Twitter and social media are a nightmare for control freak academics. What are those students doing with their mobile phones? Why aren't they concentrating in class? Many academics are instinctively opposed to the loss of control and seek to ban social media in order to reassert some semblance of control. (I sometimes describe myself as a 'loss-of-control freak', and attempt to teach in a 'loose' and non-didactic style despite often confusing my students in the process.) Here's the line I use with sceptical colleagues who attack social media use in the classroom. Driving and sex can be liberating and fun - but can also be life-threateningly dangerous. So can social media. And like driving and sex, we can't uninvent them or pretend they don't exist. We should acknowledge the existence of social media, use it where we can to our advantage, and preach safe-social messages all the time. As you say, it's ironic that supposed communication experts should ignore powerful communication tools.

I can't disagree with any of this - and UK universities will be trying to learn these lessons now that we're approaching a market in higher education. But the thing I find confusing in your terminology is the use of school, college and university interchangeably. The three words are still very distinct in the UK.

You know how the 'old boy network' was always said to favour those going to the best public schools and the older universities? Well, we have 20 plus years of PR graduates in the workplace - many of whom are now bosses and recruiters. I do welcome the new courses, but it will take them time to build this up. There's more to a PR course than modules on media and culture!

Thanks for the comments. Heather's right: this isn't a discussion of PR vs marketing (yawn) but a discussion of PR as a tactical tool vs PR as strategy. Stephen will know from his own client work what the balance is (and whether there has been a change with the emergence of digital and online). I don't mean to knock Professor Grunig (as Anne Gregory said, that would be adolescent), but it's worth pointing out that academics in the US and most European countries (plus Australia and New Zealand) are exploring new approaches at just the point when some intelligent practitioners and many other countries are just discovering the Four Models of PR and exhibiting the fervour of the newly-converted.

So it's not Journalism courses that are the problem, but Media Studies et al. Problem solved from next year, I feel. There will be a big clear out when fees rise to almost £9,000 a year. Market forces will apply. Truly vocational courses should survive; so should truly academic courses at traditional universities. All others: I'd be very worried.

That's clever. And we can probably both agree that David Phillips is the most divergent thinker we know.

Good questions. If I can dig down a bit, I find the vocabulary of higher education (with its 'learning outcomes') limited and unambitious. I certainly don't succeed all of the time (or even most of the time), but education's also a relationship business. Judged over the longer-term, I feel that I retain good relationships with many graduates and they are achieving good things in the business. I'm charting this at http://prandcomms.com Of course, this is a qualitative measure - and others are better placed than me to judge my success (or otherwise). Success in education (like success in public relations) can only be measured over the longer term.

But it's not a case of cats or dogs. This theory is built on a metaphor of cats, dogs and other domestic animals. Digital advertising is clearly like a rabbit. Still cuddly, but designed to replicate itself very quickly. Charm (cats), directness (dogs), ability to breed (rabbits).

Interesting. I largely agree with your top five suggestions, though I much prefer Coombs and Holladay 2007 to the same authors' 2010 textbook. Out of friendship and local loyalty, I'd also replace Kelleher with Phillips and Young. Moss et al have written on international case studies (new edition last year) and there's a new edition of Heath's Handbook of Public Relations (the academics' choice). The lecturers' handbook is a good idea, and can't be far away given the willingness of many to share their sylllabi, lectures and assessments. Of course, it would logically be online, not in print. My wish list? I'm still looking for the ideal introductory text to recommend for first year undergrads. Have hopes for Butterick, but haven't read it yet.

So kind of you to comment, Kelly. I'm glad I wasn't discouraging in Bologna: we had fun too. Though some have done it before, I fear that for a Brit to teach public relations in the US would be like a US historian teaching about monarchy over here.

As a prediction, the point about transparency looks sound. Today these guidelines have been published to help communicators in public authorities deal with Freedom of Information requests: http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Practical_application/foi_tips_for_communications_professionals.ashx

Thank you all for the comments and clarifications. Jim Macnamara: I too was surprised by Dr Greg Smith's comment to my original review. I just assumed it was some harmless Aussie sledging. Paul Seaman: I'm glad if my recommendation is helpful - but still think the same authors' 2007 text the more impressive (and of wider appeal and importance). Jim Grunig: I have read your major works (several times) - though I am no doubt in danger of simplifying and missing much. That is why I prefaced my remarks by stating the intellectual agility of your work. I also recognise that your position evolved over time and acknowledge that the point about persuading management is an excellent one that is too often overlooked. But for the sake of the readers of this blog (many of whom are students of public relations) - I should note that the distinction between symmetrical and asymmetrical public relations is yours, not mine. By elevating one, you lower the other. By defining one as excellent, you declare the other to be less-than-excellent. (I need to go back and check the reference where you state that it is only possible to practise ethical public relations using a symmetrical model.)

Thanks for commenting, Rob. That's exactly my line of thought. With everything we say (ie put online) we run a risk; but there's an even greater risk in not participating and not seizing the opportunities available. Best of all, by gauging the reaction to our words we're learning lessons in SEO and online reputation management.

Good call, Heather. But at £85.50 from Amazon UK I'd say it's one for the library rather than one for my bookshelf. I do agree with you on the importance of this collection of academic essays and am glad to have been made aware of the availability of a second edition. Publishing story of 2010 so far: a year of revised editions.

I still follow you blog, Penny. Penelope Trunk is certainly special: she's so honest about work, herself, her marriage etc. Yet I can't claim her as my 'find': she's been celebrated for a long time. You're right: blogging is a personal challenge. It also pushes me as an educator and it delights me when students take off and soar far higher than I ever could.

Thank you Jesper. I suspect that "Real time marketing and PR" might be very similar to "The new rules of marketing and PR (second edition)" which is already on my shortlist. Perhaps this would have been a better choice: I've bought several second and third editions this year that haven't added much to their earlier versions.

This does sound suitably inspiring for a young audience. It seems to me it could also make a timely conference paper (on the future of PR and marcoms). Here's a commentator who uses the same context - the same language even - but comes to a very different conclusion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/schuyler-brown/enter-the-golden-age-of-p_b_260078.html

Too many second and third editions on my shortlist already! But I am looking forward to this from Moss and de Santo (to be published next year) - Public Relations: A Managerial Perspective.

It's so subjective of course, but I'm not excited this year like I was in 2008 (Here Comes Everybody) or 2009 (Cluetrain Tenth Anniversary Edition; Online Public Relations). You're right about Hobsbawm. The only all-new contribution is by Robert Phillips. It's good (but available free online...).

Jane I'm about to sound like David Phillips... But university lecturers are at risk of becoming dinosaurs stuck in a past age, impervious to changes in the world around them (and I'm not even talking about fees ... yet). The one hour lecture slot dates back to the Middle Ages. Of course most don't want daylight let in on what they do because it's nothing special. In the new era of an education market, we will have to up our game and justify our courses in terms of employability (while still defending the traditional role of education as a good thing in itself). That's why I'm very alert to goading from recruitment specialists and encouragement from employers. Our better students have been ahead of us in this for a while. Another lesson we teachers must learn!

It could be that our students are being intellectually agile in accepting that one view is right in the classroom, and another is right in the workplace. Look how it works with AVEs. Everyone who gives it a moment's thought accepts they're limited (wrong even) - yet many dutifully crank out an analysis of advertising value equivalency at work.

Thanks, Philip. It's an interesting journey - like you I see it from different places simultaneously since I teach first years (who I can frighten by insisting they take note of the big bad world outside the classroom) and also practitioner-students (who are sometimes slow to value the ideas in the literature). I'm still using 'ideas management' with new students as a way of taking what they know (PR as events) and developing it. Can't report any success though (I lost one to 'a more academic course' only yesterday). In terms of practitioner sites, here's two that you will know about and which can spark a lively discussion. Weber Shandwick sees PR as advocacy; Edelman as 'public engagement'.

Thanks, both. It's certainly not easy - and not all employers of PR 'interns' are PR agencies/consultancies. Some are large businesses or public sector bodies who are more responsive to following rules and norms. At present, the debate is polarising into a binary choice in an attempt to outlaw unpaid internships. I agree with Liz that this would be damaging, so the proposal above is an attempt at compromise.

Thanks for the comment, Philip. I'll pass on your thoughts on PR Conversations to Toni. Barbara, my view is a personal one - but the answer to your question is 'yes'. I can see that analyst relations (like public affairs and many others) is a specialist practice area - but I don't think this amounts to a claim to professional status. After all, very few organisations want analyst relations as an end in itself (any more than media relations should be the end product of PR programmes); these are a means to an end (the end being corporate reputation, or stakeholder relationship management, or shareholder value, sustainability etc). The bigger picture would be best served by one confident professional body embracing the many practice areas in public relations (across multiple sectors, in-house and consultancy).

So where is the disagreement, David? I too appreciate good writing. I also believe that writing to a formula can restrict creativity. I'm not asking for tweet length dissertations but rather feature length articles that are long enough to explore a subject - and short enough to make an impact. We agree that this is a valuable public relations skill.