How Public Relations Practitoners at Historically Black Colleges &

HOW PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITONERS AT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES &

UNIVERSITIES DEFINE INFLUENCE

KERRY RICHARDSON

(Under the Direction of Karen Miller Russell)

ABSTRACT

This study is a replication and extension of the “Influence Interviews” conducted by

Berger and Reber. Their study, conducted in 2004, interviewed 65 public relations professionals to examine how practitioners defined influence. The current study examined how public relations practitioners at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) define influence within the practice. Analysis of interviews with twenty-five practitioners, representing roughly one-fourth of all HBCUs today, found that practitioners at HBCUs define influence in many of the same ways as their counterparts in other areas of public relations. More often than not, practitioners deemed influence as “having a seat at the decision-making table,” which essentially represents an opportunity for one’s voice to be heard and recommendations to be taken into consideration.

Other important factors mentioned, but the most consistent response was having direct access to the president and upper levels of administration.

INDEX WORDS: Public relations, Influence, HBCUs, Influence interviews

HOW PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS AT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES

& UNIVERSITIES DEFINE INFLUENCE

KERRY RICHARDSON

B.A., Fisk University, 2005

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

ATHENS, GA

2007

Kerry Richardson

HOW PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITONERS AT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES &

UNIVERSITIES DEFINE INFLUENCE

KERRY RICHARDSON

Major Professor: Karen Miller Russell

Committee: Dwight E. Brooks

Bryan H. Reber

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso

Dean of the Graduate School

The University of Georgia

August 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY……………………………………………………1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW………………….……………………………….….5

3 METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………26

4 RESULTS………...…………………..………….……….….….…….………29

5 DISCUSSION……………….…………………….…………………………....49

6 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….55

7 APPENDIX……………………………………………….…………………….58

Interview Questions…………………………….…………………………….59

Participating Institutions……..…………………………………………….…60

Works Cited…………………………………………………………………..63

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: [Sample for Influence Interviews.] ...... 24 Table 2: [How Practitioners at HBCUs Define Influence.] ...... 25 Table 3: [Who’s Interests Do You Serve First] ...... 28 Table 4: [Practitioners’ Belief About Their Influence.] ...... 29 Table 5: [The Area of My Institution I Impact The Most] ...... 31 Table 6: [Most Needed PR Influence Resources] ...... 34 Table 7: [What Limits Your Influence.] ...... 36 Table 8: [What Is The Greatest Obstacle Faced At An HBCU] ...... 39 Table 9: [What Influence Sources Or Resources Do You Draw From.] ...... 42 Table 10: [Most Valuable Influence Resources] ...... 44 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

This study evolved from Berger and Reber’s (2004) “Influence Interviews” of 65 public relations practitioners working in a number of industries across the field. The purpose of their study was “to determine how public relations professionals see and define public relations influence inside their organizations” (p. 16). They found that

According to Berger and Reber (2004), “the sample was deliberately constructed to represent diverse professionals and organizations and to create potential for variance in responses and findings” (p. 16). However, they did not focus on racial diversity, and only a small portion of their sample worked in university settings. This thesis will therefore extend Berger and Reber’s study in two ways. First, it includes race as an area of analysis. Interviewing practitioners of color can reveal the perceptions held by minorities in practice, giving voice to practitioners who have struggled to find a place within a field which is largely white and where white males occupy a majority of the managerial positions (Clanton and Zerbinos, 1993, p. 79). Second, there is a lack of research on public relations in higher education, particularly relating to influence in practice and image and reputation building. This thesis specifically deals with practitioners who work in higher education PR. Therefore the perspective of these practitioners will reflect their employment at one of more than 100 historically black colleges and universities in the United

States, accounting for a segment of practitioners who are often overlooked in public relations research. In fact, this study is the first to assess how public relations practitioners at HBCUs 2 define their place within their institution’s system of hierarchy and includes representatives from a cross section representing both public and private institutions.

Historically black colleges and universities, which were founded for the purpose of educating newly freed slaves at the conclusion of the Civil War, have felt their share of growing pains and financial constraints. Researchers like Roebuck and Murty (1993), assert that HBCUs were founded and developed in an environment unlike that surrounding other colleges: they were developed in a hostile environment marked by legal segregation and isolation from mainstream

U.S. higher education. Although the number of HBCUs continues to fluctuate, their missions remain to produce graduates who will go on to contribute to their communities, their country and the world.

There are a number of factors which inhibit the survival of an HBCU. Among those factors are a lack of alumni contributors, lack of corporate and foundation support, the mismanagement of funds and the lack of unrestricted funds. Winters (1999) wrote, "Only four percent of Howard University's 60,000 alumni contribute to the school whereas 28 percent of

Vanderbilt's alumni give to their alma mater." The alumni giving rate at most HBCUs is under five percent and drastically falters behind majority institutions. One way to effectively address the problems at historically black colleges and universities is to assess them from both a historical and contemporary perspective. HBCUs have dealt with issues relating to financial constraints since their inception and continue to suffer from financial constraints but for a completely different set of circumstances including how HBCUs handle crises situations, which have proved to be plentiful. Although there is no simple solution to these problems, HBCUs must begin to look internally for solutions to the significant problems which have forced a 3 number of them to close their doors, to sacrifice academic departments, or to lose their accreditation (Byrd, 1999).

These setbacks emphasize the need for an effective public relations office to provide effective counsel to deal with crisis communication and provide effective public relations counsel. Numerous institutions continue to under-utilize public relations, still a relatively new concept for many, and therefore under-fund offices which support these initiatives. Although a strong office of public relations cannot single-handedly save an institution, it can help by increasing admissions and recruitment efforts, invigorating alumni and corporate support, and improving institutional advancement as a whole. In order to be effective in each of these areas, public relations professionals must feel that they possess a voice and a seat at the decision- making table, which represents an opportunity to communicate ideas based on one’s education and expertise in the field. Therefore, key administrators and academicians who make decisions for their universities must know that practitioners possess some level of influence within their organizations to effectively make and execute decisions.

Within most university settings exists a department whose sole purpose is to monitor and manage the flow of communication both internally and externally. This office is usually called the Office of Public Relations, but can also be referred to as the Office of Public Affairs, the

Office of Communications and Public Relations or the Office of University Relations &

Marketing. According to the public relations staff at the University of Colorado-Denver, practitioners are usually hired at the university level to promote university programs, faculty and services to the public, assist local and national media with news gathering and to create publications for the university (Office of Public Relations home page, 2007). 4

In other words, newly hired practitioners usually operate as technicians rather than as managers. However, many public relations practitioners at HBCUs operate in both the technician role as well as the managerial role, handling an overwhelmingly large number of crises and, in many cases, attempting to restore the image of an institution which has been severely tarnished in the news media.

The current body of literature on public relations as it relates to HBCUs has come from the context of fundraising. The primary focus of this study, in contrast, is to determine how public relations practitioners at HBCUs define and exercise influence within their respective universities. This assessment will “help practitioners gather ideas for strengthening the power and legitimacy of the profession” (Berger and Reber, xi). This research will prepare practitioners to make decisions which will impact growth, funding and organizational effectiveness. The

Black College Mystique sums it up best when it states, “It is important for Black colleges to recognize that their contribution has been not for the benefits of Blacks only but for the good of the entire system of higher education in the nation” (Willie, Reddick and Brown, 4).

The primary goal of this research is to assess the level of influence public relations

practitioners at Historically Black Colleges and Universities feel they possess within their

organizations. This study will enable practitioners to better understand the challenges which

constrain the practice and how these constraints can be minimized or removed. This discussion

will also begin to improve the current conditions at historically black colleges and universities by

advocating for practitioners to evaluate their level of influence within their organizations. By

evaluating their level of influence, practitioners can make changes within how they operate and

function and as a result begin to chart new territory at HBCUs.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will describe three areas of literature: public relations and influence in practice, public relations in higher educational institutions, and historically black colleges and universities. The literature examining public relations and influence in practice provides a brief overview of the profession while examining what influence is in public relations and why it is important to the field. This chapter will also discuss how colleges and universities have utilized public relations and examine the lack of research within this area. Finally, it will provide a brief history and mission of HBCUs and discuss some of the problems which these institutions face today.

Public Relations and Influence in Practice

According to leading scholars in the field, public relations is the "management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends" (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994, p. 6). In 1984,

James Grunig and Todd Hunt were the first to define four typical ways in which public relations is practiced (Grunig and Grunig, 1992, p. 285). Grunig and Grunig (1992) explained his contributions to public relations research in a chapter entitled, “Models of Public Relations and

Communications.” The article provides a rich history of Grunig’s conception of the four models of public relations: press agentry/publicity, public information, two-way asymmetrical, and two- way symmetrical. Grunig argues that the press agentry model is intended to change the message receiver's behavior without regard for the truth. Characteristics of this model include organizational control of messages, manipulation, and emotions thus making it the most irresponsible and most unethical of the four models. The public information model suggests that 6 reporters are recruited to serve as "in-house journalists" that create and promote only positive stories. Truth and accuracy are important in the public information model, but persuasion – stemming from one-way information flow from the organization to public only – is still a key element in its practice. The two-way asymmetrical model is considered to be a selfish model

"because the organization that uses it believes it is right (and the public is wrong) and that any change needed to resolve a conflict must come from the public and not from the organization"

(Grunig and Hunt, 1984, p. 8). Grunig provides an analysis of the other three models of public relations in order to show why the two-way symmetrical model, which emphasized dialogue and mutual benefit, is the most ethical.

The significance of Grunig’s work is that it lays claim to the fact that the two-way symmetrical model provides a normative theory of how public relations should be practiced to be ethical and effective” (Grunig and Grunig, 1992, p. 285). Though the discussion of influence and power is not brought up explicitly in the analysis, Grunig does explain how he measured the extent to which practitioners carried out their daily activities. In doing so, Grunig provides a history of the four models, analyzes the extent to which the models are valid, and describes how public relations is actually practiced and the conditions in and around organizations that use these models. This research disputes the belief of some practitioners who feel as if the “model of excellence” is necessary only in theory. Grunig asserts that the two-way symmetrical model of communication is not simply a good model in theory but is also useful in practice (Grunig and

Grunig, 1992). He described the model as “normative” but argues that it is also the most sensible and practical way of doing public relations. He further adds that many organizations fear using this model because “an authoritarian dominant coalition sees the approach as a threat to its power” (Grunig and Grunig, 1992, 320). 7

Evaluation of the normative theory or model of excellence theory reveals that “telling the truth” is most commonly associated with the excellence model, supporting Grunig’s assertion that “telling the truth” is always necessary in the practice of public relations. This contention has been called into question in contemporary discussions of public relations because some practitioners feel as if telling the truth is not always the best decision (Rothschild and Miethe,

1994). Therefore although Grunig advocates the excellence theory as the best theory for practice, it does not take into account situations where practitioners may feel as if telling the truth may compromise their own ethical beliefs.

Related to excellence theory is the notion that public relations should be a management function. Broom and Dozier (1979) build on previous studies of practitioner roles which examine the models’ evolution based on their deductive origins. Broom and Dozier (1979) state, “Studies of practitioner roles in the 1970s followed a hypothetico-deductive, or classical, approach. In the

1980s, grounded theoretical studies expanded roles research by specifying roles and elaborating their relations with other constructs” (p. 38). They also reviewed the work of Steele who concluded that the four basic role models of public relations are expert prescriber, communication facilitator, problem-solving process facilitator, and communication technician.

The expert prescriber researches and defines the problem, develops the program, and takes major responsibility for its implementation. The communication facilitator serves as a liaison, interpreter, and mediator between the organizations and its publics. The problem-solving process facilitator collaborates with line management throughout the process of defining and solving problems. Finally the communication technician is concerned with producing communication materials for the public relations efforts. Broom and Dozier (1979) examined how changes in a practitioner’s role would affect their salaries, participation in management and their job 8 satisfaction. They also assessed how this was different for men and women. A total of 458 PRSA members responded to seven questionnaire items which measured each of their roles in practice.

From this data, Broom and Dozier (1979) concluded that “manager” and technician” were the two most useful and most widely referenced public relations roles. Broom and Dozier (1985) replicated the study and found many of the same results they had found six years earlier. In fact, although some of the practitioners from the original study were deceased, retirees, or simply unable to be located, the researchers found 206 who were eligible to participate. In both studies men disproportionately occupied a majority of the managerial positions while women overwhelmingly filled technician roles. Although a majority of practitioners reported increased activities characteristic of the managerial role in 1985, men still dominated the field and earned significantly higher incomes than women who also felt as if they enacted a managerial role.

Another significant finding was the fact that dominant roles seemed to be the best predictors of decision-making participation among practitioners in both studies. Broom and

Dozier (1985) state, “membership in this powerful decision-making group advances the profession’s status and allows practitioners to help organizations solve problems and become more socially responsible” (p. 45). Practitioners enacting the managerial role participated more frequently in management decision making than their counterparts indicating technician status.

The salaries also differed significantly across dominant roles despite equal education and/or experience. Broom and Dozier’s study changed the field of public relations in that the discussion of the dominant coalition was brought to the forefront, re-defining the way practitioners thought about their roles within their organizations.

Broom and Dozier’s research added much to the body of public relations literature, but, like many other studies in the field, it lacks a discussion of how race affects one’s role within 9 their organization. It is an oversight on the part of scholars to research one minority group within the field, women, but not to analyze various other underrepresented groups. Although the disparity among women and men in public relations is a worthy research endeavor, so is the disparity among other underrepresented groups in public relations who are often disregarded.

Scholars within the field must examine the whole picture and take into account each of the circumstances which prevents practitioners from effectively doing their jobs.

Berger (2005) further examines the role practitioners assume within their organizations as well as the concept of the dominant coalition. In order to be a management function, public

relations must have influence on the dominant coalition. He states, “symmetrical public relations

theory acknowledges primacy of the dominant coalition in making organizational decisions and

influencing public relations practices but reveals little about this powerful inner circle” (p. 5). As

Berger puts it, “This group of powerful insiders makes strategic choices, allocates resources, and

influences public relations practices (p. 8). He discusses the conceptualization of the different

constraints which limit the role practitioners play within in their organizations as well as their

power to do what’s right. Citing the work of J.E. Grunig, L.A. Grunig, and David Dozier, Berger

posits that “decisions of the dominant coalition influenced the practice of public relations in the

organization (p. 7). In addition, although the dominant coalition is the purveyor of organizational

power, PR practitioners were seldom members of the inner circle.

Though Berger is not the first to explore issues relating to the dominant coalition, or

issues related to power within one’s organization, he has derived from these studies a framework

for examining three relations of power in the dominant coalition (Berger, 2005). Power over

relations refers to a traditional dominant model where decision making is characterized by

control, instrumentalism, and self interest. Power with relations reflects empowerment model 10 where dialogue, inclusion, negotiation, and shared power guide decision making. Power to relations represent forms of resistance that public relations practitioners may use to try to counter a dominant model.

Berger’s (2005) study addresses how twenty-one public relations executives discuss power issues in practice. He conducted in-depth interviews with practitioners who were deemed

“members of the dominant coalition in major corporations.” The interviews explored perceptions of the dominant coalition, corporate power struggles and relations, constraints on and opportunities for public relations advocacy, and forms of public relations persistence and activism. He also found that two-way symmetrical communication is often equated to a feminine approach to public relations and therefore suggests weakness. In other words, if the dominant coalition were to share their power with other members of the organization it would be seen as weak. Berger’s study also found that the dominant coalition is not one single entity; rather power relations can occur in multiple facets. His study found that most practitioners feel as if they are not members of any portion of the dominant coalition but are members of ad hoc committees usually involving crisis communication. The study asserts that practitioners may want to consider options beyond symmetrical public relations which take into account power relations.

Berger (2005) asserts that the field of public relations should also consider adding another role to practice aside from the technician and manager role: there is also an activist role, in which practitioners utilize forms of resistance in order to counter the dominant coalition.

Berger and Reber (2006) conducted a number of studies which examined the need for practitioners to increase their power and social legitimacy by developing and using a wider range of influence resources, strategies and tactics. The authors highlight the fact that many practitioners realize what it means to have the ear of management and to possess power within 11 the practice, but that many of them do not possess it. Through in-depth interviews across a number of fields, the Influence Interviews, Berger and Reber (2006) learned how practitioners define influence in public relations. Their work drew from several scholars in the field who had determined that most practitioners equate influence with having a seat and a voice at the decision-making table. Berger and Reber found that over half of the respondents indicated that

“being in a position to contribute to and affect strategic discussions, decisions, and actions- participating in the strategic decision-making process-was what public relations influence meant, or should mean” (Berger and Reber, 17-18).

Practitioners in Berger and Reber’s (2006) study also defined influence in terms of possessing persuasive powers with decision makers, controlling communication production processes, producing results, interpreting the needs of external publics, and advocating for the practice with decision makers. The authors identified five types of influence resources which could be used in power relations as a result of having participants in two research projects, the

Influence Interviews and the PR Success Interviews, name two or three influence resources they valued the most on the job. Among those resources were individual influence resources (which include factors such as professional experience and expertise), accomplishments, and organizational knowledge. Practitioners also mentioned structural influence, which includes hierarchical position in the organization, and relational influence, which includes relationships with others inside and outside the organization, particularly those possessing power. Also mentioned were informational resources, which allow one to control the access and flow of key messages within an organization, and systematic influence resources, which include professional organizations and associated codes, standards, and reputation (Berger and Reber, 2006). 12

Berger and Reber’s (2006) work in this area confirms the idea that public relations professionals rely heavily on personal and relational influence resources for their power in practice. They found that structural power in public relations practice is in high demand and short supply. They also found that systematic influence resources are underutilized or underdeveloped in public relations practice (Berger and Reber, 2006).

The authors also conducted a number of interviews which concluded that practitioners employ a number of Alpha approaches (or sanctioned influence tactics) in practice. By Alpha approaches, Berger and Reber mean “traditional” or “acceptable” forms of influence tactics. But they also they argue that these sort of tactics may not be enough to effectively gain influence or power within their organizations to effectively make change. Instead they suggest the use of

Omega approaches in public relations, which refer to the use of “unsanctioned influence tactics that generally are not approved by the organization or validated by formal authority, organizational ideology, or professional codes and guidelines” (Mintzberg, 1983). Examples of such tactics include leaking information to external publics, planting rumors in the grapevine, and whistle blowing which is defined as “the disclosure of illegal, unethical or harmful practices in the workplace to parties who might take action” (Berger and Reber, 2006, p. 153).

The authors assert that because this area of the field is “virtually unexplored,” it must be examined. Their interviews included 21 corporate public relations executives who identified their use of three unsanctioned influence tactics used in their day to day practices. Practitioners stated their use of such tactics included information leaks, counterculture activities, and construction of alternative interpretations of official events or communications (Berger and Reber, 2006). The authors defined counterculture actions as using the grapevine or other informal channels to initiate oppositional communications or to plant rumors and information. 13

From the three research projects used by the authors in assessing the use of Omega strategies, several important conclusions were drawn. First, a small number of public relations professionals use unsanctioned influence tactics in their work to try to do the right thing or to further personal or organizational interests. It was also determined that public relations practitioners select Omega strategies form a range of options that vary according to their level of perceived severity of application and levels of self conflict (Berger and Reber, 2006). According to the research, practitioners held strong but polar feelings about the appropriateness of whistle blowing. In addition, leaking information was seen as the most controversial and complex unsanctioned influence tactic in the field. Finally, the research initiatives revealed that public relations practitioners make decisions about whether or not to use unsanctioned influence tactics based on a wide array of factors, but the nature of the issue is a crucial factor (Berger and Reber,

2006).

Other scholars have also examined public relations practitioners as internal activists.

Nance McCown (2007) examines potential internal activism among employee/organizational leadership communication strategies. McCown conducted a qualitative case study wherein she interviewed employees, public relations staff, and leadership. The study found that employees implemented activist strategies in response to perceived communication gaps. Although participants were reluctant to use the term “activist,” language such as “doing something to gain the attention of leadership” exemplified this point. Employees were found to serve as activists within their organizations in a number of ways, including garnering support through persuasive emails and convincing leadership to seek the input of its employees. McCown (2007) found that as a result of the internal activism displayed by practitioners, “organizational leadership invited greater employee participation in discussions leading up to decision making” (p. 63). 14

Organizational leadership also increased its efforts in environmental scanning and implemented structural changes in the internal public relations processes. In this vein, internal activism proved by effective and helpful in improving communication within this organization.

Public Relations in Higher Education

Most literature on higher education has focused attention on marketing to make schools

more competitive. In nearly all of the literature which discusses how to use marketing for higher

education, public relations does not come up except under the umbrella of what most

academicians see as “the larger marketing function” (Ryans and Shanklin, 1986). The thought of

many scholars throughout much of the literature seems to be, “how can we market our school

better?” and not, “how can we use public relations to better market our schools?” Blackburn

(1980) discusses the approach many colleges were using at the time to make their schools more

competitive. The study reflects the notion that colleges and universities need a better

understanding of how they are perceived by their publics (Ryans and Shanklin, 1986).

Blackburn (1980) discusses the measures some colleges took to increase their student

body and revenue turning to marketing firms instead of public relations firms in order to

accomplish their goals. Ironically enough, many of the goals which these institutions set for

themselves such as improving their images and strengthening their reputations seemed to be

better fit for public relations. Although there is no mention of public relations by name,

Blackburn seems to lump the marketing function with that of public relations terming it

communication- related research. He asserts that only recently have colleges and universities

turned to outside marketing research consulting firms to enhance the images of their institution and acknowledges that market segmentation research and marketing plans can be profitable for 15 nonprofit academic institutions. Much of the literature to date which references “marketing” seems to be public relations tactics done through the lens of a marketing professional.

Ryans and Shanklin (1986) state “there are more misconceptions and misperceptions of marketing than any other business-type function in higher education. Marketing is not synonymous with advertising and communications, neither with personal selling, nor with public relations. Yet it is all of these functions and more; it is also a philosophy of operating an organization and serving people” (p. 85). As marketing seeks to attract students through its means of market information systems and current demand analysis, the first step in any of this seems to be overlooked. Before admissions counselors can begin to formulate their ideas or use any of these marketing concepts, students must first be attracted to the university. This is where public relations must come into play. According to Ryans and Shanklin (1986), the public relations professional should foster the image of the college, an image which should be supported and articulated by the president or chief person at the university level. As a result of public relations professionals going along for the ride, so to speak, university officials have turned elsewhere for help. Universities have turned to outside marketing firms for help, sought the counsel of other departments and have turned everywhere except to the people whose main responsibility should be enhancing the image and forging strong relationships for the university.

Graham (1999) discusses how one college used marketing to improve its enrollment, retention, and public relations. He describes six basic steps for developing a successful marketing plan for a university including research and prepare a plan, coordinate and carry out the plan, and finally evaluate the marketing program. Additionally, Graham identifies the first two steps in the plan as reviewing the institution’s position and establishing administrative leadership. At least four of the six strategies (obviously discussed in greater detail), were public 16 relations strategies. He also stresses reviewing the school’s position, stating that it is essential in determining the message that the school wants to send out. It determines what the starting point needs to be in terms of carrying out the plan. In two pages, he very briefly explains what any trained public relations professional should know before starting any job. Universities are hiring outside marketing firms to do what their own public relations departments have been trained to do. He stresses that the plan did work for the university however it hired outside help to do what internal employees should have been hired to do. This is perhaps due to the apparent confusion which exists concerning the marketing function within colleges and universities and the public relations function. Much of the literature attempts to explore both options, commonly fusing the two together.

Only a few scholarly studies have assessed public relations practitioners in higher education. Luo (2005) examines whether public relations staff at two universities utilize

Grunig’s model of excellence theory. She asserts that “how these university public relations units are practicing public relations and whether their practices are excellent are not well understood”

(p. 2). She also asserts that universities have looked to “public relations units to manage crises, boost rankings, increase donations, and carry out a variety of other tasks” (p. 2). Luo interviewed nine participants to assess the level of effectiveness demonstrated by practitioners and found that neither of the two institutions has fully demonstrated the excellence model of communications.

She found that the public relations offices at these institutions were submerging communications efforts under the umbrella of marketing, dominance of media relations, and prevalence of one- way communication and frequently operated in the technician role. She also stressed that university presidents were much more concerned with image building and reputation but did not truly understand the function of public relations. The study essentially concluded that a lack of 17 knowledge concerning two-way communication could possibly be the reason for the under use of the theory (Luo, 2005).

Nagel (1980) documents the belief held by college presidents, particularly at two-year colleges, which suggests that student performance rather than not public relations activities is the key to the image of the institution. He states that students are better image builders because their success or failure is weighed heavily by their peers. Nagel conducted a national poll which surveyed 339 college presidents of two year community colleges. The college presidents assessed 39 factors affecting institutional images. Of the factors the college presidents reported on, student related factors ranked higher in relative importance than did traditional public relations tactics. Student word of mouth, student faculty relationships, and student success after college all received high marks from the college administrators. In terms of word of mouth, students attending two year colleges are usually in transition to four year colleges or technical schools and trying to advance to the next level. If they are successful, their praise (does not go unwarranted) and does much for the school’s image. College presidents state that this sort of praise is better than any public relations tactic. The relationships which students foster with their professors are also a proven tool in the retention of students. If students feel they are receiving the necessary help and encouragement from faculty, they will continue to spend their time and money at the institution. Though each of these factors is highly important in building a student’s image and reputation, the study did not reveal whether these administrators were familiar with public relations or not. The study asserts however that students who come to two- year colleges and universities usually do so out of a need to and will not be easily swayed from one institution over another because these are commonly transitional schools. The study seems to lack a full 18 discussion on what public relations is and how it contributes to a school’s competitiveness despite its distinction as two year or four year colleges.

Gehrung (1980) suggests that despite the fact that college presidents need public relations

professionals to enhance the image of the school, the professionals have some image building to

do of their own. He offers constructive ways public relations professionals might try and

strengthen their images. He states that public relations professionals are seen as “mother’s little

helper.” He further asserts that many view public relations professionals as a light weight,

someone who says “What this college needs most is a damned good plaque” (quoted in Ryans

and Shanklin, 1986, p. 108). Gehrung maintains that if professionals in this field want to gain the ear of the college presidents to enhance the image of their respective institutions we must not be along for the ride but behind the driver’s seat. He says, “You’re perceived as hype oriented.

Some say that you’re always thinking in terms of a media event. You’re seen as a service person—like the plumber, the electrician, or the security guard. As a result, you’re not taken seriously, and you’re not asked to help set college policy” (Gehrung, 1980, p. 108).

This example may indeed serve as one reason public relations professionals are not given

the equal chance to work on behalf of their organizations. Marketing professionals have received

the greatest opportunities to institute this type of change at their universities in large part because

their field has not had to struggle with negative depictions. Gehrung (1980) suggests that public

relations professionals may want to take inventory of themselves, meaning public relations

professionals should begin to ask themselves key questions which will address whether they feel

they have the president’s ear. For example, questions could range from, “Would my president

seek me out to discuss the institution’s trustee relations? Would it occur to him or her that my

counsel would be beneficial? (For that matter would it be?). Would my president consult me in 19 advance as to what the community’s reaction might be to a proposed college policy? Such questions may begin to help professionals see what others think about the profession and how these images can be strengthened so that public relations professionals may effect change.

Gehrung (1980) not only asserts that professionals should take inventory of their jobs but also do things to show initiative so that they may be seen as credible sources. Two of the most important points which he projects are to know the institution’s identity in which you work and to determine what makes your institution distinctive. He states that public relations professionals must nourish and project their school, college or university to foster the type of image they want their particular organization to have.

The literature to date does examine several approaches universities can take to ensure that public relations contributes to their effectiveness as organizations, but none except Berger and

Reber (2006) take into consideration whether or not practitioners feel they have influence within their organizations. Without this piece, practitioners will not be able to accomplish the level of success many historically black colleges are in dire need of acquiring. Gehrung (1980) points out however, that despite how big or how small the public relations office may be, the president of the university serves as the chief public relations officer. He states, “A part of your institution’s charisma is the charisma or (substance) of your president. And whatever you can do to add to the latter will benefit the former and can provide your institution’s competitive edge” (Gehrung,

1980, p. 116).

Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Now more than ever colleges are forced to compete even harder for students. Tuition for

most colleges has steadily increased, and the push for exceptional students has become an

increasingly harder task for colleges and universities. Historically Black Colleges and 20

Universities compete each year along with majority schools to recruit the best and brightest minds while at the same time enhancing and sustaining their images.

Toward the close of the Civil War and throughout Reconstruction (1863-1877), the responsibility for providing instruction for the mostly illiterate former slaves was shared among the federal government through its Bureau of Refugees, Freedman, and Abandoned Lands

(Freedman’s Bureau); a number of church- related missionary societies in the North, and blacks themselves (Roebuck and Murty, 1993). Currently there are 105 historically black colleges and universities, 62 private and 43 public, each with the sole purpose of educating all students regardless of race but with a historical and contemporary mission of “serving a population that has lived under severe legal, educational, economic, political, and social restrictions” (Roebuck and Murty, 1993, p. 3). Today 80 percent of African American students are enrolled in predominately White institutions, with HBCUs accounting for one-fourth of the nation’s African

American graduates (Brown and Freeman, 2002).

Overall, black colleges and universities represent three percent of the total number of

American colleges and universities. However, their presence has contributed to the placement of blacks in highly respected fields and in graduate and professional schools at a rate not seen at majority institutions. Xavier University in New Orleans for example, the only historically Black and Catholic university, has the nation in placing African Americans into medical school for eight consecutive years. According to data released by the Association of American Medical

Colleges, Xavier University continues to enroll almost double the number of entering medical students in the field in comparison to other top producers of black doctors such as Spelman

College and Harvard University. Howard University, also known as the “Black Harvard,” has positioned itself as the intellectual and cultural Mecca of historically black colleges and 21 universities. According to Black Issues in Higher Education, Howard University in Washington,

D.C., continues to lead the way in the number of doctoral and postgraduate degrees awarded to

African Americans of any institution in the United States.

Although not all black colleges are struggling financially, on the whole their endowments are meager compared to majority institutions. Like all institutions of higher learning, HBCUs have had to work extremely hard at maintaining and establishing good solid images, but the

HBCUs’ destinies depend on it. The endowments of HBCUs in most cases are significantly

lower than at most majority schools, and the schools are on a steady decline. A predominately

white institution like Emory University, for example, has an endowment of $4.3 billion, while

Tulane’s endowment was just over $1 billion in 2005. Howard University has the largest HBCU

endowment at $128 million, yet that pales in comparison to the endowments of Harvard

University, Princeton University, and the University of Texas system (Council for Aid to

Education, 2001). Howard is not the only historically black college or university exceeding its

capital campaigns. Spelman College in Atlanta has an endowment of more than $244 million

dollars and has become one of the most competitive institutions in the country to which to gain

admission. The historically black, all female institution consistently ranks at the top of all college

rankings for liberal arts colleges black or white including US News & World Report and Black

Enterprise. With this type of image building the college is certainly one of the most competitive in the nation.

Spelman College’s nearby neighbor, Morehouse College—both are a part of the Atlanta

University Center—is one of only five remaining all male institutions and has done much in

terms of image and reputation building during the last decade. Ranked number one three times in

a row by Black Enterprise Magazine as the best undergraduate school for African Americans, its 22 prestige has led to it often being termed a member of the Black Ivy League of colleges and universities (Black Enterprise, 2004).

Because of these issues, most of the public relations research which focuses on HBCUs has approached this subject from the standpoint of fundraising rather than image building or strengthening credibility. Although historically black colleges and universities have suffered tremendous financial damage, many of them have interesting stories of survival which could be used to facilitate greater understanding of the striving of HBCUs and aid in the promotion of such institutions. Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee is one example of such stories. Fisk was founded in 1866 and was founded as Fisk Freed School for the Colored. From its inception there were financial burdens and the university was on the brink of closing its doors. The world renowned Fisk Jubilee Singers, composed of students who traveled from across the country to attend the school, set sail on an international tour to raise money for the dying university. It was the ingenious idea of the university treasurer to organize this singing group of students who later introduced Negro Spirituals or “freedom songs” to the world. The Jubilee Singers left the campus for a tour of the United States and Europe in 1871 and did not return until 1878 with the money needed to save the university and to construct Jubilee Hall, the oldest permanent structure for the education of the Negro in the South. The Jubilee Singers sang before Queen Victoria and she commissioned her court painter to paint a portrait of the Jubilee Singers which currently hangs in the historic hall today. “To this day, Black college administrators have continued to be ingenious, pragmatic, and hopeful” (Willie, Reddick and Brown). Other studies dedicated to fundraising and HBCUs have considered the marketing capabilities of the institution or have analyzed specific factors to determine the fund raising effectiveness (Evans, 1986; Brown, 1998;

Williams, 1992). None of the studies approached fund raising from the communications 23 perspective or dissected the approaches in terms of fund raising and public relations theory

(Tindall, 2002).

Conclusion

Although the current body of literature involving public relations in higher education is

expanding, much of the literature uses the lens of the larger marketing function. Although the

main objective of most institutions is to increase enrollment and to find ways to increase funding,

studies of higher education overshadow public relations as “a management function that

establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships.” This particular gap in the literature

reflects a greater problem in practice: practitioners’ difficulty in explaining what public relations

is, why it is needed, and why practitioners need to be more than marketing personnel. The study

of public relations at HBCUs is relatively un-chartered territory. The body of literature in this

domain as it relates to public relations is rooted in fundraising. Though funding is a priority for

all institutions of higher learning, most studies involving public relations at historically black

colleges has been rooted in this subject out of necessity. Moreover, although this is a critical area

of research for HBCUs, there does lack a critical assessment of public relations as a viable

management function at these institutions as well. There is also a critical need for research in the

area of public relations practitioner’s influence at HBCUs in particular. Generally speaking, the

literature concerning the influence of public relations practitioners in other fields is making

strides while historically black colleges and universities continue to lag behind in this area of

research. Public relations practitioners who work at HBCUs have not been assessed in any

capacity, meaning that public relations research remains one-dimensional in that virtually no literature exists in this area.

Research Questions

This study sought to replicate and extend the study conducted by Berger and Reber in

2004. Therefore the research questions examined in this study are essentially the same with slight modifications to reflect the type of institution being examined. The research questions posed for this study are the following:

RQ1: How do practitioners working at HBCUs define influence?

RQ2: Do public relations practitioners at HBCUs feel as if they possess influence?

RQ3: What is the nature of constraints on their influence?

RQ4: Which influence resources do practitioners find to be the most valuable on the job and which are in the shortest supply?

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Based on Berger and Reber’s study, this research consisted of interviews with 25 public relations professionals. The interviews included both semi-structured and open-ended questions

(See Appendix). The shortest interview was 15 minutes and the longest was 1 hour; they averaged 30 minutes. Of the more than one hundred Historically Black Colleges and Universities currently in existence today, a total of twenty-five public relations professionals currently working at HBCUs were interviewed. Therefore, the participants involved in this study constitute roughly one-fourth of public relations officers employed at HBCUs today. Out of all of the practitioners contacted, not a single one declined to participate although many had scheduling conflicts which prevented the interview from taking place as originally planned.

Participants were contacted using the snowball method, a way of recruiting participants by getting practitioners to recommend other candidates who might be interested in the study. The researcher was introduced to the first set of practitioners at a conference for black academicians,

“Brothers of the Academy” (BOTA), and through Black Excel, a Web site which compiles information concerning historically black colleges. Since the Web site did not have complete contact information for all colleges and universities, the researcher obtained the practitioner’s telephone numbers and e-mail addresses through their university web sites. E-mail messages were then sent to the public relations professionals whose information was obtained. In that initial e-mail message, the purpose of the research was explained, and each practitioner was asked to respond to the message, indicating if he or she were the correct person to participate in the study and if they would agree to participate. A follow-up e-mail message was sent to those practitioners who did not respond to the first contact. If that message was not returned, phone 26 calls were placed to the university public relations office to check the validity of the contact information and to schedule a telephone interview. In the end, the twenty-five professionals reflected a range of institution types—public and private, small and large.

The interviews were conducted over the phone and were recorded and transcribed for accuracy. The interviews followed all of the regulations prescribed by the Institutional Review

Board, and pseudonyms were used to protect the confidentiality of each of the practitioners.

Berger and Reber’s (2006) discussion guide and questionnaire were employed to assess the opinions of practitioners working at HBCUs slightly altered to reflect their employment at

HBCUs.

Common themes were grouped after the researcher looked "for metaphors, for repetition of words, and for shifts in content" in the interviews and from the literature review (Ryan &

Bernard, 2000, p. 780). The most common responses provided by practitioners were then extracted for further examination.

The average participant was a middle aged black female with a Bachelor’s degree in a communications field. Sixty-eight percent of the participants in general were women. Seven of the male participants were black; one was white. Two of the participants were white females.

Table 1 Sample for the Influence Interviews Race Female Actual Male Actual Total

African American 60% 15 28% 7 22

Caucasian 8% 2 4% 1 3

Totals 68% 17 32% 8 25

Fourteen of the participants possessed a bachelor’s degree and ten also possessed a

Master’s degree. One possessed a doctorate. A majority of the practitioners were veterans in the field of communications and public relations with eight of the participants possessing more than twenty years in the field. Three had more than thirty years of experience in the field. One of the twenty-five participants in the study was a volunteer who worked for an institution who did not have a structured office of communications and public relations. Of the participating institutions, fifteen were public HBCUs and ten were private.

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

RQ1: How do practitioners working at HBCUs define influence?

Overall, most practitioners were generally split in terms of how they defined influence.

Ten of the twenty-five respondents defined influence as “having a seat at the decision making table” whereas eleven defined influence as being able to effectively enhance the overall reputation of their institutions.

Table 2 How Practitioners at HBCUs Define Influence

Influence Percentage # Responses Responses

Effectively enhancing 44% 11 the overall reputation of the institution.

Possessing a “seat at the 40% 10 decision-making table”

Being able to effectively manage the flow of 16% 4 communications among various stakeholders.

Kenneth, a practitioner representing a small, private, liberal arts institution stated:

I have a good relationship here; I am allowed to attend cabinet meetings that the president holds with his senior cabinet even though I am not technically a vice-president. I am one of the few people in the room who is not a vice-president who sits in and listens to things in advance and has a chance to interject or to offer my perspective as a 25 year veteran of media and public relations. That is influence to me.

Christopher, a practitioner representing a large, southern state university shared a similar perspective stating:

For public relations to be effective in any organization the practitioner must sit at the decision making table, that is to say that we must be among senior level decision makers so that we are in a position to not only communicate effectively to various stakeholders and potential stakeholders but we are also well abreast in terms of organizational needs and can mitigate crises if they arise.

Of the participants who felt this way, many used similar terminology to convey these sentiments. Julie, a practitioner at a large, southwestern state university stated:

Influence means to me that you have a seat at the table, that you are affecting the policy making and decision making and that you’re just not the implementer of someone else’s strategic direction.”

On the other hand many practitioners defined influence in terms of their ability to foster a more positive image for their universities. Among the practitioners who framed influence this way, most made reference to “changing how the outside views us” and the ability to build the school’s reputation. Debra, a practitioner representing a smaller state institution stated, “I would say that public relations influence involves presenting the university in its best light, regardless of the situations and challenges at hand.”

As indicated in Table 1, only a handful of practitioners defined influence as something other than “possessing a seat at the decision making table” or effectively enhancing the reputation of their institutions. As Berger and Reber suggested, practitioners more than likely associated a seat at the decision making table with “being in a position to contribute to and affect strategic discussions, decisions, and actions” (Berger and Reber, 2006, p. 19).

The major finding of this research question is the fact that practitioners at HBCUs seem to have a dual position in terms of how they define influence as well as how they should effectively do their jobs. This is extremely noteworthy considering the fact that having a voice 30 and a seat at the table is just as important at an HBCU as being able to effectively repair the image and the reputation of the institution. As we will learn later in the study, this can be attributed to the abundance of negative media generated about HBCUs. Valerie, a practitioner representing a large, northeastern state university indicates: “influence includes all of the factors that determine how the outside views us and how we view ourselves.”

Practitioners at HBCUs define influence in many of the same ways as their counterparts in other fields of practice. Although it is not absolutely clear from the responses of public relations professionals whether or not most operate in the technician role, their insistence that gaining a seat at the table is most important may be an indication that several of them feel as if they need more influence to make decisions.

In examining how practitioners define influence, it is necessary to determine who they serve when influencing organizational decisions and communications. It is only by knowing who the practitioner is serving in influencing decisions, that their definition of influence can be fully understood.

Practitioners at HBCUs overwhelmingly felt as if they were influencing organizational decisions and communications primarily in the interest of their institutions. Practitioners felt that this was their chief responsibility and everything else fell under this central duty. Susan, a practitioner at a large, public institution stated:

Categorically, I represent the university. I have definitely put my own interest in the backseat. I have actually represented the university in situations where I was personally opposed to. They have had speakers on campus that I was personally opposed to and I went out and got the press for them anyway. I would like to think that helping [my institution] is helping the public at large, but I don’t see a distinguishing factor there, but I am not willing to sacrifice the publics good for the university.

Table 3 Whose Interests Do You Serve First? Interests Served Percentage Responses Actual Response

My institution 80% 20

Myself 0 0

Institution’s publics 0 0

Society at Large 8% 2

In Combination 12% 3

Although a majority of the practitioners cited their institutions as the primary reason for

trying to influence organizational communications, actions and decisions, many of them cited

different reasons for doing so. James, a practitioner at a large, state institution stated:

Everything and anything I do is in the best interest of this institution. And it’s essentially because of the students, they are our reason for being here.

Theresa, a practitioner at an all female, liberal arts institution stated:

Oh, I represent the university. If the institution is strong, all of those other things will come behind it. We must be in it for the institution.

Practitioners cited many different reasons for attempting to influence actions within their

organizations, but the consensus seems to be that their institutions come first.

RQ2: Do public relations practitioners at HBCUs feel as if they possess influence?

From the responses given by public relations professionals who work at historically black

institutions, it is difficult to assess whether practitioners at HBCUs feel as if they possess enough

influence. Some of the findings suggest that practitioners feel as if they do possess influence

while the responses to other questions are too close to derive a clear-cut conclusion. The 32

difference between the percentages of practitioners who feel as if they possess influence in

comparison to the percentage of practitioners who feel as if they do not possess influence was

too narrowly defined. For example, Table 4 below shows how practitioners perceived their

influence. The sixty-five practitioners in Berger and Reber’s study overwhelmingly felt as if they

did not possess enough influence with ten practitioners indicating little to no influence and about

one third indicating yes and no (Berger and Reber, 2004). Practitioners at HBCUs were by

contrast split in their assessment of their influence.

Table 4 Practitioners’ Beliefs About Their Influence

Answers F M Total Percentage Yes, I have enough influence 7 5 12 48%

No, I don’t have enough influence 9 1 10 40%

Yes and No: Sometimes I have enough influence 2 1 3 12%

When asked if practitioners influenced organizational communications, decisions, and

actions to the extent they should, most practitioners responded that they did, because they

possessed a seat at the decision making table. Kenneth states:

Yes. Because of the ability to participate in the weekly senior level cabinet meetings, I do have a regular schedule. Meeting with the president one on one, twice a month, is a good opportunity to talk with him. It is a good working relationship with the man at the top, and it has helped that I have somewhat of a public profile before coming on board, so my integrity is rarely challenged.

Carolyn, a practitioner at a small, northeastern state university had a similar perspective,

stating:

I think yes, I do. Well, public relations fall under institutional advancement but we are at the table when major decisions are being made. We ask them to provide us with firsthand information when information is being filtered down so that we are at the table when something is unfolding. We are telling them about marketing the institution and how it has to be done. 33

Still, not all of the practitioners feel as if they possess enough influence within their organizations. Of the respondents who felt as if they did not influence organizational communications, actions, and decisions to the extent that they should, each emphasized a lack of knowledge concerning the field of public relations.

I would say that I feel that I am able to influence it more and more but still not to the extent that I should. Of all the different jobs and departments on campus, I think the job of a public relations professional is the least understood. For instance, there are people who I work with who expect more from the public relations office than is included in our scope of responsibility. By that I mean if they send information they fully expect to see it in the newspaper. I find myself constantly having to say, I don’t work for the newspaper, this is how we can probably increase our likelihood that they will publish this.

Tamara, a practitioner representing a large, public institution shared a similar perspective stating:

I definitely do but probably not to the extent that I should. The challenge is as a state agency you have a legislative process that includes a governmental relations officer and in our case, a system’s governmental relations officer and there are a lot of decisions that happen and I don’t know who’s moving it or controlling it, to be honest. The other part of that is because so many of the decisions are driven by the budget, there are lot of decisions that get made based solely on money that really don’t have a lot to do with money. They treat our strategic objective as if it is simply black and white and dollars and cents. In those instances I feel I have little organizational influence.

Another question also indicated the level of influence they possessed. Practitioners were asked “which aspect of your institution do you believe is most impacted by your job as a public relations practitioner: admissions, recruitment and retention, alumni contributions/ alumni development or funding?” A majority of the practitioners felt that they have an impact on every aspect of their institution and found it difficult to choose only one. Many began their response with, “we impact and influence all of these areas.” Despite this, participants most commonly felt 34 that they significantly impacted admissions and recruitment efforts within their institutions as a result of their job as a public relations practitioner.

Table 5 The Area of My Institution I Impact the Most Area Percentage Responses Actual Responses

Admissions 36% 9

Recruitment/Retention 24% 6

Alumni Development/Funding 24% 6

In Combination 16% 4

Christina, a practitioner representing a small, southeastern university stated:

I would like to think that the way we operate we influence all of that with different reasons. You can say that the business is the students and if we don’t have that, then we don’t have a sale anyway, so perhaps admissions and retention.

Other practitioners cited funding and development as key areas which are greatly

impacted by their jobs as public relations practitioners. Jennifer, a practitioner representing a

large southwestern university states:

Fundraising. We do a lot in terms of trying to raise friends, then by raising friends we can bring in that investment piece so that they are willing to deal with us. If we have those investors then we can do all of those other things with admissions, enrollment, retention, etc.

Practitioners at HBCUs also assessed their level of influence in how they responded to the question, “Please describe an important issue or situation that you institution confronted

where you helped influence what the institution did or said in response to this situation or issue.”

Kenneth who represents a small private liberal arts institution discussed his institutions handling

of Hurricane Katrina: 35

We were foresighted enough during the year leading up to Katrina to address the issue of having an emergency communication plan. During that year we decided to acquire a micro web site, we have a whole server somewhere else that hosted a skeleton of our website, whenever there was an emergency. We also contracted with a company to create our own toll free 1-800 number, that would be easy for staff and students to remember in the case of an emergency. Katrina came along and knocked us out well past what we expected, but unlike our counterparts we did have that plan. Everyday I did daily updates by phone and we had the micro web site for messages. Within two weeks we were up and running with our restored web site in another location. We took on the creating another online newsletter that went out every ten days or so. We sent thousands of e-mails out letting them know that we are coming back. We kept them informed every step of the way. Four and a half months later we had a seventy percent return rate because of our constant communication.

Kym, a practitioner representing a large Southeastern university stated:

For example, last season we hosted [a reality show about college life], but we really had a great deal of influence because the show had to come through our office and I feel like people really listened and act upon our advice in that situation. We had alumni calling and supporters saying, “Hey, what is this?” Even students complained about the show and expressed their disapproval. I feel that people let us have total control over that including our president. They really allowed our office to take the wheel and make decisions. Our office was used to handling those kinds of crises, and it allowed people to see where we were coming from. We drafted statements from the president to our alumni and alumni chapters. We also had forums with the students because some were not satisfied with how the university looked, and we also drafted talking points for all of the key administrators to have.

From the responses given by practitioners at HBCUs, it appears that many of the public relations professionals have the opportunity to influence what will be said or done in response to a situation or action that has occurred.

RQ3: What is the nature of constraints on their influence?

Practitioners responded to this particular question in a number of ways. For example, several practitioners believe they lack a big enough budget for their department to effectively do their job. They felt that a larger budget for public relations would help them increase the size of their staffs and improve the quality and span of their work.

36 Table 6 Most Needed PR Influence Resources Influence Resource Percentage Response Actual Response

Financial Constraints 36% 9

Poor Website 12% 3

Lack of staff 20% 5

Professional Development 12% 3

Measurement Device 12% 3

Arlene, a practitioner representing a small, southeastern private, HBCU stated;

The point is to make them understand that this is not just about making us look good or being picky about grammar and syntax, its about if you give me the money and resources to do what needs to be done, it will positively impact our recruitment efforts and our development efforts.

Keith, a practitioner representing a small religious affiliated university shared a similar sentiment:

Money. In every category we need more hands; there are not enough people doing what I do in my office. We need publications staff at HBCUs and therefore, we are forced to wear so many different hats and it’s hard to do anything well.

Others said a larger budget would help bring awareness to their institutions and allow them the opportunity to better advertise and market their schools.

Financial constraints were not the only influence resources needed. Practitioners also mentioned the need for improved university web sites, a better way to evaluate their performance, and more professional development opportunities. Each of these influence resources were mentioned by an equal number of practitioners. Kenneth offered his perspective again, stating: 37

I would say our most needed influence resource is a budget for direct advertisement. I operate like most HBCUs with a budget that has always been here1, despite having been here for three years. My recently departed VP sort of left things the way they were. I am anxious to see us embrace a more aggressive posture as a major corporate entity that has to be concerned with keeping its recruitment up and improving its enrollment, which has been hurt by Hurricane Katrina.

The bottom line is that many public relations departments at HBCUs suffer from a clear

lack of financial resources.

Table 7 What Limits Your Influence? Source Percentage Responses Actual Responses

President 12% 3

Board of Trustees 4% 1

Faculty/Staff 44% 11

State/Board of Regents 8% 2

None 28% 7

All of the Above 4% 1

To further examine the nature of constraints practitioners at HBCUs experience,

practitioners were asked to describe two to three organizational factors or forces which reduce

their influence. A majority of practitioners said that faculty and administrators reduced or limited

their influence as public relations professionals. Respondents stated that they felt this way

because faculty members rely upon their academic freedom and sometimes bypass the office of

public relations. For example, Tiffany, a practitioner representing a large, southeastern private

university stated:

1 (the budgets at many HBCUs rarely grows despite growth in other areas of the institution), 38

I feel that especially for my public relations staff they are very young, all of us are under 35. Most of the faculty are many years older than that and also have terminal degrees and it’s a clash of forces where you have younger staff who have higher degrees but don’t have terminal degrees. There is a different mindset in dealing with things like media and deadlines, whereas faculty members like to study, research and write. This becomes a difficult situation because sometimes media likes to talk to someone today and everybody in academia are very focused and don’t want the materials presented in an eighth grade fashion; which we have to do in order to make it available to the masses.

Cheryl, a practitioner representing a large, southern public university shared a similar perspective:

I would say that faculty and administration sometimes reduce our influence. The reason I say the faculty is because they are a strong voice and they know that they have a strong voice and oftentimes use their academic freedom and are not worried about consequences. Many of them know they have the freedom to say whatever. For example, we had some internal issues I guess you could say and some of the faculty were upset about some things and went straight to the newspapers and started talking. It was a little difficult to get a handle on because you didn’t know who the person was.

Many of the practitioners mentioned having to balance what they believed to be best for the institution with what faculty and other university members believed to be best.

Seven of the twenty-five practitioners said there were no organizational factors or forces which reduced or limited their influence as public relations professionals. Practitioners stated they felt this way because of their seat at the decision making table, which provided them a voice among the decision makers. One practitioner stated:

I don’t think any of those factors reduce our influence, I believe they enhance it. We are really not hindered other than what would limit us legally and part of a non-profit organization. Those are the only limitations that we have. We are autonomous in the fact that we can do whatever we want within the law.

Linda shared a similar perspective stating:

None of those factors reduce or limit my influence. I get strong support from every single entity from the highest levels of the university, from the chancellor to the Board of Trustees. I am getting the opportunity to do what I think is in the best interest of the university.

Although only seven of the twenty-five practitioners felt as if no organizational factors reduced or limited their influence, this could be good news for the other eighty HBCUs who have practitioners who feel as if no organizational factors hinder their influence.

Finally, a small fraction of practitioners also felt as if there was not an influence resource they lacked which would strengthen their ability to shape organizational communications, decisions and actions. This percentage of practitioners felt as every resource needed was provided to them, including access to the president and the highest levels of administration. When asked if he could identify an influence resource he did not have or lacked, Kenneth said:

Actually not right off. I have really good support from the president of the university. My particular department is now under the president’s office whereas we use to be under institutional advancement. Anything I need she supports 100 percent. James agreed. I am fortunate in that I have a chancellor who makes every resource available to me so that I may function at the highest levels. In that regard I am extremely fortunate.

Participants were also asked to describe their greatest obstacle faced while working at an

HBCU.

Table 8 What is the Greatest Obstacle you Face at an HBCU Obstacle Percentage Response Actual Response

Lack of Financial Resources 32% 8

Lack of Staff 12% 3

Lack of understanding/respect for PR 24% 6

Image/Perception of HBCUs 28% 7

Internal Issues 4% 1

Practitioners were fairly divided on this issue, with most citing financial constraints as the greatest obstacle, followed by the perception and image of HBCUs, and the lack of understanding concerning public relations. 40

While historically black institutions are no stranger to financial hardships, practitioners mentioned that larger budgets and more resources for their office could mean more dollars for the institution. This was another indication of the high level of perceived influence practitioners at HBCUs possess. They believe that with more staff and more resources their offices can greatly enhance how their institution as a whole operates. Melissa, a practitioner representing a small, religious affiliated, private institution stated:

My greatest obstacle is financial resources and securing personnel. Right now we have a team of one in our public relations office and we need about a team of seven. We need an advertising/marketing specialist, graphic design artist, webmaster, staff writer, publications manager and a photographer. My greatest challenge is trying to be all things to all people with limited time and resources.

Many of the obstacles referenced by practitioners at HBCUs are interconnected. For example, the lack of financial resources at historically black institutions can be attributed to at least some of the negative coverage given to these particular colleges and universities in media.

Lynn, a practitioner representing a large, public institution, stated:

I think the greatest obstacle I face at an HBCU is the perception that we are less than. This issue goes back to why the negative stories that come out of HBCUs get more press than positive stories. It seems to be, that is what people expect to hear about us.

Diane, a practitioner representing a large, state, institution shared a similar perspective:

I would say that it is the fact that we can’t control what people think. We try our best to create an image and have a brand but we can’t control what our publics think, we can only try to persuade them, that that is the greatest obstacle. Trying to maintain the integrity of HBCUs at a time when people don’t really see the value of them anymore. I also think we are losing our reputation and identity.

Practitioners also mentioned the lack of knowledge many people have concerning public relations. Many participants believe this is the reason many of their offices are under-funded.

Upper-level administrators who do not possess a comprehensive or even fundamental knowledge of the role public relations plays in a university setting may be reluctant to channel resources to 41 these departments. Linda, a practitioner representing one of the largest HBCUs in the country said:

My greatest obstacle is getting people to understand what public relations really is. Everybody thinks they understand it but very few people really do. Continually you are educating people trying to help them understand. However, I think once a president comes in here who gets it [public relations], they will be more in step with what we’re doing and be on the sidelines watching less.

Susan, a practitioner representing a large, southwestern institution shared a similar perspective stating:

The greatest obstacle I face is the lack of respect for the public relations office and its functions. I also believe we lack the proper resources and funding to do our jobs effectively. I simply believe we must do a better job of defining what public relations is exactly.

One practitioner also discussed how she helped her institution deal with one of their greatest obstacles, the controversial topic of diversity at her historically black institution. She discussed how she was able to convince her president that the issue of diversity was one that their institution needed to pursue.

I think I have made a difference in how we’ve been able to position ourselves on the diversity issue. It’s about dollars and numbers and enrollment fees. We have to increase [enrollment]. The natural place to do that is in the Latino population. We will always be a historically black university and it the first opportunity we get to tell our story to people who don’t look like us. It’s a big issue and it’s not over, but I feel like I have been able to influence how he discusses and approaches it.

A number of examples like this one surfaced with practitioners providing specific examples of how they were able to be influential regarding the obstacles they faced within their institutions. Public relations professionals discussed how they overcame the negative press associated with many HBCUs by talking directly with the sources that produce it: local and national outlets. 42

A few of the practitioners described in length having to sit down with members of their local newspapers and ask, “Why do you only pay attention to negative things when it comes to my institution?” All of the practitioners agreed, that proactive steps must be taken to ensure that media outlets give fair and balanced coverage, but some practitioners cited local media with ignoring positive press releases and positive events which occur on their campuses.

Table 9 What Influence Sources or Resources Do You Draw From? Sources Percentage Response Actual Response

Work experience & Education 32% 8

Staff 4% 1

Access to the president/seat at the table 20% 5

Media/Marketing Tools 20% 5

Relationships in the field 16% 4

The ability to meet goals/objectives 4% 1

The university’s history 4% 1

RQ4: Which influence resources do you find to be the most valuable on the job?

A majority of practitioners felt as if their biggest influence resources come from work experience and education. Several officers alluded to the fact that oftentimes the tenure of presidents at HBCUs is short lived and therefore many of them have worked within their institutions longer than their superiors. Sandra, a practitioner representing a small liberal arts institution, said:

Most of it comes from experience; I guess one drawback is that sometimes the management is short termed at HBCUs because of political pressures and the like, and if you 43 have a public relations team that has been around for a while that knows the institution’s culture, it can be a big benefit to the president if he/she decides to use the office.

Respondents linked work experience to education very frequently when describing influence resources. Brian, a practitioner representing a large, southeastern university explained:

My influence comes from my experience, education and professionalism which combine to make a good public relations officer. Education in a communications related field dominated many of the conversations about influence resources and seemed to provide practitioners with a frame of reference when handling crises or conflicts within their organizations. Many of the public relations practitioners felt that the intersection of several influence resources increased their ability to be influential. Most often this intersection was education and work experience in the field.

The second most common response among practitioners was having a direct line to the president. Practitioners seemed to view being able to communicate directly with the president about issues relating to the university on an on-going basis as a form of having a seat at the table.

Tracey, a practitioner representing a large, private northeastern university stated:

The other thing is that I have a good working relationship with the president and executive officers which means that there is not much that goes on around here that I don’t get a say in. If I think it will have an impact that they did not consider, they have an open door policy for our office and we can call or e-mail to fuss or warn or caution, which are all things I have to do sometimes.

Susan agreed:

One of the most valuable influence resources I have is access to the highest decision makers as well as a seat at the table. Anytime something major is being done- not finding out afterwards and having access to highly confidential information on a daily basis whether I use it or not. It provides a framework in which the messages can be built.

Joanne, a practitioner working at a small, religious affiliated, private institution states:

It’s hard to say what’s the most important but having the president’s support is the most valuable resource. I know for sure that there are people who would love to ignore me and what I want but know that they can’t because he’s going to support me or at least listen to what I have to say and that will be a part of the decision making.

Practitioners were also asked to describe two or three influence resources which were most valuable to them. Table 10 displays each of the responses for the twenty-five practitioners at HBCUs.

Table 10 Most Valuable Influence Resources Sources Percentage Responses Actual Responses

Students 16% 4

Faculty/Staff 16% 4

Alumni 8% 2

External Stakeholders 16% 4

Media/Marketing Tools 32% 8

Access to the Pres./a seat at the Table 20% 5

Access to confidential information 12% 3

A majority felt as if media tools such as press releases, news releases and radio and television were among the most valuable influence resources. Lael, a practitioner representing a small, southern, public institution stated:

My most valuable influence resources are the television and radio stations. I have used my time around here to help establish those contacts, and I believe they greatly enhance recruitment efforts as well as how our institution is perceived.

Practitioners also cited in the discussion of media tools, more enhanced and interactive websites.

Tim, a practitioner representing a small, private, liberal arts institution stated: 45

I believe the internet is a valuable influence resource in practice. It’s important to see what the other institutions are doing as well as the public relations monthly newsletter that comes from PRSA. It let’s me know that I’m either behind, on target or ahead.

Diane spoke very passionately about her use of media tools stating:

As a public relations professional my most valued tool is the news release. To put pen to paper and outline a particular program, student or faculty member is priceless. Being able to write about what’s going on concerning one of those things is invaluable.

Practitioners believe that media tools are necessary to enhance the overall reputation and image of HBCUs. These tools were seen as valuable in that they would help better market their institutions and help them recruit more students.

Outside of media tools, practitioners also equally mentioned students, faculty/staff, and external stakeholders as valuable influence resources. Some practitioners felt, as Barbara put it,

“the students are why we are here and if they aren’t happy, we are not effectively doing are jobs.”

Cheryl had a similar perspective and stated:

I believe our students are our most valuable influence resource because they are our customers and they provide us the necessary feedback to determine if we are doing a good job and meeting our mission that our founders had in establishing this institution.

Cassandra, a practitioner representing a small, private institution stated:

The students are our most valuable resource. Like most schools, we are a tuition driven campus and are always looking at how to bring in moor students. I always run a lot of commercial ideas and copy of scripts by certain students to see if it would attract them. I also utilize them when I make a public relations decision a media bond. I look at demographics because we are a HBCU which means that I most likely am going to advertise with a urban radio station. So students are good resources to gauge the market so to speak, only they know what is catchy.

The fact that practitioners at HBCUs only mentioned seven valuable influence resources is quite significant considering that the sixty-five practitioners in Berger and Reber’s study mentioned more than two dozen. It serves as another indication that practitioners at HBCUs have 46

very little time to think about anything that does not include financial restraints and/or “bad press.”

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

In eight out of 12 questions asked, public relations practitioners mentioned the phrase

“having a seat at the decision making table.” Though other important factors were mentioned in terms of how practitioners framed influence, such as the ability to enhance the reputation of their universities, education, and experience, the most consistent response was having direct access to the president and upper levels of administration.

This means that practitioners at historically black colleges and universities recognize their need for influence and believe that upper level administrators must recognize it as well.

Practitioners believe that if their presidents better understood public relations then their attempts to increase their budget areas and staff would be much easier. In fact, among the practitioners who indicated that their presidents understood public relations, many of them also indicated having adequate staff and budget areas. Elaine stated, “I am fortunate in that I have a chancellor who makes every resource available to me so that I may function at the highest levels. In that regard I am extremely fortunate.”

According to practitioners, administrators who fail to recognize their need for influence, also provide smaller budgets for their departments which inhibit their ability to do their jobs.

These findings suggests that practitioners at HBCUs are having to forego thinking about organizational effectiveness and logistics and spend most of their time thinking about ways to improve financial situations. Before practitioners at HBCUs can think about influence resources such as stronger persuasion skills and political skills, which are obviously very important resources to have, they must first be able to meet the very basic needs of their universities. These 48 needs include keeping the flow of communication going in regards to the university and the larger community and handling an abundance of crisis communication situations. Practitioners must begin to demonstrate how public relations can affect every aspect of their university. In fact, when asked, which area of their institution do they impact the most many practitioners said they impacted them all. Part of what practitioners at HBCUs must do better is to provide a means to evaluate their public relations efforts and show how they have impacted each of these areas.

One way to do this is to be involved in many aspects of their universities, even when it appears that something is unrelated to their job. Melissa stated, “I am constantly asking my colleagues, can I serve on this committee and how can I help?” Practitioners must take each and every opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns even when it is not asked of them. Only then can university officials recognize their influence.

Administrators must begin to recognize the importance of practitioners and allocate budgets large enough to effectively do their jobs. This was true for several of the 25 participating institutions involved in this study. The practitioners from these institutions that reported having large enough budgets said that adequate funding increased their effectiveness in media, marketing and their relations with external stakeholders. It also provided administrators with the opportunity to build corporate sponsorship and increase alumni development.

Practitioners at HBCUs shared similar ideas about influence in public relations, as did the

65 practitioners Berger and Reber interviewed. Berger and Reber also concluded that

“definitions of influence by participants in the Influence Interviews included having a seat at the table, possessing persuasive powers with decision makers, controlling communication production processes, producing results, interpreting the needs of external publics, and 49 advocating for the practice with decision makers” ( Berger and Reber, 20). Each of these definitions was also present among practitioners working at HBCUs to at least some extent.

However, public relations directors working at HBCUs also overwhelmingly coupled having access to the president with the ability to enhance reputation. This can in many ways be attributed to their response to the question of “what is the greatest obstacle you face at an

HBCU?” Many of the practitioners cited reputation and image as significant stumbling blocks to get over as public relations officers. Practitioners noted other factors associated with the negative images of HBCUs such as the constant negative coverage given to their universities both locally and nationally.

The 65 practitioners in Berger and Reber’s study most often cited professional experience and relationships with others as the most valuable influence resources. Other highly mentioned influence resources present in their study were performance record and professional expertise.

Berger and Reber state, “Professionals in this study also reported a wide range of influence resources on the job, mentioning more than two dozen. However, more than half of those interviewed indicated that professional experience and relationships with others were among the most valuable influence resources” (Berger and Reber, 85). Other influence resources mentioned in their study had to do more with organizational effectiveness and logistics such as stronger persuasion skills, more time, political skills/knowledge and higher level reporting position.

Practitioners at HBCUs, however, overwhelmingly mentioned influence resources related to their lack of budgetary needs. In fact, practitioners were more likely to discuss the need for additional staff, improved media tools, etc, as opposed to the more logistical resources mentioned by the 65 practitioners in Berger and Reber’s study. In other words, the financial constraints at many 50

HBCUs constrain how practitioners think about influence and force them to think about monetary resources, rather than ways to improve their jobs and the practice as a whole.

HBCU practitioners’ high regard for media tools can be attributed to the excessive amount of negative media surrounding historically black colleges and universities and the crisis situations that seem to saturate much of what the media cover in regard to HBCUs. Practitioners at HBCUs cannot think beyond the confines of financial restraints and negative media coverage.

Unfortunately much of what practitioners at HBCUs consider influence resources has to do with money and press and as a result, limits their influence as practitioners and their infinite possibilities in strengthening their universities. It is also clear from the responses of practitioners that there is a lack of budget purely for advertising and marketing purposes to better equip the university in terms of its public image. Many practitioners cited a lack of understanding about what public relations is as a reason for having a limited public relations budget. One practitioner stated for example:

Getting them to understand what kind of staff level is really necessary to do a credible job seems to be a difficult task. For instance, most of the institutions [HBCUs], and this one is no exception, want to put a director and a secretary in an office and expect you to cover the entire campus, do a media blitz and hold 50 press conferences simultaneously. Though I am exaggerating a bit, I do believe what it takes in these small shops is someone who is committed and creative because essentially you are doing the job of 7 people.

In terms of enhancing the public image of HBCUs, practitioners must not be afraid to call media sources to the table and demand fair and balanced coverage of their institutions. Many of the practitioners at HBCUs mentioned having to hold private meetings with journalists to facilitate dialogue on why only negative events are covered. It was found that building relationships with local media helped circumvent some of the negative press surrounding

HBCUs because journalists felt as if they had an obligation to do what’s right. According to 51 several practitioners, after speaking with local media, journalists were also more likely to try and secure accurate information in the likelihood of a crisis situation as opposed through hear say or word-of-mouth, which they feel has previously been the case.

Work experience was another factor highly mentioned by practitioners throughout a number of questions. Recent studies, (Tindall, “Fund Raiser Roles and Experiences at Public

Historically Black Colleges and Universities” 2006), have linked this to the relatively high turn- over rates of college presidents and high ranking administrators at HBCUs. Practitioners feel as work experience is essential in dealing with the sometimes uncertain climate at many HBCUs, specifically in times of crisis situations. Practitioners mentioned that often times, their tenure has outlasted that of the university president which sometimes makes it difficult to navigate through media and through university protocol. Overall, practitioners at historically black colleges and universities were generally aligned with the practitioners interviewed in Berger and Reber’s study in that they public relations was most commonly defined as “having a seat at the table.”

Practitioners at HBCUs also overwhelmingly defined influence as being able to effectively enhance the reputations of their institutions. This is clearly important to HBCUs because so many of them are in crisis. The split responses given by practitioners working at HBCUs indicates their level of frustration with having to demand a seat at the table in order to be heard while also trying to improve the ways in which their universities are seen. Race did not seem to play a major issue in this study. Although 22 of 25 respondents were black (three were white),

African American practitioners seemed to have the same complaints as their counterparts in the previous study. Many of the public relations officers mentioned working in other industries before coming to a historically black college which could account for this similar response. One of the major misconceptions of HBCUs is that their entire faculty and staff must be 52 predominately black; this is not the case. HBCUs face the same internal and external difficulties as other industries although perhaps to a greater degree. Several practitioners cited faculty and administrators as forces which reduce or limit their influence in practice. This sometimes resulted in what has become known in the public relations field as “whistleblowing.” Redding

(1985), further distinguished whistle blowing as “occurring when individuals inside the organization protest their employer’s decision and actions outside the organization, often through media or governmental agencies” (Berger and Reber, 153). This technique has been found to help some organizations and hurt others. Among practitioners who referenced this technique as being used inside their universities, all of them said it has hurt their university in the long run.

Practitioners also cited faculty as the primary source of these actions within their organizations indicating that faculty sometimes use their academic freedom of expression to “speak out” against the university. Practitioners must ensure that measures are in place to facilitate dialogue among all members of their university communities. They must also ensure that members of the

“dominant coalition” back them on all major decisions which affect their universities from a public relations standpoint. Only then will faculty and other internal activists begin to find ways to express their concerns without bringing harm to their universities.

Although each of the concerns provided by practitioners at HBCUs are worthy of attention, it may be safe to assume that financial hardships make it difficult to do any job effectively, especially in terms of enhancing the reputation or image at these institutions.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Practitioners at historically black colleges and universities define influence in many of the same ways practitioners would working in any organization; that is, it is essential to have a seat and a voice at the table in order to effectively do one’s job. Unfortunately at HBCUs several other things hinder public relations efforts. Obviously one of these factors is funding. According to several practitioners, HBCUs also suffer from the perception that they are inferior. Therefore the efforts to improve their image are much more complicated and involve multiple factors.

Further, because of this perception, practitioners have also had to be proactive in terms of the negative media being garnered as it relates to their institutions.

It seems however that HBCUs are making strides to improve public relations efforts at their institutions. For example, one of the practitioners interviewed is a former president of a major professional organization and brings to the table years of experience and credibility. This study not only builds upon research being done by scholars in the field of public relations, but also builds upon work being done in the areas of fundraising, recruitment and development, and institutional effectiveness as it relates to the continued mission of the preservation of historically black colleges and universities. This study seems to indicate that regardless of race and/or industry type, practitioners feel as if they must possess “a seat at the table” in order to effectively produce change in their organizations.

The major finding of this study is the fact that while 10 out of 25 practitioners defined influenced as “having a seat at the table,” 11 other practitioners defined influence as being able to effectively enhance the overall reputation of their institutions. Practitioners at HBCUs seem to have a dual position in terms of how they define influence as well as how they should effectively 54 do their jobs. It would seem likely that a majority of African American practitioners working at historically black universities would bring a different set of circumstances and challenges to the table. I am convinced however, that the problems mentioned by these practitioners are the same problems other practitioners within the higher educational arena are facing. As Berger and Reber

(2006) stated in their study, “more than half of the participants indicated that being in a position to contribute to and affect strategic discussions, decisions, and actions participating in the strategic decision-making process was what public relations influence meant, or should mean.

This theme was prominent across genders, organizations, and nationalities” (Berger and Reber,

2006, p. 17).

LIMITATIONS

Although the institutions in this study differ significantly from one another in terms of size and type, several of the “elite” historically black institutions were not present in this study.

For example, some HBCUs have endowments greater than 400 million dollars and have been commonly referred to as “Black Ivy League” institutions which denote their age, distinguished graduates, and solid endowments. Other HBCUs have student populations greater than 10,000, have religious affiliations, and are single gender. The addition of “elite” black institutions will help to better assess the work conditions for practitioners at each of the 105 HBCUs.

Another limitation of this study involved the lack of time public relations practitioners could commit for interviewing. Many of them were being pulled in several different directions and could not fully engage themselves in the discussion at hand. In fact, two of the practitioners had to participate in the study while driving to their next appointments. While all of them were very engaged, their response times had to be kept to a minimum. Practitioners seemed to be 55 doing the jobs of many, and several could only find time to be interviewed after hours at their homes. Though the average length of the interviews was 30 minutes, some practitioners indicated that they wished they had more time to fully digest and respond to questions.

Finally, the practitioners interviewed in this study were overwhelmingly African

Americans. A sample consisting of other minorities may yield a new set of ideas concerning influence.

AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

One of the areas that practitioners at HBCUs felt very strongly about was the amount of negative coverage given to them in the media. Practitioners mentioned that oftentimes press releases and media alerts go unnoticed from their institutions from major media outlets but when something negative occurs at their campuses, media comes in abundance. More research needs to be done that examines the amount of negative coverage given to issues at HBCUs versus the amount of negative press given to majority institutions. More research also needs to be considered in terms of the structure and placement of public relations offices within HBCUs.

Many practitioners mentioned that some of their offices were located in the office of Institutional

Advancement while others mentioned being located in the office of the president. This factor might also be a determining factor in who has a seat at the table and who does not.

CHAPTER 9

APPENDIX

Interview Questionnaire

1) Please define or tell me what influence (at the university level) means to you or, what is public relations influence in the organization? Particularly at this historically black college or university?

2) In your position as a public relations practitioner or director, what influence sources or resources do you draw from? Or where does your influence come from?

3) **Which two or three influence resources are most valuable to you? Why?

4) Can you identify an influence resource you don’t have or don’t have enough of – that will strengthen your ability to shape organizational communications, actions, and decisions? How might you increase this resource(s)?

5) As a public relations practitioner, do you feel that you influence organizational communications, decisions and actions to the extent you should? Why or why not?

6) Please describe an important issue or situation that your institution confronted where you helped influence what the influence did or said in response to this situation or issue.

7) In the situation you just described, what specific tactics or approaches did you use to achieve success? Or how were you able to be influential?

8) What two to three organizational factors or forces (university president, board of trustees, faculty/administrators, etc.) reduce or limit your influence as a public relations professional? 57

9) With respect to such factors, what can you and other PR professionals do to become

more influential in organizational decision making? What might professional associations

do in this regard (PRSA, BPRSA)? What might university educators and education

programs do in the regard?

10) When you try to influence organizational decisions and communications, are you

doing so in the interest of yourself, your institution, your institutions publics, or society at

large? Can you describe a situation or issue where you advocated a position that was

primarily in the interest of external publics or society, rather than your institutions

interest?

11) As a public relations practitioner what is the greatest obstacle you face at historically

black colleges and universities?

12) Which aspect of your institution do you believe is most impacted by your job as a

public relations practitioner: admissions, recruitment and retention, alumni?

contributions/ alumni development or funding.

We are almost done. I just need to gather a little information about you, and again this interview is confidential.

13) How many years of PR experience do you have?

14) Gender:

15) What level of education have you completed (circle one)

16) Current work title:

17) Approximate number of employees in PR/communication in your organization:

18) Email address if interviewee wishes copy of findings: ______58

Participating Historically Black Colleges and Universities

1) Johnson C. Smith University- Charlotte, NC

2) Praire View State University- Praire View, Texas

3) Alabama A & M University- Huntsville, AL

4) Alcorn State University- Alcorn, MS

5) Talledega College- Talledega, AL

6) Texas Southern University- Houston, Texas

7) Xavier University- New Orleans, LA

8) Bluefield State University- Bluefield, West Virginia

9) Tennessee State University-Nashville, TN

10) Clark Atlanta University-Atlanta, GA

11) University of the Virgin Islands- St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

12) Oakwood College- Huntsville, AL

13) University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff

14) Hampton University- Hampton, VA

15) Bennett College-Greensboro, NC

16) Knoxville College- Knoxville, TN

17) Benedict College- Columbia, SC

18) Alabama State University- Montgomery, AL

19) Albany State University- Albany, GA 59

20) Cheyney State University-Cheyney, PA

21) Coppin State University-Baltimore, MD

22) Fayetteville State University-Fayetteville, NC

23) Paul Quinn College- Dallas, Texas

24) University of Maryland- Eastern Shore- Princess Anne, MD

25) Virginia State University-Petersburg, VA

Works Cited

Berger, B. K. (2005). "Power Over, Power With, and Power to Relations: Critical Reflections on.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5-28.

Berger, B. K., & Reber, B. H. (2006). Gaining Influence in Public Relations. Mahwah, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blackburn, J. (1980). Marketing and Selective Admissions. Journal of the National Association

of College Admissions Counselors, 24(3), 25-28.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1986). Advancement for Public Relations Role Models. Public

Relations Review, 12(1), 27-56.

Brown, L. (1998, October). The donation station. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(8), 22.

Brown & Freeman (2004). Black Colleges: New Perspectives on Policy and Practice:

Educational Policy in the 21st Century. Praeger Publishers.

Byrd, K.H. (1999, May 17). "Alumni donations lad at Black schools; funding has increased but

trails gifts at white colleges." Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Council for Aid to Education. (2001). The voluntary support of education 2000. New York:

Council for Aid to Education.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective Public Relations. Prentice

Hall, C., Gail, A., & Zerbinos, E. (1993). Minority Practitioners: Career

Influences, Job Satisfaction, and Discrimanation. Public Relations Review

19(1), 75-91.

Evans, J. H. (1986). A study of the attitudes of the alumni of historically Black colleges and

universities towards financial giving to their alma maters. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland. 61

Gehrung, F. (1980). The PR Pro's Road Test: Are You at the Wheel or Along for the

Ride. Case Currents, 6(9), 8-12.

Graham, J. R. (1999, September). Making Marketing Work. Am. Salesman, 43(9), 15.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). "Models of Public Relations and

Communication." Excellence in Public Relations and Communications

Management. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Luo, Yi. (2005). Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2005

Annual Meeting, New York, NY, (AN 18655621) p1-32, 32p;

McCown, Nance. (2007, November). The Role of Public Relations with Internal

Activists. Public Relations Research, 19(1), 47-68.

Nagel, G. (1980). Students take over PR: Presidents of Public Two-Year Colleges

Consider Students to be Main Image Makers. Case Currents, 6(9), 18-19.

Roebuck, J.B. & Murty, K.S. (1993). Historically Black colleges and universities: Their

place in American higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Rothschild, J. & Miethe, T.D. (1994). Whistleblowing as resistance in modern work

organizations: The politics of revealing organizational deception and abuse. In J.M.

Jermier, D. Knight, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations

(pp. 252-273). London: Routledge.

Ryans, Cynthia C., and William Shanklin (1986). Strategic Planning, Marketing & Public

Relations, and Fund-Raising in Higher Education: Perspectives, Readings, and

Annotated Bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, Inc, n.d.

Tindall, N. (2004). Analysis of fund raising models at public historically black colleges and

universities . Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. 62

Williams, J. (1992). Factors related to fund-raising outcomes at UNCF member institutions.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Willie, C. V., Riddick, R. J., & Brown, R. (2006). The Black College Mystique. Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Websites:

Black colleges underperforming in endowment investment management. (n.d.). Journal of Black

in higher education. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from

http://www.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/

Department Home Page. (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2007, from University of Colorado, Office of

Public Relations Web site: http://www.colorado.edu/ucomm/

Spelman College: Spelman leads the way for women of color. (n.d.). Black Enterprise Magazine.

Retrieved October, 2004, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_3_35

The Art of Fundraising. (2005, May 25). Black Issues In Higher Education. Retrieved July 24,

2007, from http://www.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/