Search

Traditional public relations histories begin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This study expands public relations history to the early 1800s by analyzing the use of public relations methods and tactics in an American anti-slavery movement, The American Colonization Society. In focusing on the American Colonization Society and backlash against it from abolitionist groups, this paper finds the use of newspapers to promote a cause, promotion of high profile endorsements, attempts to persuade a key public, creation of publications, efforts to lobby legislatures, and hired agents to found auxiliaries, all beginning in the early 1800s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The history of Public Relations Review is examined with a bibliometric census and a co-citation analysis. • Seventeen senior public relations scholars were shown census results in non-anonymous in-depth interviews. • Public Relations Review has served as a needed vehicle for the growth of public relations scholarship. • Scholarship in Public Relations Review has become more cohesive over time and represents a distinctive body of scholarship. • Continuing to foster healthy disagreement among researchers is the next step forward for the discipline. Public Relations Review is the oldest academic journal of public relations, celebrating its 45th year in 2020. This research analyzes the journal through a bibliometric census and co-citation analysis of every article in its history. Initial findings were shared with 17 senior scholars, who provided their insights on the history of the journal and its impact on the growth of the discipline. The interviews produced multiple themes regarding the impact of the journal and the evolution of research. Findings from the mixed-methods analysis include that research in the journal has grown exponentially and become more cohesive over time, that Public Relations Review has been a responsive vehicle for scholarly growth, that a wide variety of economic incentives have driven the agendas of the journal (and of researchers), and that fostering healthy disagreement among researchers is among the next steps forward for the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]