Public Relations in Higher Education

1985 - The First Public Relations Evaluation

 

In 1985, a committee set up by the Principal found the PR functions of NU 

unsatisfactory. This was due to growth in the scale of NU's operations, frequent 

changes in PR leadership, insufficient personnel and resources to meet performance 

expectations, and a lack of clearly defined objectives and policy (Report 1985; 

Higgens 1983; Fast 1981).

 

In early days, when staff and student numbers were small, internal communications 

were informal and effective. However, the effects of growth and diversification 

eroded this old style and comfortable approach. It was felt by the committee that 

some of the internal notices and publications were doing a good job but others 

lacked coordination and purpose. It was realised that if a good internal policy was to 

be achieved then a clear policy to meet these perceived needs must be formulated 

(Report 1985:7-8).

 

On the subject of external communication, the Committee identified most closely 

with PR, the main purpose of which was to bring matters of importance to NU into 

view of the public. It was noted that effective external communication required the 

cooperation of the media and that this pivoted around two concepts: paid publicity, 

and news, which is free (Report 1985:8).

 

An important point was that what may be considered newsworthy to NU, may not be 

considered so by the media and the public (Fast 1981:7). Cost effective publicity 

depends therefore on the extent to which academic writings may be packaged as 

news. It was found that with some notable exceptions, the majority of the 

University's academics pay little attention to the news value of their work. Getting 

academics to produce newsworthy copy can be time-consuming and frustrating 

(Report:1985:8).

 

The committee decided that policy was a management matter and that PR policy was 

the responsibility of the Principal who had the authority to carry it out (Report 

1985:3).

 

The committee established the objectives for a future PR effort: 

 

• 

the university must be aware of its image in its own eyes as well as in those 

of the public. These two views must be brought together. 

 

• 

internal communication between staff, students and administration must be 

promoted. 

 

---

• 

external communication between NU and the wider public must also be 

promoted. 

 

• 

a defined set of service functions must be provided (Report, 1985:3). 

 

These objectives are standard PR goals.

 

The Committee decided that the success of PR depends on clarity of statement and 

soundness of mandate. The organizational structure and the quality of the personnel 

in the PR office was also of importance (Report 1985:11).

 

It was hoped that the improvements suggested by the Report would achieve a 

steady improvement in patron perception of the University and a consequent 

increase in the level of donations. It was also hoped that this would bring about a 

steady improvement in the quality of staff and student intake and finally, an 

improved set of service functions (Report 1985:12).

 

Despite the Report, Dirk Kemp revealed that in 1985 no conscious strategy existed, 

although the Mission Statement was a plan of sorts (Interview 23/1/92).