PRCA offers free course in spin

Most PR practitioners hate it when what they do is presented as 'spin'.

Not surprisingly, they like to think they provide honest and accurate information and would recoil in horror if someone were to suggest they were peddling part truths for organisational gain. Indeed, tackling the dubious reputation of public relations is quite an important part of what professional organisations such as, say, the Public Relations Consultants Association, set out to do.

They know that effective communication is based on trust, and that transparency is an integral part of the process of building that trust. Often, this means being open and clear about how a decision has been reached. Then, those affected might not agree with the conclusion but at least they know how the call was made.

It works like this. You may, for example, want to promote a new arrangement between a professional organisation and universities offering PR degrees. Fine. You might select, say, eleven universities which meet your exacting standards. Fine.

You might then, as chief executive, write a blog post entitled "Because there are universitites (sic). And then there are universities." Fine.

You might characterise this as "the latest stage in the PRCA's leadership of our industry."

You might explain that you have chosen to negotiate partnerships with a limited number of universities, and stress the word 'limited'.

You might say: "This is not some across-the-board endorsement of each and every PR degree out there, regardless of its quality or rigour. And that is deliberate. Because the plain truth is that many PR degrees are an utter and complete waste of time and money..."

You might say this creates a 'new quality distinction.'

You might add a classic weasel words phrase, such as "We are not saying that every single university that we have not affiliated with provides degrees without value. Far from it...."

And you might completely forget to mention how the selection was made.

By now you may have guessed that the University of Sunderland is not one of the select few deemed wonderful by the PRCA. And you might well think that this post is a splendid example of sour grapes.

OK.

But you will certainly have concluded that some chief executives of PR professional organisations are skilled in the telling of selective truths to further organisational objectives, and are quite happy to give readers a distorted and unhelpful view of PR education.

As the chief exec might say: "Win-win. Elite. That's how we like to spin."

Comments

[Derek Hodge]

It's completely outrageous. The selection criteria for the PRCAs "partnership" are completely opaque.

Having discussed this with colleagues in other universities my suspicion is is that the selection criteria may well have involved attendance at a meeting held in London earlier this year.

We at Stirling were invited, but were unable to attend.

[Philip]

Sour grapes, Derek! I am not saying that the teaching staff at Stirling haven't made the same contribution to PR education and thinking as those at ....

Oh, hang on, it's catching, isn't it?

[Mat Morrison]

While I get the point you're making, I wonder whether this is a sound reaction. It feels a little bit boat-burny to me.

I'm assuming that your first move was to talk to Francis and/or his team at the PRCA and ask what the criteria were, and how you failed to meet them.

If that isn't the case, why not? It would seem to be a rational step if you think there's any value in the partnership. That way, you could be considered for late inclusion. No-one likes to be an afterthought, of course, or overlooked; but it's better that your students and department should benefit, isn't it?

If you don't think there's any value in the partnership, then what does it matter? Why draw attention to your exclusion?

[Philip]

Thanks, Mat, for your constructive points.

I wasn't particularly worried about Sunderland not being part of the PRCA 'elite' but did feel Francis's post cast an unjustified shadow over several very strong courses. Surely it is good comms practice to at least link to something that shows how a decision was made?

[Richard Coates]

I'd agree with Matt. If I were seeking to attract students to study PR at my institution, I wouldn't really want this article to show up on google. Often people working in comms can come across things we find are frustrating, but in many cases not communicating that frustration is the correct approach. I fear your article deepens the shadow and links it to Sunderland specifically, which is probably not your intent!

[Richard Bailey]

I also smiled at the list (while raising my eyebrows at the same time).

In truth, this list has nothing to do with quality PR courses, and everything to do with a turf war between the PRCA and the CIPR.

Approvals/accreditations are a mess. In my view, it's centres that should be approved, not courses, and the main criterion should be who's leading and teaching there. In my eyes, Sunderland's in the elite because of you, Stirling belongs there too, and I'd put in a word for Southamton Solent because of Catherine Sweet.

[Maxine]

I never believe any claims from an organisation unless there is some independent evidence for them. But then, I'm a scientist so I know about "critical thinking" ;-)

[Heather Yaxley]

Transparency in any assessment is important when considering a list, accreditation, ranking etc for any decision. In the case of professional body listings, or the regular University rankings, clarity behind the process should enable potential students, employers etc to be able to consider the approval/accreditation in relation to their own requirements. After all, most of the PR degree courses have their individual strengths and weaknesses, or specialities and as Richard says, staff with different interests and reputations.