Public relations is well known for its adaptability through continual change, and as a result, public relations master’s programs have been re-conceptualized to remain rigorous and competitive. To further assess both the state and changes of these programs, 20 in-depth interviews were conducted with administrators of public relations master’s programs. Findings highlighted that although many programs have evolved their curricula to meet industry demands toward a more interdisciplinary identity, there are still programs that still model recommendations from the Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE). These findings could be used to better ground the discipline by ensuring a stronger cohesiveness within public relations master’s education.
AldooryL.TothE. L. (2000). An exploratory look at graduate public relations education. Public Relations Review, 26, 115-125.
2.
BaxterB. L. (2002). Graduate studies in public relations: Profiles of the country’s best programs. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University.
3.
BergB. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
4.
BrionesR. L.TothE. L. (2013). The state of PR graduate curriculum as we know it: A longitudinal analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68, 119-133.
5.
Commission on Public Relations Education. (1999). Public relations for the 21st century: A port of entry. New York, NY: Public Relations Society of America.
6.
Commission on Public Relations Education. (2006). The professional bond. New York, NY: Public Relations Society of America.
7.
Commission on Public Relations Education. (2012). Standards for a master’s degree in public relations: Educating for complexity. New York, NY: Public Relations Society of America.
8.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. C. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
DiStasoM. W.StacksD. W.BotanC. H. (2009). State of public relations education in the United States: 2006 report on a national survey of educators and academics. Public Relations Review, 35, 254-269.
10.
GrunigJ. E.HuntT. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11.
HonL. C.FitzpatrickK. R.HallM. R. (2004). Searching for the “ideal” graduate public relations curriculum. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59, 125-142.
12.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2010). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
MooreJ. (2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 69, 271-288.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
ShaB.-L. (2011). 2010 practice analysis: Professional competencies and work categories in public relations today. Public Relations Review, 37, 187-196.
17.
ShenH.TothE. L. (2008). An ideal public relations master’s curriculum: Expectations and status quo. Public Relations Review, 34, 309-311.
18.
StrongR.IrbyT. L.WynnJ. T.McclureM. M. (2012). Investigating students’ satisfaction with eLearning courses: The effect of learning environment and social presence. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53, 98-110.
19.
VercicA. T.VercicD.SrirameshK. (2012). Internal communication: Definition, parameters, and the future. Public Relations Review, 38, 223-230.
20.
WrightD. K.TurkJ. V. (2007). Public relations knowledge and professionalism: Challenges to educators and practitioners. In TothE. L. (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 571-588). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
