Does Gender and Professional Experience Influence Students’ Perceptions of Professors?

Abstract

Grounded in literature stemming from higher education research, this study examines how students evaluate public relations educators by gauging their perceptions of the professors’ professional competency, professorial warmth, course difficulty, and industry connectivity. Using an experimental design, students (N = 303) from four U.S. universities reviewed syllabi for the introductory public relations course to test whether an instructor’s gender or professional background (academic vs. practice) influenced the students’ perceptions. The findings from this study suggest that students evaluate professors on professional criteria and the professors’ ability to connect classroom experience and theory to actual practice.

Keywords

student perceptions public relations pedagogy professional experience practitioner academic

None of the available published studies on U.S. public relations pedagogy have studied student perceptions of academic and practitioner-professors. Researchers in other fields (e.g., educational psychology, Basow & Silberg, 1987; gender studies, Moore & Trahan, 1997; Spoor & Lehmiller, 2014; political science, Anderson & Smith, 2005; psychology, Anderson & Kanner, 2011; Basow, Phelan, & Capotosto, 2006; Jenkins, Bugeja, & Barber, 2014; sociology, Miller & Chamberlin, 2000) have found that “the content of a course and the professor delivering the course can create a powerful set of preconditions that affect students’ evaluations of the course and professors” (Anderson & Kanner, 2011, p. 1542). Students majoring in a discipline are more likely to view the professors in that field as knowledgeable and personable (Geiger & Ogilby, 2000), and students perceived professors to be trustworthy, likable, and a content expert based on style of dress (Sebastian & Bristow, 2008). The physical attractiveness of professors was correlated with student perceptions of professors being better teachers, being more likely to be asked for out-of-class assistance, being recommended to other students, and being less likely to be blamed for bad grades (Riniolo, Johnson, Sherman, & Misso, 2006; Romano & Bordieri, 1989).

Studies have further explored demographic issues. Moore and Trahan (1997) found that, after reading a sample syllabus for a sociology course, U.S. students evaluated female professors as more biased and with a greater intentionality of teaching with a political agenda. Ludwig and Meacham (1997) found that students viewed a class on racism and sexism in American society as more controversial when taught by an African American or female professor as opposed to a White or male professor. Students often perceive male educators as more professorial while women were relegated to simply being a teacher (Miller & Chamberlin, 2000). Research has even shown that perceived heterosexual professors were favored more than perceived lesbian and gay professors due to a perceived intolerance for differing political agendas (Anderson & Kanner, 2011). Although these studies have emanated from other academic disciplines, their insights into how students perceive educators differently can provide discussion points as public relations practitioners and academics continue to argue over the proper role of academic training in the classroom.

Many departments often hire practitioners as adjuncts to teach courses that academics would rather not. This practice has set up an interesting situation pitting an academic background against industry experience. The purpose of this study was to address that situation by asking students to evaluate professors on the basis of their professional competencies. In doing so, the study hopes to determine whether having an academic background hurts or hinders a public relations educator, or does having an industry background give a credibility boost?

Literature Review

Student Perceptions of Professors

Professional background

Trends show significant numbers of students moving into professional, managerial careers because they see more value from practitioner-professors (Wilkerson, 1999). Although the students acknowledged that they learned insights from theory and academics, students claimed that the classes that prepared them the most from their careers came from adjuncts and professors who were still active in their chosen profession (Martin, Maytham, Case, & Fraser, 2005). Given past preferential for practitioner-professors by students in other fields, this leads to the study’s first research question:

RQ1: Does a professor’s public relations career background influence how students view the professor’s classroom qualifications and behaviors?

Gender and professors

Research has shown that gender is the main demographic variable that has been shown to foster those feelings of affinity. Research from multiple disciplines has shown that female students prefer female professors, and that male students prefer male professors (Das & Das, 2001; Gumbiner, 1998). Although male student class participation was lower in general, they were more likely to participate in class discussions with male professors than female professors (Crombie et al., 2003). Overall, female professors were viewed as being more instructing and helpful to career development, while male professors were seen as being more pontificators and talking about topics irrelevant to day-to-day practices (Dion, 2008).

A student’s willingness to participate and be an active member in the classroom has been connected to interacting with professors outside the classroom (Sax, 2009). Echoing previous research, Weaver and Qi (2005) found that female and male students were more likely to interact with their professors informally outside the classroom when they were of the same gender and within traditional office hours (Kim & Sax, 2009). Given the strong support identified by previous research for student preference of same-gender educators, the study’s second research question was created to examine its relevance to the public relations classroom:

RQ2: Does a professor’s gender influence how students view the professor’s classroom qualifications and behaviors?

Preprofessional affiliation

In multi-major classrooms, students who were majors of the topic being taught were more likely to be engaged in the discussion and activities (Steele & Fullagar, 2009). Hatfield and Coyle (2013) found that students would complete course and faculty evaluations if they were majors in that discipline, and those evaluations are generally more favorable to professors when completed by majors rather than non-majors (Clayson, 2009). Given these finding as well as the Geiger and Ogilby (2000) study’s conclusion that majors view their disciplines’ professors in higher esteem than students from other majors, enough evidence existed to form the basis for the study’s first hypothesis:

H1: Public relations majors are more likely to view the professor’s classroom qualifications and behaviors positively than non-public relations majors.

The choice of a major is not the only characteristic that can be used to examine how connected students are to a discipline. Most academic programs offer extracurricular opportunities to complement their curricula. Research has shown that students who participated in extracurricular activities related to coursework were more prepared for their careers than those who did not participate (Lobb, Shah, & Kolassa, 2004). Students involved in student affiliates of professional organizations also demonstrated more appreciation for the coursework than students who were not members (Chia, 2005; Siller, Rosales, Haines, & Benally, 2009). Hall (2012) discovered that students who were active members of student organizations were more likely to connect industry concepts learned in the classroom to the actual practice outside the university environment. Given the prevalence of research indicating that involvement in professional associations fosters more favorable attitudes toward the industry and leads to greater desire to take the courses in that discipline, the study’s second and final hypothesis was created:

H2: Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) members are more likely to view the professor’s classroom qualifications and behaviors positively than non-PRSSA members.

Method

To answer the research questions and test the study’s hypotheses, an experimental design was used where undergraduate students who were enrolled in public relations courses at four East Coast universities with chartered chapters of the Public Relations Student Society of America were asked to evaluate syllabi that were created to test two key dimensions of the instructor: gender and professional background. A pretest was carried out at an institution affiliated with one of the researchers.

Experimental Conditions

The researchers tailored an existing “Introduction to Public Relations” course syllabus to reflect four different professors. Each syllabus included the basic components of a syllabus, including course objectives and policies, course schedule, assignment descriptions, and grading structure. These components of the syllabi were the same for all four versions. The differences in the syllabi were the instructor’s name and a brief paragraph that highlighted the instructor’s credentials.

The four conditions created by these variations were a female academic, a male academic, a female practitioner, and a male practitioner. The descriptor for the academics stated that the instructor’s work has been published in multiple, well-respected academic journals. The academic professors’ biosketches listed two awards received for their research and that he or she had been a past chair of the public relations division for the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The descriptor for the practitioners stated that the instructor was a seasoned practitioner and listed clients that he or she had worked with, including Nike, Target, and the American Cancer Society, and noted that the professional work had recognized by both the Public Relations Society of America’s Silver Anvil Award and the International Association of Business Communicator’s Golden Quill Award.

The second experimental condition focused on gender. The professor’s name was included in the biographical information that was placed at the top of the syllabus in the header, and the biosketch used he/she and his/her pronouns as appropriate. The gendered names for the professors were the same for both the academic professor and the practitioner instructor to test for gender differences and not perceptions of the name.

Procedures

The experiment was carried out in class at the four institutions, and only students who were in the class at the time of data collection were allowed to participate in the study. Each student received a packet that contained the institutional review board (IRB) consent form, syllabus, and questionnaire. Prior to receiving the packets, the total number of students in each class was divided by 4, so that each class was given an approximate equal number of all four conditions. The packets were distributed randomly to students in the classes, and participants were monitored so that no talking or communicative interaction occurred while they were reviewing the syllabus or answering the questionnaire.

Measures

Each packet contained a syllabus and a questionnaire that asked the students to rate their agreement with 31 statements about the instructor and the course. The measures were derived from existing scales on evaluating higher education professors (Anderson & Kanner, 2011; Smith & Anderson, 2005). The five scales used to evaluate the professors included Appropriateness of Course Topics and Materials (five questions), Professional Competence (six questions), Professor Warmth (seven questions), Course Difficulty (three questions), and Public Relations Connectivity (10 questions). The specific items for these scales are shown in Table 1 as well as the Cronbach alpha values for the scales. These 31 statements were evaluated using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participant demographic information, including gender, age, race, their major, and whether they were a member of the Public Relations Student Society of America, was also collected on the questionnaire.

Table 1.

Adapted Measures Used to Evaluate Public Relations Educators.

Indices and measures	Cronbach α	M (SD)N = 303
Appropriate Topics and Course Materials	.82
The topics for this course seem interesting.		5.67 (1.13)
The topics for this course seem appropriate for this course level.		6.04 (1.07)
This course covers material appropriate for this class.		6.20 (1.03)
This class seems boring. (R)		2.95 (1.63)
I would take a course like this.		5.51 (1.45)
Professional Competence	.85
The goals of this course are clearly stated.		6.41 (0.82)
The requirements for this course seem to be clearly explained.		6.07 (0.99)
The grading criterion is well thought out by the professor.		5.57 (1.40)
The professor seems knowledgeable.		6.17 (1.01)
The professor seems well organized.		5.98 (1.08)
The professor seems to need more teaching experience. (R)		2.64 (1.49)
The professor is up to date on the latest technology. (NEW)		5.32 (1.23)
Professor Warmth	.89
The professor cares about her students.		5.41 (1.38)
The professor could inspire students to be interested in the topic.		5.50 (1.32)
The professor would be responsive to students seeking help.		5.46 (1.53)
The professor is capable of leading interesting class discussions.		5.49 (1.31)
The professor seems approachable.		5.17 (1.55)
The professor is someone I would want to take a class with.		5.04 (1.52)
Course Difficulty	.79
This course seems challenging.		5.37 (1.19)
The assignments for this course seem to be too much work for a three-credit class.		3.70 (1.87)
This course uses too many outside readings. (NEW)		2.83 (1.53)
The tests for this course seem fair and appropriate. (NEW-R)		5.24 (1.41)
This course uses too many guest speakers. (NEW)		2.38 (1.31)
Public Relations Industry-Specifics	.89
The professor is connected to current public relations practices.		6.43 (0.92)
The professor understands the day-to-day duties of a public relations practitioner.		5.72 (1.33)
The professor understands a variety of public relations specializations.		5.69 (1.24)
The professor’s knowledge of course material will likely increase my understanding of public relations.		5.88 (1.26)
The professor’s connections to the public relations industry may help me find an internship.		5.59 (1.24)
The professor is more focused on theory than application.		3.45 (1.51)
The professor has significant experience in the industry.		5.94 (1.31)
The professor understands the ethics that guide the profession.		5.79 (1.20)
The professor understands the global nature of the profession.		5.92 (1.16)

Note. NEW, item was added; NEW-R, item was added and reverse coded; R, item is reverse coded.

Results

Across the experimental conditions, 303 students evaluated the syllabi and course professors. Reflecting the industry, the majority of those students were females (n = 208, 68.6%) though nearly one third were males (n = 95, 31.4%). Caucasians (n = 159, 52.5%) were the largest ethnic/racial group that participated in the study though there were significant numbers of African American/Black (n = 73, 24.1%) and Hispanic/Latino (n = 38, 12.5%) students as well. In addition, there were smaller numbers of students participating who classified themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 20, 6.6%) or multicultural (n = 13, 4.3%). Only 135 participants (44.6%) were majoring in public relations. Most of the students were not public relations majors (n = 168, 55.4%) though nearly 10% of these students (n = 17) had handwritten notes in the margins of the questionnaire stating that they were studying it for a minor. The majority of the students were not PRSSA members (n = 211, 69.6%), and the students had a mean, self-reported grade-point average (GPA) of 3.32 (SD = 0.42).

On the basis of the syllabi, students perceived all four “Introduction to Public Relations” professors as having chosen appropriate topics and materials for the course (M = 5.69, SD = 0.94). The four professors were also deemed as being professionally competent (M = 5.84, SD = 0.71) and being connected to the public relations industry (M = 5.72, SD = 0.94). All professors were also viewed as being warm and welcoming (M = 5.34, SD = 1.16); however, the course content itself was perceived to be slightly challenging and difficult (M = 5.14, SD = 0.89) as evidenced by a mean score higher than the scale’s neutral point.

Turning to the study’s first research question, the researchers sought to determine the professors’ career background influenced students’ evaluation of the professors (e.g., being an academic compared with being a practitioner). Table 2 reveals the mean scores for the four professors across the five indices. The female practitioner was evaluated most favorably on four of the five dimensions, while the female academic was viewed as having the least difficult course. When pairing the genders, the female practitioner was viewed as having more appropriate course topics and materials, F(1, 150) = 5.67, p = .019, having more professorial warmth, F(1, 150) = 5.06, p = .026, and being more connected to the public relations industry, F(1, 150) = 7.08, p = .009, than the female academic. No statistical differences were present for professional competence, F(1, 150) = 1.84, p = .18, or course difficulty, F(1, 150) = 1.50, p = .22. Looking at the pair of male professors, students perceived significant differences for only one variable, industry connectivity, F(1, 149) = 17.19, p < .001. Although the Professional Warmth scale neared statistical significance, F(1, 149) = 3.07, p = .08, it failed to reach significance levels much like the scales for appropriate course topics and materials, F(1, 149) = 0.43, p = .52, professional competence, F(1, 149) = 0.32, p = .57, and course difficulty, F(1, 149) = 1.77, p = .19.

Table 2.

Student Evaluations of the Four Professors Across the Five Evaluation Indices.

	Male academic(n = 76)	Female academic(n = 75)	Male practitioner(n = 75)	Female practitioner(n = 77)
Appropriate Topics and Course Materials	5.68 (0.82)	5.59 (0.87)	5.63 (1.10)	5.92 (0.77)
Professional Competence	5.68 (0.61)	5.89 (0.75)	5.74 (0.77)	6.05 (0.65)
Professor Warmth	5.01 (1.03)	5.31 (1.32)	5.37 (1.07)	5.74 (1.01)
Course Difficulty	5.29 (0.92)	4.96 (0.87)	5.13 (0.93)	5.13 (0.80)
Industry Connectivity	5.20 (0.91)	5.76 (0.98)	5.88 (0.86)	6.11 (0.85)

A one-way MANOVA was conducted once the genders were combined across the academic-practitioner divide to determine whether the professors’ professional background had an effect on their evaluation across the five evaluation scales. Table 3 presents the combined mean scores of the professors based on their professional background in the second and third columns. A non-significant Box’s M test indicated a lack of evidence that the homogeneity of variance–covariance matrix assumption was violated; therefore, no univariate or multivariate outliers were evident, and the MANOVA test could be conducted. Significant differences were found along the academic-practitioner lines on the dependent variables (Wilks’s λ = .89), F(1, 301) = 7.34, p < .001. The multivariate Wilks’s λ was quite strong at .89.

Table 3.

Student Evaluations of the Professors by Professional Background and Gender.

	Academic background(n = 151)	Industry background(n = 152)	Female professors(n = 152)	Male professors(n = 151)
Appropriate Topics and Course Materials	5.63 (0.85)	5.74 (1.00)	5.76 (0.84)	5.62 (1.02)
Professional Competence	5.78 (0.69)	5.89 (0.73)	5.97 (0.71)	5.71 (0.70)
Professor Warmth	5.15 (1.19)	5.53 (1.09)	5.52 (1.19)	5.16 (1.09)
Course Difficulty	5.15 (0.93)	5.13 (0.86)	5.04 (0.84)	5.23 (0.94)
Industry Connectivity	5.47 (0.94)	5.96 (0.81)	5.94 (0.83)	5.51 (0.97)

Univariate ANOVAs for each scale were conducted as follow-up tests for the MANOVA. The statistical differences between practitioners and academics on professorial warmth, F(1, 301) = 8.08, p = .005, and industry connectivity, F(1, 301) = 18.37, p < .001, were strong enough to sway the results of the MANOVA test as significant differences did not emerge for the professional competency, F(1, 301) = 1.89, p = .17, course difficulty, F(1, 301) = 0.035, p = .85, and appropriate course topics and materials, F(1, 301) = 1.01, p = .32, scales. Based on these results, it appears that the instructor’s background does have some influence on how the instructor is received though it is not universal across the five dimensions of instructor evaluation.

For the study’s second research question, the researchers sought to determine whether the professors’ gender influenced how the students evaluated their evaluation of their qualifications and classroom behaviors. Table 2 presents the mean scores for the following in-group comparisons. Students did not perceive any differences in terms of the female or male academics selection of appropriate course topics and materials, F(1, 149) = 0.37, p = .54. Likewise, students found no difference between the female and male academics in terms of their professorial warmth, F(1, 149) = 2.38, p = .13. The female academic was viewed as having more professional competence than the male academic though this difference did not quite reach the minimum standard for significance in social science research, F(1, 149) = 3.57, p = .06. Statistical differences did emerge for being connected to public relations industry, F(1, 149) = 14.64, p < .001, and course difficulty, F(1, 149) = 6.21, p = .014, as the female academic was considered more connected to the industry though she was perceived as offering an easier course than the male academic.

Turning to the practitioners, students perceived significant differences for all measures except for course difficulty, F(1, 150) = 0.02, p = .95. Across the other four scales, the female practitioner was considered as being more professionally competent, F(1, 150) = 6.74, p = .01, and having more professorial warmth, F(1, 150) = 5.63, p = .019, than the male practitioner. Likewise, the female practitioner was viewed has having more connections to the public relations industry, F(1, 150) = 4.38, p = .038, and having chosen more appropriate class topics and materials, F(1, 150) = 4.50, p = .032, than the male practitioner.

When combining the professors across the practitioner-academic divide to compare the overall effect of the professors’ gender, a MANCOVA was conducted to control for any effect that might emerge due to the students’ gender. The test was performed with the professors’ and students’ gender as covariates, while the five evaluation scales were the dependent variables. A non-significant Box’s M test indicated a lack of evidence that the homogeneity of variance–covariance matrix assumption was violated; therefore, no univariate or multivariate outliers were evident, and the MANOVA test could be conducted. A significant effect was found for both the professors’ gender (Wilks’s λ = .87), F(5, 296) = 8.59, p < .001, and the covariate, the students’ gender (Wilks’s λ = .96), F(5, 296) = 2.45, p = .034. The multivariate Wilks’s λ values were quite strong. Table 3 presents the combined means and standard deviations of the evaluation scales based on the professors’ gender in the last two columns of Table 3.

There were mixed results for the MANCOVA test in regard to the effect on the five dependent variables. Neither the professors’ gender, F(1, 300) = 1.48, p = .224, nor the covariate of student gender, F(1, 300) = 0.87, p = .35, had a significant effect on the Appropriate Topics and Materials scale. Similar results emerged for the Course Difficulty scale as neither the students’ gender, F(1, 300) = 1.17, p = .28, nor the professors’ gender, F(1, 300) = 3.31, p = .07, had an effect on the evaluation though the latter neared statistical significance. In regard to professional competence, both the professors’ gender, F(1, 300) = 10.22, p = .002, and the students’ gender, F(1, 300) = 5.64, p = .018, had an effect on the evaluation of the scale though it represented a small portion of the variance in the model (r² = .24).

For the remaining two evaluative measures, the professors’ gender had a significant effect on the evaluation of their professorial warmth, F(1, 300) = 7.46, p = .007, and their industry connectivity, F(1, 300) = 16.86, p < .001. The students’ gender did not have an effect on their evaluations of the professors’ professorial warmth, F(1, 300) = 0.15, p = .70, or industry connectivity, F(1, 300) = 3.03, p = .083. The mixed effect of the connectivity (r² = .09) and professorial warmth (r² = .04) had little impact on the variance of the tested model.

To answer the second research question, the MANCOVA shows that the outcome of the professors’ evaluations is influenced by their gender on the majority of the evaluation dimensions. Only the choice of appropriate course topics and materials failed to near or reach statistical significance. When controlling for the effect of the students’ gender, however, there was minimal significant effect of the covariate factor except for evaluations of professional competence.

The study’s first hypothesis sought to demonstrate that public relations majors were more likely to view the professors’ classroom qualifications and behaviors more positively than those students who were not public relations majors. Because the hypothesis tests the evaluations based on student differences and not the differences based on the different professors, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to test this hypothesis. The 135 public relations majors universally evaluated the professors more favorably than the 168 non-majors. Table 4 presents the mean scores that were tested with the ANOVA. Public relations majors felt that all four public relations professors were more professionally competent, F(1, 301) = 27.73, p < .001, more connected to the industry, F(1, 301) = 12.42, p < .001, and demonstrated more professorial warmth, F(1, 301) = 18.75, p < .001, than those not majoring in public relations. Likewise, public relations majors felt that the professors choose more appropriate course topics and materials, F(1, 301) = 42.47, p < .001, and were not as difficult, F(1, 301) = 8.31, p = .004, when compared with their non-major counterparts. Given these findings, the first hypothesis was fully supported.

Table 4.

Evaluations of Public Relations Professors by Student Categories (Major and Extracurricular Activities).

Public relations majors	All professors	Female academic	Female practitioner	Male academic	Male practitioner
Public relations majors	n = 135	n = 24	n = 45	n = 35	n = 31
Appropriate Topics and Course Materials	6.05 (0.68)	6.10 (0.64)	5.93 (0.85)	6.15 (0.58)	6.10 (0.53)
Professional Competence	6.07 (0.62)	6.35 (0.72)	6.05 (0.70)	5.97 (0.52)	5.99 (0.49)
Professor Warmth	5.66 (1.12)	5.78 (1.39)	5.78 (1.16)	5.45 (0.99)	5.61 (0.93)
Course Difficulty	5.30 (0.89)	5.06 (0.92)	5.08 (0.71)	5.49 (0.92)	5.61 (0.94)
Industry Connectivity	5.93 (0.80)	5.90 (0.90)	6.28 (0.92)	5.25 (0.74)	6.22 (0.49)
Non-public relations majors	n = 168	n = 51	n = 32	n = 41	n = 44
Appropriate Topics	5.40 (1.00)	5.36 (0.88)	5.89 (0.67)	5.27 (0.79)	5.20 (1.36)
Professional Competence	5.66 (0.73)	5.67 (0.68)	6.04 (0.59)	5.42 (0.59)	5.57 (0.89)
Professor Warmth	5.09 (1.13)	5.09 (1.24)	5.67 (0.75)	4.63 (0.93)	5.11 (1.23)
Course Difficulty	5.01 (0.89)	4.91 (0.86)	5.21 (0.96)	5.20 (0.97)	4.79 (0.75)
Industry Connectivity	5.56 (0.99)	5.69 (0.89)	5.87 (0.74)	5.15 (1.04)	5.54 (1.08)
Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) members	n = 92	n = 26	n = 16	n = 30	n = 20
Appropriate Topics and Course Materials	5.95 (0.76)	5.84 (0.76)	6.05 (0.44)	5.88 (0.42)	6.10 (1.23)
Professional Competence	5.91 (0.70)	5.92 (0.70)	5.99 (0.59)	5.88 (0.32)	5.87 (1.13)
Professor Warmth	5.55 (1.14)	5.53 (1.49)	5.88 (0.76)	5.37 (0.85)	5.88 (0.76)
Course Difficulty	5.13 (1.01)	5.05 (1.19)	4.90 (0.71)	5.16 (0.93)	5.39 (1.07)
Industry Connectivity	5.64 (0.92)	5.75 (0.93)	6.20 (0.52)	5.14 (0.64)	5.85 (1.17)
Non-PRSSA members	n = 211	n = 49	n = 61	n = 46	n = 55
Appropriate Topics	5.58 (0.98)	5.47 (0.92)	5.88 (0.84)	5.55 (0.99)	5.38 (1.12)
Professional Competence	5.81 (0.72)	5.88 (0.79)	6.06 (0.67)	5.55 (0.72)	5.70 (0.67)
Professor Warmth	5.25 (1.16)	5.19 (1.23)	5.69 (1.07)	4.77 (1.09)	5.21 (1.09)
Course Difficulty	5.14 (0.85)	4.91 (0.67)	5.19 (0.82)	5.45 (0.96)	5.04 (0.86)
Industry Connectivity	5.76 (0.93)	5.76 (0.88)	6.08 (0.79)	5.23 (1.05)	5.81 (0.86)

The study’s second hypothesis conducted a similar test to the first; however, the independent variable being tested centered on PRSSA membership. Table 4 also presents the mean scores and standard deviations for this test. It was believed that being a PRSSA member would result in a more favorable evaluation of the public relations professors than those who were not PRSSA members. This hypothesis was only partially supported as the 92 PRSSA members felt that the professors had more professorial warmth, F(1, 301) = 4.24, p = .040, and chose more appropriate course topics and materials, F(1, 301) = 9.91, p = .002, than 211 students who were not PRSSA members. The remaining three scales were found not to support the hypothesis as there was no difference between the two student groups for how they evaluated the professors on professional competence, F(1, 301) = 1.11, p = .293, connectivity to the industry, F(1, 301) = 0.84, p = .36, and the level of course difficulty, F(1, 301) = 0.004, p = .948.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of this study found that students, indeed, have perceptions of public relations professors based solely on a syllabus. While the significant differences did not exist across all five evaluative indices, they did exist in regard to professorial warmth and industry connectivity when comparing the academic-practitioner divide. Male and female professors with practitioner backgrounds were perceived more favorably than the academic. Turning to gender, statistically different perceptions were found in all of the evaluations except for choosing appropriate course topics and materials. Female professors were seen as having more professorial warmth, more professional competence, and being more connected to the public relations industry than their male counterparts. Although it did not quite reach established levels of statistical significance, males were more likely to be viewed as having a more difficult course than females, F(1, 301) = 3.27, p = .072.

This project also revealed several stunning findings about the students’ perceived differences related to gender and professional background. The statistical analysis showed that students looked at the professors through a gendered lens. Although female professors were seen as being more connected to the industry, they were also perceived as weaker graders. Male professors, however, were viewed as more stern and less connected to contemporary professional practices. These differences echo previous studies that highlight the nurturing female professor perception compared with the pontificating male professor perception (Miller & Chamberlin, 2000). In addition, research has shown that students believe female professors to be more open and willing to share their professional contacts with students (Smeby, 2000).

The difference in the perceptions of male and female professors could be related to the societal norms about women and the feminization of the field. Societal norms shape the expectancies we have, and professors cannot escape the gendered social norms that students use to filter the classroom experience. A meta-analysis examining the impact of gender on mentoring and preparing others for career development, a key role enacted by professors, found that women are regularly viewed as being more willing to aid others and help them develop their personal career skills (O’Brien, Biga, Kessler, & Allen, 2010). The same study concluded that these perceptions frequently matched reality because of sociological norms that have been passed down generationally. These results help explain why both male and female students viewed the female professors more favorably in terms of professorial warmth. Similarly, the key differences on items within the industry connectivity index that focused on how the professors’ connections could benefit the student (i.e., internships, increasing knowledge) may be traced back to the societal expectations that females nurture and support others.

Students are witnessing the continued feminization of public relations in their classrooms and in the workplace (Place, 2012; Simorangkir, 2011). Women continue to dominate the public relations workforce in terms of sheer numbers even if they have not broken through the glass ceiling in similar proportion (Fitch & Third, 2010). Media portrayals of the discipline, when combined with the interactions students have when they see public relations practitioners as guest speakers in the classroom and on the job during their internship experiences, can form as a socialization mechanism of what students believe is the correct way of doing public relations and who should be a practitioner.

Given the popularization of the industry in mainstream media and students’ inherent desire to connect with practitioners who may help them secure employment upon finishing their degrees, it is not terribly surprising to see the academic devalued when compared with professors with a practitioner background. Although the differences did not exist for appropriate course topics, professional competency as a professor, and course difficulty, students expressed a strong desire for professors with a practitioner background rather than an academic one in terms of professorial warmth and industry connectivity. Students felt that professors who were more involved with the day-to-day practices of public relations were more likely to benefit them in terms of preparing them for contemporary practice as well as connecting them to practitioners. This preference for professors with a practitioner focus may help explain why the industry continues to discredit academic research (Wright, 2004) if not providing the foundation for these views.

Turning to the study’s hypotheses, the first hypothesis was proven true with an ANOVA analysis. Public relations majors were more likely to view the professor’s classroom qualifications and behaviors positively than non-public relations majors. Students may have perceived the professor with a professional background as having a better understanding of industry. Also, the positive view of the professional in the classroom might tie to a desire to see education connect with practice. This finding collapses nicely into the previous research that found the perceived value of professors increased based upon their professional, non-academic experience (Martin et al., 2005; Wilkerson, 1999). Practitioners may be viewed more favorably in the classroom because their knowledge and insight into the “real world” shaped the students’ learning experience. Also, the practitioners may have had an opportunity to recenter the students’ perceived knowledge and understanding of the profession.

The last hypothesis was not fully supported. Contrary to previous findings about extracurricular activities, involvement with PRSSA did not result in improved evaluations of public relations educators. PRSSA members did not view the professors’ classroom qualifications and behaviors positively than non-PRSSA members with the exception of their professorial warmth and choosing appropriate topics for the class. These mixed results may have occurred because PRSSA members interact with professionals in extracurricular, non-classroom settings regularly. PRSSA chapters bring in practitioners for informal resume workshops, portfolio sessions, guest speakers, and mentoring. Thus, these students who engage significantly with PRSSA and are active in these other professional societies may not see the need for having professors with professional experience as a bonus in the classroom.

The differences that students perceive of their professors have an impact on how classrooms are managed. Although professors should not contort their classes to meet the wants of their students, they should plan discussion and activities that play off of their existing strengths by matching them with strengths from others in the practice and the academy. Acknowledging these perceptual differences and making strategic choices to complement their existing curricular plans help create a better academic environment for the student and can produce higher course and faculty evaluations (Clayson, 2009).

For many, these findings might validate the anecdotal insights gathered from students or perplex those who do not have professional experience. Based on this, some professors may feel the need to bolster the limited experience that they have or scramble to find something to add to make them seem more appealing to students. Rather, these data open up more questions than it provides answers to questions. This research should serve as a call to reality and a call to adapt the learning environment that is conducive to both theory and practice, to both the practitioner and the theorist.

Limitations

Before considering sweeping changes to classroom management, professors need to recognize the limitations of the current project. This research is not generalizable beyond the participants—although attempts were made to recruit universities with diverse student populations and varied in accreditation (Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication [ACEJMC] and Certification in Education for Public Relations [CEPR] accredited programs). Also, the credentials listed in the syllabi were overexaggerated. The inflated and overexaggerated credentials were done to illustrate the differences, but those credentials were not the basis for the gender differences.

Future Research

In general, mass communication pedagogical research lags behind other professional fields (e.g., engineering, management, social work) in understanding how personal differences influence students’ perceptions of the professor and the classroom. Discussing student perceptions about professors’ backgrounds and what students perceive to be beneficial in the classroom are not comfortable topics for academics, whose research work is negated to irrelevance in students’ eyes, but this discussion and research must continue. Limited work has been done in public relations on the influence of gender identity in the classroom and within student interactions. Gender and professional background are only two dimensions of what makes up a professor. Other demographic factors, such as race and sexual orientation, may affect how professors are perceived as well. But this requires us to first acknowledge one question: Do we really want to know how our students actually perceive us, using criteria not on the course evaluations?

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.

Author Biographies

Natalie T. J. Tindall, PhD, APR, is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Georgia State University, where she teaches public relations and mass communication. Her primary research interests are diversity in organizations, specifically the public relations function, and the situational theory of publics and intersectionality.

Richard D. Waters is an associate professor in the School of Management at the University of San Francisco, where he teaches strategic communication and management courses. His primary research interests are fundraising, stakeholder relationships, and the use of new technologies in public relations, and he is an active consultant to Fortune 500 and Philanthropy 400 organizations, and serves on multiple academic journal boards.

References

Anderson

K. J.

Kanner

(2011). Inventing a gay agenda: Students’ perceptions of lesbian and gay professors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1538-1564.

Anderson

K. J.

Smith

(2005). Students’ preconceptions of professors: Benefits and barriers according to ethnicity and gender. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 184-201.

Basow

S. A.

Phelan

J. E.

Capotosto

(2006). Gender patterns in college students’ choices of their best and worst professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 25-35.

Basow

S. A.

Silberg

N. T.

(1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 308-314.

Chia

Y. M.

(2005). Job offers of multi-national accounting firms: The effects of emotional intelligence, extra-curricular activities, and academic performance. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 14, 75-93.

Clayson

D. E.

(2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 16-30.

Crombie

Pyke

S. W.

Silverthorn

Jones

Piccinin

(2003). Students’ perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 51-76.

Das

(2001). Business students’ perceptions of best university professors: Does gender role matter? Sex Roles, 45, 665-676.

Dion

(2008). All-knowing or all-nurturing? Student expectations, gender roles, and practical suggestions for women in the classroom. Political Science & Politics, 41, 853-856.

10.

Fitch

Third

(2010). Working girls: Revisiting the gendering of public relations. PRism, 7, 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Gender/Fitch_Third.pdf

11.

Geiger

M. A.

Ogilby

S. M.

(2000). The first course in accounting: Students’ perceptions and their effect on the decision to major in accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 18, 63-78.

12.

Gumbiner

(1998). Professors as models and mentors: Does gender matter? Psychological Reports, 82, 94.

13.

Hall

M. D.

(2012). Using student-based organizations within a discipline as a vehicle to create learning communities. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2012(132), 71-84.

14.

Hatfield

C. L.

Coyle

E. A.

(2013). Factors that influence student completion of course and faculty evaluations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77, Article 27.

15.

Jenkins

J. S.

Bugeja

A. D.

Barber

L. K.

(2014). More content or more policy? A closer look at syllabus detail, instructor gender, and perceptions of instructor effectiveness. College Teaching, 62, 129-135.

16.

Kim

Y. K.

Sax

L. J.

(2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50, 437-459.

17.

Lobb

W. B.

Shah

Kolassa

E. M.

(2004). Factors influencing the selection of a major: A comparison of pharmacy and nonpharmacy undergraduate students. Journal of Pharmacy Teaching, 11(2), 45-64.

18.

Ludwig

J. M.

Meacham

J. A.

(1997). Teaching controversial courses: Student evaluations of instructor and content. Educational Research Quarterly, 21(1), 27-38.

19.

Martin

Maytham

Case

Fraser

(2005). Engineering graduates’ perceptions of how well they were prepared for work in industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30, 167-180.

20.

Miller

Chamberlin

(2000). Women are teachers, men are professors: A study of student perceptions. Teaching Sociology, 28, 283-298.

21.

Moore

Trahan

(1997). Biased and political: Student perceptions of females teaching about gender. College Student Journal, 31, 434-444.

22.

O’Brien

K. E.

Biga

Kessler

S. R.

Allen

T. D.

(2010). A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36, 537-554.

23.

Place

(2012). Power-control or empowerment? How women public relations practitioners make meaning of power. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 435-450.

24.

Riniolo

T. C.

Johnson

K. C.

Sherman

T. R.

Misso

J. A.

(2006). Hot or not: Do professors perceived as physically attractive receive higher student evaluations? The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 19-35.

25.

Romano

S. T.

Bordieri

J. E.

(1989). Physical attractiveness stereotypes and students’ perceptions of college professors. Psychological Reports, 64, 1099-1102.

26.

Sax

L. J.

(2009). Gender matters: The variable effect of gender on the student experience. About Campus, 14(2), 2-10.

27.

Sebastian

R. J.

Bristow

(2008). Formal or informal? The impact of style of dress and forms of address on business students’ perceptions of professors. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 196-201.

28.

Siller

Rosales

Haines

Benally

(2009). Development of undergraduate students’ professional skills. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 135, 102-108.

29.

Simorangkir

(2011). The impact of the feminization of the public relations industry in Indonesia on communication practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5, 26-48.

30.

Smeby

J.-C.

(2000). Same-gender relationships in graduate supervision. Higher Education, 40, 53-67.

31.

Smith

Anderson

K. J.

(2005). Students’ ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency of Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(2), 115-136.

32.

Spoor

J. R.

Lehmiller

J. J.

(2014). The impact of course title and instructor gender on student perceptions and interest in a women’s and gender studies course. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e106286. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106286

33.

Steele

J. P.

Fullagar

C. J.

(2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143, 5-27.

34.

Weaver

R. R.

(2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 570-601.

35.

Wilkerson

J. M.

(1999). On research relevance, professors’ “real world” experience, and management development: Are we closing the gap? Journal of Management Development, 18, 598-613.

36.

Wright

D. K.

(2004, March). Out on a long limb: An examination of public relations education and its support from practice. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.