英语论文网

Perhaps one of the most influential recent publications on multiculturalism in public relations education was produced by Sriramesh (Sriramesh, 2002, Sriramesh, 2003). He has also reported that public relations education has not kept pace with the rapid globalisation that has occurred since 1992 (Sriramesh, 2002). Sriramesh (2009) called for a need for a more thoughtful representation of many of the ‘generic principles’ of public relations practice to suit the ‘local environment’, so that the body of knowledge is more holistic and relevant to global demands. However, there still is a room for an assumption that not all the practitioners require international training and international perspective.

RESEARCH / CRITICS:

Since the advent of the Internet, it is even more tempting to view PR practice as the same anywhere, and therefore it decreases attempts to produce research or principles that need to view “cross-border PR” as different” (Wakefield, 2007a). Despite the numerous calls for research, reviewed works and studies on global (national) public relations released in the 2000s (see table 1) (Portugal, United States - see table) have recorded that this area of research is underrepresented. Despite global trends underlining increased internationalisation, these results can be interpreted to indicate that Researchers have not paid enough attention to the international perspective. An important indicator is the place international public relations occupy in the list of priority research topics. One recent example is a ‘Study of the Priorities for Public Relations Research’ conducted by Deputy Dean of Media School of Bournemouth University (UK) Tom Watson (Watson, 2008, Watson, 2007) [1] .He sent 26 public relations topics to a Delphi study panel and the Top Ten PR research topics were identified, however, international perspective was excluded from the list. A US professor and professional Robert Wakefield responded critically to Watson’s Delphi study:

First, I was surprised in finding that the topic fell all the way out of the top ten. After all, aren’t PR issues and challenges, along with its overall scope of practice, becoming more international with each passing year?(2007a, p. 6)

Nonetheless he added:

“There really are no more studies being done on international public relations now than have been done over the course of the last three decades. Those that are being published are increasingly making such statements as “there is no such thing as local PR anymore,” or “today, everything is global.” Well, if this represents what academics and practitioners are thinking, then it would stand to reason that no real different research needs to be done—that ANY PR principles, even if they are all traditionally domestic in nature, would suffice for research or practice anywhere in the world” (2007a, p.7).

The seminal critique in this area is also by Sriramesh (2009, p.6), who argues: “When scholars think of, and discuss, public relations, the global perspective is often overlooked”. Sriramesh’s (2009) critique of Mackey (Mackey, 2003), who claimed to introduce the various contemporary theories of public relations in the inaugural issue of Prism is also indicative:

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。