This study investigated the structure of public relations roles. Broom and Smith's role questionnaire was factor analyzed in conjunction with items used in studies of organizational boundary spanning. Eight activity factors were extracted in the analysis. Four primary practitioner roles and one minor role were subsequently identified in a cluster analysis. The clusters refined and elaborated previous PR roles concepts in important ways. Two practitioner types give high priority to technical activities even though they also scored high on managerial and boundary spanning activities. A validation analysis showed that the practitioner groups could be differentiated on relevant criterion variables.

No abstract

This article reports a replication and extension of the work of Kelly and Duran in assessing the relationship of group member perceptions of group interaction to group effectiveness. Using their original and our alternative operations of group cohesion, we conclude that perceived similarity may not always align with perceptions of cohesiveness. The difficulties we report in measuring group constructs should encourage future group researchers to seek grounded explanations of the constructs of interests from members themselves.

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.