Abstract
Given the increasing need for the retention of satisfied and successful students, the purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence the perceived quality of relationships formed between students and their academic departments. Based on the extensive review of interdisciplinary literature, the study proposed three factors—student–faculty interaction, perceived relationship investment (PRI), and student empowerment. Results of the study demonstrate the significance in associations between student–faculty interaction, PRI, and student empowerment to quality of student–departmental relationships.
Keywords
Introduction
Scholars of public relations stress that the role of public relations is to help organizations manage their relationships with publics. 1 Organization–public relationships are among the most prevalent research topics on which public relations scholars focus, and many public relations scholars have contributed to relationship management theory during the past two decades. 2 Reflecting the importance of organization–public relations, scholars have tested and adopted the theory in various settings, from profit to nonprofit organizations 3 ; however, studies of the relationship between students (as publics) and their academic departments (as organizations) have been neglected. This oversight is surprising, given the importance of universities’ relationship-building activities in a highly competitive postsecondary education market. Many universities consider applying proactive marketing and strategic communication strategies to recruit students who will consume their educational programs and who may later be a potential donor to the institutions. 4
This relationship perspective of public relations scholarship draws from the interpersonal literature, yet little to no scholarship in public relations focuses on the relationship of educators to their students. For a field built upon the importance of relationships, albeit organizational relationships, this is surprising because the ability to build and maintain relationships at the organizational level must likely be drawn from an understanding of building and maintaining interpersonal relationships.
Some scholars have emphasized the importance of quality in the relationships students have with their academic institutions. Bruning asserted that student–university relationship is an important factor to determine the retention of students. 5 Sung and Yang also found that quality relationships between students and the university positively influences both the university reputation held by the students and students’ supportive behavior, such as donation and word-of-mouth effects. 6
Within the larger university system, public relations faculty are subject to budget constraints and increased demands for measurable outcomes. In the wake of the ongoing recession and economic uncertainty, and increased costs of postsecondary education, 7 colleges and universities are being placed under scrutiny not only by parents but also by government such as state legislatures. 8
A reflection on research and retention of students by Tinto noted the trend from the 1960s view of “student retention . . . as the reflection of individual attributes, skills, and motivation” to the present where the students’ environment, including the institution, played important roles in students’ decisions to stay or to leave. 9 Research on student retention has considered the college or university setting as determinants of student satisfaction. That is useful for consideration of freshman- and even sophomore-years students who have often not yet declared a major and may therefore have a greater affinity for the overall university experience. But it may be the quality of their relationship with their chosen department rather than that with the institution as a whole is more salient for junior and senior-year students.
Given the increasing need for the retention of satisfied and successful students, the purpose of this study was to examine factors that influence the perceived quality of relationships formed with students’ departments. More specifically, the study aimed to explore how faculty–student interaction, students’ perceived relationship investment (PRI) of the department, and student empowerment influence the perceived quality of relationships formed with students’ departments.
Literature Review
Relationship Quality as an Indicator of Retention of Students
According to Tinto, “student retention has now become big business.” 11 To substantiate this claim, he noted increasing numbers of consulting firms dedicated to increasing student retention, the establishment of the Journal of College Student Retention, and use of retention numbers by news magazines to determine the “rank” of postsecondary educational institutions. Moreover, he noted the use of such numbers by some states as a measure of institutional accountability and the possibility that the federal government could implement retention numbers for accountability measures as well.
Yet, retention of new students may be difficult. As Pryor et al. noted, “emotional health for incoming first-year students is at the lowest point since . . . 1985.” 12 Details from the report indicate that just more than 50% of incoming students (52.9%) reported “their emotional health was in the ‘highest 10%’ or ‘above average’ when compared with their peers.” 13 According to the report, this is concerning because such students “were also less likely to think they will be satisfied with college.” 14
Furthermore, within journalism and mass communication, enrollments in colleges and universities declined slightly in 2011 after slight growth in 2010. 15 The slight decline was felt also in public relations. Given that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated a 12 percent growth in public relations managers between 2010 and 2020, 16 it is likely that the number of students entering the public relations major will remain stable for the next few years.
Some scholars argued that student retention is highly related to the quality of the relationship that students have with their university. For example, scholars have found that there were differences in relationship evaluations between students who returned to the university and those who did not. 17 Others have also asserted that student retention was associated with universities’ efforts to build relationships with students through dialogic communication. 18 Thus, the present study focused on relationship dimensions as the indicator that project student retention.
At the end of the last century, guidelines were developed for measuring relationships in public relations that included four quality indicators: trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. 19 Since the development of the guidelines, scholars have incorporated the measures together and individually to explore various types of organization–public relationships. 20
Trust
Trust refers to the extent to which publics are willing to trust that organizations will behave as expected, that results of the relationship will be as anticipated. Scholars have defined trust as “one party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party.” 21 Furthermore, trust incorporates perceptions of integrity, dependability, and competence.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction in organization–public relationships refers to “the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced.” 22 In other words, when expectations are met and outcomes of the relationship are as anticipated, satisfaction occurs.
Commitment
Commitment to an organization by publics or to a group of publics by the organization occurs when one “believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote.” 23
Control mutuality
This concept acknowledges power imbalances between parties but suggests that each party should have some degree of influence on the other. Control mutuality is defined by Hon and Grunig as “the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power to influence on another.” 24
Determinants of Department–Student Relationship Quality
Based on the extensive review of literature from various disciplines, the present study proposed three factors that enhance the relationship quality between public relations students and their academic department: student–faculty interaction, PRI, and perceived empowerment.
Student–faculty interaction
Among the strategies used by universities to improve retention is to focus on faculty. As Cotton and Wilson noted, “Universities provide a myriad of resources to students in an effort to stimulate learning and discovery, and to enhance student satisfaction. One of the most obvious and important resources offered to students is faculty.” 25 Moreover, they argued that interaction with faculty as a resource should not be limited to the classroom but should also involve interaction beyond the classroom. Tinto argues that his research established “what is now a widely accepted notion that the actions of faculty, especially in the classroom, are key to institutional efforts to enhance student retention.” 26 He noted that whereas retention is “everyone’s business . . . it is now evident that it is the business of the faculty in particular.” 27
Yet, studies have differed in the recommended amount of faculty–student interaction required for increased satisfaction, and arguably, retention. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Hibel found that whereas informal, or out-of-classroom, student interaction with faculty is important, it is a relationship of diminishing returns where “the first few informal interactions with faculty in each category appear to be the most important. As the frequency of interaction in each category increases, the corresponding increase in residual achievement tends to diminish.” 28
Kuh and Hu do not indicate specific amounts of interaction but they noted “In general, the more contact between students and faculty both inside and outside the classroom, the greater the student development and satisfaction.” 29 However, their study found that the purpose of such interaction was significantly related to satisfaction, not merely the interaction itself. Social contact, “such as having cokes and snacks with faculty, had limited effects on satisfaction and [educational] gains” 30 whereas more intellectual out-of-class discussions “about how the students can use what they are learning in their lives outside the classroom and beyond the campus” had greater effects. 31
PRI
Many public relations scholars have proposed various relationship cultivation strategies, which are related to relationship quality 32 ; however, the studies have ignored an important aspect: publics’ cognitive reaction to the strategies. Even though organizations make efforts to build relationships with publics, the efforts are validated only if the publics recognize these efforts. Based on the norm of reciprocity, which is considered as a fundamental element of building relationships, 33 a group of scholars has emphasized the publics’ perception of the organization’s investment in the relationship as the key to maintaining the relationship. 34 Applying to a relationship marketing discipline, De Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, and Iacobucci defined perceived relationship investment as “a customer’s perception of the extent to which a retailer devotes resources, efforts, and attention aimed at maintaining or enhancing relationships with regular customers that do not have outside value and cannot be recovered if these relationships are terminated.” 35 Simply, an organization’s devotion of time, effort, and resources to relationships with publics can result in the publics’ psychological obligation to stay in the relationship. 36
Empirical studies showing the association between PRI and relationship outcomes have been well documented. There is a positive linkage between a company’s relationship efforts and customers’ satisfaction 37 and commitment to the company. 38 Also, another study found who retailers that held a high perception of the vendor’s effort to build relationships with them also had a high level of trust in the vendor. 39 De Wulf et al. showed a significant effect of PRI on relationship quality as well as behavioral loyalty. 40 Most studies that focus on PRI have been conducted in the field of marketing, but rarely in the public relations arena.
Students’ perceived empowerment
Students’ perceived empowerment is also considered one of the important factors used to determine the quality of relationships between students and their academic department. Scholars have demonstrated the importance of public empowerment in enhancing the quality of relationships with different types of organizations, such as employee relations 41 and nonprofit-donor relations. 42 In general, empowerment is defined as “a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by formal organizational practice and informal techniques of providing efficacy information.” 43 Empowerment scholars highlighted the multifaceted aspects of empowerment: (1) meaningfulness, which refers to the value of task goal or purpose, evaluated in terms of an individual’s own beliefs and value, (2) competence or self-efficacy, which denotes an individual’s perceived capacity to perform a task skillfully, (3) autonomy or self-determination, which involves a person’s choice and causal responsibility for behavior, and (4) impact, which refers to the extent to which an individual can influence task outcomes and the environment. 44 Speitzer argued that psychological empowerment can be measured by combining the four dimensions. 45
Within the classroom, it has been asserted that
Students want teachers to help them feel good about themselves and feel in control of their environment . . . part of success is getting good grades, but another part of success is feeling like you have something worthwhile to contribute.
46
Such feelings of success and the competence to achieve success lead to what the scholars refer to as “empowered learners.” Moreover, “Empowered learners are more motivated to perform classroom tasks, they feel more competent in the classroom, find the required tasks more meaningful, and feel they have an impact on their learning process.” 47
It has also been suggested that learner empowerment “includes a cognitive belief state of personal involvement and self-efficacy that ultimately results in a heightened sense of personal effectiveness among students.” 48 Schrodt and his colleagues argued that teacher power has an effect on both learner empowerment and evaluation of those teachers. 49
Based on the literature review, the study proposes the following hypotheses:
Method
Sample and Data Collection Procedure
A survey method with public relations major students at a southern public university was used to address the hypotheses proposed. The university has one of the biggest public relations programs nationwide with current enrollment in the public relations program at 550 undergraduate students, including about 380 junior- and senior-level students. The survey questionnaire was distributed to 550 public relations major students, and a total of 160 public relations major students participated in the survey for extra course credit, yielding a response rate of 29.10 percent. One hundred and fifty-eight survey questionnaires were used for data analysis, excluding two with incomplete data. To increase students’ participation, the data collection was administered through paper-and-pencil and online survey methods. An independent t test was employed to check whether the survey method results in significant difference and the results showed there was no difference between paper-and-pencil and online survey data.
Of the 158 respondents, the majority were Caucasian (70.9%) and the imbalance of gender in public relations education and industry. 50 female (91.1%), The plurality of the respondents was junior level (60.1%), followed by senior (25.3%). The average age of the respondents was 20.92 (SD = 1.93). About 60 percent of the sample reported that they belong to at least one student organization, and the Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) was the most frequently identified choice for extra-curricular activity.
Survey Measurement
Interaction
To measure the frequency of interaction between students and their academic departments, the study used six instruments proposed by Pascarella et al. 51 Six types of interaction were as follows: (1) to get basic information about my academic program, (2) to discuss career concerns, (3) to help in resolving a disturbing personal problem, (4) to discuss intellectual or course-related matters, (5) to discuss campus issues or problems, and (6) to socialize informally. The respondents were asked to indicate the number of times they have informally met with faculty members in the department, outside of class time, during the academic year of fall 2010 to spring 2011. For data analysis, total frequency of interaction was calculated by summating the frequency of each type of interaction (M = 7.31, SD = 7.80).
PRI
De Wulf et al.’s three items to measure the PRI was used. 52 The study modified the items by reflecting the student–department relationship. The Cronbach’s reliability coefficient was .92 for the construct (M = 4.68, SD = 1.39).
Empowerment
To measure students’ perceived empowerment, Spreitzer’s measurement scales were used. 53 Having twelve items, she proposed that psychological empowerment has four components: meaning, competence, self-determination (autonomy), and impact. For this study, impact was subdivided into two factors: impact of the relationship with the student’s department and their impact within their own world. Thus, the study utilized fifteen items, three items for each component. The Cronbach’s α was .85 (M = 5.44, SD = .71).
Relationship quality dimensions
To measure relationship quality, Hon and Grunig’s four dimensions were adopted in the study. 54 Considering the length of the survey, a shortened version of the scales was used. Six items for trust (M = 5.65, SD = 1.39), five items for control mutuality (M = 4.68, SD = .99), five items for commitment (M = 4.60, SD = 1.41), and five items for commitment (M = 4.94, SD = 1.31). Ranging from .76 to .94, reliability coefficients for all constructs were greater than .70, which is considered as an expected alpha score. 55
Excluding interaction measurement, all the survey items were measured on 7-point rating scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Results
Multiple regression analysis was used to address the hypotheses posed. Prior to testing multiple linear regression, some underlying assumptions such as multicollinearity, normality, and linearity were checked. By having less than ten of Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for all independent variables, multicollinearity was assured. In terms of normality, skewness and kurtosis scores were examined. Two of the independent variables were satisfied with a normality assumption, and the third, student–faculty interaction, was not. As a result, prior to further analysis, the responses for student-faculty interaction were log transformed. Also, standardized residual plots confirmed linearity. The study also checked the correlation between demographic information (i.e., year in school, age, gender) and dependent variables, and confirmed no significant correlation between them. This means that none of these demographics were covarying with the relationship outcomes.
Three independent variables of student–faculty interaction, PRI, and empowerment and were used for this study, and each of the four relationship outcome dimensions was identified as a dependent variable. Thus, the regression models are stated as follows:
where, βs = standardized regression coefficients and ϵs = error term.
As Table 1 shows, the multiple regression analysis results showed that the three independent variables—interaction, empowerment, and PRI—have a strong effect on the evaluation of each relationship dimension with R2 ranging from .32 to .55.
Multiple Regression Results.
Note. PRI = perceived relationship investment.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Addressing H1, the data analysis showed that, of the three independent variables, PRI (β = .46, p < .001) and students’ empowerment (β = .18, p < .05) were positively associated with students’ trust toward their academic department whereas interaction between students and faculty (β = .10, p > .05) was not correlated with trust. Therefore, H1(b) and H1(c) were supported while H1(a) was not supported.
The second hypothesis addressed how the three independent variables were associated with students’ satisfaction in their academic department. Similar to H1, PRI (β = .59, p < .001) and students’ empowerment (β = .18, p < .01) were positively associated with students’ satisfaction in toward their academic department; however, interaction between students and faculty (β = .10, p > .05) did not predict students’ satisfaction in their academic department. Thus, H2 was partially supported for H2(b) and H2(c).
Turning to H3, the data analysis revealed the significant effects of interaction between students and faculty (β = .15, p < .05) and PRI (β = .59, p < .01) on students’ commitment to the relationship with their academic department. However, the association between students’ empowerment (β = .09, p > .05) and their commitment was not significant. As a result, H3(a) and H3(b) were supported while H3(c) was not supported.
The last hypothesis sought a positive association between the three independent variables and students’ control mutuality. The multiple regression analysis showed that the effects of all three independent variables were statistically significant. More specifically, interaction between students and faculty (β = .15, p < .05) was significantly associated with control mutuality at p = .05 level, whereas both PRI (β = .57, p < .001) and student empowerment (β = .27, p < .001) were strongly related to control mutuality at p = .001. Thus, H4(a) to H4(c) was supported.
Discussion
This study explored three factors—interaction between students and faculty, PRI, and students’ empowerment—as determinants of the quality of relationships formed between students and their academic departments, a relationship that serves as an indicator of student retention.
Organization–public relationships refer to the creation and maintenance of relationships between organizations and their publics; however, such efforts are validated only when the publics involved recognize, or perceive the efforts. Results of this study, which explored the relationship between academic departments as the organization and students as the represented publics, found significant differences in the quality of relationships, based on students’ perceptions of the extent of departmental investment in the relationship. Each of the four relationship quality indicators—trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality—were significantly associated with PRI.
In addition, the study found the significant effect of students’ perceived empowerment on the quality of relationship outcomes with their academic department. Except for commitment, student empowerment was positively related to trust, satisfaction, and control mutuality. According to previous studies, students’ empowerment is highly related to their academic performance. 56 Implications of the current study add to the previous studies by extending the concept of the empowered learner to relationship management. Results indicate that empowered students report higher departmental relationship quality with regard to trust, satisfaction, and control mutuality, than less empowered students. Even though the sense of empowerment motivates students to build and maintain relationships with their academic department, it does not reflect a high level of investment in the relationship. A possible explanation of this result is found in the distinctive characteristic of commitment, which often requires some level of self-sacrifice. 57 Given that the survey participants are the Millennial generation who spend most time on their academic performance and have less free time, 58 they may feel that investment of their time in the relationship is a burden.
Results of this study were mixed with regard to the quality of departmental–student relationships based on the amount of faculty–student interaction. Data analysis demonstrated the significance of faculty–student interaction to control mutuality and commitment, but not to trust or satisfaction. This means that more frequent contact with faculty provided increased commitment from the students involved, adding to the likelihood of retention, as responses from these students indicated a willingness to spend time and energy maintaining and promoting the relationships. As Wilson noted in her study of Millennial generation students, “Frequent student–faculty contact can enhance students’ motivation, involvement, and intellectual commitment, encouraging them to think about their own values and future plans.” 59 However, the study failed to find a positive association of the frequency of interaction with satisfaction and trust. In other words, students’ attitudinal evaluation, such as satisfaction and trust, may not be highly influenced by the frequency of interaction, but by the quality of interaction. This means that students who have rare but good-quality interaction with their faculty may be more satisfied with or trust their academic department more than those who have more frequent but less-effective interaction.
Results of this study have demonstrated the relationship between student–faculty interaction, PRI, and student empowerment to the quality of student–departmental relationships. These results are important given the ongoing recession and worldwide economic uncertainty that has placed greater stresses on colleges and universities to provide quality and value for money.
The strategies used by postsecondary institutions to demonstrate this value include highlighting the importance and stature of faculty. Whereas prior research on student–faculty interaction has focused on the effects of such interaction at the interpersonal and institutional level, this study investigated the midrange relationship between students and their departments. Given that faculty–student interaction tends to increase as the students mature into junior and senior years, the investigation of departmental relationships is salient as students generally declare their majors between sophomore and junior years.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study investigated students from a single departmental major at one university. Research at other universities in other geographic areas may return varying results. Moreover, the investigation of student relationships to their departments may vary greatly depending on the type of program, level of study, and institution.
Future research should investigate this midrange relationship further, perhaps through comparative study of the varying departmental and faculty needs of freshmen and sophomore year students versus junior- and senior-year students. The importance of PRI has been demonstrated here as a key determinant of departmental relationship quality and should also be examined in greater depth, perhaps through focus groups and interviews of students, faculty, and departmental officials. Also, whereas previous scholars focus on the benefits of empowerment to students, the study expanded the positive outcomes of students’ empowerment to the relationship quality with their department. Future research can investigate the dynamics of interaction, empowerment, and faculty–student relationships.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.