Too many corporate communications and public relations professionals don’t understand the value of ‘academic’ is the argument presented by Stephen Waddington. He’s right. Indeed, academia is often looked at as a dirty word, as something that is too ephemeral or irrelevant to day-to-day practice.
Pursuing a PhD, after a successful public relations career, means Stephen is now deeply embedded in academia. I merely dabble on the edges. I’ve contributed to academic articles, and I’ve done paid and guest lecturing at universities, such as Leeds Beckett University and Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University. The fact that I lecture evidences that academia isn’t removed from practice, as that’s exactly why I’m asked to lecture.
Stephen makes three sensible suggestions as to how practitioners can engage with and benefit from academia:
Read one peer-reviewed paper in your area of practice
An excellent suggestion, which I have done for years. But it can be hard as too many are hidden behind academic paywalls. They are also frequently ‘badly’ written. By this I don’t mean they are ‘bad’, because they are often extremely well-written. By ‘bad’ I mean the academic style and notation make them harder to penetrate than normal business writing.
I suspect some academics don’t appreciate quite how big a barrier this is, as if you read academic-style writing often enough it becomes second nature.
I’d echo Stephen’s advice and urge you to engage with academic literature about public relations and communications whenever you have the opportunity.
Treat grey literature with informed scepticism
Grey literature is the multitude of research reports from consultancies, platforms, vendors and trade bodies. Personally, I’m a big fan of it. I probably read (or partially read) at least four to six reports per month.
At Purposeful Relations we’ve published several reports ourselves including our Global CommTech Report in partnership with PRovoke Media; and The Impact of Generative Relations and Communications white paper; alongside the Traditional Media’s Influence in the Age of AI white paper we published in partnership with 72Point.
I initially interpreted Stephen as not being a fan of grey literature, but actually I think our views are similar. I always read the reports and papers with scepticism as they are obviously published from a certain stance. And that’s what Stephen is arguing. Interrogate the reports to understand their angle and check their methodologies. Don’t accept their conclusions as fact, but as insight to guide your own research and decisions.
That was partially the purpose of our The Impact of Generative Relations and Communications white paper. Last year, the hype about how AI answers are replacing search was overwhelming. It seemed that every week another PR company or tool vendor would publish new research on it. They couldn’t even decide what to call it: GEO (generative engine optimisation), AEO (answer engine optimisation) and more.
At Purposeful Relations we started thinking about this so early that even GEO and AEO hadn’t become established as recognisable terms. My initial thinking was about treating AI as a stakeholder, because just like journalists, politicians or other stakeholders it creates new content that shapes opinions about brands and reputation. This thinking was reinforced when Rupert Younger, at Oxford Saïd Business School, published an article making the same argument. It was reassuring to see a senior corporate communications academic providing validation for my own thinking.
The Impact of Generative Relations and Communications white paper analyses several of the GEO/AEO reports from commercial companies, as well as an academic paper. The research, led by my Purposeful Relations co-CEO Tim Bailey, was to identify themes and trends across the papers. Many of the commercial papers were fatally flawed by making bold claims about specific sites and platforms. By focusing on the commonalities, we were able to use the different grey literature sources to try and validate their claims.
Use AI as a thinking partner and not a shortcut
The multitude of grey literature reports means it’s impossible to read them all. You can guarantee that when one comes out, that several people will quickly publish an AI-generated summary or analysis. I’ve been guilty of this myself.
The value of this is limited as people can create AI summaries themselves. What is valuable is human opinion. This is excellent or this is rubbish. The latter can be particularly useful as too often reports aren’t treated with enough scepticism.
Stephen reminds us to be cautious about how we use AI as:
“Summaries can be useful, but they are not learning. Understanding comes from reading, struggling and trying to articulate ideas in your own words. That friction is where insight forms.
Used well, AI can challenge and sharpen thinking. Used poorly, it replaces it.”
Personally, I find AI an invaluable tool for managing learning when there is so much source material, it’s impossible to consume it all. One of my main uses of an AI summary is to tell me if it’s worth reading the report. If it pulls out useful or intriguing nuggets, then I’ll take the time to read it. Initially, probably just the section where the nugget comes from. But if I like that, I’ll read the full report.
A future article, which I might write if Stephen doesn’t do it first, should look at what using AI well actually means. A frequent criticism of AI is the risk that it will diminish the ability to use critical thinking skills. This is true, if AI is used poorly. But if AI is used intelligently, then it can improve critical thinking.
Help to navigate the AI landscape
If you’re looking to make more practical sense of the AI landscape and its impact on you and your organisation, then please get in touch for a no-obligation consultation to see if we might be able to help you.
