PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss the internal historical forces that shaped national identity in New Zealand and how state-sponsored ideographs and cultural narratives, played out in nation branding, government–public relations activity, film and the literature, contributed to the rise of present days’ racism and hostility towards non-Pakeha constructions of New Zealand’s self-imagining.Design/methodology/approachThe paper takes a cultural materialist approach, coupled with postcolonial perspectives, to build an empirical framework to analyse specific historical texts and artefacts that were supported and promoted by the New Zealand Government at the point of decolonisation. Traditional constructions of cultural nationalism, communicated through state-sponsored advertising, public information films and national literature, are challenged and re-evaluated in the context of race, gender and socio-economic status.FindingsA total of three major groupings or themes were identified: crew, core and counterdiscourse cultures that each projected a different construction of New Zealand’s national identity. These interwoven themes produced a wider interpretation of identity than traditional cultural nationalist constructions allowed, still contributing to exclusionary formations of identity that alienated non-Pakeha New Zealanders and encouraged racism and intolerance.Research limitations/implicationsThe research study is empirical in nature and belongs to a larger project looking at a range of Pakeha constructions of identity. The article itself does not therefore fully consider Maori constructions of New Zealand’s identity.Originality/valueThe focus on combining cultural materialism, postcolonial approaches to analysis and counterdiscourse in order to analyse historical national narrative provides a unique perspective on the forces that contribute to racism and intolerance in New Zealand’s society. The framework developed can be used to evaluate the historical government communications activity and to better understand how nation branding leads to the exclusion of minority communities.

PurposeThis study attempts to identify the drivers for change in Public Relations education and what assumptions are made about professional practice. The authors suggest signature pedagogy has the potential to deepen our understanding of the teaching and learning of Public Relations and what this means as the Public Relations curriculum adapts. The paper has theoretical and practical value. It forefronts the concept of signature pedagogy as a fresh way to look at Public Relations teaching and learning that can be developed.Design/methodology/approachThis paper aims to explore the historical and contemporary context of teaching Public Relations within a university setting, how it has evolved and the assumptions that underpin it both nationally and internationally. Using a mixed methods approach, the paper investigates how the curriculum has changed since 2000, how it interacts with industry and how it reflects educational historical and contemporary frameworks. It also explores the assumptions on which Public Relations education was and is based and whether signature pedagogy is evidenced.FindingsThis study concludes that, from a signature pedagogy perspective, many current Public Relations curricula emphasise surface structures of learning. Deep structures, focusing on critical engagement and conceptual approaches to problem solving, are more variable, disconnected and contested. The data indicate the existence of an Anglo-American, skills-based approach to Public Relations knowledge, alongside international nuances around multi-culturalism. From a practical viewpoint, the paper contributes to how Public Relations programmes can be designed, taught and adapted in the future.Originality/valueThe paper evidences fully unique, primary research.

No abstract