Journalism 6. Mass Communication Educator Research seeks contributions that support a community of faculty and student dis- covery; the acquisition of knowledge and skills; and their creative application to issues of import, both within and beyond classroom and Web site. The journal focuses on learning and teaching, curricu- lum, educational leadership, and related exploration of higher educa- tion within a context of journalism and mass communication. Submissions may draw from a variety of theoretical approaches and methodological perspectives and should introduce readers to new questions, new evidence, and effective educational practices.

Scholarship is encouraged that is grounded in knowledge about the complexity of learning and respectful of student needs for multi- ple paths toward understanding; rooted i n the disciplinary content of the professional and academic specialties we ask our students to mas- ter; and cognizant of the discipline's long-standing commitment to the arts of liberty, not through vague aphorisms, but as solutions to edu- cational, civic, and public needs.

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

National Assessment of the Perceived Writing Skills of Entry-Level PR Practitioners RICHARD COLE, LARRY A. HEMBROFF, A N D ANDREW D. CORNER

This survey of members of the United States’ largest public relations associa- tion confirms the existence of significant dissatisfaction with the writing per- formance of entry-level public relations practitioners among their public rela- tions supervisors. Dissatisfaction occurs across all measured categories of writ- ing for public relations and general business writing. In this large-sample descriptive s t u d y of views of active PR practitioners on this subject, public rela- tions practitioners say the writing skills of their entry-level colleagues are bad- and t h e y are getting worse. T h e s t u d y suggests a significant need f o r increased attention t o writing training f o r future PR practitioners. It also provides a base- line f r o m which t o track industry opinion o n the writing performance of future entry-level public relations practitioners over time.

College graduates entering the practice of public relations are fre- quent targets of complaints about declining writing skills. While entry- level PR practitioners are not the only group so criticized, the notion of declining writing skills takes on a par- ticularly ominous tone in a business so highly dependent upon writing as a core competency.

A comprehensive survey of repre- sentatives of 120 diverse American corporations conducted for the 2004 National Commission on Writing iden- tified writing as a major problem for business. This study estimated the

yearly cost of correcting business defects created by poor writing to American firms at more than $3 bil- lion.’

Few scholarly works exist about the quality of public relations writing. More reports appear as anecdotal arti- cles or opinion pieces in trade and pro- fessional publications. These articles have lamented writing deficiencies among entry-level practitioners for at least two decades. Most articles emphasize concern about news writing or writing for new media, rather than concerns about business writing in general. Despite obvious shortcom- -

Richard Z Cole ( R C O L E ~ @ M S U . E D U ) i s professor and chair, and A n d r e w D. Corner ([email protected]) i s instructor and director of the Undergraduate Writing Program, both in the Department of Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing; and Larry A . Hernbroff ([email protected]) i s director, Office f o r Survey Research, Institute f o r Public Policy and Social Research, all at Michigan State University Michigan State’s College of Communi- cations Arts and Sciences generously provided funding for this study.

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 10

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

ings, the existing literature creates the impression of a consistent body of neg- ative opinion over time on the subject of entry-level PR writing.

We designed a comprehensive sur- vey of public relations practitioners to test the degree to which the body of opinion appearing in literature reflects the attitudes of a representative sample of PR practitioners. This research’s central purpose was to determine and describe the current measured percep- tions of the quality of entry-level writ- ing for the business of public relations. It identifies and describes the percep- tions of practitioner-members of the Public Relations Society of America, especially public relations supervisors within this membership, regarding the writing performance of their junior- level peers.

Context

While little relevant peer-reviewed research exists, scholars and practi- tioners reporting and opining in aca- demic journals and trade publications have provided a running narrative of concern about the status and perceived decline in the quality of writing i n public relations during the last two decades.

In 1992, PR textbook author Fraser Seitel described the state of public relations writing as “deplorable.”2 The condition is worsening over time, Haberstroh concluded i n his 1995 col- lection of prominent public relations practitioners’ opinions of recent col- lege graduates. James Lukaszewski told Haberstroh “the current generation of mass communication students does not write as well as the past. (W)riting is one of the very weakest areas of most

new (college) graduates” while for A1 Croft “the absolute number-one com- plaint about college graduates seeking to enter the PR business is that they don’t know how to write.”3

The 1999 report of the Commis- sion on Public Relations Education recommended that PR educators immediately address language as one of the top skills necessary for a revamped c ~ r r i c u l a . ~ That year, McCleneghan described PR writing as deteriorating to such a degree that he was ready to “throw i n the towel.’I5

Hardin and Pompper found “no shortage.. .of practitioners’ sentiments about [recent college] graduates’ lack- luster writing skills.” Reporting a study of nearly 200 practitioners, they found strong agreement with the sug- gestion that both news writing and public relations writing classes be mandatory i n PR curricula. New prac- titioners appear to be entering PR with an increasing deficit of valuable news writing and journalism experience.6

This increase in PR practitioners entering the field without the benefit of a past journalism career has not been accompanied by a commensurate reduction i n demand for good writers. Haney quotes Bivens saying today’s employers continue “to value employ- ees who can communicate well through the written word” and cites feedback from surveys of PRSA’s Counselors Academy suggesting that writing is the area in which young practitioners are i n greatest need of skill i m p r ~ v e m e n t . ~

Recently, Corner and Cole found- in a 2007 small-sample survey of mem- bers of a Midwestern public relations association-what the authors des- cribed as a n “alarming” concern regarding the state of entry-level PR

11 SPRING ’09

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

writing. Fully 72% of respondents said entry-level PR pros are only “a little” or “somewhat” prepared for their PR writing role. A clear majority of respon- dents (57%) said that the quality of entry-level writing is declining over time. Respondents said recent gradu- ates are poorly prepared to handle even the more basic writing chal- lenges-client memos, reports, budget requests, or basic e-mail.8

At the same time, the quality of entry-level PR writing appears i n decline, the practitioner seems to be confronting an ever-expanding list of writing challenges. Jennifer Mattern, an online blogger, provides a “brief list” of thirteen types of public relations writ- ing necessary for success i n the blogo- sphere. Beyond writing for new media, this list retains traditional writing tasks s u c h as press releases, press kits, brochures, newsletters, pitch letters, features, op-eds, fact sheets, public service announcement scripts, speech- es, backgrounders, annual reports, and company magazine^.^

Despite some similarities between traditional PR writing and writing for electronic or “new media,” Wright and Hinson found that blogs and social media are driving changes i n require- ments for new-media writing. More than half of the organizations they sur- veyed, for example, suggested that blogs had changed how their compa- nies handle external communica- tions.1° Dating to the earliest days of Web writing, professionals writing i n trade journals suggested that PR pros should abandon traditional journalistic style guides in favor of a new “wired style.”’l Some PR trade journals con- tinue to advance this advice.12

Efforts to translate traditional writ- ing skills into production of quality

electronic communications are not unique to PR. Such efforts are common in many fields.I3 One recurring theme is that the prevalence of e-mail and text messaging has contributed to a decreas- ing familiarity with appropriate style and tone of basic business writing. A general decline i n writing skills r e ~ u 1 t s . l ~

Marken goes beyond saying bad e- mail habits are responsible for deterio- rating writing skills, observing that PR writing may be the victim of the suc- cess of public relations establishing itself as a discrete academic discipline. This initiative is imposing the addition of more classes in research, strategy, case studies, various general business subjects, and more. This initiative may also be reducing time-on-task students previously spent doing basic writing assignments, suggesting another possi- ble explanation for a perceived decline i n the quality of writing among young p r a ~ t i t i o n e r s . ’ ~

Some see a decline i n writing skills as evidence of a decline in value the modern PR practitioner is placing on the importance of writing.16 Others trace the problem of college-level writ- ing skills to a decline of writing in American high schools. Anderson, for example, points to declining scores on SAT tests with the high school class of 2006 that showed the highest annual drop in decades in both reading and writing.17

The perception of a decline in the quality of the writing of recent college graduates is neither limited to this country nor to public relations.18 Canavor and Meirowitz describe corpo- rate writing i n general as “ i n bad shape.”lg Quible and Griffen told busi- ness educators results of a recent study suggesting that writing deficiencies

~ O U R N A L I S M @ MASS C ~ M M U N I C A T I ~ N EDUCATOR

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

may be creating a “lost generation of business writers.

The academic and trade literature on entry-level PR writing presents a universal, though often undocument- ed, perception of significant deficien- cies and ongoing decline in this cen- tral skill in public relations-the abili- ty to communicate through the written word. We found no evidence or anec- dote in professional publications or academic literature contradicting this impression.

Given the descriptive purpose and nature of this study, our primary inter- est was to determine the degree to which the prevailing view of experi- enced and supervisory practitioners regarding the writing skills of new entrants into public relations was con- sistent with these published impres- sions. This study describes the current impressions of PR practitioners on the writing skills of entry-level practition- ers. It reports on the depth and perva- siveness of these impressions within an important segment of America’s public relations community-the supervisors of entry-level profession- als.

Questions

While this study focused on a broad range of writing-related issues, those featured within this report are addressed, most directly, by the fol- lowing questions:

RQ1: Within which of several major and differentiat- ed categories of writing are entry-level PR practitioners spending “writing time” with- in a typical 40-hour week, and

how m u c h time are they spending writing within the various categories?

RQ2: How capable as writers are entry-level PR practitioners as judged by PR supervisors by category of writing assignment? We asked this question (and the follow- ing one) i n such a way to be able to translate our findings into a recognizable symbol- the collegiate grade-point- average (GPA).

RQ3: Which of four dis- crete components of the writing function have the greatest influence on shaping the assessment of the writing performance of entry-level practitioners of public rela- tions?

RQ4 (a battery of five questions): The first two ques- tions ask the respondent to assess the degree to which entry-level writing tasks are becoming more complex and more varied over time. We also asked the respondents questions that would allow us to determine if they perceive entry-level practitioners as “better prepared” (or worse) each year, and if they think they are lowering their expec- tations about the writing skills of entry level profes- sionals over time. Finally, we simply asked them to agree or disagree that entry-level prac- titioners are becoming better writers every year.

13 SPRING ’09

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Methods The study consisted of a survey

sample of 848 public relations practi- tioners-all active members of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). We excluded retired public relations practitioners and members of the educators division of PRSA.

The results of an earlier survey conducted on a sample of the member- ship of the central-Michigan chapter of PRSA, and a subsequent member focus group, aided us in the development of the questionnaire.

Next, staff members i n PRSA national headquarters forwarded an introductory memo by e-mail from the principal investigator to a randomly selected subset of roughly 6,800 mem- bers along with our survey. The memo appealed to the practitioner subset on the basis that their information could help public relations educators re- design curricula and teaching practices resulting in higher quality public rela- tions writing. This solicitation for par- ticipation, after a second prompt e-mail from PRSA, yielded 848 completed questionnaires, producing a crude response rate of 13%. PRSA member studies typically produce response rates of 10-15%. (PRSA provided access to its membership for the Web survey, but imposed no influence over its findings or analysis.)

An independent verification of the sample was made possible by examin- ing the results of the demographics sec- tion of a “Member Value Perception and Satisfaction Survey”21 conducted on behalf of PRSA by Braun Research during roughly the same period. For example, the PRSA-Braun study pegs member employment in communica- tions-related departments, educational

institutions, and non-profit organiza- tions at roughly 57% of the total PRSA membership with employees in gov- ernment (including military) at 10% and another 2 2 % working in public relations agencies a n d professional service firms. Another 6% reported working as independent practitioners.

A nearly identical 60% of our sam- ple reported working in non-govern- mental communications departments with an additional 11% working in communications departments of gov- ernmental agencies. An also nearly identical 22% of our sample reported working in agencies, with nearly 7% describing themselves as sole practi- tioners.

Reports of all demographic charac- teristics contained within the two stud- ies are so close as to provide sufficient confidence that differences between the two demographic profiles, to the extent that they exist, are possibly attributable to minor variations in nam- ing categories.

In our questions, we used either a standard Likert-type scale ranging from a score of 1 (for the lowest level) to 5 (for the highest), or a “yes, no, don’t know” format. Generally, we report findings in percentages supported with standard statistical tests (i.e., Chi- square analysis of variance, and t-tests of regression coefficients).

RQ1 allowed us to evaluate several writing-related issues. First, we wanted to know the perception of the relative amount of writing time entry-level practitioners were spending writing as reported from both the perspectives of the entry-level practitioners and their supervisors. We selected examples of writing from within three general cate- gories, the first of which constituted what we see as more traditional PR

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 14

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

writing (press releases a n d back- grounders or the related-activity of writing copy for newsletters or annual reports). The second category addressed writing for new media (Web site content, and blogging and social media). A third area contained what we thought of as more general business writing to include e-mails to col- leagues and clients, formal business letters and internal memoranda, and fundraising letters and proposal copy. We wanted to examine how these assignments might vary for entry-level practitioners by employment status or by length of time in PR, as well as how the perceptions of entry-level practi- tioners might vary from those responsi- ble for overseeing their work.

We not only wanted to assess per- ceptions of the overall capability of entry-level PR writing (RQZ), but we also wanted to identify and assess the writing-skill construct categories that are framing judgments on the percep- tions of writing quality.

In order to develop R Q 3 , w e engaged a focus group of local P R prac- titioners to help us create a continuum of writing constructs. We identified four common construct categories and placed them on a continuum with more technical skills such as spelling and grammar on one end of the contin- uum. At the other end, we placed the more subjective or creative compo- nents of writing capability-style and the use of style guides, and the “ability to organize ideas.”

RQ4 is a series of five opinion questions. Do PR practitioners perceive that the preparation of recent college graduates is improving or declining over time? Do they perceive that the writing tasks, in general, are becoming more varied andlor more complex?

Have experienced P R practitioners been reducing their expectations of the quality of writing performed by their entry-level colleagues? Beyond this is the general question of whether sea- soned practitioners can describe their entry-level colleagues as good writers, or not. This series attempted to collect information o n , but not explore or elaborate upon, the viewpoint “that writing just isn’t as good as it used to be.” Thus, we could obtain a snapshot of the viewpoint of PR practitioners in various stages of their careers at this moment in time, once again providing an option for tracking this impression. Beyond that, these questions create opportunity for interesting future descriptive and empirical studies.

We designed all of our research questions with the intention of provid- ing a platform of data upon which we can measure changes in any of these activities over time.

Characteristics

Table 1 describes the respondents. All respondents were members of P R S A at the time of the survey period, September 9 through 2 1 , 2008.

We approached the survey design as an inaugural quantitative descrip- tive study of perceptions about P R writing. We had no specific hypotheses as to which types of PR organizations or characteristics might express differ- ent impressions, preferences, or expec- tations regarding entry-level P R writ- ing. So, while we did not necessarily expect to find opinion differences in respondents from organizations of dif- ferent types, regions, markets, or sizes, we did check to see if such differences existed.

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 1 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS

Background % of Respondents

Type of Organization Communications Related Agency Communications Related Department Communications Related Function/Gov’t. Agency Sole Practitioner

Respondent Has Supervisor Responsibility Yes No

Respondent’s Length of Time in PR 0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years More than 30 Years

Respondent’s Level of Education Some College Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree

Type of Community in Which Respondent Works Major Metropolitan Area Large City Medium-size City Small City Rural Area or Small Town

Region of Country Northeast (New England, Mid-Atlantic) South (S. Atlantic, E.S. Central, W.S. Central) Midwest (E.N. Central, W.N. Central) West (Mountain, Pacific)

Size Market Served National Regional (population > 1 0 million) Regional (population 5-9.9 million) Regional (population 1-4.9 million) Regional (population < 1 million)

22.1 6 0 . 1 1 1 . 0

6.8

75.9 24.1

16.4 18.1 25.7 29.4 10.4

1.8 62.7 35.5

50.3 20.5 22.1

4 . 9 2.2

19.1 31.7 27.9 21.2

4 7 . 1 13.4 10.6 18.6 10.2

The basis of our curiosity resided i n the recognition of several supposi- tions. For example, organizations i n different regions may recruit new employees from quite different mixes of education institutions that may have

differences in programs and curricula. Organizations of different sizes have different clientele a n d have much

~ greater degrees of specialization and role differentiation-both vertically and horizontally. We also suspected

JOURNALISM b MASS COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 16

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 2 M E A N ESTIMATE OF TIME SPENT IN HOURS WRITING BY CATEGORY

IN AVERAGE 4 0 - H O U R “WRITING” WEEK, BY EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD

Type All 5 Years Supervisors of Writing Task Respondents in Field with 11+

or Less Years in Field

Web Site Content 5 . 2 4.6 5 . 3

Business LetterslInternal Memoranda 4.3 4.3 4.4

NewslettedAnnual Reports 5.5 5.1 5.6

Fundraising Appeals/Proposals 1.7 1.6 1.6

Blogging/Other Social Media 3.3 3 . 3 3.3

Conversational E-mail 8.3 8.6 8.1

Press ReleasedBackgrounders 9.3 8.9 9.5

that because different types of organi- zations may differ with respect to their missions a n d goals, perceptions of these organizations’ employees might reflect these differences. Consequently, we felt these organizations might select or require different writing capabilities and that we would see these differ- ences in the assessment measures. We found no such significant differences.

Results

In the first question ( R Q I ) , we asked respondents to estimate the aver- age hours in a 40-hour week of work that entry-level employees spend on major writing-task categories. We offered no options other than writing tasks for the estimates, giving us the ability to translate the responses into a “writing week”-as if the entry-level practitioners performed no other duties than writing during the period.

All questions were asked from the framework of “thinking of recent col- lege graduates (you have observed) in public relations-related jobs.” We com- pared the estimate of supervisors observing work of entry-level practi- tioners to the work estimates by the entry-level professionals. The ques- tionnaire provided respondents with a list of seven writing categories (with an option for “others”) that included: (1) Press releases and backgrounders; (2) Conversational e-mails to clients and colleagues; (3) Newsletter and annual report copy; (4) Business letters and internal memoranda; (5) Web site con- tent; (6) Blogging a n d other social media; and ( 7 ) Fundraising appeals and proposal copy.

Table 2 demonstrates that both the entry-level practitioners a n d their supervisors reported that entry-level employees spend the largest average number of writing hours during a week working on PR news writing (estimates

17 S P R I N G ’n9

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 3 MEAN RATING OF CAPABILITY TO PRODUCE CLEAN, FINAL COPY THE FIRST TIME SEEN

FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF WRITING, BY EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD Mean Rating of Capability

Type A. All B. 5 Years C. Supervisors B - c. p ( F ) of Writing Task Respondents in Field with 11+

or Less Years in Field

Web Site Content

Business Letters/ Internal Memoranda

Newsletters/ Annual Reports

Fundraising Appeals/ Proposals

Conversational E-mail

Press Releases/ Backgrounders

2.87 3.15 2.74 23.01, p <.001

2.59 2.96 2.46 35.95, p <.001

2.56 2.90 2.42 31.57, p < .001

2.28 2.58 2.15 26.74, p < .001

3.17 3.53 3.03 30.34, p <.001

2.73 3.09 2.61 29.26, p <.001

of 8.9 hours and 9.5 hours [.64 hour difference] by supervisors and entry- level practitioners, respectively). Conversational e-mail to clients and colleagues (estimates of 8.6 hours and 8.2 hours [.46 hour difference] by supervisors and entry-level practition- ers, respectively) ranked second among writing categories.

Combining the time estimates by entry-level writers of conversational e- mail to clients and colleagues (8.6 hours) with the time they say they spend on blogging and on other social media ( 3 . 3 hours) means nearly 1 2 hours of writing time is being spent writing largely unedited electronic messages.

For RQ2, again, we asked respon- dents for impressions of the capability of “recent college graduates you have observed are to prepare clean, final copy” when writing assignments with- in the aforementioned seven writing task areas. Respondents rated entry- level writing capability on a scale from 1 to 5 , with 1 being “incapable” and 5 being “very capable.” The number 3 represents the midpoint. Again, we separated the responses of the entry- level practitioners from the responses of PR supervisors. Table 3 shows the average capability rating for each of the seven types of writing tasks.

Overall respondent PR supervisors judge recent college graduates a n d

JOURNALISM b M A S S COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 18

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 4 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS OF GRADES AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE (GPA)

FOR COMPETENCY ON VARIOUS WRITING SKILLS OF RECENT COLLEGE GRADUATES ENTERING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS FIELD

Percent of Respondents Giving Grade of--

Incompetent Very Competent

Likert to Letter Grade Translation O=E 1 =D 2=C 3=B 4=A GPA

Use of Proper Grammar 6 . 2 % 26.2% 37.6% 25.3% 4.7% 1 . 9 6

Correct Spelling and Punctuation 6.5% 25.3% 34.9% 27.4% 6.0% 2.01

Ability to Organize Ideas 3.9% 26.6% 43.7% 21.7% 3.9% 1.95

Use of AP or Other Style Guides 11.4% 33.6% 31.4% 20.0% 3.7% 1.71

837

835

837

employees least capable of writing in the “persuasive-writing” skill category identified as fundraising appeals and proposal copy. But supervisors gave the highest grades to junior peers for writing conversational e-mail and blog- ging or writing for other social media, the only two categories in which entry- level PR practitioners receive an aver- age supervisor’s score above the numerical middle score of 3. We com- pared the average rating new entrants received from supervisors against rat- ings the entry-level practitioners gave themselves. We found significant dif- ferences between the two groups in all writing categories. In each case, the less-experienced practitioners rated new entrants’ capabilities-the group to which they belong-within roughly a half-point higher than the rating given to them by supervisors. The real

significance of this difference may transcend the statistical test of signifi- cance. Among those who have been i n the field for 0-10 years, the average capability score they gave newly hired PR employees was 2.97. Among those in the field 1 1 - 2 0 years, the average score they gave newly hired PR employees was 2.70, and, among those who have been i n the field 2 1 or more years, the average capability score they gave was 2.64. The differences were statistically significant (F,,,,, = 19.78;

Practitioners, especially 10+-year veterans, view new college graduates entering PR as less capable writers than desirable. Although results for RQ2 indicate which kinds of writing new graduates seem more capable or less capable of performing, they do not identify which of the particular

p < .001).

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 5 GRADE POINT AVERAGE GIVEN NEW GRADUATES ENTERING PR FIELD

FOR FOUR WRITING SKILLS, BY EXPERIENCE IN PR FIELD (LIKERT MID-POINT SCORE OF 3 = GPA TRANSLATION OF 2.0 = LETTER C)

Writing Skill All 5 Years Supervisors F Respondents in Field with 11+

or Less Years in Field

Proper Grammar 1.96 2.49 1.82 55.75; p < .001

Correct Spelling/Punctuation 2.01 2.55 1.84 57.50; p < .001

Ability to Organize Ideas 1.95 2.40 1.78 54.81; p < .001

Use of AP/Other Style Guides 1 . 7 1 2.17 1.55 40.99; p < .001

component skills of writing are most responsible for generating this impres- sion.

To begin determining the relative strength of particular writing skills of new graduates entering the field, the questionnaire listed four skills. These included “use of proper grammar” and “correct spelling and punctuation” on the technical end of a continuum, mov- ing to “use of AP or other appropriate style guides” to “ability to organize ideas” at the other end. For each skill, we asked respondents to rate entry- level practitioners on a 5-point scale from incompetent (1) to very compe- tent (5). For reporting this question, we converted the 5-point Likert-scale rat- ing to the equivalent of a collegiate (0- 4) grade point average (GPA), with a score of 4 being equal to an A grade and a 0 equal to a E grade. Using this scale, supervisors would give their junior peers an average writing grade between a C and D in all categories except blog- ging and other social media, and con- versational e-mail where the given

grade is only slightly better than C. Table 4 shows the percentage distribu- tion of responses (RQ3) of all respon- dents-supervisors and non-supervi- sors at every experience level includ- ing entry-level respondents-and the GPA for each of the four skills.

Table 4 indicates that respondents graded new entrants to the field higher on correct spelling and punctuation, and lower on use of Associated Press style or other appropriate style guides. No significant differences emerged in the GPA on each of the skills among respondents from organizations serving different size markets, but there are sig- nificant differences across types of organizations on grades given on all four skills. Respondents from commu- nications-related departments awarded higher grades than did other respon- dents on three of four skills (not organ- izing ideas). Sole practitioners awarded the lowest grades on three of four skills (not the use of appropriate style guides). Respondents from communi- cations-related agencies gave the low-

JOURNALISM B MASS COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 20

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 6 REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR WRITING SKILL GRADES ON CAPABILITY RATINGS

ON TYPES OF WRITING

Proper Spelling and Ability to Use of API Grammar Punctuation Organize Ideas Other Style Guides

Capability Score for Writing. . . b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta Const.

Web Site 0.066 0.073 Content

Business Letters/ 0.143*** 0.161 Internal Memo

Newsletters/ 0.132** 0.143 Annual Reports

Fundraising 0.103* 0.121 AppealsIProposals

Blogging/Other Social Media 0.138** 0.144

Conversational E-mail 0.174*** 0.178

F’ress Releases/ Backgrounders 0.133** 0.138

* p ( f ) < .05; * * p ( f ) < .01; * * * p ( t ) < ,001

0.064 0.074

0.091* 0.106

0.104* 0.117

0.045 0.055

0.276*** 0.282

0.275*** 0.283

0.254*** 0.251

0.222*** 0.237

0.155*** 0.181

0.122*** 0.144

0.131*** 0.149

0.132*** 0.162

-0.001 -0.001

0.099* 0.106

0.077 0.083

0.189*** 0.182

0.251*** 0.235

0.227*** 0.217

0.140*** 0.155

0.014 0.015

0.210*** 0.229

1.81

1.39

1.38

1.33

2.32

2.11

1.52

est grades on the use of appropriate style guides. Significant differences emerged among regions on the grades given for correct spelling and punctua- tion and for the use of appropriate style guides. Respondents from the Midwest gave higher grades and respondents from the Northeast gave lower grades on both skills. On all four writing skills, more experienced supervisor- practitioners awarded much lower grades to the entry-level practitioners than the entry-level practitioners gave themselves as a group (see Table 5).

We conducted a series of linear regressions, in an attempt to ascertain which writing skill elements are

most-closely associated with respon- dents’ ratings of new practitioners’ capability. We provided one regression for each of the seven types of writing tasks upon which we asked the respon- dents to judge the capabilities of entry- level practitioners. The capability score is the dependent variable in each regression model. These ratings are then regressed on the respondents’ grades given to the new practitioner on each of the specific writing skills. Table 6 shows the non-standardized (b) and the standardized (Beta) regression coefficients. As a standardized coeffi- cient, Beta enables us to compare the relative strengths of the four skills’ rat-

21 SPRING ’09

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Table 7

ABOUT CURRENT ENTRY-LEVEL PROFESSIONALS PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES AND MEAN RESPONSE TO OPINION QUESTIONS

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Mean 1 2 3 4 5 n= Response

They are good writers. 11.2 30.0 45.1 12.3 1.4 100.0% 832 2.63

The variety of writing 1 . 8 5.1 16.5 43.1 33.5 100.0% 836 4.01 tasks is increasing.

The complexity of writing 4.2 14.7 25.2 39.1 16.8 100.0% 834 3.50 tasks is increasing.

Entry-level professionals 14.2 34.7 4 1 . 9 8 . 2 1 . 0 100.0% 825 2.47 are better prepared each year.

I am reducing my 10.2 16.9 25.7 31.3 15.9 100.0% 836 3.26 expectations of writing skills.

ings on the overall assessment of capa- bility.

Table 6 indicates that the ability to organize ideas is a significant predictor of the rating of capability for all seven types of writing and is the most power- ful predictor of judged ability on six of seven writing types. Coefficients (above) are all positive, indicating that the higher the grade for ability to organ- ize ideas, the higher is judged the writ- ing capability of the new practitioner. The competent use of AP and other style guides is also a significant predic- tor of performance in six of seven writ- ing categories. Not surprisingly, com- petent style is not a sufficient predictor of success in writing conversational email.

Proper use of grammar plays an important role in how capability is judged with regard to business letters or internal memoranda and conversa- tional e-mail to colleagues and clients, but not to other types of writing tasks.

Correct punctuation plays a significant role i n the judgment of capability to write newsletters and annual reports, but not on other types of writing tasks. Said another way that might reflect this era of automated spelling and grammar checkers, competent writing mechan- ics do not have much influence on su- pervisors’ judgments of competent wri- ting if the writer cannot demonstrate an ability to organize and express ideas.

Table 7 shows the percentage dis- tribution of responses and the mean response to five opinion questions. Responses include all respondents (n= 825 to 836) to these questions, includ- ing entry-level practitioners and their more senior peers and supervisors.

We found strong overall disagree- ment (41.2% at the 1 and 2 level) and corresponding very weak agreement (13.7 at the 4 and 5 level) with the description of entry-level practitioners as “good writers,” and even stronger disagreement (48.9% at the 1 and 2

JOURNALISM 8 M A S S COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 22

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

level) with the statement that entry- level practitioners seem better pre- pared, in general, each year. On this statement, a mere 9.2% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. The more time a practitioner has been in the field, the greater the likelihood he or she will express disappointment in entry-level writing by disagreeing that newly hired PR employees are good writers. Years in the practice of PR also correlates with concern about the preparation of new hires, as more sea- soned practitioners are more likely to have disagreed that new hires are bet- ter prepared than new hires five year earlier. For both cross tabulations, Chi- square tests are significant at the .001 level.

Strong agreement exists within the membership of PRSA that both the variety (76.6% agreement) and com- plexity (55.9%) of the writing tasks given to entry-level practitioners are on the rise.

Of significant concern is the degree to which practitioners appear to be expressing their frustration with what they perceive as declining writ- ing skills among entry-level practition- ers by reducing their expectations for good writing. Nearly half of respon- dents (47.2%) agreed that they are reducing expectations of the overall writing skills of entry-level practition- ers, while only 27.1% said they are not. By separating responses of entry- level practitioners from those of the (11+ year) supervisors, the results are even more dramatic (mean=3.38 vs. 2.82; F < .00l).

Conclusion The study provided an opportuni-

ty to assess and describe impressions of the quality of entry-level writing

among a sample of public relations practitioners in America's largest PR membership organization. Respon- dents represented views from within agencies a n d in-house communica- tions units in various sized markets in all regions of the country. Determining the length of service and supervisory versus non-supervisory position of respondents provided an opportunity to establish a baseline from which future studies may judge either a per- ceived deterioration of entry-level writing, or its rehabilitation. The study also allows for comparison of current impressions of supervisors of entry- level practitioners to impressions of entry-level practitioners.

By determining other factors such as type of public relations organization and location and market size, future researchers can examine variations in satisfaction that may develop over time. Such variations may result from differential access to resources, differ- ential hiring practices including the use of internships or writing tests, or remediation and in-service programs provided on a regional level or within certain practitioner segments in the PR community.

Baseline data provided by this study also permit PR educators to assess the degree to w h i c h an increased future emphasis on writing education will improve writing quality of entry-level practitioners.

Modern public relations education faces a conundrum implied-if not explicitly described-in findings in the 2006 Commission on Public Relations Education's report, Public Relations Education for t h e 2lS' Century. Educators, practitioners, and students engaged i n its development identified writing skills as first on a list of five

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

core competencies for PR undergradu- ates. This same commission identified a list of thirty-seven “Necessary Knowledge of Skills that should be taught in an undergraduate public rela- tions curriculum” ranging from “com- munications and persuasion concepts and strategies” to “applying cross-cul- tural a n d cross-gender sensitivity.” Only two of these recommended skill sets, “mastery of language in written and oral communication” and “infor- mative and persuasive writing,” appear to address the concern of active practi- tioners about the writing deficiencies of would-be entry-level practitioners being educated in college programs.22

Despite the lack of ambiguity i n our findings, further study should expand upon this descriptive report to provide direction for remediation of the conditions causing this concern. With this acknowledgment comes an equally compelling recognition that the educational needs of an increasingly complex and professional PR commu- nity have created significant new demands for new academic resources within the public relations curricula. These are precious resources that oth- erwise might be directed toward the development of student writing skills.

We recognize the voices of those who see the practice of public relations as its own broad-based academic disci- pline rather than as a sub-set of journal- ism.23 The logical extension of the increasingly diverse curricula that underlie this migration away from jour- nalism into discrete public relations majors and specializations is a reduced emphasis on writing education.

From the increasing number of these undergraduate public relations programs that produce an increasing number of entry-level PR practitioners

follows a logical reduction in the pro- portion, if not number, of former jour- nalists entering public relations. This condition itself may validate, to some degree, the feelings of seasoned practi- tioners (many of whom themselves are former journalists) of a decline in the writing craft aspect of PR. Add to this a variety of other factors that have been posited as reasons for a decline in the quality of entry-level PR writing.

Factors ranging from a sense of a more casual communication tone induced by technological innovations such as text messaging, to a perception of a declining significance of the writ- ten word in the mix of public relations practice, may account for either the perception of declining writing capaci- ty, or its reality, or both. These factors also call out for further quantitative, a n d perhaps qualitative, study. (A descriptive study necessarily generates more questions than answers. This study was a large-sample assessment of perceptions of a subset of public rela- tions practitioners. It was little more than that.)

Whether or not the reported per- ceptions reflect the reality of entry- level writing performance is an empiri- cal question that demands further study and testing. As it stands, this descriptive study simply validated a common saw in the PR business about young people “just not writing as well as they did back in the day.” It also began to break down the bases upon which this widespread impression is constructed. However, assuming that regardless of its current relative status, entry-level writing can always stand improvement, the community of public relations educators would benefit from a more detailed analysis addressing pedagogical ramifications and prescrib-

JOURNALISM # MASS COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 24

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

ing better, if not best, practices for developing the writing skills of stu- dents destined or a career in communi- cations.

At the very least, this national sur- vey of PRSA members confirms earlier reports, both academic and anecdotal, of a strong negative perception among PR practitioners of the writing skills of the entry-level practitioners they encounter on the job. This study may stimulate an intensified interest in strengthening college-level writing instruction for future PR practitioners. If so, an immediate discussion must begin within the practitioner and edu- cator community. The outcome of this discussion must be to determine exact- ly which aspects of the current PR cur- riculum must give way to make room for an obvious demand for better busi- ness writing in the practice of public relations in the twenty-first century.

Endnotes

1. See National Commission on Writing Report, Writing: A Ticket to Work ... Or a Ticket Out - A Survey oj Business Leaders, Report of the College Board, 2004. “This survey of 120 major American corporations employing nearly 8 million people concludes that i n today’s workplace writing is a ‘thresh-hold skill’ for hiring and pro- motion among salaried (i.e., profes- sional) employees.”

2. Lyle L. Erb, “Writers Note- book.. .In which the Author Gives Nine Specific Answers,” Public Relations Quarterly 2 7 (3, 1982): 32.

3. Jack Haberstroh, “PR Graduates Don’t Measure Up as Writers,” Public Relations Quarterly 39 ( 4 , 1994): 22-25 (22 and 23).

4. See Commission on Public Relations Education, A Port of Entry: The Report of the 1999 Commission on Public Relations Education, 1999 (available at commpred.org) for a full review of the commission’s recommen- dations. This voluntary commission of industry practitioners, educators, and students, like the later 2006 report (cited as endnote Z O ) , acknowledges writing as a key skill for the practice of public relations, but at the same time calls for greater college curricular emphasis on non-technical skills like research, strategy and planning, prob- lem solving, and counseling.

5. J. Sean McCleneghan, “The PHD Approach to News Writing,” Public Relations Quarterly44 (1,1999):

6. Marie C. Hardin and Donnalyn D. Pompper, “Writing i n the Public Relations Curriculum: Practitioner Perceptions versus Pedagogy,” Public Relations Review 30 (3, 2004): 357-64 (358).

7. James M. Haney, “Improving Feedback, Interaction a n d Editing Skills in the Public Relations Writing Class” (paper presented to the Public Relations Society of America Edu- cators Academy, Detroit, October 25, 2008).

8. Andrew D. Corner and Richard T. Cole, “Are College Graduates 111- Prepared for PR Writing? One PRSA Chapter Speaks,” Public Relations Tactics 15 (4, 2008): 9.

9. See “Types of Public Relations Writing,” Jennifer J. Mattern Web site, December 1 7 , 2006, http://nakedpr. com/2006/12/17/types-of-public-rela- tions-writing (accessed December 7, 2008).

10. Donald K. Wright and Michelle D. Hinson, “Technology’s Impact on

42-45 (42).

25 SPRING ’09

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/

Communication Theory: Rethinking Traditional Communication Models” (paper presented to the tenth Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida, March 10, 2007).

1 1 . Alan Pel1 Crawford, “Revisiting Wired Style,” Public Relations Tactics 11 ( 2 , 2004): 1.

1 2 . Stuart Crainer and Des Dearlove, “Making Yourself Understood.” Across the Board 4 1 ( 3 , 2004): 23-27.

13. Sara Means Geigel, “Web Wri- ting the Wows,” Public Relations Tactics 10 ( 2 , 2003): 1 5 .

1 4 . See Helen H. Cunningham and Brenda B. Greene, “Before you hit Send - Getting E-Mail Communication Right,” Strategic Communication Management 6 ( 5 , 2002), 5; Khrush- want S. Pittenger, Mary C. Miller, and Jesse Allison, “Can We Succeed i n Teaching Business Students to Write Effectively? Business Communication Quarterly 6 9 ( 3 , 2006): 257-63; and Anonymous, “You are What You Write: Six Ways to Ensure that Your E-Mail Makes - Not Breaks - Your Career,” Public Relations Quarterly 50 (3,2005):

15. G. A. Marken, “Press Releases: When Nothing Else Will Do, Do it Right,” Public Relations Quarterly 39 ( 3 , 1994): 9.

1 6 . Terry J. Thompson, “Whatever Happened to Public Relations Writ-

16-28.

ing?” Public Relations Strategist 5 ( 3 ,

1 7 . Ralph Tench, “Perceptions of Competence in Public Relations Stu- dents’ Writing,” Education and Train- ing 4 3 (2/3, 2001): 94-104.

18. Karen W. Anderson, “Scores on Reading and Math Portions of the SAT Show a Significant Decline,” New York Times, June 20, 2002, sec. A, National Desk.

1 9 . Natalie N. Canavor and Claire C. Meirowitz, “Good Corporate Writing: Why It Matters and What to Do,” Communication World 22 ( 4 , 2005): 30.

20. Zane Quible and Frances Grif- fin, “Are Writing Deficiencies Creat- ing a Lost Generation of Business Writers?” Journal of Education f o r Business 8 3 (1, 2007): 32.

21. Public Relations Society of America, Membership Value Percep- tion and Satisfaction Survey, Conduc- ted between June 17 and July 8 , 2008 by Ketchum Public Relations in associ- ation with Braun Research.

22. See Commission on Public Relations Education, Public Relations for the 21Sf Century - The Professional B o n d , Public Relations and the Practice, 2 0 0 6 (available at www. commpred. org).

23. G. A. Marken, “Losing Our Most Precious Asset,” Public Relations Quarterly 51 ( 1 , 2006): 4 5 .

1999): 19-21.

JOURNALISM & M A S S COMMUNICATION EDUCATVR 26

by guest on September 6, 2012jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmc.sagepub.com/