Can public relations really carry on without permission?
For a long time now, the debate has raged over the regulation of public relations. Should we have a licence or should we not? Should it be self-regulated or legally enforced? Still it continues. But I wonder what the younger practitioner makes of the debate. The financial convulsions around the world in recent times has led to some more interesting discussions on the issue - of note are David Phillip's comments on Richard Bailey's blog and the recent post by Toni Muzi Falconi at PR Conversations.
It has been my experience that younger practitioners embrace the function of public relations as building and sustaining relationships, eschewing old school views that limit our purpose to technical support roles. I also believe, having met and worked with an ever increasing number of younger practitioners, that because they have invested a significant amount of time and energy in their PR education and training, they are more concerned that anyone can hang up a sign saying 'PR Practitioner' than were previous generations.
If we truly wish to be regarded as a profession rather than an industry - and that was the overwhelming opinion at the PRINZ College of Fellows Symposium last week - then we must allow ourselves to be subject to the same sort of regulation that other professions accept. 'First do no harm' has always been a very appealing intro as far as I am concerned. Proper regulation would mean that the 'instant PR shop' would be a thing of the past. It would mean that practitioners would have to be properly qualified, meet specified standards and, most importantly, have to continue their learning and development throughout their career.
Will it happen? I hope so, although how, when and in what form, I haven't a clue. It would have to be 'global and local' in nature because we don't practise in isolation - our work has an impact beyond geographic borders. What do you think? I'd be very interested to hear your views.
Can public relations really carry on without permission?
For a long time now, the debate has raged over the regulation of public relations. Should we have a licence or should we not? Should it be self-regulated or legally enforced? Still it continues. But I wonder what the younger practitioner makes of the debate. The financial convulsions around the world in recent times has led to some more interesting discussions on the issue - of note are David Phillip's comments on Richard Bailey's blog and the recent post by Toni Muzi Falconi at PR Conversations.
It has been my experience that younger practitioners embrace the function of public relations as building and sustaining relationships, eschewing old school views that limit our purpose to technical support roles. I also believe, having met and worked with an ever increasing number of younger practitioners, that because they have invested a significant amount of time and energy in their PR education and training, they are more concerned that anyone can hang up a sign saying 'PR Practitioner' than were previous generations.
If we truly wish to be regarded as a profession rather than an industry - and that was the overwhelming opinion at the PRINZ College of Fellows Symposium last week - then we must allow ourselves to be subject to the same sort of regulation that other professions accept. 'First do no harm' has always been a very appealing intro as far as I am concerned. Proper regulation would mean that the 'instant PR shop' would be a thing of the past. It would mean that practitioners would have to be properly qualified, meet specified standards and, most importantly, have to continue their learning and development throughout their career.
Will it happen? I hope so, although how, when and in what form, I haven't a clue. It would have to be 'global and local' in nature because we don't practise in isolation - our work has an impact beyond geographic borders. What do you think? I'd be very interested to hear your views.
The comments to this entry are closed.