gender differences in public relations students' career attitudes: a benchmark study

Public Relations Review, X(2):235-249 Copyright 0 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc.

ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Betty Farmer and Lisa Wautgh

Gender Differences in public Relations Students’ Career Attitudes: A Benchmark Study

ABSTRACT: Numerous articles have examined differences in men’s and women’s experiences in public relations, but few studies have explored students’ perceptions of gender issues. This study fills that gap. A two-page survey instrument was completed during April/May 1997 by 430 students studying public relations at 17 different schools across the United States.

There were no statistically significant differences in male and female students’ desires to perform managerial activities, but there were statistically significant differences in several areas. Female students reported they expect to earn less money starting out and to be promoted more slowly than their male counterparts expect. Female students were more likely to believe that they will need to postpone having a family in order to advance in their careers. Additionally, female students reported they want to “do it all”- both managerial and technical activities. These findings have both positive and negative implications for the profession.

Dr. Betty Farmer is an assistant professor of communication and public relations, and Ms. Lisa Waugh was a senior majoring in public relations at Western Carolina University at the time of this study. This research was funded by an Under- graduate Research Grant from Western.

Summer 1999 235

Public Relations Review

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Much has been written about male and female practitioners’ different experiences in public relations, but few researchers have considered the differences, if any, in male and female students’ attitudes toward their future careers. This national study explores male and female PR students’ attitudes toward the following topics: performing managerial and technical roles, women as PR managers, whether sex discrimination persists, the impact of family on career, and expectations for salary and career advancement. Given that today’s students are tomorrow’s practitioners, a better understanding of students’ attitudes could provide some indication of the PR field’s future. This research also provides a benchmark for future research in this area.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gender Differences Among PR Practitioners

During the last two decades, there has been a proliferation of articles examining gender/sex issues ’ in public relations. Among the most frequently addressed topics are the percentages of men and women in managerial positions, questions of role (managerial/technical) enactment, salary inequities, and barriers to women’s advancement.’

Although women constitute the majority of public relations practitioners (66% in 1992), a disproportionately low percentage of women hold the top managerial and counseling positions (37% in 1992), and, consequently, women com- mand smaller salaries.3 Several empirical studies have explored the tendency for women to predominate in the technical roles and men in the managerial roles.4 What roles women play and the future of the PR profession may be inexorably linked.5 Some practitioners have expressed fears that the increasing number of women in public relations will result in a decrease in status and salary for all practitioners.6

There is some evidence that the “feminization”’ of public relations may be tied to “encroachment” or public relations’ loss of managerial status to other disciplines, like marketing and law.’ Lauzen’ reported that practitioners’ attitudes toward and perceived competencies in the managerial role decreases the likelihood of encroachment.

As J. Grunigi” argued, “Organizations will lose the opportunity for their communication programs to contribute maximally to organizational effectiveness if they fail to promote women from the technician to the manager role and instead allow men from other fields to encroach upon communication management roles without proper training or experience.”

Dozier and Broom” further surmised that, according to the International Association of Business Communicator’s (IABC) 1992 Excellence Study, the

236 Vol. 25, No. 2

Gender Differences

“knowledge to enact the manager role was the single most powerful correlate of excellence in public relations and communication management.”

There is evidence to suggest that younger men and women support women in managerial positions. In a survey of Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and IABC members, Toth and Cline12 reported that only 10.1% of the respondents under 30 years of age agreed with the statement that “women prefer skills over management tasks in public relations,” whereas 39.4% of those over 60 years agreed. However, there was a statistically significant difference in men’s and women’s agreement with this statement, with the women expressing more disagreement.

Although there is no equity yet, the managerial gender gap may be narrowing. Comparing the results of surveys of PRSA members in 1979 and 199 1, Dozier and Broom13 found that the percentage of female practitioners enacting the manager role was 39% in 1991-up from 28% in 1979.

While there may be evidence that the managerial gender gap is narrowing, a critical finding in Toth and Grunig’s14 1993 study was that women may be being paid less for doing more. Their research “has suggested that female practitioners may continue to produce press releases and counsel top management for lower pay than that received by their male counterparts.”

Toth and Grumg15 further reported that the women in their study continued to do technical activities while carrying out the managerial function. This contrasts to the male practitioners who said their managerial activities were more “managerial” in nature. Female practitioners, then, are “doing it all”-that is, executing both technical and managerial fi.mctions”-for less pay than their male counterparts.

The concept of women “doing it all,” however, entails more than combining managerial and technical duties in the same job. For many women and men, doing it all means combining career and family. The impact of children on women’s careers in all professions has received a great deal of attention. For example, Powell16 concluded that, “Regardless of her occupation, the woman still performs most household activities in dual-career families. Thus, having a family typically imposes a greater constraint on women’s careers than it does men’s.” Hochs- child’7 reported in 1989 that only about 20% ofthe husbands in her study said they did half of the domestic and childcare duties in their household. Powell” hypoth- esized that if the impact of family on women’s careers does not change, women will continue to be disproportionately represented in management.

Addressing the impact of children on PR practitioners’ careers, Toth and Cline19 reported that most of the men in their study believed that children were neither helpful nor unhelpful to their careers, whereas half of the women reported that children were unhelpful to their career. The differences in this study, however, were not statistically significant. In the most recently published study to address this topic, Serini, Toth, Wright, and Emi$’ reported that women in their focus groups said they now felt they could talk more freely about balancing the needs of family and “felt that their career choices were supported by both their families and industry in general.”

Summer 1999 237


Gender Differences Among PR Students

While much has been written about differences in men’s and women’s attitudes and experiences after they begin working in the profession, little is known about male and female public relations students’ career attitudes. Given that approximately 80% of the students majoring in public relations are female,” addressing these issues is of crucial importance to the profession.

In one of the few published studies to date to determine public relations students’ attitudes toward the profession, DeRosa and Wilcox22 concluded that “female students are just as serious-minded and management oriented as their male counterparts.” These findings, however, contradicted the results of the 1986 Vehet Ghetto study, which found that male students scored significantly higher on a scale to determine serious-mindedness and reported a greater interest in the management function than women did. According to Cline et al.,23 “these women, apparently, are aggressive, but they are not as career-minded as men. This may be a reaction against the ‘Superwoman Syndrome’ of the past decade.”

With regard to salary, DeRosa and Wilcox24 found that the male and female students’ starting expectations for salary were the same; however, the males reported they expected a significantly higher salary after five years.

Given that there is limited research and contradictory findings, further research is needed on public relations students’ attitudes toward these issues. DeRosa and Wilcox’s study was limited to five universities in California during 1987. Would a national study a decade later have similar findings?

RJBEARCH QUESTIONS

The following questions were explored in this study: Do male and female students in 1997 differ in their desires to perform managerial and/or technical job functions in their “ideal” job? Do male and female students expect to earn similar salaries? Do male and female students believe that women and men are equally capable of being managers? Do male and female students believe that sex discrimination is no longer a problem? Do male and female students hold similar attitudes about the impact of children on their careers? If the future of public relations is tied to the managerial aspirations and attitudes of future practitioners, these questions need to be explored.

METHOD

A two-page survey instrument, printed front to back, was developed to answer these questions. To determine managerial and technician role enactment, scale items from Broom’s25 and Toth and Grunig’s26 studies were used. Respondents were asked to report how often in their “ideal job,” which was defined as the job to which they ultimately aspired, they would like to perform the

238 Vol. 25, No. 2

Gender differences

following activities: writing; editing; producing messages; making media contacts; writing and producing print materials (newsletters, brochures, etc.); planning and implementing events; handling correspondence/telephone calls; implementing decisions made by others; planning and managing budgets; counseling top management; making communication policy recommendations; taking responsibility for the success or failure of my organization’s public relations program; being accountable for the success or failure of my public relations program; and being the organization’s expert in solving public relations problems. Possible responses were: “frequently,” “sometimes,” “rarely,” and “never.”

To determine differences in male and female public relations students’ attitudes toward women in management and the traditional barriers to women’s advancement, respondents were asked to report the extent to which they agreed or disagreed, using a 5-point scale, with the following statements: women in public relations advance at the same rate in their careers as men in public relations do; sex discrimination in public relations is no longer a problem; female public relations practitioners are as effective managers as male practitioners; in order to advance my career in public relations, I will need to postpone having a family; and female practitioners have a more difficult time moving into managerial positions than male practitioners do.

Respondents also were asked to indicate their expected starting salary, when they expected to receive their first promotion, and when they expected to move into a managerial position. To determine a demographic profile, students were asked to report their grade point average, their year in school, their sex, and whether they were members and leaders in the Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) .

The Sample

Since it would be virtually impossible to identify an accu- rate national list of individual public relations students, the most plausible method for conducting this research was to administer the surveys in bulk-either in classrooms or organized public relations gatherings, such as PRSSA. Since PRSSA is the leading pre-professional organization in the field and helps set public relations curriculum standards, only universities that had PRSSA chapters were contacted.

PRSSA National Headquarters provided a list of PRSSA chapters, which identified the chapter’s district designation, its membership size, and faculty ad- viser contact information. The three largest chapters in each district were selected and the respective faculty advisers were contacted by telephone or email to determine if they would be willing to participate in the study.

Faculty advisers were asked to administer the surveys in their public relations classes and/or in PRSSA meetings and to return the surveys in bulk in prepaid envelopes by May 15,1997. Two attempts were made to secure participation from the largest chapters in each district; after the two attempts, the next largest chapter on the list was contacted. A total of 17 chapters, representing all of the geographic

Summer 1999 239


districts of PRSSA, participated. One thousand nineteen surveys were mailed and 430 usable surveys were returned, for a response rate of approximately 42%.

RESULTS

Demographics

The demographic profile on sex in this survey closely re- flected published accounts of the sex demographic in the actual population, which lends credibility that the sample is representative of the population. Of the 430 respondents, 77% (N = 332) were female; 23% (N = 98) were male. The typical demographic profile is of a female student who has a grade point average of between 3.0 and 3.4, who is in her junior year, and who has not held a leadership position in PRSSA.

There was a statistically significant difference in the male and female students’ year in school, with the mean year for the males being higher than the females’ (t = -3.30; LX!!= 177; two-tailed separate variance estimate; p < .OOl).

There were statistically significant differences in PRSSA membership and leadership. The females were more likely to be members of PRSSA (t = -2.30; df= 159; two-tailed separate variance estimate; p < .02) and to hold leadership positions in PRSSA chapters (t = -2.07, df = 191; two-tailed separate variance estimate; p < .03).

Expectations for Salary and Promotion

Almost 39% (N = 167) of all respondents expect their starting salary to be between $18,000 and $21,000, and 39.4% (N = 170) expect it to be between $22,000 and 25,000. Approximately 13% (N = 55) expect a starting salary ofmore than $25,000.

Sixty percent (N = 259) expect their first promotion within one to two years, and slightly more than half (N = 22) expect to move into a managerial position within a two-and-one-half to five-year time period.

There were statistically significant differences in male and female students’ expectations for starting salary, the time within which they believed they would receive their first promotion, and the time it would take them to move into management. The males expected a higher starting salary, faster promotion, and a faster move into management than their female counterparts. (Table 1 reports the results of t-tests on these items.)

Role Enactment

There were no statistically significant differences in male and female students’ desires to counsel top management, to be the expert in solving PR problems, to make communication policy recommendations, to man-

240 Vol. 25, No. 2

Gender Differences

TABLE 1

t-tests of Sex Differences in PR Students’ Expectations for Starting Salary, First Promotion, and Time it Would Take to Attain Management Position

Va’ariable Sex N M SD t df $2. salary

Receive First Promo

Move into Mgmt Pos

* Denotes sc&nificance < .05.

F 332 2.5120 .806 -3.04 145 .003* M 95 2.8105 .854 F 331 2.1118 .649 2.20 146 .029* M 96 1.9375 .693 F 329 3.2553 .734 2.26 136 .026* M 97 3.0309 .895

age budgets, or to take responsibility for the success or failure of the organization’s PR program. (Table 2 reports the results of t-tests for these items.)

An almost equal percentage of males (53.%) and females (53.3%) reported that they would “frequently” like to counsel top management in their ideal job. Nearly two-thirds of both sexes (60.2% of the females and 63.3% of the males) said they “frequently” would like to be accountable for the success or failure of their organization’s public relations program.” Only 15.7% of the females and 18.6% of the males reported that they “frequently” wanted to plan and manage budgets in their ideal job.

However, there were statistically significant differences on the questions measuring the technical dimension. The female students reported a desire to make media contacts, plan and implement special events, handle correspondence, and

TABLE 2

t-tests of Sex Differences in PR Students’ Desires to Perform Managerial Activities in their Ideal Job

Variable Sex N M SD t df St&.

Plan and Manage Budgets

Counsel Top Management

Make Communications Policy

Take Responsibility for Success/Failure

Be Accountable for Success/ Failure

Be the Organization’s Expert in Solving PR Problems

F 332 2.7410 ,785 -.45 149 .65 M 97 2.7835 ,832 F 332 3.4578 .642 1.42 131 .15 M 98 3.3265 .847 F 330 3.4697 .629 1.12 144 .26 M 97 3.3814 .699 F 332 3.4428 .664 -.30 139 .76 M 98 3.4694 .789 F 332 3.5331 ,647 .28 144 ,781 M 98 3.5102 .736 F 332 3.5000 .624 .53 149 .594 M 98 3.4592 .676

Summer 1999 241


TABLE 3

t-tests of Sex Differences in Students’ Desires to Perform Technical Communication Activities in Their Ideal Job

Variable Sex N M SD t df SZJJ

Writing and Editing

Making Media Contacts

Producing print Materials

Plan and Implement Events

Handle Correspondence

Implement Others’ Decisions

F 330 3.3848 M 98 3.3571 F 330 3.6364 M 98 3.4694 F 332 3.3675 M 98 3.2449 F 332 3.7741 M 98 3.5204 F 329 3.2462 M 98 2.8776 F 331 3.2024 M 97 2.9794

.693 .33 150 .75 ,750 .605 2.20 146 .03* .677 ,772 1.48 171 .14 ,704 .440 3.65 124 .ooo* .646 ,701 4.61 160 .ooo* .693 .565 2.90 135 .004* .692

* S&2J%ance < .05.

implement the decisions made by others more frequently than did their male counterparts (Table 3 ). In their ideal job, 69.4% (N = 229) of the females and 57.1% (N = 56) of the males said they wanted to make media contacts frequently (X2 = 9.42666; p .02). With regard to planning special events, 78.3% of the females (N = 260) and 60.2% (N = 59) of the males said they wanted to plan and implement special events (X2 = 22.76314; p < .OOOOl).

Attitudes Toward Rate of Advancement

A clear difference in attitudes between the sexes surfaced on the question dealing with the rate at which women advance. (Table 4 reports the results of t-tests for this question.) Whereas 40.1% (N = 133) of the females disagreed or strongly disagreed that women advance at the same rate men in public relations do, 2 1.4% (N = 37) of the males disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Approximately 41% (N = 40) of the males and 28% (N = 92) of the females reported they were undecided about this issue. While 32% of the females (N = 106) g d a ree or strongly agreed that women advance at the same rate, 37.8% of the males (N = 37) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (X2 = 15.28327, p < .004).

Ease with Which Women Move into Management

While 54.7% (N = 180) of the females strongly agreed or agreed that females have a more difficult time moving into management than males do, 33% (N = 32) of the males strongly agreed or agreed. While 50.5% (N = 49) of the males were undecided, 29.2% (N = 96) of the females reported they were

242 Vol. 25. No. 2

Gender Differences

TABLE 4

t-tests of Sex Differences in PR Students’ Attitudes Towards Whether Women Advance at the Same Rate, Whether Female Managers are as Effective, Whether Sex

Discrimination Persists, Need to Postpone Family to have Career, and Whether Female Practitioners Have More Difficulty

Moving Into Management

Variable

Women Advance at Same Rate

Female Managers As Effective

Discrimination No Longer Problem

Postpone Family To Have Career

Females Have More Difficulty

Sex N

F 331 M 98 F 331 M 98 F 331 M 98 F 331 M 98 F 329 M 97

M

2.9275 3.1531 4.6828 4.2347 2.5589 2.8163 2.8163 3.3980 2.5167 2.7732

AD t df S&J.

1.027 -2.13 180 .035* .889 .622 5.35 138 .ooo*

.757

.830 -2.80 165 .006* ,791

1.040 -4.86 158 .ooo*

1.043 .966 -2.65 186 .009* .797

undecided. While 16.1% (N = 53) of the females disagreed or strongly disagreed, 16.5% (N = 16) of the males disagreed (none strongly) with this question (X2 = 20.47944, p < .00040). (Table 4 reports the results of t-tests on this question.)

Women as Managers

Overall, respondents were positive in their assessment of women’s ability to manage. There were, however, statistically significant differences in this area, with females reporting a more favorable assessment of women’s ability to manage. While 73.7% (N = 244) of the females strongly agreed that female public relations practitioners are as effective as male managers, only 39.8% (N = 39) of the males strongly agreed. Approximately 47% (N = 46) of the males and 23.3% (N = 77) ofthe females agreed that females were as effective. Only 1.8% (N = 6) of the females and 3.1% (N = 3) of the males disagreed or strongly disagreed with this question (X” = 48.90343, p < .OOOOO). (Table 4 reports the results of t-tests for this question.)

Postponing Career for Family

Male and female students in this sample reported major differences in their agreement with the statement, “In order to advance my career in public relations, I will need to postpone having a family.” Whereas 42.7% (N = 142) of the females agreed or strongly agreed that they would need to postpone family in order to advance in their career, only 2 1.4% (N = 2 1) of the males agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. While more than half (53%; N = 52) of the

Summer 1999 243


males disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, less than one-third (29S%,N = 98) ofth e em es f al d’ lsagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement (X2 = 24.31100, p < .00007). (Table 4 reports the results oft-tests on this item. Note: This item was coded so that a higher score indicates greater disagreement.)

Sex Discrimination

There were statistically significant sex differences in students’ assessment of whether sex discrimination continued, with the males reporting greater agreement that sex discrimination was no longer a problem. Approxi- mately 52% (N = 171) of the females strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement, “Sex discrimination in public relations is no longer a problem,” while 50% (N = 49) of the males were undecided and 33.7% (N = 33) of the males strongly disagreed or disagreed. Only 13% (N = 43) of the females and 16.3% (N = 16) of the males agreed or strongly agreed that sex discrimination was no longer a problem (X2 = 10.38058, p < .03). (Table 4 reports the results of t-tests on this item. Note: this item was coded so that a higher score indicates greater disagreement.)

DISCUSSION

The results of this study support DeRosa and Wilcox’s conclusion that female students are just as serious-minded and interested in management as male students are. Given the threat of encroachment and the number of females majoring in public relations, this is a positive finding.

However, there are some troubling findings. First, the finding that females scored higher on the desire to perform several of the technical fimctions supports Toth and Grunig’s dual-role findings. The females in this study were more likely to report that they wanted to “do it all” in their ideal job. The professional and personal costs of such an approach needs to be considered.

Contrary to DeRosa &Wilcox’s findings on salary, females and males in this study did not expect similar starting salaries. The male students reported they expected a higher salary, to be promoted faster, and to move into management faster than their female counterparts. Perhaps this potential self-hlflling prophecy can partly explain the continued disparity in men’s and women’s salaries. If the profession is to maintain adequate salary levels, female students need to be pre- pared to ask for and negotiate for what they are worth. Educators and professional mentors could consider recommending works such as The Smart Woman’s Guide to Interviewing and Salay Negotiation27 to their female students. (Note: The authors are well aware of the radical feminists’ critique that such advice uts the

% burden of change squarely on the female’s shoulders. We agree with Hon that a combination of liberal and radical feminist strategies should be combined to bring about desired goals; we recommend radical strategies later in the discussion. We

244 Vol. 25, No. 2

Gender Differences

also believe that male students-and the profession-could benefit from advice on salary negotiation.)

Perhaps the most troubling findings in this study were in the area of attitudes toward women’s advancement. The attitudes toward balancing family and career echoed tradition: Females were more likely to agree that they would have to postpone having a family in order to advance in their careers. For public relations students in 1997, raising children still appeared to be perceived as more of a detriment to the female’s than to the male’s career. Radical feminist strategies that call for more family-friendly policies in the workplace are needed for the benefit of both parents.

The findings on the questions addressing the existence of continued discrimination and women’s rate of advancement should serve to raise, if not a red flag, eyebrows. While male students were more likely to agree that sex discrimination was no longer a problem, they were not as strong in their agreement that female PRmanagers were as effective as male PRmanagers. Male students’ relative lack of confidence in female managers may suggest that subtle, stereotypical, discriminatory attitudes persist. However, a male colleague cautioned that the wording of this item may be problematic: “female public relations practitioners are as effective managers as male practitioners.” This colleague suggested that if the wording were reversed, e.g. “male public relations practitioners are as effective as female practitioners,” we might find that females were less strong in their agreement. Or a more neutral wording of the item might be preferable. Clearly, attitudes in this area are significant and a goal for future research should be to develop valid and reliable scales to measure these constructs.

The picture that emerges from the data is that of the female student who wants to “do it all,” who believes in her ability to move into management, but who believes that having a family will slow her down and that she will have a more difficult time moving into management than her male counterpart will. She expects less money and to be promoted more slowly than her male counterparts expect to be promoted.

As Powell29 concluded, “Changes in the managerial aspirations of women relative to men, the amount of organizational support for employees’ pursuit of their family lives, and the presence or absence of sex discrimination in hiring decisions for management positions could also influence the future proportion of women managers” (p. 260).

The findings from this study have both positive and negative implications for the profession. The data seem to support the need for continued focus on women’s advancement issues, particularly in the area of young women’s career expectations and young men’s attitudes toward women in managerial positions.

NOTES

1. The distinction between sex. and gender has been widely discussed. Whereas sex denotes males and females biologically, gender is a social construct that describes

Summer 1999 245


2.

masculine and feminine characteristics. According to G. N; Powell, in Women and Men in Management (New York: Sage Publications, 1993), a gender study is one that focuses on how people think that women and men differ. This study considers these differences. Determining whether respondents are males or females is a crude distinction, but a necessary starting point. The authors believe that to more fully explore gender differences in this area, researchers should measure respondents’ gender using the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) or another measure. The authors have initiated a research project to do just that. P. J. Creedon, “Just a Technician: Let’s Take Another Look at How We’re Trivial- izing the Communications Function in Public Relations,” preconference working paper, Seminar on Gender Issues and Public Relations, Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC, August 1989b; P. J. Creedon, “Public Relations History Misses ‘her story,“’ Journalism Educator, 44 (1989), p. 26; D. DeRosa and D. L. Wilcox, “Gaps Are Narrowing Between Female and Male Students,” Public Relations Review 15 (1989), pp. 80-90; D. M. Dozier, “Breaking the Public Relations’ Glass Ceiling,” Public ReLationsReview (1988), pp. 6-14; D. M. Dozier and G. M. Broom, “Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice,” Journal of Public Relations Research 7 (1995), pp. 3-26; L. A. Grunig, “The “Glass Ceiling“ Effect on Mass Communi- cation Students,” in P. J. Creedon (ed.), Women in Communication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993), pp. 276-300; L. C. Hon, L. A. Grunig, and D. M. Dozier, “Women in Public Relations: Problems and Opportunities,” in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 419-438; P. Lesley, “Public Relations Num- bers Are Up but Stature Down,” Public Relations Review 14 (1988), pp. 3-7.; K. Lukovitz, “Women Practitioners: How Far, How Fast?,” Public Relations Journal45 (1989), pp.15-22; W. Matthews, “Women in Public Relations: Progression or Ret- rogression? ,” Public RelationsReview 14 (1988), pp. 24-28; L. F. Rakow, “From the Feminization of Public Relations to the Promise of Feminism,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the Velvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Founda- tion, 1989a), pp. 287-298; M. P. Russell and L. Z. Schaible, “Career Trends for Women in Public Relations Education,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the VeLvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation, 1989), pp. 175-202; K. T. Theus, “Gender Shifts in Journalism and Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 11 (1985), pp. 42-50; E. L. Toth, “Making Peace With Gender Issues in Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 14 (1988), pp. 36-47; E. L.Toth, “Gen- der Issues from the Speech Communication Perspective,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the Velvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation, 1989, pp. 59-70; E. L. Toth, “Summary Issues from the Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communi- cation,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the VeLvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation, 1989), pp. 7-24; E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline, “Public Relations Practitioners Attitudes Toward Gender Issues: A Benchmark Study,” Public Relations Review 17 (1991), pp. 161-174; D. K. Wright, L. A. Grunig, J. K. Spring- ston, and E. L. Toth, Under the Glass Ceiling: An Analysis of Gender Issues in Amer- ican Public Relations (New York: Public Relations Society of America Foundation, 1991); L. M. Zoch and M. P. Russell, “Women in PREducation: An Academic Velvet Ghetto?,” Journalism Educator46 (1991), pp. 25-37.

246 Vol. 25, No. 2

Gender Differences

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

18. 19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

C. G. Cline, E. L. Toth, J. V. Turk, L. M. Walters, N. Johnson, and H. Smith, The Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communication (San Francisco: International Association of Business Communicators, 1986); D. J. Jacobson and N. J. Tortorello, “Seventh Annual Salary Survey,” Public Relations Journal 48 (1992), pp. 9-21. See for example: G. M. Broom, “A Comparison of Sex Roles in Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 8 (1982), pp. 17-22; G. M. Broom and D. M. Dozier, “Advancement for Public Relations Role Models,” Public Relations Review 12 (1986), 37-56; P. Creedon, “Public Relations and ‘Women’s Work’: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Public Relations Roles, ” in L. A. Grunig and J. E. Grunig (eds.), Public Relations Research Annwal (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990), pp. 67-84. D. M. Dozier, op. cit., pp. 6-14. P. Lesley, op. cit., p. 5. For example, Lesley expressed concern that some feared the preponderance of women could cause public relations not to be seen as a “heavy- hitting top management function.” C. G. Cline and E. L. Toth, “Re-visioning Women in Public Relations: Practitioner and Feminist Perspectives, ” in P. J. Creedon (ed.), Women in Mass Communication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993), pp. 183-198. M. M. Lauzen, “Public Relations Roles, Intraorganizational Power, and Encroach- ment,” Journal of Public Relations Research 4 (1992), pp. 61-80. Ibid. J. E. Grunig, “Communication, Public Relations, and Efective Organizations: An Overview of the Book,” in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. l-28. D. M. Dozier and G. M. Broom, “Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice,” Journal of Public Relations Research 7 (1995), pp. 3-26. E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline, op. cit., pp. 7-24. D. M. Dozier and G. M. Broom, op. cit., pp. 3-26. E. L. Toth and L. A. Grunig, “The Missing Story of Women in Public Relations,” Journal of Public Relations Research 5 (1993), pp. 153-175. Ibid. G. N. Powell, Women and Men in Management, (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 1993, p. 255. A. Hochschild, The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. (New York: Viking/Penguin), 1989. G. N. Powell, op. cit., p. 260. E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline, “Public Relations Practitioner Attitudes Toward Gender Issues: A Benchmark Study,” Public Relations Review 17 (1991), pp. 161-174. S. A. Serini, E. Toth, D. K. Wright, and A. G. Emig, “Watch for Falling Glass. . . Women, Men, and Job Satisfaction in Public Relations: A Preliminary Analysis,” Public Relations Review 9 (1997), pp. 99-118. C. G. Cline, “Public Relations: The $1 Million Dollar Penalty for Being a Woman,” in P. J. Creedon (ed.), Women in Mass Communication: Challenging Gender Values (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), pp. 263-275. D. DeRosa and D. L. Wilcox, “Gaps Are Narrowing Between Female and Male Students,” Public Relations Review 15 (1989), pp. 80-90. C. G. Cline et al., op. cit., pp. ix, 9-10.

Summer 1999 247


24. D. DeRosa and D. L. Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 80-90. 25. G. M. Broom, “A Comparison of Sex Roles in Public Relations,” Public Relations

Review 8 (1982), pp. 17-22. 26. E. L. Toth and L. A. Grunig, op. cit., pp. 53-175. 27. J. A. Ring, The Smart Woman’s Guide to Interviewing and Salary Negotiation, Frank-

lin Lakes, NJ: Career Press, 1995. 28. L. C. Hon, “Toward a Feminist Theory of Public Relations,” Journal of Public

Relations Research, 7 (1995), pp. 27-88. 29. G. N. Powell, op. cit., p. 260.

REFERENCES

G. M. Broom, “A Comparison of Sex Roles in Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 8 (1982), pp. 17-22. G. M. Broom and D. M. Dozier, “Advancement for Public Relations Role Models,” Public Relations Review 12 (1986), 37-56. C. G. Cline, “Public Relations: The $1 Million Dollar Penalty for Being a Woman,” in P. J. Creedon (ed.), Women in Mass Communication: Challenging Gender Values (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), pp. 263-275. C. G. Cline, E. L. Toth, J. V. Turk, L. M. Walters, N. Johnson, and H. Smith, The Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communication (San Francisco: International Association of Business Communicators, 1986). C. G. Cline and E. L. Toth, “Re-visioning Women in Public Relations: Practitioner and Feminist Perspectives,” in P. J. Creedon (ed.), Women in Mass Communication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993), pp. 183-198. P. J. Creedon, “Just a Technician: Let’s Take Another Look at How We’re Trivializing the Communications Function in Public Relations,” preconference working paper, Seminar on Gender Issues and Public Relations, Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC, August 1989a. P. J. Creedon, “Public Relations History Misses ‘Her Story,“’ Journalism Educator, 44 (1989b), p. 26. P. J. Creedon, “Public Relations and ‘Women’s Work’: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Public Relations Roles,” in L. A. Grunig and J. E. Grunig (eds.), Public Relations Research Annual (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990), pp. 67- 84. H. M. Culbertson, D. W. Jeffers, B. W. Stone, and M. Terrell, Social, Political, and Economic Contexts in Public Relations Theory and Cases (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993). D. DeRosa and D. L. Wilcox, “Gaps Are Narrowing Between Female and Male Students,” Public Relations Review 15( 1989), pp. 80-90. D. M. Dozier, “Breaking the Public Relations’ Glass Ceiling,” Public Relations Review 4 (1988), pp. 6-14. D. M. Dozier and G. M. Broom, “Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice,” Journal of Public Relations Research 7 (1995), pp. 3-26. J. E. Grunig, “Communication, Public Relations, and Effective 0ganizations:h Overview of the Book,” in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. l-28.

248 Vol. 25, No. 2

Gender Differences

L. A. Grunig, “The ‘Glass Ceiling’ Effect on Mass Communication Students,” in P. J. Creedon (ed.), Women in Mass Communication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993), pp. 276-300. D. J. Jacobson and N. J. Tortorello, “Seventh Annual Salary Survey,” Public Relations Journal48 (1992), pp. 9-21. L. C. Hon, “Toward a Feminist Theory of Public Relations,” Journal of Public Relations Research 7( 1995), pp. 27-88. L. C. Hon, L. A. Grunig, and D. M. Dozier, “Women in Public Relations: Problems and Opportunities,” in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 419-438. M. M. Lauzen, “Public Relations Roles, Intraorganizational Power, and Encroachment,” Journal of Public Relations Research 4 (1992), pp. 61-80. P. Lesly, “Public Relations Numbers Are Up but Stature Down,” Public Relations Review 14 (1988), pp. 3-7. K. Lukovitz, “Women Practitioners: How Far, How Fast?,” Public Relations Journal 45 (1989), pp.15-22. W. Matthews, “Women in Public Relations: Progression or Retrogression?,” Public Rela- tions Review 14 (1988), 24-28. L. F. Rakow, “From the Feminization of Public Relations to the Promise of Feminism,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the VeZvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation,l989), pp. 287-298. M. P. Russell and L. Z. Schaible, “Career Trends for Women in Public Relations Educa- tion,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the Velvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation, 1989), pp. 175-202. K. T. Theus, “Gender Shifts in Journalism and Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 11 (1985), pp. 42-50. E. L. Toth, “Making Peace with Gender Issues in Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 14 (1988), pp. 36-47. E. L. Toth, “Gender Issues from the Speech Communication Perspective,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the Velvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Founda- tion, 1989a), pp. 59-70. E. L. Toth, “Summary Issues from the Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communication,” in E. L. Toth and C. G. Cline (eds.), Beyond the Velvet Ghetto (San Francisco: IABC Research Founda- tion, 1989b), pp. 7-24. E. L. Toth and L. A. Grunig, “The Missing Story of Women in Public Relations,” Journal of Public Relations Research 5 (1993), pp. 53-175. D. K. Wright, L. A. Grunig, J. K. Springston, and E. L. Toth, Under the Glass Ceiling: An Analysis of Gender Issues in American Public Relations (New York: Public Relations Society of America Foundation, 1991). L. M. Zoch and M. P. Russell, “Women in PR Education: An Academic Velvet Ghetto?,” Journalism Educator46 (1991), pp. 25-37.

Summer 1999 249

gender differences in public relations students' career attitudes: a benchmark study

Documents