Evaluation stasis continues in PR and corporate communication: Asia-Pacific insights into causes

References

• Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. (2015a). Barcelona Principles 2.0. London, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://amecorg.com/barcelona-principles-2-0-infographic
   Google Scholar
• Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. (2015b). The PR professional’s definitive guide to measurement. London, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://prguidetomeasurement.org
   Google Scholar
• Baskin, O., Hahn, J., Seaman, S., & Reines, D. (2010). Perceived effectiveness and implementation of public relations measurement and evaluation tools among European providers and consumers of PR services. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 105–111. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broom, G., & Dozier, D. (1983). An overview: Evaluation research in public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 28(3), 5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Broom, G., & Dozier, D. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H., & Taplin, D. (2012). Theory of change Basics: A primer on theory of change. New York, NY: Actknowledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cutlip, M., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1985). Effective public relations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cutlip, S., & Center, A. (1952). Effective public relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cutlip, S., & Center, A. (1958). Effective public relations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Davison, R., Vogel, D., & Harris, R. (2000). Technology leapfrogging in developing countries: An inevitable luxury? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 1(5), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/view/5/5
   Google Scholar
• Dozier, D. (1984). Program evaluation and the roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 10(2), 13–21. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(84)80002-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dozier, D. (1985). Planning and evaluation in PR practice. Public Relations Review, 11(2), 17–25. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(82)80115-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DPRG & ICV. (2011). Position paper Communication Controlling: How to maximize and demonstrate the value creation through communication. Bonn, Gauting: Deutsche Public Relations Gesellschaft, Internationaler Controller-Verein.
   Google Scholar
• Ehling, W. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an organisation. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 617–638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Frey, L., Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• GCS (Government Communication Service). (2015). Evaluation framework. Whitehall, UK: Cabinet Office.
   Google Scholar
• Goldemberg, J. (1998). Leapfrogging energy technologies. Energy Policy, 2(10), 729–741.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, A. (2009). Ethics and professionalism in public relations. In R. Tench & L. Yeomans (Eds.), Exploring public relations (2nd ed., pp. 273–289). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, A. (2011). The state of the public relations profession in the UK: A review of the first decade of the twenty‐first century. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(2), 89–104. doi:10.1108/13563281111141633
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, A., & Watson, T. (2008). Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation – towards a new research agenda. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(5), 337–350. doi:10.1080/13527260701869098
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, A., & White, T. (2008). Introducing the chartered institute of public relations initiative. In B. Van Ruler, A. Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 307–317). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. (1979). The status of public relations research. Public Relations Quarterly, 20(1), 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. (1983). Basic research provides knowledge that makes evaluation possible. Public Relations Quarterly, 28(3), 28–32.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, L., Grunig, J., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent organizations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hallahan, K. (1993). The paradigm struggle and public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 19(2), 197–205. doi:10.1016/0363-8111(93)90009-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICCO (International Communications Consultancy Organisation). (2013). ICCO world report. London, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iccopr.com/knowledge-base/Worldreports.aspx
   Google Scholar
• IPR (Institute for Public Relations). (2015). Public relations research standards center. Gainesville, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/public-relations-research-standards
   Google Scholar
• Julian, D. (1997). The utilisation of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(3), 251–257. doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(97)00002-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/eval-guides/logic-model-development-guide.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kent, M. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations role in reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 337–345. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knowlton, L., & Phillips, C. (2013). The logic models guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• L’Etang, J. (2008). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Likely, F. (2012, March). Principles for the use of return on investment (ROI), benefit-cost ration (BCR) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) financial metrics in a public relations/communication (PR/C) department. Paper presented to the 15th international public relations research conference, Miami, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the edifice: Public relations measurement and evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmann, W. (1979). The missing link in public relations research. Public Relations Review, 5(1), 26–36. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(79)80005-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenmann, W. (1980). Hunches no longer suffice. Public Relations Journal, 36(6), 9–13.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmann, W. (1993). An ‘effectiveness yardstick’ to measure public relations success. PR Quarterly, 38(1), 7–9.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmann, W. (2001). Research doesn’t have to put you in the poorhouse. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/research-savings
   Google Scholar
• Macnamara, J. (1999). Research in public relations: A review of the use of evaluation and formative research. Asia-Pacific Public Relations Review, 1(2), 107–133.
   Google Scholar
• Macnamara, J. (2012). Public relations theories, practices, critiques. Sydney, NSW: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Macnamara, J. (2013). Beyond voice: Audience-making and the work and architecture of listening as new media literacies. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 27(1), 160–175. doi:10.1080/10304312.2013.736950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnamara, J. (2015). Breaking the measurement and evaluation deadlock: A new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387. doi:10.1108/JCOM-04-2014-0020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: The missing link in public communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Macnamara, J., Lwin, M., Adi, A., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Asia Pacific Communication Monitor 2015/16: The state of strategic communication and public relations in a region of rapid growth. Survey results from 23 countries. Hong Kong: Asia Pacific Association of Communication Directors (APACD).
   Google Scholar
• Michaelson, D., & Stacks, D. (2011). Standardization in public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Journal, 5(2), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Noble, P., & Watson, T. (1999). Applying a unified public relations evaluation model in a European context. Paper presented to the transnational communication in Europe: Practice and research congress, Berlin, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Pavlik, J. (1987). Public relations: What research tells us. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• PRIA (Public Relations Institute of Australia). (2014). Principles on best practice research, measurement, and evaluation in public relations. Sydney, NSW: PRIA. Retrieved from http://www.pria.com.au/documents/item/6726
   Google Scholar
• Reinard, J. (2007). Introduction to communication research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Stacks, D., & Michaelson, D. (2014). A practitioner’s guide to public relations research, measurement, and evaluation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Business Experts Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, M., & Kent, M. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tench, R., & Moreno, A. (2015). Mapping communication management competencies for European practitioners: ECOPSI an EU study. Journal of Communication Management, 19(1), 39–61. doi:10.1108/JCOM-11-2013-0078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volk, S. C. (2016, March). A systematic review of 40 years of public relations evaluation and measurement research: Looking into the past, the present, and the future. Paper presented at the international public relations research conference, Miami, FL. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.003
   Google Scholar
• Watson, T. (1997). Measuring the success rate: Evaluating the PR process and PR programmes. In P. Kitchen (Ed.), Public relations principles and practice (pp. 283–299). London, UK: International Thomson Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 390–398. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2007). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2014). Evaluating public relations. A guide to planning, research and measurement (3rd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, T., & Zerfass, A. (2011). Return on investment in public relations: A critique of concepts used by practitioners from communication and management sciences perspectives. PRism, 8(1), 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.prismjournal.org/vol8_1.html
   Google Scholar
• Watson, T., & Zerfass, A. (2012, March). ROI and PR evaluation: Avoiding ‘smoke and mirrors’. International public relations research conference, Miami, FL. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/iprwp/wp-content/uploads/Watson-Zerfass-ROI-IPRRC-Miami-20121.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Weiner, M. (2006). Unleashing the power of PR: A contrarians guide to marketing and communication. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., Gaunt, R., Leggetter, B., Daniels, M., & Zerfass, A. (2009). Global survey of communications measurement 2009; Final report. London, UK: Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. Retrieved from http://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Global-Survey-Communications_Measurement-20091.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., & Hinson, M. (2012). Examining how social and emerging media have been used in public relations between 2006 and 2012: A longitudinal analysis. Public Relations Journal, 6(4), 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Zerfass, A. (2010). Assuring rationality and transparency in corporate communications. Theoretical foundations and empirical findings on communication controlling and communication performance management. In M. D. Dodd & K. Yamamura (Eds.), Ethical issues for public relations practice in a multicultural world, 13th International public relations research conference (pp. 947–966). Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2013). European communication monitor 2013. A changing landscape – managing crises, digital communication and CEO positioning in Europe. Results of a survey in 43 countries. Brussels, Belgium: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), European Public Relations Education, and Research Association (EUPRERA), and Helios Media.
   Google Scholar
• Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., & Moreno, A. (2014). European communication monitor 2014: Excellence in strategic communication – key issues, leadership, gender and mobile media. Results of a survey in 42 countries. Brussels, Belgium: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), European Public Relations Education, and Research Association (EUPRERA), and Helios Media.
   Google Scholar
• Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2012). European communication monitor 2012: Challenges and competencies for strategic communication. Brussels, Belgium: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA), and Helios Media.
   Google Scholar
• Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2015). European communication monitor 2015: Creating communication value through listening, messaging and measurement. Results of a survey in 41 countries. Brussels, Belgium: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), European Public Relations Education, and Research Association (EUPRERA), and Helios Media.
   Google Scholar