PR is a social science? Not even close.

In response to PRWeek article.

I don’t blame the author for using the word “crap” in a professional publication.  When you comment on much of what passes for the PR industry’s thought leadership, the reference to crap seems apt.
Sadly, the same word — or perhaps a milder word like “nonsense” — applies to Harold Burson’s definition of PR as well as to this awkward defense of Burson’s definition.

PR is not a social science.  It can be.  It should be.  But it isn’t.  Psychology is a social science.  So is sociology.  And economics.  Social sciences, just as natural sciences, are after one thing only: truth. Not paid advocacy.  All sciences have a conceptual foundation and a cadre of practitioners schooled in a shared sphere of reference.  I hope that PR becomes a social science someday.  In the meantime, anyone who wants to know what PR is, should call Brian Connolly or read his comments below.

/*Leave a Reply*/

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s