Download Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 1 Running head

Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 1
Running head: PUBLIC RELATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Public Relations Function in a Higher Education Setting: An Examination of
Communication Management in Two Eastern U. S. Universities
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 2
Public Relations Function in a Higher Education Setting: An Examination of
Communication Management in Two Eastern U. S. Universities
Introduction
The Excellence theory (J. Grunig, 1992; L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) of
public relations identified a set of characteristics of an excellent public relations function.
Various scholars (e.g., J. Grunig & Jaatinen, 1998; J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1998; Rhee,
2002), studying primarily corporations, have provided consistent support for the
Excellence principles. A need exists for cross-context studies to test the Excellence
theory and extend its application. Kuhn (1962) noted that most scientists engage in
“mopping-up operations” (p. 24), articulating and refining existent theories. This study
follows Kuhn’s call and extends the application of the Excellence theory by examining
the practice of public relations in a higher education setting, a field in which few studies
have been conducted using the Excellence theory.
In recent years, numerous universities have established public relations units.
They have done so in order to better communicate with students, alumni, donors,
neighboring communities, and other publics (e.g., Grillis, 1997; Kettman & Robinson,
1991; Mullins, 1996). Universities look to public relations units to manage crises, boost
rankings, increase donations, and carry out a variety of other tasks (Hirsh & Weber,
1999; Spagnolia, 1998). How these university public relations units are practicing public
relations and whether their practices are excellent are not well understood. This study
seeks to fill this void and examines the management of communication at two
universities in the eastern United States.
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 3
This paper first outlines the Excellence characteristics and reviews previous
studies of public relations practice in universities. This is followed by a description of
the qualitative approach used to collect and analyze data. The last two sections present
results from the interviews and the conclusions derived from the findings.
Literature Review
The Excellence theorists (L. Grunig, et al., 2002) identified several excellence
principles of an excellent communication department, which they grouped into four
categories: empowerment of the public relations function, communicator roles, integrated
function and relationship with other functions, and models of public relations. These
categories provide a useful benchmark for determining whether a public relations
department is indeed excellent.
Empowerment of the Public Relations Function
The first category, empowerment of public relations, includes the following
excellence characteristics: involving the senior practitioners in the dominant coalition,
managing communication programs strategically, and building a direct reporting
relationship between the public relations executive and the dominant coalition. An
organization whose public relations function adheres to these characteristics is more
capable of effectively balancing its needs with that of publics. Empowering the public
relations function in this manner helps organization quickly recognize issues related to
publics before they become problems (L. Grunig et al., 2002).
Communicator Roles
Excellent public relations units have top managers who know how to manage
strategically and who enact a managerial role. When the head of a public relations
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 4
department assumes the manager role, he or she is likely to be included in the dominant
coalition and help organizations make decisions that “satisfice” (L. Grunig et al., 2002, p.
207).
Integrated Function & Relationship to Other Functions
Excellent public relations units are organized as integrated functions and are
separate from other management functions. An integrated public relations unit is able to
quickly respond to issues and allocate resources to address problems without delay (L.
Grunig et al., 2002).
Models of Public Relations
Excellent public relations units utilize the two-way symmetrical communication
model instead of the public information, press agentry, or the two-way asymmetrical
models1. The two-way symmetrical model uses research to facilitate mutual
understanding and communication. Practitioners adopting the two-way symmetrical
model play a key role in adjusting or adapting behaviors of dominant coalitions. This
allows them to bring publics and dominant coalition closer together (L. Grunig et al.,
2002).
Support for these principles has been found in studies conducted within the
United States and outside. L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Vercic (1998), for example, found
the principles of excellence in 30 Slovenian firms. Wakefield (2000) found support for
1
The press agentry model describes propagandistic communication that seeks media attention in any way
possible. Communication practitioners using the public information model disseminate generally accurate
information about the organization but do not volunteer negative information. In the two-way
asymmetrical model, practitioners conduct scientific research to determine how to persuade publics to
behave in the way the organization desires (J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1992).
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 5
the principles of excellence in 29 countries. Rhee’s (1999) replication of the Excellence
study in Korea found support for the Excellence principles.
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions
Historically, the practice of public relations within universities has been one-way,
asymmetrical (Pirozek & Heskova, 2003). In the past, practitioners have engaged in
public relations practice that placed a great deal of emphasis on media relations. In
recent years, however, scholars have advocated a strategic approach to university public
relations that moves beyond media relations and embraces strategic management, twoway symmetrical communication, and various other Excellence principles.
This strategic perspective is evident in recent studies of public relations in the
university setting. Samsup, Brunner, and Hon (2002), for example, examined how
practitioners can measure relationships in a university setting. DeSanto and Garner (2001)
recommended that university public relations practitioners set synchronized goals,
identify stakeholders, and conduct evaluations. Grillis (1997) argued that it is critical for
public relations practitioners to have access to the top leaders within a university.
Henderson (2001) proposed a four-step process for managing communication in
universities: research, planning, communication, and evaluation.
This emphasis on strategic public relations management is clearly evident in
research done by scholars studying the practice of public relations by universities in the
former Soviet-bloc countries (e.g., Hall, 2002; Hall & Baker, 2003; Pabich, 2003).
Universities in former Soviet-bloc are facing complex environments. The introduction of
capitalism has meant that old state-owned universities, which never had to compete, now
find themselves losing students to new private universities that offer attractive packages
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 6
to students (Miroiu, 1998; Neculau, 1997; Stanciulescu, 2002). This competition has
prompted both state-owned and private universities to seek to utilize public relations as
means of getting an edge. In the past, public relations practice at these universities was a
mixture of marketing, advertising, and lobbying (Coman, 2003). Recent studies, however,
have advocated a move away from one-way asymmetrical methods and toward practices
that resemble the characteristics conceptualized in the Excellence study.
Pirozek and Heskova (2003), for example, examined the public relations practice
of a university in the Czech Republic. They showed how the two-way symmetrical
tactics of research and feedback systems helped the university gain a better understanding
of the attitudes of its key publics. Kaverina’s (2003) study of a state university in Russia
showed how two-way symmetrical efforts to initiate dialogue (e.g. radio call in shows,
open house functions) helped strengthen the relationship between the university and its
key publics.
Popular publications aimed at university public relations practitioners have also
advocated practices that are similar to the Excellence characteristics. Schoenfeld, Wiemer,
and Lang (1997) encouraged practitioners to embrace strategic planning and outcome
evaluation. Jarrell (2003) encouraged universities to involve public relations in decision
making because practitioners can lessen risk by forging good relations with publics and
can scan for emerging issues. Simpson (2002) advised university communicators to build
strong community relationships, take local concerns seriously, and attend to internal and
external constituencies. Ross and Lindenmann (2002) suggested that practitioners clearly
define their goals and measure output, outgrowth, and outcomes. Ross (2004) urged
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 7
practitioners to utilize external research resources (e.g., consulting firms) to enhance their
practice.
The above studies and articles illustrate that practitioners are being encouraged to
practice public relations in a strategic, two-way symmetrical manner. However, more
studies need to be done to see if practitioners are following those recommendations.
Research Questions
Few studies have used a systematic measure to examine comprehensively, at a
departmental level, the practice of public relations in a higher education setting. The
characteristics of an excellent public relations unit identified in the Excellence theory
provide a tool for such analysis. This study, guided by these principles, poses the
following questions to evaluate the practice of the public relations at two higher
education institutions.
RQ1. How is strategic public relations represented at the two higher education
institutions?
This question examined whether the communication units at the two institutions
are empowered or strategically managed in terms of involvement in organizational
strategic management, strategic program management, and direct reporting relationship
with the decision makers.
RQ2. What are the characteristics of communicator roles assumed by the participants at
the two higher education institutions?
This question sought to find out the communicator roles (e.g., manager,
technician) practitioners at each institution took on and how enactment of the roles
affected the management of public relations.
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 8
RQ3. How is the communication unit at each higher education institution integrated and
separate from other management functions?
This question explores whether the various communication functions at each
university are integrated in one communication unit and the nature of its relationships
with other management functions.
RQ4. How are the models of public relations applied at the two higher education
institutions?
This question examined what communication models the public relations units
used and whether they embraced two-way, symmetrical communication.
Method
Participants
Nine participants working at two Eastern institutions (distinguished as state
university and university college in this paper) in the U. S. were recruited and
interviewed in this study. The first two participants were identified through university
phonebooks and the rest were recruited through snowball sampling (Patton, 1990). The
researcher repeatedly asked questions such as, “Do you know whom I should talk to?” to
obtain additionally participants.
In total, seven female and two male participants were interviewed. At the state
university, the communication function was divided into marketing communications,
alumni relations, fundraising, and university foundation. The executive director of
marketing communications supervises four units: marketing, university communications,
Internet communications, and publication. Five participants at the state university were
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 9
recruited, including four from the marketing communications unit and one from the
alumni relations.
The remaining four participants were from the university college. Among the four
participants, two were from the communication office, one was from the alumni relations
office, and one was from the fundraising office. The communication function at this
institution was comprised of five offices: public relations, marketing communication,
alumni relations, and fundraising.
Procedure
Nine face-to-face in-depth interviews, lasting approximately sixty minutes, were
conducted at each participant’s office. Prior to each interview, the purpose of the study
was explained, participants were asked to sign a consent form, and permission was asked
before audio-taping. The interviews consisted of a series of open-ended questions meant
to examine how communication programs were managed. These questions focused on
empowerment of the public relations function, communicator roles, organization of
communication functions, and public relations models.
Analysis
All audio tapes of interviews were transcribed. Data analysis was based on the
techniques outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994) who argued that qualitative data
analysis should consist of three stages: data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing. During data reduction, short summaries and field notes were written to
highlight important recurring themes, and patterns. Recurring patterns were identified by
listening to the tapes repeatedly. To display data, several tables were generated to
categorize the responses of participants. This display made it easier to see the
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 10
relationships between different themes. Conclusions were drawn by identifying themes or
patterns, clustering categories, and noting the relationships among patterns.
Results
RQ1. How is strategic public relations represented at two different types of higher
education institutions?
Involvement in decision making. In both institutions, the senior communication
executives actively participated in the decision-making process. The vice president for
communications at the local college noted that he reported directly to the president and
was a member of his cabinet. He cited his professional knowledge as the reason why he
was included in cabinet level decision making: “I participate in the decision making
activities at the university level, in most of the areas at least I have the knowledge of it
and can often times participate directly as well.”
At the state university, the executive director of marketing communications also
described participation in top-level decision making:
I share with them [other administrators] what I know and the feedback that I get
from a variety of audiences. We participate on a decision making level on a
variety of issues, not always but most of the time. I interact with the president
quite a lot, even though my boss is the vice president, we don’t always go through
him for day to day conversation with [the president] about a particular issue and
what he is thinking.
Participants in both institutions also noted that involving public relations units in
decision making enhanced the quality of decision making and facilitated collaboration
among various units. At the university college, the vice president for communications
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 11
stated that “By being involved in the president’s cabinet level, I can give feedback on the
anticipated communication consequences of some decisions, so the decisions are likely to
have more positive impacts.” The executive director at the state university expressed a
similar sentiment: “The university communications director has direct access to the
president. That level of access provides for a strong level of relationship of give and take
in the decision making process at critical points.”
Dominance of informal research in program evaluation. Although participants
from both institutions stressed the need to understand audience needs, communication
units at both institutions carried out little formal research. The director of public relations
at the university college stated that: “We have done some brand development research,
which is probably the closest thing we have done. We haven’t done any specific public
relations research.”
The vice president for communications at the state university expressed a similar
view regarding formal research: “One of the areas that we don’t do much and I’d like to
do more is public relations and awareness research of publics.” Limited time, budgets and
staff were the main reasons given for the lack of formal research. The director of public
relations unit at the state university explained it as follows: “That [formal research] is
expensive, that requires expertise and it needs to be paid for…So we do a lot of guess
work.”
Instead of formal research, both institutions relied on informal methods to assess
the effectiveness of their communication programs. A popular method at both
institutions was news clipping. The director of public relations at the university college
stated that she clipped news articles “to gain an idea of how we’re being perceived and
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 12
also how many people or media know about us.” The assistant director of
communications at the state university noted that news clipping served to guide decision
making:
We catalog and maintain a database of that kind of information for administrators
as well as a resource for us in terms of developing other story ideas and in terms
of directions we might want to go with our communication strategies.
Conversing with publics was another method both institutions used to assess
communication programs. The director of alumni relations at the university college
stated that: “Talking to our alumni, donors, or other key publics gave us a great sense of
how our communication has been perceived.” The managing editor of alumni relations at
the state university also emphasized the importance of conversing with publics: “With the
magazine, in our first issue the response was terrific …when Joan went to an event and
they say, you know, I just love the magazine. So word of mouth is important.”
In addition to informal methods, both institutions turned to marketing research to
compensate for the lack of formal of formal public relations research. The vice president
for communications at the university college stated that: “We rely on that market research
to tell us what kind of awareness we’ve generated, how we are being perceived.” The
managing editor of alumni relations at the state university mentioned that her unit hired a
marketing consult to identify the needs of alumni. When asked why she did not draw on
the research from the communication unit, she said the following: “They [marketing
communication unit] just don’t have the resources right now to turn around a product for
us the way that they would want to turn it around in a time frame that we would need.”
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 13
Image building. Building organizational image was a primary goal in both
institutions. The vice president for communications at the university college stated that:
“We want to make sure that we have a presence in some of the key media.” The assistant
director of marketing communications at the state university stated that the goal of her
unit was to “position the university as a national research university that has a broad
range of expertise among its faculty.” Although both institutions aimed at imaging
building, the images they desired to attain differed. The state university aimed to project
an image of being a leading national research institution. The university college tried to
project an image as a leading online university.
Both institutions utilized branding campaigns as a means of creating their
preferred images. To enhance its image as leading research institution, the state
university initiated a branding campaign in early 2000. This involved the marketing
communications unit producing advertisements highlighting the university’s academic
achievement and rise in national ranking. These advertisements were featured on
television and radio.
The university college used a branding campaign to enhance the publics’
awareness of its commencement ceremony. The communication unit at the university
college generated different stories about the commencement and pitched the stories to
media outlets. According to the vice president for communications, this branding
campaign had the following results: “There were seven articles about our commencement
worldwide on May 8.”
Dominance of media relations. Media relations was a prominent part of public
relations activities at both institutions. An emphasis on media relations can be seen in the
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 14
goals of the two public relations units and the job responsibilities of the practitioners.
At the state university, the assistant director of the communication summarized the
function of her unit as follows:
Communication is the office charged with telling the university story to external
audiences through the media. Therefore, our office is charged with understanding
the scope of the university, what our key strengths are, who we are as unit, and
using the mass media to convey that message.
At the university college, the director of the public relations unit noted that her
primary function was media relations: “I was hired simply to oversee the media
relations…Later on I took on internal audience of employees.” Her perspective was
confirmed by the vice president for communications who stated that her primary publics
are “the media and as well as working with internal publics…The goal is to support them
[other units] with the messaging.”
Job responsibilities also reflected an emphasis on media relations. The assistant
director of communications at the state university described her job as “handling calls
when they come and surveying the campus for story ideas that can be pitched to
reporters.” The director of the public relations unit at the university college also
emphasized media relations in her job description: “A lot of my work has to do with
writing news articles and feature stories about what’s happening in the school and
clipping news articles.”
The assistant director of communications at the state university stated that media
relations was conducted through “pitching ideas to reporters and get them interested in
something that is going on in the university”. The director of marketing communication
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 15
noted that messages were crafted based on careful analysis and understanding of audience
needs:
What we do here at the university is that there is a story to tell at the university,
and determining what our audience needs to hear based on where we are in the
environment of world, analysis of different audiences, what that message is, and
determining how to best get that message out in a way that people can grip on to,
react, understand, and find entertaining.
News clips were used to identify issues and potential communication programs at
both institutions. When asked whether the unit engaged in any research in planning, the
director of communication at the state university: “No. We do not have a strong preresearch program in place. We do monitor news clip placements on a daily basis and we
collect those electronically.” A staff in this communication unit was in charge of
producing clip packets for administrators on a daily basis. These clip packets included
articles that covered issues about the university and other institutions.
RQ2. What are the characteristics of communicator roles assumed by the participants in
the two higher education institutions?
Dominance of the technician role among managers. In both institutions, the
majority of practitioners, including middle managers, assumed a technician role.
Communication practitioners in the two units were preoccupied with writing, editing
news articles, and distributing them to the appropriate news outlets. The middle
managers of communication, such as directors, were primarily in charge of preparing
news articles and news clipping at both institutions. The vice president at the university
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 16
college and the executive director of marketing communication at the state university
were the only participants engaged in program planning.
This dominance of the technician role was evident at the state university where
the assistant director of communication described her daily job tasks as “handling calls
[from reporters] when they come and surveying the campus for story ideas that can
pitched to reporters.” A senior associate of communication at the state university
expressed a similar sentiment: “I am in charge of writing news releases to promote
various events on campus and make sure the news reach the right reporters.” None of the
communication practitioners at the state university had a public relations background, and
their academic training was from journalism and marketing.
The director of public relations at the university college also assumed mainly a
technician role. Her primary duties included drafting media messages, interviewing
alumni or donors, writing feature articles, and clipping articles. However, because this
director also possessed a master’s degree in public relations, she was sometimes involved
in program planning with the vice president for communications.
Managerial role enactment among top executives. The senior executives in both
institutions assumed the managerial role by participating in decision making at the
organizational level and program planning at the departmental level. The vice president
for communications at the university college derived his managerial expertise from his
education (a master’s degree in public relations) and from his professional experience in
the non-profit and for-profit sectors. He noted that his involvement in decision making at
the top level “allows the communication department to be represented in those
deliberations and decision makings” and helps identify some emerging issues.
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 17
The executive director of marketing communications at the state university
enacted a managerial role through her work in planning and coordinating activities
among the four units: marketing, university communications, Internet communications,
and publication. Her knowledge and experience came from her academic training (a
doctoral degree in personnel management), managerial experience, and private reading.
As a result of her experience and involvement in decision making, the executive
director at the state university was cognizant of the importance of being proactive in
dealing with communication issues. This approach helped her “shape advice for campus
leaders.” She gave the example of a stakeholder research project the university
conducted in 1995. This research found that most of the university’s stakeholders viewed
the mission of the university as teaching. The university president at that time, however,
wanted the university to develop into a leading public research university. This executive
director recognized that this incongruity between mission and perception could dampen
support among stakeholders. She advised the president to communicate to stakeholders
(e.g., parents) that a research emphasis, rather than detracting from the teaching mission
as is commonly thought, can in fact help improve the quality of teaching at a university.
This approach helped the state university maintain support among its stakeholders.
RQ3. How is the communication unit in each higher education institution integrated and
separate from other management functions?
Decentralized public relations function. The public relations units at the state
university and university college were decentralized. In both cases, different sections
handled different public relations functions. The public relations office was in charge of
communicating with the media, legislators, students, communities, and employees. The
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 18
alumni relations and fund development offices were responsible for communication with
alumni and donors. The public relations function was, therefore, segmented into three
sections: communication, alumni relations, and fund development/institutional
development office. At both institutions, the three units occupied separate offices in
different buildings.
The director of public relations at the university college explained this
decentralization as follows:
I don’t directly oversee all of public relations in the university, not the way you
have defined it. Our alumni office and development office manages alumni as
well as donors…But when you define in a proper way, which is really the
interaction between the institution of the organization and its publics, I think all
organizations in some levels are decentralized.
Integration was achieved through collaboration among different units and through
co-operation among the senior executives serving in the dominant coalition in both
institutions. Collaboration in decision making allowed units dealing with different
publics of the university to collaborate with each other. For example, media relations
programs enacted in the communication unit supported programs developed in other units
such as alumni relations.
At the university college, the vice president for communications explained that he
was able to develop messages suited to a particular audience with the help from alumni
relations, institutional advancement and other units. He described such collaboration as
follows: “Being included in the president’s cabinet definitely helps us to work with other
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 19
departments…Although we are separated by different functions, we have closely
collaborated with each other at the cabinet level.”
The vice president of the fundraising unit at the university college agreed with the
above statement on collaboration: “He [the vice president for communications] and I both
serve on the president’s cabinet. We work closely as a group. We will consult each
when developing certain messages for alumni or donors.”
Collaboration was also evident at the state university where the assistant director
of communications stated the following:
Our executive director is the lead on what gets developed. It grows out of broader
needs from the president office and inputs from the development office, alumni
office, and government relations efforts. All the directors of these units get
together regularly.
The director of marketing communication at the state university confirmed the
above observation:
We have meeting, all the directors, every two weeks. We hear from them their
situations, problems, opportunities that are happening at the university and then
we decide how we react to that whether it is via the Internet, marketing efforts,
media relations efforts...
Marketing public relations. Marketing concepts seemed to guide the
communication practices in both institutions. This was the case even though, at both
institutions, marketing was a separate function from communication. This was evident
at the university college where the director of public relations defined her unit as
marketing public relations and defined students as an important market:
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 20
Marketing public relations is a type of public relations that’s operated specifically
to affect bottom line. In case of university, that would be to increase enrollment.
While I write media release about open houses and new programs and get those
placed in the media, the aim is marketing public relations, to impact the bottom
line.
The vice president for communications at the university college acknowledged
that most of the research done in the public relations unit was marketing research, which
was valuable in developing “key messages” to reach key publics
A marketing perspective toward public relations was also present at the state
university. The director of marketing communication noted that she did not see a
distinction between marketing and communication “I actually see marketing as
communications. I don’t see it differently. It’s just one way of communicating.” The
executive director of marketing communications at the state university expressed a
similar sentiment: “One of the things that help is to look at it [communication] from a
marketing perspective and that students live an open environment. The students had
choices. They could have gone anywhere and not just our school.”
RQ4.How are the models of public relations applied in the two higher education
institutions?
Dominance of one-way communication. At both institutions, communication
programs were primarily conducted in a one-way asymmetrical manner using the public
information model. An essential goal of the public relations unit at the state university
was to “have a presence in some of the key media,” as defined by the director of
communications in this institution. She mentioned that she was hired primarily to
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 21
“oversee the media relations.” Her main responsibilities included developing messages
with the senior account executive, writing news releases or feature articles, and providing
information to the media. She was often engaged in providing media with information on
any new decisions made by the institution, with stories highlighting donors or alumni,
and with news articles about the good performance of the institution. These activities
reflected what the essence of the one-way public information model: providing accurate
but favorable information about an organization.
The vice president of communication at the university college gave the following
example of one-way communication: “To convey that we’re a world leader in online
education, we provide media with stories about the numbers of our online education, so
they could have something to tell the world about it.” This example illustrated one major
purpose of media relations, disseminating favorable information about an organization
and increasing its media presence. The director of public relations monitored the media
coverage to examine how much media attention this institution had received.
The public information model also dominated the communication practice at the
state university. The assistant director of communication at the state university made the
following observation:
We try to target the newspapers we’re sure that they [key constituents] are going
to read with articles that provide a good window into the expertise of the
university, how the university, if rising in stature, make sure those kinds of stories
are covered in those news outlets they are prone to read.
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 22
The above account exemplified the public information model in that the communication
unit in this institution tried to position the school in a favorable light through providing
good news.
Infrequent presence of two-way communication. Although one-way
communication dominated in the practice, a few instances of two-way communication
were present at both institutions when communicating with students, alumni, and donors.
The vice president for communications at the university college stressed the importance
of dialogue when communicating with students:
We begin dialogue from the time they’re expressing their interest in our
institution…We may use methodologies ranging from advertising, to phone calls,
to e-mails to make sure that we know how they are doing and they know we’re
concerned about their welfare.
The dialogue with students was two-way, because students were able to express their
perceptions about the institution through various channels (i.e., phone conversation).
Symmetrical communication took place because the university was open to make
adjustments about its services based on students’ concerns.
Two-way symmetrical communication was also present at the university college
in its communication campaigns with alumni and donors. The vice president of
fundraising at this institution noted the importance of reconciling the interests of the
school and donors:
We have members on our boards, who have contacts with the people who are
either at the higher level of corporations or foundations…Before talking to these
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 23
potentials, we have to have a thorough understanding about their interests, find a
common ground between their interests and ours.
It can be seen from the above account that communication messages were structured to
relate prospective donors’ interests with the institution’s needs or programs.
An instance of two-way symmetrical communication at the state university was
found in its efforts to deal with hooliganism at university sponsored events. The
executive director of marketing communication described how the university used twoway communication to cope with problem of students harassing visiting teams at
basketball games:
We got emails right off the homepage in the hundreds over a course of two weeks.
We looked at them and considered them in our decision making, see what people
want us to do, and how the response might be, what we might do differently in the
future. A lot of those mechanisms for two-way interaction are built into our
medium.
The above example was two-way communication because the decision makers took into
account the concerns of its publics (i.e., dissatisfying people). Reactive decisions were
based on understanding the needs or concerns of those dissatisfying publics.
Discussion and Implications
Findings from the nine in-depth interviews helped extend the Excellence theory of
public relations (L. Grunig et al., 2002) by applying the theory to public relations in a
higher education setting. Results showed that the two communication units at both
institutions have not fully achieved excellence. The less than excellent practices
observed in the two communication units included subsuming communication under
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 24
marketing, dominance of media relations, prevalence of one-way communication,
dominance of informal program evaluation, and prevalence of the technician role.
Both communication units examined in this study aimed at promoting a favorable
image for their institutions, which echoed some previous studies (e.g., Pirozek &
Keskova, 2003; Pabich, 2003). Similar to Kaverina’s (2003) findings, promotional
campaign through media became a primary tool of image building. This goal of image
building, however, was not conducive for a communication unit to achieve excellence.
The Excellence theorists argued that communication practitioners should instead focus on
building relationship with strategic publics through communication. A favorable image
is a byproduct of this relationship building and is likely to sustain through crisis.
The problematic occupation with image building, however, cannot be blamed
solely on the communication practitioners. Participant responses indicated that top
executives (e.g., presidents) of both institutions stressed the necessity of having a
favorable presence in the media. In order for these public relations units to achieve
excellence in public relations, the top executives need to change their views regarding the
function of public relations.
The dominant focus on image building was a primary reason why both
communication units stressed media relations, another characteristic of non-excellence.
Communication practitioners in both institutions argued that they were preoccupied with
elevating the image of their school through news releases or feature stories. This
emphasis on media relations reflected the findings of studies (e.g., Coman, 2003;
Kaverina, 2003) conducted in Europe. The professional background of the participants
offered another explanation of the focus on media relations. Only two participants had
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 25
academic training in public relations. The two universities can address this imbalance by
actively recruiting practitioners with training in public relations.
The dominance of the technician role at both institutions was due to two factors.
First, the emphasis on media relations at both institutions prompted public relations
practitioners to spend most of their time writing news releases or sending stories out to
reporters. Second, the two communication units lacked the skills necessary for
communication management. The reason for this lack of skill is a lack of formal training
in public relations or communication management.
The dominance of the one-way asymmetrical model at both institutions can be
attributed to a lack of knowledge of two-way symmetrical communication. The
excellence theorists (L. Grunig et al., 2002) stated that such knowledge is necessary for a
communication unit to acquire the potential to practice two-way symmetrical
communication. The two institutions can move toward symmetrical communication by
recruiting communication practitioners who have formal trainings in public relations and
are aware of the value of symmetrical communication.
Both communication units exhibited limited use of strategic management. They
both conducted little pre-program research, and mainly evaluated programs informally
(e.g., monitoring the media, talking to publics). This lack of formal program research
resulted in reliance on marketing research. Unfortunately, marketing research cannot
completely reveal the various concerns of publics. In many cases, factors such as
information needs and relational concerns are not addressed in marketing research. This
insufficiency of formal research can be solved by using the research resources that the
two institutions already have: access to the communication departments. With help from
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 26
the faculty and students in the communication department, the public relations units can
conduct systematic research from a communication perspective.
Although non-excellent characteristic were predominant, the two communication
units possessed several Excellence characteristics. These excellence characteristics
included involvement in the dominant coalition, integration of communication functions
at the decision-making level, and in some cases, two-way symmetrical communication.
The strongest presence of Excellence can be seen in the fact that the senior executives of
the communication units were included in top-level organizational decision-making
process. The two communication units were thus empowered in a sense that their senior
executives were allowed to balance the goals of the institutions with the concerns of
publics. The two communication units were also able to achieve integration through
cooperation among senior decision makers involved in higher-level decision making.
Although this study helped extend the Excellence theory, it is not free of
limitations. First, only two public universities were examined. A need exists to study
private institutions and understand their experience with managing communication. A
comparative study of public relations practice between private and public universities
would provide a comprehensive picture of how higher education institutions manage their
communication. Second, interpretation bias may exist because the researcher studied at
one of the two institutions. However, the researcher repeatedly checked the field notes
and interview summaries to reduce bias while interpreting the findings.
In conclusion, this study contributed both to the theoretical body of knowledge
and to the professional practice of public relations. Findings from this study
demonstrated the utility of using the Excellence characteristics to evaluate the
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 27
performance of public relations. The study extended the Excellence theory’s assertion
that integration of various communication functions can be achieved through
collaboration among executives from different units (i.e., internal communication, media
relations, alumni relations, etc) during the decision-making process. The study also
provided recommendations on how universities can improve two-ways symmetrical
communication, pre-program research, and program evaluation to achieve excellence.
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 28
References
Coman, M. (2003). Public relations, advertising, and even some propaganda: Romanian
private higher education institution and their communication campaigns. Higher
Education in Europe, 28, 409-470.
DeSanto, B. J., & Garner, R. B. (2001). Strength in diversity: The place of public
relations in higher education institutions. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of
public relations (pp. 543-550). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grillis, T. (1997). Change agency and public relations officers in small colleges and
universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, No. AAT 9735944.
Retrieved April 11, 2004 from
http://www.lib.umi.com/disertations/fullcit?129597
Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication
management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core
professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12,
23-48.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In
J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management
(pp.285-326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1998). The relationship between public relations and
marketing in excellent organizations: Evidence from the IABC study. Journal of
Marketing Communication, 4, 141-162.
Grunig, J. E., & Jaatinen, M. (1998, July). Strategic, symmetrical public relations in
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 29
government: From pluralism to societal corporatism. Paper presented at the Fifth
Annual International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and
effective organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Vercic, D. (1998). Are the IABC’s excellence principles
generic? Comparing Slovenia and the United States, the United Kingdom and
Canada. Journal of Communication Management, 2, 335-356.
Hall, M. (2002). Fundraising and public relations: A comparison of program concepts
and characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 17, 368-381.
Hall, R., & Baker, G. (2003). Public relations from the ivory tower: Comparing research
universities with corporate/business models. International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 15, 127-154.
Henderson, J. K. (2001). Educational public relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of
public relations (pp. 535-542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hirsh, W. Z., & Weber, L. E. (Eds.). (1999). Challenges facing higher education at the
millennium. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.
Hon, L., & Brunner, C. (2002). Measuring public relationships among students and
administrators at the University of Florida. Journal of Communication
Management, 6, 227-238.
Jarrell, A. (2003, March). Keeping off thin ice: Campus communicators play a key role in
risk management. Currents, 29, 14-19.
Kaverina, E. (2003). The Public relations strategy of Alexander Herzen State
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 30
Pedagogical University in St. Petersburg: The Dialogue between the heritage and
the Present of a university. Higher Education in Europe, 28, 455-459.
Kettman, S. & Robinson, J. (1991). UC's good-neighbor policy soothing friction between
town and gown. California Journal, 22, 141-147.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lindenmann, W. (2002, February). Fine tuning: Five strategies for assessing the
effectiveness of public relations programs. Currents, 28(2), 30-35.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of
new methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miroiu, A. C. (1998). Invatamantul romanesc azi [Romanian Education Today]. Iasi:
Polirom.
Mullins, R. (1996). The university in the community: town and gown partnerships
renewing America's neighborhoods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Louisville.
Neculau, A. C. (1997). Campul academic si actorii sai [The academic field and its
actors]. Iasi: Polirom.
Pabich, I. (2003). Public Relations: An instrument of co-operation linking
the private sector and higher education institutions. Higher Education in Europe,
4, 519-522.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pirozez, P. & Heskova, M. (2003). Approaches to and instruments of public relations:
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 31
Higher education in the Czech Republic. Higher Education in Europe,
4, 487-494.
Rhee, Y. (1999). Confucian culture and excellent public relations: A study of generic
principles and specific applications in South Korean public relations practice..
Unpublished master’s dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.
Rhee, Y. (2002). Global public relations: A cross-cultural study of the Excellence theory
in South Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 159-184.
Ross, J. (2004, January). Finders Keepers, users reapers: Campus communicators can use
external research as a context for institution messages. Currents, 30, 30-32.
Ross, J. & Halstead, C. (2001, February). Think strategic: A new approach can improve
the campus president's estimation of the communications office. Currents, 27, 4247.
Samsup, L., Hon, L., & Brunner, R. (2004). Organization-public relationships:
Measurement validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication
Management, 9, 14-28.
Schoenfeld, C., Weimer, L. & Lang, J. (1997). Reaching Out: How Academic Leaders
Can Communicate More Effectively with Their Constituencies. Madison, WI:
Atwood Publishers.
Spagnolia, N. (1998). Universities and their communities: What fosters positive towngown relations? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rowan University.
Stanciulescu, E. (2002). Despre tranzitie si universitate [About transition and academe].
Iasi: Polirom.
Szymanska, A. (2003). Public relations: The process of communication between a higher
Public Relations in Higher Education Institutions 32
education institution and its environment, the case of the Wroclaw University of
Economics. Higher Education in Europe, 28, 471-485.
Wakefield, R. I. (2000). World-class public relations: A model for effective public
relations in the multinational. Journal of Communication Management, 5(1), 5971.