Abstract
This study contributes to public relations (PR) literature and research because it finds and highlights discrepancies between male and female PR faculty concerning their involvement or lack thereof with designated labor-intensive teaching and service responsibilities. More specifically, this study finds that more females serve as faculty advisors for Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) chapters than their male counterparts. Significantly, more females teach PR writing classes than do males. The implications of these findings are discussed with regard to tenure and promotion expectations for PR faculty members.
In an attempt to extend public relations (PR) gender research into the career domain of the professoriate, this study analyzes university websites of all Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA)-established chapters in the United States to address the following overarching question: do gender-based differences exist among PR faculty concerning undergraduate PR writing and PRSSA service responsibilities?
These two activities (teaching PR writing and advising PRSSA chapters), examined via the lens of gender, are chosen for analysis in this study for one primary reason: Effective writing skills and other PR knowledge taught via the PR curriculum 1 (and honed via participation in extracurricular activities such as PRSSA 2 ) are most desired of entry-level PR professionals by hiring industry professionals; however, as valuable as these activities are to the development of students for career preparation, these activities are highly labor intensive for faculty members assigned to instruct these classes and lead these extracurricular activities. Thus, it is important to assess whether males or females are shouldering more or less of these labor-intensive assignments—especially when one considers that an important aspect of the professoriate is successful promotion and tenure.
To illustrate the extent of the labor intensiveness of these activities, take, for example, a study conducted by Donnalyn Pompper where one of her research participants commented specifically about the effort required to teach PR writing well: “If you want to be a good writing teacher, it’s kind of like a double-edged sword because you get stuck grading a lot of papers. It’s really time consuming . . . 66 students . . . in excess of 900 papers.” 3 Add this to the aforementioned fact that writing is considered one of the most important skills that employers desire of newly hired PR professionals, 4 and it becomes clear that teaching these classes is paramount. 5 In short, writing must be taught in the PR curriculum regardless of staffing challenges that PR department and program administrators might face in their efforts to offer enough sections of these classes. In a similar vein, PRSSA chapters are vital to students’ preparation for industry. Moreover, effective PRSSA faculty advisers are crucial to the success of the student organizations; however, advising these chapters, like teaching PR writing, is also labor intensive, comparatively speaking. Although PRSSA extracurricular activities have a strong educational or teaching component, the work of being a faculty adviser to a student organization in general usually is “lumped into the service category”—a category that “receives the least attention and is valued less by administrators and others evaluating faculty” workloads. 6
With this foundation established, the following study addresses the question of whether gender-based differences exist among PR faculty concerning undergraduate PR writing and PRSSA service responsibilities. It is important to note that in this study, no attempt is made to determine the faculty rank of persons teaching PR writing classes at doctorate-granting universities—for example, universities that award at least twenty research doctoral degrees during the year (excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). One, then, might infer that such universities would have more rigid research-focused tenure requirements in comparison with master’s colleges and universities or baccalaureate colleges (where baccalaureate degrees represent at least 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees and where fewer than 50 percent master’s degrees or 20 percent doctoral degrees were awarded during the year). However, this limitation is addressed, in part, by taking into consideration faculty rank/level in the analysis of PRSSA chapter advising responsibilities.
Review of Literature
Gender Disparities in Faculty Teaching Workloads
In likely the most comprehensive study of its kind, researchers Bellas and Toutkoushian used the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty to explore, in part, faculty time allocations. 7 More specifically, these researchers sampled (from the larger national study) 14,614 full-time faculty from various disciplines employed at two- and four-year institutions (who held the rank of lecturer/instructor, assistant, associate, or full professor). They found that females spent significantly more time in teaching than males and less time in research. However, the researchers were unable to determine the cause of this difference. Possible explanations included the following: females might have been assigned heavier teaching loads (e.g., more courses or more students per course) than male colleagues; females may have spent more time in course preparation than males; females might have used more labor-intensive evaluation methods; females might have had greater interest in teaching than males. Regardless of the reason, research showed that females spent more hours per week on teaching-related activities than males did.
In light of Bellas and Toutkoushian’s findings, I infer that females would teach more PR writing classes than males because of the labor-intensive efforts required to teach these classes. As such, the following hypothesis is posed.
Research Expectations and Gender Disparities in Faculty Research Production
In a highly cited essay that discussed the priorities of the professoriate, Ernest Boyer highlighted the separation between teaching and research at research universities. Moreover, he (citing the work of Christopher Jencks and David Riesman) stated,
No doubt most professors prefer it when their courses are popular, their lectures applauded, and their former students appreciative. But since such successes are of no help in getting a salary increase, moving to a more prestigious campus, or winning their colleagues’ admiration, they are unlikely to struggle as hard to create them as to do other things.
8
Boyer then articulated that expecting faculty to be good teachers and researchers is a demanding standard. More specifically, other scholars have highlighted the increasing pressure placed on communication program faculty by administrators to pursue and secure external funding. 9 It is logical to assume that if more pressure is being applied in this particular area (research and grant generation), then another area such as teaching likely might get less attention and focus. However, as mentioned earlier, classes such as PR writing are core courses that must be taught despite the research expectations that have been set by university administrations. And if females are shouldering this teaching responsibility, this means that they are less likely to have the time to devote to research that compounds an already present disparity between females and males and the time available to devote to research.
In fact, researchers Bellas and Toutkoushian also found that across disciplines, females produced less than males by all measures of research output, with females publishing fewer articles, books, chapters, and patents than males. However, based on a regression analysis, the authors found that time allocation and total hours worked weekly did not account for all of the observed gender differences in research output. The authors argued that these findings suggest that females might work at a slightly slower pace than males—especially in the research process—because females’ work is scrutinized more closely than males’ work. Whether this is the case that females work slower than males is uncertain; however, with increasing research demands at institutions—especially doctorate-granting research universities—and the possibility that females might be compelled or socialized to work slower than males in terms of producing research, it would seem that if females were teaching more PR writing classes than males, then these females would likely have less time to devote to research if they so desired to conduct more of it or desired to devote the same amount of time to research as their male counterparts. It could also be possible that females are assigned more teaching assignments or service responsibilities because administrators might deem that their efforts are more valuable in teaching and service than in research where males have been producing more—the makings of a vicious cycle. Regarding the service component of this argument, scholars have noted that females and faculty categorized as underrepresented racial and ethnic persons (UREP) tend to “shoulder university service obligations,” which also has implications for career advancement. 10
As such, with this foundation established, the following hypothesis is posed:
Because it may simply be the case that more females teach PR writing because there are more female PR professors than male PR professors, a research question is added to augment this hypothesis.
An additional research question is posed to address the PRSSA service component of labor-intensive PR-related faculty work.
Method
To test the hypothesis and to address these research questions, I first used the public PRSSA website to identify active PRSSA chapters in the United States (N = 332). This action was taken because since 1989, PRSSA has issued guidelines for and has granted certification to PR programs (Certification in Education for Public Relations, henceforth referred to as CEPR) based on the Commission of Public Relations Education curricula guidelines. Although Hardin and Pompper in their study of PR writing only used ASJMC-certified programs (Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication is a non-profit, educational association, composed of some 190 JMC programs at the college level that promotes excellence in journalism and mass communication education), 11 I was more inclusive in this study because (1) I did not want to exclude programs that might be pursuing certification but have yet to attain said status; (2) the study’s aim is to capture as many writing courses taking place in PR across the United States in a given year, not just the writing taking place at certified programs; (3) if programs have a PRSSA chapter, they are required to have a PR writing course as part of their charter application even if they are not a part of a journalism or mass communication department or school, but rather a communication department, business school, or an English department; and (4) I was also interested in exploring the gender differences (if any exist) between males and females who serve as PRSSA advisors.
Not all writing classes were included in the analysis. Even though they might be relevant, classes such as magazine writing and copy editing were excluded. Classes included met the following criteria: (1) They were required as a part of the department’s fulfillment of the CEPR sequence. (2) They had the specific words “public relations” and “writing” in their title, and all courses that had these key words in their title were included in the analysis. For example, Sam Houston State University has both of these writing courses listed as a part of its PR curriculum:
MCOM 3383 Writing for PR and Advertising
MCOM 3382 Advanced Writing for PR and Advertising
As such, both courses were included in the analysis.
(3) They (the classes) were writing course options in the PR curriculum that could be selected by students to fulfill their writing obligation for degree completion. All such writing classes were included in the analysis. For example, Baylor University allows PR students to choose one course from the following to meet its PR writing requirements:
JOU 2303 Beginning Reporting and Writing
JOU 3372 Writing for Media Markets
As such, both courses were included in the analysis because PR students likely would be found enrolled in either class. (4) Classes were taught during the 2012–2013 academic year.
I checked department websites to determine whether faculty members were male or female. Pictures along with names were used to link faculty to the course taught and to determine how many sections were taught by faculty identified as male (N = 340) or female (N = 544). Using this method, I was able to identify all but one faculty member. When a website only provided a name and no picture, I used social networking sites such as LinkedIn, which often included a photo, to determine whether the faculty member was male or female. In other instances where LinkedIn provided no information on a person’s male or female status, I used RateMyProfessor.com to read students’ feedback to determine the pronouns (he or she) used to refer to the instructor.
I used the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education to classify the universities and departments where the PR writing classes were taught. Three classifications captured the institutions included in this study: (1) Doctorate-granting Universities, (2) Master’s Colleges and Universities, and (3) Baccalaureate Colleges.
Schools with more than one incomplete data category (such as no course schedule or no list of course offered) were excluded from analysis. Thirty-eight institutions met this criterion where two or more items of information could not be retrieved (eleven Doctorate-granting, nineteen Master’s Colleges and Universities, and eight Baccalaureate Universities). The final numbers of institutions that were included in this analysis are (1) Doctorate-granting Universities (N = 121), (2) Master’s Colleges and Universities (N = 150), and (3) Baccalaureate Colleges (N = 20).
Results
Of note is 212 of 329 programs (64 percent) had at least one course listed with “public relations” and “writing” in the title. I went to each university’s registrar site or central course management system (CCMS) to retrieve the classes that met criteria for inclusion in the study (N = 906). After all included courses were identified and counted, I compiled a list of the names of the faculty teaching those courses. I checked department websites to determine the identity of the faculty listed to teach the classes (N = 895) to form the basis for analysis. Eleven sections could not be paired with a faculty member because the instructor of record had yet to be determined.
The first hypothesis predicted that female faculty (N = 544) teach significantly more PR writing classes than male faculty (N = 340). H1 was supported. Female faculty were found to teach significantly more PR writing sections (M = 1.87, SD = 2.19) than male faculty (M = 1.17, SD = 1.57), t = 4.46, df = 524, p < .001, r2 = .033.
The second hypothesis predicted that female faculty teach significantly more PR writing classes than male faculty at Carnegie research institutions. This hypothesis was also supported suggesting that female faculty at Carnegie designated doctoral institutions (M = 2.51, SD = 2.82) teach more writing sections (n = 304) than their male counterparts (n = 192) (M = 1.59, SD = 1.91), t(211) = 2.99, p < .005, r2 = .035.
To further nuance this hypothesis, a research question was asked: Does a significant difference exist between the number of full-time male PR faculty and full-time female PR faculty in academic departments at Carnegie research institutions? PR faculty here is defined as any faculty member who teaches any of the classes in his or her university’s core PR curriculum and/or has published PR research. Given these parameters, the results do not support that there is a significant difference between the number of full-time men (M = 1.80, SD = 1.55), t(232) = 1.53, p = 1.97, and women PR faculty. Table 1 helps to answer the proposed research question by showing although females outnumber males in full-time faculty positions at Carnegie research institutions, the gap between the two groups is not particularly significant.
Full-time PR Faculty at Carnegie Research Institutions by Biological Sex and Faculty Rank.
Note. PR = public relations.
To address gender-based differences in PRSSA faculty responsibilities, RQ2 asked what percentage of PRSSA faculty advisors (generally as well as at research institutions specifically) are females as opposed to males? In short, 60 percent of females serve as PRSSA chapter advisors—almost twice the percentage of advisor positions held by males as indicated in Table 2.
Number and Percentage of Male and Female PRSSA Chapter Advisors.
Note. PRSSA = Public Relations Student Society of America.
The percentage of females remains almost the same (59.5 percent) with regard to the how many female PR faculty members serve as PRSSA advisors at Carnegie research institutions as indicated in Table 3. The largest percentage of full-time PRSSA female faculty advisors hold the rank of assistant professor, whereas males at the assistant professor rank compose the smallest percentage of male PRSSA faculty advisors as indicated in Table 3. Conversely, male PRSSA faculty advisors are likely to hold the rank of instructor and full professor, respectively, as indicated in Table 4.
Number Male and Female PRSSA Chapter Advisors at Carnegie Research Institutions.
Note. PRSSA = Public Relations Student Society of America.
Percentage of Male and Female U.S. PRSSA Chapter Advisors by Faculty Rank.
Note. PRSSA = Public Relations Student Society of America.
Discussion
This study is exploratory in nature. It aimed to contribute to gender and PR literature by trying to determine whether female faculty shouldered more of the labor-intensive teaching and service responsibilities—that is, teaching PR writing and serving as PRSSA advisors—than male faculty. This research suggests that this is, indeed, the case.
For decades, gender and gender disparity have been subjects of inquiry for PR scholars. 12 In fact, prior roles research has shown that females (possibly due to glass ceiling effects) in PR tend to disproportionately enact the technician role, as opposed to the manager role, which is usually enacted by males. 13 I am not arguing that teaching PR writing or serving as PRSSA advisors are the equivalent of the technician role in the practical sense; rather, the parallel is being drawn between teaching writing and serving as advisor as labor-intensive technical skills (and females shouldering that responsibility). By engaging in these more labor-intensive activities, females likely will have less time to devote to more strategic (management) endeavors such as research or teaching in larger scores other PR strategic (management) classes such as campaigns, PR research, or PR case studies than males.
Limitations of this study are present. First, this study provides a snapshot in time (the 2012–2013 academic year). Thus, it is not clear if these results are typical of the field or if this year is an anomaly. Longitudinal data are required to see if trends can be detected. Furthermore, limitations of this study are clear in that I did not approach this study with the purpose of predicting interaction effects; thus, the data were collected and coded in a manner that makes regression analysis difficult. To be more specific, I focused on the volume of writing classes being taught. As such, I only counted the aggregate number of PR writing sections being taught in a given academic year, and then I counted how many of those sections were taught by males and females, respectively. I did not capture how many sections were taught by non-tenure track females and non-tenure track males. Hence, it is possible that a more nuanced explanation for the differences observed might be that females disproportionately occupy the non-tenure track ranks with regard to teaching writing in PR. This explanation, if true, however, does not diminish the importance of the results presented. Moreover, the findings might provide even further support for the gender disparities (regardless of tenure status, graduate student status, adjunct status) present in the teaching of labor-intensive courses.
What is most intriguing is that despite the fact that there is no significant difference between the number of full-time male and female PR faculty at Carnegie research institutions, females overwhelmingly are serving the service role as PRSSA faculty advisors. And given that the largest portion of PRSSA female faculty advisors hold the rank of assistant professor, one could argue that these females are carrying a larger service responsibility than their male counterparts at a potentially critical time in the tenure process. It was not determined whether these females were on the tenure track for six years or less or have been assistant professors for longer than six years; however, this finding suggests that female faculty that accept the responsibility of being PRSSA advisors might find themselves in a precarious situation as they seek to balance (possible) satisfaction derived from serving with the competing tension that a lot of service (without adequate research time) can directly impede career advancement (if career advancement is their ultimate goal).
Future research should determine, specifically, if there is a significant difference between the number of PR writing sections taught by tenure track (or tenured) females and males at Carnegie research institutions. The answer to such a question, coupled with interview data, might potentially provide insight into how PR female and male faculty might view their pre- and post-tenure experiences with regard to the classes they are asked to teach or service responsibilities asked of them. Future research could also explore other aspects of the PR curriculum such as who is teaching research, campaigns, case studies, or principles of PR to see if the trends presented here hold true across the PR curriculum. However, given writing’s import to the practice of PR, as well as local PRSA chapters’ involvement with many colleges’ PRSSA chapters, it only seems logical that analyses of the undergraduate PR curriculum begins with an examination of PR writing and PRSSA advising responsibilities.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.