what is the importance of research in public relations

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

24 The Importance of Research in Public Relations

Research is a crucial component of the public relations process. There are several key reasons why research is so important. First, research allows us to develop a PR strategy . For example, in our cookie example, research allows us to develop a strategy for one of our key publics with nostalgia as a main focus. This information will allow us to design specific campaigns with particular targets and goals, to ensure we aren’t wasting time, money, and energy. This helps public relations operate as a strategic function of the organization, contributing to overall organizational goals and objectives .

what is the importance of research in public relations

Another reason why research is so important in public relations is that it can be used to measure the effectiveness of our public relations efforts. For example, we can measure how often our key public is purchasing Scrumpties cookies before our campaign, during our campaign, and after out campaign. This way, we can understand if our campaign has an impact purchasing habits. Was the campaign worthwhile? Was it effective? Research helps us answer these questions and justify the value of public relations within organizations by directing funds to effective strategies.

If we do research before we begin communicating, we can ensure we are capturing the views of our publics . We can identify key publics, develop targeted communications based on what is important to our publics, and build relationships with those publics who may be interested in our messaging. This contributes to two-way communication , instead of outdated methods of disseminating information one way to our publics (Grunig, 1992). Research is what allows us to understand our publics, their needs, and their values, and ensures that we are as effective and strategic as possible in the public relations process.

If we didn’t do research, PR would not be a key strategic function of organizations. Instead, we would be making decisions based on hunches and instinct, and generating publicity without any clear sense of who our publics are and what matters to them. As a central, strategic function of organizations, public relations relies on research to identify issues, problem solve, prevent and manage crises, develop and maintain relationships with publics, and deploy useful strategies and campaigns to support organizational goals and objectives. Being able to understand, conduct, and report on research also allows public relations professionals to demonstrate the value and worth of PR activities and helps ensure PR is part of the organization’s dominant coalition. In short, research matters!

This chapter is a very brief introduction to public relations research. Research is complicated, and you will learn a lot more about research design, methods, and best practices throughout your degree. For now, it is important that you recognize why research is so important in public relations, and that you are aware of its critical function within the public relations process ( RACE ). You should know the difference between formal and informal research, understand what quantitative and qualitative research means, and be aware of two key research techniques: surveys and focus groups.

Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim

A goal is something that a person or group is trying to achieve.

An objective is a goal expressed in specific terms.

Any group(s) of people held together by a common interest. They differ from audiences in that they often self-organize and do not have to attune to messages; publics differ from stakeholders in that they do not necessarily have a financial stake tying them to specific goals or consequences of the organization. Targeted audiences, on the other hand, are publics who receive a specifically targeted message that is tailored to their interests.

A process by which two people or groups are able to communicate with each other in a reciprocal way

A process when a person or group sends a message and receives no feedback of any kind from the receiver

RACE formula includes Research, Action planning & Analysis, Communication, Evaluation

Foundations of Public Relations: Canadian Edition Copyright © by Department of Communication Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

About Brant
Public Relations
Social Media
PR Articles

Just how important is research in public relations?

Just how important is research…

Photo credit: Janeneke Staaks via Flickr cc

By Megan R. Auren

Where research fits into public relations

Public relations activities are often explained with acronyms like ROPES and RACE.

ROPES: Research, objectives, programming, evaluation, stewardship.
RACE: Research, action, communication, evaluation.

It is important to note research is the foundation of all public relations activities and should operate on a continuous cycle. However, research is often overlooked and left behind during plan progression. Failing to revisit research throughout a plan is a mistake and can lead to expensive repercussions.

A crash course in research

Theoretical research and applied research: Public relations professionals most often use applied research in their field. Applied research uses framework created by theoretical research to understand situations and solve problems.
Quantitative and qualitative data: Within research are terms such as quantitative data and qualitative data. Quantitative data reports quantities whereas qualitative data reports subjective responses. Both quantitative data and qualitative data are equally important to public relations research.

The importance of research in public relations

Research establishes a foundation for a public relations plan. Research allows public relations professionals to learn and understand an organization, its goals and its target market. In this baseline phase of research public relations professionals are able to judge current organization efforts and use industry knowledge to give advice and provide direction for the plan.
Research allows for preparation of change and industry trends. In addition to foundation research, continuous research allows for preparation of change and industry trends. Continuous research efforts involve monitoring and tracking a plan and are referred to as checkpoint research or benchmark research.
Research grants proper evaluation. The final activity in a public relations plan is preparing an evaluation of the plan. Proper measurement and assessment can only be administered when compared to baseline research. Therefore, if a baseline of research is not collected at the beginning of a plan then the effectiveness of the final evaluation diminishes.

Don’t leave research behind

In order to create an effective public relations plan research must be at the forefront of decision making and must be included throughout the plan. Therefore, the best public relations practices involve completing a foundation of baseline research and then accommodating for checkpoint research throughout the plan. Doing so will ensure your public relations plan stays on track, is able to adjust to change, and remains up to date with industry trends.

More public relations insights

Learn more in the book Promoting Your Business: How to Harness the Power of Media Relations and Influencer Marketing .

The role of public relations in the marketing mix
Promoting Your Business: new public relations resource for entrepreneurs
Public relations case study: Johnson & Johnson Tylenol crisis

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OUR NEWSLETTER

May 21, 2019

The importance of research in a public relations campaign.

#OlivePRMoments
#TheOliveWay
#IlluminatingGreatness
#NowTrending

By Jaclyn Walian

Contrary to what some may think, research plays an integral role in any public relations and social media campaign. It should be the foundation to the plan and incorporated into every step after. Research is what lets us know and understand target audiences , what resonates with those target audiences and the impact of the campaign. Research allows us to better guide the campaign so you can actually see results and a return on your investment. It is something that should not be overlooked.

We’re not saying that you have to go out and spend thousands of dollars on research. While that is always helpful, there are other ways to gather important information without breaking the bank:

Customer/client survey – use the contact information you already have to conduct a survey
Informal focus group – gather some friends or reach out to your network to conduct a focus group
Hit the streets – go to a high traffic area and talk to people
Social media and website analytics – you can gather a lot of information from these sources

At Olive, we like to look at numbers and facts to help guide our campaigns. A great example of this is when we worked with VIM & VIGR , a fashionable compression sock company. Being that they were new to the market, we didn’t have much research so we kicked off with what we thought would be the best route – going after the fitness and fashion markets as well as the general public. While these audiences loved the product, we soon realized that the audiences with the most conversions were those professions that were on their feet all day – nurses, teachers, etc. – and those that needed compression socks for medical reasons – DVT and pregnancy. Once we had numbers to look at, we quickly pivoted our plans and changed our strategy to target the audiences most likely to purchase the products.

We also focus on the result of the result, which comes from research. While it’s great if we secure a media hit on a site that has 1 million unique monthly visitors, that does not mean that 1 million people will see the article or convert and purchase a product. We work with our clients to determine what the actual impact was – did it result in sales, increased traffic, etc.? If yes, then we are on the right track. If no, we hit the drawing board to figure out a new strategy with the new information we now have.

Interested in making sure research plays into your campaign? Contact us at [email protected]

How Is Research Important to Strategic Public Relations Plans?

Small Business
Business Planning & Strategy
Strategic Planning
')" data-event="social share" data-info="Pinterest" aria-label="Share on Pinterest">
')" data-event="social share" data-info="Reddit" aria-label="Share on Reddit">
')" data-event="social share" data-info="Flipboard" aria-label="Share on Flipboard">

Effective Communication & Leadership

The importance of planning in an organization, goals of a team leader.

How to Write a Good Project Proposal for Donor Funding
Corporate Development & Planning

Formulating strategic public relations plans for your small business involves conducting some research, whether it is through customer surveys or other methods of data gathering. Public relations workers may give their opinions and recommendations on conducting research, but top management needs to understand the importance of research in PR campaigns and make informed decisions on how to proceed.

The Importance of Research in Public Relations

Research, when conducted properly, eliminates bias and gives the leaders of a company a realistic picture of how various members of the public perceive the organization. As North Kentucky University mentions, if the leaders and public relations workers in a company were to rely solely on their own biased opinions of how the public views the organization, they would risk not really knowing if the organization’s public image needs to be improved. The leaders and public relations workers also risk making decisions that would not positively affect the public’s perception of the organization.

Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses

Research for a public relations plan should involve a non-biased assessment of the organization itself. This research analyzes not only the overall mission of the organization but also how far the organization has gone toward achieving its mission. The research also gives a list and assessment of all resources available to the organization that it may use in the implementation of a public relations plan. Leadership in the organization also receives information about any liabilities or possible internal threats that could jeopardize the public relations plan, allowing the leadership to devise a plan for how to proactively manage these risks.

Research and Public Relations Messaging

The research conducted by the organization provides valuable information about how the organization should craft its public relations messaging. The research provides feedback about what matters most to the public, which the organization addresses or incorporates in public relations messaging. Thorough research on groups the organization interacts with also supplies a list of media forms the different groups engage in, letting the organization know the most effective methods of delivering its message.

Gaining Feedback From Stakeholders

After a public relations plan has been formulated and then put into practice, additional research provides feedback on the actual public relations plan. This research allows the organization to determine if any of the objectives formulated for the public relations plan has been achieved and to what degree.

As Nikki Little at Identity points out, organizations should limit the amount of time they spend researching and analyzing to a specific timeline, otherwise you run the risk of inaction due to analysis paralysis. Knowing how effective the public relations plan is at achieving the objectives helps the organization decide whether to continue with the plan, make adjustments to the plan or to scrap the plan and begin formulating a new one.

Northern Kentucky University; Public Relations Planning; Strategic Planning Steps; Michael Turney
Identity: A Practical Guide to Public Relations Strategic Planning

What is the difference between operational guidance and operational planning, organizational communication objectives for human services, organizational structure policies, strategic planning at all organization levels, what is a productivity plan, tips on knowing your target audience when communicating within an organization, describe the concept of strategic alignment, how to analyze the key success factors for plan implementation, how to form a 501c, most popular.

1 What Is the Difference Between Operational Guidance and Operational Planning?
2 Organizational Communication Objectives for Human Services
3 Organizational Structure Policies
4 Strategic Planning at All Organization Levels

Chapter 8 Public Relations Research: The Key to Strategy

If you previously ascribed to the common misconception that public relations is a simple use of communication to persuade publics, Bowen (2003), pp. 199–214. you might be surprised at the important role that research plays in public relations management. Bowen (2009a), pp. 402–410. We can argue that as much as three quarters of the public relations process is based on research—research, action planning, and evaluation—which are three of the four steps in the strategic management process in the RACE acronym (which stands for research, action planning, communication, and evaluation).

8.1 Importance of Research in Public Relations Management

Public relations professionals often find themselves in the position of having to convince management to fund research, or to describe the importance of research as a crucial part of a departmental or project budget. Research is an essential part of public relations management. Here is a closer look at why scholars argued that conducting both formative and evaluative research is vital in modern public relations management:

Research makes communication two-way by collecting information from publics rather than one-way, which is a simple dissemination of information. Research allows us to engage in dialogue with publics, understanding their beliefs and values, and working to build understanding on their part of the internal workings and policies of the organization. Scholars find that two-way communication is generally more effective than one-way communication, especially in instances in which the organization is heavily regulated by government or confronts a turbulent environment in the form of changing industry trends or of activist groups. See, for example, Grunig (1984), pp. 6–29; Grunig (1992a; 2001); Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002); Grunig and Repper (1992).
Research makes public relations activities strategic by ensuring that communication is specifically targeted to publics who want, need, or care about the information. Ehling and Dozier (1992). Without conducting research, public relations is based on experience or instinct, neither of which play large roles in strategic management. This type of research prevents us from wasting money on communications that are not reaching intended publics or not doing the job that we had designed them to do.
Research allows us to show results , to measure impact, and to refocus our efforts based on those numbers. Dozier and Ehling (1992). For example, if an initiative is not working with a certain public we can show that ineffectiveness statistically, and the communication can be redesigned or eliminated. Thus, we can direct funds toward more successful elements of the public relations initiative.

Without research, public relations would not be a true management function . It would not be strategic or a part of executive strategic planning, but would regress to the days of simple press agentry, following hunches and instinct to create publicity. As a true management function, public relations uses research to identify issues and engage in problem solving, to prevent and manage crises, to make organizations responsive and responsible to their publics, to create better organizational policy, and to build and maintain long-term relationships with publics. A thorough knowledge of research methods and extensive analyses of data also allow public relations practitioners a seat in the dominant coalition and a way to illustrate the value and worth of their activities. In this manner, research is the strategic foundation of modern public relations management. Stacks and Michaelson (in press).

8.2 Purpose and Forms of Research

The purpose of research is to allow us to develop strategy in public relations in order to (a) conduct our campaigns with specific purpose and targeted goals, (b) operate as a part of the overall strategic management function in an organization, and (c) measure the effectiveness of public relations efforts. By conducting research before we communicate, we revise our own thinking to include the views of publics. We can segment those publics, tailor communications for unique publics, send different messages to specifically targeted publics, and build relationships by communicating with publics who have an interest in our message. This type of planning research is called formative research Planning research that is conducted so that what the publics know, believe, or value and what they need or desire to know can be understood before communication is begun. because it helps us form our public relations campaign. Stacks (2002). Formative research is conducted so that we can understand what publics know, believe, or value and what they need or desire to know before we began communicating. Thereby, public relations does not waste effort or money communicating with those that have no interest in our message.

Research also allows public relations professionals to show the impact made through their communication efforts after a public relations campaign. This type of research is called evaluation research Research that allows public relations professionals to show the impact made through their communication efforts after a public relations campaign. . Using both forms of research in public relations allows us to communicate strategically and to demonstrate our effectiveness. For example, formative research can be used to determine the percentage of publics who are aware of the organization’s policy on an issue of concern. Through the use of a survey, we might find that 17% of the target public is aware of the policy. Strategically, the organization would like more members of that public to be aware of the organization’s policy, so the public relations department communicates through various channels sending targeted messages.

After a predetermined amount of time, a survey practically identical to the first one is conducted. If public relations efforts were successful, the percentage of members of a public aware of the organization’s policy should increase. That increase is directly attributable to the efforts of the public relations campaign. We could report, “Members of the community public aware of our new toxic waste disposal initiative increased from 17% to 33% in the last 2 months.” Measures such as these are extremely common in public relations management. They may be referred to as benchmarking because they establish a benchmark and then measure the amount of change, similar to a before-and-after comparison. Stacks (2002); Broom and Dozier (1990). The use of statistically generalizable research methods allows such comparisons to be made with a reasonable degree of confidence across various publics, geographic regions, issues, psychographics, and demographic groups.

In this section, we will provide a brief overview of the most common forms of research in public relations management and providing examples of their uses and applications and professional public relations. Building upon that basic understanding of research methods, we then return to the theme of the purpose of research and the importance of research in the public relations function.

Formal Research

Research in public relations can be formal or informal. Formal research Research that typically takes place in order to generate numbers and statistics. Formal research is used to both target communications and measure results. normally takes place in order to generate numbers and statistics that we can use to both target communications and measure results. Formal research also is used to gain a deeper, qualitative understanding of the issue of concern, to ascertain the range of consumer responses, and to elicit in-depth opinion data. Formal research is planned research of a quantitative or qualitative nature, normally asking specific questions about topics of concern for the organization. Formal research is both formative , at the outset of a public relations initiative, and evaluative , to determine the degree of change attributable to public relations activities.

Informal Research

Informal research Research that typically gathers information and opinions through conversations and in an ongoing and open exchange of ideas and concerns. is collected on an ongoing basis by most public relations managers, from sources both inside and outside of their organizations. Informal research usually gathers information and opinions through conversations. It consists of asking questions, talking to members of publics or employees in the organization to find out their concerns, reading e-mails from customers or comment cards, and other informal methods, such as scanning the news and trade press. Informal research comes from the boundary spanning role of the public relations professional, meaning that he or she maintains contacts with publics external to the organization, and with internal publics. The public relations professional spends a great deal of time communicating informally with these contacts, in an open exchange of ideas and concerns. This is one way that public relations can keep abreast of changes in an industry, trends affecting the competitive marketplace, issues of discontent among the publics, the values and activities of activist groups, the innovations of competitors, and so on. Informal research methods are usually nonnumerical and are not generalizable to a larger population, but they yield a great deal of useful information. The data yielded from informal research can be used to examine or revise organizational policy, to craft messages in the phraseology of publics, to respond to trends in an industry, to include the values or priorities of publics in new initiatives, and numerous other derivations.

8.3 Types of Research

Research in public relations management requires the use of specialized terminology. The term primary research The collection of unique data, normally proprietary, that is firsthand and relevant to a specific client or campaign. It is often the most expensive type of data to collect. is used to designate when we collect unique data in normally proprietary information, firsthand and specifically relevant to a certain client or campaign. Stacks (2002). Primary research, because it is unique to your organization and research questions, is often the most expensive type of data to collect. Secondary research The collection of data that is typically part of the public domain but is applicable to a client, organization, or industry. It can be used to round out and support the conclusions drawn from primary research. refers to research that is normally a part of public domain but is applicable to our client, organization, or industry, and can be used to round out and support the conclusions drawn from our primary research. Stacks (2002); Stacks and Michaelson (in press). Secondary research is normally accessed through the Internet or available at libraries or from industry and trade associations. Reference books, encyclopedias, and trade press publications provide a wealth of free or inexpensive secondary research. Managers often use secondary research as an exploratory base from which to decide what type of primary research needs to be conducted.

Quantitative Research

When we speak of research in public relations, we are normally referring to primary research, such as public opinion studies based on surveys and polling. (The following lists quantitative research methods commonly employed in public relations.) Surveys are synonymous with public opinion polls, and are one example of quantitative research. Quantitative research Research that is based on statistical generalization. It allows numerical observations to be made in order for organizations to improve relationships with certain publics and then measure how much those relationships have improved or degraded. is based on statistical generalization . It allows us to make numerical observations such as “85% of Infiniti owners say that they would purchase an Infiniti again.” Statistical observations allow us to know exactly where we need to improve relationships with certain publics, and we can then measure how much those relationships have ultimately improved (or degraded) at the end of a public relations initiative. For example, a strategic report in public relations management for the automobile maker Infiniti might include a statement such as “11% of new car buyers were familiar with the G35 all-wheel-drive option 3 months ago, and after our campaign 28% of new car buyers were familiar with this option, meaning that we created a 17% increase in awareness among the new car buyer public.” Other data gathered might report on purchasing intentions, important features of a new vehicle to that public, brand reputation variables, and so on. Quantitative research allows us to have a before and after snapshot to compare the numbers in each group, therefore allowing us to say how much change was evidenced as a result of public relations’ efforts.

Methods of Quantitative Data Collection

Internet-based surveys
Telephone surveys
Mail surveys
Content analysis (usually of media coverage)
Comment cards and feedback forms
Warranty cards (usually demographic information on buyers)
Frequent shopper program tracking (purchasing data)

In quantitative research, the entire public you wish to understand or make statements about is called the population In quantitative research, the entire public that is sought to be understood or about which statements are made. . The population might be women over 40, Democrats, Republicans, purchasers of a competitor’s product, or any other group that you would like to study. From that population, you would select a sample In quantitative research, a portion of a population that is sought for study. to actually contact with questions. Probability samples A randomly drawn portion of a population from which the strongest statistical measure of generalizability can be drawn. can be randomly drawn from a list of the population, which gives you the strongest statistical measures of generalizability. A random sample A randomly drawn portion of a population in which the participants have an equal chance of being selected. means that participants are drawn randomly and have an equal chance of being selected. You know some variants in your population exists, but a random sample should account for all opinions in that population. The larger the sample size (number of respondents), the smaller the margin of error and the more confident the researcher can be that the sample is an accurate reflection of the entire population.

There are also other sampling methods, known as nonprobability samples Research sampling that does not allow for generalization but that meets the requirements of the problem or project. , that do not allow for generalization but meet the requirement of the problem or project. A convenience sample A population sample drawn from those who are convenient to study. , for instance, is drawn from those who are convenient to study, such as having visitors to a shopping mall fill out a survey. Another approach is a snowball sample A population sample in which the researcher asks a respondent participating in a survey to recommend another respondent for the survey. in which the researcher asks someone completing a survey to recommend the next potential respondent to complete the survey. A purposive sample Research sampling in which a specific group of people is sought out for research. is when you seek out a certain group of people. These methods allow no generalizability to the larger population, but they are often less expensive than random sample methods and still may generate the type of data that answers your research question.

Quantitative research has the major strength of allowing you to understand who your publics are, where they get their information, how many believe certain viewpoints, and which communications create the strongest resonance with their beliefs. Demographic variables are used to very specifically segment publics. Demographics are generally gender, education, race, profession, geographic location, annual household income, political affiliation, religious affiliation, and size of family or household. Once these data are collected, it is easy to spot trends by cross-tabulating the data with opinion and attitude variables. Such cross-tabulations result in very specific publics who can be targeted with future messages in the channels and the language that they prefer. For example, in conducting public relations research for a health insurance company, cross-tabulating data with survey demographics might yield a public who are White males, are highly educated and professional, live in the southeastern United States, have an annual household income above $125,000, usually vote conservatively and have some religious beliefs, have an average household size of 3.8 people, and strongly agree with the following message: “Health insurance should be an individual choice, not the responsibility of government.” In that example, you would have identified a voting public to whom you could reach out for support of individualized health insurance.

Segmenting publics in this manner is an everyday occurrence in public relations management. Through their segmentation, public relations managers have an idea of who will support their organization, who will oppose the organization, and what communications—messages and values—resonate with each public. After using research to identify these groups, public relations professionals can then build relationships with them in order to conduct informal research, better understand their positions, and help to represent the values and desires of those publics in organizational decision making and policy formation.

Qualitative Research

The second major kind of research method normally used in the public relations industry is qualitative research. Qualitative research Research that allows the researcher to generate in-depth, quality information in order to understand public opinion. This type of research is not generalizable but it often provides quotes that can be used in strategy documents. generates in-depth , “quality ” information that allows us to truly understand public opinion , but it is not statistically generalizable. (The following lists qualitative research methods commonly employed in public relations.) Qualitative research is enormously valuable because it allows us to truly learn the experience, values, and viewpoints of our publics. It also provides ample quotes to use as evidence or illustration in our strategy documents, and sometimes even results in slogans or fodder for use in public relations’ messages.

Qualitative research is particularly adept at answering questions from public relations practitioners that began “How?” or “Why?” Yin (1994). This form of research allows the researcher to ask the participants to explain their rationale for decision making, belief systems, values, thought processes, and so on. It allows researchers to explore complicated topics to understand the meaning behind them and the meanings that participants ascribe to certain concepts. For example, a researcher might ask a participant, “What does the concept of liberty mean to you?” and get a detailed explanation. However, we would expect that explanation to vary among participants, and different concepts might be associated with liberty when asking an American versus a citizen of Iran or China. Such complex understandings are extremely helpful in integrating the values and ideas of publics into organizational strategy, as well as in crafting messages that resonate with those specific publics of different nationalities.

Methods of Qualitative Data Collection

In-depth interviews
Focus groups
Case studies
Participant observation
Monitoring toll-free (1-800 #) call transcripts
Monitoring complaints by e-mail and letter

Public relations managers often use qualitative research to support quantitative findings. Qualitative research can be designed to understand the views of specific publics and to have them elaborate on beliefs or values that stood out in quantitative analyses. For example, if quantitative research showed a strong agreement with the particular statement, that statement could be read to focus group participants and ask them to agree or disagree with this statement and explain their rationale and thought process behind that choice. In this manner, qualitative researchers can understand complex reasoning and dilemmas in much greater detail than only through results yielded by a survey. Miles and Huberman (1994).

Another reason to use qualitative research is that it can provide data that researchers did not know they needed. For instance, a focus group may take an unexpected turn and the discussion may yield statements that the researcher had not thought to include on a survey questionnaire. Sometimes unknown information or unfamiliar perspectives arise through qualitative studies that are ultimately extremely valuable to public relations’ understanding of the issues impacting publics.

Qualitative research also allows for participants to speak for themselves rather than to use the terminology provided by researchers. This benefit can often yield a greater understanding that results in far more effective messages than when public relations practitioners attempt to construct views of publics based on quantitative research alone. Using the representative language of members of a certain public often allows public relations to build a more respectful relationship with that public. For instance, animal rights activists often use the term “companion animal” instead of the term “pet”—that information could be extremely important to organizations such as Purina or to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Mixed Methods/Triangulation

Clearly, both quantitative and qualitative research have complementary and unique strengths. These two research methodologies should be used in conjunction whenever possible in public relations management so that both publics and issues can be fully understood. Using both of these research methods together is called mixed method research A research method that combines quantitative and qualitative research. This method is considered to yield the most reliable research results. , and scholars generally agree that mixing methods yields the most reliable research results. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998). It is best to combine as many methods as is feasible to understand important issues. Combining multiple focus groups from various cities with interviews of important leaders and a quantitative survey of publics is an example of mixed method research because it includes both quantitative and qualitative methodology. Using two or more methods of study is sometimes called triangulation In public relations, the use of two or more methods of study in order to ascertain how publics view an issue. , meaning using multiple research methods to triangulate upon the underlying truth of how publics view an issue. See Stacks (2002); Hickson (2003).

8.4 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, we examined the vital role of research in public relations management, both in making the function strategic and in adding to its credibility as a management function. Because research comprises such a large part of the public relations process—three of the four steps in the strategic management process—we discussed the purposes and forms of commonly used research in public relations. The roles of formal and informal research were discussed, as well as the major approaches to research: quantitative (numerically based) and qualitative (in-depth based) as well as the types of types of data collection commonly used in public relations in the mixing of methods.

Taking Digital PR To A New Level

Suggestions, the four-step process in public relations.

The start of the year isn’t just a perfect time to set goals in your personal life. Also, it can be a great opportunity to reconsider your company’s public relations strategy and check if your efforts will bring your desired results all year long.

The best way to boost public relations plans is to follow the four-step RPIE method, which will help you analyze all of the communication activities that are part of your campaign and guarantee they connect to the broader goals of your organization.

The four-step process can help you drive awareness, change attitudes and impact behavior. The four-step process states that to be effective, public relations must be used as a management function. PR managers should be proactive in identifying the issues and scanning the environment.

Whether you’re a beginner who is new to the world of RPIE or an experienced PR communicator who just needs some updates, here, in this article, you’ll find the core things you need to know about this four-step method for your PR success.

Key Elements of the Four-Step Process in Public Relations

#1 research.

Each step is as important as the others, but the first one is crucial. Research should start from gathering information to diagnose the problem. The information you find and understanding you gain in the first step impact other steps in the process and shape the final result.

While the term “public relations” is often associated with big international events like black-tie galas and celebrities’ social media campaigns, those working in the industry know the reality: a significant part of any PR routine is actually gathering data.

So part of this first step in the research is knowing and understanding your target audience. This also means knowing where the audience receives information and news and what media they consume.

Before you start brainstorming about the creative ideas for a successful PR campaign, you have to do the research and carefully consider questions such as:

WHO are you trying to conquer with the campaign?
WHAT do you want the audiences you reach to do?
WHAT are the key messages you want the audiences who are involved in your communications activities to take away?

Many PR experts will tell you that proper research almost guarantees you some surprising findings and new useful insights. You must hold primary research (focus groups, surveys, and interviews—

the most expensive) and secondary research (Internet/social media research, literature reviews, and fact-finding) in order to find real data that will help you find true answers to the questions above.

#2 Planning

In the planning stage, you have to focus on the best ways to find a solution to the communication problem or PR goal. Goals and objectives are created in this phase. Your objectives have to be SMART:

Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Timely

These features will help you create and evaluate the implementation.

No matter what is the goal of your public relations plan is—whether it’s raising awareness for a cause or increasing attendance to an event—carefully defining these five elements will provide the roadmap your plan needs to be successful:

Goals are broad, long-term declarations that often attempt to capture a future state of being for a brand.

Example: To become the state leader in your industry

A company’s publics are the key groups of people who have a stake in that organization.

Example: Shareholders, customers, employees

Objectives are shorter-term statements than goals and help to clearly define the attitude shift or behavior change you’d like to reach from one of the given audiences defined above. Objectives should have SMART features—being specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-specific.

Example: To increase downloads of agency’s guide by 10% by the end of the year

Strategies detail how to achieve your objectives.

Example: Spend more money on ads to improve your company’s messaging.

Tactics are the specific public relations activities that will be completed in order to implement a strategy.

Example: Published articles, social media posts, organized events

#3 Implementation

The third phase of the public relations plan is where you actually execute all the actions from your plan. These are the tactics presenting our strategy. What are tactics? Tactics mean the tools you use to execute your plan, like writing a press release, organizing a special event, sending a newsletter, posting on social media, and more. Tactics are the doing part of public relations.

Some of the most important factors to remember during the implementation phase are:

Timetable: Especially for longer-term campaigns, creating a schedule that sets the specific dates when key processes will be finished and the next one should start. (Just remember, the deadlines have to be realistic.)
Accountabilities: In addition to defining when specific stages of the plan must be finished , it’s also important to define who is responsible for executing them.
Budget: Make it a point to clearly call out the money assigned to each part of the campaign. (Update it in real-time as elements came in under- or over-budget.)

#4 Evaluation

Although it can sometimes be disregarded, this final phase of the plan is one of the most important. Evaluation is a focus on results. It helps understand whether the communication actions you performed as part of the campaign actually fulfilled their desired goals. Did you reach the objectives? An evaluation improves public relations because this is how PR managers show value to clients.

The first step in a successful evaluation phase is collecting information that will help you determine the success of your program against the objectives defined in your plan. For example, if your plan covers outcome-based goals (not including awareness increase, changes in opinions, or behavior), you must have some tools and methods to correctly estimate those objectives, whether it’s conducting a survey or looking at fundraising information.

Nevertheless, simply looking at data and then proceeding from that isn’t enough. To fully evaluate the success of a public relations plan, it’s important to analyze individual elements and understand what aspects of the plan were successful—and, just as importantly, which weren’t. Identifying your strengths and weaknesses will go a long way toward helping you choose ways to improve and adjust your plan, messages, and materials going forward.

Most often, the outcome you find during the evaluation stage will become the start for the next plan you complete. Hence the cycle repeats, bringing your company closer to achieving goals next year.

An Example of the Four-Step Process in PR

Now let’s dive deeper into the four-step process in public relations with an example that will better illustrate how to apply RPIE method.

The first step to consider is what communication problem is there to solve or the what goal needs to be achieved.

Sometimes clients or brand managers will self-identify a problem, or maybe you are pitching new business and setting the goals yourselves. Whatever it is, it’s important to define it.

Let’s learn the four-step process implementation with the next task example: to fill the football stadium of a university team.

Before we start to think about how to increase attendance, it’s important to find a reason why the games at the stadium are not popular among the students. Remember, research is the first step in the public relations process.

So first, begin with research. For this, it will be helpful to conduct an environmental scan, monitoring the internal and external environments.

This includes gathering information about segments of the audience, the reactions to the team and university in general, and people’s opinions about issues important to the organization. It’s also useful to carry out a SWOT analysis identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the organization.

These methods provide context for the communication problem you are working to solve. The better you will know the organization, the situation, maybe even the history, the better you can strategize on how to solve an issue or reach your PR goal. During the research step, you should conduct both primary and secondary research and use different methods, such as interviews of focus groups, surveys, etc.

So the research revealed that this particular university and residents of this city had a huge interest in basketball. So the reason students didn’t attend football games was because of a low fandom for football. This university football team became a victim of the university’s reputation—

students who attended the university were interested in basketball, and therefore attending football matches was not their goal and interest. So the first reason was found.

Providing a proof motion may fill the stadium once or twice, but remember, public relations is about the long game. Thus, it was important to drill down past the superficiality of the stadium attendance and find more reasons why were students are not attending. Why were locals not attending football games as well?

Answering those questions will help define brand value and brand equity. So here’s further situation analysis. As it was mentioned earlier, the culture of the university was basketball. There wasn’t a lot of interest in football. The university’s football team also had bad results, perhaps a consequence of the empty stadium. But does a full stadium, a winning team make? Absolutely not.

Students needed to become fans or brand ambassadors. What happens when you like a team? You wear their clothes, you take part in their events, you cheer for your favorite players, you engage on social media, you care about the results, and you still keep on attending the games even when your favorite team is loses in the championships for years.

So one part of the research helped determine the goal of public relations for this sporting organization— to create brand ambassadors or fans.

To find more information, conduct a SWOT analysis and discover the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organization concerning the communication problem. These methods include survey, content analysis, digital analytics and others.

Beginning with the strength: the university administration was ready to help by all necessary means. In addition, the space around the stadium was perfect for entertaining fans. Moreover, the city where the university was located had large enterprises, and that provided an opportunity for sponsorships and partnerships. This means the football team had new stakeholders to build relationships with.

The weaknesses included low game-day attendance, little expression, little school spirit, or minimal fandom. Another weakness was the university’s use of social media. They had too many pages that spread out attention.

After this, let’s move from research to the second step — planning. This is where we plan the messaging strategy. Defining objectives help to keep us on track and decide what it is that we want the communication to do or achieve. This is where strategy comes into public relations.

So we wanted to find a way to increase the brand value of the football team. Find a way to create emotional contact with students and provide benefits for engaging with the brand. The objectives here are focused on interest, prestige, engagement, raising awareness and education. Point out the objectives are not about filling in the stadium. PR is not about short-term actions or stunts. Instead, we want to achieve long-term goals for the mission of the company. It’s better to eliminate the root cause of the problem and try to make some useful changes there. We have to push forward the mission of the brand. That’s a long process. If we are successful with these objectives, the results should have a bigger effect than an increase in the attendance in the stadium.

Then, let’s go over the third phase — implementation. This phase is often thought to be more interesting and creative side of public relations because this is the execution of the strategy phase or where we put the tactics into action.

In this case study, these are some of the tactics that were appropriate to implement. First, it is important to create hype around football games. It was a good idea to organize pregame concerts and invite students to participate in pregame contests and events engaging with the brand.

Then the university website was updated with photos from these events and the social media accounts also featured them. And it gave an opportunity to gather the fans, listen to the reviews, and involve the target audience via a new source. Many people also had difficulty attending games due to all of the unknowns involved. So building an app to centralize information about game day was important, as it provided benefits for users attending football games.

Also, this university initiated the traditions like singing fight songs and using crowd engagement tactics. It’s great to provide fans with a memorable experience so they talk about it and become brand ambassadors.

Finally, it’s important to realize the fourth phase of the process — evaluation. It is about showing value. What did the PR efforts achieve? Did they meet the objectives? Is the issue solved? This is what the evaluation stage is about in public relations. In this particular example, public relations absolutely helped fill the stadium with fans. This university’s football program has continued to improve and now it’s hard to get a ticket to their football games. The brand value has increased and the stakeholders are proud to be associated with the team. This is ultimately the goal of public relations.

I hope this example showed how much the four-step process can assist in successfully executed PR work. When PR is used as a management function, meaning strategically, not tactically, that’s when it is the most productive.

Content Marketing Platform

100,000+ media publications;
get backlinks to your product;
scale work with content distribution.

Following these time-tested steps in executing your PR campaign is sure to help you succeed —whether that success means winning an award or helping your brand achieve its business goals.

Latest from Featured Posts

Teamsale CRM Uses PRNEWS.IO to Increase Media Visibility in New Regions

About Teamsale CRM Teamsale CRM is the definitive CRM solution that seamlessly integrates voice, messaging, and…

Smaily Increased Brand Awareness in New Markets with PRNEWS.IO

Smaily, founded in 2005 by Erkki Markus, is a renowned email marketing and automation platform, managing…

Breaking Barriers: PRNEWS.IO's Impact on Brokeree Solutions - Unveiling a 30% Domain Rating Surge

Brokeree Solutions Tripled Media Mentions and Achieved a 5-Point SERP Jump with PRNEWS.IO

Today, we want to share a case study on the collaboration between PRNEWS.IO and Brokeree Solutions.…

Bojoko Used PRNEWS.IO to Enhance Visibility and Expand Audience in iGaming

Christoffer Ødegården, the Head of Casino at Bojoko, invites us to explore their success story in…

Digital Funnel Used PRNEWS.IO to Overcome Challenges in Securing High-Quality Media Placements for Clients

About Digital Funnel Digital Funnel is a full-service digital marketing agency based in Ireland and the…

This is “Importance of Research in Public Relations Management”, section 8.1 from the book Public Relations (v. 1.0). For details on it (including licensing), click here .

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms.

This content was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.

Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page .

For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page . You can browse or download additional books there. To download a .zip file containing this book to use offline, simply click here .

8.1 Importance of Research in Public Relations Management

Research makes communication two-way by collecting information from publics rather than one-way, which is a simple dissemination of information. Research allows us to engage in dialogue with publics, understanding their beliefs and values, and working to build understanding on their part of the internal workings and policies of the organization. Scholars find that two-way communication is generally more effective than one-way communication, especially in instances in which the organization is heavily regulated by government or confronts a turbulent environment in the form of changing industry trends or of activist groups. See, for example, Grunig (1984), pp. 6–29; Grunig (1992a; 2001); Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002); Grunig and Repper (1992).
Research makes public relations activities strategic by ensuring that communication is specifically targeted to publics who want, need, or care about the information. Ehling and Dozier (1992). Without conducting research, public relations is based on experience or instinct, neither of which play large roles in strategic management. This type of research prevents us from wasting money on communications that are not reaching intended publics or not doing the job that we had designed them to do.
Research allows us to show results , to measure impact, and to refocus our efforts based on those numbers. Dozier and Ehling (1992). For example, if an initiative is not working with a certain public we can show that ineffectiveness statistically, and the communication can be redesigned or eliminated. Thus, we can direct funds toward more successful elements of the public relations initiative.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Importance of research and evaluation in public relations

Related Papers

Melissa Dodd

Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa

Fortune Tella

The importance of research by public relations practitioners has been highlighted by leading scholarsin most developed countries. However, studies show that the use of research by practitionersis more talked about than actually done. In Ghana, little is known about how practitioners useresearch. This paper therefore attempts to add to the limited literature by investigating whetherpublic relations (PR) practice in Ghana is informed by research. Data was collected from 93 PRpractitioners using a survey. The results suggest that although research is used by practitioners,the emphasis appears to be on media monitoring and content analysis. The implication is thatresearch cannot be fully appreciated if it is based solely on the amount of publicity received.The value of PR in the eyes of management can only be enhanced if emphasis is placed on theimpact and outcome of research. Practitioners must therefore use a more scientific approach intheir research activities.

Fatima Al Shamsi

Research is essential element in public relation. It's not necessary to have been ambiguous, expensive or complex. There is one way to ensure that Public Relation research arrives on time, on budget and gives the right result to create organizational. This paper will discover the importance of research and research steps in public relations in the UAE organizations. It ended that many PR offices do care about the research but still research needs more awareness and development in the future. More researches need to be collected in the PR field.

JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN HUMANITIES

tanushri mukherjee

There is no second opinion on the fact that in today's highly digitalized communication world, PR has emerged as an indispensable function in almost every organization regardless of its size and nature and it is the most important requirement for securing the desired outcome for every business policy or business initiative. It is also true that this profession is evolving everyday at an accelerating rate ever since the advent of Digital PR and various new and innovative forms of content messaging. But one should not forget the fact that no matter how experienced you are or how much skills you possess, the core is that until and unless you take help of research in planning and executing PR plans or strategies either by being updated about the current trends in information distribution or having an analytical data of the demographic profile of public or by conducting content analysis or readership studies etc, you cannot expect a desired outcome of your PR Programmes and PR strate...

Hallel Onoh

Lewis Ombachi

Effective businesses should invest money into communications research when it comes to optimizing service delivery and customer pleasure. This is where the claim comes in since it ensures the company is prepared to answer concerns about use, branding, advertising, new product launch, and price. Gaining such knowledge is essential for two reasons: predicting the behavior of other businesses and gauging customer response to the company's policies. Given the organization's tight budget, the PR team must allocate resources toward this kind of study to improve the company's public and internal perception

The purpose of this paper is to identify and rank the most important topics for research in the field of public relations. An associated outcome was to propose the research questions most closely linked to the prioritised topics. An international Delphi study on the priorities for public relations research, conducted in 2007 among academics, practitioners and senior executives of professional and industry bodies was used to investigate expert opinion on research priorities for public relations. This choice of qualitative methodology replicated earlier studies by McElreath, White and Blamphin, Synnott and McKie, and Van Ruler et al. The role of public relations in the strategic operation of organisations, and the creation of value by public relations through social capital and relationships were ranked most highly. Some outcomes were comparable with earlier studies; for instance, evaluation of public relations programmes ranked third in this study and was among the leaders in the Synnott and McKie study. Only the topic “management of relationships” was wholly new, whereas “impact of technology on public relations practice and theory” ranked much lower than a decade ago.

Zachary Ochuodho

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Effective ways to communicate research in a journal article

Oxford Academic: Journals

We publish over 500 high-quality journals, with two-thirds in partnership with learned societies and prestigious institutions. Our diverse journal offerings ensure that your research finds a home alongside award-winning content, reaching a global audience and maximizing impact.

By Megan Taphouse , Anne Foster , Eduardo Franco , Howard Browman , and Michael Schnoor
August 12 th 2024

In this blog post, editors of OUP journals delve into the vital aspect of clear communication in a journal article. Anne Foster (Editor of Diplomatic History ), Eduardo Franco (Editor-in-Chief of JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute and JNCI Monographs ), Howard Browman (Editor-in-Chief of ICES Journal of Marine Science ), and Michael Schnoor (Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Leukocyte Biology ) provide editorial recommendations on achieving clarity, avoiding common mistakes, and creating an effective structure.

Ensuring clear communication of research findings

AF : To ensure research findings are clearly communicated, you should be able to state the significance of those findings in one sentence—if you don’t have that simple, clear claim in your mind, you will not be able to communicate it.

MS : The most important thing is clear and concise language. It is also critical to have a logical flow of your story with clear transitions from one research question to the next.

EF : It is crucial to write with both experts and interested non-specialists in mind, valuing their diverse perspectives and insights.

Common mistakes that obscure authors’ arguments and data

AF : Many authors do a lovely job of contextualizing their work, acknowledging what other scholars have written about the topic, but then do not sufficiently distinguish what their work is adding to the conversation.

HB : Be succinct—eliminate repetition and superfluous material. Do not attempt to write a mini review. Do not overinterpret your results or extrapolate far beyond the limits of the study. Do not report the same data in the text, tables, and figures.

The importance of the introduction

AF : The introduction is absolutely critical. It needs to bring them straight into your argument and contribution, as quickly as possible.

EF : The introduction is where you make a promise to the reader. It is like you saying, “I identified this problem and will solve it.” What comes next in the paper is how you kept that promise.

Structural pitfalls

EF : Remember, editors are your first audience; make sure your writing is clear and compelling because if the editor cannot understand your writing, chances are that s/he will reject your paper without sending it out for external peer review.

HB : Authors often misplace content across sections, placing material in the introduction that belongs in methods, results, or discussion, and interpretive phrases in results instead of discussion. Additionally, they redundantly present information in multiple sections.

Creating an effective structure

AF : I have one tip which is more of a thinking and planning strategy. I write myself letters about what I think the argument is, what kinds of support it needs, how I will use the specific material I have to provide that support, how it fits together, etc.

EF : Effective writing comes from effective reading—try to appreciate good writing in the work of others as you read their papers. Do you like their writing? Do you like their strategy of advancing arguments? Are you suspicious of their methods, findings, or how they interpret them? Do you see yourself resisting? Examine your reactions. You should also write frequently. Effective writing is like a physical sport; you develop ‘muscle memory’ by hitting a golf ball or scoring a 3-pointer in basketball.

The importance of visualizing data and findings

MS : It is extremely important to present your data in clean and well-organized figures—they act as your business card. Also, understand and consider the page layout and page or column dimensions of your target journal and format your tables and figures accordingly.

EF : Be careful when cropping gels to assemble them in a figure. Make sure that image contrasts are preserved from the original blots. Image cleaning for the sake of readability can alter the meaning of results and eventually be flagged by readers as suspicious.

The power of editing

AF : Most of the time, our first draft is for ourselves. We write what we have been thinking about most, which means the article reflects our questions, our knowledge, and our interests. A round or two of editing and refining before submission to the journal is valuable.

HB : Editing does yourself a favour by minimizing distractions-annoyances-cosmetic points that a reviewer can criticize. Why give reviewers things to criticize when you can eliminate them by submitting a carefully prepared manuscript?

Editing mistakes to avoid

AF : Do not submit an article which is already at or above the word limit for articles in the journal. The review process rarely asks for cuts; usually, you will be asked to clarify or add material. If you are at the maximum word count in the initial submission, you then must cut something during the revision process.

EF : Wait 2-3 days and then reread your draft. You will be surprised to see how many passages in your great paper are too complicated and inscrutable even for you. And you wrote it!

Featured image by Charlotte May via Pexels .

Megan Taphouse , Marketing Executive

Anne Foster , (Editor of Diplomatic History)

Eduardo Franco , (Editor-in-Chief of JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer institute and JNCI Monographs)

Howard Browman , (Editor-in-Chief of ICES Journal of Marine Science)

Michael Schnoor , (Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Leukocyte Biology)

Publishing 101
Series & Columns

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias 1 ,
Iona Beange 2 ,
Donald Davidson 2 ,
Suzanne Goopy 3 ,
Huayi Huang 3 ,
Fiona Murray 4 ,
Carol Porteous 5 ,
Elizabeth Stevenson 6 ,
Sinead Rhodes 7 ,
Faye Watson 8 &
Sue Fletcher-Watson 7

Research Involvement and Engagement volume 10 , Article number: 83 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1267 Accesses

24 Altmetric

Metrics details

Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities, support colleagues in identifying the ethical considerations relevant to their planned activities, and build confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. The development process involved the creation of a taxonomy outlining key terms used in PEwR work, a self-assessment tool to evaluate the need for formal ethical review, and a code of conduct for ethical PEwR. These tools were refined through iterative discussions and feedback from stakeholders, resulting in practical guidance for researchers navigating the ethical complexities of PEwR. Additionally, reflective prompts were developed to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities, addressing a crucial aspect often overlooked in formal ethical review processes. The paper reflects on the broader regulatory landscape and the limitations of existing approval and governance processes, and prompts critical reflection on the compatibility of formal approval processes with the ethos of PEwR. Overall, the paper offers insights and practical guidance for researchers and institutions grappling with ethical considerations in PEwR, contributing to the ongoing conversation surrounding responsible research practices.

Plain English summary

This paper talks about making research fairer for everyone involved. Sometimes, researchers ask members of the public for advice, guidance or insight, or for help to design or do research, this is sometimes known as ‘public engagement with research’. But figuring out how to do this in a fair and respectful way can be tricky. In this paper, we discuss how we tried to make some helpful tools. These tools help researchers decide if they need to get formal permission, known as ethical approval, for their work when they are engaging with members of the public or communities. They also give tips on how to do the work in a good and fair way. We produced three main tools. One helps people understand the important words used in this kind of work (known as a taxonomy). Another tool helps researchers decide if they need to ask for special permission (a self-assessment tool). And the last tool gives guidelines on how to do the work in a respectful way (a code of conduct). These tools are meant to help researchers do their work better and treat everyone involved fairly. The paper also talks about how more work is needed in the area, but these tools are a good start to making research fairer and more respectful for everyone.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In recent decades, “public involvement in research” has experienced significant development, becoming an essential element of the research landscape. In fact, it has been argued, public involvement may make research better and more relevant [ 7 , p. 1]. Patients’ roles, traditionally study participants, have transformed to become “active partners and co-designers” [ 17 , p. 1]. This evolution has led to the appearance of a multitude of definitions and terms to refer to these activities. In the UK, the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, defines public engagement as the “many ways organisations seek to involve the public in their work” [ 9 ]. In this paper, we also refer to “public involvement,” which is defined as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” (UK Standards for Public Involvement). Further to this, the Health Research Authority (also in the UK), defines public engagement with research as “all the ways in which the research community works together with people including patients, carers, advocates, service users and members of the community” [ 6 ]; [ 9 ]. These terms encompass a wide variety of theorizations, levels of engagement, and terminology, such as ‘patient-oriented research’, ‘participatory’ research or services or ‘patient engagement’ [ 17 , p. 2]. For this paper, we use the term ‘public engagement with research’ or PEwR in this way.

Institutions have been set up to support PEwR activities. In the UK these include the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research (supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research), INVOLVE, and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE). Most recently, in 2023, the UK’s largest funders and healthcare bodies signed a joint statement “to improve the extent and quality of public involvement across the sector so that it is consistently excellent” [ 6 ]. In turn, this has often translated to public engagement becoming a requisite for securing research funding or institutional ethical permissions [ 3 , p. 2], as well as reporting and publishing research [ 15 ]. Despite this welcomed infrastructure to support PEwR, there remain gaps in knowledge and standards in the delivery of PEwR. One such gap concerns the extent to which PEwR should be subject to formal ethical review in the same way as data collection for research.

In 2016, the UK Health Research Authority and INVOLVE published a joint statement suggesting that “involving the public in the design and development of research does not generally raise any ethical concerns” [ 7 , p. 2]. We presume that this statement is using the phrase ‘ethical concerns’ to narrowly refer to the kinds of concerns addressed by a formal research ethics review process, such as safeguarding, withdrawal from research, etc. Footnote 1 . To such an extent, we agree that public involvement with research is not inherently ‘riskier’ than other research activities.

Furthermore, a blanket need for formal ethical review risks demoting or disempowering non-academic contributors from the roles of consultants, co-researchers, or advisors to a more passive status as participants. Attending a meeting as an expert, discussing new project ideas, setting priorities, designing studies and, or interpreting findings does not require that we sign a consent form. Indeed, to do so clearly removes the locus of power away from the person signing and into the hands of the person who wrote the consent form. This particular risk is exacerbated when institutional, formal ethical review processes operate in complex, convoluted and obscure ways that often baffle researchers let alone members of the public.

However, we also recognize that PEwR is not without potential to do harm – something which formal research ethics review aims to anticipate and minimise. For example, a public lecture or a workshop could cause distress to audience members or participants if they learn for the first time that aspects of their lifestyle or personal history put them at higher risk of dementia. When patients are invited to join advisory panels, they may feel pressure to reveal personal details about their medical history to reinforce their expertise or legitimise their presence – especially in a room where most other people have potentially intimidating professional qualifications. Some patient groups may be exploited, if research involvement roles are positioned as an opportunity, or even a duty, and not properly reimbursed. When patients are more deeply involved in research roles, such as collecting or analysing data, they might experience distress, particularly if interacting with participants triggers their own painful or emotional memories [ 14 , p. 98]. Thus, at all levels of PEwR from science communication to embedded co-production, there is a danger of harm to patients or members of the public, and a duty of care on the part of the research team and broader institution who invited them in.

These concerns are not accessory to PEwR activities but rather exist at their heart. Following a review on the impacts of public engagement, Brett et al. conclude that “developing a wide view which considers the impact of PPI [public and patient involvement] on the people involved in the process can be critical to our understanding of why some studies that involve patients and the public thrive, while others fail” [ 1 , p. 388]. Despite the importance of these considerations, there is a stark absence of consistent guidance as to whether different forms of PEwR require formal ethical review. Nor is there, to our knowledge, any sustained attempt to provide a framework for ethical conduct of PEwR in the absence of formal review (see Pandya-Wood et al. [ 11 ]; Greenhalgh et al. [ 5 ]). This is, in part, due to there being a wide heterogeneity of practices, communities, and levels of engagement [ 8 , p. 6] that resists generalizable principles or frameworks.

The lack of frameworks about whether or how PEwR requires formal ethical review can, ironically, be a key barrier to PEwR happening. In our work as members of a university ethics review committee, we have found this lack of guidance to hamper appropriate ethical PEwR in several ways. Researchers may avoid developing PEwR initiatives altogether for fear of having to spend time or resources in securing formal ethical review (especially when this process is lengthy or resource-intensive). Likewise, they may avoid PEwR for fear that its conduction would be unethical. On the other hand, others could assume that the lack of a requirement for formal ethical review means there are no ethical issues or risks involved in PEwR.

Similarly, experts in PEwR who are not experienced with formal research ethics review may face barriers as their PEwR process becomes more elaborate, in-depth, or complex. For example, although a priority-setting exercise with members of an online community of people with depression was assessed as not requiring ethics review, the funding panel requested that formal ethics review be undergone for a follow-up exercised aimed at collecting data answering one of the priority questions identified in the previous priority-setting. It is crucial that innovations in PEwR and findings from this work are shared and yet academic teams may be unable to publish their work in certain journals which require evidence of having undergone formal ethical review. Finally, ethics committees such as ours often must rely on anecdotal knowledge to make judgements about what does or does not require formal ethical review, given the absence of standardized frameworks.

About this paper

In this paper, we report and reflect on the development of specific tools and processes for assessing the ethical needs of PEwR initiatives, as members of an ethics review committee for a large University medical school. These tools aim to delineate boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities of various kinds, provide a self-assessment framework for ethical practice in PEwR and, overall, give people greater confidence when conducting PEwR work. We describe and critically reflect on the development of the following resources:

a taxonomy to define key terms relating to PEwR with associated resource recommendations.

a self-assessment tool to support people understanding where their planned activities fall in relation to research or PEwR.

a code of conduct for ethical conduct of PEwR (appended to the self-assessment tool).

We will, first, describe our work as part of an institutional ethics committee, the identification of a need for specific guidance, and our key assumptions; we will then describe the process of developing these tools and processes; provide an overview of the tools themselves; and reflect on early feedback received and future work needed.

Developing specific tools for PEWR in ethics

Identifying needs, goals and outputs.

The Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee (EMREC) provides ethical opinions to members of staff and postgraduate researchers within the University of Edinburgh Medical School in relation to planned research to be conducted on humans i.e. their data, or tissues. These research activities come from a wide range of disciplines, including public health, epidemiology, social science or psychology. EMREC does not review research that involves recruitment of NHS patients, use of NHS data, or other health service resources: such projects are evaluated by an NHS research ethics committee. EMREC is led by two co-directors and formed of over 38 members, which include experienced academics and academic-clinicians from a variety of disciplines. There are also 2–4 lay members who are not researchers.

EMREC receives regular enquiries about whether a specific piece of PEwR work (such as holding a workshop with people living with endometriosis to identify research priorities or interviewing HIV activists about their work during COVID-19) requires formal ethics review. In addition, often teams contact EMREC following completion of a PEwR activity that they want to publish because the journal in which they wish to publish has requested evidence of the work having undergone formal ethics approval. These enquiries are happening in the context of an institutional investment in staffing, leading to a significant degree of distributed expertise across the Medical School about diverse forms of PEwR.

Responding to this, in the summer of 2022, a Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement working group was formed by EMREC with the aim of developing new tools and processes to navigate the ethical implications of PEWR within the University of Edinburgh Medical School. The group’s original understandings were that:

PEwR is both important and skilled work that presents a unique set of ethical implications,

PEwR is a fragmented landscape where many people have relevant but different expertise and where a wide range of terminology is in use, and.

there is no existing widely-agreed framework for ethical PEwR.

This working group was designed to be temporary, lasting approximately six months. It was composed of eleven members with different degrees of seniority and disciplinary backgrounds - both members of EMREC and those from other parts of the Medical School, and other parts of the University of Edinburgh. Among these, there were both academics and PEwR experts in professional services (i.e. primarily non-academic) roles. The working group met four times (August, September and November 2022; and January 2023).

The group identified three key goals and, in relation to these, key outputs needed. The goals were: (1) help establish boundaries between research data collection (requiring an ethical opinion from EMREC) and PEwR activities of various kinds (requiring ethical reflection/practice but not a formal EMREC ethical opinion), (2) support colleagues to identify where their planned activities fell in the research-PEwR continuum and consequently the relevant ethical framework, and (3) identify ways of building confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. In relation to these goals, the working group initially agreed on producing the following key outputs:

A taxonomy outlining and defining key terms used in the PEwR work, with examples. While not universal or definitive, the taxonomy should help colleagues identify and label their activities and help determine the ethical considerations that would apply to conduct the work with integrity. It would also facilitate conversations between staff with varying levels and types of experience, and ensure that decisions around ethical conduct would be based on more than choice of terminology.

A self-assessment tool to provide a more systematic way to evaluate whether a given academic activity, involving a non-academic partner (organisation or individual) requires formal evaluation by a research ethics committee.

A list of resources collected both from within and beyond our institution that are relevant to the issue of ethics and PEwR and can serve as ‘further reading’ and training.

While we aimed to develop this work with a view to it being useful within the remit of the University of Edinburgh Medical School, we also understood that there was significant potential for these outputs to be of interest and relevance more widely. In this way, we aimed to position them as a pragmatic addition to existing guidance and resources, such as the NIHR Reflective Questions [ 2 ].

Our process

Across the first three meetings, the group worked together on the simultaneous development of the three outputs (taxonomy, self-assessment tool, and resources). The initial taxonomy was informed by the guidance produced by the Public Involvement Resource Hub at Imperial College London [ 10 ]. The taxonomy was developed as a table that included key terms (such as ‘public engagement’, ‘co-production’, or ‘market research’), with their definitions, examples, and synonyms. From early on, it was decided that different key terms would not be defined by the methods used, as there could be significant overlap among these – e.g. something called a focus group might be a part of a consultation, market research or research data collection.

A draft table (with just six categories) was presented in the first meeting and group members were asked to work on the table between meetings, including providing additional examples, amending language, or any other suggestions. This was done on a shared document using ‘comments’ so that contradictory views could be identified and agreements reached. The table was also shared with colleagues from outside the University of Edinburgh Medical School to capture the range of terminologies used across disciplines, recognising the interdisciplinary nature of much research.

Through this process, additional key terms were identified, such as “science communication” and “action research,” definitions were developed more fully, and synonyms were sometimes contextualized (by indicating, for example, shades of difference or usages specific to an area). Upon further work, three additional sections were added to the taxonomy tool: first, an introduction was developed that explained what terminology our specific institution used and noted that the boundaries between different terms were often “fuzzy and flexible.” In addition, the group agreed that it would be useful to provide a narrative example of how different forms of public engagement with research might co-exist and flow from one to another. To this end, a fictional example was developed where a team of clinical researchers interested in diabetes are described engaging in scoping work, research, co-production, science communication and action research at different times of their research programme. Finally, a section was also added that prompted researchers to reflect on the processes of negotiating how partners can be described in research (for example, whether to use terms such as ‘patient’ or ‘lay member’).

For the self-assessment tool, a first iteration was a table with two columns (one for research or work requiring formal ethical review and one for PEwR or work not requiring formal ethical review). The aim was for group members to fill the table with examples of activities that would fall under each category, with a view to identifying generalizable characteristics. However, this task proved complicated given the wide diversity of possible activities, multitude of contexts, and sheer number of exceptions. To address this, group members were asked to complete a case-based exercise. They were presented with the following situation: “I tell you I’m planning a focus group with some autistic folk” and asked how they would determine whether the activity would be a form of data collection for a research project (requiring formal ethical review) or another form of PEwR. Group members were asked, with a view to developing the self-assessment tool, to identify which questions they would ask to assess the activity. The replies of working group members were synthesized by one of the authors (SFW) and presented at the following meeting.

Through discussion as a group, we determined that the questions identified as useful in identifying if an activity required formal ethical review fell, roughly, under four main areas. Under each area, some indicators of activities were provided which were “less likely to need ethics review” and some “more likely to need ethics review”. The four umbrella questions were:

What is the purpose and the planned outcome of the activity? (see Table 1 for an excerpt of the initial draft answer to this question)

What is the status of the people involved in the activity? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “participants will be equal partners with academic team” or “participants will be advisors” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “participants will undertake tasks determined by academics” or “participants will contribute data or sign consent forms”).

What kind of information is being collected? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “asking about expert opinion on a topic” or “sessions will be minuted and notes taken” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “sessions will be recorded and transcribed” or “asking about participants’ personal experiences”).

What are the risks inherent in this activity? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “participants will be involved in decision-making” or “participants will be credited for their role in a manner of their choosing” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “participants’ involvement will and must be anonymized fully” or “participants have a choice between following protocol or withdrawing from the study”).

Upon further work, the group decided to modify this initial iteration in several ways leading to the final version. First, a brief introduction explaining the purpose of the tool was written. This included information about the aims of the tool, and a very brief overview of the process of formal research ethics review. It also emphasised the importance of discussion of the tool within the team, with PEwR experts and sometimes with EMREC members, depending on how clear-cut the outcome was. Second, we included brief information about what are ‘research’ and ‘public engagement with research’ with a view to supporting people who may not be familiar with how these concepts are used by ethics review committees (for example, lay co-applicants or co-researchers). Third, we included key guidance about how to use the tool, including ‘next steps’ if the activity was determined to be research or engagement. Importantly, this emphasised that none of the questions posed and indicators given were definitive of something needing or not needing formal research ethics review, but instead they should be used collectively to signpost a team towards, or away from, formal review.

Finally, while the four umbrella questions remained the same as in the previous iteration, the indicators under each were further refined. In discussing the previous version, the group agreed that, while some indicators could relate to an activity falling into either category (research or engagement) depending on other factors, there were others that were much more likely to fall under one category than the other. In other words, while no single indicator was deterministic of needing or not needing formal review, some indicators were more influential than others on the final self-assessment outcome. Thus, we divided the indicators associated with each umbrella question into two sub-groups. The more influential indicators were labelled as either “probably doesn’t need ethical review” or “almost certainly needs ethical review”. Less influential indicators were labelled as either “less likely to need ethical review” or “more likely to need ethical review.” This is shown in Table 2 .

This new format retains the awareness of the sometimes-blurry lines between research and PEwR for many activities, but also seeks to provide stronger direction through indicative activities that are more clear-cut, with a particular view to supporting early-career researchers and people new to ethics reviews and/or engagement processes.

A key concern of the group was what would happen next if a planned activity, using the self-assessment tool, was deemed as PEwR. The formal review process for research would not be available for a planned activity identified as PEwR i.e. completing a series of documents and a number of protocols to deal with issues such as data protection, safeguarding, etc. This would leave a vacuum in terms of guidance for ethical conduction of PEwR. The group was concerned that some people using the self-assessment tool might arrive at the conclusion that their planned activity was entirely without ethical risks, given that it was not required to undergo formal review. Others might be conscious of the risks but feel adrift as to how to proceed. This was a particular concern with early-career researchers and indeed established academics turning to PEwR for the first time: we wanted to facilitate their involvement with PEwR but we were also aware that many may lack experience and resources. To address this, the group decided to develop an additional output comprising a series of reflective prompts to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities.

The prompts were organized under four headings. First, “Data Minimisation and Security” included information about required compliance with data protection legislation, suggestions about collecting and processing information, and ideas around ensuring confidentiality. Second, “Safeguarding Collaborators and Emotional Labour” prompted researchers to think about the risk of partners becoming distressed and suggested what things should be planned for in this regard. Third, “Professional Conduct and Intellectual Property” included advice on how to clearly manage partners’ expectations around their contributions, impact, and intellectual property. Finally, fourth, under “Power Imbalances”, the guidance discusses how researchers may work to address the inherent imbalances that exist in relationships with partners. It prompts the researcher to think about choice of location, information sharing, and authorship among others. While the Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee remains available for consultation on all these matters, as well as dedicated and professional PEwR staff, the group developed these guidelines with a view both to emphasizing the fact that an activity not requiring formal ethical review did not mean that the activity was absent of risk or did not require careful ethical planning; and to support those who may be unfamiliar with how to develop engagement activities. It was decided that this guideline should follow the self-assessment tool for clarity.

Finally, in the process of developing these outputs (the planned taxonomy and assessment tool, and the additional reflective prompts appended to the assessment tool), the group collected a large number of resources, including academic papers (e.g. Staniszewska et al. [ 16 ]; Schroeder et al. [ 13 ]; Redman et al. [ 12 ]; Fletcher-Watson et al. [ 4 ]), guidance produced by other institutions, and key online sites with information about national frameworks or policy. Among these, key resources were selected and appended to the taxonomy document. The final version of these documents can be found as appendices (Supplementary Material 1 : Assessment tool and reflective prompts; Supplementary Material 2 : Taxonomy and resources).

Further considerations and early results

The guidance and tools presented here are designed to clarify a boundary between research and engagement that is poorly defined and could cause harm if not well understood. In sharing them, we aim to facilitate researchers’ engagement with PEwR by providing familiarity with the terminology and approaches, examples, and suggesting key considerations. Most importantly, they support researchers to determine whether their planned activity should undergo a formal ethical review process or not – and if not, guides them towards ethical conduct in the absence of formal review. Reflecting on the process much of what we have explained essentially reflects a distinction between PEwR and research data collection that can be encapsulated within the idea of ‘locus of control’: namely that during PEwR the locus of control, as far as possible, sits with the engaged communities or members.

It should be noted, however, that researchers and these guidance and tools exist within a larger landscape, with added regulatory processes. Thus, researchers may need (regardless of whether their planned activity is research or engagement) to navigate additional compliance such as data protection or information security protocols and / or to consider reputational risk associated with certain topics. We are aware that the overlap of complex and sometimes obscure regulatory demands complicates the task of conducting both research and PEwR, as it requires researchers to juggle multiple procedures, documents, and approvals. This publication does not resolve all the questions that exist, but it does attempt to take a bold step towards confronting grey areas and providing systematic processes to navigate them.

The outputs described above were made available on the University of Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee intranet site under the heading “Public Engagement with Research.” While we do not collect statistics on the number of times the resources have been used, the committee has received positive feedback from people who have engaged with the documents. For example, one researcher commented that, in the process of developing an engagement activity, they had been “grappling with precisely these questions (of whether this qualifies as research, and whether it requires ethical review)” and that the documents were “quite timely and helpful. It allows me to think about these considerations in a systematic manner and it’s handy for me to send on to others as a framework for discussion should we have differing opinions.” It was this mention to the possibility of these documents being used as a framework for discussion that prompted us to write this paper as a way of sharing them beyond the University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (where they are already used for training early-career researchers and in the MSc in Science Communication and Public Engagement). While we think they can be useful, we also encourage potential users to adapt them to their specific contexts, with different institutions potentially establishing differing procedures or requirements. To that end, we have shared in this paper the process of writing these documents so that other people and teams may also think through them productively and creatively.

Final reflections

In developing these documents, we sought to answer a need among members of our immediate community, seeking to better assess whether an activity required formal ethical review and wanting guidance to ethically conduct PEwR work. However, we also came to realize the limitations of existing approval and governance processes. In our case, a key reason why these documents were developed is because existing formal ethical review processes would not be adequate to capture the particularities and complexities of PEwR in our large, diverse Medical School.

Looking back at the tools we developed and the feedback received, we are also satisfied with the pragmatic approach we took. There is a vast amount of resources and literature available about how to conduct PEwR, as well as a multitude of accounts and reflections both of an anecdotal and epistemological nature. Building on this conceptual work and associated principles, we sought to develop pragmatic, clear, applicable tools, without overwhelming users with a multitude of available resources and complex theory. This is, we feel, particularly applicable to contexts like ours: a large, very diverse medical school which encompasses biomedical to social science disciplines where researchers and funders have vastly differing expectations and knowledge of PEwR.

This process also led us to reflect on the practical functions of formal ethical review. Formal ethics approval provides applicants with structured resources to think and plan about their work, feedback and guidance about their plans, and—most commonly—a code and letter than can be used to easily report to journals that your research has met a specific ethical threshold. With these documents we have sought to provide some similar, pragmatic guidance to support and empower people, through a self-assessment process. This begs the question, what, if any, formal approval processes should be developed for PEwR? Are such formal processes in any way adequate to the ethos of PEwR? Would formal independent review necessarily conflict with the values of PEwR, namely the empowerment of community members as decision-makers and experts? Thus, these documents and this paper contribute to an ongoing conversation as PEwR continues to develop in frequency and sophistication in health and social care research.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

The difference between research and public engagement is a complex one. Formal ethics approval, which is often seen as a regulatory or compliance mechanism, may not always be a good marker of this boundary, as it may ignore complex issues such as the distribution of power, the ethos of the activities, or their aims. Furthermore, different institutions use different criteria to determine what activities require ethics approval or are considered research. In this paper we reflect on the process of developing tools which we intended as pragmatic interventions that would support researchers, especially those without previous experience of PEwR to label their planned activities and understand their implications. Thus, we employ—even if not at all times comfortably—the framework that equates research with activities requiring ethics approval and PEwR with activities not requiring ethics approval.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Davies R, Andrews H, Farr M, Davies P, Brangan E, and D Bagnall. Reflective questions to support co-produced research (version 1.2). University of Bristol and University of West of England. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ARC West and People in Health West of England; 2020.

De Simoni A, Jackson T, Inglis Humphrey W, Preston J, Mah H, Wood HE, Kinley E, Gonzalez L, Rienda, Porteous C. Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00424-7 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fletcher-Watson S, Brook K, Hallett S, Murray F, Catherine J, Crompton. Inclusive practices for Neurodevelopmental Research. Curr Dev Disorders Rep. 2021;8:88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00227-z .

Article Google Scholar

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888 .

Health Research Authority. 2023. Putting people first - embedding public involvement in health and social care research. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/public-involvement/putting-people-first-embedding-public-involvement-health-and-social-care-research/ .

Health Research Authority / INVOLVE. 2016. Public involvement in research and research ethics committee review. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HRA-INVOLVE-updated-statement-2016.pdf .

Institute for Community Studies, and UK Research and Innovation. An equitable future for research and innovation. The Young Foundation; 2022.

National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. n.d. Introducing Public Engagement. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/introducing-public-engagement .

NIHR Imperial BRC Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC). A rough guide to public involvement (version 1.4). London: Imperial College London; 2021.

Google Scholar

Pandya-Wood R, Barron DS, Elliott J. A framework for public involvement at the design stage of NHS health and social care research: time to develop ethically conscious standards. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0058-y .

Redman S, Greenhalgh T, Adedokun L, Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Committee Co-production of Knowledge Collection Steering. Co-production of knowledge: the future. BMJ. 2021;372:n434. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n434 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Schroeder D, Chatfield K, Singh M, Chennells R. Peter Herissone-Kelly, and SpringerLink. 2019. Equitable Research Partnerships: A Global Code of Conduct to Counter Ethics Dumping . 1st 2019. ed, Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance . Cham: Springer.

Staley K, Virginia M. User involvement leads to more ethically sound research. Clin Ethics. 2016;1(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1258/147775006777254489 .

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 .

Staniszewska S, Hickey G, Coutts P, Thurman B, Coldham T. Co-production: a kind revolution. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00340-2 .

Tscherning SC, Bekker HL, Vedelo TW, Finderup J, Rodkjaer LO. How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00268-z .

UK Standards for Public Involvement. UK Standards for Public Involvement. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/home .

Download references

Acknowledgements

For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

This research was supported, in part, by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/X003604/1].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias

Centre for Inflammation Research, Institute for Regeneration and Repair, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Iona Beange & Donald Davidson

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Suzanne Goopy & Huayi Huang

School of Health in Social Science, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Fiona Murray

Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Carol Porteous

Biomedical Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Elizabeth Stevenson

Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Sinead Rhodes & Sue Fletcher-Watson

College for Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Faye Watson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JGI: conceptualisation and writing (original draft); IB, DJD, SG, HH, FM, CP, ES, SR, FW: conceptualisation, writing (editing and reviewing); SFW: conceptualisation and writing (original draft).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime Garcia-Iglesias .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Garcia-Iglesias, J., Beange, I., Davidson, D. et al. Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 07 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Public engagement
Ethical approval
Ethical review
Responsibility
Managing risks
Patient-oriented research
Patient-centred research
And patient engagement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

General enquiries: [email protected]

KOICA, United Nations call for an Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Law in PH

Following the commemoration of International Youth Day, the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and the United Nations in the Philippines, including the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO), jointly call for the urgent passage of the adolescent pregnancy bill in the Philippines. This legislation is crucial in addressing the rising rates of adolescent pregnancy and ensuring the well-being of young people in the country.

The proposed legislation aims to provide a comprehensive national framework for preventing adolescent pregnancies and ensuring the well-being of young children in the Philippines. While the bill has been approved by the House of Representatives, its progress in the Senate has stalled, highlighting the urgent need for action.

Recognizing the pressing need, the UN agencies are collaborating on the KOICA-funded Joint Programme on Accelerating the Reduction of Adolescent Pregnancy (JPARAP) in Southern Leyte and Samar. This program focuses on strengthening comprehensive sexuality education and improving access to adolescent-friendly sexual and reproductive health services.

"Having legislation that ensures access to essential reproductive health services is a crucial step towards a more equitable and sustainable future, where every young person can thrive and reach their full potential,” said Gustavo González, UN Resident Coordinator in the Philippines. "Adolescent pregnancy is also not just a health issue, but a social and economic one as well. This bill will help us address the root causes of adolescent pregnancy, including lack of access to education and health services."

The urgency of the situation is underscored by data from the Philippines’ Commission on Population and Development, which reveals a 10.2% increase in live births by girls aged 10-19 between 2021 and 2022.

KOICA also expressed its strong support for the bill. "We believe that investing in young people is essential for sustainable development. In addition to celebrating 75 years of Korea-Philippines diplomatic relations and 30 years of KOICA’s presence in the Philippines, this bill will make us more inspired to strengthen our assistance to the country’s health projects. We assure you of KOICA’s continuing support and commitment not only for better health and well-being, but also a brighter future for young Filipinos," said KOICA Country Director Kim Eunsub.

UNFPA stresses the necessity of the bill to remove barriers to healthcare access for adolescents. Currently, young people under 18 require written parental consent for family planning services, which can significantly hinder their access to essential care.

“Adolescent pregnancy can result in significant health risks, including increased rates of preventable maternal and infant deaths, as well as the dangerous practice of unsafe abortions. Having a comprehensive framework to address this urgent issue and to protect the sexual and reproductive health and rights of young Filipinos, will help empower adolescents to make informed choices about their bodies and pave the way for better futures," said UNFPA Philippines Country Representative Dr. Leila Saiji Joudane.

Meanwhile, UNICEF underscored the importance of protecting the rights and aspirations of young girls.

“Adolescent girls’ dreams to learn and get decent jobs should not be cut short. UNICEF is committed to supporting girls through laws, policies and programmes that prioritize their rights, their agency, and opportunities to pursue their dreams and to prevent early and unintended pregnancies. This bill needs to retain the clauses that better define roles and accountability of duty bearers, which can help everyone in the community to work together to tackle the social factors that lead to more teen pregnancies,” said Behzad Noubary, UNICEF Philippines Representative a.i.

“These girls have the right to be informed about decisions that affect their lives. They need support, not stigma and blame,” he said.

The World Health Organization also recognizes that addressing adolescent pregnancy is a global health and development priority.

“Addressing adolescent pregnancy is part of the global health and development agenda. Together with partners, WHO Philippines continues to address adolescent pregnancy by supporting national programmes and policies. Rights-based policies alongside community-based care and evidence-informed interventions are crucial to strengthening frameworks and strategies to scale up interventions and collective action from various sectors, agencies, and communities,” said Dr Graham Harrison, Officer-in-Charge of WHO Philippines.

The UN agencies and KOICA call on all stakeholders, including government agencies, civil society organizations, and young people themselves, to unite in advocating for the passage of the adolescent pregnancy bill to create a brighter future for young people in the Philippines.

About the Joint Programme on Accelerating the Reduction of Adolescent Pregnancy (JPARAP):

This is a joint initiative of UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, and KOICA that aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy in Southern Leyte and Samar. The partners are working closely with the Department of Health, the Department of Education, and the governments of Samar and Southern Leyte, as well as other government agencies in rolling out adolescent-friendly services, building the capacity of community adolescent health service providers, accelerating the integration of comprehensive sexuality education in schools, implementing youth leadership and governance initiatives, and conducting research on adolescent pregnancy and child, early, and forced marriage.

The 2021 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study showed that Eastern Visayas, where Samar and Southern Leyte are located, has one of the highest rates of 15 to 19-year-old female youths that had begun childbearing.

For more information contact:

Kristine Guerrero | Media and Communications Analyst | United Nations Population Fund | [email protected]

Lely Djuhari | Advocacy & Communication Chief| UNICEF Philippines |

Cling Malaco | Communications Officer | World Health Organization Philippines | [email protected]

Media Contacts

Cling Malaco

Communications Officer

IMAGES

The Importance of Research in Public Relations
The importance of research in Public Relations
What is Public Relations? Definition, Importance, Types, Functions
5 Importance of Public Relations in an Organisation
PPT
Q: Why is Public Relations Important?

COMMENTS

The Importance of Research in Public Relations
Research is a crucial component of the public relations process. There are several key reasons why research is so important. First, research allows us to develop a PR strategy. For example, in our cookie example, research allows us to develop a strategy for one of our key publics with nostalgia as a main focus.
Public Relations Research: Importance & Examples
Public relations is a field in which companies or individuals communicate with the public to maintain a positive image. Discover the field of public relations research, delving into its importance ...
The importance of public relations research
Research allows public relations professionals to learn and understand an organization, its goals and its target market. In this baseline phase of research public relations professionals are able to judge current organization efforts and use industry knowledge to give advice and provide direction for the plan. Research allows for preparation of ...
The Importance of Research in a Public Relations Campaign
Contrary to what some may think, research plays an integral role in any public relations and social media campaign. It should be the foundation to the plan and incorporated into every step after. Research is what lets us know and understand target audiences, what resonates with those target audiences and the impact of the campaign. Research allows us to better guide the campaign so you can ...
How Is Research Important to Strategic Public Relations Plans?
As with most management practices, the importance of research in PR campaigns can be seldom understated. Backing up "hunches" with facts is essential for public relations to succeed.
The Ultimate Guide for PR Research
Public relations (PR) research is a survey requested to a general or specific audience with the goal to share the results through company outreach, press releases, branded content, news sources, and media.
Public Relations Research: The Key to Strategy
Chapter 8 Public Relations Research: The Key to Strategy If you previously ascribed to the common misconception that public relations is a simple use of communication to persuade publics, Bowen (2003), pp. 199-214. you might be surprised at the important role that research plays in public relations management. Bowen (2009a), pp. 402-410. We can argue that as much as three quarters of the ...
Public Relations Research Library
Research published by IPR is read by a diverse global audience of public relations practitioners, academics, students, and colleagues working in client companies. IPR funds high-quality research on topics relevant to current practice and in public relations education. Research results of IPR-supported studies are published on this website.
Theories in Public Relations: Reflections and Future Directions
This special issue emerged from an ICA pre-conference on Theories in Public Relations, designed to explore the landscape of public relations theory in the current moment. The field of public relations has grown both academically and professionally over the last forty years, and it is now a specialised communication discipline where the most widespread understanding of public relations is ...
Defining a Process for Public Relations Research Standards
Last week, three major steps toward standards for public relations research and measurement were unveiled by the Coalition Public Relations Research Standards (CPRRS), a collaborative effort of the Council of Public Relations Firms (CPRF), the Global Alliance, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communications ...
The Four-Step Process in Public Relations
1.1 #1 Research. 1.2 #2 Planning. 1.3 #3 Implementation. 1.4 #4 Evaluation. 2 An Example of the Four-Step Process in PR. 3 Content Marketing Platform. 4 To Sum Up. The start of the year isn't just a perfect time to set goals in your personal life. Also, it can be a great opportunity to reconsider your company's public relations strategy and ...
Importance of Research in Public Relations Management
As a true management function, public relations uses research to identify issues and engage in problem solving, to prevent and manage crises, to make organizations responsive and responsible to their publics, to create better organizational policy, and to build and maintain long-term relationships with publics.
The Advantages of PR Research
The Advantages of PR Research. Public relations research or PR research is crucial for brands looking to boost innovation and visibility. It's one of the most versatile methods of research, as it's relevant to almost any brand looking to stand out. Fittingly, this thought-leadership research positions a brand as a "thought-leader" in ...
PDF AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC RELATIONS CHAPTER 1
What is Public Relations? Everyone has a different perception and definition of what public relations is, and it is important to know how the parties involved, from academics to practitioners, define the field.
(PDF) Public Relations Research and Planning
This chapter reviews the research and planning process involved in successful public relations. campaigns that cross various corporate communication needs. It examines the research process and ...
PDF Public Relations Research for Planning and Evaluation
During his career, he has supervised the conducting of more than 1,500 public relations, public affairs, marketing, and advertising research projects, most of them for large corporations, financial service organizations, trade associations, government agencies, utilities, education and health groups and charitable organizations.
(PDF) Research in Public Relations
Abstract. Research has an important role in public relations (PR) being necessary in developing strategies in this area. Therefore, we can speak oftwo types of research, the applied research and ...
Importance of research and evaluation in public relations
The importance of research by public relations practitioners has been highlighted by leading scholarsin most developed countries. However, studies show that the use of research by practitionersis more talked about than actually done. In Ghana, little is known about how practitioners useresearch.
What do we know about government public relations (GPR)? A systematic
Despite the importance of public relations within local, national, and international government organizations, government public relations (GPR) is still an understudied field in public relations research when compared to its corporate and nonprofit counterparts and has been critiqued for lacking theoretical development (Liu & Horsley, 2007).
Effective ways to communicate research in a journal article
The importance of visualizing data and findings. MS: It is extremely important to present your data in clean and well-organized figures—they act as your business card. Also, understand and consider the page layout and page or column dimensions of your target journal and format your tables and figures accordingly.
Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for
Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data ...
KOICA, United Nations call for an Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Law in PH
In addition to celebrating 75 years of Korea-Philippines diplomatic relations and 30 years of KOICA's presence in the Philippines, this bill will make us more inspired to strengthen our assistance to the country's health projects. ... UNICEF underscored the importance of protecting the rights and aspirations of young girls."Adolescent ...

24 The Importance of Research in Public Relations

Share This Book

Just how important is research in public relations?

Where research fits into public relations

A crash course in research

The importance of research in public relations

Don’t leave research behind

More public relations insights

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OUR NEWSLETTER

May 21, 2019

How Is Research Important to Strategic Public Relations Plans?

Effective Communication & Leadership

The Importance of Research in Public Relations

Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses

Research and Public Relations Messaging

Gaining Feedback From Stakeholders

Related Articles

Chapter 8 Public Relations Research: The Key to Strategy

8.1 Importance of Research in Public Relations Management

8.2 Purpose and Forms of Research

Formal Research

Informal Research

8.3 Types of Research

Quantitative Research

Methods of Quantitative Data Collection

Qualitative Research

Methods of Qualitative Data Collection

Mixed Methods/Triangulation

8.4 Chapter Summary

Taking Digital PR To A New Level

Key Elements of the Four-Step Process in Public Relations

#2 Planning

#3 Implementation

#4 Evaluation

An Example of the Four-Step Process in PR

Content Marketing Platform

Latest from Featured Posts

Teamsale CRM Uses PRNEWS.IO to Increase Media Visibility in New Regions

Smaily Increased Brand Awareness in New Markets with PRNEWS.IO

Brokeree Solutions Tripled Media Mentions and Achieved a 5-Point SERP Jump with PRNEWS.IO

Bojoko Used PRNEWS.IO to Enhance Visibility and Expand Audience in iGaming

Digital Funnel Used PRNEWS.IO to Overcome Challenges in Securing High-Quality Media Placements for Clients

8.1 Importance of Research in Public Relations Management

Importance of research and evaluation in public relations

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Effective ways to communicate research in a journal article

Oxford Academic: Journals

Ensuring clear communication of research findings

Common mistakes that obscure authors’ arguments and data

The importance of the introduction

Structural pitfalls

Creating an effective structure

The importance of visualizing data and findings

The power of editing

Editing mistakes to avoid

Related posts:

Recent Comments

Leave a Comment

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Plain English summary

Introduction

About this paper

Developing specific tools for PEWR in ethics

Our process

Further considerations and early results

Final reflections

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1

About this article

Share this article

Research Involvement and Engagement