c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters license · 2020. 6. 25. · building bridges:...

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Lane, Anne & Johnston, Kim(2017)Bridging the writing gap between student and professional: Analyzing writ-ing education in public relations and journalism.Public Relations Review, 43(2), pp. 314-325.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/103970/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No DerivativeWorks 4.0

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.008

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Lane,_Anne.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Johnston,_Kim_A=2E.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/103970/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.008

Building bridges: scaffolding the public relations writing curriculum

1

Abstract

The public relations industry expects graduates to be proficient at writing yet industry professionals still complain public relations graduates lack basic writing skills. By contrast, journalism graduates do not seem to experience the same criticisms. Using a pedagogical framework of student attainment, this study investigates public relations and journalism writing courses across 30 university courses to identify differences between the two disciplines, and implications for public relations writing education. The findings suggest public relations writing courses should adopt a bridging curriculum to support students to develop their writing skills in limited genres using authentic assessment. Strategic considerations should be covered in more advanced courses once the basic skills of public relations writing have been mastered.

1.0 Introduction

More than a decade ago Hardin and Pompper (2004) expressed concerns that problems with

basic writing skills meant new public relations practitioners were entering the field unable to

write at an appropriate level. In response, they urged public relations educators to change

their curricula to incorporate a more writing-intensive approach. More recent evidence (see,

for example, Cole, Hembroff, & Corner, 2009; Pompper, 2011; and Todd, 2014) suggests

Hardin and Pompper’s (2004) fears were well-founded as experienced public relations

professionals in the US express their dissatisfaction with public relations graduates’ writing

skills. A similar chorus of discontent has been heard in Canada (Berry, Cole, & Hembroff,

2011), the UK (Tench, 2001), and Australia (Lynch, 2012), suggesting university public

relations graduates’ poor writing abilities are an international concern. Even students

themselves are reporting they believe their writing skills are inadequate to meet the demands

of practice (Kuehn & Lingwall, 2015).

Graduates from journalism programs do not appear to elicit or express the same

concerns. Journalism employers confirm that, as in public relations, quality writing skills are

desirable in new graduates (Hirst & Treadwell, 2011; Huang et al., 2006), and training in

writing is generally viewed as a foundational journalism skill (Blom & Davenport,

2012).While a number of authors (such as Hirst &Treadwell, 2011; Masse & Popovich, 2007)


2

identify concerns associated with aspects of writing there is not the same generalized disquiet

over journalism students’ abilities to produce technically-accurate writing. Du and Thornburg

(2011) note some dissatisfaction among employers with the writing skills of new journalism

graduates, but they cite evidence from 1993. Pierce and Miller (2007) suggest a perceived

over-emphasis on conceptual foundations such as theory, law or ethics may be an issue in

journalism courses, but do not suggest this has any negative impact on journalism students’

writing skills.

A key premise therefore organizing this study is to understand if the perceived

differences in writing skills between journalism and public relations graduates can be linked

to variations between the teaching of writing in the two disciplines. The research draws on

the education literature to develop an organizing framework to analyze the pedagogical

approaches to teaching writing in public relations and journalism, and considers not only

what content is taught, but how it is presented to students, what they are assessed on, and how

that assessment is structured. These dimensions allow a comparison between the teaching of

professional writing to students in journalism and public relations. A sample of course

outlines from journalism and public relations are analyzed using the framework described

above. The findings from this analysis are discussed, specifically noting implications for both

the theory and practice of teaching writing in public relations. Finally, building on these

findings, a new bridging writing curriculum approach is proposed as a pedagogical

framework for public relations writing education.

2.0 Teaching writing

Teaching writing has long been regarded as a mainstay of education (see, for example,

Eisner, 1991; Merrill, 1918). The teaching of writing is traditionally situated within early

education or early skill development (Calkins, 1986). At the other end of the educational

timeline, degrees and discipline majors requiring students to demonstrate professional writing


3

capabilities, such as public relations and journalism, have to teach their students specialist

writing skills (Sheridan Burns, 2003; Zappala & Carden, 2010). The writing skills taught to

university students also cover specific academic genres such as critical essays and theoretical

argumentation (Swales, 2004).

Pedagogical approaches to teaching writing—including those applied to teaching

university-level students in disciplines including journalism and public relations—have

traditionally focused on the written end product (MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2008).

This end-product approach requires educators to teach students how to create particular types

of writing such as reports and fictional narratives. More recently however, educators have

adopted a process approach to the pedagogy of teaching writing (Badger & White, 2000;

Breeze, 2012) representing a shift in emphasis from the end product to the actual set of

behaviors required to produce that product (Breeze, 2012, p. 42).

One of the most widely-cited process approaches to teaching writing in higher

education is offered by Lea and Street (1998) who describe the teaching of writing as a

process of helping students attain three levels of achievement. The first or foundation level of

study skills requires students to learn and demonstrate competency in basic, generic writing

capabilities such as spelling, grammar, punctuation, and expression. These study skills

provide a platform upon which students are taught discipline-specific knowledge and skills in

writing appropriate to new entrants to their discipline area (academic socialization). The

highest level of attainment is writing that demonstrates students’ expertise in their discipline

area, including their ability to use writing to problem-solve at an advanced level (academic

literacies). Lea and Street’s pedagogical approach to teaching writing therefore involves

moving students up a pyramid of increasingly difficult skill levels, each one built on the

successful attainment of the previous level.


4

Applying this framework to journalism and public relations means students must first

attain a strong base level of skill in the technical aspects of writing (spelling, grammar,

punctuation, and expression). Journalism students move on to the level of academic

socialization by learning to work as junior practitioners by crafting stories in different genres.

The highest level of academic literacy is demonstrated when students successfully undertake

advanced journalism practices such as identifying and evaluating data sources. For public

relations students, the intermediate level of academic socialization requires them to achieve

an understanding of the relationship between practitioners and organizations leading to the

development of content for different types of collateral. The attainment of the final level of

academic literacy is demonstrated by the use of high-level practitioner skills in strategic

problem-solving.

The different levels in this sequenced process can be characterized by what content is

taught, how that content is taught, and how attainment of each level is assessed (Lea & Street,

2006). The differences between the three levels in the Lea and Street (1998) process approach

to teaching writing in higher education provide the analytical framework to identify and

analyze any such differences.

2.2 Research questions

The guiding research question organizing this study asks: What differences—if any—are

there between the pedagogical approaches to teaching writing in journalism and public

relations courses? What is taught—that is, what content is covered in a writing unit— is the

first point of difference (Lea & Street, 1998). At the level of study skills, content includes

generic techniques of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and expression. Academic

socialization requires that students are taught the formats and rules of discipline-relevant

genres. Courses in which students attain the level of academic literacy cover an appreciation


5

of the sophisticated and complex forces that influence the choice of writing genre and

content. The first point of enquiry en route to identifying and analyzing differences between

the teaching of writing courses in public relations and journalism leads to the first research

question—RQ1: How does content taught in public relations writing courses compare to the

content taught in journalism courses?

The second point of difference is how the teaching pedagogy is articulated and

implemented, or how content is taught. Study skills courses rely on the conduct of traditional

forms of teaching through formal lectures, which often take place in theaters. Courses at the

level of academic socialization draw on a broader palette of pedagogical techniques such as

reflection, application, and extended practice in writing in genre styles in private (at home)

and in public spaces (such as group workshops or sessions in computer labs). Courses at the

level of academic literacy involve students in discussions and critiques within a workshop

environment. The second research question for this study therefore asks—RQ2: How do the

teaching methods used in public relations compare to teaching methods used in journalism

writing courses?

The final point of difference is how students’ understanding of, and skills in using,

course content are assessed. Study skills courses assess examples of writing submitted to

educators looking for evidence that students have demonstrated college-level proficiency in

spelling, grammar, punctuation, and expression. Courses at the academic socialization level

assess examples of discipline-specific collateral across multiple genres that students are

happy to share publicly. At the highest level of academic literacy, students submit work that

includes analysis of situations, and determination and justification of appropriate written

responses. The final research question for use in this paper is therefore—RQ3: How do the

writing assessment methods, tools, and measures in public relations writing courses compare

to those in journalism courses?


6

The next section of this paper discusses the research design used to respond to the

three research questions.

3.0 Method

The research design of this study was constructed around a framework of qualitative content

analysis (Krippendorff, 2008, 2013; Schreier, 2014) comprising a qualitative review

supported by descriptive quantitative analysis. The sample for analysis consisted of public

relations writing courses and journalism writing courses taught in Australian universities.

Universities were drawn from 2014-2015 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University

Rankings-Australian University Rankings. Relevant course data within these programs were

then reviewed. Courses were included in the sample where the description of the course

focused on the development of discipline-relevant writing skills and/or the course title made

direct reference to writing or associated terms (such as Public Relations Techniques).

Outlines for writing courses in public relations and journalism were sourced via

university websites. A total of 47 relevant writing courses across 23 Australian universities

were identified; 21 in public relations and 26 in journalism. Publicly-available course outlines

were initially reviewed for completeness of data. Further contact was made with course

coordinators or course representatives by email and/or by phone to request full course

outlines where those available online were insufficiently detailed. Following this, 17 courses

were excluded due to insufficient or incomplete data. For example, we excluded unit outlines

that did not provide information on the contents of assessment items, and those that did not

include details of the topics covered in the unit. The final sample was comprised of 30

writing courses from 18 Australian universities: 15 of these items related to public relations

courses and 15 related to journalism courses.


7

3.1 Coding frame development

Data coding was carried out by the two authors of this paper. A coding instrument (see Table

1) was developed to identify and categorize data in the course documentation relating to what

was taught in the course (content), how it was taught (implementation), and the assessment

involved. These categories reflected the points of differences within the three pedagogical

approaches to teaching writing in the Lea and Street (1998) schema i.e. study skills (basic

elements), academic socialization (genres), and academic literacy (theory). The attributes of

each code were documented as a coding frame (Schreier, 2014, p.181), providing criteria for

the two author-coders assigning codes to categories and sub-categories. The coding frame

constituted a reference resource for each coder to ensure code distinctiveness and uniqueness,

and minimized the chance of coder discrepancies or inconsistency. Having two authors

independently code the data may be a limitation of this research. However, this was

addressed by having a coding frame to ensure inter-coder reliability. The use of the coding

frame (Schreier, 2014) ensured the validity and reliability of the coding.

3.2 Data coding and analysis

Coding and analysis commenced with the two coders independently coding two

course outlines. In the first stage of analysis, they coded content that related to what was

taught in the course, and/or the course’s aims and objectives, as specified in Table 1 below.

The second stage required the coding of data relating to how content was taught, that is, the

hours of teaching and the delivery methods used. The third stage of coding captured data on

how many assessment items each course required, and the assessment type and/or genre.

Table 1: Coding categories

Theme Coding categories

Sources and indicators in the unit outlines


8

Content (what is taught?)

Content taught

Descriptions of what is covered in lectures, tutorials, and/or workshops, e.g. Spelling, grammar, punctuation, and

expression/argumentation Genres and collateral types Theory (form, content, and purpose)

Course aims and objectives

Information on the content students are expected to cover to satisfy course aims and objectives

Implementation (how is content taught?)

Hours of teaching

Numeric/Hours

Type of teaching

Descriptions of teaching approach(es), e.g. workshop/lecture/tutorial

Assessment (how is content assessed?)

Assessment type/genre

Descriptions of assessments

Number of assessments

Numeric

The authors then met and compared their findings to establish if there were any

differences in their coding (reliability score 0.8). They discussed and reviewed how they had

coded the course data and agreed minor changes in defining the attributes of two codes would

improve the frame’s application. Three further cases were coded, compared, and discussed to

establish if there was any need to further refine the coding frame. The reliability score for the

revised coding frame was 0.94. During the remaining coding process, inter-reliability and

intra-reliability (Denzin, 1978) were checked every five cases and remained at or above this

level.

In this thematic interpretive stage, the learning outcomes, and the teaching and

pedagogical approaches specified in the course outlines were analyzed. Three stages of

thematic analysis followed Wolcott’s (1994) schema of description, analysis, and

interpretation, to capture the content of the units (what was taught), how the teaching was

carried out (implementation), and assessment practices (what was assessed and how). The


9

authors then undertook interpretive analysis to move beyond topic or descriptive coding to

identify points of comparison between the journalism and public relations writing courses and

the three levels of the Lea and Street (1998) model. Processing and analyzing data in this way

enabled researchers to identify whether the courses focused on students’ acquisition of basic

writing (study) skills, beginner-level disciplinary proficiency in the relevant craft (academic

socialization), or problem-solving at an advanced academic level (academic literacies).

4.0 Results

The findings of the data analysis detailed above were organized to answer the study’s

research questions.

4.1 Course content

The first research question asked, how does content taught in public relations writing courses

compare to the content taught in journalism courses? The content taught in the courses was

coded under three key areas: skills (basic elements of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and

expression); genres (different forms of collateral); and theory (academic perspectives on the

form, content, and purpose of the collateral).

4.1.1 Skills

While course selection for data collection found the title of the course included the word

‘writing’ e.g. public relations writing and news writing, only a third (33%) of public relations

writing courses and 13% of journalism writing courses specified that teaching the basic

elements of writing to their students was part of the course. However, 75% of public relations

courses and 58% of journalism courses specifically noted the important role of writing to the

discipline. The expectation that students had extant skills in written English was explicit in

6% of public relations and 20% of journalism course outlines. No courses in this study


10

required an established prior writing level standard to be demonstrated as a prerequisite for

entry.

Public relations units were found to incorporate twice the number of non-writing

skills in their courses than those in journalism, including design, desktop publishing and

planning (see Table 2). Students in journalism were taught non-writing skills such as

interviewing and the use of digital platforms.

Table 2: Non-writing skills taught across disciplines

Skills taught

Public relations

Journalism

Advertising 1 0

Planning 10 3

Events 4 0

Digital 9 5

Technical 9 2

Design 6 1

Interviewing 1 11

Desk Top Publishing 4 0

Total 44 22

These data show public relations students are taught twice as many non-writing skills,

such as planning and design, as journalism students. These conceptual practice-based areas

within writing courses reflect the spectrum of practice in public relations. By contrast,

journalism students are offered non-writing skills only to complement the acquisition of

information or the dissemination of information, such as interview skills and the use of digital

platforms.


11

4.1.2 Genres

Public relations writing courses teach their students how to create content for a large range of

genres, including media releases (hard copy and online), feature stories, annual reports,

speeches, websites, brochures, social media and many others. More than 16 different genres

were taught across the public relations courses culminating in more than 104 individual types

of writing (tactics) across four key genre types—media writing, corporate writing, collateral

writing—and digital writing. Public relations writing courses teach their students between

three and 12 different types of writing, covering an average of seven genres. Table 3 shows

the broad range of genres in public relations writing courses compared to those covered in

journalism.

Table 3: Number of genre types offered in public relations and journalism writing courses

Genre types Public relations

Journalism

Media writing 44 22

Corporate writing 35 2

Collateral writing 12 0

Digital writing 13 2

Total 104 12

By contrast, journalism courses focused almost exclusively on media writing or

writing that facilitated broadcast in a digital environment. One course offered five different

genres including feature writing, writing for radio, literary journalism, and food and travel

writing. Such a broad range of genres was an exception, however, and the other universities

in the sample covered fewer genres of journalistic writing in their courses with most only


12

covering news writing (varied according to context such as war; or medium, such as radio)

and feature writing.

The distribution of total number of topics across both disciplines was approximately

symmetric, with public relations including an average of 9.93 topics (sd 2.93), while

journalism covered an average of 6.00 topics (sd 1.96). However it should be noted that for

journalism, all focused on news writing or areas associated with this genre, for example,

news writing, digital (news) writing, interviewing techniques, and social media.

The course outlines indicated that journalism students were taught how to write each

of these genres separately as discrete, standalone tasks. Their public relations counterparts,

however, were required to learn how to present the same information across different genres

by using key messages, and how to achieve amplification of those messages across media.

The more sophisticated use of multiple genres required of public relations students was

linked to their need to write strategically on behalf of organizations.

4.1.3 Theory type

Both journalism and public relations courses taught the theoretical bases of the genres they

covered, such as agenda-setting in relation to writing for the media. However, the public

relations courses also incorporated broader theoretical frameworks such as persuasion. The

theories taught across the 30 courses studied are summarized in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Theories taught in writing courses

Theory type Public relations Journalism

Persuasion 10 0

Media theory 11 11

Ethical and/or legal

considerations 11 7

Public relations theory 9 0


13

Table 4 shows that public relations writing courses cover theories related to

persuasion, the media, ethics and/or legal issues, and public relations. Journalism writing

courses teach only media theory and theories related to the law and ethics. Therefore public

relations writing courses teach more types of theory than are taught in journalism writing

courses.

Some differences were also apparent between the ways these theories are taught in

journalism and public relations writing units. Ethics in journalism was only discussed in

terms of how it related to the gathering of information—there was little mention of the ethics

of journalism in a broader societal context. In public relations writing units, the available data

indicated that the concept of ethics is taught at the individual, professional, and societal

levels.

In response to research question 1, the findings of this study showed that neither

public relations writing students nor those in journalism receive formal teaching about the

basic skills of writing. Both types of courses offered content to their students about how to

write in the genres relevant to their discipline. However, there were differences between the

number of genres taught to students of public relations and those in journalism. Public

relations writing courses covered more genres than those in journalism. In addition, public

relations courses taught their students how to write strategically, in a way that helps

organizations achieve their goals. Public relations courses also covered more theory than

those in journalism, and public relations students were expected to develop a highly

theoretical critical perspective on their work. While three journalism units also mentioned the

importance of student reflection, this involved non-theoretical consideration of how to

improve the technical and practical aspects of their writing.


14

4.2 How content is taught (implementation)

The second research question asked, how do teaching methods used in public relations

compare to teaching methods used in journalism writing courses? The data revealed public

relations courses have tendency to use teaching methods that are more associated with

knowledge transfer than journalism courses.

In the Australian university system, teaching methods generally include both lectures

and tutorials (Ballantyne, Bain, and Packer, 1999; Bell and Mladenovic, 2008). Lectures are

traditionally given by an academic in a theater or formal teaching space, and focus on

“personal knowledge transfer” (Dolnicar, Kaiser, Matus, and Vialle, 2009, p.209) from

faculty to students. Tutorials usually take place with smaller groups of students than lectures

and are often facilitated by teaching assistants or casual staff members (Bell and Mladenovic,

2008; Joiner & Bakalis, 2006; and Kift, 2002), who might also be current practitioners in

their discipline (Cowley, 2010). Tutorials provide a less formal environment in which

students can discuss or apply the ideas presented in lectures: these equate most nearly to the

category of “small class” noted in American research (Stacks, Botan, & Van Slyke Turk,

1999). Workshops (either in a class or computer laboratory) are similar to a tutorial and

provide the opportunity for students to practice the skills described in lectures.

Journalism writing courses focused less on knowledge transfer though lecture-style

delivery than their public relations equivalents, and offered more practical, applied

experiences of writing. Most journalism courses (93%) offered a one hour lecture, with two

hours each week spent in practice-based tutorials or workshops: one journalism course did

not offer a formal lecture component at all and instead had a three hour practical workshop.

By contrast, 40% of public relations courses had two hours of lectures each week, with the

other 60% having one hour of lecture-style classes. Students in public relations courses were

offered one or two hours of practical tutorials. However, all journalism courses (100%)


15

included a two hour (or more) tutorial/workshop compared to only just over half of public

relations courses (53%). These figures indicated that public relations writing courses had a

greater emphasis on knowledge transfer forms of teaching (that is, lectures) than journalism

courses.

These data demonstrate that public relations writing courses place a greater emphasis

than those in journalism on delivery modes that are associated with formal knowledge

transfer (Tsai & Tsai, 2005): that is, lectures. This finding contrasts with the conclusion of

Stacks et al. (1999), who found 17 years ago that public relations writing classes did not use

lectures at all. Such a pedagogical shift could be interpreted as indicating a change in the

focus of the public relations writing courses. Public relations’ preference for lectures might

be linked with the previously-noted large amounts of theory in public relations writing

courses, echoing the previous conclusion about importance placed on theory in these courses.

The findings from analyzing the teaching methods data support the notion that the emphasis

in public relations writing courses is on developing academic socialization or academic

literacy, rather than on basic skill development. By contrast, the delivery modes and time

allocated to classes in journalism courses are designed to enhance students’ practical

experiences of writing.

In summary, research question 2 analyzed the teaching methods implemented in

public relations and journalism courses and found that although both disciplines offered the

same amount of contact hours (three in total for each course), the emphasis in journalism

courses was on providing writing practice in workshops, tutorials, and/or laboratories. In

public relations courses there was much greater reliance on knowledge transfer formats in

lectures—the so-called “sage on the stage” approach to teaching (Biggs & Tang, 2011).


16

4.3 How content is assessed

The final research question asked how the writing assessment methods, tools, and measures

in public relations writing courses compare to those in journalism courses. The data indicated

there were variations in the amount of assessment, the types of content assessed, the

frequency of assessment, and the environment in which assessment was carried out.

Both journalism and public relations writing courses required their students to

undertake formal assessment tasks. The quantity of assessment items in each course averaged

nearly three and a half pieces in public relations (m 3.47 sd .74) while in journalism,

assessment averaged nearly eight pieces (m 7.93 sd 4.93). Assessment in both journalism and

public relations strongly relied on the submission of examples of the genres covered in the

respective courses. Both public relations and journalism students were required to produce

examples of individual genres during the semester, culminating in a portfolio of multiple

genres for the final assignment. Journalism courses featured higher amounts of assessment,

ranging from three to 23 items. In general therefore, journalism courses required the

submission of more individual items for assessment than public relations writing courses.

Three public relations writing courses included critical reflections, essays, and/or

reports as assessment items and would require students to demonstrate analytical, academic,

and critical skills. Including these item types as assessment tasks means there is less capacity

for public relations students to demonstrate their abilities in writing at the beginner

practitioner (academic socialization) level.

The results found journalism courses teach fewer genres (see Section 4.1.2) and

journalism students are required to submit multiple examples of the same genre. Public

relations students needed to demonstrate a wider range of genre writing skills including

speeches, media tactics (releases, backgrounders and fact sheets) and collateral such as

brochures and web pages); while journalism students’ portfolios focused specifically on news


17

writing such as feature stories, short and longer news writing for a range of different media

outlets.

More than 80% of journalism courses required assessment items to be submitted

weekly, either as part of workshop activities, or cumulatively as a portfolio; public relations

courses did not require the same intensity of ongoing assessment. Public relations courses

structured assessment as mid-semester formative, and end of semester summative, items.

Submission of formative practice-based assessment occurred at regular, well-spaced intervals

across the public relations courses.

Across the sample surveyed most of the journalism courses required their students to

craft and submit their assignments in private and public spaces. That is, they undertook the

development of assessable content in workshops and in private (perhaps at home or outside

the classroom): some of this content was seen only by tutors and markers, while other

assignments were uploaded to publicly-visible spaces such as student magazines. Working in

collaborative spaces such as workshops on assignments using newly-acquired writing skills

has been shown to enhance both the students’ confidence and the quality of their outcomes,

particularly in the early stages of knowledge development (Bruce, 2008).

Working and writing in a workshop environment is a useful means of replicating the

conditions experienced by journalists in a typical newsroom. This authenticity of experience

is extended through the use of publicly-visible assignments, as journalism students present

their work for public scrutiny. The inclusion of student work in publicly-available

newspapers and magazines has long been a feature of journalism courses (Denman, 1995).

The likelihood of public scrutiny of their writing is seen as a significant motivation for

students to come up with work that is as professional as possible. There is no evidence in the

available data that public relations students were offered the same opportunity.


18

In summary, research question 3 asked what is assessed in both courses and found

journalism courses had more of an emphasis on frequent ongoing formative assessment than

those in public relations. Journalism courses also assessed fewer types of writing, and used

private and public spaces for students to prepare and present their assignments. While both

journalism and public relations writing courses relied heavily on the submission of examples

of writing for assessment, public relations writing courses incorporated an additional

assessment of higher-order thinking tasks such as problem-solving for clients.

5.0 Discussion and implications

This study aimed to understand whether perceptions from the professions of differences

between the writing skills of public relations graduates and those from journalism could be

linked to differences in their professional writing skills courses. The findings suggest there

are significant pedagogical differences between how journalism classes and public relations

courses teach and assess writing. Overall core differences in understanding the importance of

basic writing foundations, the scope of genres, types of delivery methods, and assessment

were found. These differences and their implications for teaching writing in public relations

courses are discussed below.

Writing educators need to be confident their students have already mastered the basic

study skills of writing before moving them on to more sophisticated writing challenges

(Paskin, 2013). University programs therefore face the challenge of balancing a need for

sound practical training at a basic level with higher level knowledge development. The

foundational study skills level requires all students to demonstrate basic competency in

spelling, grammar, punctuation, and expression.

While satisfactory performance in these areas is a foundation criterion in assessment

in both public relations and journalism writing courses, there is no support from the available


19

data to conclude that these skills are actually taught in these units. The universities surveyed

must therefore have assumed their writing students in both public relations and journalism

had prior knowledge of, and skills in, the basic aspects of writing. If the cohorts of students in

public relations and journalism are as similar as claimed earlier in this paper, why do

journalism graduates not experience the same problems with the technical aspects of their

writing as those in public relations?

While the study found that although neither journalism students nor those in public

relations are taught these technical skills directly in their courses, journalism students are

offered more time and support to identify and rectify any weaknesses. Journalism students are

expected to become proficient in a much smaller range of writing genres than public relations

students. As a result, they are given longer to practice and hone their basic skills in each

genre through frequent practice and assessment. Since journalism students are required to

develop skills in a narrower range of writing types they get more practice in each. Covering

fewer genres would provide educators with the opportunity to help students address any

issues with the technical aspects of their writing.

The extended level of support for journalism students’ acquisition of foundation level

writing skills is enhanced by the relative lack of emphasis on strategic skills in journalism

courses. Public relations courses have to allocate some of their teaching and assessment to

developing students’ capacities in strategic planning. Arguably this is because journalism is

preparing students for their first job, whereas public relations is preparing them for later jobs

that require management and strategy skills. Without this pressure, journalism courses can

allow their students more time to develop their writing skills—including their foundation

level technical abilities—in a relatively limited range of genres.

It is highly unlikely that the content and scope of public relations courses could be

reduced to allow students to develop their foundation level writing skills in the same way as


20

their counterparts in journalism. There are two ways in which the issue of public relations

students’ lack of basic writing competencies might be addressed.

First, they might be required to undertake some form of qualifying diagnostic test of

their basic writing skills before being allowed to enroll in entry-level public relations courses.

Such an approach to student self-diagnosis and deficit recognition is one that is widely used

in the teaching of second languages (Richards & Renandya, 2002) and academic writing

(Jones, 2004). Diagnostic tests allow students to identify areas in which they lack skill, and

indicate where further and/or remedial study is required (Lingwall & Kuehn, 2013). In the

context of public relations studies, students could be required to pass a diagnostic test to

demonstrate they already have basic writing skills before starting to learn about the unique

writing skills required in public relations.

Second, the public relations program might be extended to incorporate a course that

teaches students the basic skills of English-language writing. It has been argued though that

the teaching of generic basic writing skills should not be placed within public relations

programs (see, for example, Carter, 2007). The structure of existing public relations programs

would also make it difficult if not impossible to accommodate a new course.

Logically and practically, students should be required to undertake some form of

diagnostic test before beginning a public relations program. The initial public relations

writing course could then be devoted to building beginner-level practitioner skills in

discipline-specific writing. A diagnostic test would help identify those who need additional

support to achieve an appropriate level of basic writing skills prior to enrollment. Providing

resourced support for students who self-identify as lacking basic general writing skills has

been shown to result in higher standards of professional writing (Lea & Street, 2006; Smith,

Ariail, Richards-Slaughter, & Kerr, 2011).


21

By itself, pre-enrollment hurdle testing would not provide public relations students

with more chances to write in a narrower range of genres, like their colleagues in journalism.

However, given the broad, complex, and strategic nature of public relations practice—and

thus of public relations education—there is no real opportunity to reduce the content of public

relations courses. Encouraging or even requiring students to upskill in writing before

enrolling in public relations courses might provide a means of addressing foundation writing

issues without taking up discipline-specific study time.

Journalism students are required to learn fewer genres, and journalism programs allow

more time (in terms of the number and content of courses offered) for students to achieve a

satisfactory outcome. While it is not feasible to reduce the range of genres public relations

students need to learn to equip them for the range of writing skills required in their career

(Napoli, Taylor, & Powers, 1999) there are ways in which public relations programs could be

structured to allow students more time to acquire skills and knowledge of individual genres.

Following the lead of journalism, the initial public relations writing course could offer a

narrow but deep focus on the key features that distinguish discipline-specific writing, and an

introduction to a limited palette of genres. Such a course would provide an entrée into the

socialization of public relations, with its unique perspectives on persuasion and speaking in

organizational voice.

The content of this introductory course would include writing with a purpose, writing

for different audiences, and development of key messages, as well as a focus on writing for

the media e.g. media releases and feature articles. The need for a (renewed) focus on

beginner-level practitioner writing skills aligns with Hardin and Pompper’s (2004) conclusion

that more writing-intensive course requirements should be added to the public relations

curriculum. This deeper but narrower focus would mean that public relations educators have

to reconcile themselves to covering fewer writing genres. The discipline would need to


22

decide a hierarchy of writing skills by genre and focus teaching on the most important forms.

Other media or collateral genres would be covered in later courses in the undergraduate

public relations program. These later courses could integrate writing with discipline

knowledge to help students acquire the appropriate expertise in more strategic and contextual

settings. Graduates and potential employers could therefore be reassured that at a minimum,

basic public relations writing skills will be covered in depth and to a satisfactory standard for

new practitioners.

Once students had successfully mastered these new skills through repeated application

and feedback, they would be ready to move on to courses in which they develop their writing

across some of the genres most used in public relations. An iterative approach like this would

therefore mean students would not be introduced to the particular challenges of writing for

social media (Kent, 2008) until they had become satisfactorily skilled at a more basic level.

Writing would be embedded across the whole public relations curriculum, an idea supported

by previous research (Toth, 1999). Including writing in each public relations course would

give students more time to learn the required skills.

The findings have demonstrated there are differences between the delivery methods

used in journalism and public relations writing courses. Journalism writing courses have an

emphasis on practical sessions and workshops. In these forms of teaching, students are given

the opportunity to actively practice their writing skills, rather than passively listening to a

traditional lecture (which is the delivery form of choice in public relations courses). Previous

studies (McDowell, 2010), have concluded that Millennials do not like lectures and do not

respond well to them: this might indicate that students in journalism are engaging more

effectively with course content through the use of non-lecture teaching formats. Additionally

the research for this paper supports the finding that “repeated practice is associated with

superior writing skills” (Johnstone, Ashbaugh, & Warfield, 2002, p. 305). The “repeated


23

practice” of writing taking place in the workshops in journalism courses offers skills-

development scaffolding and feedback in private and public places—an approach that could

also be modelled within public relations writing course curriculum specifically, or used at

higher levels within the public relations course more generally.

Public relations writing educators need to reconsider how they engage with their

students. The traditional ‘sage on the stage’ format of lectures and their over-representation in

the timetable is not conducive to providing students in writing courses with the applied,

repeated practice required to help students develop their skills. Following the example of

journalism writing courses, public relations writing should be taught primarily in workshop

mode. These classes should be held in computer labs and other spaces where students could

be given the opportunity and encouragement to write frequently and at length while still

being provided with guidance and input from faculty.

Journalism courses assess their students’ work through portfolios containing multiple

items of individual work on a narrow range of genres. Public relations writing courses could

adopt a similar ‘narrow but deep’ approach to assessing their students’ work in the early

stages of their development. The broader range of genres public relations students have to

learn though means the narrow focus cannot be sustained across whole courses.

The use of private and public spaces for assessment items in journalism writing

courses is another useful approach for public relations educators to adopt. Private space

assessment involves the student sending their work only to their marker or assessor: no-one

else sees the work. Submitting assessments privately is an important stage in building

students’ skills and confidence in using new writing styles. The use of public spaces means

students are required to present their work so that it can be viewed by people other than their

markers, for example in a student magazine or in an online publication. Research (such as

Wegner, 2011) has shown that assessment through public space displays tends to be used in


24

later stages of students’ skills acquisition where their work should be of a sufficiently high

quality to withstand public scrutiny. While some public relations writing courses use

industry-based clients as a focus for students’ work, assignments are not shared publicly until

after grading and revisions. The research for this study suggests that presenting work in a

public space encourages journalism students to produce work of a high standard. The

adoption of private/public assessment types would therefore encourage public relations

students’ skill development. Having outputs from the later part of public relations writing

courses available in a public space prior to grading might similarly encourage public relations

students to improve the quality of their work.

6.0 A bridging curriculum in public relations writing education

This study takes industry dissatisfaction with the writing standards of new public relations

graduates as a starting point for enquiry. It considers whether the perceived difference

between the writing skills of students in journalism and public relations can be linked to

different experiences in the classroom. The conclusion of this study is that they can—

although those different classroom experiences are in themselves derivatives of the different

needs and expectations of the journalism and public relations curricula.

The structure of journalism degree programs requires students to focus on a relatively

narrow skill set with comparatively less emphasis on theory, strategy, and ethical

considerations than their counterparts in public relations. Journalism students therefore get

more chance to work on developing their technical writing skills, and addressing any issues

they might have brought with them into the classroom. The process of skills development in

journalism is facilitated by the use of practical writing sessions rather than lectures as the

mainstay of teaching. In contrast, public relations students have to acquire knowledge of

theory, strategy, and ethics at the same time as they are building their writing skills to a


25

professional standard. Public relations’ broader and deeper curriculum means there is less

time for students to practice writing, and to find and address any problems they have with

technical writing skills.

Having provided empirical evidence to support what might be regarded as intuitive

conclusions, this paper proposes a refined public relations writing pedagogy that responds to

the needs of industry by finding effective ways to teach Millennials how to write. Based on

the preceding analysis, the current teaching approach to public relations writing education

emphasizes the development of upper level strategic writing skills built on an assumption that

basic writing skills are well established. Such an assumption is clearly not warranted,

resulting in graduates with high levels of knowledge in theory, strategy, and research

techniques, but inferior writing skills.

As an alternative, a bridging approach to structuring the entry point writing course in

public relations is proposed (see Figure 1) and offers educators a framework to build

students’ writing skills through a series of platforms stepping students through from beginner

to discipline-required levels of writing.

Figure 1: A bridging curriculum in public relations writing education


26

The model (Figure 1 above) illustrates the proposed bridging writing curriculum in

public relations. Following this model, the initial public relations writing course could be

structured as follows:

1. Prior to enrollment in the public relations writing course, students must demonstrate

they have already acquired the basic technical writing skills that might reasonably be

required of any university student. These skills should be taught at a broader level

outside the public relations writing program (such as other courses in news writing)

and could serve as a pre-requisite for entry to the public relations program. The

sample of universities in this study neither required nor offered such a prerequisite.

Foundational writing skills could be separately assessed through a diagnostic test and

the attainment of a satisfactory score made mandatory before students can progress in

their public relations studies.

2. Students would begin their socialization into the culture of public relations (Taylor &

Kent, 2010) by being introduced to discipline-specific writing knowledge and skills.

They would learn about the key concepts of writing in the discipline, such as the

development of key messages, writing with a purpose, and writing for different

audiences. They would also be taught how to write a limited number of genres that

would provide a minimum level of acceptable expertise for a new practitioner. The

knowledge transfer required for this step could be achieved through short (one hour)

lectures each week.

3–7. Extended practical workshop sessions would provide students with the opportunity to

develop their writing skills through repeatedly applying their new knowledge,

receiving feedback on their work, and incorporating those comments in revisions.

These sessions would allow public relations students—like their colleagues in

journalism—the chance to develop their emerging writing skills by practicing


27

frequently and at length. The iterative loops of application and feedback would give

students the chance to improve their writing skills through the submission of

formative assessment items to the tutor or assessor only: that is, in a private space.

8. After an extensive period of practice, reflection, response-making, and formative

assessment, students would be required to submit a summative assessment item, still

to be viewed only by the tutor or assessor.

9. The final step in the bridging writing curriculum would be the submission of student

assignments to a publicly-visible space prior to grading. Presenting their work to

others in this way would replicate the experience of public relations practice, and

encourage students to submit high quality examples of their writing skills.

Once competency in writing at the level of a beginner practitioner has been

established through the bridging curriculum, skills can be developed, refined, and perhaps

extended by ensuring that writing remains an integral and assessable aspect of subsequent

public relations courses.

7.0 Limitations

This study provides unique and original insights into an issue that challenges many public

relations educators, but it does have limitations. The geographical context of the study and

the nature of courses in Australia may not translate to other international settings. Extending

this study to an international sample would give greater understanding of the themes and

trends within and between universities that teach public relations writing in English.

The research for this paper was based on publicly-available sources. Some course

outlines were provided by coordinators where the online versions did not contain enough

information. Analysis was limited to these sources however the authors made attempts to

obtain full course information by contacting course coordinators.


28

8.0 Conclusion

This study has addressed the perceived problem of the lack of basic technical writing skills

among Millennial public relations students. A lack of foundational writing skills among

public relations students is an issue made even more vexatious by its apparent lack of

relevance to similar students in journalism programs. Using a framework derived from the

educational literature, the research for this paper has identified differences public relations

and journalism writing courses in what content is covered, how it is taught, and assessment

regimes. Working on the assumption that these differences are the reason for the relative

success of journalism courses in teaching professional writing, this paper has made a number

of recommendations for changes to the introductory public relations writing course.

The inherent and intrinsic differences between the needs and expectations of the

journalism and public relations curricula mean that it is not possible to simply teach writing

to public relations students in the same way as their counterparts in journalism are taught.

Instead, it is proposed that public relations writing educators use a bridging approach to their

pedagogy. The bridging approach draws on some of the apparent strengths of the approach to

teaching writing used by journalism professors and adapts them to the public relations

curriculum.

This research will also help journalism educators consider the possibility of providing

their students with more conceptual frameworks in their writing courses. A deeper knowledge

of theory and its relevance to practice would help journalism students prepare for higher level

positions as they move forward in their careers.

Future research is needed to understand the consequence of the decisions made about

assessment tools and measures, or to test the use and effectiveness of the pedagogical

differences this paper has identified in teaching writing in journalism and public relations

writing courses. In addition, a pedagogical exploration of aligning assessment tools and


29

measures with teaching outcomes would allow a greater understanding of how each tool

contributes to achieving better writing outcomes for graduates is needed.

The influence of teaching staff (faculty or adjunct) in academic writing courses has

not been considered in this paper. However understanding their impacts on content delivery

would extend our knowledge of the influence of industry practitioner role models.

Research could also be conducted with students who have studied writing in public

relations and journalism courses to explore their perspectives as education consumers in both

areas. Research is also needed to articulate what expectations industry actually has of its

graduate employees’ writing skills. Educators could then use the bridging curriculum

approach presented in this paper to structure their courses to meet those expectations. The

data from industry and students could ultimately be triangulated with those from public

relations educators to help increase understanding of how to transform Millennials into

skilled public relations writers.

The findings of the current study within the Australian context provide a stimulus for

a wider-ranging international study of the research topic, and conversations among public

relations writing educators to find new ways to equip our graduands with industry-ready

writing skills.


30

9.0 References

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT journal, 54(2), 153-160.

Ballantyne, R., Bain, J. D., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Australia: themes and issues in academics' reflections. Studies in higher education 24(2), 237-257.

Bell, A. & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher education 55(6), 735-752.

Berry, J., Cole, R. T., & Hembroff, L. A. (2011). Study of PR writing by entry-level practitioners reveals significant supervisor dissatisfaction. Paper presented at the Canadian Public Relations Society national conference educators' forum, St John, N.B. http://www.slideshare.net/CPRSNational/study-of-pr-writing-by-entrylevel-practitioners-reveals-significant-supervisor-dissatisfaction

Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Blom, R., & Davenport, L. D. (2012). Searching for the core of journalism education: program directors disagree on curriculum priorities. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 67(1), 70-86.

Breeze, R. (2012). Chapter three: Classic approaches to teaching writing. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication(23), 41.

Bruce, I. J. (2008). Theorising tertiary writing instruction: Accounting for the process, post-process, genre and critical literacies approaches. Paper presented at the TWN Biennial Colloquium: From here to there, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College composition and communication, 58(3).

Cole, R., Hembroff, L. A., & Corner, A. (2009). National assessment of the perceived writing skills of entry-level PR practitioners. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 64(1), 9-26.

Cowley, J. (2010). Confronting the reality of casualisation in Australia: recognising difference and embracing sessional staff in Law Schools. QUT Law and Justice Journal, 10(1), 27-43

Denman, C. (1995). Writers, editors, and readers: Authentic assessment in the newspaper class. English Journal, 84(7).

Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: a sourcebook. NY: McGraw Hill Dolnicar, S., Kaiser, S., Matus, K., & Vialle, W. (2009). Can Australian universities take

measures to increase the lecture attendance of marketing students? Journal of Marketing Education, 31(3), 203-211.

Du, Y. R., & Thornburg, R. (2011). The gap between online journalism education and practice: The twin surveys. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 66(3), 217-230.

Eisner, E. W. (1991). What really counts in schools. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 10-17. Hardin, M. C., & Pompper, D. (2004). Writing in the public relations curriculum: practitioner

perceptions versus pedagogy. Public Relations Review, 30, 357-364. Hirst, M., & Treadwell, G. (2011). Blogs bother me: Social media, journalism students and

the curriculum. Journalism Practice, 5(4), 446-461. Huang, E., Davison, K., Shreve, S., Davis, T., Bettendorf, E., & Nair, A. (2006). Facing the

challenge of convergence. Convergence, 12(1), 83-98.


31

Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students' writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 305.

Joiner, T. A. & Bakalis, S. (2006).The antecedents of organizational commitment: the case of Australian casual academics. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 439 - 452

Jones, J. (2004). Learning to write in the disciplines: the application of systemic functional linguistic theory to the teaching and research of student writing. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing (pp. 254-282). New York: Continuum.

Kent, M. L. (2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review, 34, 32-40.

Kift, S. (2002). Assuring quality in the casualisation of teaching, learning and assessment: towards best practice for the first year experience. Paper presented at the 6th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Kuehn, S., & Lingwall, A. (2015). In their own words: A thematic analysis of students’ comments about their writing skills in mass communication programs. Public Relations Education, 1(1), 19.

Krippendorff, K. (2008). Systematic and Random Disagreement and the Reliability of Nominal Data. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 323-338. doi:10.1080/19312450802467134

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The" academic literacies" model: Theory and applications. Theory into practice, 45(4), 368-377.

Lingwall, A., & Kuehn, S. (2013). Measuring student self-perceptions of writing skills in programs of Journalism and Mass Communication. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 1077695813506991.

Lynch, B. (2012, 6 Oct). Bosses shouldn't read about it: Poor literacy and numeracy can harm your potential career development, Townsville Bulletin.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2008). Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Masse, M. H., & Popovich, M. N. (2007). Accredited and nonaccredited media writing programs are stagnant, resistant to curricular reform, and similar. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 62(2), 141-160.

McDowell, L. (2010). Generational preferences for knowledge transfer. Knowledge Work (pp. 83-96). The State University of New Jersey: Rutgers University. Retrieved from http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/knowledgeinstitute/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2014/04/KWFull.pdf#page=94.

Merrill, M. A. (1918). The ability of the special class children in the ‘Three R's’. The Pedagogical Seminary, 25(1), 88-96.

Napoli, P. M., Taylor, M., & Powers, G. (1999). Writing activities of public relations practitioners: The relationship between experience and writing tasks. Public Relations Review, 25(3), 369-380.

Paskin, D. (2013). Attitudes and perceptions of public relations professionals towards graduating students’ skills. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 251-253.

Pierce, T., & Miller, T. (2007). Basic journalism skills remain important in hiring. Newspaper Research Journal, 28(4), 51-61.


32

Pompper, D. (2011). “Cheap labor” speaks: PR adjuncts on pedagogy and preparing Millennials for careers. Public Relations Review, 37(5), 456-465.

Quacquarelli Symonds. (2015). QS World University Rankings 2014-2015. Retrieved 25 Feb, 2015, from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=317+country=319+faculty=+stars=false+search=

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sheridan Burns, L. (2003). Reflections: development of Australian journalism education. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 14(5), 57-75.

Schreier, M. (2014). Chapter 12: Qualitative Content Analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (Vol. 5.) pp.170-183. London: SAGE

Smith, T. G., Ariail, J., Richards-Slaughter, S., & Kerr, L. (2011). Teaching professional writing in an academic health sciences center: the Writing Center model at the Medical University of South Carolina. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 23(3), 298-300.

Stacks, D. W., Botan, C., & Van Slyke Turk, J. (1999). Perceptions of public relations education. Public Relations Review, 25(1), 9-28.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A content analysis of PRSA's Public Relations Tactics. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 207-214.

Tench, R. (2001). Perceptions of competence in public relations students’ writing. Education + Training, 43(2), 94-104.

Todd, V. (2014). Public relations supervisors and Millennial entry-level practitioners rate entry-level job skills and professional characteristics. Public Relations Review, in press.

Toth, E. L. (1999). Models for instruction and curriculum. Public Relations Review, 25(1), 45-53.

Tsai, M.-T., & Tsai, L.-L. (2005). An empirical study of the knowledge transfer methods used by clinical instructors. International Journal of management, 22(2), 273.

Wegner, D. (2011). Transitional writing and "Third Space" learning: professional writing students and the work experience. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 23(1).

Wolcott, H. F. 1. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Zappala, J. M., & Carden, A. R. (2010). Public relations writing worktext: a practical guide for the profession. New York, NY: Routledge.

c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters license · 2020. 6. 25. · building bridges:...

Documents