diverse set of advocacy initiatives beyond the ones in focus in this study. Overall, this study constitutes a significant advancement in the understanding of lobbyism and rhetoric within the political sphere and offers a theory-driven tool to dissect the quality of argumentations of those in power and the role of communication in affecting democratic processes.
This paper explores the frequently used, yet ambiguously defined concept of VUCA, aiming to provide a conceptual and empirical analysis that sheds light on its impact on strategic communication and outlines effective responses to its challenges. The study is backed by qualitative data gathered in Austria. A commendable aspect of this research is the authors’ intention to enhance our comprehension of VUCA while contributing to the theoretical understanding of current public relations in both internal and external environments. To aid professionals in navigating complex and volatile situations, the paper introduces a valuable tool called the VUCA RADAR. Overall, the study stands out as an intriguing, innovative, pertinent, and ambitious contribution to the field.
This paper proposes an integrative approach for future research in public relations and communication management. The methodological approach integrates insights from research developments in society, management, and technology and integrates insights from professionals. There is a nice dialectical engagement between theory and practice-based experiences which positions this work as one highly commented for its practical implications and contribution in expanding our knowledge for conducting formative research. Overall, the paper suggests an innovative integrative methodological perspective, that can become an important practical toolkit for professionals and their research efforts in identifying key trends.
Dr. Johnson’s review stands at an exceptional level of quality. Her feedback is thorough, comprising in-depth and comprehensive comments, along with practical suggestions that effectively aid authors in enhancing their papers. Notably, her constructive and encouraging remarks prompt authors to introspect on their arguments and research decisions. Moreover, the review exhibits attentive feedback and a profound respect for diverse academic cultural traditions and perspectives, making it truly commendable.