Om

Pa

b

a

KPPIS

1

tgJapl

stBms

hos

0d

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 466– 469

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

utsourcing public relations pedagogy: Lessons from innovation,anagement futures, and stakeholder participation

aul Willisa,∗, David McKieb,1

Centre for Public Relations Studies, Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, 25, Queen Square, Leeds LS2 8AF, United KingdomWaikato Management School, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:ublic relationsedagogynnovationtakeholder participation

a b s t r a c t

In this article, we advocate for innovation in public relations pedagogy by importing ideasand practices from four areas. The first area involves work on disruptive technology andeducation that applies lessons from Silicon Valley innovations to high school education.The second area considers how knowledge management and project management findingsconfirm the value of teaching as the cocreation of knowledge. The third draws parallelsbetween the challenges of moving from traditional to future management and moving fromtraditional to future education. All three areas offer models for innovation by adopting amore improvisational, experimental, and risk-taking ethos in education. In the fourth area,we shift from theoretical advocacy to look at how these innovations feed into an exampleof public relations pedagogy as co-created stakeholder participation.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Setting a context (1): Silicon Valley goes to high schools

Context is not simply a passive surrounding but an interwoven co-creator of meaning. Accordingly, rather than seekingo establish that public relations pedagogy is largely out of date by a focus on the past, we frame this article around potentialains in importing ideas from other areas. One of the most radical recent proposals for educational innovation is Christensen,ohnson, and Horn’s (2010) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. It offers a bleaknalysis of the U.S. high school system as a preface to proposing transformational possibilities. The book partners tworactitioner–theorists from education with Clay Christensen, a Silicon Valley veteran acknowledged as one of the world’s

eading thinkers on disruptive technologies.Christensen et al. (2010) start where considerations of pedagogy ought to start – with a discussion of purpose – and they

et out four aspirations. The first is “maximize human potential” (Christensen et al., 2010, p. 1). Unfortunately, in our fieldhis is usually diminished in defining public relations as some form of “leadership and management function” (Lattimore,askin, Heiman, Toth, & Van Leuven, 2009, p. 4). That establishes early that public relations is primarily concerned withaximizing some areas rather than all areas. Broader individual and social aspects come, if at all, later and in a significantly

caled-down form.Christensen et al.’s (2010) second educational purpose is facilitating “a vibrant, participative democracy in which we

ave an informed electorate that is capable of not being ‘spun’ by self interested leaders” (p. 1). Given the close associationf public relations with “spin,” it is hard not to interpret this as implying that better education would counteract negativeocial impacts from public relations. We advocate acknowledging the field’s social stigma up front and explicitly turning

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0113 81 23578.E-mail addresses: p.a.willis@leedsmet.ac.uk, r.boston@leedsmet.ac.uk (P. Willis), dmckie@waikato.ac.nz (D. McKie).

1 Tel.: +64 7 838 4197.

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.021

P. Willis, D. McKie / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 466– 469 467

our ambition to countering that negative view and seeking a more aspirational purpose in line with maximizing humanpotential. It would certainly be easier to disrupt the almost taken-for-granted assumption that most public relations iscorporate public relations. It opens up opportunities for a reconstituting and repurposing of the whole field.

Disrupting Class (Christensen et al., 2010) also challenges public relations in its third educational purpose to “hone theskills, capabilities, and attitudes that will help our economy remain prosperous and economically competitive” (p. 1). Thisopen advocacy of enterprise and entrepreneurship is iconoclastic in most schools. Ironically, it is a move that would allowpublic relations education to move towards a greater promotion of entrepreneurial skills. Such a founding purpose pointsto the need to follow through with content in a field such as public relations where many practitioners work for agencies,or run their own companies.

Christensen et al.’s (2010) fourth purpose, namely, to “nurture the understanding that people can see things differently– and that those differences merit respect rather than persecution” (p. 1), also has consequences for content. It suggeststhat courses in diversity should be at the core of public relations learning. Indeed, public relations pedagogy must give morepriority to recent content that looks at globalization as a learning (Gerson, 2010), rather than just a consulting, opportunity.

2. Setting a context (2): the static knowledge problem

Communication scholars have long struggled against the idea of communication as merely being a conduit for a message.Yet, a conduit model still underpins much pedagogic practice and thinking. This emerges more clearly by examining parallelsbetween the problems found in the “transfer,” or “transmission,” of knowledge in most forms of education and that inknowledge management (KM) and project management (PM).

Jones and McKie (2009) identify such “problems as partly stemming from inherent limitations in the notion of (knowledge)transfer as the mechanical transmission of already existing material” (p. 181). In rejecting this notion, they “illustrate how,rather than simply being transmitted, project team knowledge is actually co-constructed and shared” (p. 181) and so position“communication as both central to, and constitutive of, knowledge” (p. 181) in line with Bernays’ retort “we don’t deal inimages . . . We deal in reality” (cited in Ewen, 1996, p. 6).

In the knowledge transfer that constitutes much public relations teaching, we argue for greater acknowledgement of theknowledge students bring and the role it could productively play. We believe more can be done to democratize educationwhile simultaneously creating more dynamic and effective teaching by involving students and staff in expanded interactionsand explicitly co-created learning processes. As in knowledge and project management, that kind of reconfiguration bothencourages an associated shift “toward continuously improving knowledge and skills (in order to be flexible enough to meetthe needs of an ever-changing environment) . . . [and] a more creative management approach concerned with developingcontext and processes for innovation” (Jones & McKie, 2009, p. 190).

In further developing this reconfiguration as a guiding framework for what they call “intelligent participation” (p. 180),Jones and McKie (2009) align well with Christensen et al.’s (2010) first aspiration: to “maximize human potential” (p. 1) byincreasing the participation space for students. They do so at the expense of one-way faculty communication. Intelligentparticipation also contributes to facilitating “a vibrant, participative democracy” (Christensen et al., 2010, p. 1) by enactingit on a small scale. Indeed, we go so far as to suggest that public relations pedagogy might be better considered as intelligentparticipation in stakeholder dialogue. In this way, it can also promote the diversity in content that is inherent in Christensenet al.’s last two aspirations for education.

3. Setting a context (3): paralleling management futures and education futures

Hamel and Breen’s (2007) analysis of the past that inspired their book on The Future of Management resonated toostrongly with our public relations educational experiences to ignore: “The machinery of modern management gets fractious,opinionated, and free-spirited human beings to conform to standards and rules, but in so doing it squanders prodigiousquantities of human imagination and initiative. It brings discipline to operations, but imperils organizational adaptability”(p. 8). As Robinson and Aronica (2009) and others have argued, the machinery of modern management closely resemblesthe machinery of modern teaching.

This is relevant to updating teaching as well to updating management. Hamel and Breen (2007) make a strong case thatexperimentation beats planning. They take that position because rigid planning is unlikely to fit in a business environmentthat is not only “more volatile than ever” (p. 9) but is characterized by “disconcerting discontinuities” (p. 11). In a world wherethe only bankable is that the future will be surprising, the present, let alone the past, “is an increasingly unreliable guide tothe future, competitive success depends less on planning for what will come next and more on continuously experimentingwith what could come next” (p. 156). Indeed, how sure are we as educators that we know the future of public relations,especially when the majority of the students probably employ social media in practice much more than the majority of thefaculty that teach them?

Hamel and Breen (2007) note that resilience requires “a lot of lightly scripted pre-adaptation . . . that give associatesthe chance to pre-adapt rather than react” (p. 156). This approach underpins our example of innovation in the field. Wealso return to the theme of communication as constituent of knowledge and to a different take on the idea of teaching asintelligent participation in stakeholder engagement.

4

4

ttcoph

5

ctegp

scstt

aanwp

sson

6

bafmi

tht

cblgsdswa

68 P. Willis, D. McKie / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 466– 469

. The stakeholder engagement project (1): from transmission to co-creation

The ideas we have discussed from innovation, knowledge, and management theory point educators towards an approachhat encourages dialogue, deliberation, and joint problem-solving between tutors, students and other stakeholders. Whilehis is admirable in the abstract, implementation presents challenges. We address this through an account of an attempt too-create a new Masters in Strategic Communication with these goals in mind. This stakeholder engagement project involvedne of the authors working with another colleague on its creation and delivery for one of the world’s largest employers asart of a centrally funded in-house executive development project. It serves, not as an exemplar, but as one illustration ofow stakeholders can be engaged differently.

. The stakeholder engagement project (2): co-creation and scoping

As the course was being devised and delivered, the client and their constituent organizations faced a significant period ofhange and upheaval. In line with this context, the starting point for the stakeholder engagement process was to structurehe delivery of the program around five basic strategic planning questions. These focused on the concerns of participatingxecutives (the students) and their sponsoring organizations: Where are you now? Where do you need to be? How do youet there? Are you getting there? How did you do? In effect, each stage of the program embedded co-creation as an intrinsicart of the development process.

Question 1 – where are you now? – was an auditing and scoping stage that included two research modes. The first, aurvey that was completed by each student, covered issues such as organizational strategy; communicative capability andapacity; internal attitudes towards PR; and the key challenges facing the student and their team. The second mode usedemi-structured interviews to explore the value placed on public relations by their chief executive. Questions also coveredhe competencies, skills, and knowledge CEOs most value in their senior PR advisors. As well as generating valuable insight,his process also secured buy-in from CEOs for the program and reinforced public relations’ strategic legitimacy.

Question 2 – where do you need to be? – was used to kick-start the development process. The teaching team facilitated workshop that identified the participant cohort’s key PR issues and challenges (informed by the communication surveynd CEO interviews). The session was interactive and showcased best practice from the public and private sectors to promptew thinking. It led to a discussion of specific areas for the students’ personal development. One outcome of the workshopas to catalyze collective ownership for the program that culminated in an agreed development vision that became therogram’s term of reference.

The teaching team then produced a proposal. It summarized the key findings from the engagement and recommendedpecific content for the program. It was circulated to all students, their chief executives and other stakeholders, notably theenior communicators (and funders). Further comments were invited from all parties before proceeding to the first tranchef educational delivery. The option of a further workshop was offered to ensure individual and organizational developmenteeds were met but none of the stakeholders felt that this was necessary.

. The stakeholder engagement project (3): implementation stages one and two

Question 3 – how do you get there? – extended the collaborative mode. It embedded co-creation throughout the processy means of a three stage design. Stage one comprised a series of modules tailored to cover issues identified in the proposalnd generated by the scoping phase. In addition to the core tutors, further support, including senior in-house practitionersrom the public sector, private sector consultants and academics from outside of the public relations field, was provided to

eet the specific requirements of the cohort. Time was also allocated for student-requested sessions to address any specificssues.

The assessment was built on the student’s experiential knowledge and they were encouraged to use their own organiza-ions as examples and case studies for tutorials and workshops. Each module also allocated a session for participants to shareow they had applied their learning since the previous teaching. This helped surface the practical relevance and impact ofhe program’s content.

At the end of Stage one a one-day “coming up for air” session was held with the cohort. Again, it enabled students toontribute to explicitly shaping, and perhaps re-shaping, the content. It also had a reflective slant and was directed towardsuilding on, and reinforcing, the knowledge that had already been generated. The students were asked to discuss their

earning so far and to consider this in light of the current and future challenges facing their organizations. The resultingap analysis highlighted key areas for further exploration and the six top ranked issues – identified by student vote – wereelected for master classes. The students then chose one of these topics and became responsible, in groups of three, for the

elivery of a day-long master class on the subject. The class had to address three criteria: to meet postgraduate standards ofcholarship, to be contextualized for their own organization, and to be relevant to their peers. It was agreed that these classesould be delivered to the tutors and the rest of the cohort and an associated work book produced (with, when appropriate,

supporting wiki).

P. Willis, D. McKie / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 466– 469 469

Stage two consisted of these co-created but student-delivered master classes. Additional subject experts from outside ofthe University were assigned to guide each group as they began the process of generating fresh content based upon existingresearch and their own experiences as practitioners.

7. The stakeholder engagement project (4): implementation stage three

Stage three involved a comprehensive work-based project equivalent to a Masters dissertation in complexity, length,and rigor. It was also a requirement of the program that the subject of the project’s inquiry was approved by the student’schief executive. The aim was to give the students the opportunity to demonstrate originality in the application of theory andtechniques through the production of high level independent work benefitting their organization.

To address question 3 – are you getting there? – a coaching ethos was also embedded in the structure of the program.This aimed to help the students review the progress of their journey towards the agreed development vision, to providemechanisms to discuss issues, to share solutions, and to participate in an active, tutor-facilitated network.

Question 5 – how did you do? – focused on the evaluation of the program at two levels. First, it enabled an assessment of theoverall success of the Masters at an individual level. During the program, in addition to written evaluation collected after everymodule, interviews were conducted with participants. The interview results were analyzed and informed recommendationsfor action. This helped to determine the future education needs of the students, as well as the people they managed. Secondly,feedback from chief executives was also sought to gauge their views on whether the program had benefited both individualstudents and the organization.

8. The stakeholder engagement project (5): towards some conclusions

This co-creation architecture has been successfully applied to three postgraduate student cohorts. While the first twocomprised of experienced managers, the most recent group was made up of young executives starting their in-house com-munication careers. In the latest case other stakeholders, such as the employer, had a greater input on the program’s corecontent at the beginning of the process. This was due to the students’ limited practical and theoretical knowledge in the field.As the program progressed, the students’ role in shaping the content did increase, particularly in the master class phase. Thisexperience suggests how the model, or at least elements of it, can be applied to a range of students. Indeed, in areas such associal media and youth engagement, a co-creation mindset to course design could invigorate undergraduate curricula.

The co-creation journey does, however, require both students and academics to make a leap of faith and to accept thatsome elements of the program will be more successful than others. The process also needs firm governance to ensure arange of stakeholder views are addressed and assimilated into the program. A robust, on-going debate about what shouldbe included in a PR program is in itself an educational process for all concerned.

References

Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W. & Horn, M. B. (2010). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the word learns (2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books.Gerson, M. (2010). Global citizens: How our vision of the world is outdated and what we can do about it. London: Rider.

Hamel, G. & Breen, B. (2007). The future of management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Jones, R. & McKie, D. (2009). Intelligent participation: Communicating knowledge in cross-functional project teams. International Journal of Knowledge

Management Studies, 3, 180–194.Lattimore, D., Baskin, O., Heiman, S., Toth, E. & Van Leuven, J. (2009). Public relations: The profession and the practice (revised 4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Robinson, K. & Aronica, L. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. London: Penguin Books.