Public Relations in College Athletics

1. 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

2. Today’s Presentation • Introduction • Purpose of this study • Conceptual Framework and Research Questions • Methods • Results • Discussion

3. Introduction

4. Purpose of the Study • The purpose of this research is to determine collegiate ADs’ perceptions of PR within their organization.

5. 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)

6. 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).

7. Conceptual Framework & RQs • Key Publics of an intercollegiate athletic department (Jackowski, 2007)

8. 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?

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. 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?

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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).

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. Results - RQ1

21. 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

22. Results - RQ2

23. 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).

24. 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

25. Results - RQ3 • RQ3: How do the ADs perceive the roles of PR officials within the structure of their college athletic department?

26. 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?

27. Results - RQ4a

28. 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?

29. Results - RQ4b

30. Results - RQ4b

31. 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?

32. 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

33. 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

34. Results - RQ5b

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Conclusion

39. Thank You. Any Questions?