"Media Relations Instruction and Theory Development: A Relational Dialectical Approach" by Pettigrew in Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 ABSTRACT: There has been almost no research in the area of media relations instruction in the public relations literature. This study seeks to fill a gap in theory-building in the area of media relations and examines the state of media relations instruction in today’s public relations curriculum through a survey of public relations professors. The author suggests relational dialectical theory as a way to better understand the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists, and proposes a relational dialectical approach to theory-building and in teaching media relations in today’s changing landscape.

1. Public Relations Education
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Journal of
JPRE
Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742

2. Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742
© Copyright 2018 AEJMC Public Relations Division

3. Journal of Public Relations Education
Editorial Staff
Emily S. Kinsky, West Texas A&M University, editor-in-chief
Tiffany Gallicano, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, senior associate editor
Lucinda Austin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, associate editor
Chuck Lubbers, University of South Dakota, associate editor of reviews
Kathleen Stansberry, Elon University, web manager
Note from the Editor-in-Chief:
This issue reflects an enormous amount of work done prior to my editorship. The previous
editor-in-chief, Chuck Lubbers, had the research articles for this issue and most of the next
issue already queued up prior to me moving into this role on Jan. 1, 2018. A special thanks to
Chuck for his work with authors and reviewers in 2017 to get us ready for Volume 4 in 2018.

4. Table of Contents
Research Articles
1-24 Developing a Blueprint for Social Media Pedagogy: Trials,
Tribulations, and Best Practices
Ai Zhang and Karen Freberg
25-48 Competition and Public Relations Campaigns: Assessing the
Impact of Competition on Quality of Projects, Partners, and
Students
Christopher McCollough
49-79 Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training
Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use
Stephanie A. Smith and Brandi A. Watkins
80-100 Media Relations Instruction and Theory Development: A
Relational Dialectical Approach
Justin E. Pettigrew
Teaching Briefs
PRD GIFT Winners from AEJMC 2017
101-105 Public Relations Ethics, “Alternative Facts,” and Critical
Thinking, with a Side of Tuna
Jacqueline Lambiase
106-111 Improving PR Campaigns with a Roll of the Dice: Assuming
New Identities to Strengthen Diversity and Inclusion
Kelly B. Bruhn
Book Review
112-115 Public Relations and the Corporate Persona: The Rise of the
Affinitive Organization
Christie M. Kleinmann

5. Journal of Public Relations Education
2018, Vol. 4, No. 1, 80-100
Media Relations Instruction and Theory
Development: A Relational Dialectical Approach
Justin E. Pettigrew, Kennesaw State University
There has been almost no research in the area of media relations
instruction in the public relations literature. This study seeks to fill a
gap in theory-building in the area of media relations and examines
the state of media relations instruction in today’s public relations
curriculum through a survey of public relations professors. The
author suggests relational dialectical theory as a way to better
understand the relationship between public relations practitioners
and journalists, and proposes a relational dialectical approach
to theory-building and in teaching media relations in today’s
changing landscape.
Keywords: public relations; media relations education; dialogue
in public relations; public relations instruction; teaching media
relations
Media relations is a core practice of public relations. Today’s
practitioners are dealing with journalists who have less time, less
support, and less patience. Practitioners are now fighting for space in an
increasingly crowded media landscape. Media relations is changing. To
better prepare students for practice in today’s environment, the state of
media relations education needs to be addressed.
The debate over what a good public relations program of study
looks like in colleges continues (Auger & Cho, 2016). Based on the 2017
report from the Commission on Public Relations Education (2018), it
seems that there is growing consensus between educators and practitioners
on writing as a key component of any public relations curriculum, as well
as speed and research capabilities. While there is a need for universities
and colleges to turn out well-prepared students ready for work, there is
also a need to provide students with the intellectual underpinnings of PR
practice to encourage critical thinking about the field. Media relations is an

6. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 81
important part of a student’s learning experience, both from a practical and
an intellectual standpoint.
Contrary to scholars who have relegated media relations to a purely
tactical role (Shaw & White, 2004), media relations is, in fact, a strategic
function (also see Pettigrew & Hutchins, 2017). Despite continued
discussions about closing the gap between the academy and practice,
virtually no research has been conducted in the area of media relations
education. Indeed, PR agencies are clamoring for entry-level employees
who can develop strategic messages and pitch stories couched in those
messages, tailored to specific media outlets (Pettigrew & Hutchins, 2017).
Even more important for practitioners is building and maintaining
relationships with journalists and writers. Social media is having an impact
on practice, as research suggests (Bransford, 2002; Kent, 2013; Rybalko
& Seltzer, 2010; Sweetser, 2010; Taylor & Kent, 2010; Valentini, 2015).
However, few, if any, studies examine how social media is impacting
media relations. From a theoretical perspective, a different viewpoint can
help us better understand how practitioners and media build and maintain
relationships, both in the short- and long-term.
This work builds on previous work using a relational dialectical
approach as defined by Baxter and Montgomery (1996). It also continues
the work of Pettigrew and Heflin (2017) to better understand how media
relations is being addressed in textbooks and in the classroom. A survey
of public relations professors was conducted about their views of media
relationships and the dialogic process, and whether their views on these
topics are reflected in what they teach in the classroom. Implications are
addressed with regard to the use of relational dialectics to teach students
about engaging with and maintaining relationships with the media.
Literature Review
Studies related to public relations instruction focus on niche
areas such as writing (e.g., Lane & Johnston, 2017), motivating students
to study theoretical modules in public relations (e.g., AlSaqer, 2016),

7. 82
students’ perceptions of public relations (e.g., Bowen, 2009), and the
gap between public relations education and public relations practice (e.g,
Bowen, 2009). Cutlip and Bateman (1973) “criticized the unsatisfactory
and disparate state of public relations education in USA colleges and
universities” (p. 1). They argued:
The need for qualified, competent, professional assistance
in this field was never greater than it is today. Yet the heavy
hand of the past – its publicity genesis – still dominates public
relations practice today when our divided society cries out for
communication, conciliation and community. Call it “public
relations,” “public affairs,” “corporate communications,” or
whatever you will, the need for trained persons in this area is likely
to increase in coming decades, as our society becomes even more
complex.
Yet, we have already witnessed and are witnessing today a dearth of
professional public relations practitioners capable of operating at the
higher executive levels in all institutions – public and private – where
their counsel is needed. The number of qualified people in public
relations is incapable of meeting the demand for competent practitioners.
Generally speaking, most of those in public relations work today were not
specifically educated for this type of career. They are “retreads” from other
fields of communication. (Cutlip & Bateman, 1973, pp. 1-2)
Wright (2011) argued that even 35-plus years later, not much
has changed in how we educate public relations students in the U.S.
He stated that “even though the need for qualified public relations
practitioners is greater than ever and counsel of qualified public relations
experts remains essential at the executive level, in the most successful
organizations there continues to be problems” (p. 237). At an Edelman
symposium in 2007, professor Frank B. Kalupa suggested “the standard
model of public relations education in the U.S. is seriously flawed and
does not work anymore” (Watson, 2017, p. 53). Wright (2011) also
noted, “CEOs of major U.S.-based agencies and their human resources
officers continuously indicate that some of the best future practitioners are
Pettigrew

8. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 83
graduates of university-based public relations degree programs that have
a faculty with a combination of academic and professional credentials” (p.
245).
Pettigrew and Heflin (2017) conducted a content analysis of
public relations texts used in PR writing and introductory courses in PR
and found that discussions of media relations vary considerably, ranging
from chapters about media relations to only mentioning the subject.
Furthermore, these discussions were found in various locations (e.g., a
chapter about ethics, a chapter about corporate communication, and a
chapter about public affairs).
Shaw and White (2004) examined whether academic programs
in journalism and public relations might not be helping to change the
stereotypes and may even be reinforcing the negative perceptions of
both professions. Juxtaposing this is the fact that, in practice, journalists
and public relations professionals are increasingly dependent on each
other. Both journalism and public relations educators acknowledged that
“journalists depend on public relations-oriented material due to inadequate
staffing levels in most newspapers” (Shaw & White, 2004, p. 499).
Dialogic theory, as presented by Kent and Taylor (1998, 2002),
focuses on a “communicative orientation” (2002, p. 5) and is characterized
“by a sense that participants are committed to each other and care about
each other” (p. 5). While this holds true for certain communication
efforts, it does not encompass the complexity of the relationships between
public relations practitioners and journalists, which, at times, is fraught
with competing agendas and a sense of bias. While their examination
of the concept of “dialogic engagement” (Kent & Taylor, 1998) places
engagement within their framework of propinquity as a principle of the
dialogic exchange, rarely does media relations involve “interactants [who]
are willing to give their whole selves to encounters” (p. 387).
By recognizing media relations as a strategic function (Pettigrew &
Hutchins, 2017), it is important for educators to teach students the
importance of developing and maintaining relationships with journalists

9. 84
and bloggers alike. A relational dialectical approach goes deeper than
simply examining best practices to address the fluidity and evolving nature
of media relationships.
Relational Dialectics
While much of the work in dialogue and dialectics has examined
the relationship between couples (Baxter, 2004), it can be expanded
to professional relationships, such as the PR practitioner/journalist
relationship. In relational dialectics, “multiple points of view maintain
their voices as they play with and off of one another” (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996, p. 46). Dialectics shift the focus of scholars from
the idea of “shared meanings” to the examination of multiple opposing
perspectives (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 46). This is not to say that
dialogue tries to work toward a compromise among the parties involved.
Instead, it is designed to focus on “the messier, less logical, and more
inconsistent unfolding practices of the moment” (Baxter & Montgomery,
1996, p. 46). Communication is always a process, it is always “becoming”
something, it never really “is” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 47). There
are “no ideal goals, no ultimate endings, no elegant end-states of balance”
(Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 47). Indeed, balance can be considered
a state of non-dialogue. In dialogue, the pendulum swings back and forth
between parties, never achieving a final resting place.
For public relations, this view lends itself well when applied to
creating and negotiating long-lasting relationships with reporters. While
all interaction may not involve face-to-face dialogue, practitioners are still
relating to another human being, each with their own needs, desires, and
goals. Each party in the relationship has a job to do, and each party brings
a voice to the interaction. To help explain this point, Holtzhausen and
Zerfass say this about media relations as a dialectical process:
The media are and can be used to shape social and cultural
realities. Thus, instead of only viewing media as channels of
communication and audiences as the receivers of messages,
Pettigrew

10. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 85
strategic communicators need to consider how meaning is shaped
in the interaction process involving stakeholders and media
practitioners. (2015, pp. 8-9)
Baxter and Montgomery (1996) further examine the idea of relational
dialectics by positing that there are four key assumptions of relational
dialectics: contradiction, change, praxis, and totality.
Contradiction. The concept of contradiction holds a technical
meaning in dialectical theory and refers to the “dynamic interplay between
unified oppositions” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 8). Central to the
idea of relational dialectics is that “communication plays a primary role in
the ongoing experience of contradictions” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996,
p. 8). Dialectics posits that contradiction is a “dynamic and fluid process
in which the struggle at one point in time sets in motion the nature of the
struggle at a subsequent point in time” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p.
8).
Change. Relationships are processes of change produced by the
clash of opposing tendencies. The basic oppositions or tensions that exist
constitute the basis of change in and development of the relationship. The
concept of “change” in the relational dialectics literature can be linked
to the concept of commitment in Kent and Taylor’s (2002) assumptions.
Dialogue between parties may not last forever, just long enough to make
a change (Bohm, 1996). This does not mean that the parties themselves
necessarily separate, although they may; however, the dialogic instance
needs only to last long enough to shift the parties toward a different stance
than before the dialogue occurred. These last two points are important
for students of public relations to understand. While dialogic exchanges
may begin and end, the ongoing dialogue of a relationship is never really
finished (Pettigrew & Heflin, 2017).
Praxis. In this assumption, “People function as proactive actors
who make communicative choices in how to function in their social
world” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 13). At the same time, however,
“they are reactive objects, because their actions become reified in a variety
of normative and institutional practices that establish the boundaries of

11. 86
subsequent communicative moves” (p. 13). Here we see Kent and Taylor’s
(2002) concept of propinquity, in that parties must be willing and able to
articulate demands of the other.
Totality. From a dialectal perspective, totality “is a way to think
about the world as a process of relations or interdependencies” (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996, p. 15). Dialectical tensions are played out in relation
to other tensions that exist in everyday life. Dialectical tension is “jointly
owned by the relationship parties by the very fact of their union” (Baxter
& Montgomery, 1996, p. 15). There may be little commonality between
participating individuals’ experiences of contradictions in a relationship
(Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
Baxter (2004) presents a view of relational dialectics that focuses
on not just the dyadic communication that takes place between two
parties but also the way those dyadic relationships exist in the social order
that surrounds them. This approach can assist in examinations of the
sometimes-tense PR practitioner-journalist relationship because it focuses
on ways people are communicating with others about what the nature of
a relationship should be. Dialectics can be complicated, as “interpersonal
dialectical processes involve the overt display of oppositional dynamics
between people in a relationship” (Altman, 2009, p.27). Openness/
closedness, predictability/novelty, stability/change, and other dynamics
occur between participants in any exchange.
Relational dialectics fits well within the body of research that
exists on PR/constituent relationships. Pearson (1989) concluded that
dialogic exchanges “produce an intersubjectivity that blends shared
and opposing views on key issues. Although consensus might not result
on every issue, sufficient agreement, or concurrence, allows parties to
continue dialogue” (p. 44). Conflict or disagreement gives motive and
rationale for such exchanges to test areas in which both parties can come
to some kind of shared meaning (Pearson, 1989).
As we move toward a relational approach to public relations,
dialogue becomes a crucial element in forming and maintaining those
relationships (Pettigrew & Heflin, 2017). While some theoretical
Pettigrew

12. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 87
perspectives suggest that relationships develop symmetrically (Grunig,
1992), this is not always the case (Pettigrew & Reber, 2010). As Botan
(1997) notes, “Dialogue manifests itself more as a stance, orientation,
or bearing in communication rather than a specific method, technique
or format” (p. 202). To that end, this work poses five hypotheses to
address how professors view the relationship between PR practitioners
and members of the media, and how they teach their students about that
relationship:
H1: Public relations professors view the reporter/PR practitioner
interaction as a dialogic process.
H2: Public relations professors’ attitudes about reporter/PR
relationships are reflected in what they teach in the classroom.
H3: Public relations professors’ attitudes about dialogue are reflected in
what they teach in the classroom.
H4: A majority of public relations professors will agree with teaching
media relations through a dialogic lens.
H5: Public relations professors will agree that persuasion is a part of
the dialogic exchange between PR practitioners and journalists.
Method
Participants for this survey consisted of a purposive sample
of public relations professors listed in the 2012 AEJMC directory and
professors who were current members of PRSA. The survey was sent to
670 professors at schools with various enrollments, but all schools had
some type of public relations concentration or offered several courses in
public relations.
The survey consisted of 33 questions. Two of those questions
pertained to the classes professors taught and in which classes they
addressed media relations. The next eight questions addressed the
relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists.
Professors were asked to rate their responses to these questions on a five-

13. 88
Variable Frequency
Age 30-39 17 (19.3%)
40-49 21 (22.8%)
50-59 25 (26.9%)
60 and over 25 (26.9%)
no answer 5 (5.4%)
Highest Degree Bachelor’s 2 (2.2%)
Master’s 20 (21.5%)
Ph.D. 64 (68.8%)
other 7 (7.6%)
Years of Professional
Experience
in Public Relations
1-5 23 (24.8%)
6-10 20 (22.6%)
11-15 10 (13.1%)
16-20 15 (16.2%)
21-35 22 (23.9%)
no answer 2 (2.2%)
Years Teaching 1-5 11 (14.9%)
6-10 26 (28.1%)
11-15 15 (16.1%)
16-20 9 (9.7%)
21-25 11 (11.9%)
26-30 6 (6.5%)
31-45 10 (11.0%)
Years at Current Institution 1 (or first year) 7 (7.5%)
2-5 24 (29.2%)
6-10 19 (20.4%)
11-15 16 (17.4%
16-20 3 (3.3%)
21-25 11 (12.0%)
Table 1
Profile of Survey Respondents
Pettigrew

14. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 89
point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
Participants were also asked if they addressed working with
journalists in their classes, as well as the use of textbooks in their classes.
Professors were then presented with five questions pertaining to their
teaching methods regarding media relations. Five questions asked about
the nature of the relationship between practitioners and journalists and
the nature of conflict in the relationship. Participants were asked in what
school or department they taught and about their view of persuasion in
the PR practitioner/journalist relationship. The remainder of the questions
were demographic.
Qualtrics was used to deliver the survey. Cover letter emails were
sent to the survey sample, including a link to the survey. The recipients
had the choice to either refuse or agree to take the survey. The consent
form of the survey was presented as part of the invitation letter in the
initial email. There were two follow-up reminders sent to professors in the
sample, and the results were analyzed after the survey had been active for
four weeks.
Public Relations Professor Survey Participants’ Demographics
The survey of public relations professors resulted in 93 usable
responses. The response rate for the survey was 14%. Fifteen professors
provided incomplete surveys, which were not included in the results.
Ninety-eight professors “completed” the survey, but five professors chose
to click through the survey without providing responses. Eight e-mail
addresses failed to reach respondents due to technical problems, such as
respondents’ out-of-office reply. Another two public relations professors
responded that they did not have time to take the survey for various
reasons.
Descriptive analyses of the demographic data were performed to
provide information about the respondents’ age, the number of years of
professional experience of the professor, the title of their current position,
the number of years they had been teaching, and the number of years they

15. 90
had been at their current school (see Table 1).
Results
In response to what classes they taught most often (they could
choose more than one), 64 professors indicated public relations writing
or communication, 64 said introduction to public relations, 56 said
public relations campaigns, 21 said public relations administration or
management, 13 said introduction to mass communication, and 35 said
public relations cases.
When asked about the classes in which they address media
relations, 57 said public relations writing or communication, 50 said
introduction to public relations, 36 addressed the topic in campaigns,
28 said PR cases, 12 covered media relations in PR administration/
management, 5 said introduction to mass communication, and 14 said
they addressed media relations in other classes, including a class on media
relations (n = 3), crisis communication (n = 2), PR strategies and tactics (n
= 1), and public relations and social media (n = 1).
The “composite public relations professor” from the demographic
data was a 52-year-old with a Ph.D., 6-8 years of professional experience,
and 12-13 years of teaching experience. This person had worked at the
same institution for about 10 years and taught primarily public relations
writing or communication or introduction to public relations.
Statistical Analysis for Hypotheses
An exploratory factor analysis separated concepts of “interaction”
from concepts of “dialogue” in the questions on the public relations
survey. The factor analysis did not reveal two distinct factors, possibly
because the concepts are seen as intertwined. Indices were then developed
based on conceptualizations and question wording. Cronbach’s alpha
tests confirmed the reliability of the indices, at .73 (interaction) and .78
(dialogue). Through this process, valid measures for these concepts were
Pettigrew

16. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 91
developed.
Regarding H1, (public relations professors view the reporter/PR
practitioner interaction as a dialogic process) survey results showed 72
public relations professors either agreeing or strongly agreeing that the
relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners does
consist of ongoing communication between the two parties (N = 92, M =
3.90, SD = .89).
Results of the survey supported H2 (Professors’ attitudes about
relationships are reflected in what they teach in the classroom). Correlation
coefficients were computed based on questions in the survey regarding
attitudes about relationships versus what the professor taught students
about relationships. The results of the correlational analysis presented
in Table 2 showed positive correlations between the professors viewing
the relationship as one of “give-and-take” and teaching that view of the
relationship to their students.
Professors who agreed that the reporter/PR practitioner relationship
is one of give-and-take also communicated that concept in their classes (r
= .424). Professors who taught the importance of relationships between
journalists and PR practitioners also taught that the relationship was
one of give-and-take (r = .220). Additionally, professors who believed
relationships were as important as outcomes also believed that the
relationship was one of a give-and-take nature (r = .398).
The results suggest that public relations professors do, in fact,
teach what they believe about relationships between journalists and
PR practitioners. Correlation coefficients were then computed to find
support for H3 (Professors’ attitudes about dialogue are reflected in what
they teach in the classroom). The results of the analysis of the items that
measured attitudes about dialogue and teaching about dialogue were
significant at .53, p < .01.

17. 92
Table 2
Correlations Between Beliefs About Relationships and Teaching About
Relationships for PR Professors
Relationship
exists
Teach
importance of
relationships
Relationships
as important
as outcomes
Relationship
is give-and-
take
Teach
relationship is
give-and-take
Relationship
exists
.349 .184 .422** .110
Teach
importance of
relationships
.099 .530** .277** .220**
Relationships
as important
as outcomes
.184 .392** .362** .191
Relationship
is give-and-
take
.422** .308** .398** .424**
Teach
relationship is
give-and-take
.011 .220* .191 .424**
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Support for H4 (A majority of public relations professors will
agree with teaching media relations through a dialogic lens) was found
by calculating the frequency of survey respondents who agreed with the
statement “I believe in, and teach students, that media relations should
involve dialogue between a journalist and a PR professional.” Ninety-one
professors (M = 4.47, SD = .60) either agreed or strongly agreed with the
questionnaire item.
To test the final hypothesis in the study (H5), frequencies were
calculated for the two groups of survey participants for the questions that
addressed persuasion. Public relations professors (N = 90, M = 3.87, SD
= .965) either agreed or strongly agreed that persuasion by the public
relations professional is part of the journalist-practitioner relationship.
Pettigrew

18. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 93
Additional Analysis
While beyond the scope of the hypotheses and research questions
posed by this work, additional statistical analysis was conducted to see
if there were differences in opinions based on age and years of teaching
experience about dialogue and teaching students about dialogue. A one-
way analysis of variance was conducted to compare professors’ age and
their attitudes about dialogue. The test was not significant, F(36,21) =
.308, p = 1.0. There was also no significance in the number of years the
professors had been teaching and their attitudes about dialogue F(34,53) =
.889, p = .64.
One-way analyses of variance were also conducted to see whether
the classes that the professors taught most often had an impact on how
they viewed dialogue. Those tests did not reveal significant results,
as attitudes about dialogue were similar regardless of which class the
professor taught most often.
Summary of Findings
H1: Public relations professors view the reporter/PR practitioner
interaction as a dialogic process. (Supported).
H2: Public relations professors’ attitudes about relationships are
reflected in what they teach in the classroom (Supported).
H3: Public relations professors’ attitudes about dialogue are
reflected in what they teach in the classroom. (Supported).
H4: A majority of public relations professors will agree with
teaching media relations through a dialogic lens. (Supported).
H5: Public relations professors will agree that persuasion is a part
of the dialogic exchange between PR practitioners and journalists.
(Supported).

19. 94
Discussion
Relational Dialectics and Dialogue as a Basis for a Theory of Media
Relations
If professors are teaching students a dialogic approach to media
relations, then it makes sense to continue a theoretical discussion of
relational dialectics as a way to ground media relations in theory. As
relational dialectics suggests, “dialogue is a flow of meaning between
people” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 11). The ideas of contradiction
and change are central to relationships with media, maybe more so than
any other group public relations professionals deal with on a regular basis.
If dialogue involves “shifting their views on particular issues or problems
as dialogue occurs” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 12), then the idea fits
nicely with the idea of “mutually beneficial relationships,” which is part
of PRSA’s proposed definition of public relations (Corbett, 2012). Both
public relations practitioners and journalists have to engage in give and
take in order to have mutually beneficial relationships. It is important for
students to learn that media relations should be an ongoing process. While
media relations can be done in an isolated exchange, students should learn
how to take that isolated exchange and attempt to build a relationship
using dialogue.
Relational dialectics also explain the “coming together and
drawing apart” nature of media relations today. If, as the survey here
suggests, relationships are as important as outcomes, the outcome, instead
of being the primary focus, now truly does become grounded in the
exchange. Here again, we see contradictions with previous research by
Wright (2011).
In the classroom, this could involve teaching modules that have
students interacting with actual journalists on story ideas with an end goal
of story “creation” rather than straight story “pitching.” Another example
of this concept in practice is to have several journalists come to class to
discuss the idea of dialectics as a way to interact with public relations
Pettigrew

20. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 95
professionals.
Professors’ Proclivities: Dialogue
Professors have a lot to communicate over the course of a semester
in any class. In public relations classes, particularly public relations
writing, it is quite the task to get students to write a coherent press release,
much less all of the other materials they need to learn to write. Adding a
good grounding of media relations on top of that is challenging. However,
professors are doing it, which is important because professionals spend
30% to 90% of their time on media relations (Pettigrew & Hutchins,
2017). Appropriately, this survey also supported that professors are
teaching media relations as a dialogic process in their classes, which
is an update to arguments made by Kalupa (as cited by Watson, 2017),
who suggested that public relations education is still focused on one-way
communication. Professors are acknowledging that public relations is,
in fact, rooted in an exchange of thoughts, ideas, and information with
various publics. In terms of media relations, students are learning that it is
more than just sending media materials to appropriate media outlets and
following up. They are learning that a relationship with members of the
media is an ongoing, fluid, and ever-changing process.
The points made by Wright (2011) may also need to be examined
further, specifically his suggestions that curricula focus more on outputs
than on outcomes. This work clearly indicates that professors are teaching
relationships and dialogue as central to the reporter/PR practitioner
relationship. As this study shows, professors possess a wealth of
professional experience that they bring to the classroom, as all of them had
some practical experience in the field, and the degrees the professors have
are reflective of a high level of scholarship.
The results of H2 (Professors’ attitudes about relationships
are reflected in what they teach in the classroom) and H3 (Professors’
attitudes about dialogue are reflected in what they teach in the classroom)
are helpful in understanding that professors may be going beyond “best

21. 96
practices” in teaching students about media relations, which is where most
PR textbooks end the discussion. Regardless of how texts treat the subject,
many professors are supplementing texts with fodder for classroom
discussion through their own views about dialogue and relationships
(Pettigrew, 2013). By sharing examples from their professional careers,
professors are giving real-world examples of building relationships and
creating dialogue with reporters.
Support for H4 (A majority of public relations professors will
agree with teaching media relations through a dialogic lens) indicates
that professors are teaching students the importance of dialogue with
the media. In learning how to practice media relations in preparation
for internships or entry-level jobs, it is also important that educators
provide ways for students to practice media message development and
pitching before they are placed in a position of having to do so for a
client or employer. Many educators have indicated that they are doing
this (Pettigrew, 2013), but for others, time constraints become an issue.
This author proposes that a media relations class become a part of a PR
program’s curriculum, at least as an elective.
Limitations and Future Research
As with any survey, there was the issue of self-reporting bias and
self-selection in survey participation. The population for the survey was
small, and the the percentage of respondents was smaller still. What was
desired for this work was a “snapshot” of how professors view and teach
media relations in their classes to advance theory and suggest potential
ways to improve media relations instruction. This researcher is not
suggesting that the results of this survey can be used to draw more general
assumptions about the state of media relations education in the United
States today.
There is also much to be done in theory development in public
relations. There is benefit in more exploration of incorporating relational
dialectics as a basis for theory, particularly as it relates to media relations
Pettigrew

22. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 97
to encompass the notions of tension, conflict, and a focus on the process
rather than the outcome. It would be beneficial to revise and re-administer
this survey in 5 years to see if technology and the changing nature of PR
and media relations has changed the attitudes of educators.
Conclusion
The subject of public relations education is rich with unmined
areas for research. It is hoped that continued work in this area will help to
fill the gap that exists between PR practice, education, and research. This
study demonstrated that, contrary to previous research, public relations
professors are committed to quality teaching in the area of media relations.
In addition, this study also suggests relational dialectics as a starting
point for understanding the give-and-take relationship between media
professionals and public relations practitioners. Instructors should consider
how a relational dialectic approach in their classrooms can help students
understand the realities and expectations of today’s public relations
workplace, as well as using relational dialectics to foster intellectual
thought about the media relations process. Moreover, the closer we
examine how we teach students how to practice, the more we may learn
about practice itself. As today’s media marketplace continues to change
and adapt to new technologies, so are public relations practitioners and
professors adjusting their relationships with media professionals.
References
AlSaqer, L. (2016). How can teachers motivate students to study
theoretical models of public relations? International Journal of
Action Research, 12(3), 272-293.
Altman, I. (2009). Dialectics, physical environments, and personal
relationships. Communication Monographs, 60(1), 26-34.
Auger, G. A., & Cho, M. (2016). A comparative analysis of public
relations curricula: Does it matter where you go to school, and is

23. 98
academia meeting the needs of the practice? Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator, 7(1), 50-68.
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships,
11(1), 1-22.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogue and
dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge.
Botan, C. H. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The
case for a new approach to public relations. Journal of Business
Communication, 34, 188-202.
Bowen, S. A. (2009). All glamour, no substance? How public relations
majors and potential majors in an exemplar program view the
industry and function. Public Relations Review, 35, 402-410.
Bransford, K. (2002). Better, smarter Internet media relations. Public
Relations Tactics, 9(7), 6.
Commission on Public Relations Education. (2018, April). Fast forward:
Foundation and future state, public relations educators and
practitioners. The Commission on Public Relations Education 2017
report on undergraduate education. Retrieved from http://www.
commissionpred.org/
Corbett, G. (2012). A modern definition of public relations. Retrieved from
http://prdefinition.prsa.org/index.php/2012/03/01/new-definition-
of-public-relations
Cutlip, S. M., & Bateman, J. C. (1973). The unsatisfactory and disparate
state of public relations education in US colleges and universities.
Paper presented at the Public Relations Division, Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Conference,
Boston, MA.
Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and
communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holtzhausen, D. R., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Strategic communication
opportunities and challenges of the research area. In D. R.
Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
Pettigrew

24. Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 99
strategic communication (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kent, M. L. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations role
in reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39, 337-345.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through
the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24, 273-288.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public
relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21-37.
Lane, A. B., & Johnston, K. A. (2017). Bridging the gap between student
and professional: Analyzing writing education in public relations
and journalism. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 267-460.
Pearson, R. (1989). A theory of public relations ethics. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Ohio University: Athens, OH.
Pettigrew, J. (2013). Teaching media relations by teaching media
relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Georgia: Athens, GA.
Pettigrew, J., & Heflin, K. (2017). Teaching media relationships: What’s in
the textbooks? Journal of Public Relations Education, 3(1), 36-49.
Pettigrew, J., & Hutchins, A. (2017). No media relations, no public
relations? The role of relationships in the “new” media landscape.
Paper presented at the 20th Annual International Public Relations
Research Conference, Orlando, FL.
Pettigrew, J. E., & Reber, B. H. (2010). The new dynamic in corporate
media relations: How Fortune 500 companies are using virtual
press rooms to engage the press. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 22(4), 404-428.
Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140
characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage
stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36, 336-341.
Shaw, T., & White, C. (2004). Public relations and journalism educators’
perceptions of media relations. Public Relations Review, 30, 493-
502.
Sweetser, K. (2010). A losing strategy: The impact of nondisclosure
in social media on relationships. Journal of Public Relations

25. 100
Research, 22, 288-312.
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.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying
foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26,
384-398.
Valentini, C. (2015). Is social media “good” for the public relations
profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41, 170-
177.
Watson, T. (Ed.). (2017). North American perspectives on the development
of public relations: Other voices. London, UK: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Wright, D. K. (2011). History and development of public relations
education in North America: A critical analysis. Journal of
Communication Management, 15(3), 236-255.
Editorial Record: Original draft submitted to the AEJMC-PRD Paper Competition by
April 1, 2017. Selected as a Top Teaching Paper. Submitted to JPRE on August 22, 2017.
Final revisions completed April 25, 2018. First published online May 21, 2018.
Pettigrew