Cynthia J. Jackson

Abstract

Accredited business schools in the U.S. can be a great place for a woman practitioner in the communication field to work, and the findings of this study should give cause for this niche to be appealing to women. Viewed through the lens of feminist theory, this study surveyed 57 practitioners of both sexes in AACSB accredited business schools to assess their roles and perceptions of respect and equality in the workplace, as well as demographic and salary data. Some of the results of this study turn decades of existing literature about women in the public relations and communication field on their head. The gender wage gap is not evident, and more women than men perform the functions of a manager role. Even so, there are shortcomings that can be improved regarding perceived respect and equality from business school leadership. Although women dominated the ranks, the “velvet ghetto” was nowhere to be found.

Keywords: feminist theory, feminism, university, business school, marketing, communication, public relations, sexism, gender, practitioner roles, wage gap

Introduction

The circumstances of women in the field of public relations garnered attention from academic researchers with seminal studies in the 1980s (Broom, 1982; Cline et al., 1986; Grunig, 1988; Steeves, 1988; Toth, 1988). Numerous studies were published until the early 2000s (Creedon, 1991; Donato et al., 1990a, 1990b; Farmer & Waugh, 1999; Hon, 1995; Tam, Dozier, Lauzen, & Real, 1995) on the state of women in the industry. Since then, a steady stream of published studies have continued (Aldoory, Reber, Berger, & Toth, 2008; Algren & Eichhorn, 2007; Dozier, 2013; Fitch & Third, 2013; Fitch, James, & Motion, 2016; FitzPatrick, 2013; Kennedy, 2016; Krugler, 2017; O’Neil, 2003; Place & Vardeman-Winter, 2018; Pompper & Adams, 2006; Rakow & Nastasia, 2008; Sha & Toth, 2005; Vardeman-Winter & Place, 2017), but the subject remains a compelling and important one. How the results of these studies, which identified substantial pay discrepancies, lack of female leaders, and feminization of the public relations industry, might apply to practitioners and organizations within university business schools remained unknown. This study will view the subject through the lens of feminist theory.

Business Week magazine published the first reference to a “velvet ghetto” in its May 8, 1978 issue, entitled “PR: ‘The Velvet Ghetto’ of Affirmative Action”(Business Week, 1978; Heath, 2013). In 1986, the International Association of Business Communicators Research Foundation published The Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communications. The landmark work by Cline et al. (1986) brought attention to the growing number of women employed in the public relations sector, as well as the disparity in pay and leadership opportunities for women compared to men in this field.

IABC reexamined the subject two more times in the following three decades. The findings remained uniform. The purpose of this study is to explore whether a velvet ghetto exists specifically in university business schools’ marketing communication or public relations departments.

Feminism and feminist theory

In 1963, Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique explored – and eviscerated – the myth of the happy housewife (Friedan, 1963; Neary, 2013). The book opened the way for the Western feminist movement (Hooks, 2000). After World War II ended, women were relegated to the roles of wives and mothers, and the cultural mood was ripe for Friedan’s message. The book, read by millions, had an intense mobilizing effect on readers, who in turn achieved an overwhelming transformation on society as a whole (Schuessler, 2013; Traister, 2011). But The Feminine Mystique didn’t invent feminism. It only gave voice to the zeitgeist of the moment.

            Feminist theory, at its core, is an understanding of how inequality of the sexes is originated and propagated, and ideas about ways to change those existing inequities (Klage, 2012). “Most feminists (regardless of their feminist stance),” wrote H. Leslie Steeves, “share the two fundamental assumptions that women are oppressed and that change is necessary” (Steeves, 1988 p.12).

History of feminist theory

            The notion of male and female is universal and reaches farther back in time than we can know. To perceive human beings as either male or female in a dualistic fashion, and the assignment of cultural expectations or values upon one or the other, is the essence of the genesis of feminist theory (Klage, 2012). Even in the middle ages, feminists spoke out for educational opportunities and dignified treatment as citizens (Donovan, 2012), recognizing that females were subordinated and devalued in Western society.

            Most scholars agree that a series of “waves” of feminism have swept through Western civilization. The first wave was triggered in 1792, by Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women. This was the era in which women had no property rights and were seen as a ward of their husband. It was also the period in which the French revolution occurred and the newly-formed United States of America declared the Bill of Rights — the introduction of what were seen as “natural” rights of men (Donovan, 2012; Wollstonecraft, 2007).

            Friedan is credited with igniting the second wave of feminist theory and social action. This took place from the late 1960s through the early 1980s (Donovan, 2012; Schuessler, 2013; Traister, 2011). This time of women’s liberation and anger served to unite women like Friedan: white and privileged. It neglected to address women in poverty, women of color, and those who do not identify with the strictly binary notion of female or male (Hooks, 2000).

            Even after women accomplished gains in law, government and other formal structures, feminists were unsatisfied, desiring more fundamental change (Gillis, Howie, & Munford, 2004).

Formed within a context which already included a program for legal and political emancipation, modern feminism concentrated on issues which specifically affected women: reproduction, mothering, sexual violence, expressions of sexuality and domestic labor. Despite the political intensity of peace camps, anti-racist activities and ‘reclaim the night’ marches, this concentration on ‘woman,’ as both the object and subject of discourse, resulted in a shift within the movement (Gillis et al., 2004, p. 1).

Thus, the third wave of feminism was born. Some academics believe we are currently in this phase of feminist thought (Donovan, 2012), but a growing number of researchers contend that the Western world has transitioned to a new wave – the fourth wave – of feminism in which social media is identified as the primary catalyst in this new wave of feminist resistance and intersectionality is part of the conversation (Baumgardner, 2011; Leupold, 2010; Munro, 2013; Phillips & Cree, 2014; Solomon, 2009).

Intersectionality

            The varieties of feminist theory described above primarily focus on privileged white women and do not address interconnected issues of gender, race and class (Hooks, 2000).

Feminist analyses of woman’s lot tend to focus exclusively on gender and do not provide a solid foundation on which to construct feminist theory. They reflect the dominant tendency in Western patriarchal minds to mystify woman’s reality by insisting that gender is the sole determinant of woman’s fate. Certainly, it has been easier for women who do not experience race or class oppression to focus exclusively on gender. Although socialist feminists focus on class and gender, they tend to dismiss race, or they make a point of acknowledging that race is important and then proceed to offer an analysis in which race is not considered (Hooks, 2000, p. 15-16)

Although feminist theory has often been applied to the public relations industry in general (Creedon, 1991; K. Fitch et al., 2016; Hon, 1995; Kennedy, 2016; Neill & Lee, 2016; Rakow & Nastasia, 2008), this study addresses the lack of research focused on the specialized niche of practitioners in AACSB accredited business schools in the U.S.

Literature Review

This study is underpinned by previous scholarly literature regarding feminist issues within the workplace. First, there was an examination of research about the feminization of various workforce categories. Then, studies related to the roles of manager and technician were reviewed. Lastly, previous scholarship about the convergence of public relations, communication, and marketing communication was investigated.

The velvet ghetto

A gender pay disparity in the field of communication not only injures the women who are paid less than their male peers, but it also hurts their families, and has a damaging impact on the entire professional field (Dozier, 2013). This disparity in pay persists even after controlling for professional experience and career disruptions tied to having a baby (Dozier, et al., 2007).

Further, once women start outnumbering men in a given field of work, a “feminization” of the profession occurs in which the profession becomes devalued and salaries are depressed for the entire professional field. Several researchers have studied and acknowledged shifts to “pink collar” professions, and there are differing approaches to theory perspectives and the facets that contribute to this feminization (Farmer & Waugh, 1999; Fitch & Third, 2013; Hon, 1995; Krugler, 2017; Place & Vardeman-Winter, 2018; Pompper & Adams, 2006; Sha & Toth, 2005; Tam et al., 1995; Wrigley, 2002). Rakow and Nastasia (2008) argued against modeling this area of research from the seminal work of Cline et al. (1986), instead encouraging new ways of exploring feminization by examining hierarchical organizations designed around traditionally masculine values of “efficiency, rationality, individualism, and competition” (p. 291). Wrigley (2002) described this trend of feminization as “often characterized by those in the field as a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that women self-select technician roles and, therefore, participate unwittingly in their own discrimination” (p. 32).

Roles: Manager and technician

The development and definitions of role descriptions marked a key shift in how researchers studied public relations organizations. Two of the key figures in this work were Broom and Dozier. In 1982, Broom posited four role models: the expert prescriber, the communication technician, the communication facilitator and the problem-solving process facilitator. His study found that public relations practitioners perceive themselves in merely two roles: a technician, or a blend of the other three models. Broom (1982) found that males and females significantly differed in the perceptions of their own role. In general, men report themselves as a manager (specifically as an expert prescriber) and women more often see their role as a technician (Broom & Dozier, 1986).

Broom’s work led to a distillation of two roles played by professionals in public relations. The technician role operates as a service, focusing on the technical aspects of the craft, such as writing, editing, making brochures and newsletters, and producing videos. Technicians are not seen as expert consultants, nor do they make policy decisions. In contrast, the manager role is seen as an expert who provides counsel, solves problems, and makes policies (Broom & Dozier, 1986; Dozier, 1984). Career progression in the field of public relations is clearly correlated to the practitioner’s sex and role within the organization (Broom & Dozier, 1986).

Early research looking at roles found that women dominated technician positions in the public relations field, and were paid at a rate less than their male counterparts, especially in leadership roles (Cline et al., 1986; Cornell, 1986).  Current sources confirm the persistence of this wage gap between sexes. The U.S. Census Bureau (2019) documents that men earn an average salary of $77,953 for occupations in management/business/sciences/arts compared to $56,754 for women, meaning women earn approximately 73 cents per dollar compared to men. A study about public relations agency compensation found that men earned an average of $6,072 more than women when controlling for other factors such as years of experience  (Muehlbauer & Rockland, 2017). In comparison, ethnic minorities earned $9,302 less than whites working at public relations agencies (Muehlbauer & Rockland, 2017).

Other research has found that, while women make up about 70% of the PR workforce, they only hold about 30% of the top positions in the industry (Shah, 2015). Yet, in a comparison of competence scores between women and their male counterparts, Algren and Eichhorn (2007), using a standardized testing tool, found that women technicians exhibit considerably higher competence than do male technicians.

            In Women in Public Relations, the authors articulated the feminization of the field of public relations:

The last 20 years has seen an influx of women into the practice of public relations. By their growing numbers alone, women have created opportunities for themselves beyond what fields traditionally considered ‘female,’ such as nursing and teaching, could have offered. On the other hand, any field suddenly shifting to a female majority – or even experiencing the hint of more women than men – faces the realities of dwindling salary, status, and influence within the organization (Grunig, Toth, & Hon, 2001, p. 4).

The Convergence of Public Relations, Communication, and Marketing Communication

Although seminal researchers such as Toth, Hon and Grunig (2001) focused on feminization of the field they called “public relations,” the term for that function has evolved to encompass a more inclusive view of the communication function.  The emergence of a more integrated communication approach, which takes into account several tools in the communication mix, including public relations, marketing communication, exhibitions and word of mouth, among others (Grunig et al., 2001), has changed the more traditional perception of “public relations” as a discrete function within an organization. Consequently, this study does not limit its examination merely to job titles containing the words “public relations,” rather, it includes job titles defined as public relations, communication, or marketing communication.

Wilcox et al. (2014), rather than focusing on a specific definition of public relations, postulated key words within definitions:

Deliberate. Public relations activity is intentional. It is designed to influence, gain understanding, provide information, and obtain feedback from those affected by the activity.

Planned. Public relations activity is organized. Solutions to problems are discovered and logistics are thought out, with the activity taking place over a period of time. It is systematic, requiring research and strategic thinking.

Performance. Effective public relations is based on actual policies and performance. No amount of public relations will generate good will and support if the organization has poor policies and is unresponsive to public concerns.

Public interest. Public relations activity should be mutually beneficial to the organization and the public; it is the alignment of the organization’s self-interests with the public’s concerns and interests.

Two-way communication: Public relations is most effective when it is a strategic and integral part of decision making by top management. Public relations involves counseling, problem solving, and the management of competition and conflict (p. 9).

Traditionally, the public relations field focused on communication to the media. As the stakeholder concept was adopted across corporations, recognizing the responsibility of organizations to the many groups with a stake in its operations, the communication function adapted to be more than media relations (Cornelissen, 2013).

            In the only existing research done of the marketing, communication and public relations functions within AACSB International accredited business schools (Jackson, Davis, & Irwin-Gish, 2017), no fewer than seven different organizational models were identified, yet a full 70% of the departments had either “marketing,” “communications,” or more often both (54%), in the department title. Only 1% of the schools had “public relations” in the title.

AACSB International is the accrediting body for business schools worldwide. The mission of the organization is as follows:

AACSB International’s mission is to foster engagement, accelerate innovation, and amplify impact in business education. This mission is aligned with AACSB’s accreditation standards for business schools. AACSB strives to continuously improve engagement among business, faculty, institutions, and students so that business education is aligned with the needs of business practice. To fulfill this goal, AACSB encourages and accelerates innovation to continuously improve business education. As a result, business schools will have a positive impact on business and society—and AACSB International will amplify that impact (“AACSB International: What We Do,” 2018).

The review of the literature leads to the following research questions and hypotheses.

RQ1: To what extent do communication practitioners in AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S. participate in decision-making at the executive level?

RQ2: To what degree, if any, do communication professionals in AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S. perceive a difference regarding decision-making at the executive level based on a) gender or b) years of experience?

RQ3: To what degree, if any, do communication professionals in AACSB-accredited university business schools within the U.S. perceive that a) they are respected and equal in their workplace, and b) do they perceive there is a difference based on gender?

RQ4: To what degree, if any, is there a wage gap between the sexes among communication practitioners in AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S.?

H1: There are more women than men working in the function of communication, public relations, and/or marketing communication at AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S.

H2: There is a gender wage gap among communication practitioners in AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S.

H3: Men are more likely than women to be performing in the managerial role in AACSB accredited university business schools in the U.S.

Method

Data was collected using a quantitative survey, consistent with previous research conducted to explore gender differences among practitioners in the communication field (Berger & Heyman, 2005; Broom, 1982; Dozier, 2013; Lee, Place, & Smith, 2018; Tam et al., 1995; Toth & Grunig, 1993). The survey was self-administered online via the software Qualtrics during the period February to July, 2019. Only university business schools accredited by AACSB International in the U.S. fit the scope of this study. Of the more than 800 business schools accredited by AACSB around the world, more than 500 of them are in the U.S. (“About AACSB,” 2018).

Sample

The online survey was first tested with the members of the AACSB International steering committee for the Marketing Communications Council affinity group. No alterations were needed, so it was then distributed to a wider group via the AACSB International “Exchange” in its online communication discussion groups: “2019 April International Conference and Annual Meeting,” which included the attendees of the most recent international conference and annual meeting; “2019 March B-School Communications and Development Symposium,” which included the attendees of the most recent international conference for business school development and communication professionals; and “AACSB Member Forum,” which includes all members of AACSB. In addition, the survey was distributed to the communication practitioners of Big 12 conference business schools in a personal email from the researcher.

The practitioner sample included 15 men (26.3%) and 42 women (73.7%). Respondents were 22 to 68 years old, with an average age of 42.6 years. They reported salaries from $36,000 to $161,000, with an average salary of $76,010. A frequency analysis of the highest level of education reported revealed that 50% of men hold a bachelor’s degree, 42.9% have a master’s degree, and 7.1% have earned a doctorate. For women, 31.7% hold a bachelor’s degree, 61% have a master’s degree, and 7.3% have earned a doctorate. The sample reported between two and 35 years of experience in the communication, marketing or public relations field, with an average of 16.4 years in the field.

43 of the respondents worked at public universities (75.4%) and 14 worked at private universities (24.6%). The business schools represented by the respondents had an average of 3,956 enrolled students (from 450 to 10,000). An associate’s degree was offered at three of the schools (5.3%); 55 schools offered bachelor’s degrees (96.5%), 57 offered master’s degrees (100%), and 40 offered doctoral degrees (70.2%).

Measures

The questionnaire included screener questions to ensure qualification of the respondents. Qualified respondents were asked questions about the school at which they are employed, perceptions of their current job situation, and how much experience they have in the field.

Three scales were used in the survey instrument. Two of the scales probed roles and responsibilities using a 7-point Likert scale derived from previous exploration and defining work about technician and management roles done by seminal researchers in the field (Broom, 1982; Creedon, 1991; Dozier, 1992; Dozier, 1984). The “technician” scale measured the extent to which a practitioner functioned in the technician role; it was measured via a scale developed using questions 12a “I produce brochures, pamphlets and other publications,” 12b “I am the person who writes communications materials,” and 12d “I edit for spelling and grammar the materials written by others in the organization,” (α = .687). The technician scale had total possible points of 21; higher scores indicated that the respondent spent more time performing functions identified with the technician role. The “manager” scale measured the extent to which a practitioner functioned in the manager role; it was measured via a scale developed using questions 12e “I make communication policy decisions,” 12f “I take responsibility for the success or failure of my organization’s communications or public relations programs,” and 12g “Because of my experience and training, others consider me the organization’s expert in solving communication or public relations problems,” (α = .947). The manager scale had total possible points of 21; higher scores indicated that the respondent spent more time performing functions identified with the manager role.

Another set of questions measured respondents’ perceptions about how they perceive they are respected in their organizations in relation to their position. These questions consisted of questions 16b “I often feel frustrated that my supervisor doesn’t listen to me,” 16c “I feel like the business school’s leadership doesn’t take me seriously,” and 16f “There is a ‘good old boys’ club at my business school.” The responses for these questions had total possible points of 21; higher scores signify less respect and equality was perceived by the respondent.

Finally, the survey collected salary and demographic data from the respondents. Refer to Appendix A, Questionnaire.

Results

H1 stated “there are more women than men working in the function of communication, public relations, and/or marketing communication at AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S.” A clear majority of practitioner respondents were women (n = 57, 73.7%). H1 was supported.

H2 stated “there is a gender wage gap among communication practitioners in AACSB accredited university business schools within the U.S.” This hypothesis was explored by investigating several data. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to explore differences in mean salaries between the sexes. Contrary to historical literature reviewed in this study, in this sample, the analysis shows no statistically significant difference between men’s (M = $68,597.67, SD = $30,045.59) and women’s (M = $78,413.51, SD = $30,0398.03; t(47) = -.98, p = .34, two-tailed) salaries based on gender. H2 was not supported.

To further explore facets tangential to wage gap, H3 stated “men are more likely than women to be performing in the managerial role in AACSB accredited university business schools in the U.S.” Survey question 16d asked respondents to rank the statement “I participate on the business school’s leadership team,” using a 7-point Likert scale (1 very strongly disagree to 7 very strongly agree). Fully 31% of respondents answered moderately or very strongly agree, while 41.8% of respondents answered moderately or very strongly disagree. Two independent-samples t-tests were conducted to address the connection between the manager role with a) gender, and b) years of experience. The t-tests compared a) the respondent’s sex and their role (technician, manager), and b) the respondent’s years of experience and their role (technician, manager). Contrary to historical literature reviewed in this study, in this sample, women were more often performing functions associated with the manager role than were men. In an exploration of the technician and manager scale scores, there was a significant difference in scores between sexes. Males (M = 11.73, SD = 6.97) were less likely to function in the manager role than females (M = 16.8, SD = 5.21; t(54) = -2.94, p = .05, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in means (mean difference = -5.07, 95% CI: -8.53 to -1.61) is large (Cohen’s d = 0.824). The relationship between practitioners’ years of experience in the marketing, communication, or public relations field and their role as a manager was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses showed a lack of normality, linearity, or homoscedasticity in the data. Results of the correlation indicated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between years of experience and the manager role (r(53) = .17, p = .23). H3 was not supported.

When asked whether they feel they have a “clear career path for my advancement in my current job,” 50% of men moderately or strongly disagreed, while 43.9% of women moderately to strongly disagreed with the statement.

Looking further into related data, a simple frequency analysis revealed 10.6% of the respondents perceived moderately to very strongly that they are not listened to by their supervisor, they are not taken seriously by the school leadership team, and that there is a “good old boys” network at their school. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to determine if there was a difference in perception of respect and equality between men (M = 7.36, SD = 3.86) and women (M = 10.76, SD = 5.15; t(53) = -2.56, p < .05, two-tailed), revealing a strong difference (Cohen’s d = .747) in perceptions between the sexes. Women perceive that they are afforded less respect and equality on these dimensions than their male counterparts, and neither men nor women see a clear career path for themselves. Refer to Table 1.

Discussion and Limitations

Some of the results of this study turn many of the findings in prevailing literature about women in the communication profession on their head. Are U.S. business schools more enlightened than other sectors? Have they solved issues of sexism within their communication work teams? In some very important ways, the answer appears to be yes.

Counter to decades of research which persistently revealed a gender wage gap and a workplace environment dubbed the “velvet ghetto,” (Aldoory & Toth, 2002; Broom, 1982; Broom & Dozier, 1986; Dozier, 2013; Dozier et al., 2007), and for which blame usually fell on women—their behavior, their appearance, self-fulfilling prophecy, motherhood—for their diminished capacity to earn (David Dozier et al., 2007; Grunig et al., 2001), findings from the study at hand find no such wage gap is apparent between the sexes. Also, contrary to numerous published studies examining practitioner roles between men and women (Broom, 1982; Broom & Dozier, 1986; D Dozier, 1992; D. M. Dozier, 1984, 2013; D. M. Dozier & Broom, 1995; David Dozier et al., 2007; Shuk Yin Tam et al., 1995), in the business school setting, women practitioners are performing in managerial roles more often than men. A greater percentage of women hold master’s degrees, compared to their male counterparts, which may have a positive impact on women’s earnings and their chances to serve in a manager role.

Have the third (Donovan, 2012; Schuessler, 2013; Traister, 2011) and fourth (Baumgardner, 2011; Leupold, 2010; Munro, 2013; Phillips & Cree, 2014; Solomon, 2009) waves of feminism beaten down the beachhead of feminine subordination in the business school workplace? Perhaps not completely, because although women practitioners in U.S. business schools are earning equivalent income and have amplified opportunities to perform functions of the manager role, we cannot overlook the fact that women, much more than men, perceive that they are not listened to by their supervisor, not taken seriously by business school leadership, and  report there is a “good old boys club” at their place of work. This juxtaposition should not be disregarded, as it is evidence of continuing vestiges of female subordination, albeit in a social form, as opposed to organizational payroll, operational systems or procedures. The Society for Human Resource Management offers insight in its Introduction to the Human Resources Discipline of Diversity, which outlines the difference between diversity and inclusion. “Generally, diversity refers to the similarities and differences between individuals accounting for all aspects of one’s personality and individual identity,” in contrast to inclusion, which “describes the extent to which each person in an organization feels welcomed, respected, supported and valued as a team member” (2017). Diane Harris asserted that repeated interruptions in work meetings or not listening to a woman’s recommendations are forms of intimidation (1995). The situation is analogous for women in the information technology field, where female practitioners reported “not feeling listened to” as an aspect of not feeling respected (Allen, Armstrong, Riemenschneider, & Reid, 2006) in their workplace. Laura DiDio summed it up this way: “You’ve got the [information systems] job you want, and you’re good at it. You’re working for a decent company. The title, money and advancement prospects are good. But something’s missing. It could be that crucial but elusive intangible: the respect of the males you work with” (1997, p. 84). And what about the “good old boys” club? It’s a persistent barrier to the advancement of women in the workplace (Payne, 2005)

In addition, many of the respondents—male and female—perceived no clear career path in their current job. It is not clear whether this is only the case at business schools, or whether it also applies to the larger university institutions. Regardless, career planning activity should be emphasized with these practitioners to identify more potential career ladders, as well as lateral moves that might afford opportunities for practitioner rotations across schools within a university or at the main university level, as well as an understanding of the skill sets and performance required to make career moves.

Limitations

Limitations of this study start with the fact that the size of the entire communication practitioner population within U.S. business schools is unknown; therefore, it is not known if the sample size reflects an acceptable level of confidence in the findings. With that in mind, the results of this study should be viewed as preliminary.  Additionally, there may be a sample response bias, due to what seems to be very high levels of years of experience reported (M = 16.4, SD = 9.83).

Future Considerations

The insights gained through this study warrant further exploration. Future research efforts should include additional demographic data collection, such as respondents’ ethnicity, to enable assessment of important issues of intersectionality within the same scope of inquiry. Additionally, the study should be expanded to non-U.S. business schools that are accredited by AACSB. This would permit an examination of differences and similarities among various world regions within the field of business school public relations and marketing communication.

Conclusion

Accredited business schools in the U.S. can be a great place for a woman practitioner in the communication field to work, and the findings of this study should give cause for this niche field to be appealing to women. Even so, there are shortcomings that can be improved regarding perceived respect and equality from business school leadership.

Tables

Table 1

Attitudes toward respect and equality in the workplace (1 very strongly disagree to 7 very strongly agree).

Statements 1234567Mean
a.) I feel there is a clear career path for my advancement in my current job.Male
Female		21.4%
24.4%		28.6%
19.5%		7.1%
22%		21.4%
12.2%		7.1%
12.2%		7.1%
2.4%		7.1%
7.3%		3.14
3.05
b.) I often feel frustrated that my supervisor doesn’t listen to me.Male
Female		50% 26.8%14.3%
14.6%		0
12.2%		14.3%
14.6%		0
19.5%		21.4%
4.9%		0
7.3%		2.64
3.29
c.) I feel like the business school’s leadership doesn’t take me seriously.Male
Female		42.9%
31.7%		35.7%
9.8%		7.1%
2.4%		7.1%
12.2%		0%
24.4%		7.1%
12.2%		0%
7.3%		2.07
3.54
d.) I participate on the business school’s leadership team.Male
Female		57.1%
22%		0
14.6%		7.1%
12.2%		7.1%
7.3%		7.1%
9.8%		7.1%
4.9%		14.3%
29.3		2.86
4
e.) I develop communications plans that are executed by others.Male
Female		21.4% 2.4%14.3% 17.1%0 7.3%7.1% 9.8%21.4% 19.5%14.3% 24.4%21.4% 19.5%4.21 4.78
f.) There is a “good old boys” club at my business school.Male
Female		50% 19.5%14.35% 9.8%0 7.3%14.3% 19.5%7.1% 22%7.1% 9.8%7.1% 12.2%2.64 3.93
g.) I think I have experienced bias at my job due to my gender.Male
Female		71.4% 17.1%7.1% 9.8%0 17.1%0 7.3%7.1% 22%7.1% 14.6%7.1% 12.2%2.14 4

Appendix

Questionnaire

Marketing Communications in B-Schools

You are being invited to participate in this research study about university business school communications professionals.    

Please read the following before agreeing to participate.    

Purpose of study: The goal of this study is to explore issues pertaining to the communications, public relations and/or marketing communications function at AACSB accredited university business schools in the U.S.    

Procedure: You will be asked to complete an online survey. Participation is voluntary. Even after you begin the survey, you may decline to answer any question and you may stop participating at any time without penalty.    

Length of participation: This survey should take 5 to 10 minutes to complete.    

Confidentiality: Your responses are confidential. Individual results will not be discussed.    

Risks and benefits: The risks for participation are minimal, no more than everyday life, and there is no cost to participate. The benefits are limited to learning more about issues pertaining to communications professionals at accredited university business schools in the U.S. You may contact the principal investigator to receive an executive summary of the findings.    

Contacts/Questions: If you have any questions, you may contact the principal investigator, Cynthia J. Jackson via email Cynthia_Jackson@baylor.edu or by phone 254-710-7628.     If you want to speak with someone not directly involved in this research study, you may contact the Baylor University IRB through the Office of the Vice Provost for Research at 254-710-1438. You can talk to them about: 

        I agree to participate in this study by clicking the arrow below.

Q1 Are you employed full time at an AACSB accredited university business school in the U.S.?

Skip To: End of Survey If Are you employed full time at an AACSB accredited university business school in the U.S.? = No

Q2 Please provide the name of the university (optional).

Q3 Is your job function communications, marketing, public relations, or a directly related field?

Skip To: End of Survey If Is your job function communications, marketing, public relations, or a directly related field? = No

Q4 What is your sex?

Skip To: End of Survey If What is your sex? = Prefer not to answer

Q5 Now we’d like to find out more about your school.

Q6 Is your university public or private?

Q7 Please check all of the degrees offered by your business school.

Q8 Approximately how many students are enrolled at your business school?

Q9 We’d like to know more about your job within the business school.

Q10 What is the name of the department in which you work? (Please type your answer in the box below.)
________________________________________________________________

Q11 Choose the title that best reflects your job title.

Q12 These next questions will ask about your role and responsibilities.

Q13 For the following items, rate your agreement on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 indicates you personally never perform the function and 7 indicates you always or almost always personally devote time to that responsibility.

 (1) I never perform this duty (1)(2) I very rarely perform this duty (2)(3) I occasionally perform this duty (3)(4) I perform this duty about half the time (4)(5) I perform this duty more than half the time (5)(6) I perform this duty often (6)(7) I always or almost always perform this duty (7)
I produce brochures, pamphlets and other publications. (1)       
I am the person who writes communications materials. (2)       
I do photography and graphics for communications and public relations materials. (3)       
I edit for spelling and grammar the materials written by others in the organization. (4)       
I make communication policy decisions. (5)       
I take responsibility for the success or failure of my organization’s communications or public relations programs. (6)       
Because of my experience and training, others consider me the organization’s expert in solving communication or public relations problems. (7)       

Q14 We’d like to learn more about your department.

Q15 Other than yourself, how many males and females work in your department?

Q16 The next set of questions will ask your opinions and feelings about your job.

Q17 Please rate the following sentences below on a scale of 1 to 7, depending upon how true it is for you personally.

 (1) Very strongly disagree (1)(2) Moderately disagree (2)(3) Slightly disagree (3)(4) Neither agree or disagree (4)(5) Slightly agree (5)(6) Moderately agree (6)(7) Very strongly agree (7)
I feel there is a clear career path for my advancement in my current job. (1)       
I often feel frustrated that my supervisor doesn’t listen to me. (2)       
I feel like the business school’s leadership doesn’t take me seriously. (3)       
I participate on the business school’s leadership team. (4)       
I develop communications plans that are executed by others. (5)       
There is a “good old boys” club at my business school. (6)       
I think I have experienced bias at my job due to my gender. (7)       

Q18 We’d like to know more about you.

Q19 What is your age? (Please type a number in the box below.)
________________________________________________________________

Q20 How many years have you been directly working in the communications, marketing or public relations field?  (Please type a number in the box below.)
________________________________________________________________

Q21 How many years have you been working in your present job? (Please type a number in the box below.)
________________________________________________________________

Q22 What is your highest level of education?

Q23 What is your annual salary? (Please type a number in the box below. Do not use commas, decimal points or dollar signs.)
________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

AACSB International: What We Do. (2018, October 6). Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.edu/about/mission

About AACSB. (2018). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from AACSB Internaitonal website: https://www.aacsb.edu/about

Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 405–436. https://doi.org/10.1086/494426

Aldoory, L., Reber, B. H., Berger, B. K., & Toth, E. L. (2008). Provocations in Public Relations: A Study of Gendered Ideologies of Power-Influence in Practice. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500402

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2002). Gender Discrepancies in a Gendered Profession: A Developing Theory for Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1402_2

Algren, M., & Eichhorn, K. C. (2007). Cognitive communication competence within public relations practitioners: Examining gender differences between technicians and managers. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.010

Allen, M. W., Armstrong, D. J., Riemenschneider, C. K., & Reid, M. F. (2006). Making Sense of the Barriers Women Face in the Information Technology Work Force: Standpoint Theory, Self-disclosure, and Causal Maps. Sex Roles, 54(11), 831–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9049-4

Baumgardner, J. (2011). F ’em!: Goo Goo, Gaga, and Some Thoughts on Balls. Da Capo Press.

Berger, B. K., & Heyman, W. C. (2005). You can’t homogenize success in PR: Top PR executives reveal 10 patterns in success. Conference Paper Presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference, New York, N.Y., 1–29. Retrieved from Scopus.

Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations Review, 8(3), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(82)80028-3

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1986). Advancement for public relations role models. Public Relations Review, 12(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(86)80039-X

Business Week. (1978, May 8). PR: “the velvet ghetto” of affirmative action. Business Week, 122.

Cline, C., Toth, E. L., Turk, J., Walters, L., Johnson, N., & Smith, H. (1986). The Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communication. IABC Foundation.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2013). Corporate Communication. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecc143.pub2

Cornell, C. (n.d.). Is It Still 1986? Powerful Women Address the Gender Pay Gap. In Communication World Radio. Retrieved from http://cw.iabc.com/2014/04/18/still-1986-powerful-women-address-gender-pay-gap/

Creedon, P. J. (1991). Public Relations and “Women’s Work”: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Public Relations Roles. Public Relations Research Annual, 3(1–4), 67–84.

Crow, B. A. (2000). Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader. NYU Press.

DiDio, L. (1997). R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Computerworld; Framingham, 31(11), 84.

Donato, K. M., Phipps, P. A., Thomas, B. J., Bird, C. E., Detman, L. A., & Steiger, T. (1990a). Keepers of the Corporate Image: Women in Public Relations. In B. F. Reskin & P. A. Roos (Eds.), Job Queues, Gender Queues (pp. 129–144). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14btcj8.9

Donato, K. M., Phipps, P. A., Thomas, B. J., Bird, C. E., Detman, L. A., & Steiger, T. (1990b). Occupational Sex Segregation: Persistence and Change. In B. F. Reskin & P. A. Roos (Eds.), Job Queues, Gender Queues (pp. 3–28). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14btcj8.4

Donovan, J. (2012). Feminist Theory, Fourth Edition: The Intellectual Traditions. London, UK: A&C Black.

Dozier, D. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. In Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and the roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 10(2), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(84)80002-8

Dozier, D. M. (2013). Why Women Earn Less Than Men. Public Relations Journal, 7(1), 21.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0701_02

Dozier, David, Sha, B.-L., & Okura, M. (2007). How Much Does My Baby Cost? An Analysis of Gender Differences in Income, Career Interruption, and Child Bearing. Public Relations Journal, 1(1), 17.

Farmer, B., & Waugh, L. (1999). Gender differences in public relations students’ career attitudes: A benchmark study. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 235–249.

Fitch, A., & Third, A. (2013). Fitch: Ex-journos and promo girls: Feminization and… – Google Scholar. In Gender and Public Relations Critical Perspectives on Voice, Image and Identity. London, UK: Routledge.

Fitch, K., James, M., & Motion, J. (2016). Talking back: Reflecting on feminism, public relations and research. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.006

FitzPatrick, M. (2013, February). A strong case for female inclusion at the top level. PRweek, U.S. Ed.; New York, 16(2), 25.

Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine Mystique 1963. W.W.Norton & Company, Inc.

Gillis, S., Howie, G., & Munford, R. (2004). Third Wave Feminism. In S. Gillis, G. Howie, & R. Munford (Eds.), Third Wave Feminism: A Critical Exploration (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523173_1

Grunig, L. A. (1988). A research agenda for women in public relations. Public Relations Review, 14(3), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(88)80047-X

Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (2001). Women in public relations: How gender influences practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Harris, D. C. (1995, September 1). Grease the gears of equality. Retrieved October 17, 2019, from Personnel Journal website: https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A18145689/AONE?sid=lms

Heath, R. L. (2013). Encyclopedia of Public Relations. SAGE Publications.

Hon, L. C. (1995). Toward a Feminist Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 27–88.

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Pluto Press.

Introduction to the Human Resources Discipline of Diversity. (2017, May 19). Retrieved October 17, 2019, from SHRM website: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/introdiversity.aspx

Jackson, C. J., Davis, E., & Irwin-Gish, S. (2017, March). Benchmarking and best practices. Presented at the AACSB Business School Development and Communications Conference, New York, NY.

Kennedy, A. (2016). Landscapes of Care: Feminist Approaches in Global Public Relations. Journal of Media Ethics, 31(4), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2016.1220254

Klage, M. (2012). Feminist theory | Key Terms in Literary Theory. Retrieved from https://search-credoreference-com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/content/entry/contlt/feminist_theory/0?institutionid=720

Krugler, E. (2017). Women in public relations: The influence of gender on women leaders in public relations. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Lee, H., Place, K. R., & Smith, B. G. (2018). Revisiting gendered assumptions of practitioner power: An exploratory study examining the role of social media expertise. Public Relations Review, 44(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.03.002

Leupold, L. (2010, September 22). Fourth Wave Feminism, Special Report. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from https://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/archives/portfolio/leupold/

MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Harvard University Press.

Muehlbauer, K., & Rockland, D. (2017). Examining Agency Compensation. Public Relations Tactics.

Munro, E. (2013). Feminism: A Fourth Wave? Political Insight, 4(2), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-9066.12021

Neary, L. (2013, February 10). At 50, Does “Feminine Mystique” Still Roar? In NPR.org. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2013/02/10/171309154/at-50-does-feminine-mystique-still-roar

Neill, M. S., & Lee, N. (2016). Roles in Social Media: How the Practice of Public Relations Is Evolving. Public Relations Journal, 10(2). Retrieved from https://doaj.org

O’Neil, J. (2003). An Analysis of the Relationships Among Structure, Influence, and Gender: Helping to Build a Feminist Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 151–179.

Payne, D. C. (2005). The glass ceiling ten years later: A study of the professional woman’s perception of success in corporate America (Ph.D., Capella University). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305359593/abstract/435711359C2A4DD6PQ/1

Phillips, R., & Cree, V. E. (2014). What does the ‘Fourth Wave’ Mean for Teaching Feminism in Twenty-First Century Social Work? Social Work Education, 33(7), 930–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.885007

Place, K. R., & Vardeman-Winter, J. (2018). Where are the women? An examination of research on women and leadership in public relations. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.005

Pompper, D., & Adams, J. (2006). Under the microscope: Gender and mentor–protégé relationships. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.05.019

Rakow, L., & Nastasia, D. (2008). On Feminist Theory of Public Relations: An Example From Dorothy E. Smith. Conference Papers — International Communication Association, 1–44.

Schuessler, J. (2013, February 18). ‘The Feminine Mystique,’ Reassessed after 50 Years. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/books/50-years-of-reassessing-the-feminine-mystique.html

Sha, B.-L., & Toth, E. L. (2005). Future professionals’ perceptions of work, life, and gender issues in public relations. Public Relations Review, 31(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.09.004

Shah, A. (2015). Why Aren’t There More Female CEOs In PR? Retrieved from The Holmes Report website: https://www.holmesreport.com/long-reads/article/why-aren’t-there-more-female-ceos-in-pr

Shuk Yin Tam, Dozier, D. M., Lauzen, M. M., & Real, M. R. (1995). The Impact of Superior-Subordinate Gender on the Career Advancement of Public Relations Practitioners. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(4), 259–272.

Smith, P. R., & Taylor, J. (2004). Marketing Communications: An Integrated Approach. Kogan Page Publishers.

Solomon, D. (2009, November 13). The Blogger and Author on the Life of Women Online. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/magazine/15fob-q4-t.html

Steeves, H. L. (1987). Feminist Theories and Media Studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4(2), 95.

Steeves, H. L. (1988). What Distinguishes Feminist Scholarship in Communication Studies? Women’s Studies in Communication, 11(1), 12–17.

Toth, Elizabeth L., & Grunig, L. A. (1993). The Missing Story of Women in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 153–175.

Toth, Elizabeth Lance. (1988). Making peace with gender issues in public relations. Public Relations Review, 14(3), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(88)80046-8

Traister, R. (2011, January 20). Mad Women. The New York Times.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_S2412&prodType=table

Vardeman-Winter, J., & Place, K. R. (2017). Still a lily-white field of women: The state of workforce diversity in public relations practice and research. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.01.004

Wilcox, D. L., Cameron, G. T., & Reber, B. H. (2014). Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics Plus MySearchLab with eText — Access Card Package (11 edition). Place of publication not identified: Pearson.

Wollstonecraft, M. (2007). A vindication of the rights of woman. Champaign, Illinois: Book Jungle.

Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass Ceiling? What Glass Ceiling? A Qualitative Study of How Women View the Glass Ceiling in Public Relations and Communications Management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1401_2