Search results

This paper seeks to compare different national PR histories in order to unfold the degree of abstract reflection in PR history writing. It aims to provide some suggestions for a future PR historiography, based on this comparison.

The paper compares British, German, and US American PR historiography. The study is based on a comparison of 36 PR histories. A triple matrix of theoretization is used in order to differentiate the histories.

Within the comparison American PR historiography accounts for 24 public relations history approaches, whereas Great Britain (1) and Germany (11) offer fewer histories. However, this richness in quantity does not lead to theoretical diversification. Owing to the paradigmatic obligation to a progressivist understanding, American PR historiography actually entails only one theoretic approach, while its German equivalent includes three different theoretic approaches and British PR historiography – being at its start – at least contains one explicitly non‐progressivist, methodologically well‐informed, fact‐oriented example. Paradoxically, the prevailing American PR historiography, on the one hand, conceptualizes PR as a modern phenomenon but, on the other hand, claims even ancient beginnings.

The corpus of analysis contains only studies that attempt to supply an encompassing overview of (national) PR history.

Public relations managers may use these findings to achieve a more nuanced critical understanding of the history of their occupation, and thereby reflect on its current state, which may lead to intensified ethical endeavours.

The paper presents a pioneer systematic comparison of the three national PR histories, which may lead to enhanced national and general PR historiography. Another value is the establishment of a theoretically informed comparative measuring instrument, which (in future) can also be applied in order to compare and improve other national PR historiographies.

This article presents an ecologically informed approach for comprehending the nature of and perceived changes to the relationship between Indiana’s kindergarten-5 classrooms and public history institutions. This perspective offers a lens for understanding the degree to which public history institutions actualize social studies learning and how public policy currently influences their associations with kindergarten-5 classrooms. Consideration was given to how respondents reported exchanges with kindergarten-5 learners, elementary educators, and the extent to which state public history organizations encouraged schools to utilize their resources for extending social studies instruction outside of the classroom. Baseline data gathered in 2007 indicated that: (1) state public history organizations adapted their mission statements to better reflect federal and state educational policy and (2) federal and state educational policy were contributing to both children and teachers being left out of the museum experience. Based on the results, the authors call for sustained inquiry to ascertain the impact such changes are having on the status and quality of kindergarten-5 social studies instruction across the United States.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that public relations (PR) history‐writing has profoundly shaped the discipline and that its US bias may have limited theoretical developments. The author aims to explore the challenges in writing PR history and to consider some of the strategic philosophical issues and challenges that face historians.

Historical interpretations are shaped by authors' social constructions and thus the paper is written reflexively. The author discusses the way in which histories are structured and patterned by their authors' assumptions and values about the nature of time; human civilisation, progressivism, situationalism, inevitability, human agency, cultural change, flux and transformation.

Existing (largely US) PR historical writing is analysed in terms of its theoretical impact through the “four models” and it is argued that this typology is not appropriately applied to other cultures with different paths of historical evolution. As a way of demonstrating this point, key aspects of British developments in the twentieth century are drawn out to reveal a dozen “models” of PR practice that could potentially form the basis of theoretical research.

Overall, the paper contributes a discussion of historical methodology in relation to PR; shows the connection between history and theory‐building in PR; and demonstrates that history from other cultures can reveal alternative models for theoretical development.

The aim of this paper is to begin a conversation about historicising the public relations (PR) curriculum in universities.

The paper discusses PR history and historiography to identify the underlying ideological and methodological influences. It considers scholarship on PR education, and the inclusion or, more often, the exclusion of history except where it serves to reinforce a narrative of steady, and apparently unproblematic, professional development. The paper reviews the presentation of history in textbooks and discusses the authors' experiences of teaching PR history. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the inclusion of history in the PR curriculum offers an important critical intervention in PR education.

The PR curriculum tends to meet industry expectations around practice and skills in order to develop students as future practitioners. But this paper argues that a more historical and historiographical understanding of PR can develop in students important skills in research, analysis and interpretation. It can also introduce students to working with ambiguity and alternate perspectives. Foregrounding new histories and challenging existing histories introduce students to richer and more complex understandings of PR. It also introduces students to epistemology and ethics, and therefore offers a way to introduce critical thinking into the curriculum.

A more historical understanding of PR develops student skills in research, analysis and interpretation as well as critical thinking.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce counterfactual analysis and reasoning to the study of accounting history. The counterfactual focus is the institutionalisation of public accountancy in the UK.

The study adopts a counterfactual research design using Ferguson and Bunzl and asks a “what if” question of an event of importance to accounting historians in order to create a plausible counterfactual outcome that is grounded in rationality and causal analysis. The specific counterfactual question relates to the royal charter granted to public accountants practicing in Edinburgh in 1854. The counterfactual outcome is compared to the actual timeline of public accountancy institutionalisation in the UK.

The “alternative” history reveals uncertainties that confronted public accountants in the past and provides a basis for suggesting that the current fractured and inefficient state of institutionalised public accountancy in the UK has its origins at least partially in the 1854 royal charter. It also suggests that attempts to register and unify public accountants in the UK have been hindered by nineteenth century royal charters.

The study argues that counterfactual analysis is a useful historical tool with which to understand the consequences of historical decisions made in the professional project of British public accountancy. In addition, the study reveals the potential for counterfactual analysis to illumine the consequences of decisions in other areas of accounting and auditing history.

This study is the first counterfactual analysis in the accounting history literature and therefore provides a template for further studies and improved research design.

The growth of interest in local history shows no sign of dying down. Public libraries have clearly been affected by the increasing number of people who use them and by the foundation of new societies and journals. Equally great, but perhaps less obvious, is the impact made by certain specific developments. Local history is now integrated into the educational curriculum at all levels, it is the subject of radio and television programmes and has grown in popularity with publishers of monographs. The ways in which local studies libraries have been affected by these factors are examined. Public libraries are concentrated on, though there is some reference to local collections in academic libraries. In conclusion, it is suggested that staff should be specifically allocated to an education service and to media liaison work, and that one librarian should specialise in acquisitions.

Histories of American public administration during the Progressive era (1890‐1920) tend to highlight the positive contributions of its major founders, skimming lightly over nativist, anti‐democratic and racial writings. The purpose of this paper is to broaden the given narrative by setting the record straight regarding the latter writings of three major figures: Frederick Cleveland, Frank Goodnow and W.F. Willoughby. Not intended as an exercise in presentism, the goal is a more nuanced understanding of public administration history. This research approach can be used internationally by other management historians to examine cultural biases by other management theorists.

Mainstream qualitative research techniques in management history and a close literary examination of lesser known and out‐of‐print writings.

The three major public administration figures on President Taft's Commission on Economy and Efficiency (1910‐1913) expressed nativist, racial and anti‐democratic views in their published writings, before and after serving on the commission. These views are little known and need to be added to the given historical narrative. The three deemed that only limited populations were qualified to govern a democracy and provide efficient public administration to the masses.

Internationally, scholars can apply this approach to the forgotten or largely hidden publications of other key management theorists.

Management histories of early American public administration have passed lightly over the works of its founders with nativist, racial and anti‐democratic views. This has had the effect of sanitizing the historical record by ignoring publications that provide a fuller contextual understanding of the worldviews of these major figures.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal published in 1996 on the theme “Accounting history into the twenty‐first century”, in order to identify and assess the impact of the special issue in shaping developments in the accounting history literature, and to consider issues for future historical research in accounting.

A retrospective and prospective essay focusing on developments in the historical accounting literature.

The special issue's advocacy of critical and interpretive histories of accounting's past has influenced subsequent research, particularly within the various research themes identified in the issue. The most significant aspect of this influence has been the engagement of increasing numbers of accounting historians with theoretical perspectives and analytical frameworks.

The present study examines the content and impact of a single journal issue. It explores future research possibilities, which inevitably involves speculation.

In addressing recent developments in the literature through the lens of the special issue, the paper emphasises the unifying power of history and offers ideas, insights and reflections that may assist in stimulating originality in future studies of accounting's past.