In today’s dynamic and result-driven business environment, organizations expect accountability from public relations (PR) professionals to ensure their contributions align with organizational goals and objectives. Subsequently, PR practitioners must evaluate their PR activities to demonstrate PR effectiveness. This study aimed to explore current trends in PR evaluation research between 2010 and 2024 through bibliometric analysis, which revealed several challenges within the domain. Many themes and sub-themes were populated with the assistance of the VOSviewer software. Further, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 83 working PR executives. The interviewees discussed numerous evaluation techniques they used and their impacts and effects, such as awareness, attitude, opinion and behaviour. The finding offers credible inputs along with a conceptual model and insights for ensuing meaningful direction for future studies in the domain of PR.
AndersonF. W., BarrA. J., Ann FergusonM., GrunigJ. E., MartinT., MazurG., NielsenW., OttoC., PaineK. D., SilverD., WardK., WeinerM., & WrightD. K. (1997). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities. www.instituteforpr.com
2.
Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC). (2017). Integrated evaluation framework. https://amecorg.com/amecframework
3.
Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC). (2020). Barcelona principles 3.0: Global standards for measuring communications effectiveness. https://amecorg.com/2020/07/barcelona-principles-3-0/
4.
BardhanN. (2003). Rupturing public relations metanarratives: The example of India. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 225–248.
5.
BardhanN. (2011). Cultural diversity and public relations: Expanding praxis in the 21st century. In HeathR. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations. Sage Publications.
6.
BardhanN., & PatwardhanP. (2004). Multinational corporations and public relations in a historically resistant host culture. Journal of Communication Management, 8(3), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540410807673
7.
BardhanN., & WeaverC. K. (2011). Public relations in global cultural contexts: Multi-paradigmatic perspectives. Routledge.
8.
BaskinO., HahnJ., SeamanS., & ReinesD. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.02.002
9.
BergerB. K., & ReberB. H. (2006). Gaining influence in public relations: The role of resistance in practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
BisslandJ. H. (1990). Accountability gap: Evaluation practices show improvement. Public Relations Review, 16(2), 25–35.
11.
BoyackK. W., & KlavansR. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
12.
BuhmannA., & LikelyF. (2018). Evaluation and measurement. In HeathR. & JohansenW. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of strategic communication. John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0103
13.
ChelimskyE. (2006). The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society. In ShawI., GreeneJ. C., & MarkM. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 33–55). Sage Publications.
14.
CornelissenJ. (2008). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. Sage Publications.
15.
CornelissenJ. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. Sage Publications.
16.
CornelissenJ. (2014). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
17.
CornelissenJ. (2023). Corporate communication. A guide to theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
18.
Dahler-LarsenP., & BoodhooA. (2019). Evaluation culture and good governance: Is there a link?Evaluation, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018819110
19.
DaymonC., & HollowayI. (2011). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications (2nd ed.). Routledge.
20.
Digital Analytics Association. (2013). Social media standards definitions: Reach and impressions. https://painepublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Complete-standards-document.pdf
21.
DonthuN., KumarS., MukherjeeD., PandeyN., & LimW. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
22.
DonthuN., KumarS., & PattnaikD. (2020). Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 1–14.
23.
DozierD. M. (1984). Program evaluation and the roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 10(2), 13–21.
24.
DozierD. M. (1985). Planning and evaluation in PR practice. Public Relations Review, 11(2), 17–25.
25.
DuttaM., AnaeleA., & JonesC. (2013). Voices of hunger: Addressing health disparities through the culture-centered approach. Journal of Communication, 63(1), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12009
26.
ErlingssonC., & BrysiewiczP. (2020). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10(3), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001
27.
EtikanI., MusaS. A., & AlkassimR. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
28.
FlynnT. (2014). Do they have what it takes? A review of the literature on knowledge, competencies, and skills necessary for twenty-first-century public relations practitioners in Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39(3), 361–384.
29.
Gok DemirZ., Erendag SumerF., & KarakayaŞatır, Ç. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of public relations models. Connecticut: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 105–132. https://doi.org/10.26650/connectist2020-0015
30.
GrahamM., & AveryE. J. (2013). Government public relations and social media: An analysis of the perceptions and trends of social media use at the local government level. Public Relation Journal, 7(4), 1–21.
31.
GregoryA., & WatsonT. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701869098
32.
GrunigJ., GrunigL., & DozierD. (2006). The excellence theory. In BotanC. & HazeltonV. (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 21–62). Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
GrunigJ. E. (2009). Conceptualizing quantitative research in public relations. In van RulerB., VercicA. T., & VercicD. (Eds), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 88–119). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203877234-12
34.
GrunigJ. E. (2011). Public relations and strategic management: Institutionalizing organization–public relationships in contemporary society. Central European Journal of Communication, 1, 1899–5101.
35.
GrunigJ. E., & HuntT. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
36.
GrunigL., GrunigJ., & DozierD. (2002). Excellent and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
GruppR. W. (2010). The Barcelona declaration of research principles. Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/the-barcelona-declaration-of-research-principles/
38.
GuptaS. (2007). Professionalism in Indian public relations and corporate communications: An empirical analysis. Public Relations Review, 33, 306–312.
39.
HonL. C., & GrunigJ. E. (1999). Guidelines measuring relationships in public relations. Gold Standard paper of the Commission on Public Relations Measurement & Evaluation.
40.
HouJ. (2016). The emerging ‘field’ of public relations in China: Multiple interplaying logics and evolving actors’ inter-relations. Public Relations Review, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.04.003
41.
Institute of Public Relations & Communication Directors’ Forum (IPR/CDF). (2004). Best practice in the measurement and reporting of public relations and ROI. Institute of Public Relations. http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policyresources/ciprresearch-and-reports.
42.
International Public Relations Association (IPRA). (1994). Public relations evaluation: Professional accountability (Gold Paper No. 11).
43.
KumarA., & MishraS. (2022). Exploring future research agenda for rural mother’s empowerment: A study at the intersection of bibliometric and systematic literature review. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 11(3), 254–275.
44.
LeslyP. (1986). Multiple measurements of public relations. Public Relations Review, 12(2), 3–8.
45.
LikelyF., & WatsonT. (2013). Measuring the edifice: Public relations measurement and evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In SrirameshK., ZerfassA., & KimJ. (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). Routledge.
46.
LindenmannW. K. (1998). Only PR outcomes count: That is the real bottom line. Journal of Communication Management, 3(1), 66–73.
47.
LindenmannW. K. (2003). Guidelines and standards for measuring and evaluating PR effectiveness. Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/effectiveness-programs-activities/
48.
LindenmannW. K. (2006). Public relations research for planning and evaluation. Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2006_Planning_Eval.pdf
49.
MacnamaraJ. (2014a). Emerging international standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations: A critical analysis. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(1), 7–29.
50.
MacnamaraJ. (2014b). The development of evaluation measures for public communication: A review of evaluation practices in government, NGOs and international organizations. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 15(1), 1–16.
51.
MacnamaraJ. (2015). Breaking the measurement and evaluation deadlock: A new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2014-0020
52.
MacnamaraJ. (2016). Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication. Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1739-8
53.
MacnamaraJ. (2018a). A review of new evaluation models for strategic communication: Progress and gaps. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1428978
54.
MacnamaraJ. (2018b). Evaluating public communication: Exploring new models, standards and best practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
55.
MacnamaraJ. (2020). Embracing evaluation theory to overcome stasis: Informing standards, impact, and methodology. Corporate Communications, 25(2), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2019-0044
56.
MaheshwariH., SamantarayA. K., & JenaJ. R. (2023). Unravelling behavioural biases in individual and institutional investors investment decision-making: Intersection of bibliometric and systematic literature review. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 12(3), 275–299.
57.
MarkleinT., & PaineK. (2012). The march to standards. Paper presented at the 4th European Summit on Measurement, Dublin, Ireland. http://amecorg.com/downloads/dublin2012/The-March-to-Social-Standards-Tim-Marklein-and-Katie-Paine.pdf
58.
McKieD., & MunshiD. (2007). Reconfiguring public relations: Ecology, equity, and enterprise (1st ed.). Routledge.
59.
MichaelsonD., & StacksD. (2011). Standardization in public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Journal, 5(2), 1–22. http://apps.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/past-editions
60.
MolledaJ. C. (2009). Global political economy, public relations and the challenge of the ethnocentric mindset: A critical-peripheral perspective. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002
61.
MunshiD., & KurianP. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing and the separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.010
62.
NobleP. (1999). Towards an inclusive evaluation methodology. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(1), 14–23.
63.
PaarlbergB. (2013). Proposed social media standards: Engagement and conversation. SMMStandards Blog Post.
64.
PahariS., BandyopadhyayA., VMV. K., & PingleS. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of digital advertising in social media: The state of the art and future research agenda. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2383794.
65.
PalM., & DuttaM. (2008). Public relations in a global context: The relevance of critical modernism as a theoretical lens. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(2), 159–179.
66.
PalinkasL. A., HorwitzS. M., GreenC. A., WisdomJ. P., DuanN., & HoagwoodK. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed-method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
67.
Panter-BrickC., ClarkeS. E., LomasH., PinderM., & LindsayS. (2006). Culturally compelling strategies for behavior changes: A social ecology model and case study in malaria prevention. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2810–2825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.009
68.
PatwardhanP., & BardhanN. (2014). Worlds apart or a part of the world? Public relations issues and challenges in India. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.001
69.
PheungC. T., & YunL. J. (2023). Intercultural public relations in multiethnic Malaysia. Journal of Communication, Language and Culture, 3(2), 34–47.
70.
PRCAI. (2019). State of the industry (SOI) 2019–20. https://prcai.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PRCAI-SOI-2019_20.pdf
71.
PuchanH., PieczkaM., & L’EtangJ. (1999). ‘Rethinking PR evaluation’. Journal of Communication Management, 4(2), 164–175.
72.
RoseR., KumarV. V., & JenaL. K. (2023). Contingency theory and public emotions in crisis communication: A conceptual study. Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 14(2), 30–48.
73.
SahooS. K., & NayakS. C. (2022). Revisiting public relations profession in India: A systematic literature review. Journal of Creative Communications, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/09732586221095311
74.
SamoilenkoS. A. (2018). Subversion practices: From coercion to attraction. In BridgenE. & VercicD. (Eds.), Experiencing public relations: International voices (pp. 174–193). Routledge.
75.
SancarG. A. (2016). What is public relations? An analysis of Turkish public relations job advertisements discourses. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies Special, 6, 171–191.
76.
ScheinE. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
77.
SchrinerM., SwensonR., & GilkersonN. (2017). Outputs or outcomes? Assessing public relations evaluation practices in award-winning PR campaigns. Public Relations Journal, 11(1), 1–15. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=comm_fac
78.
SchultzD. E., & SchultzH. F. (2003). IMC: The next generation. McGraw-Hill.
79.
ShapiroI. (2005). Theories of change. In BurgessG. & BurgessH. (Eds.), Beyond intractability knowledge base, conflict information consortium. University of Colorado. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/theories-of-change
80.
SrirameshK. (Ed.). (2004). Epilogue: The need for multiculturalism in public relations education in Asia. In Public relations in Asia: An anthropology (pp. 321–341). International Thomson Business Press.
81.
SrirameshK. (2009). Globalization and public relations: The past, present, and the future. In SrirameshK. & VercicD. (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–28). Routledge.
82.
SrirameshK., & VercicD. (2003). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
83.
SrirameshK., & VercicD. (Eds.). (2020). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
84.
StacksD., & BowenS. (Eds.). (2013). Dictionary of public relations measurement and research. Institute for Public Relations. https://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Dictionary-of-Public-Relations-Measurement-and-Research-3rd-Edition-AMEC.pdf
85.
StieglitzS., MirbabaieM., SchwennerL., MarxJ., LehrJ., & BrunkerF. (2017). Sensemaking and communication roles in social media crisis communication. In LeimeisterJ. M. & BrennerW. (Eds.), Proceedings der 13 Internationalen Tagung Wirtschafts informatik (WI 2017), pp. 1333–1347.
86.
ThomasL., & KumarV. V. (2025). From analogue to algorithm: The metamorphosis of music production techniques: An integrated literature review. Journal of Creative Communications, 20(1), 73–95.
87.
ThorsonK., MichaelsonD., GeeE., JiangJ., LuZ., LuanG., WeatherlyK., PungS. I., QinY., & XuJ. (2015). Joining the movement?: Investigating standardization of measurement and evaluation within public relations. Institute for Public Relations.
88.
TracyS. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell.
89.
Van EckN. J., & WaltmanL. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
90.
VolkS. C. (2016). A systematic review of 40 years of public relations evaluation and measurement research: Looking into the past, the present, and future. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 962–977.
91.
WatsonT. (2011). An initial investigation on the use of ‘return on investment in public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 314–317.
92.
WeissC. H. (1997). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(76), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1086
YinP. L. P., KrishnanK., & EanC. L. C. (2012). Evaluation research on public relations activities among public relations practitioners in Malaysian corporations: An exploratory study. SEARCH (Malaysia), 4(1), 41–60.
95.
YunH., & TothE. L. (2009). Future sociocultural perspectives on international public relations: A feminist-influence inquiry. In SrirameshK. & VercicD. (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 539–557). Routledge.
96.
ZerfassA., & SherzadaM. (2015). Corporate communications from the CEO’s perspective: How top executives conceptualize and value strategic communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(3), 291–309.
97.
ZerfassA., VercicD., NothhaftH., & WerderK. P. (2018). Strategic communication: Defining the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1493485
98.
ZupicI., & CaterT. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
