Abstract
This study describes the characteristics of fully online public relations and strategic communication master’s programs offered by regionally accredited nonprofit and public universities in the United States. A website analysis of 53 programs reveals the types of institutions and academic units offering these programs, degrees offered, program names, and basic program requirements. In-depth interviews with 27 program directors provides further insight into the types of students served, overall focus of program curricula, distinguishing program features, and successes and challenges. Despite growth in online education, this appears to be the first study of online master’s programs in public relations and strategic communication.
Popular media, professional trade publications, and academic journals routinely address how digital media are disrupting the communications industry. Far less attention has been paid to how digital media are disrupting the way we deliver graduate education. In 2015, 19.2% of journalism and mass communication programs offered online master’s degrees, and 34% of students seeking a “professional master’s degree” were enrolled in an online program (Gotlieb, McLaughlin, & Cummins, 2017, pp. 142-143). Fully online master’s degree programs that target working professionals are on the rise across the United States and show no signs of stagnation (Education Advisory Board [EAB], 2015). Public relations and strategic communication programs are high growth areas for universities (Commission on Public Relations Education [CPRE], 2012), and advertising and marketing initiatives suggest a rapid increase in online master’s degrees in these areas.
In addition, public relations programs may be facing an identity crisis. In 2017, 87% of public relations executives said the term “public relations” will no longer explain what they do in 5 years (USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, 2017). Boundaries between public relations, advertising, marketing, and other communication management functions have always been porous, requiring scholars to accept a variety of program names within the general purview of public relations education (Aldoory & Toth, 2000; Briones, Shen, Parrish, Toth, & Russell, 2017; Briones & Toth, 2013). As industry trends toward integration accelerate, some master’s degree programs are shifting from a “purely public relations identity” to a more “interdisciplinary identity” (Briones et al., 2017, pp. 154-155). Separate degrees in public relations, advertising, and marketing communication are increasingly being merged under the larger umbrella of strategic communication (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2015; Park & Ki, 2017).
Since 1973, the Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE) has set standards for public relations education through the Public Relations Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and the Public Relations Society of America (CPRE, 2018). Recent commission reports have noted the rapid growth in online public relations programs and the need to evaluate their quality and outcomes (CPRE, 2012, 2018). While some academic studies have examined general trends and curricula of master’s degree programs in public relations and strategic communication (Aldoory & Toth, 2000; Briones et al., 2017; Briones & Toth, 2013; Quesenberry, Coolsen, & Wilkerson, 2015), none have focused on online programs.
This study addresses this gap by exploring current trends in fully online master’s degree programs in public relations and strategic communication offered by regionally accredited, public and private nonprofit institutions in the United States. It uses “public relations and strategic communication” to refer to programs that identify as public relations and those that blend public relations content with other areas like advertising, marketing, and management.
Literature Review
Diversity of Public Relations and Strategic Communication Programs
Identifying what qualifies as a public relations or strategic communication program is complex due to diverse nomenclature. Briones and Toth (2013) found 18 program names in their study of 75 master’s programs in public relations. The most popular names were “Public Relations” (24%), “Strategic Communication” (14.7%), “Communication Management” (9.3%), and “Advertising & Public Relations” (8%) (p. 124). Multiple program titles likely reflect industry trends and the variety of academic departments involved. One-quarter (25.3%) of examined programs were located in a department of “Communication;” the remainder were offered by departments with 26 different names, including “Public Relations,” “Mass Communication,” “Journalism,” “Business,” “Executive Education,” and “Professional Studies.”
History of Standard Setting in Public Relations Education
Scholar–industry partnerships to identify and promote a standardized curriculum for graduate public relations programs first began in 1985 (see Aldoory & Toth, 2000). Despite substantial agreement between educators and practitioners about what a master’s degree program in public relations education should entail (DiStaso, Stacks, & Botan, 2009; Shen & Toth, 2008, 2013), program audits have revealed a failure to include essential public relations–specific core courses (e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2000; Hon, Fitzpatrick, & Hall, 2004; Shen & Toth, 2008) and a general lack of curricula uniformity across programs (e.g., Briones et al., 2017; Briones & Toth, 2013; CPRE, 2012). These discrepancies have posed barriers to establishing an identifiable, quality “brand” for public relations master’s programs similar to MBAs and other professional programs (Briones & Toth, 2013; CPRE, 2012).
In 2012, the CPRE released its only report focused exclusively on graduate education. Based on surveys of educators and practitioners, interviews with employers, and a web audit, it contains the most current recommendations for master’s degree programs in “public relations” and programs with different names that contain a “track, sequence, or concentration” in public relations (CPRE, 2012, p. 11). No comprehensive evaluation has examined how master’s degree programs in public relations and strategic communication align with the 2012 recommendations, but some studies provide partial insights.
Curriculum
The 2012 commission report identified two types of master’s degree programs: “professional” that prepare students for a “strategic-level professional practice of public relations” and “academic” that prepare students for doctoral degrees and academic careers (CPRE, 2012, p. 3). The commission recommends that all programs require a minimum of 30 credit hours and include five core content areas: “strategic public relations management,” “business principles and processes,” “communication/public relations theory and research methods,” “global influences on the practice of public relations,” and “ethics.” Students entering the profession should take additional specialty area courses (e.g., health care, entertainment) and engage in an “internship, practicum or co-operative education experience” or “a more advanced experience” for those with significant public relations experience (CPRE, 2012, p. 16). Students preparing to pursue a PhD should take additional research courses and write a thesis (CPRE, 2012, p. 12).
Based on Briones and Toth’s web audit (2013), 69% of master’s programs in 2011 offered a general or specialized curriculum model oriented toward professional practice; the remainder offered an academic model or could not be clearly classified. In terms of alignment with required content areas, 64% offered a course in research, 50.7% offered public relations theory and concepts, 42.7% offered public relations management, and 26.7% offered ethics; only 6.7% offered internship or practicum opportunities. Total required credit hours ranged from 21 to 48, and most websites did not indicate whether a culminating project like a thesis or capstone was required (CPRE, 2012).
Admissions
The 2012 commission report recommended assessing master’s applicants in three areas: academic ability, entry-level knowledge of public relations, and personal characteristics suited to the profession (CPRE, 2012). Admissions teams are encouraged to consider multiple measures, including standardized tests like the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) or Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), academic transcripts, analytical reasoning and/or writing tests, resumes, and personal interviews. In 2011, approximately one third of public relations master’s programs required the GRE, and 30% required the GRE or the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL; CPRE, 2012).
Modality
While definitions of modality have shifted over time, the Online Learning Consortium and most higher education institutions use the term “hybrid” or “blended” to refer to courses that contain a mix of online and face-to-face instructional activities and reserve the term “online course” for courses that contain only online activity with no required face-to-face instructional or campus activities (Sener, 2015). Most public relations educators and practitioners surveyed for the commission’s 2012 report “did not accept the validity of totally on-line delivery of courses with no face-to-face contact with the instructor” (CPRE, 2012, p. 9). Traditional, face-to-face courses were the ideal commission-recommended delivery model followed by hybrid or blended approaches that combine online and face-to-face learning. Briones and Toth (2013) identified only eight fully online and four hybrid programs in their 75-program web audit. A 2012 survey of 61 master’s programs in communications, advertising, public relations, and integrated marketing communication found that 10% offered fully online formats and 11% offered hybrid formats (Quesenberry et al., 2015). These studies are now dated and may not have identified the full range of online programs available due to the sampling procedures used. In addition, neither study analyzed whether the characteristics of online or hybrid programs differed from face-to-face programs.
Current State of Online Public Relations & Strategic Communication Master’s Programs
Despite their rapid growth, online master’s degrees have not been the focus of communication scholars. Consequently, there is a dearth of knowledge about the number of programs available, types of students they serve, or their characteristics. Across the United States generally, students who take all or most of their courses online are more likely to be older, to be employed, and to have children at home than students who primarily study on campus (Gallup, 2016; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2015a). Research suggests that students choose online learning for convenience and flexibility rather than just geography. More than half of students (56.1%) who take all their courses for a degree online live in the same state as the institution offering the degree (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). A 2013 Educational Advisory Board (EAB, 2013) review of four online master’s programs in communication found that most students were full-time working professionals who ranged in age from their mid-twenties to mid-fifties.
A 2009 survey of faculty and administrators of programs accredited by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) found that the opportunity to grow enrollments was the primary perceived benefit of online programs. Potential barriers included faculty skepticism about the efficacy of online learning, lack of technological resources and training, inadequate administrative support, and insufficient faculty incentives (Castañeda, 2011). Little has been published about the online experiences of administrators, faculty, and students, and no evaluations were found comparing learning outcomes, student satisfaction, or career progression between online and face-to-face master’s programs.
This study begins to fill the gap in research on fully online master’s degree programs in public relations and strategic communication. It identifies available programs via a new sampling approach, presents a profile of their basic characteristics, and examines program directors’ observations of the students served, overall curricula goals, and successes and challenges.
Research Questions
Method
Program Identification
The NCES (2015b) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) was used to locate programs. IPEDS provides nearly full coverage of U.S. postsecondary institutions; survey participation is legally required for participation in federal assistance programs (NCES, n.d.). A list of 69 universities that reported master’s level graduates in journalism, mass communication, or related programs that were “offered via distance education” to IPEDS in 2015 was created. Based on previous research, these university websites were searched for online programs with the terms “public relations” or “communication(s)” anywhere in the program title. Similar searches were conducted in five online guides to graduate programs throughout January 2017: Peterson’s Online Schools, GradSchools.com, Guide to Online Schools, Affordable Colleges Online, and SuperScholar. Online guides and directories, known as “affiliate marketing sites,” are a key component of programs’ digital marketing plans.
After deduplicating the final list, programs with subject-specific titles, such as “health communication” or “political communication,” were eliminated to focus on broader public relations and strategic communication programs. Remaining program websites were checked for multiple factors. Programs that were not operated by public or private nonprofit universities were eliminated. Only programs that offered a fully online master’s degree were included; a degree was considered fully online if all coursework could be completed online. Programs that offered certificate-only or hybrid-only programming were excluded. A program was considered hybrid if students needed to engage in any face-to-face instructional activities to complete coursework. Programs were also eliminated if the website did not indicate focused public relations or strategic communication coursework. The result was a census of 53 unique programs; all were regionally accredited; 13 were in the Northeast, 15 in the Midwest, 16 in the South, and 9 in the West.
Procedures
Two study authors independently performed the website analysis using a coding protocol. Because analyses relied on simple extraction of website content that was either absent or present, discrepancies were resolved via discussion instead of formal tests for intercoder reliability. Website contact information was used to invite academic program directors to participate in the interview portion of the study. Although referred to as “program directors” for simplicity, they had a variety of titles, such as “chair” or “director of online programs”; all confirmed that they had “general managerial oversight for the curriculum and direction of the program.” These efforts resulted in a final sample of 27 interviews representing 29 of the 53 programs examined by the website analysis 1 (see the appendix). Two study authors not involved in the website analysis conducted the interviews using a semistructured interview guide and recorded the interviews via Skype and phone. Audio files were fully transcribed by an outside vendor with a 99% accuracy rate.
Data Analysis
Website data were transformed to simple descriptive statistics. Transcripts were reviewed line-by-line and relevant passages of text were transferred into a database to display the data by research question. Two of the study authors reviewed the database individually and revisited the original transcripts as necessary to identify recurring patterns through an inductive coding system. They consulted to arrive at a final set of descriptive themes to answer the research questions.
Results
This section describes the characteristics of 53 fully online public relations and strategic communication master’s programs operated by regionally accredited, nonprofit and public universities in the United States.
RQ1: What Are the Institutional and Programmatic Characteristics of Fully Online Master’s Degree Programs in Public Relations and Strategic Communication?
Almost two thirds (60%) of programs were offered by private nonprofit universities, and the remainder (40%) by public universities. The majority of programs (79%) were offered by traditional academic units that provide residential undergraduate and graduate programs, and the remainder (21%) by divisions of “Professional,” “Continuing,” or “Online” studies. We found 27 distinct department names offering these programs; “Communication” was the most frequent, followed by “Communication & Journalism,” “Communication Studies,” “Public Communication,” and “Professional Studies” (see Table 1).
Department Name (Website Data).
Program names spanned 21 different titles; many programs had unique names shared by no other program. The trend was for more general or interdisciplinary titles like “Communication,” “Strategic Communication,” and “Integrated Marketing Communication,” than disciplinary-specific ones like “Public Relations” (see Table 2). Program directors provided a variety of reasons for more interdisciplinary titles, including incorporating “industry buzzwords like ‘strategic’ that increase SEO results” and providing a more “integrated” curricula approach.
Program Name (Website Data).
RQ2: What Types of Student Populations Do Programs Serve?
When asked if their programs served “recent undergraduates,” “mid-level professionals,” or “executives,” program directors identified “mid-level professionals” as their primary student population combined with a substantial, and in some cases growing, mix of more recent undergraduates. A few directors reported the occasional executive-level professional. Website program descriptions were also analyzed for explicit mentions of the types of students who would benefit from the curriculum. One-quarter (25%) identified working professionals, 21% indicated working professionals or recent graduates aspiring to work in the field, and 53% made no specific reference.
RQ3: What Are the Admissions Requirements?
Website reviews revealed that standard admissions materials, such as academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, resumes, and personal statements or essays were frequent requirements. Only 23% of programs required the GRE for all incoming students (or a comparable standardized test such as the GMAT or MAT); another 23% had a conditional GRE requirement that could be waived based on criteria, such as undergraduate GPA or significant professional experience. The remaining 55% of programs required no GRE. A few programs prominently displayed their no-GRE requirement status on their websites.
RQ4: What Are the Basic Degree Requirements?
Ninety percent of programs granted a traditional Master of Arts (MA) or Master of Science (MS) degree, and all 53 programs required at least 30 credits to graduate. Most programs (83%) required some type of culminating experience to graduate. A capstone or applied project was the most common requirement (57%); a significant number of programs allowed students to select a thesis or other options (see Table 3).
Degrees & Requirements (Website Data).
Programs with flexible options offered three or more choices to complete the degree, including theses, capstones/final projects, comprehensive exams, practicums, portfolios, and internships.
RQ5: What Are the Overall Curricula Goals?
During interviews, program directors said their curricula had a more professional focus. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = entirely academic and 10 = entirely professional), the average rating was 7.18 (SD =1.54; range = 4 to 10). One director explained, “It’s designed for working professionals who wish to obtain a deeper understanding and mastery of strategic communication to facilitate upward career mobility.” Another director described his program as “the communication equivalent of the MBA without all the business and finance training.”
Several directors stressed that their online programs were “terminal” or “professional” degrees, rather than “PhD preparation” programs. A few described how their online programs provided a different offering than their more traditional, on-campus programs.
Some participants hesitated when assigning a rating, and a few challenged the “academic” descriptor on the scale, suggesting that “PhD prep,” “research training,” or “scholarly” may have been a better choice. These directors highlighted their programs’ inclusion of “rigorous” courses in theory and research.
RQ6: What Do Academic Program Directors See as Key Distinguishing Features of Their Programs?
In response to
A range of “flexible” features were highlighted, including asynchronous courses with no requirements to be online at a specific time, year-round course offerings, and multiple program-start options. Opportunities for students to customize curricula included options to select the culminating experience or project beyond a required thesis and tailoring the degree to specific interests through electives or concentrations.
Some program directors viewed the currency of their course content as a key strength, emphasizing that courses reflected “a 21st-century focus” or “innovation.” Many highlighted using practitioner-faculty with extensive industry experience to teach courses; a few described tapping these faculty to develop courses in emerging areas. Although programs rely heavily on practitioner-faculty, several directors described using “tenured,” “scholarly,” or “faculty with PhDs” to teach core, foundational courses.
RQ7: What Are the Greatest Successes and Challenges Encountered Delivering These Programs?
Program director comments revealed three recurring success themes: growing enrollments, developing engaging courses, and incorporating experiential learning opportunities. Common challenges that surfaced included developing and updating courses, faculty training, building community, providing student services, and maintaining enrollments.
Most directors reported increased enrollments generated by serving new student populations, such as “working professionals,” “active military personnel,” and “people raising families” and by expanding their programs’ geographical reach nationally, and in a few cases, internationally. Some described highly “interactive” or “engaging” courses achieved via multimedia content, discussion forums, and other collaborative technologies. Significant experiential opportunities were reported, taking the form of team-based “client experiences” or “real-world” products created for students’ current employers in campaign or capstone courses. A few reported internship opportunities; others perceived them as less important for working professionals.
The time and resources it takes to develop courses, keep content updated or “fresh,” and train faculty in new pedagogies and technologies posed ongoing challenges for programs. Others reported needing to create social media groups or newsletters to build a sense of community and keep students “connected” to the larger program and university. A need for more student services and advising to keep students “on track” or “motivated” due to the “self-directed” nature of online learning surfaced. Finally, several directors cited difficulties marketing their programs and maintaining enrollments in the increasingly “competitive” online environment.
Discussion
This study appears to be the first to identify the full range of fully online master’s degree programs in public relations and strategic communication and assess how their basic characteristics compare to on-campus counterparts and the Commission on Public Relations Education’s (CPRE) standards. The total number of programs found (N = 53) at private nonprofit and public universities across the United States is significantly larger than previously reported (e.g., Briones & Toth, 2013; Quesenberry et al., 2015). The discrepancy may reflect the passage of time, a trend toward more online offerings by U.S. nonprofit private and public universities (Seaman et al., 2018), and a more robust sampling method to detect online programs.
Online learning is disrupting traditional modes of delivering graduate education within the core of the academy. Most online master’s programs (79%) were offered by traditional academic units rather than schools of professional or continuing education. A significant number of MA and MS degrees in public relations and strategic communication are now delivered online to a population of adult, working professionals commonly referred to as “nontraditional students” despite their majority status in these programs. More recent undergraduate students are also opting to earn master’s degrees online. More positive public perceptions of online education, increased employer desire for employees with graduate degrees, and rising student loan debt (e.g., Gallup, 2014, 2016; Pappano, 2011; Selingo, 2018) may be driving this demand.
Online master’s degrees in public relations and strategic communication have a variety of program names and are offered by a wide range of departments similar to face-to-face programs (Briones & Toth, 2013; Quesenberry et al., 2015). We found a greater tendency for more interdisciplinary titles like “Strategic Communication,” “Communication,” or “Integrated Marketing Communication” than “Public Relations.” Alignment with industry trends toward integration (Briones et al., 2017; Quesenberry et al., 2015; USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, 2017) may be particularly important for programs that serve working professionals engaged with industry.
Program director explanations of their programs’ curricula goals align with what the commission defines as a “professional” master’s degree (CPRE, 2012). Although many programs report a strong academic foundation with courses in theory and research, the primary goal is to position students for careers in practice. While all programs met or exceeded the commission’s 30-credit hour recommendation for a master’s degree, culminating experience requirements varied. Contrary to commission guidelines and surveys with educators and practitioners (CPRE, 2012; Shen & Toth, 2013), 17% of programs required no culminating experience or capstone project. Another quarter (26%) offered students substantial flexibility to pick their culminating experience, with several offering students a choice between a thesis or a more applied professional project, which is consistent with the commission’s recommendation to provide these options to accommodate students on “academic” or “professional” degree paths. Only 23% of online programs definitively required the GRE, which is somewhat less than reported for commission reviewed programs in 2011 (CPRE, 2012).
Program directors cited increased enrollments as a major benefit of going online; however, several reported challenges maintaining these enrollments in today’s highly competitive environment. Overall, directors perceived their programs as providing flexible, engaging learning experiences that transcend students’ lifestyle and geographical constraints. Course content that reflects current industry trends taught by practitioner-faculty who are leaders in the field are key, accentuated features. Some programs report success with experiential courses and team-based learning, which are important components of a public relations and strategic communication education (CPRE, 2012). Reported challenges in areas of course development, maintenance, faculty training, and student support services are frequently reported barriers to launching and scaling online programs, regardless of discipline (Miller et al., 2014).
Limitations and Future Research
The primary limitation of this study relates to identifying the programs that qualified as offering a fully online master’s degree in public relations and strategic communication. All relevant programs may not have appeared in IPEDs or the online graduate guides at the time they were searched. Determining which programs contained public relations or strategic communication content required some judgment; these decisions are complex due to diverse program nomenclature. Website analyses have limitations; program websites are not always kept current and desired information is sometimes missing. Finally, this study was limited to fully online programs; programs that were hybrid-only were excluded. Locating hybrid-only programs would have required a different sampling approach, as they are not coded as “distance education” programs in IPEDS or consistently listed in directories of online graduate programs.
A wealth of opportunities exists for future research on online graduate programs in public relations and strategic communication. An additional study is planned to more thoroughly examine program curricula and explore how course content and requirements vary by program name and type of academic unit. Briones et al. (2017) recently suggested that some programs included in previous research may not adhere to commission standards because they do not identify as “public relations” programs; curricula analyses by program name and type of academic unit may help clarify this point. Although scholars have advocated for a more standardized public relations curriculum, more nuanced program selection criteria may be needed when determining what programs should be compared against those standards.
Future scholarship should examine the full range of modalities being used to deliver graduate public relations and strategic communication curricula and their respective outcomes. A growing number of universities are offering hybrid courses or programs that allow students to take a mix of online and face-to-face courses to complete degree requirements (Adams Becker et al., 2017; Seaman et al., 2018). Although public relations practitioners and academics have expressed a preference for face-to-face and hybrid programs over fully online programs (CPRE, 2012), there is a lack of outcomes data to support these preferences. Studies that compare assessment-based student performance metrics across different delivery models are needed to determine whether learning outcomes vary by modality. Surveys of current students and alumni can also be used to track other outcomes, such as program retention, satisfaction, job placement, and career progression.
There is also a clear need for research oriented toward ensuring that students receive the best learning experiences and student support services to achieve academic success. While no discipline-specific data could be found for public relations and strategic communication, lower student retention rates in online programs have been observed across disciplines (Bawa, 2016; Hart, 2012). A body of literature on effective pedagogy has emerged for online learning more generally, but more specific research is needed to explore the best way to deliver the types of content, collaborative activities, and experiential learning opportunities typical of public relations and strategic communication curricula. Program directors and other administrators can also use guidance on how to better support online learners with academic and other student services and engage them in ways that make them feel more connected to the program and larger university community.
Providing students with high-quality learning experiences is impossible without the active involvement of faculty. It is unclear why there has been little attention to online learning and pedagogy in the communication scholarship. Across disciplines, faculty have reported substantial resistance and barriers to teaching online related to a variety of factors, including their own concerns about the quality of online education, inadequate university recognition and renumeration for their efforts, and insufficient training and technical support (Castañeda, 2011; Miller et al., 2014). Research to explore the current perceptions and experiences of public relations and strategic communication faculty who teach online can help guide more collaborative efforts between university administrators, program directors, and faculty.
Many PR and strategic communication educators and practitioners remain skeptical about the ability of fully online master’s programs to deliver comparable results to residential programs (CPRE, 2012). Regardless, these programs have arrived. Identifying and acknowledging the growing number of online master’s programs should stimulate scholarship that will benefit current and future students pursuing professional degrees online. The result will be that graduate students receive the best education possible, regardless of modality.
Footnotes
Appendix
Interview Participants (University & Program).
| University | Program |
|---|---|
| Ball State University | MA in Public Relations |
| Drexel University | MS in Communication |
| Duquesne University | MA in Corporate Communication |
| George Washington University | MPS in Strategic Public Relations |
| Georgetown University | MPS in Integrated Marketing Communications |
| Georgetown University | MPS in Public Relations & Corporate Communications |
| Kent State University | MA in Journalism & Mass Communication |
| Mississippi College | MS in Applied Communication |
| Northeastern University | MS in Corporate & Organizational Communication |
| Northwestern University | MS in Integrated Marketing Communications |
| Purdue University | MS in Communication |
| Queens University of Charlotte | MA in Communication |
| Regent University | MA in Communication: Strategic Communication |
| Southern Utah University | MA in Professional Communication |
| Spring Arbor University | MA in Strategic Communication & Leadership |
| Syracuse University | MS in Communication Management |
| Temple University | MS in Communication Management |
| Troy University | MS in Strategic Communication |
| University of Denver | MA in Communication Management |
| University of Florida | MA in Mass Communication |
| University of Central Missouri | MA in Communication |
| University of Nebraska-Lincoln | MA in Journalism & Mass Communications |
| University of Southern California | MCM in Communication Management |
| Washington State University | MA in Strategic Communication |
| Webster University | MA in Communications Management |
| Webster University | MA in Public Relations |
| Western New England University | MA in Communication: Public Relations |
| Westminster College | MSC in Strategic Communication |
| West Virginia University | MS in Integrated Marketing Communications |
Acknowledgements
We thank Professor Kathy Fitzpatrick, American University, for comments that greatly improved the article.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: American University’s School of Communication provided funds for interview transcription.