Up

LS

a

KSE

1

dstptirhw

2

ri

0d

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

.S. student-run agencies: Organization, attributes and advisererceptions of student learning outcomes

ee Bush ∗, Barbara M. Miller1

chool of Communications, Elon University, Campus Box 2850, Elon, NC 27244, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:tudent agenciesxperiential learning

a b s t r a c t

Student-run communications agencies mimic professional public relations and advertis-ing agencies by providing students with a professional environment in which to work onreal projects for real clients. This study involved a survey of agency advisers at AEJMCuniversities and ACEJMC-accredited universities to evaluate the attributes, structure, andperceived student learning outcomes of agencies in the U.S. Though agencies vary greatlyin how they are structured and managed, this study suggests student agencies in generalare indeed beneficial to student learning, particularly in the areas of skills application andprofessionalism. Despite the benefit to students, agencies receive little funding relative toother campus media and agency advisers often receive limited support for the requiredtime commitment. Agency organization, adviser time commitment, and agency facilitiesare examined in regard to their impact on agency protocols and perceptions of studentlearning.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Student-run communications agencies mimic professional public relations and advertising agencies by providing stu-ents with a professional environment in which to work on real projects for real clients. Though little research exists ontudent agencies, a 2009 study outlined the pedagogical benefits of student agencies, identified challenges involved in main-aining an agency, and provided a framework for potential agency success (Bush). The purpose of the following study is torovide ostensibly the first descriptive study of student-run agencies and to test the assertions presented in Bush’s qualita-ive study on a larger, quantitative scale. To do so, the researchers surveyed agency advisers at 83 colleges and universitiesdentified as having a student agency. Given the propensity for agencies to come in and out of existence (Bush, 2009), theesearchers determined that agency advisers would be best able to report the characteristics of student agencies, as well asow the agency may benefit student learning. The survey yielded a 61% response rate (n = 51), providing a solid basis fromhich to analyze agency practices.

. Literature review

The importance of understanding student-run agencies lies in the need to determine if and how communications cur-icula are falling short of preparing students for the profession and to examine how agencies might fill potential voids. Innvestigating this topic, both public relations and advertising literature was considered given evidence that the profession as

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 336 278 5778.E-mail address: lbush3@elon.edu (L. Bush).

1 Tel.: +1 336 287 5728.

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.019

486 L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491

well as academic programs are moving toward integrated communications (Becker, Vlad, Tucker, & Pelton, 2006; Johnson &Ross, 2001; Kitchen, Kim, & Schultz, 2008; AEJMC Report on Integrated Communication, as cited in Larsen & Len-Rios, 2006,p. 35). In a survey of public relations and advertising educators, consensus was found to exist in regard to required skillsets for careers in both disciplines, including writing, critical thinking, planning, problem-solving, and communication withdiverse audiences (Larsen & Len-Rios, 2006). Just as comparable skill sets are required of public relations and advertisinggraduates, research has also identified similar shortcomings between students’ preparation and employer expectations inboth fields. Public relations literature suggests students may not be learning the professional skills and business protocolsrequired of the profession (e.g., Brown & Fall, 2005; Commission on Public Relations Education, 2006; Guineven, 1998; Neff,2002); likewise, advertising research suggests students require more “hands-on” opportunities and real-world experiencein their coursework (Scott & Frontczak, 1996, p. 47). Professional creative directors, meanwhile, have argued that graduatesneed a greater understanding of the agency environment prior to agency employment (e.g., Robbs, 1996), as well as a “real-istic depiction” of agency life, including lengthy approval processes, internal politics, and the understanding that advertisingis “first and foremost, a business” (Otness, Spooner, & Treise, 1993, p. 13). In short, studies in both disciplines call for aca-demic programs to integrate more hands-on opportunities into curricula, helping students better understand the businessprocesses and professional skills required of the profession.

Can student-run agencies help fill this gap? Through in-depth interviews with both agency advisers and students, Bush(2009) found that student agencies provide three levels of learning – applying theory to practice (i.e., skills application), learn-ing business protocols, and gaining professional skills. However, the study also revealed a high risk of agency disintegration(i.e., going in and out of existence). Agencies with more structure and protocols were found to be less likely to dissolve thantheir more loosely structured counterparts, provided higher levels of learning, had higher levels of adviser involvement, andwere most often managed through journalism/mass communication programs versus student organizations (e.g., PRSSA).Having a dedicated office space was also found to be a key component to agency success. Two troubling findings from thestudy were that student agencies did not receive the same level of funding or support as their campus media counterparts(e.g., student newspaper, television station, or radio station), nor did the advisers receive adequate compensation from theirinstitutions. The current study sought to test many of these assertions and to provide descriptive data on agencies acrossthe U.S. through a survey addressing the following questions:

RQ1: What are the characteristics of student-run agencies at AEJMC and ACEJMC-accredited institutions (including agencystructure, longevity, funding, facilities, services, adviser commitment and compensation, challenges, and perceived studentbenefits)?RQ2: How does (a) an agency’s operation (within a journalism/mass communication program versus a student organiza-tion), (b) an adviser’s time commitment to the agency, and (c) having dedicated office space, impact agency protocols andperceived student learning outcomes?

3. Method

To develop a database of faculty advisers, the researchers made phone calls to schools listed as having an agency in the2010 directory of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, as well as schools listed in thedirectory of the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. After weeding out agencies thatno longer existed, the combined lists included 83 student agencies. An electronic survey was sent to faculty advisers ofthese schools, yielding a response rate of 61% (51 respondents). The survey consisted of 36 questions and took approxi-mately 15 min to complete. Several survey questions were combined into scales during data analysis by summing multiplequestions assessing the same dimension. Scales used 1–5 Likert-type formats and were developed based on Bush’s (2009)three key student learning outcomes: skills application (e.g., practicing tactical communication skills, planning/executing fullcampaigns, practicing production skills); understanding business processes (e.g., business policies, business hierarchy, bud-geting/billing processes); and professional skills (e.g., working within a team structure, managing client expectations, takingdirection/criticism, gaining career knowledge). Each of the scales was assessed for internal consistency using Cronbach’salpha following data collection and was deemed to be reliable (alpha ≥ .87 for each scale).

To answer RQ1, descriptive statistics were calculated. To answer RQ2, independent samples t tests were conducted toevaluate differences by agency organization (within journalism/mass communication departments and schools versus stu-dent organizations) and the existence of dedicated agency office space on business protocols and student learning outcomes.Regression analyses were conducted to examine the impact of adviser time commitment on agency protocols and perceivedstudent learning outcomes. All analyses were computed using SPSS 18.0.

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of student-run agencies at AEJMC and ACEJMC-accredited institutions

Almost 70% of respondents were located at public schools. Responses were diverse in regard to geography (with respon-dents from all regions of the country) and size of the institution (with responses from schools larger than 25,000 students

ag

4

aa(

ca

shw(e

a3a

4

ds

at

pph

sof

L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491 487

nd less than 2000 students). The mean number of students participating in agencies was 41.83, though this number variedreatly (SD = 43.49). Open-ended responses ranged from 4 to 180 students.

.1.1. Agency structure, longevity, and fundingIt seems the integration of public relations and advertising reflected in many agencies and schools across the country is

lso evident in student agencies. Over half of agency advisers (51%) described their agency as an integrated communicationgency; 34% described their agency as primarily PR, and 9% described their agency as primarily advertising. “Other” responsesn = 3) were from schools that had both an advertising and PR agency.

While 48.9% of schools offer course credit for agency participation, 51.1% of schools do not. Of the schools that offerourse credit (n = 23), 87.0% give letter grades (n = 20) and 13% use pass/fail grading (n = 3). Only 17.4% of schools allowgency participation to replace an internship or course requirement.

Over half of the agencies (51.1%) were operated out of a journalism/mass communication department or school (not as atudent organization), while 40% were operated as a student organization (e.g., PRSSA). The majority of responding agenciesave been in existence for at least 4 years (52.1%), with many functioning for over 6 years (41.7%). Almost 15% of respondentsere involved with start-up agencies (less than one year). Of the agencies in existence more than 6 years, seven agencies

35%) had gone out of existence at least once (20% once; 15% more than once). Four agencies under 6 years had gone out ofxistence at least once (2 once; 2 more than once).

Survey findings support the assertion that student-run agencies are significantly underfunded (Bush, 2009). Only 2.2% ofdvisers indicated the student agency receives the same level of funding as the campus newspaper, television, and radio;2.6% of advisers indicated their agency receives less funding; 65.2% of advisers indicated their agency receives no fundingt all.

.1.2. Agency facilities, services, and processesAgencies differed greatly in regard to their workspace. While 38% of respondents indicated their agency has its own

edicated workspace, 34% of respondents indicated their agency had no workspace, and 27.7% share their space with anothertudent organization.

As shown in Fig. 1, the types of services provided by the agencies are quite vast. The type of client work provided by mostgencies (89.6%) is social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter). Video production and broadcast commercials are provided byhe fewest number of agencies, at 52.1% and 33.3%, respectively.

Although there was great consistency in the types of client work provided, there was less uniformity in the agencies’rocesses and protocols. As shown in Fig. 2, while 89.6% hold weekly agency meetings, less than half use formal businessrotocols such as client planning templates (47.8%), time sheets (46.7%), tracking billable hours (32.6%), requiring officeours (32.6%), or a dress code (31.9%).

While most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their agency incorporates many business practices (66.6%), has atudent director (91.5%), and operates with account team leaders (89.6%), fewer agencies have either a creative team (40.4%)r additional tactical positions such as media director or new business director (45.9%). While 66.6% of agencies chargeor out-of-pocket expenses, only about half (51%) charge client fees for work performed. The majority of agencies (almost

Fig. 1. Percentage of agencies providing various types of client work (n = 48).

488 L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491

Fig. 2. Percentage of agencies requiring formal agency processes and protocols.

two-thirds) do not financially compensate student employees, and 56.3% do not require students to work at the agency ascheduled number of hours per week.

4.1.3. Adviser commitment and compensationAlmost half of respondents (48.8%) had served as adviser for 2 years or less; 23.3% had served as adviser for 3–5 years;

23.3% had served as adviser for 6–10 years; and an additional 4.7% had served for more than 16 years. The amount of timeadvisers reported spending with the agency varied greatly. While 28.3% of advisers reported spending more than 12 h perweek advising the student agency, almost the same amount (26.1%) reported spending less than 3 h per week. Similarly,39.1% of advisers reported spending more time on agency advising than on preparing and teaching other classes, while 41.3%reported spending less time on advising than other classes. Almost 20% of advisers reported spending the same amount oftime on advising the agency relative to other courses.

It seems little faculty support is provided for the time commitment required to advise student agencies. A significantmajority of advisers (80.4%) reported that they do not receive a course release, and 96.1% reported that they do not receiveoverload pay for agency advising. Interestingly, 80.4% also reported that agency advising would not be considered as servicecredit toward tenure and promotion.

4.1.4. Agency challengesIn response to 1–5 Likert-type questions listing in response to potential agency challenges highlighted in previous

research (Bush, 2009), funding, agency consistency/stability over the long term, and university support were rated as thetop three challenges, with means of 3.71 (SD = 1.33), 3.66 (SD = 1.18), and 3.02 (SD = 1.50), respectively. Recruiting/findingclients (mean = 2.20, SD = 0.97) and access to technology (mean = 2.31, SD = 1.18) were rated lowest. Ratings for other chal-lenges fell in between the two, including faculty time requirements (mean = 2.95, SD = 1.16), motivating students to dothe work (mean = 2.87, SD = 1.01), managing client expectations (mean = 2.86, SD = 0.80), and getting departmental support(mean = 2.49, SD = 1.27).

4.1.5. Agency benefitsAn overwhelming majority of advisers (95.6%) believe that student agencies are either “extremely” (66.7%) or “fairly”

(28.9%) beneficial to student learning. Further, 92.9% of respondents indicated their students either “often” (50.0%) or“sometimes” (42.9%) receive job offers or internship opportunities as a result of their agency experience.

In response to an open-ended question concerning adviser perceptions of the main benefits of the student agency (n = 44),experience with clients (mentioned by 32 advisers) was identified as the primary student benefit. Portfolio and resume

building was the second most referenced student benefit. Closed-ended questions supported these qualitative responses.Between 85% and 90% of advisers agreed that agencies were especially beneficial in regard to portfolio building, applyingclassroom learning, developing professional skills, and learning business processes. Table 1 elaborates on the degree oftraining provided by agencies in various aspects of skills application, businesses protocols, and professional skills in response

L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491 489

Table 1Mean level of adviser agreement with statements regarding degree of training provided by the agency for skills application, business processes, andprofessional skills.

Mean SD

Working within a team structure (n = 45) 4.51 0.90Creativity/imagination (n = 44) 4.45 0.82Gaining career knowledge (n = 45) 4.31 0.90Acquiring interpersonal skills (n = 45) 4.24 0.88Critical thinking and problem solving (n = 45) 4.20 0.89Responding to a diverse set of issues and/or circumstances (n = 44) 4.16 0.96Taking direction/criticism from supervisors (n = 45) 4.11 0.96Practicing tactical communication skills (such as writing press releases) (n = 45) 4.08 1.07Managing people/employees (n = 45) 4.04 0.98Working within a professional agency structure (n = 45) (n = 48) 3.93 1.20Managing client expectations (n = 45) 3.93 1.16Understanding new media/technologies (n = 45) 3.91 1.10Practicing production skills such as graphic design/web design (n = 45) 3.91 1.16Understanding organizational culture/philosophy (n = 45) 3.87 1.18Planning/executing a full campaign or program (n = 45) 3.78 1.06Understanding business practices and policies (n = 45) 3.67 1.15

ta

4o

cbiilcastdip

4

lwbrlnea

TM

Knowledge of mass media (n = 45) 3.64 1.05Understanding business hierarchy (n = 45) 3.58 1.14Understanding budgeting/billing processes (n = 45) 3.02 1.36

o 1–5 Likert statements. According to advisers, agencies provide the most amount of training in regard to working within team structure and the least amount of training in regard to understanding budgeting/billing processes.

.2. The impact of agency operation (within a journalism/mass communication department or school or as a studentrganization) on agency business protocols and perceived student learning outcomes

Independent samples t test were conducted to evaluate differences between agencies operated through journalism/massommunication departments and schools and those operated as student organizations. There were significant differencesetween the two in several variables important for agency longevity (Bush, 2009). Agencies operated through journal-

sm/mass communication departments and schools were significantly more likely to have office space for the agency thatncludes technology (e.g., computers, graphic software, and telephone systems) [t(38.08) = 3.03, p = .004] and were moreikely to charge clients fees (in addition to out-of-pocket expenses) for work completed [t(37.96) = 2.46, p = .03] than agen-ies operated as student organizations. There was also a significant difference in regard to the number of hours facultydvisers reported devoting to the agency, with those in journalism/mass communication departments and schools spendingignificantly more time advising than those advising the agency as a student organization [t(34.32) = 2.09, p = .04]. Countero Bush’s (2009) study, there were no differences between agencies operated through journalism/mass communicationepartments and those operated as student organizations in regard to many of the challenges of agency operations includ-

ng motivating students, finding clients, and agency stability over time. There were also no differences in regard to advisererceptions of the overall outcomes of skills application, business protocols, and professional skills (Table 2).

.3. The impact of adviser’s time commitment on agency business protocols and perceived student learning outcomes

To examine the impact of a faculty adviser’s time commitment on agency business protocols and perceived studentearning outcomes, linear regression analyses were computed between the amount of time the adviser reported spending

ith the agency per week and adviser agreement with statements concerning agency protocols, degree of training providedy the agency in regard to professional skills, and perceived benefit to key learning outcomes (Bush, 2009). Advisers whoeported spending more time with their agencies tended to operate agencies with more set business protocols, with account

eaders to manage accounts, to charge client fees (in addition to expenses), and require students to work a scheduledumber of hours per week. Most noteworthy, approximately 24% of the variance associated with an agency operating withstablished business protocols was accounted for by its linear relationship with adviser time commitment. In addition, themount of time an adviser reported spending with their agency also predicted level of agreement pertaining to the amount

able 2ean differences between agencies operating in journalism/mass communication schools and departments and agencies operating as student organizations.

Mean (JMCschool/department)

Mean (studentorganization)

Mean differencebetween groups

Space, including technology 3.91 (SD = 1.56) 2.42 (SD = 1.61) 1.49Charge client fees 3.67 (SD = 1.61) 2.42 (SD = 1.68) 1.25Advising time (hours per week advising) 3.42 (SD = 1.47) 2.40 (SD = 1.65) 1.02

490 L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491

Table 3Regression analyses for the of impact of adviser time commitment on agency protocols and perceived student outcomes.

B SE B ̌ t-Statistic

Agency operationsOperate with business protocols .40 .11 .49 3.66, p < .001Operate with account team leaders .19 .09 .32 2.21, p < .05Charge client fees .49 .14 .46 3.44, p < .001Require office hours

.46 .13 .46 3.40, p < .001

Student training providedPracticing tactical skills (e.g., writing press releases) .20 .10 .30 2.02, p < .05Practicing production skills (e.g., graphic/web design) .25 .11 .34 2.31, p < .05Responding to diverse issues/circumstances .25 .09 .41 2.90, p < .05Understanding new media .21 .10 .30 2.05, p < .05

Key learning outcomesSkills application scale 1.11 .49 .33 2.24, p < .05Overall reported benefit to student learning .16 .05 .44 3.16, p < .05

Table 4Mean differences between agencies operating with their own space versus those having no space or having to share with another organization.

Mean (agencies with their owndedicated office space)

Mean (agencies having nospace or having to share space)

Mean differencebetween groups

Skills application 31.20 (SD = 3.26) 27.22 (SD = 5.75) 3.98

Understanding business processes 20.19 (SD = 3.95) 16.93 (SD = 5.55) 3.26Professional skills 18.38 (SD = 1.86) 16.25 (SD = 3.86) 2.13

of training the agency provides in practicing tactical skills (e.g., writing press releases), practicing production skills (e.g.,graphic and web design), responding to diverse issues and/or circumstances, and understanding new media, with advisertime commitment predicting between 8% and 17% of the variance associated with these variables (practicing tactical skillsand responding to diverse issues, respectively).

Although regression models for the impact of adviser time commitment on scales for understanding business processesand professional skills were not significant, adviser time commitment did significantly predict scores for skills applicationand was responsible for approximately 11% of the variance associated with this scale. Likewise, adviser time commitmentpositively impacted responses to adviser perceptions of the agency’s overall benefit to student learning, accounting forapproximately 19% of the variance associated with this variable (see Table 3).

4.4. The impact of dedicated office space on agency protocols and perceived student learning outcomes

Independent samples t test were conducted to evaluate how having a dedicated office space impacts agency protocolsand perceived student learning outcomes. When agencies operated with their own dedicated office space, advisers rankedtheir agency higher in regard to the level of training it provides in skills application [t(39.96) = 2.86, p = .01], understandingbusiness processes [t(39.78) = 2.26, p = .03], and developing professional skills [t(41.17) = 2.46, p = .02] than agencies havingno space or having to share space with another organization (Table 4).

5. Discussion and conclusions

This study suggests that advisers believe student agencies are beneficial to student learning, particularly in applyingclassroom learning, developing professional skills, and learning business processes. Since literature suggests these areasmay be the most difficult to teach in a traditional classroom, student agencies may indeed help fill a gap in the curriculum.Moreover, student agencies may further expose students to the integration and convergence that is taking place in theprofession, perhaps even more so than is currently found in university programs. While agencies have incorporated manyof the processes of professional agencies (e.g., account team structures, client contracts) many are still lacking in areasthat would further student understanding of agency business processes (e.g., time sheets, budgeting and billing processes,charging client fees). To fully prepare students for the profession, agencies should consider integrating these protocols intotheir agency environment.

In determining how to structure an agency, this study revealed that adviser time commitment may be more critical toagency success than whether the agency is operated through a journalism/mass communication department or as a student

organization. It is important to note, however, that agencies managed out of journalism/mass communication departmentsand schools seem to have more departmental support (e.g., have a dedicated office space with technology), are more likelyto charge client fees, and may also encourage advisers to spend more time on the agency per week. In turn, advisers whoreported spending more time with the agency were more likely to report higher levels of various skills training provided

baas

hrftt

fsb

R

B

B

B

C

GJ

KL

NORS

L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485– 491 491

y the agency and higher perceived student learning benefits. While it cannot be known if perceived learning matchesctual learning without student assessment measurements, it seems evident that the more time an adviser spends on thegency, the more training students receive in several critical areas important to the profession. Universities would be wise totructure an adviser’s workload so that she/he can devote at least as much time to the agency as is devoted to other courses.

One thing is clear, without a significant change in adviser compensation, it is unlikely that advisers will achieve theigher levels of time commitment that lead to greater agency success. Student agencies are likely competing for an adviser’sesearch, teaching, and service time, all of which are important factors in an academic career. If student agencies do notactor into that equation, they will likely continue to be in danger of dissolving. Since student agencies expose students tohe business processes and professional skills that employers desire, it is perhaps time they become a more integral part ofhe curriculum, and thus receive the funding and adviser compensation of their student media counterparts.

Findings from this study should be interpreted cautiously. While this study relied on agency advisers for collecting data,uture studies should focus on two other stakeholders in student agency outcomes – graduates and employers. While thesetakeholders may be harder to contact, this data is also needed to truly understand if and how agencies have closed the gapetween what employers want in graduates and what graduates are able to deliver.

eferences

ecker, L. B., Vlad, T., Tucker, M. & Pelton, R. (2006). 2005 enrollment report: Enrollment growth continues, but at reduced rate. Journalism & MassCommunication Educator, 61(3), 297–327.

rown, A. & Fall, L. T. (2005). Using the port of entry as a benchmark: Survey results of on-the-job training among public relations site managers. PublicRelations Review, 31(2), 301–304.

ush, L. (2009). Student public relations agencies: A qualitative study of the benefits, risks, and a framework for success. Journalism & Mass CommunicationEducator, 64(1), 27–38.

ommission on Public Relations Education. (November 2006). The professional bond: Public relations education for the 21st century. Retrieved 23 March 2011,from http://www.commpred.org

uineven, J. (1998). Public relations executives view the curriculum: A needs assessment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 52(4), 48–56.ohnson, K. & Ross, B. (2001). A five-year regional review of advertising and public relations education in U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Promotion

Management, 7(1–2), 253–269.itchen, P., Kim, I. & Schultz, D. (2008). Integrated marketing communications: Practice leads theory. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(4), 531–546.arsen, P. & Len-Rios, M. E. (2006). Integration of advertising and public relations curricula: A 2005 status report of educator perceptions. Journalism & Mass

Communication Educator, 61(1), 33–47.eff, B. D. (2002). Integrating leadership processes: Redefining the principles course. Public Relations Review, 28(2), 137–147.tness, C., Spooner, E. & Treise, D. (1993). Advertising curriculum ideas for new creatives. Journalism Educator, 48(3), 9–17.obbs, B. (1996). The advertising curriculum and the needs of creative students. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 50(4), 25–34.cott, J. D. & Frontczak, N. T. (1996). Ad executives grade new grads: The final exam that counts. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(2), 40–47.