As for your second point, the situation is not so desperate as you seem to think. And maybe your perspective is shaded by the fact that you, as I, respect an old common friend who is out there to get someone else who seems to be doing much to deserve it… having both parties put themselves in a no exit position since a number of years…

I can assure you that, for example, the CIPR (of which, by the way, I am an honorary fellow, which grants me access to some of their internal dealings..) has definitely investigated and decided recently on a number of cases which have been kept hush.
But Colin Farrington (admitting he is reading this) might wish to weigh in on this.

Also I am sure that other associations have also.
In Italy for example I myself was recently investigated and in turn required investigation on a colleague on an issue related to the profession and the public interest.
Most of these cases, as you will surely understand, never arrive to a decision simply because the offender prefers to resign rather than to face a public hearing and decision which would devastate her/his professional reputation.

1. Body of knowledge-
likewise many other relatively recent professional bodies of knowledge -and quite differently from the more traditional and consolidated ones who are suffering much more than us from the discontinuity which has blurred all boundaries between disciplines (medidal, legal..)- public relations practice, i.e. how it actually works (as you say) finds itself today in a radical transition from communicating-to to communicating-with; from topdown or bottom up to left-right-left; from manipulation to authenticity; from persuasiom to con-viction….

Over these last twenty years there has been a huge surge of research, studies, conceptualization and practical experience which are available (also thanks to the Institute as you say, but also thanks to many professionals, scholars and researchers from asia, africa, europe and latin america which are not easily found not so much for language barriers but for sheer lazyness on the part of those who simply cannot stop looking back at the way things were when we were younger and public relations was basically ethnocentrically american.

The fact that this profile has been, since the nineties, mostly rationalised and stimulated by the initiative of an american couple (of course I am referring to Laurie and James Grunig) in its endless quest to position and consolidate the thinking and the practice of public relations in that centerplace of society where organizations worldwide strive to renew every day their licence to opeate, is ironically one more reason for the benign neglect which seems to refer, both in the Us (what, who in the hell are all these new people who don’t even write in english?) and abroad (what, once again the americans want to tell us what to do after all the disasters they have caused?).

2. Public Interest-
I am in fairly line with Judy’s description of the public interest and I am convinced that many associations are working hard to reinforce this pillar of their policies. The fact that some are not, as you say, is also true but this doesn’t mean that one hell of a lot of effrots aren’t going on around the world, again, if we could only stop gazing at our navels…

3.
Code-
you seem to forget that 66 professional associations around the world have signed the Global Alliance Protocol on Ethics in Public Relations. Violations increase of course and enforcement is still a major issue, I agree. But the German case, followed by the Austrians and, now hopefully also by the Italians.. and to this if you add the strong trend towards some degree of regulation of the profession and its many practices in the UK and other areas of the world and take a ‘glass half full’ approach, we can realistically look forward to what is only a natural outcome: the regulation of our profession.

4. Global standards-
As for the ethics protocol the GA is working on a number of other issues conerning global standards. This is an edgy area as anything that is global and is not generic, i.e. implying that it must be practiced in the framework of each territory’s public relations infrastructure, is by definition wrong and one more imposition of few to many.

1. Body of knowledge–Shaky at best, with no organizing principle or comprehensive theory that accounts for how PR actually works, instead of how it SHOULD work. The Institute for Public Relations is addressing this, but given the current orientation of academic research, it will be years
2. Public interest–Strong in some places, practically non-existent in others
3. Code–Plenty of codes around; also plenty of violations and non-enforcement. PRSA is the worst offender
4.Global standards–Just a gleam in the eye

I mentioned IABC (a professional membership association) in response to Brian’s comments, but my comments refer to a much broader selection of associations.

Four Pillars of Professionalism:

1. [Acceptance in an association dependent upon] the mastery of a recognized body of knowledge, (i.e., research, best practices and training/education).
2. A focus on the public interest (e.g., similar to law, accounting, medicine or education). In our “profession” I would see it as a principled balance of organizational and public interests, as in corporate social responsibility. (A very critical current and future focus.)
3. A globally harmonized and enforceable code of conduct and ethics.
4. Global standards-setting body and regulator.

Rather than Toni interpreting, perhaps Eric would kindly weigh in, again. I’m most interested in hearing your point of view.

And on another note, I thought this article published about a week ago in the Globe and Mail was quite timely for the purposes of the exchange: “Sharpen the focus again on corporate social responsibility” (Note that it may not stay freely accessible much longer.)

Perhaps the Global Alliance would be the body best suited to taking up your generous offer to help set up an “open journal.”