How to plan COMM2920 Advocacy and Voice in Public Relations?

Direct answer: At RMIT, COMM2920 is a 12-credit-point undergraduate public relations course (handbook entry 055695) that trains students to argue on behalf of a cause, a client or an individual. Students in Vietnam take it as COMM2969 (Saigon South) or COMM2970 (Hanoi).

The handbook describes a course where students "explore community engagement and advocacy which are central to ethical public relations" and "develop content related to activism and social responsibility in both local and international contexts" (RMIT University, n.d.). The entry lists no assumed knowledge and marks the course as not counting towards the Weighted Average Mark of an Honours program. This guide reads version 1.1 of the entry, published on 2026-01-27 and read on 2026-10-27.

Vietnamese students often search the City Campus code and then find a different number in their own enrolment. The offerings table in the handbook lists these classes for 2026:

Source: course offerings in the RMIT handbook, read 2026-10-27.

Because the four codes share one handbook entry, the outcomes and assessments below are the same for each campus, while word counts and due dates come from your own Canvas shell. Background reading on public relations and advocacy helps if the vocabulary is new.

Direct answer: The handbook lists three assessments: an individual written task worth 30%, a second individual written task worth 40% and a group portfolio worth 30%. Each one names the learning outcomes it tests, but the entry gives no word counts or due weeks, so confirm those on Canvas.

Source: assessment overview, RMIT University (n.d.), handbook entry 055695.

The four outcomes ask you to examine the role of advocacy and its forms (CLO1), apply principles of voice and engagement to local and global situations (CLO2), "Analyse and develop effective advocacy strategies for different stakeholders" (CLO3), and develop content that advocates and responds to issues raised by activist and community groups (CLO4) (RMIT University, n.d.).

Read across the table, CLO2 appears in all three assessments, CLO3 in the second and third, CLO1 only in the first and CLO4 only in the portfolio. The 40% individual task is therefore the heaviest single mark and also the best rehearsal for the strategy half of the group work.

The entry also says feedback will be given on all assessment tasks. On generative AI, it tells students to check Canvas, says coordinators decide for each activity whether such tools may be used, and requires any use to be acknowledged and referenced (RMIT University, n.d.).

Direct answer: State the issue as a request: who must decide, what exactly they should do and what evidence would move them. Then rank stakeholders by power, legitimacy and urgency, and check the map against a published campaign, because audiences split in ways one national figure hides.

Mitchell et al. (1997) classified stakeholders by three attributes, power, legitimacy and urgency, and combining them gives eight types. The framework is summarised in the entries on stakeholder analysis and stakeholder theory.

A published case shows why one figure is not enough. Muscat and Wolf (2025) examined the narratives of the Yes and No campaigns before Australia's 14 October 2023 referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. National polls had indicated widespread support, yet the vote failed, and the authors conclude that "it was ultimately the voices of Indigenous Australians that were drowned out" (Muscat & Wolf, 2025). The Australian Electoral Commission (2023) reports no state with a Yes majority and these results.

Source: Australian Electoral Commission (2023), final results updated 2 November 2023.

The Yes share ran from 31.79% to 61.29% across these jurisdictions, so a stakeholder map for a similar task would need separate rows for separate publics. Culture shifts expectations too: Song and Lan (2022) note that "Chinese companies have yet to widely adopt corporate social advocacy (CSA) as a proactive strategy for corporate communication", and their survey of 418 respondents tests how departures from expectations affect consumer relationships.

Direct answer: Make the ask specific, support it with evidence you can cite, say who is speaking and who pays, and keep the tone on the cause rather than on the sender. The PRSA code and recent research on activist communication give concrete tests for each point.

The Public Relations Society of America (n.d.) code lists six professional values, and advocacy is the first: "We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate". Its disclosure provision tells members to "Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented", and it names front groups as improper conduct, for example grass-roots campaigns run for undisclosed interest groups.

A quick test separates promotion from advocacy. The lines below are illustrative examples written by MAAS, not real campaign copy.

Source: illustrative examples written by MAAS for this guide.

Tone matters as well. Müller (2026) studied an activist group in Portugal through a website corpus of 313 items and four interviews, and reports a deliberately non-promotional tone with privacy safeguards. The study argues that "care-oriented curation can widen credible voice while bounding exposure so that testimony functions as public reason rather than spectacle" (Müller, 2026). CLO4 asks for content that responds to claims raised by activist and community groups, so acknowledge the group's claim before you state your position. The media relations guide for COMM2921 covers pitching that content to journalists.

Direct answer: Agree one issue, one ask and one stakeholder map first, then divide the content by stakeholder rather than by format. In COMM2920 Advocacy and Voice in Public Relations the portfolio is worth 30% and tests CLO2, CLO3 and CLO4, so every piece should show which strategy it serves.

The Center for Theory of Change (n.d.) describes Theory of Change as "a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context". It works backwards from long-term goals to the conditions that must be in place first, which suits a portfolio because each piece can sit on one link of that chain.

Source: planning suggestion by MAAS, mapped to the outcomes in the RMIT handbook; not a handbook requirement.

Müller (2026) suggests designing communication as "a sequenced arc from outreach and reminders to convening and documentation", which gives the team an order for releasing content. Settle the referencing format from Canvas on day one, and use the Harvard referencing guide if your course shell asks for that family of styles. For the planning logic behind a full campaign, compare the COMM2975 strategy and planning guide.