An Analysis of the Academic Environment in Business and Professional Communication

Abstract

While previous research in business communication has surveyed business and professional communication instructors regarding their courses, it has not yet asked instructors about additional factors that affect their ability to teach and their students’ ability to learn. These factors include job satisfaction, institutional and collegial support, academic rank, physical teaching environment, teaching and learning resources, and student issues. This study examines the results of a survey of business and professional communication instructors regarding these factors, discusses implications for the disciplines of business and professional communication, and suggests additional avenues for advocacy and research.

Keywords

academic environment job satisfaction teaching resources advocacy

AsMoshiri and Cardon (2014)note, audits of business communication courses have been done every 5 to 10 years for the past 40 years. This research on business and professional communication’s collective academic environment (e.g.,Moshiri & Cardon, 2014;Russ, 2009) has provided rich data regarding what, where, and how we teach business and professional communication. It is important research that helps create disciplinary identity, develop a sense of community, ensure a consistent student experience, and raise awareness of academic environment issues in our classrooms. Prior research, however, has focused on business and professional communication courses; it has not expanded its scope to include additional important academic environment issues that affect our discipline, pedagogy, and job satisfaction. This article contributes to the discussion of the academic environment for business and professional communication instructors by presenting updated information regarding courses and teaching and adding to that knowledge information on salary, rank, promotion, tenure, degree requirements, classroom management, curriculum, administrative support for programs and curriculum, and concerns related to students. Because these issues significantly affect not only what we do every day but also our morale, motivation, and our students’ success, our team of six researchers from different institutions across the United States asked business and professional communication instructors who are members of the Association for Business Communication (ABC) about their current workplace experiences and their job satisfaction. Furthermore, because the survey respondents reported that they teach not only business communication but also managerial, professional, and visual communication in a variety of academic departments, this research should be relevant to many instructors in a variety of communication disciplines, as they may likely see parallels to their own experiences in their academic environments. Our goals in presenting our research are the following:

Identify specific, common areas of need among business and professional communication instructors.

Identify specific areas of diverse needs that affect business and professional communication instructors.

Gather data that enable evidence-based practices for improving the academic environment for business and professional communication instructors.

Articulate next steps for advocating for healthy teaching environments for business and professional communication instructors.

Learn what ABC—the professional and organizational home for many who teach business and professional communication and from where we gathered our data—can do to advocate for those who teach business and professional communication.

The purpose of this article is to provide a better understanding of the issues encountered by teachers and scholars of business and professional communication as well as issues that we face collectively as an academic discipline. Business and professional communication instructors teach in many places around the world, and we recognize the variation such diversity introduces. This project seeks the shared issues we face in our myriad academic environments. Armed with this knowledge, business and professional communication teachers and scholars can work collectively to advocate for themselves and their discipline and strengthen their teaching, satisfaction with their work environments and their students’ experiences, and work toward creating that ideal academic environment. Teachers and scholars can apply the findings as they are relevant to their unique cultural and academic settings both in the United States and internationally.

Background and Literature Review

Business communication and higher education have undergone several changes in the past 30 years. As a discipline, business communication has engaged in a consistent stream of research that evaluates what, where, when, and how business communication courses have been delivered and who has taught them. At the same time, shifts in higher education have also affected the academic environments in which instructors in all disciplines work.

Business Communication Curriculum

Historically, the field of business communication has engaged in frequent scholarship that examines the curriculum, what is taught, who teaches it, and where it is taught. The geographical nexus for much of this research represents U.S. business contexts. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Ober and Wunsch conducted a series of longitudinal studies (Ober, 1987;Ober & Wunsch, 1983,1991,1995) illustrating changes in trends, course content, and pedagogy. In the 1990s,Wardrope and Bayless (1999)continued discussions regarding course content, whereas others, includingJohnson and DuFrene (1992),Nelson et al. (1992),Knight (1999), andSharp and Brumberger (2013)extended the discussion to include programming, course goals, and the situatedness of business communication in academia.

Two studies on business communication courses that moved beyond curricular situatedness are those ofRuss (2009)andMoshiri and Cardon (2014). Russ surveyed business communication instructors regarding the location of the business communication courses in the academy and in schools’ curricula, the academic level of the business communication course, class size, distance learning, course content, and course assignments. At that time, his results showed that business communication courses were taught mostly in business schools to juniors. The ideal class size was 20 or fewer students, although the average class size in reality was 21 to 31 students, with most instructors delivering their courses in a face-to-face format. The most popular topics were written communication, document format, grammar and mechanics, and oral presentations, while the least covered topics were those related to communication theories and models. Assignments were consistent with the course coverage: letters, memos, emails, reports, and individual and group presentations.

Five years afterRuss (2009),Moshiri and Cardon (2014)provided an update regarding the location of business communication classes, delivery modes, and course content. They expanded on Russ’s work to include depth of coverage and instructors’ academic status and credentials. Consistent with Russ’s survey, they found that most business communication courses were located in business schools. Their study also revealed that only 41% of instructors were in tenured or tenure track positions, which is less than the 54% reported byLawrence and Galle (2011). Class size remained consistent from Russ’s study, while the preferred average class size increased to fewer than 30 students. Nearly all respondents indicated they teach classes of 50 students or fewer. Written communication remained the focus of most courses in terms of content and depth of coverage, while interpersonal skills received increased coverage. Likewise, consistent with Russ’s study, face-to-face instruction remained the primary mode of course delivery.

Shifts in Higher Education

These previous studies on the state of business communication courses are valuable in that they help business and professional communication teachers and scholars develop pedagogy, evaluate curriculum, and determine how to fit in the many places that business communication is taught in higher education. However, as with any other discipline, business communication is part of a larger community of disciplines in colleges and universities. Thus, the ability of those within it to do their work is affected by the same factors that affect academia as a whole: job security and satisfaction, a supportive work environment, teaching resources and support, and student-related issues.

Job Security

Earning a tenure track position has long been the gold standard for academics in the United States; however, recent data suggest that 73% of teaching positions in 4-year schools in the United States are now off the tenure track (compared with 66% in 2009), and 65% of all teaching positions in 2-year schools are part-time (American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2016; AAUP, 2009, as cited inLawrence & Galle, 2011). While the instructors in these positions are dedicated, engaged, and qualified for their work, the instability of their employment presents implications regarding academic freedom (AAUP, 2016) as well as overall job satisfaction (Cerci & Dumludag, 2019). Furthermore, part-time instructors may lack resources such as supplies, equipment, mentoring, or supervision that, in turn, affect the student learning experience (AAUP, 2016).

Job Satisfaction

At the same time, other research indicates that faculty members of color are comparatively dissatisfied with their jobs, but instructors in higher education, regardless of their rank, are satisfied generally. In addition, factors such as mentorship, collegiality, administrative support, and professional development appear to be more impactful on their level of satisfaction than salary (Webber, 2018). In fact, some research suggests that support provided by department chairs and mentors is key in retaining adjunct faculty, on whom many departments rely to staff their classes (Diegel, 2013). Other factors such as the presence or absence of workplace bullying, adequate time for research, and lower levels of formal or informal pressure to produce and perform are also indicators of job satisfaction (Cerci & Dumludag, 2019).

Student Factors

Student factors also affect the teaching and learning environment. Volumes of research are available on factors that affect student learning. Student mental health issues, disruptive classroom behaviors, technology use in class (e.g.,Brown, 2012), lack of motivation (e.g.,McFarlane, 2010), the relationship between appropriate peer support and behaviors that present physical and mental health risks (e.g.,Hicks & Miller, 2006), and loneliness and burnout among college students (e.g.,Stoliker & Lafreniere, 2015) are widely studied. Likewise, given that 19% of undergraduates in 2015-2016 reported having a disability (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019), instructors are rightly required to secure resources necessary for adaptive pedagogies. At the same time, some research suggests that even with the Americans with Disabilities Act provisions for accessibility in academia and the workplace, accessibility issues persist as online courses and digital learning tools become the norm in many institutions (Sutton, 2017); furthermore, even as schools require their faculty to use tools such as Blackboard’s Ally, which works within learning management systems to check course materials for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance (e.g.,Northern Kentucky University, n.d.), they still face legal questions and lawsuits regarding accessibility (LaGrow, 2019).

Students’ mental health has become an especially pressing concern. A study by the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that “one in four college students have a diagnosable illness, 40 percent do not seek help, 80 percent feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities, and 50 percent have become so anxious that they struggle in school” (Roth, 2018). If that statistic holds true in business communication classrooms, in an average class size of 30, seven to eight students will have mental health issues, and three to four students may have issues so severe that they struggle in the course.

While much research exists on academic environment topics generally, as far as we know, there has been no other study that examines the impact of these factors specifically on business communication instructors. Given business communication’s historical struggles with disciplinary identity, status, and location in academia, studying these factors as they pertain to business communication faculty is appropriate and necessary.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Using the literature on current academic environment issues in higher education, we developed a survey that asked the following questions. The full survey is included in theappendix.

What are the characteristics of the survey respondents?

a. Where are they from?

b. What do they teach?

c. Where do they teach (e.g., English departments, business schools)?

d. How much do they teach? How much are they compensated?

e. How big are their schools?

f. What are their positions and ranks?

Who are their students?

a. What student issues affect their ability to teach and their students’ ability to learn? Student issues include behaviors such as civility and academic honesty as well as issues such as learning disabilities and mental illness.

b. What do the instructors think about students’ abilities?

How supported do instructors feel by their colleagues, chairs, deans, and administration?

What workplace factors affect their ability to do their jobs?

How do they feel about their workplace environments? Has this opinion changed since they first started teaching?

Do instructors have the resources needed to do their jobs in face-to-face classrooms? Online classrooms?

What support or resources would they like to have?

An online questionnaire that included 61 items was sent via email to 1,305 members on ABC’s mailing list. Ninety-five members of ABC began an online survey, with 84 fully completing it, yielding a response rate of 7.3% and 6.5%, respectively. The sample characteristics answer Survey Question 1 and appear in the Results section.SurveyMonkey (2019)uses the equation inFigure 1to calculate the minimum sample size for a given reliability.

Figure 1.

SurveyMonkey reliability calculator.

According to SurveyMonkey’s reliability calculator, the sample size is sufficient and reliable at a 90% confidence level and a 10% margin of error.

Instruments and Analysis

Survey items asked for demographic information about instructors, their business communication courses, and their institutions. In addition, several questions asked respondents to rate their perceptions of issues relative to student issues, administrative support, resources, and attitudes about working conditions, among other variables. Scales included yes/no, ranking, Likert, and Likert-type. Many questions allowed for open-ended responses.

Each analysis was performed on the number of participants who reported, leaving missing data unaccounted for. Primary and post hoc statistical analyses of the data were completed in SPSS. Descriptive statistics were generated in SPSS for student learning (eight questions), teaching ability (eight questions), collegiality (six questions), support from chair (10 questions), support from dean (10 questions), administrative support (nine questions), condition of classrooms to support learning (eight questions), and online teaching support (six questions).

Results

Respondent Characteristics

The first survey question asked for descriptions of ABC membership. The majority of respondents were from the United States (n= 76, 90.5%). Other respondents were from Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, and Ukraine. The data from these participants could skew some results when significant cultural differences are not accounted for. However, their data were kept for analysis because they are members of ABC and the intent of the survey was to gauge the membership’s perceptions. A majority of instructors were female (n= 58, 69%), held a doctorate (n= 54, 64.3%), and taught in a college or school of business (n= 59, 70%). One half of the participants occupied a tenure track position. The courses taught by respondents appear inTable 1, institutional size according to student population appears inTable 2, salary data appear inTable 3, and annual teaching loads appear inTable 4.

Table 1.

Courses Taught.

Course	n	%
Business writing	60	71.4
Business presentations	44	52.4
Managerial communication	27	32.1
Professional communication	42	50.0
Visual communication	14	16.7

Table 2.

Institutional Size.

Number of students	n	%
≤5,000	7	8.3
5,001-10,000	12	14.3
10,001-15,000	7	8.3
15,001-20,000	8	9.5
20,001-25,000	21	25.0
25,001-30,000	10	11.9
>30,000	18	21.4

Table 3.

Base Salary Range (U.S. Dollars).

Salary range	n	%
35,000-49,999	7	8.3
50,000-74,999	27	32.1
75,000-99,999	23	27.4
100,000-124,999	10	11.9
125,000-144,999	6	7.1
≥150,000	5	6.0
Other	5	6.0

Table 4.

Annual Teaching Load.

Load	n	%
6/6	4	4.8
5/5	3	3.6
4/4	27	32.1
3/3	22	26.2
2/2 + research or administrative	19	22.6
0 because of administrative duties	2	2.4
1-2 as an adjunct	3	3.6
Other	2	2.4

Impact of Student Issues on Classroom Instruction

The second survey question sought information describing ABC members’ perceptions of their students. Specifically, the respondents rated their level of agreement that various student issues—mental health, cultural barriers, ability to afford course materials, disabilities, unethical conduct, incivility toward instructors and/or peers, and classroom safety and security—affected student learning and instructors’ ability to teach effectively. More so than any other issue, a strong majority (N= 82; 73.2%) of business communication instructors think mental health issues affect their students’ abilities to learn.Table 5shows percentage agreement, mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) for each student issue.

Table 5.

Perceived Impact of Various Student Issues on Student Learning.

Item	n	% Agree	M	SD
Students’ mental health issues currently affect their ability to learn.	82	73.2	3.88	0.95
Students’ cultural barriers currently affect their ability to learn.	82	54.9	3.46	1.02
Students’ ability to afford course resources currently affects their ability to learn.	82	51.2	3.46	1.10
Students’ learning disabilities currently affect their ability to learn.	82	48.8	3.35	1.02
Students’ unethical conduct currently affects their ability to learn.	82	43.9	3.15	1.27
Students’ incivility toward the instructor currently affects their ability to learn.	82	34.1	2.87	1.27
Students’ incivility toward one another currently affects their ability to learn.	82	29.3	2.80	1.18
Students’ sense of classroom safety and security currently affects their ability to learn.	82	12.2	2.50	1.03

Note. The percentage who agree is based on those participants who respondedagreeorstrongly agreein the Likert scale.

The survey question also gauged instructors’ perceptions of how student issues affected teaching practices. Generally, business communication instructors considered these various student issues as less influential on their own teaching than on student learning. A majority or near majority responded that cultural issues (53.7%) affect their teaching.Table 6shows percentage agreement,M, andSDfor each student issue on the survey.

Table 6.

Perceived Impact of Various Student Issues on Teaching.

Item	n	% Agree	M	SD
Students’ cultural barriers currently affect my teaching.	82	53.7	3.26	1.08
Students’ ability to afford course resources currently affects my teaching.	82	47.6	3.17	1.25
Students’ learning disabilities currently affect my teaching.	82	42.7	3.15	1.03
Students’ mental health issues currently affect my teaching.	82	40.2	3.12	1.09
Students’ unethical conduct currently affects my teaching.	82	36.6	2.93	1.18
Students’ incivility toward me currently affects my teaching.	81	28.4	2.65	1.16
Students’ incivility toward one another currently affects my teaching.	82	20.7	2.50	1.08
Students’ sense of classroom safety and security currently affects my teaching.	82	12.2	2.35	1.02

Note. The percentage who agree is based on those participants who respondedagreeorstrongly agreein the Likert scale.

Respondents were then asked to rank order eight areas of support that they would most like from ABC to address these student issues. The percentage of instructors who identified an area of support as a top-three ranking revealed the following priorities: (1) student cultural barriers (54.5%); (2) student mental health issues (52.9%); (3) student ability to afford course resources (49.3%); (4) student unethical conduct (45.1%); (5) student learning disabilities (37.1%); (6) student incivility toward instructors (28.6%); (7) student incivility toward one another (21.1%); and (8) student sense of classroom safety (18.6%).

Participants were also asked to rate perceived strengths and weaknesses of their undergraduate and graduate students. For undergraduate students, the results (seeTable 7) show the highest mean score for interpersonal skills (M= 4.19), followed by motivation to learn (M= 4.11), initiative to engage with course content (M= 4.08), enthusiasm for learning (M= 3.97), and problem solving (M= 3.95). They rate undergraduate students lowest in writing skills in terms of language mechanics (M= 3.63), writing skills in terms of content (M= 3.75), and critical thinking (M= 3.77).

Table 7.

Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of Undergraduate Business Communication Students.

	n	M	SD
Interpersonal skills	79	3.19	0.77
Motivation to learn	79	3.11	0.97
Initiative to engage with course content	79	3.08	0.81
Enthusiasm for learning	79	2.97	1.00
Problem solving	78	2.95	0.88
Presentation skills	77	2.91	0.85
Critical thinking	78	2.77	0.90
Writing skills: Content	79	2.75	0.71
Writing skills: Grammar (including spelling, punctuation, word choice, mechanics)	79	2.63	0.91
Overall academic ability	79	3.15	0.66

Just under half of survey participants (n= 38) reported teaching graduate-level courses. Not surprisingly, graduate students were rated more highly than undergraduate students (roughly a half point higher on the Likert scale). Yet the relative strengths and weaknesses are quite similar between the two levels of students (seeTable 8).

Table 8.

Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of Graduate Business Communication Students.

	n	M	SD
Motivation to learn	37	3.81	0.84
Enthusiasm for learning	38	3.76	0.79
Initiative to engage with course content	37	3.70	0.81
Problem solving	36	3.67	0.79
Interpersonal skills	37	3.65	0.72
Presentation skills	34	3.56	0.79
Critical thinking	36	3.50	0.88
Writing skills: Content	38	3.42	0.86
Writing skills: Grammar (including spelling, punctuation, word choice, mechanics)	38	3.18	0.98
Overall academic ability	37	3.65	0.72

Support

The third survey question asked how supported business communication faculty felt by their colleagues, chairs, deans, and administrators. Average scores on survey items show that faculty feel most supported by their peers (M= 4.55,SD= 0.95), followed closely by chairs (M= 4.34,SD= 1.14), then by administrators (M= 3.73,SD= 0.96), and deans (M= 3.61,SD= 1.09).

Workplace Factors

The fourth survey question asked for workplace factors that affect the ability of business communication instructors to do their jobs. A frequency analysis showed that eight (9.5%) individuals love their job and responded to no other items. The results for those with concerns appear inTable 9. Of these items, the number of courses was the only one selected as the top rank issue more than 25% of the time (27.4%,n= 23).

Table 9.

Workplace Factors That Affect the Ability to Work.

Factor	n	%
Amount of grading	61	72.6
Number of courses	46	54.8
Class size	40	47.6
Service expectations	26	31.0
Classroom	20	23.8
Professional development/research expectations	18	21.4
Colleagues	13	15.5
Lack of support for professional development/research expectations	13	15.5
Employment uncertainty	8	9.5
Lack of training	3	3.6
Inadequate textbooks	2	2.4

Workplace Environments

The fifth survey question asked about workplace environments and how opinions of the environment changed over time. Workplace environment was assessed by asking participants to rate their workload, to which 51.2% (n= 43) reported heavy, 47.6% (n= 40) reported properly balanced, and 1.2% (n= 1) reported light. Perceptions of how working conditions have changed over time are reported inTable 10.

Table 10.

Perceptions of Change in Working Conditions.

	Better (1.0-1.99),M(SD)	Same (2.0-2.99),M(SD)	Worse (3.0-4.0),M(SD)
Physical working conditions			3.19 (0.61)
Department chairs/supervisors treat me . . .			3.26 (0.65)
Deans treat me . . .			3.17 (0.69)
Administrators treat me . . .		2.99 (0.50)
My colleagues treat me . . .			3.21 (0.57)
Work intensity has been . . .		2.60 (0.57)
Training (e.g., using course management systems, diversity and inclusion workshops) for the job has been . . .		2.22 (0.57)
Funding for professional development research has been . . .	1.86 (0.70)
My workload is . . .		2.39 (0.65)
I enjoy teaching . . .		2.05 (0.65)

Resources

The sixth survey question asked if resources for face-to-face and online classrooms were provided. Of the participants, 98.8% (n= 83) teach in face-to-face classrooms and 48.8% (n= 41) teach online.Table 11shows the frequencies for resources available to teach.

Table 11.

Resources for Instruction.

Classroom	Yes	No
Face-to-face classroom
Classroom large enough	79.8 (n= 67)	17.9 (n= 15)
Sufficient heat and air	84.3 (n= 70)	15.7 (n= 13)
Windows	69.9 (n= 58)	30.1 (n= 25)
Exits/doors	39.8 (n= 33)	60.2 (n= 50)
Technology in classroom	78.3 (n= 65)	21.7 (n= 18)
Overall satisfaction	80.5 (n= 66)	19.5 (n= 16)
Choose classroom	24.1 (n= 20)	75.9 (n= 63)
Own office	85.4 (n= 70)	14.6 (n= 12)
Online classroom
Receive online training	78.0 (n= 32)	22.0 (n= 9)
Sufficient training	81.3 (n= 26)	18.8 (n= 6)
Mandatory training	71.9 (n= 23)	28.1 (n= 9)
Resources provided	70.7 (n= 29)	29.3 (n= 12)
Technology sufficient	92.5 (n= 37)	7.5 (n= 3)

The seventh survey question asked what pedagogical resources or support business communication faculty would like to have from ABC. The results are found inTable 12.

Table 12.

Pedagogical Support From the Association for Business Communication.

Support	n	% Yes
Problem-based learning	39	46.4
Peer-led instruction	36	42.9
Student-based learning	35	41.7
Team learning	33	39.3
Flipped learning	30	35.7
Lecture and discussion	9	10.7
Lecture	1	1.2

Discussion

Overall, the results reveal several interesting points of discussion surrounding who business and professional communication teachers and scholars are and what they do. Both the quantitative survey results and respondents’ comments are enlightening not only regarding the state of their current academic environments but also regarding what they need to improve these environments.

Respondent Characteristics

The results show a greater percentage of respondents identify as being in a tenured or tenure track position (50%) than there were in theRuss (2009),Lawrence and Galle (2011), andMoshiri and Cardon (2014)studies. Likewise, employment uncertainty was ranked low, which contradicts the master narrative about uncertainties among a contingent workforce, such as adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants, as well as instructors who may be less likely to hold membership in ABC. Most respondents identify as teaching business writing, business presentations, and professional writing, while fewer identify as teaching managerial or visual communication (Table 1). Because we asked for types of courses rather than course names, the results would suggest some recognition of disciplinary boundaries or disciplinary identity. Nearly 80% of the respondents have teaching loads of 3/3 and 4/4 (Table 4), which appears reasonable, but as some respondents noted in their comments, the number of course preps and class sizes affects the feasibility of their course load assignments. As one respondent commented,

Class sizes in many business classes are large (exam-based), but the culture of large class sizes in a business college gets imposed on communication courses that should be small (24 or less) in order to accommodate best practices in composition/rhetoric pedagogy that support learning.

Consistent with previous studies, about 70% of the respondents teach in business schools or colleges. Of the 83 respondents who identified their departmental home, 15 were in business communication departments, six in a business school but no department, six in communication departments, 12 in English departments, seven in information systems departments, 16 in management departments, 10 in marketing departments, and 11 who identified as “other” but did not specify a departmental home (seeTable 13). The fact that the most frequently identified academic home was a business communication department indicates perhaps a growing recognition of business communication as a unique discipline; however, the predominance of departmental homes in other departments reinforces that business communication and professional communication are not viewed as having a disciplinary identity or reputation that requires a unique departmental home.

Table 13.

Business Communication Home Department.

Department	n	%
Business (no department)	7	7.1
Business communication	14	16.7
Communication	8	9.5
English	12	14.3
Information systems	8	9.5
Management	17	20.2
Marketing	10	11.9
Other^a	6	7.1

Others written in included general business and finance, translation studies, workforce programs, writing program, or solo faculty member reporting to an administrator.

One popular topic among respondents is the request for salary studies and related data that could be used as an advocacy tool. Nearly 60% of the respondents reported earning $50,000 to $99,999 annually, with another 11% reporting that they earn more than $100,000 annually, while approximately 30% earn less than $50,000 per year. According to the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, 2020)Business School Data Guide 2020, which reports international data, the average annual salary for business communication faculty converted to U.S. dollars is as follows: full professor, $101,600; associate professor, $86,600; assistant professor, $79,100; and instructors, $61,600. While these salaries are lower (and sometimes substantially so) than that of other business disciplines, it is a positive step that the AACSB recognizes business communication in its table of business disciplines. Furthermore, 30% of the respondents in this study are from departments that are not in a college of business and thus have salaries similar to other faculty (e.g., literature, creative writing) in communication or English departments. College and University Professional Association data report that salaries for those in English and communication departments is approximately as follows: full professor, $75,000; associate professor, $65,000; assistant professor, $55,000; and instructor, $45,000 (Bichsel et al., 2019).

The salary data gathered from this study is a first step in additional salary survey studies and advocacy for business and professional communication faculty, as business and professional communication faculty in English and communication departments frequently find themselves engaged in similar work as their business college colleagues, including what they teach, what they research, and how they conduct their research. These factors are subsequently tied to tenure and promotion and thus tied to opportunities for salary increases. For example, team research is a common activity in colleges of business, and each coauthor receives the same credit for that publication; in an English department where faculty traditionally do single-authored work, coauthors may be given credit proportionate to their contribution (e.g., two coauthors each receive half credit for the publication that is then counted toward publications required for tenure or promotion).

Students

Consistent with general research on students in higher education, mental health issues are instructors’ greatest concern for undergraduates. While respondents did not view mental health issues as having an impact on their teaching, they did see them as having an impact on student learning. However, cultural issues surfaced as those affecting undergraduate teaching as well as graduate students’ ability to learn. Regardless of these issues, instructors remain mostly positive about their students. Other than an occasional comment that students are “entitled” and “apathetic,” most comments reflect that students themselves are engaged, curious, and enjoyable for the most part, which is consistent with the quantitative data. Respondents commented on students’ lack of preparedness for the demands of college-level business writing but did not connect this lack of preparedness to a lack of ability, character, or intelligence. These comments are consistent with the survey responses that ranked interpersonal skills the highest among undergraduate students, which shows no support for the widely held belief that interpersonal skills are declining among youth—or that the cohorts in business communication classrooms do not yet exhibit these traits to the extent some purport.

Support

Not surprisingly, respondents felt most supported by those closest to them in the workplace (colleagues and department chairs) but interestingly feel more supported by their administration (e.g., chancellors, provosts) than by their own dean. The reason for this response may be a perception that their dean has more direct power and control over their academic environments than a chair, who carries out the dean’s directives, or a provost or chancellor who is not involved in the day-to-day decisions that affect the academic environment. One respondent commented that “Without tenure it’s hard to argue against a dean who wants to raise class sizes, schedule classes at untenable times, cut travel funding, tamper with the curriculum, etc.” In this case, the dean is the one with the most power and thus perceived as not supportive or more concerned with the dean’s agenda. Another respondent commented on the power of the dean, saying,

Advocate for us on a public platform! CCCC [Conference on College Composition and Communication—https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/what-is-cccc] authors many position statements about best practices for the teaching of composition. The position statements are publicly available online, and they hold real sway when trying to convince programming committees, chairs, deans, etc., to create better working and learning conditions—things that help faculty and students alike.

The fact that the chain of command is viewed as stopping at the dean would indicate that respondents perceive the dean as the ultimate power in determining where and how resources are added.

Workplace Factors and Environments

The amount of grading, number of classes, and class sizes are the most significant factors that respondents indicated as affecting their ability to work (Table 9). Though the amount of grading is rated as the top concern, the topic of class size generated the largest number of comments. The comments primarily focus on developing a research-based argument to present to deans to appeal for smaller class sizes. For example, one respondent suggested that we “publish the results of this survey so we can use them to argue for better classroom spaces, lower classroom sizes, etc.” and “It would be wonderful to have data on how class size affects students’ success in the short and long term.” At the same time, other respondents expressed that arguments for smaller class sizes and better working environments overall are futile, as the source of the issue is institutional and systemic. Perhaps the most comprehensive and representative comment came from the respondent who said,

I’m not sure you can do anything. The forces that are impacting my workplace environment are driven by the declining birth rate, the culture of most of the K-12 schools and lack of accountability and critical thinking, a culture that has little respect for higher ed (and much more for national certification as a benchmark), and the financial aspects of today’s universities. Nothing you can do will change the bias my provost has against MBA programs, which she calls “nickel a dozen and about as worthless.” Nothing you can do will change the fact that the business department has more students than any other program; that’s just life. But we have the heaviest loads because of those numbers. And we happen to be the best qualified for most of the committees and work, so we get stuck with them. So if you have suggestions, I welcome them. I see very little that ABC can do other than be the support system it is.

The negative ratings on perceptions of change may point to why business communication instructors comment on the futility of advocacy. The results inTable 10show that on measures of physical conditions and administrator, chair, and collegial support, the academic environment has worsened over time. Interestingly, even though in a previous question respondents said they feel supported by their colleagues, in this question they said their treatment by their colleagues has worsened over time. The only factor that has improved over time is funding for professional development.

At the same time, respondents said their enjoyment of teaching has remained the same, as has their workload. And while many commented on the institutional factors that affect their ability to effect change, many remain hopeful that with consistent messaging and continual advocacy, business communication faculty can have a strong and vocal presence in their academic environments. In fact, most comments from respondents address issues of respect (or lack thereof) for the work that they do or the legitimacy of their discipline. Perhaps the most poignant comment came from the respondent who said,

Our profession is in dire need of respect/status. Business Communication is too little valued by AACSB. Our colleagues too frequently hold low paying, non-tenure track positions. We love what we do; we understand deeply how important our work is. We are, by nature, nurturing people. We accept too much intrinsic reward. ABC should marshal planning and forces to enhance our members’ rewards. It will be a worthy, long-term campaign.

Resources

On nearly all measures of classroom support, respondents report having the resources they need to do their jobs. The only measures on which they reported not having resources or choices are not being able to choose their classrooms and not having more than one door or exit to their classrooms, which may be a safety factor. Even on measures associated with online teaching (training, technology), instructors reported high levels of satisfaction. No respondents commented that they lacked training or facilities to do their current work, including those who teach online. Some respondents commented that they would like resources to lessen grading, but they ranked the need for support on problem-based learning highest, yet that was less than half and very close to five other forms of teaching/learning. These results and the comments suggest that the greatest need for resources is not for resources to do the physical and emotional labor of being in front of the class (face-to-face or online) or to plan curriculum. Rather, the greatest need for resources appears to be support for advocacy regarding class size, grading, status, and respect from others in their institutions.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

The study has limitations and presents opportunities for continued research. After we sent the survey, we sent a follow-up message 2 weeks later to remind people to take it. However, our sample size, though reliable, is not as large as we had hoped it would be. Additionally, because most members of ABC teach at 4-year institutions, the data do not necessarily represent the status of the academic environment in 2-year institutions. Additionally, the ABC membership is likely not representative of the many instructors who teach business communication courses, many of whom are in non-tenure-track, adjunct, or graduate assistant positions. The survey was designed for this analysis with items pulled from similar prior studies or written for this project. Little validation or reliability work has been conducted on these items and would be beneficial should the items be replicated in the future. But the data do represent a starting point for additional study of the academic environment and for continued advocacy for respect, disciplinary identity, and status in our institutions.

Several future research opportunities for ABC committees, business and communication faculty, or consultants were provided by the respondents. Suggestions included, but are not limited to, salary surveys, workload and working conditions, the impact of class size on teaching, improving student feedback without increasing workload, issues relevant to contingent faculty, credentialing business and professional communication instructors, and conveying the relevance of business communication to business students’ professional development.

Overall, this study suggests that business communication faculty continue to be part of a vibrant, dedicated, insightful community. The study identified some of the demographic characteristics of the respondents, their perceived areas of strength and need, and ways ABC could support those strengths and needs. Readers of the journal have a stake in business and professional communication; thus, their reactions to the findings here in their local contexts will affect the business and professional communication instruction. The article also articulated next steps for advocating for healthy teaching environments for business and professional communication instructors. While many observe that business and professional communication remain marginalized as disciplines, they also know that the work they do is important for their institutions and for their students. With continued research on the state of the academic environment, the provision of resources, and advocacy provided by ABC, business and professional communication faculty will continue their work toward that ideal academic environment they seek.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Association for Business Communication for the opportunity to present the findings of the survey in a report at the annual meeting, Detroit, Michigan, 2019, and Janel Bloch, who provided extensive feedback on an early version of this article.

Authors’ Note

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (Approval No. GINDERPJ151002019). Participant comments are reproduced by permission.

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.

ORCID iDs

Paula Lentz

Tina Coffelt

Peter Cardon

Author Biographies

Paula Lentzis a professor of business communication and academic program director in the Business Communication Program at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. Her scholarship interests include rhetorical theory and business communication, disciplinary identity in business communication, and discourse analysis.

Tina Coffeltis an associate professor in the Communication Studies Program and Department of English at Iowa State University. She researches workplace communication skills, management of difficult topics, and interpersonal communication.

Peter Cardonis the academic director for the MBA for Professionals and Managers and a professor of clinical business communication at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. His research interests include team communication, technology and leadership, and intercultural business communication.

Linda Cresapis a professor in business information technology and director of the Master of Science in Sports Management at Minot State University. Her scholarly interests include social media and communication, gender and communication, graduate education, and research integrity.

Ashley Nelsonis a communication and social media professor of practice with Tulane’s Freeman School of Business. She is Tulane’s resident expert on social media use in business and nonprofits and has been featured in local and national news coverage on a variety of social media topics.

Dirk Remleyis a professor (non-tenure-track) in the Department of English at Kent State University. He teaches undergraduate courses in professional writing, and his research includes professional communication and leadership communication pedagogy and practices.

References

American Association of University Professors. (2016).Data snapshot: Contingent faculty in US higher ed.https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/10112018%20Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2020).Business school data guide 2020.https://www.aacsb.edu/data/data-reports/data-guide

Bichsel

McChesney

Pritchard

(2019).Faculty in higher education annual report: Key findings, trends, and comprehensive tables for tenure-track, non-tenure teaching, and non-tenure research faculty; academic department heads; and adjunct faculty for the 2018-19 academic year.CUPHA-HR.https://www.cupahr.org/wp-content/uploads/surveys/Results/2019_Faculty_Annual_Report_Overview.pdf

Brown

(2012).Student disruption in a global college classroom: Multicultural issues as predisposing factors.ABNF Journal,23(3),63-69.

Cerci

P. A.

Dumludag

(2019).Life satisfaction and job satisfaction among university faculty: The impact of working conditions, academic performance and relative income.Social Indicators Research,144,785-806.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-02059-8

Diegel

B. L.

(2013).Perceptions of community college adjunct faculty and division chairpersons: Support, mentoring, and professional development to sustain academic quality.Community College Journal of Research and Practice,37(8),596-607.https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.720863

Hicks

Miller

(2006).College life styles, life stressors and health status: Differences along gender lines.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783934.pdf

Johnson

B. S.

DuFrene

D. D.

(1992).Business communication: A major whose time has come.Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication,55(3),87-92.https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999205500326

Knight

(1999).Writing and other communication standards in undergraduate business education: A study of current program requirements, practices, and trends.Business Communication Quarterly,62(1),10-28.https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999906200102

10.

LaGrow

(2019).Accessibility at a crossroads: Balancing legal requirements, frivolous lawsuits, and legitimate needs.Educause Review.https://er.educause.edu/articles/2019/11/accessibility-at-a-crossroads-balancing-legal-requirements-frivolous-lawsuits-and-legitimate-needs

11.

Lawrence

Galle

W. P.

(2011).Tenure, status, and workload: Fundamental issues among business communication faculty.Journal of Business Communication,48(3),319-343.https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943611406276

12.

McFarlane

D. A.

(2010).Teaching unmotivated and under-motivated college students: Problems, challenges, and considerations.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930388.pdf

13.

Moshiri

Cardon

(2014).The state of business communication classes: A national survey.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,77(3),312-329.https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490614538489

14.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019).Students with disabilities.https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60

15.

Nelson

B. H.

Luse

D. W.

DuFrene

D. D.

(1992).The structure and content of the introductory business communication course.Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication,55(3),7-14.https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999205500302

16.

Northern Kentucky University. (n.d.).Ally for accessibility.https://inside.nku.edu/ally.html

17.

Ober

(1987).The status of postsecondary business communication instruction—1986 vs.1982.Journal of Business Communication,24(3),49-60.https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368702400304

18.

Ober

Wunsch

A. P.

(1983).The status of business communication instruction in postsecondary institutions in the United States.Journal of Business Communication,20(2),5-16.https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368302000201

19.

Ober

Wunsch

A. P.

(1991).The status of postsecondary business communication instruction: A longitudinal study.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,33(3),146-157.

20.

Ober

Wunsch

A. P.

(1995).The status of postsecondary business communication instruction in the United States—1994 report.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,37(4),225-239.

21.

Roth

(2018,November 26).State of mind in the college classroom.Faculty Focus.https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-classroom-management/state-of-mind-in-the-college-classroom/

22.

Russ

T. L.

(2009).The status of the business communication course at U.S. colleges and universities.Business Communication Quarterly,72(4),395-413.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909349524

23.

Sharp

M. R.

Brumberger

E. R.

(2013).Business communication curricula today: Revisiting the top 50 undergraduate business schools.Business Communication Quarterly,76(1),5-27.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912471187

24.

Stoliker

B. E.

Lafreniere

K. D.

(2015).The influence of perceived stress, loneliness, and learning burnout on university students’ educational experience.https://www.projectinnovation.com/college-student-journal.html

25.

SurveyMonkey. (2019).Sample size calculator: How to calculate sample size.https://www-surveymonkey-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/mp/sample-size-calculator/?ut_source=content_center&ut_source2=how-many-people-do-i-need-to-take-my-survey&ut_source3=inline&ut_ctatext=sample%2520size%2520calculator

26.

Sutton

(2017).Digital accessibility still a problem for higher education.Disability Compliance for Higher Education,22(11),9.https://doi.org/10.1002/dhe.30312

27.

Wardrope

W. J.

Bayless

M. L.

(1999).Content of the business communication course: An analysis of coverage.Business Communication Quarterly,62(4),33-40.https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999906200404

28.

Webber

K. L.

(2018).The working environment matters: Faculty member job satisfaction by institution type.Research Dialogue,142,1-36.https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/files/presentations/2018-03/Faculty%20Job%20Satisfaction_Webber_rd142_March%202018.pdf