Reviewing the ‘march to standards’ in public relations: a comparative analysis of four seminal measurement and evaluation initiatives

•Comparison of four seminal standards attempts in public relations M&E.•Traces M&E standards from their development to application.•Reveals strategies to develop rules, engage stakeholders, and promote implementation of M&E standards. To many, development and adoption of professional sta...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Public relations review 2019-11, Vol.45 (4), p.101825, Article 101825
Hauptverfasser: Buhmann, Alexander, Macnamara, Jim, Zerfass, Ansgar
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 4
container_start_page 101825
container_title Public relations review
container_volume 45
creator Buhmann, Alexander
Macnamara, Jim
Zerfass, Ansgar
description •Comparison of four seminal standards attempts in public relations M&E.•Traces M&E standards from their development to application.•Reveals strategies to develop rules, engage stakeholders, and promote implementation of M&E standards. To many, development and adoption of professional standards for measurement and evaluation (M&E) is one of the most promising approaches for advancing public relations practice. In recent years, there has been a surge in efforts to develop standards for M&E in different parts of the world. Prominent examples of this include standard terminologies, metrics, principles for best practice in the field, and evaluation frameworks. Regardless of their alleged importance, however, the acceptance and application of such M&E standards in the practice varies significantly. To better understand the process by which standards in this field are developed and adopted, this article draws on recent concepts from organization studies (cf. Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012) to analyze the trajectories of four seminal standards attempts: The Barcelona Principles and the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework on an international level, the DPRG/ICV Framework used in German-speaking countries, and the GCS Framework in the United Kingdom. The article reveals, by way of an interpretive qualitative approach, the various strategies undertaken to a) develop common sets of terms and rules, b) engage relevant actors in the design, promotion, and implementation of proposed standards, and c) to reinforcing standards symbolically.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101825
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2315054299</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0363811118304120</els_id><sourcerecordid>2315054299</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-ee9b9b715bd6390943591ff606dad5aa79682ace7eb52bc3413efcf388a827c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1OwzAQhS0EEqVwAxaWWKfYcZzELJAQ4k-qhIRgbTnOhLrKT7GdoO665QZwvZ4Et2HNajSj997MfAidUzKjhKaXy9mqLywMs5hQsRvlMT9AE5pnLEo4yw7RhLCURTml9BidOLckhHBB-QR9vcBg4NO079gvAG83342yeoF9h51Xbals6babH2xaHHbURmMLtfKma90VVlh3zUrZ0A-AVavqtTMOdxWuut5iB40JM9yAcr2FBlofRCWGQdX9PiPEGm_2dneKjipVOzj7q1P0dn_3evsYzZ8fnm5v5pFmOfERgChEkVFelCkTRCQsPFJVKUlLVXKlMpHmsdKQQcHjQrOEMqh0xfJc5XGmGZuiizF3ZbuPHpyXy3BsuNPJmFFOeBILEVTJqNK2c85CJVfWBDRrSYncQZdLOUKXO-hyhB5s16MNwgcBrJVOG2g1lMaC9rLszP8Bvyb4kf4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2315054299</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reviewing the ‘march to standards’ in public relations: a comparative analysis of four seminal measurement and evaluation initiatives</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Buhmann, Alexander ; Macnamara, Jim ; Zerfass, Ansgar</creator><creatorcontrib>Buhmann, Alexander ; Macnamara, Jim ; Zerfass, Ansgar</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[•Comparison of four seminal standards attempts in public relations M&E.•Traces M&E standards from their development to application.•Reveals strategies to develop rules, engage stakeholders, and promote implementation of M&E standards. To many, development and adoption of professional standards for measurement and evaluation (M&E) is one of the most promising approaches for advancing public relations practice. In recent years, there has been a surge in efforts to develop standards for M&E in different parts of the world. Prominent examples of this include standard terminologies, metrics, principles for best practice in the field, and evaluation frameworks. Regardless of their alleged importance, however, the acceptance and application of such M&E standards in the practice varies significantly. To better understand the process by which standards in this field are developed and adopted, this article draws on recent concepts from organization studies (cf. Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012) to analyze the trajectories of four seminal standards attempts: The Barcelona Principles and the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework on an international level, the DPRG/ICV Framework used in German-speaking countries, and the GCS Framework in the United Kingdom. The article reveals, by way of an interpretive qualitative approach, the various strategies undertaken to a) develop common sets of terms and rules, b) engage relevant actors in the design, promotion, and implementation of proposed standards, and c) to reinforcing standards symbolically.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-8111</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4537</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101825</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Silver Spring: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Comparative analysis ; Organization studies ; Principles ; Public relations ; Public relations measurement and evaluation ; Rules ; Standardization</subject><ispartof>Public relations review, 2019-11, Vol.45 (4), p.101825, Article 101825</ispartof><rights>2019 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Nov 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-ee9b9b715bd6390943591ff606dad5aa79682ace7eb52bc3413efcf388a827c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-ee9b9b715bd6390943591ff606dad5aa79682ace7eb52bc3413efcf388a827c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101825$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27866,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Buhmann, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macnamara, Jim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerfass, Ansgar</creatorcontrib><title>Reviewing the ‘march to standards’ in public relations: a comparative analysis of four seminal measurement and evaluation initiatives</title><title>Public relations review</title><description><![CDATA[•Comparison of four seminal standards attempts in public relations M&E.•Traces M&E standards from their development to application.•Reveals strategies to develop rules, engage stakeholders, and promote implementation of M&E standards. To many, development and adoption of professional standards for measurement and evaluation (M&E) is one of the most promising approaches for advancing public relations practice. In recent years, there has been a surge in efforts to develop standards for M&E in different parts of the world. Prominent examples of this include standard terminologies, metrics, principles for best practice in the field, and evaluation frameworks. Regardless of their alleged importance, however, the acceptance and application of such M&E standards in the practice varies significantly. To better understand the process by which standards in this field are developed and adopted, this article draws on recent concepts from organization studies (cf. Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012) to analyze the trajectories of four seminal standards attempts: The Barcelona Principles and the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework on an international level, the DPRG/ICV Framework used in German-speaking countries, and the GCS Framework in the United Kingdom. The article reveals, by way of an interpretive qualitative approach, the various strategies undertaken to a) develop common sets of terms and rules, b) engage relevant actors in the design, promotion, and implementation of proposed standards, and c) to reinforcing standards symbolically.]]></description><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Organization studies</subject><subject>Principles</subject><subject>Public relations</subject><subject>Public relations measurement and evaluation</subject><subject>Rules</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><issn>0363-8111</issn><issn>1873-4537</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1OwzAQhS0EEqVwAxaWWKfYcZzELJAQ4k-qhIRgbTnOhLrKT7GdoO665QZwvZ4Et2HNajSj997MfAidUzKjhKaXy9mqLywMs5hQsRvlMT9AE5pnLEo4yw7RhLCURTml9BidOLckhHBB-QR9vcBg4NO079gvAG83342yeoF9h51Xbals6babH2xaHHbURmMLtfKma90VVlh3zUrZ0A-AVavqtTMOdxWuut5iB40JM9yAcr2FBlofRCWGQdX9PiPEGm_2dneKjipVOzj7q1P0dn_3evsYzZ8fnm5v5pFmOfERgChEkVFelCkTRCQsPFJVKUlLVXKlMpHmsdKQQcHjQrOEMqh0xfJc5XGmGZuiizF3ZbuPHpyXy3BsuNPJmFFOeBILEVTJqNK2c85CJVfWBDRrSYncQZdLOUKXO-hyhB5s16MNwgcBrJVOG2g1lMaC9rLszP8Bvyb4kf4</recordid><startdate>201911</startdate><enddate>201911</enddate><creator>Buhmann, Alexander</creator><creator>Macnamara, Jim</creator><creator>Zerfass, Ansgar</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201911</creationdate><title>Reviewing the ‘march to standards’ in public relations: a comparative analysis of four seminal measurement and evaluation initiatives</title><author>Buhmann, Alexander ; Macnamara, Jim ; Zerfass, Ansgar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-ee9b9b715bd6390943591ff606dad5aa79682ace7eb52bc3413efcf388a827c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Organization studies</topic><topic>Principles</topic><topic>Public relations</topic><topic>Public relations measurement and evaluation</topic><topic>Rules</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Buhmann, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macnamara, Jim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerfass, Ansgar</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Public relations review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Buhmann, Alexander</au><au>Macnamara, Jim</au><au>Zerfass, Ansgar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reviewing the ‘march to standards’ in public relations: a comparative analysis of four seminal measurement and evaluation initiatives</atitle><jtitle>Public relations review</jtitle><date>2019-11</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>101825</spage><pages>101825-</pages><artnum>101825</artnum><issn>0363-8111</issn><eissn>1873-4537</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[•Comparison of four seminal standards attempts in public relations M&E.•Traces M&E standards from their development to application.•Reveals strategies to develop rules, engage stakeholders, and promote implementation of M&E standards. To many, development and adoption of professional standards for measurement and evaluation (M&E) is one of the most promising approaches for advancing public relations practice. In recent years, there has been a surge in efforts to develop standards for M&E in different parts of the world. Prominent examples of this include standard terminologies, metrics, principles for best practice in the field, and evaluation frameworks. Regardless of their alleged importance, however, the acceptance and application of such M&E standards in the practice varies significantly. To better understand the process by which standards in this field are developed and adopted, this article draws on recent concepts from organization studies (cf. Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012) to analyze the trajectories of four seminal standards attempts: The Barcelona Principles and the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework on an international level, the DPRG/ICV Framework used in German-speaking countries, and the GCS Framework in the United Kingdom. The article reveals, by way of an interpretive qualitative approach, the various strategies undertaken to a) develop common sets of terms and rules, b) engage relevant actors in the design, promotion, and implementation of proposed standards, and c) to reinforcing standards symbolically.]]></abstract><cop>Silver Spring</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101825</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0363-8111
ispartof Public relations review, 2019-11, Vol.45 (4), p.101825, Article 101825
issn 0363-8111
1873-4537
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2315054299
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; PAIS Index
subjects Comparative analysis
Organization studies
Principles
Public relations
Public relations measurement and evaluation
Rules
Standardization
title Reviewing the ‘march to standards’ in public relations: a comparative analysis of four seminal measurement and evaluation initiatives
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T09%3A00%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reviewing%20the%20%E2%80%98march%20to%20standards%E2%80%99%20in%20public%20relations:%20a%20comparative%20analysis%20of%20four%20seminal%20measurement%20and%20evaluation%20initiatives&rft.jtitle=Public%20relations%20review&rft.au=Buhmann,%20Alexander&rft.date=2019-11&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=101825&rft.pages=101825-&rft.artnum=101825&rft.issn=0363-8111&rft.eissn=1873-4537&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101825&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2315054299%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2315054299&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0363811118304120&rfr_iscdi=true