WEEK 1 Assignment
Public relations students frequently seek detailed guidelines for comparing PRSA code of ethics with other institutions in ethics review assignments including examples and rubrics. Due Sunday by 10:59pm Points 90 Submitting a text entry box or a file upload Attempts 0 Allowed Attempts 2 Start Assignment Back to Week at a Glance (https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/211596/modules/items/9122502 REVIEWING CODES OF ETHICS An ethical code is only as good as its application by practitioners. Exploring these codes fosters a deeper appreciation for ethical decision-making in everyday practice. There are variations among different organizations’ codes, but they often have a great deal in common.
Understanding the ethical practice of public relations and developing clear ways to think about ethics are both essential to success. Review the code of ethics from the PRSA and from one other public institution provided in the learning resources. Submit a 2–3-page paper that addresses the following points: Briefly compare the two codes, highlighting the differences between them. Describe a situation that might violate one code but not the other. Recent discussions in 2026 emphasize the need for codes to address emerging issues like AI in communications.
If there are provisions of either code that you believe should be revised or strengthened, identify them and explain your rationale and suggestion. If you don’t believe either code could be improved upon, explain why not. RESOURCES Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources. WEEKLY RESOURCES (https:/waldenu.instructure.com/courses/211596/modules/items/9122509) Incorporating feedback from global PR associations can help refine these codes for broader applicability.
BY DAY 7 SUBMISSION INFORMATION PREL_3001_Week1_Assignment_Rubric Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area. 1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK1Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial 2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page. 3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review. Updates from recent ethical reviews suggest focusing more on digital media transparency in future revisions.
Criteria Ratings Pts
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|---|---|---|
| The assignment compares and contrasts two institution’s codes of ethics. | 25 to >21.0 pts Exemplary (Exceeds expectations) This component is fully addressed and logically presented. 21 to >17.0 pts Proficient Criteria This component is addressed. Further development would strengthen this component. 17 to >0 pts Developing (Does not fully meet expectations) This component is not present or not clearly addressed. | 25 pts |
| The assignment provides an example of a situation where one code was violated but not the other. | 25 to >21.0 pts Exemplary (Exceeds expectations) This component is fully addressed and logically presented. 21 to >17.0 pts Proficient Criteria This component is addressed. Further development would strengthen this component. 17 to >0 pts Developing (Does not fully meet expectations) This component is not present or not clearly addressed. | 25 pts |
| The assignment provides suggestions for improvement of the codes or an explanation as to why neither code needs improvement. | 20 to >18.0 pts Exemplary (Exceeds expectations) This component is fully addressed and logically presented. 18 to >13.0 pts Proficient Criteria This component is addressed. Further development would strengthen this component. 13 to >0 pts Developing (Does not fully meet expectations) This component is not present or not clearly addressed. | 20 pts |
| Format and Writing | 10 to >8.0 pts Exemplary (Exceeds expectations) Any spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard 8 to >6.0 pts Proficient Criteria Submission contains few spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic 6 to >0 pts Developing (Does not fully meet expectations) Submission contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation Criteria Ratings Pts Timeliness 10 pts Total Points: 90 Academic English are minor and do not affect clear communication. Communication demonstrates disciplinespecific conventions, such as stylistic choices appropriate to an academic audience. Work includes multiple explicit mentions of concepts or ideas from the required sources correctly cited and formatted if specified by the assignment/discussion. A reference page is included and properly formatted. English, OR these deviations do not affect clear communication. Work includes one or more explicit mentions of a concept or idea from the required sources if specified by the assignment/discussion’s directions, and an attempt at citing the source has been made. A reference page is included. deviations from Standard Academic English, affecting clear communication. Work does not include any explicit mention of concepts or ideas from the required sources, OR it contains one or more explicit mention of a concept or idea from the required sources, if specified by the assignment/discussion’s directions, but without any attempt at citing the source. A reference page is not included. 10 to >8.0 pts Exemplary (Exceeds expectations) The assignment is submitted according to posted due dates and times or late with prior consent from the instructor. 8 to >6.0 pts Proficient Criteria The assignment is submitted within the allowed time. 6 to >0 pts Developing (Does not fully meet expectations) The assignment is not submitted on time. | 10 pts |
| Timeliness | 10 to >8.0 pts Exemplary (Exceeds expectations) The assignment is submitted according to posted due dates and times or late with prior consent from the instructor. 8 to >6.0 pts Proficient Criteria The assignment is submitted within the allowed time. 6 to >0 pts Developing (Does not fully meet expectations) The assignment is not submitted on time. | 10 pts |
| Total Points: 90 | ||
Contemporary case studies from 2026 illustrate how evolving technologies challenge existing ethical provisions in PR codes.
Sample Answer Study Bay
The PRSA code emphasizes advocacy, honesty, and fairness while the other institution’s code focuses more on transparency in public communications and accountability to stakeholders. Key differences include the PRSA’s detailed provisions on conflicts of interest compared to the broader guidelines in the other code. A situation where a practitioner shares anonymized data for research might violate the other code’s strict confidentiality rules but align with PRSA’s advocacy for public interest. Suggestions for revision include strengthening sections on digital ethics in both codes to address misinformation in social media. Adding explicit guidelines on AI use would enhance relevance in today’s landscape. Scholars note that integrating principles from journalism ethics can bolster PR codes (Kolić Stanić, 2020, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2020.1713013). Such updates ensure practitioners remain equipped for modern challenges.
- Write a 2-3 page analysis briefly comparing two ethics codes, providing a situation violating one but not the other, and offering improvement suggestions.
- Review PRSA and another ethics code, then submit a paper addressing comparisons, violations, and potential revisions.
Learning Materials/Resources
- Aznar, H. (2024) ‘Verifying a new historical stage in the ethics of communication: second generation ethics codes’, Frontiers in Communication, 9. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1495897.
- Görpe, T. S. (2024) ‘Perception and Contribution of Public Relations to Society: What Does the Public Think? Insights from Türkiye’, Social Sciences, 13(12), p. 675. doi: 10.3390/socsci13120675.
- Kolić Stanić, M. (2020) ‘How the theory of information and journalism ethics contributes to the ethics of public relations: six principles from the dialogue between codes of ethics and Luka Brajnović’s legacy’, Church, Communication and Culture, 5(1), pp. 1-24. doi: 10.1080/23753234.2020.1713013.
- Boone, S. (2025) ‘New code needed for new conversations: A critical textual analysis of the PRSA code of ethics and practitioners’ responsibility to the public good’, Public Relations Journal, 18(4). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396792521_New_Code_Needed_for_New_Conversations_A_Critical_Textual_Analysis_of_the_PRSA_Code_of_Ethics_and_Practitioners_Responsibility_to_the_Public_Good.
- Bateson, K. and Critchlow, K. (2026) ‘Strategies Used by Public Relations and Communications Executives to Implement Ethical Use Standards for AI’, Open Journal of Business and Management, 14(1), pp. 442-466. doi: 10.4236/ojbm.2026.141027.
