PurposeThe aim of this article is the exploration of historical themes that formed education and training in public relations and corporate communication. Its timeline is from the early 1950s to the mid-1990s when university-level education became widespread. It also acknowledges recent initiatives to propose a Global Capability Framework for the field.Design/methodology/approachArchival material, primarily from the International Public Relations Association, was reviewed in order to understand the historic influences that have shaped public relations and corporate communication education in the, mainly, English-speaking world. This was compared with other sources such as journal, articles and other archives in the Germany, Spain, the United States, and the United Kingdom.FindingsThree findings are offered from the archival research and analysis conducted for the article: (1) There was extensive debate over the structure of education between a skills-based approach that was taught as a minor or major stream in an undergraduate degree or graduate level study (Master's) in public relations theory and practice; (2) there was continuing tension between practitioner organizations and academics over the design, content and validation of educational programmes; and (3) there was little interest in the international harmonization of public relations education and training, despite extensive discussion.Originality/valueNo previous historical research has taken such a broad and international view of the development of education and training in public relations and corporate communication. The article also uses archival material that has become available in the past decade.

Public relations has ancient roots in promotional activities but is largely a communication phenomenon of the 20th century. Governments played a fundamental role in establishing communication activities in many regions and continents. These led to the formation of profession-like practices of public relations. From this base, trade associations were formed and education programmes introduced in many countries. Later, the agency sector developed and became internationalised. Although the main international influences on public relations have been from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, distinctive national forms of public relations based on cultural, political and social influences have been evolving in the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st. In general, public relations practice has thrived in its application and employment in countries with open economies and democratic institutions where free speech is less controlled.

The progressive version of public relations history present it as a by-product of pluralist political systems or a democratic dividend. It has been claimed that public relations thrives within open media systems and market economies but struggles in highly controlled governmental systems (dictatorships, juntas, and closed economies). This paper considers how political history and political systems affected the formation of public relations practices in regions of Europe that, after 1945, were under military dictatorships (Spain and Portugal), a military junta (Greece) and were contained in the Soviet bloc. Using comparative history methodology, the notion that public relations operates solely in democracies is challenged, although it is conceded that practice thrived in post-war Western Europe but struggled to develop in parts of southern and eastern Europe. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

This chapter analyzes the antecedents, springboards and restraints that have shaped the development of public relations (PR) in more than 70 countries. Based on data from chapters in the preceding five books in the series, it proposes three common antecedents of PR activity - early corporate communication, governmental information and propaganda methods and cultural/religious influences. The springboards for PR's growth have been professionalization and education, along with the opening of economies and political plurality. The restraints have been political and economic, such as one-party states, dictatorships and closed economies. PYs historiography is also explored, and the chapter identifies periodization as the primary method. Future research should move on from the current discovery stage into more analytical and critical processes.

Although multi-national corporations (MNCs) have brought Western corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices to Thailand, there are strong religious and social influences upon its conceptualization and implementation in this predominantly Buddhist nation. The Thai phrase ‘Pid Thong Lang Phra’ is a metaphor for “doing good deeds” but without publicising them (Sthapitanonda & Sinsuwarn, 2013) and emphasises a long-standing ‘top-down’ cultural attitude to philanthropy. In the extant literature on CSR in Thailand, there is minimal consideration of the role of local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in discourse and practice and of their relationship with nationally-based corporations that are undertaking CSR activities. Using a qualitative approach of interviews with CSR practitioners in corporations and leaders of the NGOs with which they interact, the researchers identify the characteristics of that relationship and conclude that cultural impacts drawn from Buddhism and pragmatic desires to maintain control of relationship have created a ‘managed distance’ model of engagement between corporations and NGOs.

The under-theorised field of ethical stakeholder engagement is explored in a three-country study of business-NGO relationships. The influence of the relationships upon the formation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practice and theory is considered through discussion of stakeholder theory and ethical stakeholder engagement and the practices of business-NGO linkages in Romania, Thailand and the United Kingdom. The study applied a qualitative approach with 32 in-depth interviews with senior CSR and NGO practitioners. The outcomes include the conceptualisation of business-NGO relationships in three different cultures, the management of engagement and the preparation of CSR communication for relevant stakeholders.

This paper focuses on the disruptions in the digital age through the lens of public relations experts from the private sector. In order to understand whether the PR profession is undergoing a major or just a minor change, this study focuses on expert attitudes toward the disruptions and the perceived change of their identity, strategy, and structure of PR. The analysis of semi-structured in-depth interviews yielded six themes: changes that are shaping the industry, changes in organizational identity, occupational definitions and roles, structural aspects, the difference between PR communication strategy and digital PR-strategy, new methods, tools, and measurement models and finally predictions for the future. Three main conclusions arise from these themes: PR agency self-identity is in a process of change from media-relations to strategic consultants; the main source of the change is perceived as media disruption rather than digital disruption (although they are interrelated); and the future in PR is predicted as the all-in-one marketing communications agency, which might develop into a new, hybrid, profession.

The International Public Relations Association (IPRA) was established in 1955 as the lead international organisation for the development and promotion of public relations as a professional communication practice (L'Etang, 2004). Involvement by Australian practitioners in IPRA began in 1959 and became intensive during a 15-year period from 1982 to the late-1990s when a number of Australians took global leadership roles. Drawing from the IPRA archive and recent interviews by the authors with prominent practitioners in Europe and Australia, who were involved in IPRA's management and leadership, this article establishes the narrative of international engagement by the burgeoning Australian PR sector and explores the aims and effects of its involvement in IPRA. It concludes that IPRA's impact on the development of the Australian public relations sector and Australian influence on IPRA was largely ephemeral, limited to a decade from 1983 to 1993, and reveals some problematic aspects of industry practice and governance. Nevertheless, Australian practitioners made use of both the symbolism of international endorsement and international connections established through IPRA to transform the national PR sector from a predominantly local focus to an increasingly international outlook at a time when public relations services were expanding rapidly worldwide.