Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the current state of communication evaluation and measurement (E&M) as a vital field connecting academics and practitioners in communication management. Design/methodology/approach The authors track recent developments in the field, address the ongoing struggle toward E&M standards, and propose six agenda points for the future E&M debate. Findings While the authors see an engaged, international interest community making considerable headway in important E&M issues, the conclusion is that several areas require further work: dynamics of standardization; going beyond the effectiveness-based view; internal services evaluation; addressing intervening variables; closer ties to related fields; and dissemination into the wider practice. Originality/value The paper gives a pointed reflection of the state of the field and also provides a comprehensive list of current resources for those who aim to further the E&M debate.

This paper is NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; but the author's final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in th citation below.

Evaluation is the cornerstone of successful strategic communication. It is the basis on which to assess whether and how any purposeful use of communication by an organization contributes to fulfilling the organization's mission, strategy, and goal attainment. For over 50 years, evaluation has been a major focus of both the professional and academic debate in strategic communication. The relevance of this debate has grown in recent decades as budgets in various strategic communication domains continue to increase, in turn raising pressure to deliver hard evidence on how communication contributes to organizational goals. This entry addresses the main strands of the evaluation debate by: (i) contextualizing evaluation of strategic communication within the overall strategic management process and, on this basis, introducing the basic types, units, and stages of evaluation; (ii) tracing the historical development of the broad evaluation debate; and (iii) introducing critical points of reflection on the state of the field in research and practice.

No abstract

No abstract