The notion of licensing the public relations practice is as old as Edward Bernays, one of the field’s early practitioners and an advocate for licensure later in his career. Bernays died in 1995 at more than 100 years old. The debate about licensing PR seemed to pass with him.
But last weekend at the International Public Relations Research Conference, I and two co-authors resurrected the idea. Professor Tyler Page, of the University of Connecticut, and Professor Luke Caprizzo, of the University of Missouri, and I started talking about this a year ago. Page led the project and we presented our case based on current issues with the practice, realizing other attempts to standardize practice have failed, and with an idea to conceive of and incentivize licensure similar to what is done other professions.
[Humble brag: our paper earned the award for “Top Paper on the Conference Theme.”]
One reason for reconsidering licensure for public relations is the increasing problems and challenges of mis- and dis-information in our modern communication landscape. Also, the scope of PR work across all channels has intensified. We argue the field should seize the moment to take our civic, deliberative and democratic responsibilities seriously.
Another reason that now is the time to reconsider licensure is that accreditation in public relations (APR) has not proven to be the suitable compromise to debates about licensure. It was seen to be a good idea for being voluntary, not mandatory. Others praised the APR as something managed by the profession, and not the government, and that it would be similar to the PRSA Code of Ethics which moved to an inspiration vs enforcement model.
However, only some professionals seek APR. Until very recently, APR was only available to members of PRSA and others member organizations of the Universal Accreditation Board (UAB). But the APR as not been strongly advocated for by PRSA outside the profession itself to employers, and certainly not to the point of recognition by the government. In fact, there have been expressions of disappointment that PRSA does not require the APR for members to serve on its national assembly.
So, the time is now to reconsider licensure for the field. But what we advocate is partial licensure—meaning a license would not be required for all to practice. This has been the largest objection to licensure, that it would violate the First Amendment. Since public relations practice is so broad and includes many forms of speech and communications, it can’t be restricted. However, if certain practitioners want to be licensed they could, and they would do so with the proper incentive.
This is not unlike the field of therapy, in which social workers, marriage counselors and those who give mental health advice can be licensed and gain a special title and certain privileges. But this does not stop others, such as life coaches, from giving advice to people about their lives.
Therefore, we propose that the incentive for public relations professionals to be licensed would be privileged information. This would particularly appeal to senior level public relations professionals who engage in “counseling,” especially with senior management, and would now be able to engage in discussions that could not be subject to a subpoena to testify subsequently.
We point to case law to support this. The Supreme Court in Jaffe, Upjohn Co. v. United States, 1981 ruled that privilege may be extended when it serves both public and private interests. The private benefit for public relations professionals would be the ability to counsel honestly with leaders in difficult situations, and not be encroached on by lawyers who already have attorney-client privilege. The public benefit would be the ethical advice of public relations professionals who are more inclined to advise transparency and honesty for the court of public opinion vs diversion and silence to avoid a court of law.
One objection to this idea is evidentiary loss. However, organizations have many paper trails before a public relations person would be brought in, similar to lawyers, and all of that prior communication could still be subject to discovery as evidence in any trial.
The idea is conceptual now, but we think the path forward will be just as with other professions—to go through the states. Once enough states have granted licensure to public relations professionals, it will become a federal reality.
It may take time, but in the end it will be a benefit to organizational leaders who can take advantage of privileged counsel from public relations professionals as well as lawyers. As such it will also benefit society, public relations professionals, and the reputation of the profession itself.
