A content analysis compared the professional and research agendas of "Public Relations Journal" and "Public Relations Review" for the years 1975-81. A sample of 121 articles from the former and 111 articles from the latter were analyzed, and the content of each was assigned to one of 10 categories related to the context, profession, and process of public relations. Results showed that, whereas "Journal" articles were primarily concerned with the public relations process, the "Review" devoted almost equal attention to public relations context, profession, and process. "Journal" content dealt primarily with action and message strategies and techniques and with media usage and techniques, while that of the "Review" showed an equally disproportionate concern with social context and professionalism. The findings suggest that the research reported in the "Review" is not responsive to the program implementation interests of practitioners as reflected in "Journal" content, that neither publication provides sufficient information on the use of research in public relations, and that a relatively small portion of the content of these journals qualifies as theory building. (FL)