Generalizing from PRSA to public relations: How to accommodate sampling bias in public relations scholarship

被引:6
|
作者
Hazleton, Vincent [2 ]
Sha, Bey-Ling [1 ]
机构
[1] San Diego State Univ, San Diego, CA 92182 USA
[2] Radford Univ, Radford, VA USA
关键词
Sampling; Population study; External validity; Public Relations Society of America; PRSA; Research validity; Sampling bias; Gender; Diversity; Race; Geography; Accreditation; APR; PRACTITIONERS; SATISFACTION; ROLES; LEADERSHIP;
D O I
10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.011
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
One of the major challenges to conducting externally valid, quantitative scholarship in public relations is accessing samples of practitioners that are willing to participate in academic research. One sampling frame would naturally be the membership of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), which is the world's largest professional association for public relations practitioners. Yet, even if the question of access were resolved, there still remains the question of external validity, i.e., the issue of whether and to what extent the membership of PRSA (or any other sampling frame) reflects the population of public relations practitioners in general. The purpose of this study was thus to examine the population of U.S. public relations practitioners and compare it to the PRSA membership, using census data from PRSA and sample data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. Results of this study are significant for public relations scholarship because they address the fundamental question of external validity, without which no research can claim to offer a true contribution to the body of knowledge in public relations. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:438 / 445
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条