Primer of Public Relations Research / Edition 1

by Don W. Stacks PhD

Overview

This authoritative guide provides comprehensive coverage of the various research methods available to public relations practitioners. Written in a practical and direct style, the book takes readers step by step through the various elements of designing, conducting, and reporting PR-related research in both corporate and nonprofit settings. Informal and formal research methodologies are discussed in depth, including clear guidelines for using secondary sources, case studies, observational approaches, content analysis, sampling, survey research, and more. Demystifying statistical concepts and methods, the book provides detailed instructions for using SPSS, the widely available statistical software package. Numerous concrete examples, sample research tools and reports, and computer screen shots enhance the utility of the book, as do helpful review questions and practice problems at the end of each chapter.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781572307261
Publisher:	Guilford Publications, Inc.
Publication date:	02/06/2002
Edition description:	First Edition
Pages:	318
Product dimensions:	6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.88(d)

About the Author

Don W. Stacks, PhD, is Professor and Director of the Program in Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Miami School of Communication. The author or coauthor of six books and more than 60 articles in referred journals, Dr. Stacks is an award-winning educator and researcher, a frequent conference presenter, and an active member of several professional organizations.

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Understanding Research

An Introduction with Public Relations Implications

One of the more pragmatic or practical areas of public relations concerns something that most public relations professionals seem to fear most: research. Why? The reason offered by many academic writers is that the field's history — arising from journalism and being applied in a written, creative format — produced an "informal" approach to research. This may be true to a certain degree. Public relations professionals have always relied on research in one form or another to demonstrate to clients that what they have produced has impacted on some public or audience. The simple counting of press releases for the client is a rudimentary form of research. Examining media outlets to see which has carried those releases is another form of research. Both, however, are informal research methods; they fail to provide much information beyond potential reach and effort. One can view research as formal or informal. Formal research is the systematic gathering, analyzing, and evaluating of data via some methodology, be it quantitative or qualitative. Informal research is the observing of people, events, or objects of interest as they occur, typically through qualitative methods.

Today's professional is in a business that demands more. Modern public relations research strives to deliver evidence that the bottom line has been enhanced by the practitioner's activities. In so doing, the way we approach research has moved from a primarily informal to a formal, social scientific approach to understanding the impact of public relations across the many public relations specializations. Furthermore, the profession has moved from looking at large groups of people, publics, to more targeted groups with specialized human characteristics, such as specified demographics, psychographics, lifestyles, and even "netgraphics" (as analyzed through the Internet social networks people live in today).

WHY CONDUCT PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH?

Research is essential to any public relations activity or campaign. Research, as noted earlier, is the systematic gathering, analyzing, and evaluating of data. Data are observations of some sort — they may be as simple as the number of people attending an event or as complex as the perception of an organization's reputation or credibility based on a measurement scheme. As evidenced in many public relations models, research is the beginning of a process that seeks to bring about a specific objective. Hendrix's (2000) ROPE (Research, Objectives, Program, Evaluation), Marston's (1979) RACE (Research, Action, Communication, Evaluation), and Cutlip, Center, and Broom's (1984) four-step process (Defining PR Problems, Planning and Programming, Taking Action and Communicating, Evaluating the Program) models posit that any serious public relations activity must begin with the research step.

Why are research (and definition) so important to public relations? As Donald K. Wright (1998) has pointed out, research is important because public relations people are finding that research is part and parcel of their jobs when they offer communication strategies, counsel on communication problems, and educate clients as to the best public relations strategies or actions. Without research, professionals are left to "fly by the seats of their pants"; that is, they are reduced to taking, at best, educated guesses regarding the problem and potential intervention programs, and thus they run a greater risk of being unable to predict outcomes accurately. Without research the professional cannot assess where a public relations program begins, how it evolves, or what the end product will be. Quite simply, without research you cannot demonstrate the efficacy of your program.

As public relations has transitioned from a technical (practitioner) to a management function (professional), the role of research has become increasingly important. Management decisions cannot be made in a vacuum; decisions are influenced by a myriad of factors, of which both the acquisition and analysis of data have become basic to good public relations practice. Think of research (and data) as part of a continuous feedback/feedforward function: Research planning and accurate data lead to valid assessments and analyses of public opinion and program effectiveness, and in the end may help to predict behavioral outcomes.

Public relations professionals use research in many ways. In general, public relations research is used to monitor and track, measure and assess, and finally evaluate public relations actions. It is used to monitor and track trends and developments as they occur to help understand and examine current and future public relations positions. It is essential to the assessment and measurement of public relations messages and campaigns to ensure that planned actions are occurring as expected and to determine when to implement correction strategies. Evaluation is conducted during all segments of a public relations campaign: at the precampaign research phase (i.e., how well was previous research conducted?; which strategies have produced the best results given the current or projected conditions?), during the actual campaign (i.e., how effective has the campaign been at meeting its objectives at phase one, phase two, phase three, and so forth?), and at the end (i.e., how well did the campaign do what it was supposed to do?; how did it affect the "bottom line")? Figure 1.1 demonstrates this process over the life of a campaign and includes three types of research that are found in campaigns — evaluations of the effectiveness of the transmittal and reception of messages (informative); the influence of those messages (affective); and the intended action on those messages on the target audience (behavioral). Note that several evaluations in this model allow for strategic changes in the campaign to be made depending on the results of the evaluations (more on this in Chapter 2).

WHAT IS RESEARCH?

What then is research? Research encompasses two methodological approaches to data. Data are the observations we make of the world around us via some methodology. As noted earlier, data may be gathered formally or informally.

Data are gathered informally when they are taken from the researcher's experiences. They are largely intuitive, the evaluation largely consisting in the researcher's "gut feelings." As such, data constitute informal observations made even daily. Such data are observed, noted, and judged as being appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad, fitting or not fitting expectations, and found in case study, interview, focus group, and participant-observation methodology.

When thinking of formal methodology, we take a more objective approach to the data — the data points when examined systematically lead us to some conclusion. This is the method of the social scientist, and our focus throughout this volume will be mainly on this method of inquiry — surveys and polls and to a lesser degree experiments. Although most social science methods are quantitative (objective, with a reliance on numbers and an understanding of large numbers of people), there is a qualitative (subjective, with a desire to better understand how a few perceive an object of interest) need that still can be systematically analyzed and evaluated.

It is wrong to believe, however, that one methodology is better than the other. Each methodology has advantages and disadvantages. As you may have already guessed, qualitative methodology is better for some types of research and quantitative methodology than for others. We explore this distinction shortly, but first we need to look at what differentiates formal from informal methods.

The Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

The major differences in method are found in Table 1.1. Note that major differences are found in all three categories of methods: data collection, data assessment, and outcome.

Quantitative research is the objective, systematic, and controlled gathering of data. It is objective in that the researcher carefully defines the "things" under study, precisely defining what it is that will be studied. It is systematic in that we carefully follow prescribed rules in gathering and assessing the data. It is controlled in that we carefully define, gather, and evaluate the data according to prescribed rules that can be reviewed for error. Qualitative research is less controlled and subjective; it is not systematic in either gathering or interpreting the data. Qualitative research relies more on the subjective evaluations of the researcher.

While qualitative research provides us with an in-depth description and understanding of a particular subject or event, its lack of control and its lack of objectivity do not allow us to predict and generalize outcomes beyond what was observed. Both methods have descriptive functions, but the quantitative method provides a description based on agreed-upon or carefully defined units that can be measured and assessed for reliability (consistency) and validity (do all see and act toward the activity or concept of interest similarly?), whereas the informal method describes the data based on the intuition of the researcher.

Finally, the quantitative method provides a way of predicting and generalizing outcomes to groups or individuals that were not necessarily part of the research. The qualitative method enables us to look at the outcome only as it occurred with the particular group or event, whereas quantitative research allows us to extend our findings to similar groups ("populations") who, if researched in the same way, would within certain degrees of confidence respond or react similarly to those researched (i.e., we are X% certain of the responses). With the quantitative method we can depend on accurate data (within certain degrees of confidence) to drive management decisions (whether these decisions are good or bad also can be addressed by research, but only if the basic, underlying questions have been addressed first). Furthermore, the quantitative method provides us a way to generalize from a smaller (and thus less costly) sampling of people to the larger population.

This is not to say that qualitative research is bad or that quantitative research is good. In most instances they are simply different ways of looking at the same problem. Each has advantages and each has disadvantages. With quantitative research, we are not interested in one person or event or object; rather, we are interested in groups of people. Thus, we lose an ability to understand in great detail how something occurred. In a nutshell, formal research creates population norms. Qualitative research gives us the opportunity to look in great detail at how an individual, a group, or a company acted or reacted to some public relations problem. In short, qualitative research provides a depth of understanding that is not found in the norms associated with populations. It does not, however, allow us to predict or generalize — with any confidence, at least — about how similar individuals, groups, or companies would react. Obviously, each method complements the other and when used together allows us both to predict how groups acted or reacted as they did and to provide richer detail and understanding as to why they did. This process is called triangulation, whereby both methods provide data that lead to a better understanding of the problems under study.

Research Questions

Now that we have distinguished between the two main types of research, we turn to how research is actually conducted. In so doing, we must differentiate between two basic types of research: theoretical, which seeks to provide the underlying framework for the study of public relations, and applied, which seeks to use theory-driven research in business world situations.

The best way to examine the two research approaches is via an analogy. The theory-driven researcher can be described as an architect. Just as the architect creates abstract plans composed initially of related concepts or ideas about what a structure should look like, the theoretical researcher creates a conceptual framework for how different communication concepts and ideas work together toward some end. The architect specifies how different materials are to be used, in what number and commodity, and under what conditions. Similarly, the theoretical researcher specifies which concepts or ideas can be used, how they relate to each other, and under what conditions we can expect results. The builder takes the architect's plans and uses them to construct an end product (e.g., a home or office). Similarly, the applied researcher uses theory to solve "real-world" (i.e., applied) problems.

The theoretical research's abstractions are first put to the test in laboratory settings. Laboratory research is research that has been carefully controlled to exclude anything that might influence the relationships under study other than the specific concepts under study. In other words, the theoretical researcher tries to test predicted relationships in as "pure" a condition as possible. This provides important evidence that one concept actually does influence another in a predictable way. The researcher's theory establishes which "variables" (concepts that have been carefully defined for measurement) cause changes in other variables and in which direction. Unfortunately, as John Pavlik noted in 1987, there is very little laboratory research conducted in public relations; this is slowly changing as the emphasis on research has increased in an attempt to demonstrate the impact of public relations on return on investment (ROI) (see Li & Stacks, 2015; Michaelson & Stacks, 2014; Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). Public relations researchers, however, still tend to rely on research conducted mainly by researchers from the disciplines of communication studies (speech and mass communication), psychology, sociology, management, and marketing.

These findings are then used by the applied researcher. While public relations theory seeks to add to what we know about public relations (it creates a "body of knowledge" about public relations — the concepts of interest and importance, the relationships between those concepts, the outcomes as they might be applied in actual practice, as found in the body of research produced by the three major commissions and several task forces created by the Institute for Public Relations), the applied researcher practices that theory as strategic (or formal) research. Strategic research then is the development of a public relations campaign or program that uses particular theoretical elements (e.g., messages, sources, communication channels) in a practical way. Evaluation research is used to provide assessments of how well the program or campaign is working. It provides a baseline at a campaign's start and can set benchmarks against which other research can determine whether the campaign or program has worked and how well individual components of that campaign are working during that campaign.

The theoretical relationship between applied and theoretical and quantitative and qualitative research is driven by the kind of research questions being asked. A research question is actually a statement made into a question. There are four research questions found in most research: questions of definition, fact, value, and policy (Hocking, Stacks, & McDermott, 2003, pp. 7–17). As we will see, the importance of research questions is that they in turn determine which research methodologies and assessment techniques are most appropriate to evaluate the question.

Questions of Definition

The most basic question asked by public relations researchers is the question of definition. This question defines what it is that we are attempting to observe. Theoretical researchers ask whether a particular concept or idea actually exists and how it can be potentially measured. For example, we might be interested in determining how people react to certain political parties; the question of definition would specify exactly what we mean by "political" and by "party." We have two recourses: (1) we could go to the dictionary and look up the definitions of each word (or the paired phrase, if it is included) or (2) we could create our own definition, but the resulting definition would not only have to define a "political party" but do so in such a way as to be potentially measurable.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "Primer of Public Relations Research"
by .
Copyright © 2017 The Guilford Press.
Excerpted by permission of The Guilford Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

PART I. An Introduction to Research in Public Relations

1. Research: An Intrdoduction with Public Relations Implications
2. Management of Research in Public Relations
3. Ethical Concerns in Public Relations Research

PART II. Informal Research Methodology

4. Historical and Secondary Research Methods
5. Case Studies
6. Informal Methods of Observing People
7. Content Analysis

PART III. Formal Research Methodology

8. Measurement in Public Relations
9. Sampling Messages and People
10. Survey and Poll Methods
11. Experimental Method
12. Descriptive Statistical Reasoning and Computer Analysis
13. Inferential Statistical Reasoning and Computer Analysis

PART IV. Reporting Public Relations Research

14. Writing and Evaluating the Request for Research Proposal
15. Writing and Presenting the Final Research Report

Index
About the Author

Interviews

Educators and students in communication, public relations, and management; public relations practitioners. Serves as a primary or supplemental text for advanced undergraduate and graduate-level public relations courses.

Editorial Reviews

"Given the increased importance of research in virtually every aspect of public relations practice, a book like this is long overdue. The entire field clearly benefits from this practical introduction and overview. Including many valuable suggestions for everyday practice, the book deals both with how to conduct research and how to include research strategically in the setting of public relations objectives. The full range of research methodologies is addressed; statistics are treated in a readable manner; and software for analyzing research data is explained in depth. I'm delighted to see the publication of this book. Stacks does a wonderful job of explaining the complexities of research in terminology that practitioners and students will understand."—Donald K. Wright, Department of Communication, University of South Alabama; Director, Public Relations Executive Forum

"This book will undoubtedly make a major contribution to public relations research education. Its clarity and breadth of scope make it equally appropriate for undergraduates preparing to enter the job market, graduate students in master's or doctoral programs, and working professionals seeking greater research application ability. Unusually well written and easy to understand, the book serves the multiple knowledge needs that we confront in public relations education."—Melvin L. Sharpe, College of Communication, Information, and Media, Ball State University

"Many public relations practitioners avoid using research in their day-to-day work. There are several excuses: good research takes time and money; some practitioners want to avoid accountability for what they do and how they do it; and the way many of us learned research methods in college made the subject seem boring, difficult, and tedious. In this book, Don Stacks shoots down nearly every excuse for not using research, showing how it can be accessible, affordable, and even fun. In his usual engaging style, Stacks gives practitioners a better understanding of what research is and how it can help them."—John W. Felton, President and CEO, Institute for Public Relations

"Don W. Stacks is universally recognized in the public relations scholar/educator community as a superb research methodologist. In this easy-to-read volume, he explains clearly and simply the rationale and need for research; identifies meaningful criteria for selecting appropriate methodologies; and provides explicit instructions for conducting and interpreting research—all within a professional context using public relations examples. This book is an important contribution to the public relations literature."—Dean Kruckeberg, APR, Fellow PRSA, Department of Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa

From the Publisher

"While designed primarily for the classroom, where it will be welcomed by students and faculty alike. Dr. Stacks' book promises to be the reference of choice for legions of practitioners who studied history, political science or anthropology in college. Why? Because the author has stripped away the gobbledygook of academic research—to the extent that's possible—and created a user-friendly overview of the subject….The Primer of Public Relations Research…should be a part of every practitioner's library." (on the first edition)

Public Relations Quarterly

"The book's excellent organization makes it easy to use as a reference. If you have a specific question, there is more than likely a section that addresses it in a concise manner. The research terminology is explained in depth." (on the first edition)

The Measurement Standard