1. Public Relations in College Athletics An Examination of Athletic Directors’ Perceptions of the Role of Public Relations in a College Athletic Department Brody Ruihley & Dr. Lisa Fall University of Tennessee

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

3. Introduction

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

5. Conceptual Framework & RQs Grunig and Hunt (1984) define PR as the management of “communication between an organization and its publics” (p.6). Stoldt, Dittmore and Brandvold (2006) define sport PR as “managerial communication-based function designed to identify a sport organization’s key publics, evaluat[ing] its relationships with those publics, and foster[ing] desirable relationships between the sport organization and those publics” (p.2)

6. Conceptual Framework & RQs Sport PR professionals are involved in image control and relationship management for the organization. However, many times, PR activities are mistaken for sports information activities more technical in nature (i.e. creation of programs, websites, handout materials, press materials).

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

8. Conceptual Framework & RQs RQ 1 : Who are the top PR officers within a college athletic department and what are the titles of the people in these positions? RQ 2 : What are the perceptions of the ADs within the college athletic departments regarding PR professionals and issues?

9. In an athletic department setting, roles of employees are often mix-matched, substituted, combined, or completely opposite of what the traditional roles may be. PR Roles are defined as everyday activities of PR practitioners (Dozier, 1992) Conceptual Framework & RQs

10. Roles Expert Prescribers - responsible for designing PR functions and diagnosing PR problems while prescribing solutions to them Communication Facilitators - operate as information mediators between an organization and its audiences Problem-Solving Process Facilitators - help an organization identify and solve its problems through systematic problem-solving Communication Technicians - use technical skills such as writing, graphics, photography, computer skills, and others to produce materials to assist in a PR program (Ekachai, 1995) Conceptual Framework & RQs

11. Research indicates that sports information professionals, commonly misinterpreted as PR professionals, are primarily seen as communication technicians within an athletic department. (McCleneghan, 1995; Stoldt, 2000; and Stoldt et al., 2001) McClenghan (1995) indicates that the functions of sports information professionals are seen more as staff oriented and not encompassing management functions. RQ 3 : How do the ADs perceive the roles of PR officials within the structure of their college athletic department? Conceptual Framework & RQs

12. Research Questions RQ 4a : Will there be any statistical difference in aspects of PR officer ability between ADs who communicate in different frequency with their top PR official? RQ 4b : Will there be any statistical difference in roles of PR professionals between ADs who communicate in different frequency with their top PR official? RQ 5a : Will there be any statistical difference in aspects of PR officer ability between ADs with different frequency in which their top PR official is involved in senior staff meetings? RQ 5b : Will there be any statistical difference in roles of PR professionals between ADs with different frequency in which their top PR official is involved in senior staff meetings?

13. Method Instrument - Online questionnaire developed through statistics department at the University of Tennessee Descriptive The title of the athletic department’s top PR officer The frequency with which the AD and the top PR officer communicate The frequency with which the top PR officer is included in senior staff meetings Whether the top PR officer made substantial contributions if/when he or she is included in senior staff meetings The rating of the ability of the top PR officer to perform various PR tasks The relative strength of relationships with various program constituents

14. Method Instrument - Abilities and Tasks Abilities were measured by listing the ability or task and asking the respondent to rate the ability of their top PR official to perform the task. Example of some of the items Measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= Poor and 5=Excellent) Abilities and tasks were altered from prior work of Stoldt, Miller, and Comfort (2001); Broom (1982); Broom & Smith (1979); and Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig (1995).

15. Method Instrument - Roles Scale items adapted from prior research conducted by Dozier (1992) and Ekachai (1995). The items were measured using a five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Items measured each role concept. Examples of scale questions

16. Method Instrument - General The rest of the questionnaire contained other descriptive questions. Title of the top PR officer Number of full-time employees within the athletic department Number of full-time employees working solely on PR Number of students enrolled at the university or college Number of years as an AD Gender and Age

17. Method Sample & Procedure A list of Division I institutions was obtained from the Web site of NCAA. Emailed 334 Division I College ADs Sent an invitation email with the survey link attached Sent a reminder email one week after initial email Sent a final reminder two months after initial email Incentive offered: share the results

18. Results Sample 99 completed questionnaires 30% response rate from the population of Division I ADs 93% Male, 6% Female, 1% No response Mean Age: 53 Years Age Range: 31 to 71 Mean department staff size: 92 Mean number of people working on PR: 7

19. Results - RQ1 RQ 1 : Who are the top PR officers within a college athletic department and what are the titles of the people in these positions? In response to RQ 1, when asked if their department had a person solely devoted to PR, 62.63% of the participants affirmatively responded (n=62). The ADs who responded that they did not possess a position solely to PR (n=37, 37.37%) identified the many positions that they felt were the top PR position within their organization.

20. Results - RQ1 Yes to PR (n=62) No to PR (n=37) Media Relations30.88%25.58% Communication25.00%9.30% Sports Information10.29%23.26% Public Relations10.29%0.00% External Affairs7.35%16.28% Marketing7.35%9.30% Athletics Directors5.88%16.28% Community Relations2.94%0.00%

21. Results - RQ2 RQ 2 : What are the perceptions of the ADs within the college athletic departments regarding PR professionals and issues? The highest agreement categories to an ADs perception of the abilities of their top PR person were (5-point scale): Working with coaches and athletes, 4.29 Maintaining media contacts, 4.27 Recommending responses to issues, 4.24 The lowest agreement to the abilities were: Conducting PR research, 3.51 Coordinate Events, 3.82 Mediate conflicts, 3.83

22. Results - RQ2

23. ADs identified the frequency with which they communicate with their top PR officer: Multiple times daily (21.2%, n=21) Daily (36.4%, n=36) More than once a week (26.3%, n=26) Once a week (7.1%, n=7) Less than once a week (9.1%, n=9).

24. Results - RQ2 The percentage that the top PR officer was included in senior staff meetings was indicated at an average of 78.61% of meetings 89.9% of ADs indicate the officer making substantial contributions 3.0% identified the officer as not making substantial contributions 7.1% of the respondents did not respond because they did not include the top PR officer in their senior staff meetings

25. Results - RQ3 RQ 3 : How do the ADs perceive the roles of PR officials within the structure of their college athletic department? nMeanSt. Dev. Cronbach’s Alpha PSPF993.98590.679290.868 CT993.96460.808920.809 EP993.87210.686700.856 CF99*3.76260.678920.795

26. Results - RQ4a RQ 4a : Will there be any statistical difference in aspects of PR officer ability between ADs who communicate in different frequency with their top PR official?

27. Results - RQ4a

28. Results - RQ4b RQ 4b : Will there be any statistical difference in roles of PR professionals between ADs who communicate in different frequency with their top PR official?

29. Results - RQ4b

31. Results - RQ5a RQ 5a : Will there be any statistical difference in aspects of PR officer ability between ADs with different frequency in which their top PR official is involved in senior staff meetings?

32. Results - RQ5a When focusing on the percentage of senior staff meetings including a top PR officer and the abilities of the top PR officer, as questioned in RQ 5a, two groups were compared. Significant differences (p<.05) were found, in favor of the ADs including the officer in 100% of the meetings, in the following four abilities: Managing PR issues Recommending responses to PR issues Contributing to policy decisions Setting PR goals. All other abilities were not found to be statistically significant

33. Results - RQ5b RQ 5b : Will there be any statistical difference in roles of PR professionals between ADs with different frequency in which their top PR official is involved in senior staff meetings? When the analysis focused on the roles, the significant differences between 100% attendance and non-100% groups were found. Expert prescriber Problem-solving process facilitator Communication facilitator

34. Results - RQ5b

35. Discussion RQ1 - We know where PR is within a college athletic department. RQ2 - We know some perceptions of PR from the view of the AD RQ3 - We know the perceptions of the ADs regarding the roles of PR

36. Discussion RQ4a- We know that difference in frequency of communication has produced different results in the way in which ADs view the abilities of the top PR person. RQ4b- We know that difference in frequency of communication has produced different results in the way in which ADs view the role of the top PR person.

37. Discussion RQ5a - We know that difference in inclusion in senior staff meetings has produced different results in the way in which ADs view the abilities of the top PR person. RQ5b - We know that difference in inclusion in senior staff meetings has produced different results in the way in which ADs view the role of the top PR person.

38. Conclusion

39. Thank You. Any Questions?