Transcript Public Relations in College Athletics

Public Relations in College Athletics
An Examination of Athletic Directors’
Perceptions of the Role of Public Relations in a
College Athletic Department
Brody Ruihley & Dr. Lisa Fall
University of Tennessee
Today’s Presentation
Introduction
Purpose of this study
Conceptual Framework and Research
Questions
Methods
Results
Discussion
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
•
The purpose of this research is to
determine collegiate ADs’ perceptions
of PR within their organization.
Conceptual Framework & RQs
Grunig and Hunt (1984) define PR as the
management of “communication between an
organization and its publics” (p.6).
Stoldt, Dittmore and Brandvold (2006) define sport
PR as “managerial communication-based function
designed to identify a sport organization’s key
publics, evaluat[ing] its relationships with those
publics, and foster[ing] desirable relationships
between the sport organization and those publics”
(p.2)
Conceptual Framework & RQs
Sport PR professionals are involved in image
control and relationship management for the
organization.
However, many times, PR activities are mistaken
for sports information activities more technical in
nature (i.e. creation of programs, websites,
handout materials, press materials).
Conceptual Framework & RQs
Key Publics of an intercollegiate
athletic department (Jackowski,
2007)
Conceptual Framework & RQs
RQ1: Who are the top PR officers within a college
athletic department and what are the titles of the
people in these positions?
RQ2: What are the perceptions of the ADs within the
college athletic departments regarding PR
professionals and issues?
Conceptual Framework & RQs
In an athletic department setting, roles of
employees are often mix-matched, substituted,
combined, or completely opposite of what the
traditional roles may be.
PR Roles are defined as everyday activities of
PR practitioners (Dozier, 1992)
Conceptual Framework & RQs
Roles
Expert Prescribers - responsible for designing PR functions and
diagnosing PR problems while prescribing solutions to them
Communication Facilitators - operate as information mediators
between an organization and its audiences
Problem-Solving Process Facilitators - help an organization identify
and solve its problems through systematic problem-solving
Communication Technicians - use technical skills such as writing,
graphics, photography, computer skills, and others to produce
materials to assist in a PR program
(Ekachai, 1995)
Conceptual Framework & RQs
Research indicates that sports information professionals,
commonly misinterpreted as PR professionals, are
primarily seen as communication technicians within an
athletic department. (McCleneghan, 1995; Stoldt, 2000;
and Stoldt et al., 2001)
McClenghan (1995) indicates that the functions of sports
information professionals are seen more as staff oriented
and not encompassing management functions.
RQ3: How do the ADs perceive the roles of PR
officials within the structure of their college athletic
department?
Research Questions
RQ4a: Will there be any statistical difference in aspects of PR officer
ability between ADs who communicate in different frequency with their
top PR official?
RQ4b: Will there be any statistical difference in roles of PR
professionals between ADs who communicate in different frequency
with their top PR official?
RQ5a: Will there be any statistical difference in aspects of PR officer
ability between ADs with different frequency in which their top PR
official is involved in senior staff meetings?
RQ5b: Will there be any statistical difference in roles of PR
professionals between ADs with different frequency in which their top
PR official is involved in senior staff meetings?
Method
Instrument - Online questionnaire developed through statistics department at
the University of Tennessee
Descriptive
The title of the athletic department’s top PR officer
The frequency with which the AD and the top PR officer communicate
The frequency with which the top PR officer is included in senior staff
meetings
Whether the top PR officer made substantial contributions if/when he or
she is included in senior staff meetings
The rating of the ability of the top PR officer to perform various PR tasks
The relative strength of relationships with various program constituents
Method
Instrument - Abilities and Tasks
Abilities were measured by listing the ability or task and asking
the respondent to rate the ability of their top PR official to perform
the task.
Example of some of the items
Measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1= Poor and 5=Excellent)
Abilities and tasks were altered from prior work of Stoldt, Miller,
and Comfort (2001); Broom (1982); Broom & Smith (1979); and
Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig (1995).
Method
Instrument - Roles
Scale items adapted from prior research
conducted by Dozier (1992) and Ekachai (1995).
The items were measured using a five-point
Likert-type response scale ranging from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Items measured each role concept.
Examples of scale questions
Method
Instrument - General
The rest of the questionnaire contained other descriptive
questions.
Title of the top PR officer
Number of full-time employees within the athletic department
Number of full-time employees working solely on PR
Number of students enrolled at the university or college
Number of years as an AD
Gender and Age
Method
Sample & Procedure
A list of Division I institutions was obtained from the Web site of
NCAA.
Emailed 334 Division I College ADs
Sent an invitation email with the survey link attached
Sent a reminder email one week after initial email
Sent a final reminder two months after initial email
Incentive offered: share the results
Results
Sample
99 completed questionnaires
30% response rate from the population of Division I
ADs
93% Male, 6% Female, 1% No response
Mean Age: 53 Years
Age Range: 31 to 71
Mean department staff size: 92
Mean number of people working on PR: 7
Results - RQ1
•
RQ1: Who are the top PR officers within a college
athletic department and what are the titles of the
people in these positions?
In response to RQ1, when asked if their department had
a person solely devoted to PR, 62.63% of the participants
affirmatively responded (n=62).
The ADs who responded that they did not possess a
position solely to PR (n=37, 37.37%) identified the many
positions that they felt were the top PR position within
their organization.
Results - RQ1
Yes to PR
(n=62)
No to PR
(n=37)
Media Relations
30.88%
25.58%
Communication
25.00%
9.30%
Sports Information
10.29%
23.26%
Public Relations
10.29%
0.00%
External Affairs
7.35%
16.28%
Marketing
7.35%
9.30%
Athletics Directors
5.88%
16.28%
Community Relations
2.94%
0.00%
Results - RQ2
•
RQ2: What are the perceptions of the ADs within the
college athletic departments regarding PR professionals
and issues?
The highest agreement categories to an ADs perception of the abilities of
their top PR person were (5-point scale):
Working with coaches and athletes, 4.29
Maintaining media contacts, 4.27
Recommending responses to issues, 4.24
The lowest agreement to the abilities were:
Conducting PR research, 3.51
Coordinate Events, 3.82
Mediate conflicts, 3.83
Results - RQ2
ADs perceptions of top PR officerΥsabilities
Work with coaches and athletes
Maintain me dia contacts
Recommend responses to issues
Ad vise on PR issues
Manage PR issues
Evaluate PR issues
Produce PR material
Contribute to policy decisions
Identify emerging issues
Set PR goals
Develop/manage a budget
Mediate conflicts
Coordinate special events
Conduct PR research
n
Mean
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
4.29
4.27
4.24
4.19
4.19
4.14
4.11
4.08
3.99
3.90
3.87
3.83
3.82
3.51
Std. Deviation
.701
.818
.716
.765
.752
.714
.781
.738
.909
.875
.791
.948
.873
.941
Results - RQ2
ADs identified the frequency with which they
communicate with their top PR officer:
Multiple times daily (21.2%, n=21)
Daily (36.4%, n=36)
More than once a week (26.3%, n=26)
Once a week (7.1%, n=7)
Less than once a week (9.1%, n=9).
Results - RQ2
The percentage that the top PR officer was
included in senior staff meetings was indicated at
an average of 78.61% of meetings
89.9% of ADs indicate the officer making
substantial contributions
3.0% identified the officer as not making substantial
contributions
7.1% of the respondents did not respond because they
did not include the top PR officer in their senior staff
meetings
Results - RQ3
•
RQ3: How do the ADs perceive the roles of PR officials
within the structure of their college athletic department?
n
Mean
St. Dev.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
PSPF
99
3.9859
0.67929
0.868
CT
99
3.9646
0.80892
0.809
EP
99
3.8721
0.68670
0.856
CF
99
*3.7626
0.67892
0.795
Results - RQ4a
RQ4a: Will there be any statistical difference in
aspects of PR officer ability between ADs who
communicate in different frequency with their top
PR official?
Results - RQ4a
What is the
frequency with
which you and
the top PR officer
typically
communicate
regarding PR
issues?
High
Mean
Frequency
n
Std.
Dev.
Low
Mean
Frequency
n
Std.
Dev.
Total
Mean
n
Std.
Dev.
Prod uce
PR
mate rial
Work with
coaches
and
at hletes
Maintain
media
contac ts
Coordin ate
special
events
Adv ise on
PR issues
Manage
PR issues
Recom me nd
responses
Eva luate
to issues
PR issues
Develop/m
anage a
budget
Cont ribute
to pol icy
decisions
Identify
emer ging
issu es
Set PR
goals
Mediate
conf licts
Conduct
PR
resear ch
4.19
*4.46
4.37
*3.98
*4.33
*4.33
*4.42
*4.33
*4.04
*4.32
*4.21
*4.16
*4.11
*3.75
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
.743
.629
.723
.834
.664
.636
.625
.607
.801
.686
.750
.702
.748
.892
4.00
*4.07
4.14
*3.60
*4.00
*4.00
*4.00
*3.88
*3.64
*3.76
*3.69
*3.55
*3.45
*3.17
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
.826
.745
.926
.885
.855
.855
.765
.772
.727
.692
1.024
.968
1.064
.908
4.11
4.29
4.27
3.82
4.19
4.19
4.24
4.14
3.87
4.08
3.99
3.90
3.83
3.51
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
.781
.704
.818
8.73
.765
.752
.716
.714
.791
.738
.909
.875
.948
.941
Results - RQ4b
RQ4b: Will there be any statistical difference in roles of
PR professionals between ADs who communicate in
different frequency with their top PR official?
Results - RQ4b
PR Frequency
EP
PSPF
CF
CT
n
Mean
Std. Deviation
High Frequency
57
*4.1140
.60188
Low Frequenc y
42
*3.5437
.66367
High Frequency
57
*4.2632
.53071
Low Frequenc y
42
*3.6095
.68282
High Frequency
57
*3.9825
.58221
Low Frequenc y
42
*3.4643
.69311
High Frequency
57
4.0395
.80842
Low Frequenc y
42
3.8631
.80812
Results - RQ4b
Daily Communication
n
Mean Weekly Communication
n
Mean
Problem-Solving Process Facilitator*
57
4.26
Communication Technician*
42
3.86
1
57
4.11
Problem-Solving Process Facilitator
42
3.61
Communication Technician
57
4.04
Expert Prescriber
42
3.54
1
57
3.98
Communication Facilitator
42
3.46
Expert Prescriber
Communication Facilitator
*Significant fr om all
1 Significantly diffe rent from each other
1
1
*Sign ificant from all but PSPF
1 Significantly differen t from each other
Results - RQ5a
RQ5a: Will there be any statistical difference in
aspects of PR officer ability between ADs with
different frequency in which their top PR official
is involved in senior staff meetings?
Results - RQ5a
When focusing on the percentage of senior staff meetings including a top PR
officer and the abilities of the top PR officer, as questioned in RQ5a, two groups
were compared.
Significant differences (p<.05) were found, in favor of the ADs including the
officer in 100% of the meetings, in the following four abilities:
Managing PR issues
Recommending responses to PR issues
Contributing to policy decisions
Setting PR goals.
All other abilities were not found to be statistically significant
Results - RQ5b
RQ5b: Will there be any statistical difference in roles of
PR professionals between ADs with different frequency
in which their top PR official is involved in senior staff
meetings?
When the analysis focused on the roles, the significant
differences between 100% attendance and non-100%
groups were found.
Expert prescriber
Problem-solving process facilitator
Communication facilitator
Results - RQ5b
100% of Se nior Staff Meetings
n
Mean
Non-100% of Senior Staff Meetings
n
Mean
Problem-Solving Process Facilitator
64
4.10
Communication Technician
35
3.87
Communication Technician
64
4.02
Problem-Solving Process Facilitator
35
3.78
Expert Prescriber*
64
3.99
Expert Prescriber
35
3.65
Communication Facilitator*
*Significant from PSPF
64
3.87
35
3.56
Communication Facilitator*
*Significant from each other CT & PSPF
Discussion
RQ1 - We know where PR is within a college
athletic department.
RQ2 - We know some perceptions of PR from the
view of the AD
RQ3 - We know the perceptions of the ADs
regarding the roles of PR
Discussion
RQ4a- We know that difference in frequency of
communication has produced different results in
the way in which ADs view the abilities of the top
PR person.
RQ4b- We know that difference in frequency of
communication has produced different results in
the way in which ADs view the role of the top PR
person.
Discussion
RQ5a - We know that difference in inclusion in
senior staff meetings has produced different
results in the way in which ADs view the abilities of
the top PR person.
RQ5b - We know that difference in inclusion in
senior staff meetings has produced different
results in the way in which ADs view the role of the
top PR person.
Conclusion
Thank You.
Any Questions?