A SURVEY OF PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONS AND DAILY NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION

STATIONS IN TEXAS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Don Newbury, B. A., M. J.

Denton, Texas

May, 1973

•XaJ

Newbury, Don, A Survey of Perceived Relationships

Between Higher Education Institutions and Daily Newspapers

and Television Stations in Texas, Doctor of Philosophy

(Higher Education Administration), May, 1973, 167 pp., 20

tables, bibliography, 55 titles.

The problem of this study was to determine perceived

relationships between higher education institutions in Texas

and daily newspapers and television stations in the state.

It also was to determine roles, responsibilities, and

priorities of college information office representatives,,

To carry out the purposes of this study, answers to

the following questions were sought:

1. Will information officers. college presidents, or

news media representatives view institutional-media rela-

tionships as being most positive?

2. Will the size of the news media affect the

attitudes of their representatives toward institutional-

media relationships ?

3. will private or public institutions have larger

information office staffs?

4. What are the roles, responsibilities, and priorities

of college information office representatives?

5. Which officials are designated to make official

institutional statements to the mass media?

The introductory chapter suggested that during the past

twenty years, or since most American families have had tele-

vision sets in their homes, the impact of the mass media on

individuals has added another dimension. It was found that

the public's attitude toward education in general, and toward

higher education specifically, had been greatly affected by

the mass media. Primarily responsible for developing media

relationships for the institutions were college information

officers, whose numbers have greatly increased since the

Depression.

It was explained that perceived institutional-media

relationships would be explored through a state-wide mail

survey of college presidents and information office repre-

sentatives, daily newspaper editors, and television station

news directors. Respondents would be asked to complete an

opinionnaire containing forty items, with college

information officers to complete a second document, a

questionnaire. Delineated limitations precluded few

colleges and newspapers from the study, with no television

stations precluded by the limitations.

A review of related literature revealed that most

material concerning institutional-media relationships was

contained in periodical articles. Only a few books on the

subject were available. Interviews with college presidents

and information officers, daily newspaper personnel, and

television station news directors were conducted before the

instruments were prepared.

Instruments were mailed to participants in the study

after they were validated by a panel of experts. Responses

were received from more than 60 percent of each group queried.

The analysis of variance statistical technique was

implemented to determine basic differences between opinion-

naire mean responses from the four groups, and an additional

procedure, the Pearson Product Moment technique, was used to

further analyze the data.

Findings revealed that

1. While institutional-media relationships are

generally positive, the weakest relationships are between

institutions and television stations.

2. College information office representatives viewed

institutional-media relationships as being most positive,

followed, in order, by college presidents, daily newspaper

editors, and television station news directors.

3. The most common role shared by college information

office representatives was that of publicizing their insti-

tutions through the mass media, with responsibilities and

priorities varying widely.

4. The size of the news media did not appreciably

affect the attitudes of news media representatives toward

institutional-media relationships.

"5. Private institutions' information office staffs

typically had twice as many members as did public insti-

tutions .

6. A wide range of persons—often several at each

institution—were authorized to make official institutional

statements to the mass media.

Major recommendations included:

1. College presidents and information office

representatives should investigate ways to improve institu-

tional-media relationships, particularly with regard to

relationships with television stations.

2. College information office representatives should

periodically confer with media representatives concerning

working relationships.

A SURVEY OF PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONS AND DAILY NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION

STATIONS IN TEXAS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Don Newbury, B. A., M. J.

Denton, Texas

May, 1973

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES V

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem Questions to be Answered Background and Significance Definition of Terms Limitations Basic Assumptions Instruments Procedures for Collection of Data Procedures for Analysis of Data Hypotheses

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 23

Historical Perspective The Image of Higher Education Public Expectation of Higher Education Public Attitude on Educational Reform Institutional-Media Relationships

III. PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY 48

Development and Administration of the Instruments

Identification of the Population Surveyed Administration of the Instruments

IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS . . . . . 60

Statistical Design Analysis of Variance Technique Selection of the Sample Results of Tests of Hypotheses Results of Correlations Results of Questionnaires

iii

Page Comments from Respondents

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, INFERENCES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96

Summary Findings

Summary of Findings Related to Perceived Relationships Between Respondent Groups

Summary of Findings Relating to College Information Offices

Summary of Findings Relating to Size of News Media

Summary of Findings Relating to Size of Information Office Staffs

Summary of Findings Relating to Making Official Institutional Statements

Conclusions Inferences Recommendations

APPENDIX 112

BIBLIOGRAPHY 162

IV

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Analysis of Variance 66

II. Selection of Respondents 67

III. Computed F-Test Results for Hypotheses . . . . 70

IV. Correlation Coefficient Results . 77

V. Summary of Major Differences in Responses From Television Station News Directors and College Presidents 78

VI. Summary of Major Differences in Responses From Television Station News Directors and Information Office Representatives . 79

VII. Ages of Information Office Representatives . . 82

VIII. Salary Ranges of Information Office Representatives 83

IX. Previous Experience in Mass Media Employment of Information Office Representatives . . . . . . . . 84

X. College Information Office Representatives' Priorities of Responsibilities 88

XI. Mean Scores Utilized to Test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 . 147

XII. Mean Scores Utilized to Test Hypotheses 5 and 6 149

XIII. Mean Scores Utilized to Test Hypothesis 7 . . 151

Table

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX-.

XX.

Page

Opinionnaire Summary Data from College Presidents 154

Opinionnaire Summary Data from Daily Newspaper Editors . . . . . . . . 155

Opinionnaire Summary Data from College Information Directors 156

Opinionnaire Summary Data from Television News Directors 157

Comparative Opinionnaire Responses Between Editors of Large and Small Daily Newspapers . 158

Comparative Opinionnaire Responses Between News Directors of Large and Small Television Stations 159

Composite Record of Instruments Mailed and Received 161

V I

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

During the past twenty years, or, since most American

families have had television sets in their homes, the impact

of media on individuals has added another dimension. During

the past decade, psychologists and sociologists have been

engaged in many studies to determine the various ways in

which persons are affected by the "three-dimensional

dynamics" of mass communications provided by newspapers,

radio, and television. Such studies have been undertaken

in a period in which governmental, societal, economic, and

institutional problems seem unending. Many of these dilem-

mas seem linked with the comparatively new and dramatic

impact of the mass media.

The public's attitude toward education in general, and,

for the purposes of this study, toward higher education

specifically, has been greatly affected by the mass media.

New on the scene in the United States, with particularly

widespread growth since the Depression of the 1920's and

1930's, are college information office representatives, or

persons with similar titles, who adhere to institutional

1

policies and regulations in releasing institutional news and

information to the mass media, thus influencing public

opinion. This person is the official college liaison with

the mass media, and is responsible, often at a moment's

notice, for providing information requested by media repre-

sentatives .

Thus, relationships between higher education insti-

tutions and the mass media have assumed critical importance.

Similarly, the work of the college information offices has

likewise warranted parallel high priority status in inter-

preting higher education to the public through the mass

media.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to determine perceived

relationships between higher education institutions in Texas

with daily newspapers and television stations in the state.

An additional problem was to determine roles, responsi-

«<• mm

bilities, and priorities of college information office

representatives concerning their work in interpreting their

institutions to the public through Texas daily newspapers

and television stations.

Questions to be Answered

To carry out the purposes of this study, answers to the

following questions were sought:

1. Will information officers, college presidents, or

news media representatives view media-institutional rela-

tionships as being most positive?

2. Will the size of the news media affect the atti-

tudes of news media representatives toward media-institu-

tional relationships?

3. Will private or public institutions have larger

information office staffs?

4. What are the roles, responsibilities, and

priorities of college information office representatives?

5. Who are the designated officials authorized to

make official institutional statements to the mass media?

Background and Significance

By almost any criteria used to measure the success of

education, it must be concluded that for the past several

decades, education has been overwhelmingly acclaimed and

supported by the American public, particularly since the

waning of the Depression in the 1930's. Public confidence

in education as one of the key elements in the ongoing

4

functioning of a democracy has been manifest in many ways,

including the willingness of the public to provide funds

necessary to finance education. In terms of support of

higher education alone, financial assistance has increased

at a dramatic rate. In an address, Grayson Kirk, president

of Columbia University, cited figures provided by analysts

of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, con-

cerning the present rate of current, non-capital expend-

itures on higher education. It was 4 billion dollars in

1956 and amounted to 11.4 billion dollars in 1966 (8, p. 88).

For the 1971-72 fiscal year, these expenditures reached 26.1

billion dollars (12, p. 102).

Public confidence in education has further been under-

scored in terms of college enrollment. In 1900, only 1 of

each 100 high school graduates in the United States went to

college, and in 1954, the number was 16 of every 100. In

1969, 77 percent of all 18-year-olds had finished high

school, and of this number, 60 percent had enrolled in col-

lege by the following fall semester. Projections indicate

that by 1979, 89 percent of all 18-year-olds will be high

school graduates, and 65 percent of this number will be

enrolled in college by the following fall semester (3).

In terms of total enrollment in higher education, the

figures grew from 237,592 in 1900 to 1,055,360 in 1934. By

1970, 8,498,117 persons were enrolled in American colleges

and universities (3). With statistics such as these to sup-

port public confidence in education, it appears that many

Americans have acknowledged not only the importance, but

seemingly also the indispensability, of higher education.

Schoenfeld wrote:

In short, our colleges are a necessity.

They are peculiarly a necessity for a demo-cratic society daily becoming more compli-cated, more highly organized, and more self-conscious of itself as protagonist of a good life for all, regardless of race, creed, or previous conditions of servitude. The educational luxury of a century ago has become the indispensable essential of personal and social well-being in the great society of the America of today and tomorrow. There are, indeed, as John Masefield once declared in so classic a fashion, 'few earthly things more splendid than university. . . .' Wherever a university stands, it stands and shines? wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on to full and fair inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs (11, p. 169).

Educators, even before the turn of the century,

expressed the importance of public confidence. As early as

1869, long before most American colleges and universities

were founded, the late Charles W. Eliot, president of

Harvard College, included among presidential duties the

influencing of public opinion toward advancement of

learning; and anticipating the due effect on the

university "of the fluctuations of public opinion of

educational problems. . . .The university must accommodate

itself promptly to significant changes in the character

of the public from whom it exists" (1, p. 21).

Despite the evidence of public confidence in education

historically, there is now a dearth of literature by con-

temporary writers of authority who are pointing to the

waning of public confidence in higher education, and there

are many indications that paradoxes in education now exist.

Sidney P. Marland, United States Commissioner of Education,

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, suggested that

the criticism of higher education seems to increase in direct

ratio to its growing successes (9).

Similarly, Flynn noted:

It is a curious paradox that in the midst of the most tremendous advance in modes of com-munication that the world has ever seen, colleges and universities are falling behind in trans-mitting information to the public. The reason is simply that we have not capitalized on the opportunities. . . .If we are not to fail com-pletely in the future, staffing must include knowledgeable people who can and will solve this public information problem. Much of the discontent with higher education as a necessary function has developed from institutional

inability to communicate with the masses of citizens. The door is open, but we won't walk through it (5, p. 14).

In successive decades in recent years, the public has

observed the movements to academic freedom of the 1950's and

student unrest and campus violence of the 1960's, so it

should come as no surprise that some indictments by the

public toward higher education have resulted. Schoenfeld

felt strongly about keeping the public informed.

He stated:

They (university deans) have become so enamored with their role of educational leader-ship that they have repeatedly gotten 'way ahead of the public, so far ahead that the public could not even hear the cadence, much less get in stride. There is no question but what it is the responsibility of the college or university in today's world to lead. But leadership consists of going only as fast or as far as the troops will follow. It does no good if the regiment is back in the barracks. Bringing the public along slowly may be exasperating, but it is the only sure way of leading as opposed to merely exhorting. To keep the university in touch with its publics and its publics in touch with the university is a 24-hour-a-day job for the campus admin-istrator (11, pp.- 179-180).

William J. McGill, president of Columbia University,

contended that there is no textbook for handling the angry

tensions of a modern American university. "We are writing

it now," he said, maintaining that the campus leaders

8

must be able to get out into the community to explain what

is happening on campus articulately enough to make the

general public and alumni willing to "support us or at least

tolerate us" (10, p. 37).

Chancellor Emeritus Samuel B. Gould of the State Uni-

versity of New York, added that higher education should take

the public into its confidence, talk to the public in terms

the latter can understand, give more emphasis to positive

achievements, make sure that the public understands and

appreciates the values of scholarship, and that it should

disclaim responsibility for what it has not brought about,

or what it should not be expected to control (6, pp. 15-16).

With the dilemmas facing education in general and

administrators in particular concerning the importance of

public understanding and confidence, it is easy to under-

stand why college information offices have greatly expanded.

These offices are now called upon regularly by members of

the mass media to answer questions and provide information

in helping to interpret higher education to the public.

Growth of these offices has been extensive during the past

30 years, and, as early as 1940, 98 percent of the college

presidents participating in a survey considered publicity

"very important to attracting attention to their

institutions, and for serving society" (4, p. 34).

Definition of Terms

The following definitions were formulated for use in

this study:

1. Mass media—Public news media outlets, including

newspapers, radio stations, and television stations.

2. Representatives of mass media—This term was used

because titles vary, often according to the size of the

media. In the case of small newspapers, the editor is

also likely the education writer, whereas on larger pub-

lications, college information office representatives deal

almost exclusively with education writers. In the case of

small television stations, the news director usually is the

contact person, while at larger stations, there frequently

are education reporters. Therefore, the term "represent-

ative" was used in lieu of more specific titles.

3. News conferences—These are meetings with repre-

sentatives of the mass media, and are arranged when the

significance or timeliness of an event or announcement

warrants calling news media representatives to the campus,

10

or to another designated place, to meet with college

personnel.

4. Small public and private institutions—For this

study, degree-granting two-year and four-year colleges and

universities with headcount enrollments of under 3,000 stu-

dents during the fall semester of 1971 were arbitrarily

designated as "small."

5. Large public and private institutions—For this

study, degree-granting two-year and four-year colleges and

universities with headcount enrollments of 3,000 or more

students during the fall semester of 1971 were arbitrarily

designated as "large."

6. Large newspapers and television stations—News-

papers with daily circulations of 25,000 or more copies were

arbitrarily designated as "large," and the same designation

was assigned to television stations serving markets of

250,000 persons or more.

7. Small newspapers and television stations—News-"*

papers with daily circulations of less than 25,000 copies

were arbitrarily designated as "small," as were television

stations serving markets of less than 250,000 persons.

11

Limitations

This study was limited to an analysis of aforementioned

relationships between Texas' degree-granting colleges and

universities and daily newspapers and television stations,

according to the following criteria:

1. Only Texas institutions, newspapers, and television

stations were considered.

2. To be considered, colleges must have had headcount

enrollments of at least 300 students during the fall semester

of 1971. It also was necessary that the colleges be located

in the same county with a daily newspaper, or be served by

a television station located no further away than in an

adjoining county.

3. To be included in the study, it was necessary that

television stations be commercial OHF (ultra-high frequency)

or VHF (very high frequency) operations, with broadcast

formats which included one or more daily station-originated

newscasts.

4. To be included in the study, it was necessary that

newspapers be located in the same county with one or more

institutions of higher learning meeting criteria explained

in item number two above.

12

Using the foregoing criteria was viewed as aiding,

rather than hurting, the study. In fact, these criteria

precluded few colleges, daily newspapers, and television

stations. During the fall of 1971, the Coordinating Board,

Texas College and University System, reported 123 two-year

and four-year, degree-granting, public and private colleges

and universities in Texas (counting multi-campus junior

college districts—Dallas and Tarrant Counties, San Antonio,

and Permian Basin as individual campus entities). Of these

123 colleges and universities which had a combined enrollment

of 479,807 students in the fall of 1971, only 9 colleges, all

private, with a combined enrollment of 1,563 students, failed

to meet the requisite of an enrollment of 300 or more stu-

dents during the fall semester of 1971 (7).

According to the 1972 Directory of Texas Daily News-

papers published by the Texas Daily Newspaper Association,

Texas in 1971 had a total of 107 daily newspapers publishing

111 morning and evening editions (Abilene, Fort Worth,

Lubbock, and San Angelo had newspapers under the same own-

ership with morning and afternoon editions published under

the same names). Of these newspapers, only 25, with a com-

bined circulation of 124,606, were not located in the same

13

counties with degree-granting colleges and universities.

This represented only 3.9 percent of Texas' daily newspaper

circulation in 1971. The 82 daily newspapers serving col-

leges and universities within their respective counties had

a total daily circulation of 3,084,608, or 96.1 percent of

the total daily newspaper circulation in the state (2).

As for commercial television stations, Texas had 46

stations in 1971 which had station-originated newscasts on

a regularly scheduled basis. All 46 stations had one or

more degree-granting, two-year or four-year, public or pri-

vate colleges or universities in the counties where they

were located, or in adjacent counties.

Relative to the requisite that colleges and univer-

sities considered be located in counties served by daily

newspapers, only 11 of Texas' 123 colleges and univer-

sities did not qualify, and 3 of these 11 schools also

failed to meet the 300 minimum headcount enrollment. The

17 colleges which did not meet the minimum headcount **

enrollment of 300 students and/or were not served by daily

newspapers located in the same county had a total enrollment

of 11,059 students, or 2.3 percent of the state's college

enrollment. Therefore, 97.7 percent of Texas college

14

students during the fall semester of 1971 attended

institutions with enrollments in excess of 300 and which

were served by daily newspapers located within the same

counties.

It was felt that considering colleges and universities

which were not located within the same counties with daily

newspapers, schools with headcount enrollments of under

300 students, and institutions which did not have television

stations located within their counties or in adjoining

counties would adversely affect the validity of the study.

It was believed that the miles separating institutions, news-

papers, and television not meeting requisites established

for this study would preclude significant institutional-

media relationships. Further, it was felt that including

weekly newspapers and radio stations would make the study

too broad. Too, relationships with these media often are

quite different from those with daily newspaper and tele-

vision personnel. No disrespect to these media or media

personnel was intended, because they, too, perform vital

roles in the coverage of higher education. Institutional

relationships with representatives of weekly newspapers and

radio stations could be the topic for a future study.

15

This study was based on returned opinionnaires and

questionnaires only, but it should be stated that a

60 percent return by college presidents, college information

office representatives, and newspaper and television station

representatives was considered minimal for the study to be

considered valid. Plans and procedures used to obtain com-

pleted opinionnaires and questionnaires are delineated in the

procedures for collection of data.

Basic Assumptions

It was assumed that the subjects would respond honestly

to the instruments used to determine institutional relation-

ships with representatives of daily newspaper and television

station personnel in Texas. It was further assumed that the

validity and reliability of the instrument would be clearly

and significantly supported by a jury of experts whose

advice was sought concerning the components of the instru-

ments before general distribution of the instruments was

made. The jury included nine persons—two college pres-

idents, two college information office representatives, two

daily newspaper editors, and two television station news

directors, all of whom resided in states other than Texas.

The ninth member of the jury was a public relations

16

theorist who was not a practitioner. The out-of-state

jury members were selected in order to avoid geographic

and/or personal bias. Members of the jury were asked to

consider each component of the opinionnaire on the basis

of validity only. It was determined that if five or more

jury members felt that a given component was invalid, it

was to be eliminated prior to the general distribution of

the instruments. The questionnaire was forwarded only to

the college presidents, college information office repre-

sentatives, and public relations theorist, with the under-

standing that components would not be retained if three or

more members considered them invalid.

Instruments

An opinionnaire with forty components was prepared

for this study, and was distributed by mail to college

presidents, college information office representatives,

daily newspaper editors, and television station news

directors whose institutions or firms met requisites

established for the study. in the case of letters of

transmittal to the media representatives, respondents were

asked to forward the instruments to the appropriate per-

sons whose areas of responsibilities included frequent

17

association with college information office representatives.

Respondents were asked to read each statement, and then to

mark responses they felt appropriate on the answer spaces

provided. A Likert scale was utilized to provide a range

for responses and to facilitate reliability and consistency

of the data (13). College presidents and information

office representatives were asked to complete the opinion-

naires without collaboration.

College information office representatives also were

requested to complete questionnaires concerning the operation

of their offices, in addition to the opinionnaires. The

questionnaires were utilized to determine roles, responsi-

bilities, and priorities for the college information office

representatives.

Procedures for Collection of Data

The instruments, containing components validated by the

jury, were mailed to the respondents whose institutions or

firms qualified for inclusion in the study. Letters of

transmittal also were included. Respondents were asked to

complete the instruments and return them within two weeks

in the stamped, self-addressed envelopes, which also were

enclosed.

18

Letters of transmittal to all college presidents were

identical, as were those to college information office

representatives, daily newspaper editors, and television

station news directors. Editors and news directors were

asked to complete opinionnaires for each college in their

coverage areas meeting requisites previously defined. How-

ever, no media respondent was asked to complete opinion-

naires on more than four institutions. This meant that

media respondents in Harris, Bexar, Dallas, and Tarrant

Counties were randomly assigned opinionnaires to be completed

on four colleges each. There are twenty-three colleges and

universities in these four metropolitan counties.

Three weeks from the date the instruments were mailed,

letters of reminder were mailed to persons from whom com-

pleted opinionnaires and/or questionnaires had not yet been

received. Later, telephone calls, and, in some cases

personal visits were made to assure that a minimal 60

percent response was received from each of the four groups

of respondents, thus meeting validity requirements estab-

lished earlier in this chapter.

19

Procedures for Analysis of Data

When opinionnaires and questionnaires were received,

they were grouped according to the four groups of persons

queried. For the opinionnaire, responses to each component

were tabulated, and then compared between college presidents,

college information office representatives, daily newspaper

editors, and television station news directors. Relation-

ships as perceived by these respondents were considered, and

an analysis of variance statistical application was utilized

to determine the significance of differences among the groups

of respondents. To conduct this statistical technique, it

was necessary to formulate hypotheses which could be used to

analyze data regarding the problem areas of the study. The

hypotheses included

Hi: There is no significant difference in the mean responses according to type of institutions (public or private).

H2: There is no significant difference in the mean responses according to size of the institutions (large or small).

H3: There is no significant difference in the mean responses received from the four major groups (presidents, information officers, newspaper editors, and television news directors).

H4: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between insti-tutions and size.

20

H5: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between the groups of respondents and institutions.

H5: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between the groups of respondents and size of the institutions.

H7: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between the type of institutions, size of institutions, and groups of respondents.

Following implementation of the analysis of variance statis-

tical technique, the Pearson Product Moment technique also

was utilized to produce additional data.

Analyses of the responses received on the question-

naires from the college information office representatives

revealed concepts of their roles, responsibilities, and

priorities relative to the operation of their offices.

These responses also were grouped according to the size and

type of institutions. These instruments were thoroughly

analyzed, although no formal statistical treatment was used.

All findings of this study were forwarded to persons

participating who requested copies. This offer was made in

the letters of transmittal, along with the assurance that

anonymity for all respondents, as well as for their insti-

tutions and firms, was guaranteed.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cutlip, Scott M., "Advertising Higher Education: The Early Years of College Public Relations," College and University Journal, IX (Fall, 1970), 21-28.

2- Directory of Texas Daily Newspapers, Houston, Texas, Texas Daily Newspaper Association, 1972.

3. Fact Book on Higher Education, Washington, D. C., American Council of Education, 1971.

4. Fine, Benjamin, College Publicity in the United States, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941.

5. Flynn, Charles E., "If I Were Starting Over Again," College and University Journal, IX (Spring, 1970), 13-15.

6. Gould, Samuel B., "Bridging the Interpretation Gap," College and University Journal, X (May, 1971), 14-16.

7. Institutions of Higher Education in Texas, Austin, Texas, Coordinating Board, Texas College and Univer-sity System, 1971.

8. Kirk, Grayson, "A Crisis in Financing," U. S. News and World Report, LXIII (July 17, 1967), 88.

9. Marland, Sidney P., Jr., "Criticism, Communication, and Change," College and University Journal, X (Spring, 1971), 17-19.

10. McGill, William J., "The Courage to Lead,11 College and University Journal, IX (Fall, 1970), 37-40.

11. Schoenfeld, Clarence A., The University and Its Publics, New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954.

21

22

12. Simon, Kenneth A., Projections of Educational Statistics to 1979-80, Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971.

13. Turney, Billy and George Robb, Research in Education: An Introduction, Hinsdale, Illinois, The Dryden Press, Inc., 1971.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Available literature concerning institutional-media

relationships was surveyed to provide background material

which would be useful in developing the study. Literature

was limited largely to journal articles because prior to

recent years, little was written concerning institutional-

media relationships. Special effort was made to examine

articles which provided insight relative to these rela-

tionships from the points of view of daily newspaper

editors, television station news directors, and presidents

and college information office directors of Texas colleges

and universities.

Historical Perspective

Many American institutions of higher learning were

established more than a century ago, but to find the begin-

ning of general institutional concern for public support and

understanding, it was necessary to consider only the past

three decades, or the post—World War II era. Prior to the

twentieth century, few presidents espoused positions one

23

24

way or the other concerning public attitudes. Most felt

that higher education belonged to a world apart from the

public at large. What the public thought about higher

education ranked low on the priority list of most pres-

idents. In general, they felt that the success or failure

of higher education did not hinge on public acceptance or

rejection. Organized publicity bureaus in the field of

higher education were unheard of until the close of the

nineteenth century, and the year 1900 may be considered

as the starting point of even isolated formalized college

publicity programs (11, p. 19).

Typical of presidents who regarded public sentiment

lightly was Francis Wayland, president of Brown University.

In 1842, he suggested that the public did not always know

what it wanted, and thus "it was not always wise to take it

at its word" (28, p. 338). Conversely, Thomas Jefferson

advised the president of the University of Virginia to con-

sider public pressure.

In 1814, Jefferson warned:

We cannot always do what is absolutely best. Those with whom we act, entertaining different views, have the power and the right to carry them into practice. Truth advances, and error recedes, step by step only; and to do to our fellow men the most good in our power, we must lead where we can, follow where

25

we cannot, and still go on with them, watching always the favorable moment for helping them to another step (28, p. 339).

A few presidents took Jefferson's advice to heart, even

acknowledging that a university must necessarily reflect

some of the faults of its community and wider society. Most

of the presidents, however, chose to maintain an aloof part-

nership with the public at large, choosing to approach the

public at times, but usually "watching for the opportunity

to exert their leadership and press for ideals" (28, p. 339).

A rare position was that of Charles W. Eliot, who, in

1869, in his inaugural address as president of Harvard Col-

lege, enumerated the duties of a college president:

He must. . .influence public opinion toward advancement of learning; and. . . anticipate the due effect of the university of the fluctuations of public opinion on educational problems. . .(and) of the gradual alteration of social and religious habits in the community. The university must accommo-date itself promptly to significant changes in the character of the people for whom it exists (8, p.21).

Eliot established a trend for some presidents of other

colleges and universities. Others started including among

their duties occasional communications with newspapers,

usually in the form of small bulletins which also were

26

distributed to the faculty, board members, and other key

persons (8, p. 22).

William Rainey Harper, acknowledged dynamic builder of

the University of Chicago, was one of the educational

pioneers who not only realized the importance of public

opinion, but also possessed a keen sense of publicity

topics. While he cultivated newspapers and was an energetic

proponent of telling the university's story as widely, often,

and effectively as possible, he constantly upheld university

policy to conceal nothing from its friends, the public.

Despite this positive attitude toward the press, Harper's

tenure at the University of Chicago coincided with the

emergence of hotly-contested mass circulation newspapers.

Chicago was a hot bed for this competition, and reporters

visited the campus regularly, sometimes even buying stories

from students. Newspaper interest in the university pleased

Harper on one hand, but the intensity of the coverage pained

him on the other. He once wrote to a friend, "I wish very

much that there could be enacted a law in the State of

Illinois inflicting the death penalty upon irresponsible

reporters when. . .they misrepresent the truth" (9, p. 26).

27

Such were the beginnings of institutional-media

relationships in the United States. Not until the next

century, when two world wars, widespread industrialization,

an awakening public interest, and growing college enroll-

ments occurred were college publicity bureaus organized on

a widespread basis to influence public opinion.

The Image of Higher Education

In contemporary society, college presidents, like other

persons whose work keeps them in the limelight, conduct

their daily affairs under public scrutiny. With the mass

media regularly reporting more news than at any previous

time in history, the public is now thoroughly imbued with

an attitude that it has a right to know. Colleges and

universities, which, until recent years could operate

acceptably in an independent manner, now realize the

importance of being responsive to the public, to the reality

of change, and to the important responsibility of keeping

the public informed concerning higher education.

McGill cited some of the pressing responsibilities of

contemporary college presidents:

We must be able to pound the table with department chairmen when a wildcat faculty-student strikes occurs. We must be able to confront angry crowds of students all alone

28

and acquit ourselves well in hard-nosed and often threatening debate. We must thrive on a life of anxiety and constant crisis. . . .

1 This new breed of university administrators must be able to go out into the community to explain what is happening on campus artic-ulately enough to make the general public sup-port us, or at least tolerate us. . . .There is no textbook for handling the angry tensions of a modern American university campus. We are writing it now. . .(24, pp. 37-38).

Budd (7), Ames (1), and Topping (32) agreed that

positive action is necessary on the part of college pres-

idents not merely to hold public confidence, but also to

regain the confidence which already has been lost. Budd

urged:

The outlook is bleak, but a different script can be written.

If, for example, the American public can be moved to regain some of its lost motivation to support higher education, and if the public and the leadership elements in this nation can break their preoccupation with other issues and develop concern over the need to maintain the special values that higher edu-cation gives to our lives, then it is possible that a systematic and coherent effort can be mounted to alleviate the financial crisis. . . . It falls upon the public relations professionals on the campus to set the issues aright (7, pp. 13-14).

Perry urged administrators to weave the community into

the fabric of the university through as many cooperative

ventures as possible with the communities at large. He

suggested:

29

The task is not remodeling, but rebuilding. Higher education can and must assist in ushering in a new era of 'man.1 By developing 'man' and his potentials, the cancerous condition of our society can be halted, and a wholesome society can be established (26, p. 24).

Authorities insisted that while institutional pres-

idents must accept the responsibility of keeping the public

informed through sound public relations practices that they

also should maintain efforts to establish college infor-

mation officers as members of the administrative team.

They suggested that these officers can provide leadership

as well as assume much of the presidents' responsibility

in carrying out the duties of keeping the public informed.

DuBois and Frankie broadened responsibilities for upholding

the institutional image, saying, "All faculty, staff, stu-

dents, and alumni have a role in maintaining the public

image; however, investing in a responsible administrator to

bring leadership will prove a worthy investment" (10, p. 28).

Authorities did not provide recipes of magic elixirs to

be used by public relations practitioners in higher education.

Instead, they recommended rather basic guidelines comparable

to the Golden Rule. Pray (27) said the practitioner should

begin with his own family, remembering that personal contacts

are the key. Armstrong agreed by urging, "How about treating

30

the people on your campus the way you'd like to have your

own family treated?" (2, p. 42) .

A common thread in the literature relative to the

operation of college information offices was that practi-

tioners be resilient enough to effectively "market" news of

higher education for the mass media. Walsh (33) called for

a rumor control effort, with college telephone numbers pro-

vided for inquiring persons to "get the facts" concerning

rumors. Gould maintained that above all, practitioners

should be truthful, indicating that college administrators

should:

!• • * .take the public into its confidence.

2. . . .talk to the public in terms the latter can understand.

3. . . .give more emphasis to its pos-itive achievements.

4. . . .make sure that the public under-stands and appreciates the values of scholarship.

5. . . .disclaim responsibility for what it has not brought about or what it should not be expected to control (15, pp. 15-16).

Public Expectation of Higher Education

Many educational leaders would like to know what is

expected of higher education. There was ample evidence

31

provided by recognized authorities (19, 20, 31) that the

public is not satisfied with the current status of higher

education in this country, even though most persons do not

know what they expect, or should expect, of higher edu-

cation. Shea felt that many persons merely feel that it is

in vogue to criticize higher education. He stated:

Why pick on the universities? The answer, like the mountaineer's rationale, is because they're there. And they're terribly visible. A community leader described Temple (University) to me last year as 'the community's most con-venient enemy.' Government in the city is a failure and a shadow. The university is a symbol of success, its gothic and modern steel buildings can be seen above the rooftop of every row house (29, p. 7).

Shea (29) warned that conditions likely will worsen,

predicting that as the quality of life in the city dimin-

ishes, the local citizenry will increasingly call on

schools to help in ways that to many persons inside the

institution will seem a departure from what education

should be about.

Arrowsmith placed the greatest burden of responsi-

bility for problems in higher education squarely on higher

education. He called for universities to initiate change,

rather than defending the status quo, explaining:

32

We have not yet created a true college or university of the public interest, although individual institutions, stimulated by their own neighborhoods, by conscience, or by student demand, have undertaken social and cultural tasks (3, p. 50).

Compounding the issue as to what the public expects of

higher education was a barrage of documented evidence that

college graduates of the 1970's may find that there are

no guarantees of employment simply because they have earned

college degrees. Cartter bluntly suggested that this

country has had a "fifteen-year love affair with education,"

explaining that it actually began more than fifteen years

ago (19, p. 50). He felt that the degree mania gripping the

nation had its roots in the post-World War II G.I. Bill of

Rights that sent millions of Americans to college who, prior

to the bill, would not have become college enrollees.

Business Week noted that the total money spent on

higher education in the United States went from $4.2 billion

in 1956 to $28 billion in 1972, adding, "Government funding

was going up so fast that if it had kept it up at the same

rate, it would have reached 100 percent of gross national

product by 2025" (19, p. 50). Holding further that edu-

cation is sorely out of step with public needs, the per-

iodical's editorial stated:

33

. . .Part of the answer is to stop parents, high school guidance officers, and the colleges themselves from overselling college education. . . .

The big change, however, should not come in enrollments but in the contents of higher edu-cation and in the way corporations structure their jobs. There is an opportunity here for companies and colleges to cooperate in designing two-year courses that would prepare workers for something better than the assembly line but less demanding than the executive ladder (19, p. 104).

Dromgoole, after interviewing personnel in a Fort Worth,

Texas, employment service, wrote, "In the past, a college

degree was something that distinguished you from the rest of

the crowd. Today, with a college degree, you are one of the

crowd" (12, p. 2) . He indicated that employers today tend

to look at tangible factors, such as whether applicants

gained experience while working their way through college,

rather than merely if they obtained degrees.

Sorenson (31) stated flatly that the university of today

is in trouble, clearly laying the blame on several different

groups for the demise of higher education. He blamed:

. . .Members of the student body whose only consistent program is to wreck a virtually defenseless institution through violence, coer-cion, threats, and arbitrary interference with others' rights. . . .Faculty members who place their passion for popularity and their desire to be in the avant-garde ahead of their obli-gation to the university's integrity and future. . . .Administrators whose refusal to

34

heed the peaceful protests to negotiate just grievances, to listen, or to accept change, thereby making violence predictable, however unjustifiable. . . .Trustees who seek to sup-press dissent and non-conformity on the cam-pus. . . .Public officials, law enforcement officers, politicians, and the general pub-lic whose reaction to continued disorder is all too likely to be one of repression instead of reform (31, p. 28).

Leaders of higher education must, more than ever

before, concern themselves constantly with critical delib-

erations as to what the role of higher education in con-

temporary society should be. Lauter defended:

Social man, the individual in a given environment, looks to education for the insights which will disclose order in the kaleidoscopically shifting patterns of his society: the complexities of domestic and international problems; the ambiguities of political and social affairs; the re-exam-ination of codes, values, and morals (21, p. 35).

Higher education authorities do not face a simple task

as they attempt to discover what the public expects, and

should expect, of higher education. Making this deter-

mination, however, may be the most critical problem facing

higher education in the remaining years of the twentieth

century.

35

Public Attitude on Educational Reform

Because there are so many elements in higher education

which warrant frequent news coverage, it stands that not all

news will please all people, and that public attitudes often

will change from hour to hour. Caught in the middle of many

issues are college presidents and their information officers.

Bonham (15) typified the dilemmas of many college presidents.

He described trustees and alumni who tell their presidents

to be mindful of their public as well as their academic

family, to say and do what will bring in funds and simply

leave out all which will not. He contended that persons

given to such overly-simplistic philosophies fail to realize

that frequently presidents cannot always know which of what

they say and which of what they do will bring in funds.

Bonham asserted:

Just one 'God is dead' theologian on one's faculty, a political scientist opposed to U. S. foreign policy, a Birchite or a Com-munist sympathizer as a campus speaker, and the fat is in the fire. News travels fast, and rarely accurately. Potential donors may turn away and politicians deplore academic freedom as the source of all evil. Questions are raised in legislators' minds and in press editorials. For today's institution, there-remains no place to hide. . .(5, p. 66).

36

Herein lies one of the college information director's

greatest challenges—to help his president analyze and

determine what the public actually thinks about given cur-

rent issues. Concerning this challenge, Gleckler stated:

As a group, we public relations people have attained recognition largely on the basis of our knowledge of what the public thinks, what it feels, what it is apt to do. We have developed a reputation as pulse-takers. . . .Too often, public relations persons have worked hard at being 'understanding,' but the sin in such cases has been to identify with less than the full constituency, or, to put it bluntly, with white, middle-class, non-militant America. . . .As a group, practi-tioners have not known enough about the Peaceniks, the Black Panthers, the California Grape Pickers, or whatever particular 'thorn' on which our boss is currently riding. . .(14, pp. 13-14).

Underscoring the importance of higher education's

reacting to what the public thinks, Marland pointed to the

important findings of the Newman Report concerning the

state of higher education:

. . .The Report questions the idea of continuing the growth of the present system of higher education without major reforms. While it does not deny that many reforms are in progress in colleges and universities, it asserts that the probable success of these kinds of reforms is limited, for they leave unaffected the institutionalized past decisions as to what higher education is all about. The system, with its massive inertia, resists funda-mental change, rarely eliminates outmoded pro-grams, ignores the differing needs of students,

37

seldom questions its educational goals, and almost never creates new and different types of institutions (23, p. 18).

Emphasizing the importance of old assumptions about

higher education being reappraised, Marland suggested that

responding to public attitudes involves the process of

reform, and the process of enlisting the support of many

persons who are comfortable in their old, set patterns.

Stating that the process of reform in higher education will

be difficult, loud, and frequently irrational, Marland added:

It is the college public relations pro-fessional—with one foot in the world of education and the other in the world of the non-specialist public—who must bring a measure of rationality to that debate by interpreting the need for reform and the realities of what change is possible to both sides. Educators cannot seem to gauge these things with any degree of accuracy as we have fre-quently learned to our grief. As one gets deeper into any field, one frequently finds it more dif-ficult to talk sensibly and simply about it to persons outside.

It is the college public relations pro-fessional—understanding both the principles of communication and the principles of higher edu-cation—who must span the gap between generalist and educator not merely by disseminating infor-mation, but by explaining the need for change and its importance. In a word, he must go beyond communication to interpretation. In this way, we can enlist the public support that reform will inevitably require and without which it can remain only a wishful hope or an exercise in semantics (23, p. 19).

38

Responsibilities of the college information officer

loom ever larger. They may even appear to be overpowering.

Providing encouragement to the college information officer

during times when he does not know whether to speak or to

listen, Ivey (18) admonished the importance of "clamming

up" when conditions dictate this action. More often, though,

he warned, the practitioner should take a calculated risk

and tell the truth.

Institutional-Media Relationships

Harmonious relationships between representatives of the

mass media and college information office directors seemed

to be the rule rather than the exception, according to

examination of available literature. However, the literature

provided isolated examples of the most common "flare-ups"

between the groups, with only a few having lingering effects.

This is not to say that information office representatives

would do mass media representatives' jobs the way they are

being done, or vice versa, but the two groups seemed gen-

erally to understand the others' problems and the general

framework within which each group must work.

39

Perhaps the most serious challenge facing the mass

media is the problem of providing coverage of all major

educational activities. Smith said:

. . .the mass media must cover the entire spectrum of education, from pre-school nurseries to the most erudite post-doctoral program. It is unreasonable to expect a reporter racing from city school board meeting, to experimental grade-school classroom, to university laboratory—all under the pressure of a daily deadline—to write deep and penetrating studies of the educational scene.

To the daily newspaper reporter's problem must be added the limitation that he was not trained as an education reporter and, further, he has few examples of excellent reporters to emulate. . . .

Even those highly rated reporters as those on the major metropolitan dailies occasionally make gross errors of omission in important stories, simply because they lack the time to go into the subject with the thoroughness the story warrants (30, p. 334).

Smith further cited the difficulties faced by educa-

tional journalists in writing for two publics—the great

mass of Americans whose interest in education can only be

considered to be mild, perfunctory, and transitory, and

the relatively large group of teachers, professors, and

professional educators whose interest in the subject is

deep and lasting. Despite these problems, a study con-

ducted by Harvey Jacobson at the University of North Dakota

revealed that overall, newspaper coverage of education is

40

slanted in favor of higher education. The results were

similar in the study of two major news magazines, Time

and Newsweek (30, p. 334).

One of the most serious charges leveled by college

information officers concerning mass media coverage of cam-

pus confrontations was that personnel covering the event

frequently are not professionals, but rather are full-time

college students working part-time for the local newspaper,

radio station, or television station. Bittner reported:

In many cases, news media in college communities are very susceptible to hiring college students as cheap personnel to act as reporters. Many times they are part-time reporters who are hired for the purpose of ripping and reading wire copy and making a few minor stops at local police stations and city halls. When this person becomes the sole reporter to the local news media on the unrest of a college campus, investigative jobs of reporting are not the result. Regardless of how objective a college student may be in his attempt to report activities on the college campus, due to his student status, he is sus-ceptible to getting caught in the polarization which inevitably takes place on the campus, and there is the danger of this polarization being reflected in his reporting. . . .It becomes far more critical when one understands that this same local reporter also is called upon to feed reports and news stories to many metropolitan stations, and, in fact, to national news services. . . .Therefore, the local reporter, lacking in ability, becomes the sole agent to disseminate news to a national public (4, p. 140).

41

One editor, Newbold Noyes, agreed that newspaper

professionals "have a good deal to answer for at the bar

of public opinion" (25, p. 25). He charged that reporters

too often are lazy, superficial, and merely take "the easy

way out" in the coverage of most events. He suggested that

reporters covering speeches put in "just one paragraph

which says, in effect, 'here, regardless of the rest of the

news story, is the gist of what the poor man was trying to

say'" (25, p. 25).

In general, professional journalists do not make unrea-

sonable requests of information office representatives.

Journalists (17, 18, 27) said they want the information

office representatives to be fair and honest, and to take

them into their confidence. Further, the representatives

are expected to be available, and to realize that basically,

both groups are pro-establishment. Dick warned:

To sum it up, how the news media reacts to the entire incident, how they interpret the situation, how they slant the reporting of the unrest depends upon the integrity, the trust, and the confidence which has been built up. . . (6, p. 10).

College Management pointed out that similar to the

information office representatives' newspaper counterparts,

duties of information offices vary a great deal across the

42

country. Besides acting as university-media-public news

liaisons, some information office representatives also

handle alumni relations, internal communications, fund-

raising drives, legislative representation, student

recruitment, student publications, photography and art ser-

vices, campus radio and television stations, advertising,

institutional printing operations, speech writing, and pub-

lic service events, such as concerts, football games, and

speakers' bureaus (17, p. 14).

Harte headed a list of authorities who admonished mass

media personnel to consider themselves to be representatives

of the public, and for higher education institutions to

adopt the same stance. He stated:

Whatever happens, the public is going to exercise its right to know what is going on and why. We hope to represent the public in this quest.

So how are you supposed to behave your-self with the media? I would advise you to do so with brevity, honesty, and candor. . . .

I would even recommend that if you have made a mistake, admit it. Nothing warms the heart of a mortal so much as to discover that someone who is supposed to be smarter than he has made a mistake. . . .

I would advise you to look on us as friends. We are people with whom you can discuss your problems. If we can understand, the public at least has a chance of understanding. . .(15, p. 18).

43

Fromson contended that this is a crisis-oriented world,

and that it is only natural that there will be occasional

differences of opinion between all groups, including media

and college public relations people. He said:

We were, until a few years ago, a society that thrived on the reassurance that what we did was, for the most part, essentially good, virtuous, and commendable. Now, all of that seems to be changing, and, in reporting the change, the press has been catching real hell (13, p. 6).

Fromson also feared that the gap between university

administrators and their students is widening, and that

mistrust is growing. He warned:

Should the campaign to clean up our air, water, and soil fizzle—for whatever reason— and destroy the faith or idealism of young people again, I would not like to imagine the scope of disenchantment and cynicism that will emerge on our campuses in the 70's and in the 80's (13, p. 8).

One of the greatest dangers cited concerning insti-

tutional-media relationships is over-simplifying the

responsibilities of each group. This may be what J. Mark

Lono, Director of Public Affairs at Drew University, Mad-

ison, New Jersey, did when he said:

The best public relations reflect the university as it is, holding a mirror up to the people and problems and progress, events, classrooms, and meetings, letting the institution

44

accept or reject itself as it is, letting the public support, or ignore the institution, as it is. . .(22, p. 23).

Relationships, responsibilities, and mutual obli-

gations to the public on the part of mass media and higher

education cannot be reduced to such a simplistic approach.

The public deserves, and no doubt demands, a great deal more,

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ames, Seth, "Neutralizing College Foes," College and University Journal, VII (Winter, 1968), 13.

2. Armstrong, Donald L., "PR Maxims," College Management, 6 (July, 1971), 42-43.

3. Arrowsmith, William, "Toward Universities of the Pub-lic Interest," Current, 118 (May, 1970), 46-51.

4. Bittner, John R., "The News Media," Vital Speeches, XXXVI (December 15, 1969), 139-141.

5. Bonham, George W., "The Ivory Tower Crumbles," Satur-day Review, XLIX (May 21, 1966), 66-67, 73.

6. Breen, John, News Reporting: Is It Fair?," College Management, 4 (December, 1969), 9-12.

7. Budd, John F., Jr., "A Board Member Looks at PR," College and University Journal, X (Spring, 1971), 13-15.

8. Cutlip, Scott M., "'Advertising' Higher Education: The Early Years of College Public Relations," College and University Journal, IX (Fall, 1970), 21-28.

9. , "'Advertising' Higher Education: The Early Years of College Public Relations," College and University Journal, X (January, 1971), 25-33.

10. DuBois, Eugene E. and Richard J. Frankie, "Community Colleges Must Invest in Public Relations Profes-sionals," College and University Journal, X (March, 1971), 28.

11. Fine, Benjamin, College Publicity in the United States, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941.

45

46

12. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, December 2, 1971.

13. Fromson, Murray, "Mass Media's Role in Reporting," College and University Journal, IX (Spring, 1970), 5-8.

14. Gleckler, Arthur Dan, "Campus PR in Crisis," College and University Journal, VIII (Summer, 1969), 13-15.

15. Gould, Samuel B., "Bridging the Interpretation Gap," College and University Journal, X (May, 1971), 14-16.

16. Harte, Houston H., "A Publisher Looks at the Campus," College and University Journal, X (March, 1971), 17-18.

17. "Information Please," College Management, 5 (May, 1970), 10-14.

18. Ivey, A. G., "Information Office Revisited," College and University Journal, VIII (Fall, 1969), 27-31.

19. "The Job Gap for College Graduates in the 70's," Business Week (September 23, 1972), 48-51, 54-55.

20. "Latest 'Growth Industry'—Colleges in U. S.," U. S. News and World Report, LXIII (July 17, 1967), 86-88.

21. Lauter, Victor, "The Gown Goes to Town," Junior College Journal,' XL (November, 1969), 35-37, 40.

22. Lono, J. Mark, "Institutional Development," College and University Business, 50 (March, 1971), 21, 23-24.

23. Marland, Sidney P., Jr., "Criticism, Communication and Change," College and University Journal, X (Spring, 1971), 17-19.

24. McGill, William J., "The Courage to Lead," College and University Journal, IX (Fall, 1970), 37-40.

25. Noyes, Newbold, "Manipulation of the Press," College and University Journal, X (May, 1971), 25-26.

47

26. Perry, Benjamin L., Jr., "An Educator Considers the Non-Campus," College and University Journal, X (March, 1971), 23-24.

27. Pray, Francis C., "A PR Trilogy," Junior College Jour-nal, XXXIV (November, 1963), 16-20.

28. Rodnitzky, Jerome L., "Public Relations, The Public, and The University: Some Historical Perspective," Journal of Higher Education, XXXIX (June, 1968), 336-339.

29. Shea, James M., "Metamorphosis in College PR," College and University Journal, X (March, 1971), 4-8.

30. Smith, Richard W., "The Gaps in Educational Journalism," Educational Record, 45 (Summer, 1964), 333-336.

31. Sorenson, Theodore, "Dangers Facing the University," College and University Journal, VIII (Summer, 1969), 28.

32. Topping, Robert W., "How to Become an Anachronism Without Really Trying," College and University Journal, XI (January, 1972), 12-15.

33. Walsh, Doris, "No Question Goes Unanswered," College Management. 5 (October, 1970), 18-19.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY

The major purpose of this study was to determine

perceived relationships between higher education insti-

tutions in Texas and daily newspapers and television

stations in the state, based on responses to opinionnaires

mailed to college presidents, college information office

representatives, daily newspaper editors, and television

station news directors in Texas. An additional primary

purpose was to determine roles, responsibilities, and

priorities of college information office representatives

concerning their work in interpreting their institutions

to the public through Texas daily newspapers and television

stations. Secondary purposes were (1) to determine which

group or groups of respondents viewed institutional-media

relationships most positively, (2) to ascertain whether the

size of the news media affected the attitudes of news media

representatives toward institutional-media relationships,

(3) to learn if private or public institutions had larger

information office staffs, and (4) to determine which col-

lege officials were authorized to make official statements

48

49

to the mass media. Components in the questionnaire were

included to yield data relative to secondary purposes of

the study.

To ascertain names and locations of daily newspapers,

television stations, and degree-granting, two-year and

four-year colleges and universities in Texas, data were

extracted from the 1972 Directory of Texas Daily News-

papers (1), the 1971 Television Fact Book (11), and a

report of the Coordinating Board, Texas College and Uni-

versity System (2).

To accomplish the primary and secondary purposes of

this study, the following procedures and methodology were

employed:

Development and Administration Of the Instruments

Books concerning educational public relations and

institutional-media relationships were sought, but few were

available. Providing more valuable information were current

professional periodicals and interviews with professional

persons regularly involved in institutional-media rela-

tionships. The specific purpose of the interviews was to

obtain professional assistance in preparing opinionnaires

which could be completed by all four groups of respondents

50

qualifying for inclusion in the study. Persons interviewed

relative to determining appropriate components for the opin-

ionnaire were largely from the Dallas-Fort Worth area. They

were Joe B. Rushing, Chancellor of Tarrant County Junior

College District, Fort Worth (9); R. Jan LeCroy, Vice Chan-

cellor, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas

(7)? Charles Pitts, President of Dallas Baptist College,

Dallas (8); Jack Butler (3) and Glenn Dromgoole (4), Editor

and Assistant City Editor, respectively, of the Fort Worth

Star-Telegram, Fort Worth; Roy Eaton, News Director of

WBAP-TV, Fort Worth (5); Sibyl Hamilton, Director of Public

Relations, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas

(6); and Ken Whitt, Director of News and Information Ser-

vices, University of Texas at Arlington (10). After

scheduled interviews with these persons, the opinionnaire

was formulated and copies were forwarded to a validating

panel of nine professional authorities, eight of whom

resided outside of Texas. The panel included two college

presidents, two college information office representatives,

two television station news directors, and two newspaper

officials—one daily newspaper editor and one education

editor of a nationally distributed newspaper. The ninth

51

member was a public relations theorist from the University

of Texas at Austin (See Appendix B). None of the panel of

validators was included among respondents who later com-

pleted the instruments, so personal biases were avoided.

Since eight members of the panel resided outside of Texas,

the likelihood of geographic biases likewise was avoided.

It was requested that validators place an "x" beside items

which they did not consider to be valid. It was necessary

for five or more members of the panel to agree on the

validity of each item for the item to be retained in the

instrument. None of the items was rejected.

Letters of instruction (See Appendix A) and copies

of the instruments (See Appendix C) were mailed to members

of the validating panel on October 23, 1972. Enclosed were

return-addressed, stamped envelopes. The validators were

asked to respond by November 3, 1972. Five members of the

panel responded by the November 3, 1972, deadline, and

second letters (See Appendix A) were written to the four

persons who had not responded. The delinquent responses

arrived during the next forty-five days. Only minor sug-

gestions were made by the validators, such as the suggestion

to underline key words in certain items of the instruments.

52

Eight of the validators felt that all forty items of the

opinionnaire were valid.

The opinionnaire was prepared with five major

divisions, including: Part One, Preparation of Institutional

News for the Mass Media, seven items; Part Two, Practices of

the College Information Office, eighteen items; Part Three,

Institutional Policies Concerning News Coverage, eight items;

Part Four, Analysis of Media Coverage, six items; and Part

Five, Visitation Practices of Presidents and Information

Office Representatives to Media Newsrooms, two items.

A second instrument, to be completed during the study

only by representatives of college information offices, was

designed in the same manner as the opinionnaire. This

instrument, called a questionnaire (See Appendix C), was

submitted to five members of the same validating panel

which evaluated the opinionnaire. Validators included the

college presidents, college information office represent-

atives, and the public relations theorist. It was deter-

mined that for questionnaire items to be retained, at least

three members of the panel must agree on validity. There

was unanimous agreement by all validators that all items

were valid, and no suggestions or changes were recommended.

53

The questionnaire was formulated to determine personal

characteristics of college information officers; sizes and

activities of information offices; roles, responsibilities,

and priorities of information office directors; and twenty

items concerning relative importance of various functions of

the office. Further, respondents were asked to list three

basic needs which they believed would improve the effect-

iveness of their offices.

Following validation of both instruments, the opinion-

naires and questionnaires were prepared for mailing to the

respondents. The opinionnaires containing forty items

were reproduced by the xerox process, as were the question-

naires. Similarly, letters of explanation (See Appendix D)

were prepared for mailing to all respondents.

Identification of the Population Surveyed

As mentioned previously, colleges and universities were

classified according to size and whether they were public or

private institutions. Requisites included that the insti-

tutions must be accredited, grant degrees, and have minimum

headcount enrollments of 300 students during the fall

semester of 1971. Further, qualifying institutions had

to be (1) located in the State of Texas; (2) located in the

54

same county with a daily newspaper, and/or (3) served by

a commercial television station offering regularly

scheduled, station-originated newscasts in the same county

or in an adjoining county.

According to a report of the Coordinating Board, Texas

College and University System (2), Texas had 123 accredited,

degree-granting institutions in the fall semester of 1971.

Of this number, 106 institutions qualified for inclusion in

the study, including 27 schools which were classified as

small public institutions, 41 as large public, 30 as small

private, and 8 as large private. Of the 107 daily newspapers

in Texas, 82 qualified by virtue of location in the same

county with one or more qualifying institutions of higher

learning. All forty-six of Texas' commercial television

stations with regularly scheduled, station-originated

newscasts qualified because of being located in the same

county with one or more qualifying higher education insti-

tutions, or located in adjacent counties to such schools.

Administration of the Instruments

Opinionnaires were mailed to presidents and information

office representatives of the 106 colleges and universities

qualifying for inclusion in the study, to editors of 82

55

daily newspapers, and to news directors of 46 television

stations. Information office representatives also received

copies of the questionnaire. The instruments, cover letters,

and return-addressed, stamped envelopes were mailed on

November 8, 1972. Respondents were requested to return the

completed instruments by November 28, 1972. By that dead-

line, more than 50 percent of each group of respondents had

returned the instruments. Since the pre-determined minimum

of 60 percent response had not been received, follow-up

letters (See Appendix D) were mailed on December 5, 1972, to

all persons who had not yet responded. These persons were

asked to complete and return the instruments by no later

than December 15, 1972. By the second deadline, a 62 per-

cent response from newspaper representatives and a 61 per-

cent response from college presidents were noted. There-

fore, no additional appeals were extended to persons in

these two groups who had not responded. During the week of

December 16, 1972, six telephone calls and two personal

visits were made to selected television station news

directors and college information office representatives

who had not responded, and by December 21, 1972, 61 percent

of the television stations and 60 percent of the college

information offices had responses on file.

56

College presidents and information office respondents

were asked to complete the opinionnaires without mutual

consultation. Newspaper editors and television station news

directors had the option of completing the instruments, or

forwarding them to personnel who worked more closely with

representatives of higher education institutions. Media

respondents were asked to complete forms for each college

in their counties which qualified for inclusion in the

study. However, no newspaper respondent was asked to for-

ward instruments on more than four institutions. Therefore,

newspaper respondents in Bexar, Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and

Travis Counties were randomly assigned forms for four col-

leges each, since these five counties each have more than

four institutions qualifying for inclusion in the study.

The same procedure was followed for television station

respondents; those whose stations were located in the

counties listed above were randomly assigned forms for four

institutions each.

A total of 202 respondents participated in the study,

including representatives of 28 Texas television stations

and 45 newspapers, plus responses from 65 college pres-

idents and 64 college information office representatives.

57

Television respondents completed opinionnaires on forty-

seven institutions, but, for various reasons, were unable

to complete forms on seventeen other schools. For the

seventeen blank opinionnaires returned, typical notations

from television representatives were "never hear from them"

or "don't think they have a PR program. . . . " Newspaper

respondents completed forms on seventy institutions, and

blank returns were received on just three colleges. Again,

newspaper persons returning these three forms did not feel

that these schools had public information programs. Of the

sixty-five presidents responding, seven failed to complete

forms, citing, in each case, that their schools did not

have public information programs. Similarly, seven of

the forms sent originally to college information office

representatives were returned by persons of various other

college offices and departments who indicated that their

schools did not have public information programs.

Many respondents returned letters or notes with the

completed instruments. Significant contents of these

communications will be examined in detail, as will findings

of the study, in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Directory of Texas Daily Newspapers, Houston, Texas, Texas Daily Newspaper Association, 1972.

2. Institutions of Higher Education in Texas, Austin, Texas, Coordinating Board, Texas College and Univer-sity System, 1971.

3. Personal Interview with Jack Butler, Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

4. Personal Interview with Glenn Dromgoole, Assistant City Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

5. Personal Interview with Roy Eaton, Director of Tele-vision News, WBAP-TV, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

6. Personal Interview with Sibyl Hamilton, Director of Public Relations, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas, Texas, February, 1972.

7. Personal Interview with R. Jan LeCroy, Vice Chancellor, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas, Texas, February, 1972.

8. Personal Interview with Charles Pitts, President, Dallas Baptist College, Dallas, Texas, February, 1972.

9. Personal Interview with Joe B. Rushing, Chancellor, Tarrant County Junior College District, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

10. Personal Interview with Ken Whitt, Director of News and Information Services, University of Texas at Arlington, February, 1972.

58

59

11. Television Factbook, Washington, D. C., Television Digest, Inc., 1971.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

The problem of this study concerned the perceived

relationships between higher education institutions in

Texas with daily newspapers and television stations in

the state. An additional problem was to determine roles,

responsibilities, and priorities of college information

office representatives concerning their work in inter-

preting their institutions to the public through Texas

daily newspapers and television stations.

For the purposes of this study, four classifications

of higher education institutions were established,

including small and large public institutions and small

and large private institutions. This chapter was pre-

pared to reflect findings of hypotheses posed during

statistical analyses of the data collected, to answer

questions raised in Chapter I, and to present findings

relative to secondary purposes which were delineated

in the initial chapter. All findings were based on

statistical analyses of data received on completed

60

61

opinionnaires from college and university presidents and

college and university information office representatives,

and from daily newspaper editors and television station news

directors. The opinionnaire produced scores which consti-

tuted the dependent variable for the statistical treatment.

Scores were assigned to each item completed by the four

groups of respondents. A five-point scale was selected for

responses to each item in the instrument, including:

5) Strongly agree,

4) Agree,

3) Undecided,

2) Disagree, and

1) Strongly disagree (See Appendix C).

Each respondent was asked to select the number which he

thought best applied to the statement. Each item was

treated independently, and there was a total of thirty-

five dependent variables. Five of the forty items were

deleted from the testing because of the respondents' option

of not reacting to each of them (See Appendix C).

Statistical Design

The analysis of data collected for this study was pre-

pared in two major sections, the first of which utilized

62

the analysis of variance technique. This technique

described the results of testing for differences among

mean scores computed from opinionnaires sent to college

and university presidents, daily newspaper editors, and

television station news directors. In order to further

analyze the data, correlation coefficients were computed

utilizing the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

(r) statistical technique.

The second section was concerned with the collection

and interpretation of data relative to items which were

included in the questionnaire, the instrument which was

completed only by college and university information office

representatives. Though not treated statistically, data

from this instrument were thoroughly analyzed to extract

findings relative to secondary purposes stated in the initial

chapter of this study.

The F-statistic, with application to a wide variety of

situations, was used in this study; it has long been a

valuable tool for researchers. The major application of the

F-statistic was found in the analysis of variance, where

several means were considered (2). Its actual use was in

the comparisons of variance and to test the differences

63

between means. In the testing of these differences, the

means were hypothesized as being different and the variances

were compared to ascertain these differences.

The F-statistic is appropriately used when the equi-

distant internal data are collected and when the following

assumptions are met:

1. The dependent variable is normally distributed.

2. The variances are common and equal.

3. The samples have been randomly drawn (2).

In essence, the assumption can be summarized as indi-

cating that independent random samples must be drawn from

normal populations to have equal variances. Courtney

stated:

Although the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and normality are considered to be requirements before using the F-statistic, there is considerable evidence to support the contention that departures from normality as well as substantial differences in variances do not greatly affect the use of the tech-nique for decision-making purposes (2).

If these assumptions are met, the F-statistic is appro-

priate for testing differences among means. Thus, the

analysis of variance utilizing the F-statistic was chosen

64

as being the appropriate statistical application for this

research study.

Analysis of Variance Technique

In order to make decisions regarding the problem areas

of the study, seven hypotheses were formulated, including:

H^: There is no significant difference in the mean responses according to type of institutions (public or private).

H2: There is no significant difference in the mean responses according to size of institutions (large or small).

H3: There is no significant difference in the mean responses received from the four major groups (presidents, infor-mation officers, newspaper editors, and television station news directors).

H4: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between insti-tutions and size.

H5: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between the groups of respondents and insti-tutions .

Hg: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between the groups of respondents and size of the institutions.

H7: There is no significant interaction difference in responses between the type of institutions, size of insti-tutions, and groups of respondents.

65

To test the null hypotheses, it was necessary to set

confidence limits for testing probability as to whether

the hypotheses were tenable. Common practice has been to

use the .01 or .05 confidence level; frequently, the con-

fidence level is arbitrarily selected. Concerning this

selection, authorities were divided as to proper selection.

Wert, Neidt, and Ahmann commented:

The probability required for rejecting the null hypothesis is highly arbitrary, but common practice has been to use the 5 percent or the 1 percent level. The former level, usually referred to as a significant dif-ference, implies that the sample mean dif-ference is so great that it would occur in less than 5 percent of the samples from populations in which the mean differences are zero (5, p. 383).

For the purposes of this study, the .01 confidence

level was selected, indicating that the probability of

differences occurring by chance was only 1 in 100.

The three-way analysis of variance was appropriate for

this study, and tests of hypotheses were made by evaluating

the variances of the scores of variations appropriate to

each hypothesis. Further information regarding the testing

of the hypotheses is shown in the table on the next page.

TABLE I

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

66

Source of Variation df SS MS

Computed F

Confidence Level

Tabular Value

Inst. 1 A A/1 MSA/MSH .01 6.96

Size 1 B B/l MSB/MSH .01 6.96

Group 3 C C/3 MSC/MSH .01 4.04

Inst, x Size 1 D D/l MSD/MSH .01 6.96

Inst, x Group 3 E E/3 MSE/MSH .01 4.04

Size x Group 3 F F/3 MSF/MSH .01 4.04

Inst, x Size x Group

3 G G/3 MSG/MSH .01 4.04

Error 80 H H/80

Total 95 I

Using the appropriate degrees of freedom, each hypothe-

sis was tested by entering the F-table to determine the

tabular value. The computed F-value was compared to the

tabular value. If the computed F was larger than the

tabular F at the .01 level, the hypothesis was rejected;

if smaller, it was retained.

67

Selection of the Sample

The basic design for the study was a two by two by

four application of the analysis of variance. This design

included two levels of the institutional factor (public

and private), two levels of the size factor (large and

small), and four levels of the group factor (college and

university presidents and information office represent-

atives, daily newspaper editors, and television station

news directors). In conducting the analysis, it was neces-

sary to draw individuals from the parent populations for

each of the two size variables. Sub-populations were

defined from which randomizations were made. A table of

random numbers was used for all randomizations. The fol-

lowing table illustrates the procedure which was utilized:

TABLE II

SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS

Respondents Private Public

Respondents Large Small Larqe Small

Presidents N=6 N=6 N=6 N=6 Info. Office Reps. N=6 N=6 N=6 N=6 Newspaper Editors N=6 N=6 N=6 N=6 TV Station News Dirs. N=6 N=6 N=6 N=6

68

In essence, two types of institutions (private and

public) and two levels of sizes (large and small) were

arbitrarily selected. This accounted for eight cells of

respondents from college presidents and information office

representatives. Also, eight other cells consisting of

randomly selected responses from newspaper editors and

television station news directors were constructed, thereby

completing a total of sixteen sub-populations. Six

responses were randomly selected from each of the sixteen

sub-populations for the analysis; hence, a total of ninety-

six individuals was included.

Results of Tests of Hypotheses

After computing all data received on the completed

opinionnaires, each hypothesis was tested for each of the

thirty-five items included in the instrument. The fol-

lowing results were noted:

Hypothesis 7: There is no significant interaction

difference in responses between the type of institution,

size of institution, and four groups of respondents.

The test statistic for Hypothesis 7 was the F-statis-

tic, the level of confidence was the .01 level, and the

critical region, with three degrees of freedom for the

69

numerator mean square and eighty degrees of freedom for the

denominator mean square, was F>4.04. For this hypothesis,

individual F-tests were computed, using the following for-

mula :

F _ Interaction Mean Square Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 3,80 df >4.04.

A total of thirty-five tests was made, and the

hypothesis for all thirty-five items was retained. There-

fore, it was concluded that there is no interaction effect

between the type of institution, size of institution, and

four groups of respondents (See Table III).

Hypothesis 6; There is no significant interaction

difference in responses between the four groups of

respondents and size of the institution. The test statistic

for the hypothesis was the F-statistic. For this hypothesis,

individual F-tests were computed, using the following for-

mula :

P = Interaction Mean Square Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 3,80 df >4.04.

TABLE III

COMPUTED F-TEST RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESES

70

I tem HI H2 H3 h4 H5 h6 . H 7 1 . 7 3 1 . 1 3 4 5 . 4 2 8 * 1 . 8 0 6 . 6 1 2 1 . 4 4 8 1 . 6 8 7 2 . 8 5 9 . 1 3 7 5 . 6 2 4 * . « . 4 0 1 . 2 7 5 1 . 3 2 9 3 . 0 4 5 . . 1 1 . 2 2 0 * 5 . 4 0 2 . 3 7 2 . 2 0 8 2 . 7 5 3 4 . 2 0 1 . 0 5 0 1 1 . 8 2 6 * 1 . 2 5 6 . 4 3 6 . 2 8 5 . 4 8 6 5 . 8 0 0 3 . 2 0 0 9 . 5 0 0 * 7 . 2 0 0 * . 9 0 0 . 2 3 3 . 5 6 7 6 2 . 5 3 8 . 1 3 5 5 . 5 4 1 * 4 . 3 3 9 . 8 5 6 . 9 3 6 . 6 5 6 7 . 5 2 3 2 . 0 9 2 1 . 3 1 8 2 . 6 4 7 . 6 7 5 1 . 2 8 5 . 4 4 7 8 . 0 1 0 5 . 0 7 7 6 . 0 2 4 * . 0 1 0 1 . 7 5 0 . 6 7 5 . 6 2 4 9 . 1 0 1 7 . 0 2 2 * 6 . 1 5 4 * . 5 5 1 . 551 . 5 2 1 . 5 8 1

10 . 3 3 2 5 . 8 4 9 * 4 . 8 2 3 * 5 . 8 4 9 1 . 4 2 8 1 . 6 4 0 . 2 2 5 11 . 8 7 1 . 8 7 1 1 0 . 9 6 4 * . 5 2 7 1 . 9 0 3 3 . 7 3 8 . 1 8 3 12 D e l e t e d f r o m t h e a r i a 1 y s i s 13 . 6 1 1 4 . 6 1 8 7 . 4 3 0 * . 0 3 8 1 . 2 7 2 . 1 4 0 . 1 4 0 14 . 6 7 5 2 . 3 2 8 2 . 5 8 5 3 . 9 8 1 . 0 8 7 1 . 0 0 6 . 8 2 2 15 1 . 3 0 1 7 . 8 3 9 * 7 . 2 3 7 * 3 . 8 8 2 1 . 5 0 2 . 8 1 4 . 8 1 4 16 1 . 1 1 1 . 2 7 8 5 . 2 4 7 * 3 . 7 3 5 1 . 0 9 1 . 5 4 5 . 2 9 8 17 1 . 9 4 5 . 7 8 8 4 . 0 8 9 * 2 . 7 1 7 . 1 8 8 2 . 4 6 0 1 . 1 3 1 18 . 7 4 8 . 1 8 7 3 . 5 5 1 2 . 9 9 1 . 0 6 2 . 8 7 2 1 . 1 8 4 19 1 . 4 3 1 . 8 6 6 1 . 6 2 0 2 . 9 8 6 1 . 2 4 3 . 4 8 9 . 4 4 2 20 1 . 3 3 5 3 . 2 9 7 1 . 2 0 8 . 6 8 1 . 5 1 8 2 . 0 0 7 . 9 5 4 ;

21 . 4 3 9 3 . 9 4 7 8 . 2 0 5 * 1 . 4 2 1 . 0 6 4 1 . 4 2 1 1 . 7 0 2 | 22 1 . 1 6 0 1 . 1 6 0 1 . 1 9 9 . 0 1 4 . 8 1 7 2 . 3 4 5 1 . 5 0 4 ; 23 . 0 5 4 . 8 6 5 5 . 9 4 6 * 4 . 3 7 8 1 . 6 0 4 1 . 6 9 4 1 . 4 5 9 1

24 1 . 6 2 2 . 6 5 7 5 . 9 4 7 * 4 . 8 3 9 . 6 9 3 2 . 0 1 5 1 . 3 3 6 25 . 0 4 8 7 . 6 1 7 * . 1 9 3 1 . 9 6 5 . 2 7 4 1 . 2 5 6 [ 26 . 7 6 5 2 . 4 7 7 . 3 0 6 . . . 7 8 5 . 5 4 0 . 4 2 8 : 27 D e l e t e a f r o m t 1 i e a n a 1 y s i s f 28 . 3 5 9 . 0 4 0 2 . 5 1 0 . 3 5 9 . 7 0 4 1 . 0 2 3 . 3 8 5 ; 29 1 . 0 1 9 1 . 5 9 2 2 . 5 9 0 1 . 5 9 2 . 7 2 2 . 5 3 1 2 . 9 9 4 30 . 842 . 0 3 4 2 . 3 7 9 . 5 3 9 . 4 8 3 . 9 3 2 . 8 0 8 31 . 0 1 5 . 3 6 4 . 7 1 4 . 7 1 4 . 9 4 8 . 2 8 7 . 4 0 3 32 . 1 2 2 . 0 1 4 2 . 3 9 8 1 . 6 4 0 . 3 3 9 . 6 6 4 • 772 33 1 . 4 2 9 . 9 1 4 6 . 9 5 2 * 1 . 3 1 4 . 2 6 7 1 . 9 4 3 34 6 8 . 4 6 4 * 8 . 4 1 8 * . 3 8 1 2 . 5 9 8 2 . 6 6 0 . 3 1 9 . 3 5 0 ! 35 D e l e t e a f r o m t } i e a n a 1 y s i s 36 D e l e t e a f r . o m t h e a n a 1 y s i s 37 D e l e t e a f r i o m t h e a n a 1 y s i s 38 . 0 8 9 1 . 4 2 9 2 . 8 8 7 . 3 5 7 2 . 1 7 3 . 5 3 6 . 6 5 5 39 . 2 4 9 . 0 1 0 1 . 3 6 2 1 . 2 0 3 2 . 6 6 1 1 . 8 3 9 - 8 5 8 ; 40 . 0 8 5 3 . 7 6 1 . 7 6 9 1 . 2 2 5 . 6 8 4 . 0 8 5

• I n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e . 0 1 l e v e l .

71

For all of the thirty-five tests conducted, the

hypothesis was retained; hence, it was concluded that

there is no interaction effect between the four groups of

respondents and size of the institution (See Table III).

Hypothesis 5: There is no significant interaction

difference in responses between the four groups of respond-

ents and type of institution. The test statistic for the

hypothesis was the F~statistic. For this hypothesis,

individual F-tests were computed, using the following for-

mula :

F = ^interaction Mean Square Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 3,80 df> 4.04.

For all of the thirty-five tests conducted, the

hypothesis was retained. Therefore, it may be concluded

that there is no interaction effect between the four

groups of respondents and type of institution (See

Table III).

Hypothesis 4: There is no significant interaction

difference in responses between type of institution and

size of institution. The test statistic for the hypothesis

was the F-statistic. For this hypothesis, individual

72

F-tests were computed, using the following formula:

p _ Interaction Mean Square Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 1,80 df>6.96.

For thirty-four of the thirty-five tests conducted,

the hypothesis was retained. This finding indicated that

the commonality between the individual mean scores of the

type of institution and size of institution persisted

throughout thirty-four of the thirty-five tests.

In one instance, for item number five, the computed

F-value was in the critical region. For this item, it was

found that the difference between the mean scores for the

type of institution and size of institution did not persist.

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in

the mean responses received from the four major groups

(presidents, information officers, newspaper editors, and

television station news directors). The test statistic

for the hypothesis was the F-statistic. For this hypothesis,

individual F-tests were computed, using the following for-

mula :

73

_ Group Mean Square F Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 3,80 df>4.04.

In sixteen of the thirty-five tests, the F-values were

not in the critical region, and the null hypothesis was

retained. Hence, it was concluded that in sixteen instances,

individual mean scores for the items were common to the

four major groups. In nineteen instances, however, the

null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded that

for these items, differences existed between mean scores

of the four major groups. Mean scores for all respondent

groups may be found in Appendix F.

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in

the mean responses according to size of institutions. The

test statistic for the hypothesis was the F-statistic. For

this hypothesis, individual F-tests were computed, using the

following formula:

p - Size Mean Square Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 1,80 df>6.96.

74

For thirty-one of the thirty-five tests conducted, the

hypothesis was retained. This finding indicated that the

commonality between the individual mean scores of the large

and small institutions persisted for thirty-one of the

thirty-five tests.

In four instances, including items number nine, ten,

fifteen, and thirty-four, it was found that the difference

between the mean scores for the large and small institutions

did not persist.

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in

the mean responses according to type of institutions (public

or private). The test statistic for the hypothesis was the

F-statistic. For this hypothesis, individual F-tests were

computed, using the following formula:

_ Type Mean Square F Error Mean Square

and the critical region was

F .01 1,80 df > 6.96.

For thirty-four of the thirty-five tests conducted,

the hypothesis was retained. This finding indicated that

the commonality between the individual mean scores of the

public and private institutions persisted for thirty-four

of the thirty-five tests.

75

In one instance, item number thirty-four, it was found

that the difference between mean scores for the public

institutions did not. persist.

Hypotheses numbers five, six, and seven, all of which

were concerned with responses relative to interaction

effects between the size of institutions, type of insti-

tutions, and the four groups, were retained for all thirty-

five items tested on the opinionnaire. Hypothesis number

one was retained for thirty-four items, and hypothesis number

two was retained for thirty-one items. Hypothesis three was

rejected on nineteen of the thirty-five items when the

analysis of variance statistical technique was applied.

Results of Correlations

Because there were nineteen rejections for hypothesis

number three, it was determined that further analysis was

desirable. The Pearson "r" technique was selected as being

the most appropriate statistical technique for further

analysis because of its applicability in determining linear

relationships between sets of data (2).

Correlation coefficients were computed comparing the

responses of:

1. College presidents and information officers,

76

2. College presidents and television station news directors,

3. College presidents and newspaper editors,

4. College information officers and television station news directors,

5. College information officers and newspaper editors, and

6. Newspaper editors and television station news directors.

By computing coefficients of correlations, it was

possible to determine relationships which existed between

various response categories. Such computation produced

coefficients which were used to determine relationships

between the sets of data in terms of the percentage of com-

monality between them, the strength of the linear relation-

ship, and the direction of the relationship. For the pur-

poses of this study, the following material, as presented

by Guilford (4), was considered the criteria for the com-

puted coefficients of correlation:

For correlation value of less than .20, the approximate descriptive meaning is slight, almost negligible relationship; .20 to .39, low cor-relation, definite, but small relationship; .40 to .69, moderate relationship; .70 to .89, high correlation, marked relationship; and .90 to 1.00, very high correlation, very dependable relationship.

77

In analyzing correlation of coefficient values, three

criteria were utilized, including direction, strength, and

percentage of commonality. Guilford stated that they are

either positive (+) or negative (-), and that the strength

is greatest as the numerical values approach either a neg-

ative one (-1) or a positive one (+1). The weakest cor-

relation is a value which approaches zero (0), and the per-

centage of commonality is determined by squaring the cor-

relation coefficient (4). In four of six comparisons of

responses shown on Table IV below, the coefficient range

indicated high positive correlations and marked relationships,

TABLE IV

CORRELATION OP COEFFICIENT RESULTS

Respondents Mean Score

Correlation Coefficient

Percent of Commonality

Presidents Info. Dirs.

3.8374 3.9089

+.8711 75.88

Presidents Newspaper Eds.

3.8374 3.5137

+.7642 - 58.40

Presidents TV News Dirs.

3.8374 3.3921

+.6124 37.50

Info. Dirs. Newspaper Eds.

3.9089 3.5137

+.7989 63.82

TV News Dirs. Info. Dirs.

3.3921 3.9089

+.6186 38.27

TV News Dirs. Newspaper Eds.

3.3921 3.5137

+.8703 75.74

78

The other two comparisons revealed correlation coefficients

which were notably weaker; these were comparisons between

college and university presidents and television station

news directors, and between college and university infor-

mation office representatives and television station news

directors. For these comparisons, the correlation coef-

ficients were +.6124 and +.6186, respectively, denoting

moderate correlations. To determine specific differences

between television station news directors and presidents,

summary responses were analyzed in the following table:

TABLE V

SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES FROM TELEVISION STATION NEWS DIRECTORS

AND COLLEGE PRESIDENTS

Strongly Strongly No Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Answer

No. N% P% N% P% N% P% N% P% N% P% N% P% 9 2 3 28 7 36 10 26 40 9 40 * • • •

11 19 2 34 3 9 9 30 41 9 45 m • • •

12 • • • . 9 # W 6 7 28 36 4 41 53 16 16 15 2 53 26 6 24 17 29 6 16 2 3 25 6 17 21 53 34 21 32 5 4 3 2 * •

32 4 5 21 • « 26 12 43 47 6 33 • m 3

35 * • 2 13 • «» 6 * • 32 24 17 45 32 29 37 9 2 26 12 6 17 23 12 6 22 30 36 38 • • • • 4

# 4> 4 • • 70 38 21 55 • • 7 40 # • • • • • • 0 • • 3 60 28 38 67 2 2

N Television news directors, Presidents,

79

Greatest differences concerned whether information office

representatives had a "good eye" for feature news stories,

whether they provided the media with photographs and/or

color slides, and whether they discussed campus news

coverage with media representatives.

Major differences in responses from television station

news directors and information office representatives

were reflected in the following table:

TABLE VI

SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES FROM TELEVISION STATION NEWS DIRECTORS AND INFORMATION OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

Strongly Strongly No Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Answer

No. N% I°/o N% 1% N% 1% N% i% N% 1% N% 1% 3 9 53 43 42 9 2 36 m • 2 m m 2 4 4 9 51 43 44 11 2 36 2 4 5 9 53 38 46 30 2 21 # • 2 8 4 42 40 42 15 9 28 4 9 #> m 4 4 9 9 44 26 42 36 12 28 2 2 11 9 47 30 40 9 5 34 4 19 2 • # 2 12 4 46 28 37 6 9 9 « * • • • • 53 9 13 13 4 21 14 30 11 34 33 2 37 • • 2 15 • * 39 38 35 9 18 34 9 15 » • 4 • •

16 6 26 17 30 6 12 53 23 15 5 2 4 20 4 14 34 21 38 4 13 35 6 26 4 • •

21 4 39 43 53 34 5 19 2 • • 2 • 41 • #

23 6 46 51 47 13 5 26 2 # • • • 4 • •

24 6 • • 21 2 17 7 55 61 * • 28 • • 2 N Television news directors, Information Reps,

80

Greatest differences concerned the same three items cited

for college presidents and television station news

directors, and two additional items:

1. Whether photographs and/or color slides met media quality requirements, and

2. Whether the size of the staff of the information office was large enough to do the job of interpreting the school to the public.

Results of Questionnaires

Questionnaires were received from sixty-four college

information office representatives, including responses

from forty-two persons at public institutions (twenty-six

large and sixteen small), and from twenty-two individuals

employed at private schools (six large and sixteen small).

Of these sixty-four respondents, seven indicated that their

institutions did not maintain public information offices.

Other respondents completed the instrument, and for most of

the items, fifty-seven responses were tabulated.

The questionnaire revealed that information office

representatives in Texas' higher education institutions were

identified by a total of twelve different titles. The most

common were "Director of Public Information" and "Director

of Public Relations"; more than half of the responses

81

indicated that one of these titles was used. Other titles

included "Director of News and Information," "Director of

Community Relations," "Director of College Information,"

"Director of College Relations," "News Writer," "Director

of Publicity," "Assistant to the Chancellor," "Vice Pres-

ident for Development and Public Relations," and "Assistant

to the President, University Relations."

Of the fifty-seven persons completing forms, forty-one

indicated that they were employed full-time in information

office work. Six persons were on half-time assignments,

another was on a quarter-time arrangement, and nine respond-

ents said that college information work was included among

their duties, but did not indicate how much time they spent

on this assignment.

Forty of the respondents were men and seventeen were

women, representing age ranges from twenty years to fifty-

five years. The largest concentration of respondents was

in the twenty-six to thirty-year age range, with twelve

persons in this category. The second most common age range

category was from thirty-one to thirty-five years. Data

shown in Table VII revealed the ages of respondents.

82

TABLE VII

AGES OF INFORMATION OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

Number of Age Range in Years Respondents

20 to 25 . . . 26 to 30 . . . 31 to 35 . . . 36 to 40 . . . 41 to 45 . . . 46 to 50 . . . 51 to 55 . . . Did not answer

3 12 10 7 10 9 3 3

The table revealed that thirty-nine of the fifty-seven

respondents were between the ages of twenty-six and forty-

five years. Only six of the respondents were beyond the

age of fifty years, or did not choose to reveal their ages.

Forty respondents had twelve—month contracts, and

forty-nine of the fifty-seven respondents had contracts

which were nine months or longer. The information office

representatives earned from less than $7,500 per year to

more than $20,000 annually, with the greatest single con-

centration of respondents earning between $10,000 and

$12,500 per year. Table VIII on the following page

revealed the salary ranges of all respondents.

83

TABLE VIII

SALARY RANGES OF INFORMATION OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

Number of Salary Range Respondents

Under $7,500 4 7,500 to 9,999 12 10,000 to 12,499 13 12,500 to 14,999 11 15,000 to 17,499 8 17,500 to 19,999 5 $20,000 and above 1 Did not answer 3

It was noted that three of the four respondents earning

under $7,500 were employed at small institutions, but one

of this group was employed by a large public institution.

Of the nine respondents reporting annual earnings of $17,500

and above, seven were employed at large public institutions

and two at small private schools.

Average length of employment by respondents at their

respective institutions was four years. Eight persons were

in their first year in the assignment, and only five of the

fifty-seven respondents had been in their current work for

ten or more years. The table on the following page revealed

that a majority of college information office representatives

had previous experience as newspaper editors or reporters,

and a few had previous radio or television news experience.

TABLE IX

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN MASS MEDIA EMPLOYMENT OF INFORMATION OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

84

Years of Experience

Type of Media Years of Experience Newspaper Television Radio

None 20 52 51 1-3 16 4 5 4-6 4 1 1 7-9 6 • •

10-12 5 • •

13-15 2 • •

16-18 3 • •

19 or more 1 • •

Only eleven respondents had previous experience in television

or radio, with nine of these persons in the one- to three-

year range. No respondents had worked more than six years

in television or radio prior to their current assignments.

Forty respondents had no teaching responsibilities. Of

the nineteen persons who taught, two persons had twelve-hour

teaching loads; one, ten hours; two, nine hours; three, seven

hours; two, six hours; and seven, three hours. Thirty

respondents had masters degrees and twenty-two had bachelors

degrees. Five persons did not have baccalaureate degrees

and none had an earned doctorate.

85

The study revealed that private schools typically had

larger information office staffs. The average number of

staff members at public institutions, based on forty-two

responses, was 1.5 persons during the 1972-73 school year.

The average number of staff members at private institutions,

based on twenty-two responses, was 2.9 persons. The average

public institution also had 1.5 part-time employees, while

the average private institution had 3.0 part-time staff

members.

The common bond among respondents was that all of them

regularly publicized college events and activities utilising

a time-honored vehicle, the news release. All fifty-seven

respondents prepared news releases for news media outlets

in their respective areas. Twenty-one persons indicated

that their offices prepared between 250 and 750 news

releases annually, and fourteen respondents failed to com-

plete this item on the questionnaire.

Forty-three respondents indicated that the same news

releases were forwarded to newspapers, radio stations, and

television stations. Thirty respondents noted that news

releases were sent by mail between 75 and 100 percent of

the time. Others said that news releases were read to

86

media representatives on the telephone, were hand-carried

to the media offices, and, in one instance, media repre-

sentatives picked up the news releases at the college

information office.

While all fifty-seven respondents considered publi-

cizing their institutions as their major roles, only thirty

were authorized to make official institutional statements to

the press. Most respondents indicated that several persons

were authorized to make such announcements, including fifty

presidents, chancellors, or provosts; twenty-five vice-

presidents or vice-chancellors; and various other persons,

including deans, directors of admission, business managers,

and board chairmen.

Though no questionnaire item was included to determine

whether respondents were actively involved in the decision-

making processes at their institutions, it was determined

that most of the respondents were regularly present or

represented at meetings where such matters typically are

discussed. Thirty-four respondents indicated that their

offices were regularly represented at staff meetings of

their institutions' chief administrative officers, and

thirty-eight persons noted representation of their offices

at meetings of their institutions' governing boards.

87

While publicizing their institutions externally was a

commonly shared role of the respondents, their assignments

as internal communicators were less prominent. Only

thirteen of the fifty-seven respondents considered the

preparation of faculty-staff newsletters as being of regular

vital importance as functions of their offices. Another

fifteen respondents regarded this role as being of regular

general importance, three believed it to be of occasional

general importance, five saw it as being of rare general

importance, and twenty-one noted that the preparation of

such newsletters was never a function of their offices.

Further roles identified by the study showed that

college and university information office representatives

were advertisers, planners, standing committee members, and

editors of institutional brochures and annual reports. This

study revealed that sponsorship of student publications was

not a common responsibility. Forty-two respondents indicated

that sponsorship of school yearbooks was never a function of

their offices; thirty-six persons made the same responses

concerning student newspapers. Thirty-nine persons did not

sponsor student activities, thirty-four respondents had

no responsibilities relative to writing or editing alumni

88

publications, and thirty-two individuals did not edit

college catalogs. Priorities concerning responsibilities

of information offices were reflected in the following table:

TABLE X

COLLEGE INFORMATION OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES' PRIORITIES OF RESPONSIBILITIES

Responsibility

p r i o r i t i e s

Responsibility 5 4 3 2 1

Responsibility A B A B A B A B A B

News releases 42 22 Institutional brochures 15 12 11 2 2 2 3 1 7 2 Advertisements 5 10 9 7 7 2 • • • • 16 1 College catalog design 8 5 6 3 1 1 5 2 17 9 College catalog editing 9 3 5 3 • • 1 2 2 22 10 Newsletters 9 4 9 6 1 2 4 1 15 6 Committee membership 7 5 10 7 12 3 3 2 5 3 Club speeches 8 3 7 3 7 4 12 3 4 6 Special event planning 6 5 10 3 12 5 4 1 6 5 Alumni publications 3 6 4 5 2 • • 3 26 8 Speakers' bureau 6 3 9 7 2 1 1 22 6 Student newspaper 4 1 8 6 1 • • • • 2 25 11 Student yearbook 2 1 3 6 3 • •

m m * • 30 12 Other publications 7 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 24 11 Periodical articles 3 3 9 6 19 3 2 5 5 2 Annual reports 4 2 6 6 9 2 4 3 15 6 Campus tours 2 1 7 4 11 4 7 4 11 6 Speech writing 2 • m 3 3 8 2 4 5 21 9 Student activities plan. 1 • • 1 m m 3 3 6 4 27 12 Alumni activities • 41 i 2 i 2 3 1 • • 33 14

A Public institutions. B = Private institutions.

Priorities on the above table were ranked on a five—point

scale, in a descending order of importance, including: five,

89

of regular vital importance; four, of regular general

importance, done routinely; three, of occasional general

importance, done occasionally; two, of rare general

importance, rarely a function of the office; and one, never

a function of the office (See Appendix C). Several respond-

ents indicated isolated responsibilities which were not

included in Table X, but they were so varied that it was not

possible to categorize them for inclusion in the table.

College information office representatives completing

the questionnaires were asked to cite the three most

pressing needs of their respective offices. A total of

118 needs was cited. The most common need mentioned was

for additional personnel, and/or fewer responsibilities.

Forty-six comments were received concerning this need.

Three other needs cited most frequently included closer

administrative ties and/or better internal communication,

nineteen respondents; higher salaries, sixteen respondents;

and additional facilities, twelve respondents.

Comments from Respondents

No comments were requested from persons participating

in this study. However, twelve persons made comments

concerning the study or media relationships in their

90

respective areas. Several of the comments seemed worthy

of mention, including remarks from one college information

office representative concerning the opinionnaire:

. . .1 find parts of it rather difficult to answer. Self-evaluation, despite one's efforts at honesty, can become rather difficult.

For example, there is no question that every once in a while, I get into a hassle with the press. On the other hand, quite often my office is asked by the AP or UPI to staff board meetings for them, and, in many cases, we call the bureaus direct. As a former newsman, I must say this is a vote of confidence for the way we handle our business. However, I would be less than candid if I do not tell you that the former educational writer for the (newspaper) ate me alive in a signed editorial on the way I handled an issue. . . .

One information office representative, employed at a

large private institution, apologized for "the delay in

completing the opinionnaire," explaining:

. . .-Within three days of one another, we lost both our Sports Information Director and our Director of Information. Since that time, it has been one royal hectic situation—scrambling here and there trying to find replacements and trying to determine the best route to go if there were to be any revisions in operations, etc. We did decide to go the News Bureau approach with a head man and an assistant. The assistant would be primarily responsible for sports coverage, but would not carry the SID (sports information director) title, per se. . . .

One college president explained that his institution

had just engaged a public relations firm to conduct college

91

public relations and information programs. He mentioned

that it was "too early to adequately evaluate the new

venture," but that the former procedures "were not as

effective as we wanted, and were too expensive." He added:

I am very much interested in your study and would be more than mildly interested in your findings. There is a possibility that the agency approach will not be satisfactory and we will need to set up our own office once again. . . .

An editor of a small daily newspaper wrote that

College did not have a formal information office. Still, he

indicated strong support of the institution, and arranged to

publicize the school in manners which probably were common

to many newspapers. He wrote:

. . .We are fed features from time to time from the journalism department, which consists of one instructor and a handful of first and second-year students.

We depend on contacts from the college to keep us informed on upcoming events, such as art shows, plays, etc. The college, of course, has been most cooperative in assisting us in obtaining photos, information, and so on.

I am looking forward to the time when College has grown to the point where

it can afford a full-time information office. It goes without saying that the campus here, like all college campuses, is rich in feature material. Unfortunately, we don't always have the time to go looking for it. . . .

Comments from four representatives of television

stations included:

92

. . .What I'm trying to say is that we get very good information from the University on institutional items—items which will show the University in a good light. However, when any-thing bad crops up or is of controversial nature, we don't hear anything official. And, my experience with the information office indicates the lack of that information is because of executive directive, either from the president or from the board. . . .

Perhaps the most exuberant comments came from a

television station representative concerning a new two-

year school in his city:

Our Community College is very young, under very aggressive leadership, and is a joy to work with.

However, it should be noted that College employs a PR firm, and at this writing does not have an information office per se.

We have the best, most available, most honest College President in the country.

The same respondent, however, indicated problems in insti-

tutional-media relationships with a four-year institution

in his station's coverage area. He said:

. . .The information officer is a fully qualified, professional journalist with radio and television experience. However, he is in an office that is more 'development' than news. That type of situation puts him in a hell of a bind on releasing anything without the 'stamp of approval. . .

. . .1 think an information officer ought to have more authority to deal directly with the press and radio-television on his own understanding of any situation.

93

In fairness to the media, any institutional information officer worth his salt is going where he gets best results and fairest treatment on both good and bad. . . .

One television station representative indicated that

his station's relationship with a large public university

was "generally good," but added:

. . .We have found, however, that if we really want to know something, hard news type, we have received the best results by going directly to the source rather than through the PIO office. Often times the information office has to clear so much red tape that the story is old hat by then.

Many times, we have found that their news releases have a tendency to read like the third edition of War and Peace. We have always had a hard time getting anything from the president's office, news-wise, and our PIO office seems to have the same problem at times. On interviews, it's like pulling teeth to get university administrators to grant interviews, especially in front of a camera. That could be a universal problem, however. . . .

One representative from a large television station com-

mented on relationships with two large public institutions-

one two-year and one four-year—in his station's coverage

area. He stated:

I receive about two releases a year from University and none from

College, so I can't adequately answer these questions. I don't know if we're not on the mailing lists, or if they just don't have departments of press relations. . . .I'd give these a whirl, but I just don't have any answers. Sorry. . . .

94

Similar comments were received from other television station

news directors. The comments repeated in this study seemed

to be representative of comments received.

95

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley, "Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research on Teaching," Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by H. L. Gage, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1963.

2. Courtney, E. Wayne, Use of the F-Statistic, Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State University, 1971.

3. Glass, Gene V. and Julian C. Stanley, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1970.

4. Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1965.

5. Wert, James E., Charles 0. Neidt, and J. Stanley Ahmann, Statistical Methods in Educational and Psychological Research, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, INFERENCES,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The primary purposes of this study were (1) to determine

perceived relationships between higher education institutions

in Texas with daily newspapers and television stations in the

state, and (2) to determine roles, responsibilities, and

priorities of college information office representatives con-

cerning their work of interpreting their institutions to the

public through Texas daily newspapers and television stations.

Secondary purposes were to find answers to the following

questions:

1. Will information officers, college presidents, or

news media representatives view media-institutional rela-

tionships as being most positive?

2. Will the size of the news media affect the attitudes

of news media representatives toward media-institutional rela-

tionships?

96

97

3. Will private or public institutions have larger

information office staffs?

4. Who are the designated officials authorized to

make official institutional statements to the mass media?

The study was initiated with a thorough review of the

literature. It was evident, largely in journal articles,

that the importance of institutional communication to the

public through utilization of the mass media is a matter

of growing importance. Examination of the literature

also revealed numerous problems which are commonly shared

by persons who are regularly involved with institutional-

media relationships.

Following a review of the literature, a series of

interviews was arranged with consultants, including col-

lege presidents, college information office representatives,

television station news directors, and newspaper editors and

writers. Specific purpose of these interviews was to deter-

mine as nearly as possible appropriate items to be included

in an opinionnaire planned for distribution to selected

college presidents, college information office representatives,

television station news directors, and daily newspaper editors

throughout the state.

98

After the interviews were completed, an opinionnaire

containing forty items was prepared. The proposed

instrument was then forwarded to a validating panel which

included two college presidents, two college information

office representatives, two television station news

directors, one daily newspaper editor, and an education

editor of a nationally distributed newspaper, all of whom

resided outside of Texas. The ninth panelist was a public

relations theorist from the University of Texas at Austin.

None of the panel of validators was included among respond-

ents who would later be involved in the study.

After validity of the instrument was established,

copies were sent, along with cover letters of explanation,

to selected college presidents, college information office

representatives, television station news directors, and

daily newspaper editors throughout the state. Persons

receiving the instrument were requested to respond to all

forty items, and to return it in the envelope which was

provided.

A second instrument used in the study was a question-

naire, which was designed for completion by college infor-

mation office representatives only. It was validated by

99

five of the nine persons who had served as validators for

the opinionnaire, including the two college presidents,

two information office representatives, and the public

relations theorist. The questionnaire was formulated to

determine personal characteristics of college information

officers; sizes and activities of information offices; and

roles, responsibilities, and priorities of information

office directors. The instrument also included twenty-

items concerning the relative importance of various functions

of the information offices. Further, respondents were

requested to list three basic needs that they felt would

improve the effectiveness of their offices.

A total of 202 respondents participated in the study,

including representatives of 28 Texas television stations

and 45 newspapers, plus 65 college presidents and 64 college

information office representatives.

Findings

The analysis of data collected during this study was

presented in two major sections, the first of which utilized

the analysis of variance technique. This technique described

the results of testing for differences among mean scores

computed from opinionnaires sent to the four groups of

100

respondents. The data were further analyzed by computing

correlation coefficients utilizing the Pearson Product

Moment (r) statistical technique. The second section was

concerned with the collection and interpretation of data

relative to items included in the questionnaire. Though

not treated statistically, data from these instruments were

thoroughly analyzed to extract findings relative to

secondary purposes stated in the initial chapter of this

study.

In order to conduct the statistical analysis of variance

technique, seven null hypotheses were formulated, stating

that there would be no significant difference (at the .01

confidence level) in responses:

1. According to type of institutions (public or private),

2. According to size of institutions (large or small),

3. Between the four groups of respondents,

4. As to interaction effect between insti-tutions and size,

5. As to interaction effect between the four groups of respondents,

6. As to interaction effect between the four groups of resondents and size of insti-tutions, and

101

7. As to interaction effect between the type of institutions, size of insti-tutions, and the four major groups of respondents.

The analysis of variance technique was used to test

the hypotheses to determine if significant differences

existed between the mean scores computed from opinionnaires

received from the four groups of respondents. The three-

way analysis of variance was determined to be appropriate

for this study.

Findings revealed that the null hypothesis was accepted

for each of the seven hypotheses, with the exception of

hypothesis number three. For this hypothesis, the null

hypothesis was rejected on nineteen of the thirty-five

tests conducted, and it was thus concluded that there

were significant differences in responses received from the

four major groups. Because there were nineteen rejections

for hypothesis number three, further analysis was desirable

to determine between which groups differing responses were

received. The Pearson "r" technique was selected as being

the most appropriate statistical technique for further

analysis, and correlation coefficients were computed after

comparing the responses of each group with each of the

other three groups.

102

Summary of Findings Relating To Perceived Relationships Between Respondent Groups

In four of the six comparisons of responses, correlation

coefficients ranged between +.70 and +.89, connoting high

positive correlations and marked relationships. Two compar-

isons revealed correlation coefficients of +.6124 and +.6186,

connoting moderate correlations. Both of these comparisons

involved television station news directors, and the

respective correlation coefficients were the results of

comparisons with responses from college presidents and col-

lege information office representatives with responses from

television station news directors. Further, the percentage

of commonality for responses to individual items was 37.50

between television station news directors and college pres-

idents and 38.27 between television station news directors

and college information office representatives. Clearly,

television station news directors1 attitudes toward insti-

tutional-media relationships were at variance with what

institutional representatives believed the relationships to

be.

Among the four groups of respondents, mean scores

indicated that information office representatives viewed

103

institutional-media relationships as being most positive.

The mean score of their responses was 3.9089, which ranked

slightly ahead of the presidents' mean score of 3.8374.

Ranking third among the four groups of respondents were news-

paper editors, whose mean score was 3.5137, and in the fourth

position were television station news directors with a mean

score of 3.3921.

Summary of Findings Relating to College Information Offices

An additional purpose of this study was to determine

roles, responsibilities, and priorities of college infor-

mation office representatives. The most common role shared

by respondents was that of publicizing their institutions

externally through the mass media. This was the case despite

the fact that only slightly more than half of the respondents

were authorized to make official college statements to the

mass media. Another common role among a majority of respond-

ents was participation in staff meetings of their insti-

tutions' top administrative officers. Other roles and respon-

sibilities of these persons included advertising, planning,

and editing institutional brochures and annual reports.

Most respondents also served regularly on institutional

104

standing committees; most did not have teaching assignments

and did not sponsor student publications or other student

activities.

Considered of top priority and vital importance by a

majority of respondents was the regular preparation and

distribution of news releases, institutional brochures and

annual reports, and advertisements for the mass media.

Secondary priorities cited by a majority of respondents

who rated these responsibilities as being of no less than

occasional general importance included serving on standing

committees, making speeches for clubs, editing newsletters,

planning special events, and writing articles for period-

icals. Lowest priorities were assigned by a majority of

respondents to such responsibilities as designing and/or

editing college catalogs, editing alumni publications,

sponsoring student publications or other student activities,

writing speeches, and sponsoring alumni activities.

Summary of Findings Relating To Size of News Media

A secondary purpose was to determine whether the size

of the news media affected the attitudes of news media

representatives toward institutional-media relationships.

105

In order to make this analysis, mean scores were tabulated

on opinionnaires returned from respondents employed by small

newspapers and television stations, and respondents employed

by large newspapers and television stations. The mean score

for editors of large newspapers was 3.5201, slightly higher

than the 3.5072 mean score for editors of small newspapers.

This suggested that attitudes of editors of large newspapers

were slightly more positive toward institutional-media rela-

tionships than were the attitudes of editors of small news-

papers. The reverse was true on mean scores from responses

tabulated on large and small television stations whose

respondents had respective mean scores of 3.3098 and 3.4454.

Summary of Findings Relating to Size Of Information Office Staffs

The study revealed that private institutions typically

had larger information office staffs. The average number

of staff members at public institutions, based on forty-two

responses, was 1.5 full-time persons and 1.5 part-time

employees during the 1972-73 school year. Private insti-

tutions, however, had an average of 2.9 full-time staff

members and 3.0 part-time employees, based on twenty-two

responses.

106

Summary of Findings Relating to Making Official Institutional Statements

Findings revealed that in most cases, several persons

at Texas' higher education institutions were authorized to

make official statements to the mass media. Thirty of

fifty-seven college information office representatives

responding indicated that they were among those persons

at their institutions authorized to make official state-

ments to the mass media. Fifty presidents, chancellors,

or provosts also released official institutional state-

ments, as did twenty-five vice-presidents or vice-chancellors.

Others authorized to make such statements were board chairmen,

deans, directors of admissions, and business managers.

Conclusions

Findings of this study were bases for the following

major conclusions:

1. Institutional-media relationships are basically

positive for all four groups of respondents participating

in this study.

2. Among the groups surveyed, respondents from

television stations were least positive about institutional-

media relationships.

107

3. More than half of the college information office

representatives responding had the titles of "Director of

Public Information" or "Director of Public Relations."

4. All four groups of respondents were concerned about

institutional-media relationships; more than half of each

group of respondents requested copies of the findings of

the study.

5. Information office representatives' tenure at

their respective institutions was short, with the average

respondent having been in his assignment four years. Eight

respondents were in their initial year of work in their

current assignments.

6. While college presidents and information office

representatives seemed to be extending reasonable efforts to

keep the public informed through utilization of the mass

media, internal comitumications in many institutions seemed

to be of secondary importance.

Inferences

1. There is a need for additional studies of this type,

as evidenced by comments made by respondents from all four

groups.

108

2. Judging from opinionnaire items marked "undecided"

by all four groups of respondents, it was not clear to many-

respondents what the roles of college information office

representatives were.

3. Information office representatives were prone to

be "newspaper oriented"; thirty-seven of fifty-seven respond-

ents previously worked for newspapers, but fifty-one respond-

ents had never worked for television or radio stations.

4. Private institutions placed higher priorities on

the importance of mass media communications than did public

institutions. Private institutions' information office

staffs were typically twice as large as those at public

institutions.

5. Mass media representatives depended on college

information offices for news releases about higher education;

news media representatives concurred that more than half of

the news coverage about higher education was initiated by

news releases from college information office representatives.

6. Less mutual confidence in institutional-media rela-

tionships existed than was believed by college presidents and

information office representatives, 89 percent and 80 percent

of whom believed, respectively, that such mutual confidence

109

did exist. Seventy percent of newspaper respondents agreed,

but 30 percent were undecided. Only 49 percent of tele-

vision station respondents believed that mutual confidence

existed, 26 percent were undecided, 21 percent disagreed,

and 4 percent strongly disagreed.

7. College presidents should seek greater visibility

by occasionally visiting media newsrooms. All respondents

tended to concur with this premise, including 98 percent of

television station respondents. Sixty-seven percent of the

college presidents strongly agreed, but only 38 percent of

the presidents strongly agreed that they did, in fact,

occasionally visit media newsrooms.

Recommenda tions

The following recommendations are made on the bases of

findings and conclusions of this study:

1. College presidents and information office represent-

atives should confer concerning what they can do to improve

institutional-media relationships, particularly in regard

to relationships with television station news directors.

2. College information office representatives should

periodically confer with media representatives concerning

110

whether day-to-day working relationships are in good order,

particularly with respect to television station news

directors.

3. College presidents should designate a minimal num-

ber of persons to make official institutional statements

to the mass media, thus reducing the chances of misunder-

standing and contradictory statements.

4. All institutions should have a policy concerning

the granting of interviews to members of the mass media with

students, faculty, and administrators, even if the policy is

that there is no stated policy. A majority of media respond-

ents agreed that there should be such a policy, but insti-

tutional respondents were not in accord. Among information

office representatives, 30 percent disagreed that such a

policy is needed, with 26 percent in agreement that it is

needed. Among college presidents, 31 percent disagreed and

29 percent were in agreement.

5. College presidents and information office represent-

atives should periodically evaluate their public information

programs, changing them, when advisable, to better serve media.

6. College presidents should communicate with infor-

mation office representatives concerning needs cited by the

Ill

latter group. The most common needs cited were for

additional personnel and/or fewer responsibilities, closer

administrative ties, and better internal communication.

7. College information office representatives should

develop better methods for serving television stations. It

was noted that newspaper respondents completed opinionnaires

on seventy institutions, failing to do so for only three

schools. Television station respondents completed instru-

ments on forty-seven institutions, but returned blank forms

for seventeen schools, indicating, in many cases, that they

"never heard from them."

8. A study should be undertaken to determine insti-

tutional-media relationships between higher education insti-

tutions and radio stations, and between higher education

institutions arid newspapers which are published less fre-

quently than daily.

9. Institutional representatives should conduct

surveys to determine which types of media are most effective

in conveying institutional news to the public.

APPENDIX A

112

113

EXAMPLE OF LETTER TO VALIDATORS

5812 Wessex Ave. Fort Worth, Texas 76133

October 23, 1972

Mr. Ken Gehret Education Editor The Christian Science Monitor One Norway Street Boston, Massachusetts 02115

Dear Mr. Gehret:

I am now preparing to write my dissertation, which will be the final requirement for the Ph.D. Degree at North Texas State University in Denton, Texas. The dissertation will be entitled "A Survey of Perceived Relationships Between Higher Education Institutions and Daily Newspapers and Television Stations in Texas."

During this study, a two-page opinionnaire with identical items will be distributed to daily newspaper editors, television station news directors, college presidents, and college infor-mation office representatives. The latter group also will be asked to complete questionnaires concerning the college infor-mation offices.

Prior to the distribution of these instruments, it is important that they be validated by a jury of professional persons. I hope that it will be possible for you to serve as a member of this jury for the opinionnaire.

If you are able to participate, please place an "x" beside the items that you DO NOT believe to be valid. Then, please return the instrument to me, along with a letter concerning your findings. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed. If possible, I would appreciate receiving this material by November 3. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

Enc.

114

EXAMPLE OF FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO VALIDATORS

5812 Wessex Ave. Fort Worth, Texas 76133 November 5, 1972

Dear

A copy of the enclosed letter was mailed to you on October 23, 1972. Though the deadline is past, your help still is urgently needed.

Would you please review the requests contained in the letter, and respond as soon as possible.

Your consideration is very much appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

Enc.

APPENDIX B

115

The Chrjsi? scifntx monitor. An International Daily NewsDaper

One Norway Stieet, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 116

Editorial Department

October 25, 1972

Mr. Don Newbury 5812 We ssex Avenue Fort Worth, TX 76133

Dear Don:

You've obviously given a lot of thought to your opinion-naire. I doubt that I can add anything of significance.

A number of questions are of course more valid or pertinent to one side of your audiance (the media) than to the other. But I don't see what you can do about that since you want to play one group's assessment against the other's.

*™<.cYOXX mayJ}aViJ s o m e difficulty in word definition in a few

S? 5 ZZ p a r ^ c u l ? r l y "^ir" in 0. 27 and "proper" in 0. 3 No doubt you ve given careful consideration to these terms

meaning^?. C 3 n * ^ s p e c l f l c ' " might make results S

Further, I would suggest underscoring the kev words wh«*n two successive questions are nearly identical as "are" in Q. 30 and "should be" in Q. 31, and "accurately" in 0. 36.

up with^omething^ignificant?" D°"- *°U S h O U l d c o m e

With all good wishes,

Sincerely,

Kenneth G. Gehret Education Editor

KGG:km

i c'j i •<: f

founded m ? 870 October 30, 1972

f -1' . I ASSOCIATED P R E S S — : - •-1- ;]

^ . , 4 U N I T E D PRESS INTERNATIONAL

P O S T O F F I C E B O X 5 0 2 7 • T U C S O N , A R I Z O N A 8 5 7 0 3 • P H O N E ( 6 0 2 ) 6 2 2 - 5 8 5 5

117

Mr. Don Newberry 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76133

Dear Mr. Newberry:

I have studied the list of questions to be included in your survey of relationships of higher education institutions and the mass media and find none of the questions invalid.

I placed a question mark beside No. 26 only to remind me to ask you if there is any merit to rephrasing the question to include not only the idea of granting interviews but also the attitude of the institution when a member of the mass media interviews a member of the faculty or staff without seeking administrative permission. I mention this because it is my attitude as a newsman that it is not incumbent upon the mass media to seek any administrative permission before interviewing a department head or member of the faculty or staff but know many institutions would desire that the media do so.

Although your study may be made only in Texas, I would be interested in seeing the results of it.

Best wishes,

2 ^ = :

Dale Walton Managing Editor

DW:ewc

118

talbhassee community college

October 30, 1972

Mr. Don Newbury 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76133

Dear Mr. Newbury:

In response; to your letter of October 23, 1972, certain members of my staff and I have very care-fully reviewed and evaluated your two-page opinionnaire and questionnaire for college infor-mation officers.

As a result of these reviews we have picked up several ideas that we believe will result in improvements in our college publicity program.

I consider the instruments to be complete and extremely well prepared. The results derived from your program should give a clear and com-plete reflection of perceived relationships between higher education and local mass media representatives.

As you can see from the letterhead, we are at the Tallahassee Community College on a Committee Visit.

Sincerely,

J/J. Hayc Mississippi Gulfcoast Junior College.

CC: C. A. Robertson Vice Chancellor for Administration Tarrant County Junior College District 1400 Fort Worth National Bank Building Fort Worth, Texas 76102

iOWA/ys

DIVISION OF INFORMATION

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 427 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72701

Telephone - 501 575-5501

119

October 30, 1972

Mr. Don Newbury 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76133

Dear Don:

In response to your request, I have reviewed all of the items contained in both the opinionnaire you plan to distribute to the media, and the questionnaire to be sent to college information officers.

It is my feeling that all of the items listed are valid and should be included.

I would have one addition to suggest for the opinionnaire. You may wish to page the media on the question of whether they object to executive or closed sessions of college governing boards when newsmen are on hand to cover their meetings.

Generally speaking, I believe both instruments are well done. I wish you all success in preparing your dissertation.

Sincerely,

uMlugf Director of/Information

BH/vlr

Enclosures

4 6 E N E S E E C O M M U N I T Y COLLEGE 1401 EAST COURT STREET/FL INT , MICHIGAN 4 8 5 0 3 / ( 3 1 3 ) 236-1631

120

OFFICE OF T H E PRESIDENT November 3, 1972

Mr. Don Newbury 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76133

Dear Mr. Newbury:

I have examined the instrument for your survey of informational services in Texas colleges, newspapers and television stations - I was impressed by its comprehensiveness and its regard for specifics.

It is my firm opinion that this survey will result in a highly productive study which should progress the knowledge of the professional practitioners in both the colleges and commercial media of your state.

I would be most happy to receive the results of your study when completed.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

pb

Richard S. Heitzner Director of College Relations

mmm B E M I D J I STATE COLLEGE

121

BEMIDJI. MINNESOTA 56601

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 81B<78B-20tt

December 12, 1972

Don Newbury 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth, Texas

Dear Mr, Newbury:

76133

I have very carefully examined the completed opiniormaires and questionnaires which you plan to use as part of your study. The instruments are indicative of a great deal of thought and preparation on your part. I feel they will elicit responses which will be useful in determining relationships between institutions of higher education and the mass media, such as television stations and newspapers.

As you know, I completed the questionnaire you forwarded as did our Information Services Director. Both of us felt that the instruments (questionnaire and opinionnaire) are valid and reliable instruments for determining responses from higher education institutions concerning the above relationships.

If I can be of additional service, please feel free to let me know.

Sincerely yours,

R. 6. DeclieV^ President

RDD:mk

122

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 7S712

Department of Journalism Box 7818/Phone 512-471-1845 November 6, 1972

Mr. Don Newberry TARRANT COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT 1400 For t Worth Na t i ona l Bank B ldg . Fo r t Worth, Texas 76102

Dear Don:

Both your q u e s t i o n n a i r e and o p i n i o n n a i r e are

more than adequate to s o l i c i t the i n f o r m a t i o n you

seek f o r your d i s s e r t a t i o n .

I have marked t h ree (3) i tems on the o p i n i o n n a i r e

t h a t I b e l i e v e are s u p e r f l u o u s , w i l l no t p rov ide

any va luab le i n f o r m a t i o n , nor w i l l p rov ide any

i n f o r m a t i o n wor th c o n s i d e r i n g .

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o the c o l l e g e i n f o r m a t i o n

o f f i c i a l s i s q u i t e complete and conc i se . Good luck

Si, ;e re ly /yc /urs ,

til ^ c Alan Sco t t Profess or

WFRV, INQ. 1 2 1 WFRV-TV, GREEN BAY • WJMN-TV, ESCANABA X Z " - >

Iiei E. MASON St., GREEN BAY, WIS. 54305 414 - 437-5411 TWX 910-263-1258

December 15, 1972

Mr. Don Newbury 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76133

Dear Mr. Newbury:

I have looked over your questionnaire and it seems adequate to determine the information that you are trying to obtain. It is always difficult to ascertain the relationship between colleges and universities and the news media because the academic world seems to seek publicity rather than news coverage.

Most news releases from the academic world tend to deal with items that we in television news prefer not to cover; i.e., academic promotions, teas for the wife of the college president, and dramatizations on campus. Then, too, most are written with an eye toward newspaper coverage.

The press relations departments of most universities don't give enough attention to providing television with the proper copy and pictorial content that we need. They also tend not to think in terms of spot news which of course is a big loss to both us and the universities.

I think your questionnaire would be most helpful to the university press relations departments and college and university presidents. It would be my hope that they would take the information and put it to good use.

I wish you the best of luck in your project. Please pass along my best personal regard to Russ Thornton.

S i ne'e r e 1 y, (>//^

Cnaries Xeonard News Director

CL/jjs

ORION ReOAfY-AiTiwn it-""

BILL HENRY NEWS DIRECTOR

124

• THE TAMPA TRIBUNE STATIONS . . . P. O. BOX 1410 . . . TAMPA, FLORIDA

Jan. 8, 1973

Don Newbury 5812 Wessex Avenue Fort Worth,Texas 76133

Dear Mr. Newbury:

Your opionionnaire certainly seems v«lid in ascertaining the relationships between higher education institutions and daily newspapers and television stations.

One of the common faults of news releases from institutions is that they are written for newspapers and sent to all media,Also, many are mailed and thus the immediacy is lost. Not enough attention is given,generally speaking, to pro-viding TV with the proper copy and visual material needed. This is being overcome by some institutions but not all .

Good luck in your project. Give my regards to Russ Thornton next time you're in contact with him.

Sincere1

'Bill Henry / News Direct9x WFLA-TV Tampa,Florida 33601

APPENDIX C

125

126

OPINIQNNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: Please circle one number after each statement, the number which you believe signifies the best answer to each question. Numbers signify the following values: 5=Strongly Agree 4=Agree 3=Undecided 2=Disagree l=Strongly

Disagree

1. News releases prepared by the institution's 5 4 3 2 1 information office accurately interpret the institution to the public.

2. Institutional news releases are submitted to 5 4 3 2 1 the various mass media at the same time, with efforts made to give all mass media equal opportunities for dissemination.

3. News releases are normally of proper length, 5 4 3 2 1 and can be used "as is," or easily edited at the newsman's discretion.

.4. The content of news releases is such that 5 4 3 2 1 the releases can be used "as is," or easily edited at the newsman's discretion.

5. The information officer has a clear under- 5 4 3 2 1 standing of media deadlines.

6. The information officer usually adheres 5 4 3 2 1 to media deadlines.

7. When possible, the information officer writes 5 4 3 2 1 news releases as far in advance as possible and distributes them with "hold for release" instructions to the mass media.

8. The information officer contributes material, 5 4 3 2 1 and/or answers questions pertaining to "hard" news as readily as he does "soft," or more routine news.

9. The information officer has a "good eye" for 5 4 3 2 1 feature news story possibilities.

10. The information officer provides "tips" of 5 4 3 2 1 feature news story possibilities.

11. The information officer provides photographs 5 4 3 2 1 and/or color slides for the mass media.

12. Answer only if response to #11 was affirma- 5 4 3 2 1 tive. The pictures and/or color slides meet media quality requirements.

127

13. In the case of events which could reflect 5 4 3 2 1 unfavorably on the institution, the information officer attempts to "protect" his school's image at all costs—even if it means being less than completely honest with the mass media.

14. The information officer usually can be 5 4 3 2 1 reached by phone at all hours.

15. The information officer calls news confer- 5 4 3 2 1 ences judiciously.

16. The information officer holds periodic con- 5 4 3 2 1 ferences with news representatives concerning general coverage of college events and activities.

17. The information officer responds promptly to 5 4 3 2 1 queries from the mass media.

18. The information officer responds to questions 5 4 3 2 1 from the mass media with specific answers, rather than "no comment" replies.

19. College events to which the public is invited 5 4 3 2 1 are publicized well in advance of the events.

20. The size of the staff of the information 5 4 3 2 1 office is large enough to adequately do the job of interpreting the school to the public.

21. Some institutional departments seem to have 5 4 3 2 1 more news releases prepared concerning their activities than do other departments.

22. Several years of experience in mass media 5 4 3 2 1 reporting should rank ahead of academic degrees as a requisite for the information officer.

23. Institutional news disseminated by the mass 5 4 3 2 1 media more often than not is the result of material contributed by the information officer.

24. Institutional news disseminated by the mass 5 4 3 2 1 media more often than not is the result of an investigative reporter, independent of the information officer.

25. When possible, routine news releases are 5 4 3 2 1 spaced over a period of several days or weeks to avoid inundation of the mass media with several news releases on the same day.

128

26. The institution has a policy concerning the 5 4 3 2 1 granting of interviews to members of the mass media with students, faculty, and administrators.

27. Answer only if response to #26 was affirma- 5 4 3 2 1 tive. The policy for the granting of inter-views is fair to the mass media.

28. Pressure is placed on mass media represent- 5 4 3 2 1 atives by institutional officials to dissem-inate specific news releases.

29. Pressure is placed on media representatives 5 4 3 2 1 by institutional officials to publish specific news releases on a given page, or disseminated on a specified television newscast.

30. Before predictable major events occur, mass 5 4 3 2 1 media representatives are taken into confidence by the information officer and/or president, with the institution's position concerning the event clearly explained.

31. Before predictable major events occur, mass 5 4 3 2 1 media representatives should be taken into confidence by the information officer and/or president, with the institution's position concerning the event clearly explained.

32. Mutual confidence exists between the mass 5 4 3 2 1 media and the institution.

33. The institution receives its share of news 5 4 3 2 1 coverage from the mass media during the course of a school year.

34. Representatives of the mass media are allowed 5 4 3 2 1 to attend regular meetings of the institution's governing board.

35. Answer only if the response to #34 was affirm-5 4 3 2 1 ative. The mass media regularly reports on meetings and action of the institution's governing board.

36. Answer only if the response to #35 was affirm-5 4 3 2 1 ative. The mass media accurately reports on meetings and action of the governing board.

37. Answer only if the response to #34 was affirm-5 4 3 2 1 ative. The agenda of the meeting of the governing board is submitted to members of the mass media several days in advance of the meeting.

129

38. Newsmen and/or photographers are treated 5 4 3 2 1 courteously by campus security personnel.

39. The president should occasionally visit 5 4 3 2 1 mass media newsrooms.

40. The information officer should occasionally 5 4 3 2 1 visit mass media newsrooms.

If you would like to receive a copy of the results of this study, check here:

Name, title, and address of person completing this form:

130

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COLLEGE INFORMATION OFFICERS

Name of Institution:

Sex: Age Hal f - time ? Quarter-time ?

Title of Information Officer In this capacity: Full-time?

Other? Salary: ( ) Under $7,500

( ) $ 7,500-$ 9,999 ( ) $10,000-$12,499 ( ) $12,500-$14,999

Contract: ( ) 9-month ( ) 10-month ( ) 11-month ( ) 12-month ( ) Other (specify length)

( ) $15,000-$17,499 ( ) $17,500-$19,999 ( ) $20,000 or more

How many years' experience do you have: a. As information officer at your school?_ b. On the information office staff at your school? c. In similar work at other collegiate institutions? d. As a full-time newspaper editor or reporter? e. In radio news? f. In television news?

Academic Background:

(College) (Major) (Degree)

(College) (Major) (Degree)

(College) (Major) (Degree)

Do you teach? If so, how many classes per semester? How many load hours?

How many full-time employees work under your direction? How many part-time? Does the Sports Information Director report to you? If not, to whom?

Do you send the same news releases to newspapers, radio, and television? in a typical calendar year, how many news releases are sent from your office?

131

In percentage terms, how are your news releases sent to local media: Mail: %; Telephone: %; Hand-carried: %-, Other (specify) : %.

Is your office regularly represented at meetings of the Chief Administrative Officer and his Staff? At Board Meetings ? .

When a media representative requests an official statement from your institution, list below the titles of persons authorized to release the statement:

Do faculty members have copies of written policies concerning procedures for the release of college news to the mass media?

Do you direct the operation of the college print shop? Speakers 1 Bureau? College Photo Laboratory?

Please list professional organizations to which you belong:

Listed below are functions typical of many college information offices. Please respond to each function on the following basis:

5=0f regular vital importance; receives top priority. 4=0f regular general importance; done routinely. 3=0f occasional general importance; done occasionally. 2=0f rare general importance; rarely a function of this office.

l=Never a function of this office. Please circle the appropriate number: Sponsor college yearbook . 5 4 3 2 1 Sponsor college newspaper 5 4 3 2 1 Sponsor other publication(s) 5 4 3 2 1

(If so, please list name(s): )

132

Sponsor student activities 5 4 3 2 1 Edit alumni publications - 5 4 3 2 1

(If so, type and frequency: ) Responsibility for alumni organization 5 4 3 2 1

(If so, do you conduct alumni meetings? Direct member-ship efforts? Other activities: )

Serve institution which buys media advertising . . 5 4 3 2 1 (If so, do you: Write copy? Design the advertisement? Do ads appear in area newspapers? on area radio stations? on area television stations? Other? )

Edit college catalog 5 4 3 2 1 Design college catalog 5 4 3 2 1 Produce college brochures 5 4 3 2 1 Direct college speakers' bureau 5 4 3 2 1 Write faculty newsletter 5 4 3 2 1 Serve on college standing committees 5 4 3 2 1

(If so, how many? ) Speak before civic clubs and other organizations . 5 4 3 2 1

(If so, how many times per year? ) Write speeches for the College's chief administra-

tive officer 5 4 3 2 1 Write articles for magazines and journals . . . . 5 4 3 2 1 Conduct campus tours 5 4 3 2 1 Plan special college events 5 4 3 2 1 Produce annual reports 5 4 3 2 1

* * * *

Briefly, what are your three basic needs which would enhance your College's information office operations:

2.

3.

1c 4e * *

Check here if you would like a copy of the findings of this s tudy:

Name and address of person completing this form:

APPENDIX D

133

TARRANT COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT MOO FORT WORTH NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76102

134

DIRECTOR OF C O M M U N I T Y RELATIONS

November 7, 1972

Dear Colleague:

I am conducting a study concerning perceived relationships between Texas institutions of higher learning and Texas daily newspapers and television stations. A further purpose of the study is to determine roles, responsibilities, and priorities of college information office directors. Findings will be used as the subject of my dissertation for the Ph.D. Degree in Higher Education Administration at North Texas State University in Denton. I am seeking responses from presidents and information officers of selected Texas colleges and univer-sities, and from media representatives of selected daily news-papers and television stations.

At this time, an opinionnaire concerning these relationships and a questionnaire concerning the work of the college information office of your school are enclosed. I would .appreciate very much your completing these forms and returning them to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope, which also is enclosed. It is requested that college presidents and information officers avoid collaboration while completing the opinionnaires. If your school does not have a college information office director, it will be appreciated if the forms are completed by the person whose duties include those of the college information office.

I hope that it will be possible for you to participate in this study. You may be sure that the names of all persons, institutions, and firms will be kept in strictest confidence, and will not. appear in the proposed dissertation. Only the findings will be considered. It would be very much appre-ciated if you would return the completed opinionnaire and questionnaire by Tuesday, November 28, 1972. If you wish to receive a copy of the summary of the findings, please indicate on the blank provided.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

TARRANT COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT 1400 FORT WORTH NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

FORT WORTH, TEX AS 76102

135

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

November 7, 1972

Dear President:

I am conducting a study concerning perceived relationships between Texas institutions of higher learning and Texas daily newspapers and television stations. A further purpose of the study is to determine roles, responsibilities, and priorities of college information office directors. Findings will be used as the subject of my dissertation for the Ph.D. Degree in Higher Education Administration at North Texas State University in Denton. I am seeking responses from presidents and information officers of selected Texas col-leges and universities, and from media representatives of selected daily newspapers and television stations.

At this time, an opinionnaire concerning these relationships is enclosed. I would appreciate very much your completing it, and returning it to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope, which also is enclosed. It is requested that college pres-idents and information officers avoid collaboration while completing these opinionnaires.

I hope it will be possible for you to participate in this study. You may be sure that the names of all persons, insti-tutions, and firms will be kept in strictest confidence, and will not appear in the proposed dissertation. Only the findings will be considered. It would be very much appre-ciated if you would return the completed opinionnaire by Tuesday, November 28, 1972. If you wish to receive a copy of the summary of the findings, please indicate on the blank provided.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

TARRANT COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT 1400 FORT WORTH NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76102

136

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

November 7, 1972

Dear Newspaper Representative:

I am conducting a study concerning perceived relationships between Texas institutions of higher learning and Texas daily-newspapers and television stations. A further purpose of the study is to determine roles, responsibilities, and priorities of college information office directors. Findings will be used as the subject of my dissertation for the Ph.D. Degree in Higher Education Administration at North Texas State University in Denton. Responses from presidents and information officers of selected Texas colleges and univer-sities, and from media representatives of selected Texas daily newspapers and television station, are being sought.

At this time, an opinionnaire(s) concerning these relation-ships is enclosed. I would appreciate very much your completing the form(s)—or forwarding the opinionnaire(s) to the appropriate person on your staff who works regularly with education news from specified area colleges and univer-sities. You will notice that separate opinionnaires are provided, with one to be filled out for institutions named at the top of the form(s). No newspaper or television representative will be asked to complete more than four opinionnaires, and in large population centers, institutions will be randomly assigned to selected newspaper and television media representatives.

I hope it will be possible for you to participate in this study. You may be sure that the names of all persons, institutions, and firms will be kept in strictest confidence, and will not be used in the proposed dissertation. Only the total findings will be discussed in the dissertation. It would be very much appreciated if you would return the completed opinionnaire(s) by Tuesday, November 28, 1972. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. If you wish to receive a copy of the summary of the findings of this study, please indicate on the blank provided.

137

Thank you very much for your consideration. Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

TARRANT COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT 1400 FORT WORTH NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76102

138

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

November 7, 1972

Dear Television Representative:

I am conducting a study concerning perceived relationships between Texas institutions of higher learning and Texas daily newspapers and television stations. A further purpose of the study is to determine roles, responsibilities, and priorities of college information office directors. Findings will be used as the subject of my dissertation for the Ph.D. Degree in Higher Education Administration at North Texas State University in Denton. Responses from presidents and information officers of selected Texas colleges and universities, and from media representatives of selected television stations and newspapers, are being sought.

At this time, an opinionnaire(s) concerning these relation-ships is enclosed. I would appreciate very much your completing the form(s)—or forwarding this opinionnaire(s) to the appropriate person on your staff who works regularly with education news from specified area colleges and univer-sities. You will notice that separate opinionnaires are provided, with one to be filled out for each institution listed at the top of the form(s). No television station or newspaper representative will be asked to complete more than four opinionnaires, and in large population centers, institutions will be randomly assigned to selected television and newspaper representatives.

I hope it will be possible for you to participate in this study. You may be sure that the names of all persons, institutions, and firms will be kept in strictest possible confidence, and will not be used in the proposed dissertation. Only the total findings will be discussed in the dissertation. It would be very much appreciated if you would return the completed opinionnaire(s) by Tuesday, November 28, 1972. A self—addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. If you wish to receive a copy of the summary of the findings of this study, please indicate on the blank provided.

139

Thank you very much for your consideration. Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

TARRANT COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT 1400 FORT WORTH NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76102

140

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Dear

December 5, 1972

Last month, the attached material was sent to you, and, even though the deadline is past, your cooperation is still very much needed.

If you will, complete the enclosed instrument(s) and return to me, it will be very much appreciated.

I know this is a very busy season for everyone, but do hope to hear from you within the next few days.

Thanks again for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Don Newbury

APPENDIX E

141

142

PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY

Individuals affiliated with the following institutions

participated in the study:

Abilene Christian College Amarillo College Angelina College Angelo State University-Baylor University Bee County College Bishop College Brazosport College Central Texas College Dallas Baptist College Dallas County Community College

Eastfield College El Centro College Mountainview College

Del Mar College Dominican College East Texas Baptist College East Texas State University Galveston College Grayson County College Gulf Coast Bible College Hardin-Simmons University Henderson County Junior College Hill County Junior College Howard Payne College Houston Baptist College Huston-Tillotson College Kilgore Junior College Lamar State University Laredo Junior College Lee College Lon Morris College Lubbock Christian College Mary Hardin-Baylor College McLennan Community College

McMurry College Midland College Midwestern University Navarro Junior College North Texas State University Odessa College Pan American University Paul Quinn College Rice University St. Edward's University St. Mary's University St. Philip's University Sam Houston State University San Antonio College Southern Methodist University South Texas Junior College Southwestern Assemblies of

God College Southwestern University Southwest Texas State Uni-

versity Stephen F. Austin State Uni-

versity Tarleton State College Tarrant County Junior College

Northeast Campus South Campus

Temple Junior College Texarkana College Texas A&I University Texas A&M University Texas College Texas Southern University Texas Southmost College Texas Tech University

143

PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY (Page 2)

Texas Wesleyan College Trinity University Tyler Junior College University of Dallas University of St. Thomas University of Texas System

University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Arlington University of Texas at El Paso

University of Houston Victoria Junior College Wayland Baptist College Weatherford College Western Texas College West Texas State University

144

PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY

Individuals affiliated with the following newspapers

participated in the study:

Arlington Daily News Athens Review Baytown Sun Big Spring Herald Brazosport Facts Brenham Banner-Press Brownwood Bulletin Cleburne Times-Review Corpus Christi Caller-Times Dallas Morning News Dallas Times-Herald Denison Herald Denton Record-Chronicle El Paso Times and Herald Post Fort Worth Press Fort Worth Star-Telegram Gainesville Daily Register Galveston Daily News Valley Morning .Star (Harlingen) Houston Chronicle Houston Post Jacksonville Daily Progress Kilgore News-Herald

Laredo Times Levelland Daily Sun-News Lubbock Avalanche-Journal Lufkin News Marshall News-Messenger Mid-Cities Daily News

(Hurst-Euless-Bedford) Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel Odessa American Orange Leader Paris News Pasadena News Citizen Plainview Daily Herald Port Arthur News San Angelo Standard-Times San Antonio Express-News San Antonio Light Stephenville Empire-Tribune Texarkana Gazette-News Tyler Courier-Times-Telegraph Valley Morning Star (McAllen) Victoria Advocate Waxahachie Daily Light

145

PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY

Individuals affiliated with the following television

stations participated in the study:

KRBC--TV, Abilene KFDA' -TV, Amarillo KGNC--TV, Amarillo KVII--TV, Amarillo KTBC--T7, Austin KFDM' -TV, Beaumont KRIS--TV, Corpus Christi KZTV--TV, Corpus Christi KDFW--TV, Dallas WFAA--TV, Dallas KELP--TV, El Paso KROD--TV, El Paso KTVT--TV, Fort Worth WBAP--TV, Fort Worth KGBT--TV, Harlingen KPRC--TV, Houston KSEL--TV, Lubbock KMID--TV, Midland-Odessa KMOM--TV, Monahans-Odessa KOSA--TV, Odessa-Midland KJAC--TV, Port Arthur KENS--TV, San Antonio WOAI--TV, San Antonio KLTV--TV, Longview KWTX--TV, Waco KRGV--TV, Weslaco KAUZ--TV, Wichita Falls KFDX--TV, Wichita Falls

APPENDIX F

146

147

m

6

05 W CO

8

to w

a w N H

H

D

to g o a to 83

© H N rH VO CO CM o r* cr> CO ro r^ CM in co O CO rH <y* rH r- r** ro a* ro rH r - vo in O CO •H aS Ch o vO as in VO rH CM CO CO VO a\ r** in O 00 CM r*» CM vO rH ro r- ro r** vo cr» CM o CO

CO 0 B « • 1 • * • • * • • • « • • • • • • « • • • • • • • * • • • CO 4J to ro <s* fO co CO 00 co ro co ro ro CM CM ro ro CM ro CM Xt ro CM ro CM CM CM CO

X flj >

« •H 0) 00 4J N tr m CO a) r - ro 03 00 Cft <* rH O ro CO rH vX> CM ro ro ro r^ O 00 CO vo 00 00 xj>

03 u (N rH o rH CO O CD r- o CM O VO CO CM CTi CO O vo ro vo rH O o in O o m in C fiS « • » • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • « # • • • • • • • « •

H * * co CO ro CM ro ro ro ro CM ro CO rH CM rH ro

st rH r-i ro oo r- CT> rH Cft vo r-* CO VO & r- in a* crv r - CO ro r^ ro CO in VO rH

CO (3 O CO rH O r-1 CM r - CM VO VO rH <J\ l> rH o CM CM CM rH 00 •H rH rH vo 00 in CM eft H u 6 « • « « • « « t • • • • • • • • • • • t » • • • • • • • • •

to •H to 5t ro 5* CO co ro ro CO ro CM ro ro ro ro ro CM ro CM rH CM rH ro W H to g

o *3 & 0

u 00 CM 00 o o in CO r - r^ CO vO rH ro rH ro 00 r** CM in vO 00 rH r - in CO ro VO GO &

*3 & u CO 0% VO CO o o vo r- CO vO vo o 00 CO CO rH r - CT» in r^ vO CM o ro <Js in

in flj « • • « * • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • « • * i • • • • • •

£ •3 ro CO CO ro sr S* CO CO CO ro ro ro CM ro ro CM ro ro ro ro ro ro CM ro ro CM CM rH ro

^ H h h f o n o n h i n i n ^ ^ o c ^ ^ ^ H ^ O f O O O n h C N i r n c o o n o i n M H H n ^ i n H H N h ^ o i n h ^ h h o o n n f o o ^ H i n i n H m • * • • • • • « • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • # • • • • * p - ) r o r o r o r o r o r o m r o r o o 4 « H O - ) r o ( N C N i r o o o ^ r o o ^ ^ r o c N C ^ o r ) f ~ i < N C N i r o

c o o D v D v D O h f O h H ^ c o m c D h ^ r o i o ^ O N n i n i n i n v D O O i n i n O f N r ) ( n ^ ^ i n H f O H ( N H O C D C D H ^ f O ^ ^ L n ^ f O M M h C r » O D h h i n C ^ » « % * * • • • • • • * • • • • * • • • • • • • • • * • • •

c o ^ ^ r o r H i n f o c o o o ^ v D C T i O O r H ^ r o ^ D r H r o r o r ^ v D r H r - r o m o ^ c r i r g c x } o o o ^ c D r ^ r - v o o r o i n c ^ c M H r - O v D O ^ r - r o H v o ^ r ^ v o v D O O o j c M ^ o • * • * * * * * « • • • • • • » « • • • • « • • • • • • • • n ^ n f n n f n f O f o n n n f o n n n t M n r o ^ c o f n n r o t N f o c N H M H f O

COCftCM<13'VOOvDmvOvOr>»rHVO<Mr*-COCMrOCM< '«trOKtrHrHCOOCMOOvOr-* c o c M ^ m ^ i n ( y > r * * - c r > c r > t H r - < s t a v * o m , < 3 , r H ^ m r H O c M C M O O , s i , r o < T i v o • » • » • • • « * « • • « • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • »

o ^ c o c O f o c D ^ ^ N O m ^ i n ^ c o ^ f n ^ i n w M i n ^ m h h i n i n c o w o c r i C C t ^ c D C T i ^ c M ^ i n v o o c D v o o o ^ c N j o r ^ a v o c ^ o ^ c N j v D r ^ f M C M C h i n

* * • . • • • • * « * # • • • • • • # • • * • • • « • • • • • ^ r o r i n n n f n r o n n f o n c N f n r o c N ^ ^ ^ f M ^ ^ f n f s i n f M H r M H n

^ o j C 0 c N h ^ h h < s f ^ n i n o v D i n u ) C D v D O 0 3 H v D c n o n L n h H h ^ O O a J O H O h h O i O ^ C D r O ^ ^ V D O O ^ ^ n h O h ^ k D H h M M n

^ ^ r f ^ ^ ^ n n r o f o n n t N n r o n ^ fa.^f f O f o ^ f n w f n c o H M H f o

o co in H O CO

M a J C M ^ H h ^ h ^ O O O P O h M M O M i n O H i n i n H C h c x 5 i o m t ^ r ^ c o c N i r > o ^ ^ i - i r j a i ' c f O C 7 \ ( N c r > c N v D C O ( M

r* <y\ x? H h ^

^ ^ n ^ r ) f n r o n n ( n r o n ( N r o n f n ^ ( n ^ n r o ^ n o j m ( N H M H n

^ > c o o ^ c o m a i M i n h i n r o H i / i i n c o ^ c O ( n o i H v o i n ^ m v O H ^ \ o i n < ^ C O O \ < T i O H v D i n ^ ^ V O H h - h r 4 C O O O M M C O O C O ^ V D O C O N C r > ^ ) * * * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • • # « • • • • • • • ( n n c n m ^ ^ f O f o c o n c o n N f O f O M ^ ^ ^ f O f n ^ p O M r o r o h m h ro

H M f n ^ i n ^ h c o ^ O H cm co in vo rH rH rH H rH *

r ^ 0 0 C T > O i H f M r 0 r t i n v 0 t ^ 0 0 0 > > O *

0)

RJ Of 4J X <u c

c o

*u <D g

•H 4J C o a

148

0) 0 c •rt V

a o u

X

w A m

e

'D g •H 4J G O U

% CO

*-•<«

© H N rt rH Cft as v0 rH rH (N CD •H jrt CM r-CM xj> rH r- vD CO W 4) K • • • • • • • • * •

4J CO ro CO CO CO ** K fS

> t •H 0) 4J (J VD o ro rH CP CD CM CM o ra ft o rH CM m CO as rH as in a flj • • • • • • • • • •

H CO CO CM CO

rH rH CO CD CD r- co r rH as as co «5 co O O rH CD VD r-CM r- in

H 0 6 • • • • • • • • • •

CO •H CO ro rH rH rH CO K iH rQ 9 0)

9 ft tr CT> ro CM as as in CD rH CD CN ft M CN CO as CM r-r-in CM in fc (d • • • • • • « • •

fc CO CO CM CO

•

a> m CO r* CD VD CD CO o as CN rH CM in VD CO as in VD o r» «fr <1) « • • • • • • • • •

E-» co ro CO rH rH rH co

CO 0 in CM r CO 00 VD r-44 in CM in in rH rH CO VD

co G • • • • • • • •

H CO H CO CM CM CM <3* CO CO a W W P P 0 •

EH 4J in CD VD r- CM as in r- CD o o •H CM CO VD as r- rH vD O ft *U • • t • • • • • •

S3 W co CO CM CM CM CO

W in o in CD V0 CM r-<D CSJ o in O as in o VD u • • • • • • • • • •

ft CO CO CO CM CM

CM rH rH & rH o CF> rH in CO VD

CO OJ CM as rH CO O VD r CO H £ • • t • • • • • • •

CO 0) CO ro <* CO CO CM CM CO W N £ •H CO 0) 00 CM CM in as {£) in as in VD o tr CO as O CN rH O r-rH r-

ft t • • • • • • • • •

£ a3 CO CO CM CM rH CO

<D rH «P 00 o rH CO CO rH as as C n3 m <Ts CM CO CD in CO (N co 0 > • • • • • • • • •

H *H •H <* CO CO CO CO CO CD 4J M w ft -M £ •H o 4J U ft 03 •H rH vD o CO rH rH in in as CD fc C rH co as o r CO CM rH CM vD fa H rQ • • • • • • • • •

3 ft CO CM rH rH rH CO 4

B <D rH CM ro m VD r- CD as O 4-> CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO -5t w • * *

149

H H

X

w

£

3

<£>

W Pa w w

B

8

g

O Eh

P w N H

H Eh E>

w §

O U W

vD

to H to W

o i n o i n f o < N n ( N i r ) C O N r o n h o o i A ( N O O C D f o n o O ( N O m n ( N C O r^ - • O f M ( 0 ^ C D ^ f N O ^ M f ) k D i n c N ( ^ o o f o n m ^ O h n ^ o v o o <M

n ro n n m n r> w <n n n (N n n n n ^ n n ro r t n m n ' (n h (N (N n

N N O O n a i O N C D O C O ^ ^ i n i n n u i n t j i o o m

r- cm r-H <y>

o o o < N O O i n o o m < N C O C D r ^ c D i n r M i n o ^ m m ( N i n L n ( N ( r i O i n H O h ( T \

( N O n n r g o o m c D N O C D c o i n n M h c N n h i n c O f n o n o o n n L n o h c n o r t c o ^ m N O ^ o o m ( N Q ) ^ ^ ^ c D H h o n o « n L n c o ( n ( N O H • • • * • • • • * • • * • • • • • • • • • « • • • • • • # • f n ^ n o " ) n n ( n r o ( N n ^ r o n r i ( N ^ n r o ^ M ^ ^ ^ N n ( N j H c M M n

o n M C O f O N O o n i n i n n o h h i n N n w i n c o h o m ^ m n ^ m n h h C O o ^ ^ f N ^ n c n c M L n H

O ro O ro

in CO ro H (N o n

c v i c N O O n c M O i C O f M r M t n M O i n r ^ c M f o n o o c M c a c M O O f ^ r o o m c o t ^ r o ^ ^ o e n ^ ^ i n ^ ^ r M ^ m h v D ^ n f O L n o ^ n ^ o a ^ c o i n c o i r i H r )

n n m r o r o n r o n f n r o c N H O j f O f N i c N j n n ^ M n ^ r o < N C N o o r H ( N C N r o

n n { N M h i n h ( N r ) i n a ) o o o N ( N C D O c M O c o h O L n o o n h r ) M i n ( N f o n ^ ^ v D o j H ^ r o f M i D L n i n ^ ^ m L n ^ m m H O c N L n o O H f n ^ o j o

4J

w H w w w E-«

2 JH w

a •H rH • §

&

n c o c o n o c M O C O n o o n o o c o h a j o c o o o i n c D c M O h n m n n o c o o L n c o o a i o o c o o c o o o i n H i n o m m i n o j i n ^ o ^ c D f N n c o o

r o ^ r o r o ^ f n ^ r o n ^ r n r n r o r o f o w ^ r o ^ n r o n n n ' n ^ H N H r !

h i n M O C D C D r o h h h c o j m h C O i n o n c o o c D i n f s o o h o o h O f n o ^ N ^ m i n i n n H H H t n ^ w H O M n n m i n o . ( M ^ O H O ^ m c o o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • # • • • • • # • • • # •

i n i n i o r o r ^ o t ^ o c s j o o f N j t ^ c o c ^ r ^ c N j r - c o c M o j m o o o o r ^ c o r ^ o i n f M h w c N n ^ i n y o i n ^ i n o ^ ^ i n H ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ f o o i n ^ O H i n o j ^

r o c o n n f o n n n n f o n ( N C N n r o ( N n n ^ ( N n ^ n ( N ( N n H C N C N f O

r o o c o o o o o c M C O O r ^ c N i r o m t n r ^ i n r s * o r o c o o c o o r ^ c o m c o r ^ r < * p o o o r o t n n f n r o o ^ o o H ^ c D N h H h H i A n i / i o n i n H C D M n H ^ M i n

^ ^ ^ ^ ro ro ^ r> ro on h ^ oo n ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ h n cn h h h n

n n n c N i N O M n n i n n N f O f o i n h h c o i n n m M M t N n o w N i n c o c o r o o " ' t o ^ ^ L n ^ c o r o r ^ r o c ^ n c X ) < N ^ D i ~ i L n c N C O r ^ a ^ c r > ^ c D O ^ ^ r ^ o

o o ^ n n r o r o o o c M r o o o ^ o o o o r o r o f N ^ r o ^ c N o o o o r o N r o n H N H f n

o i n o c o o o o M n c N M h O N O i n o o c o m m M n M O n m c o o o n h L n c M i n L n m L n c r > c o < ? > < T » i H i r ) ^ o r ^ o i n o r ^ c M r - j C M ^ t o r o t ^ o o c o v D • * • • • • * • • • • * • • • • • • • * • * « • • • • • • • ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ t ^ t r o r o r o r o r t r o c s j ^ t r o ^ ^ ^ ^ r O ' v f ' ^ ^ c N j ' N f c N r H C N r H r o

h c o o i n i ^ n m M O O O N M N i n M f l O c o i n N C O i D h h O o o c D r H o o f M r ^ r o r ^ o ^ O L n i n ^ T t ^ c M v o c ^ o o c M ^ i n h n n o m o i n

o o r o o o o o n r o o j c j r o o i H f n r o f s i N f O f o ^ r o f O ^ f O f v j n f n c I f v J N n

l f l c 5 ? ^ ^ c 0 0 0 i n n f 0 < N O r v r v O ^ 0 D ^ f r » ^ O f 0 h h h n n M n o j u o i n v D ^ i n r o r s j r o n K r o n r - i u o ^ m ^ o o r i O f n v O r H r H o o c O v D o i

*3* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ CN ^ ^ 00 ^ ^ CN ^ CO OvJ rH rH ^

• . . ^ ^ i ^ o i n C T i ' ^ v D H H O O n oo oo ^ n n ro ro ro rg (N oi (n n oo oo ^ oo ro ^ n ol n ' csj h eg (N ro

m S S 2 2 2 , A 2 2 r v ^ ° r 0 C 0 , s < n r s ® C D ® ( ¥ 1 o < M ^ ^ i n h C 0 h • » ^ , , O O O O C D O ^ C O C N t ^ v D O U )

^ ^ ^ ro ^ Tt ro oj oo oo ro ^ ^ ^ oo cn n ' n n (N ol n '

o v i o o ^ L n ^ h o o c r i O H r s i r o ^ i n v O h - c o c ^ O H f ^ r o ^ m k D ^ c o ^ o H H H H H H H H H H ! N N ( M ( N J M ( V < N M M ( M ( * ) * *

. Q) tr» ft 0«

4J X <D C

G O

*0 o p

a •H -M c o u

150

"O <D g -M £ 0 U 1 I H H

X

W

V0

<

in

CO w co w B 2

E-i CO W £•»

8 M N H

O O CO

© r in in O CD O O r* O O rH rH r r m in o o rH in m

c 0) • • • • • • • • * •

0 en ro ro OJ CM CM ro

4J •

2 0 CD ro O C4 ro CM r- CM in o 4J MH m ro in <X> CD \o CM in •H C • • t • • « • • •

> - > 4J H ro CM CM CM ro a Kt C •

0 H V CO ro CD O r- CM r- ro ro Jh •H o CO in o rH rH ro CO rH O rH *o • • • • • • • t • • O

rH W CO 00 CM ro ro X (Q

B «

C» CO 03 in co CS3 CO CM CM O o ro r-N 0) CM <25 CTi cc O in ro KO •H M • • • • • • • • • •

CO ft ro m ro ro ro ro

V0 <D ro tM 00 in ro r- in ro 00 ro c co in tM ro rH CM 00 o ro

CO 0 0) • • % • • • • • •

H *H ro ro ro rH rH rH ro CO 4J W 3 •

ffi -M 0 o r - CD r- o CM CD ro t> ro £ •H <W in rH in rH o <T> in ro V0 00 o 4J C • • • • « • # • * •

ft W H ro <M rH rH ro K"f c £ H «

4J CM CM ro ro r* ro O O o <D •H <T» ro ro vo KO ro o m o tr •D • • * • « * • » • •

Jh W n m CM CM CM ro fd »-3 •

OT in 00 in in O ro 00 in r-» 0) CM rH in CM r- in 00 in VO

• * • * • t • • • •

ft <=* <n ro CM CM rH ro

d o r- r- in in CD r-* in en o 0 H m VD vo r- O rH r- CD If) 0 0 • • • • • « t • • •

•H SO ro ro CM tM CM ro ro 4J 5; O CM 00 CO O O o CM 00 CM •H MH o in o in m o 4J C • • • • • • • « »

W H ro ro ro c

0 H *

0 4J in ro in <M KO 00 in CM in 00 u O *H CM CD r- rH o r** r- o o <P •D • • • « • t • • •

W ro ro ro > •H •

• U (0 r O o CO 00 o ro 00 O in 4J ft 0) rH O o in m in 00 in in r-to JH • • • • • • • • « •

c ft *3< ro H

«

0) o o o r- 00 00 in in ro in G rH o m VD o rH o o CM r* ro

0 0 • * • * • • • * t *

CO IH ro ro ro rH rH rH ro H 4J CO P «

H 4J O CM r- O ro ro m ro ro CM *H *w vD VD in CO 00 ro CO 4J C • • « • • • • • «

O 10 H <3* KT *? CM ro Tt ft a X H «

« 4J in (N tM r- o in CM 00 00 U •H CM & rH VD m ch in o *H »D • • « • « • » • • *

rH W Tf ro tM rH rH rH ro ro .Q

ft 03 ro O O O CO CM o o 00 00 0) rO O in in in o m in in J-l t t • • • • • • • •

ft ro CM rH rH rH ro

B 0) r—| CSI rn in VO r- 00 cr> o 4-J CO ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro H * * *

151

H H H

X

m m $

to H W w

o

w w

p w N H H D W § o u w

p5

rH i. w

-U W C H

-P CO c H a> tr M 1-3

oor^or^oooooor^rorooor-oooror^or^oooooo • r- o inOHOHinnnOHncooo^moinflOioinHCOcoinm • vo vo in • • » • • • * * • « • • • • • • * • • • • • • • « • • • •

fnnnrQ(n(nnr0<nn<*)(Mf0fn(Nf^n(nNf0^fNjMMM ca CM ro orooorooror-roror-r-r^ooocorooooooooor-oooroooo mnnnocDHCDOD^HHOCDncDininininninOHOrocooinin • * • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • « * « » »

cj H <n r~r-or-r-or-rooooooooforomoc>or-oor-r*»oor-r oor--o") ^^irnfl^o^oooomonoooofnoinoHinmHHCDHHfo^a) ro cNjencNrocMCNfOoo 'strorocNCM trO' fsj t ' fvarOfOfsicMrHCN

r-r^or-r^ooor-r-ooor^r-r^r-r-oor-ororor^r-r^or-mof^o HHi/ivDHfninHiDinco^yj^Hvon^inporoHHHin^aJOHin t'sf f'«cf , tmrnmrorofNCsjrororo\t<v) ro ^ Csj !r>I * cm cn ro

oonhhoohforohofohhfofifofohfoofofofo^fonnro oinnvD^inc^cocovDOnHvocDcocOfOHnmfnncovDfomcDci ^mnnnnf^mmnMNN^nNfonvj'foro^ncMOjcncNJNHm

r^r-rooor^ooor^of^omoor^oor^r-ooooroooooocor^r-iHvDf0P0vDOr0«HinrHir>rninL0«H»nm»Hv0i0f0mr0inincDmf0iH\D

oor^r-t%*or^oor^ooooocofor-ooor^oooooh"*r-comir>orom ooHHHOHCO^mncDrocD^on^ininoro^^cocovDLncori

CM iH 00 rorooororoooor rooror-rocooor-oor ocor cor roror-oco C0ninmcDa3nir)H00innHnfnm^inOHOr0^C0HCDfnHL0C0

ooorooror-ocorocoroor^r^r-r-oroooot^oroooor^r^om ODOnoroHinmcDrocoovDvoi0\Dinnfoin-HLnnoinoyDHinco

roor-r-r^oocoorocoor^roor^rocoooor^oor^r^coof^ooo nin\ovo\Dna)onnOHfoOk0fOfommovoini/)\£)HCDinHOfo

r^ror-or^i>oomrooror-r-roooror^ooror^r-morooor-roo HfOHOHHOO^coocoHHOOOOCOrinfo\DHCOinfoifiinHnm • • • • • • • • • • • # • • • • • • • • • » # « • • • • • • ^n^^^^nnMnnfnnnronfOrt^rofo^roMncN CM CM ro

fnonoocor-oroonmr-r^ror-mr-orooooooot^ooor^ oomninminoiAooocon^^nrHfnHOCooinooininHiniAOH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f t * co ro rH cn CM ro

rororoor ror r or r or r r rofor-r-r mroroomrnrocoom (DfOCOOHnHHO^HOHHHCOCDHvD^nnCO LO. 00 00 O CO If) 00 '• 1 • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • » • • • i ••»« i # « csjrocMrorororororocNCNjrHrororgrHcN oorocNror cNOOCNOOr-iCNOJcn oooor-ocoi^r-oor-r-r-for-r^or^ror-oor^r-r-or-ocor^ tnoinmvDinoov£)r-frov£>vDvDrovDvOinvooovpOinrHv£>rHtn»HinfOrH ^^^^^^ro^^ro^-sfr-i^rfoo^^^oo^oo^ H n rn H H

r r ooooooroooor oor r for r r oooooor>ooOromi for*-v0HomoooooomovDfOHvDoovOr-4\£)inmininc3OHoomc3OOOrHCX)vi) oo-s oororooororO'trorocNiCNrocNCNooro oooooorooorocNfHCNfHCN

or oooooooroooi ooorooror cor f oor-i r nr foofnr r inHnmnnrocoHOininnocoHnHHCDHHHfnHnoCDHH • • • * * • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • » * « # # Kj- sf CN fOOO ^ <n ^ rsJ OOCN(NfNJ"*t

rHfNoo inv£>f ooo>Oi-HCMro tinvor cocr>OrHfNoo in\£>r cDcrkO HHHf-JHHHHHHN(NMNNM(NMWCJCO * *

0) tP fO 04 4-> K 0) a c o T3 <D g -H 4-> a o u

152

"D o

8 •H 4J C 0 U

1 H H H

X

W PQ g

•

© CO O O ro O ro O O O « rH «n in in 00 in VD CO O in m -M CD • • • * « • « • • • m a

co cn cn ro CNJ <N * ro H *

0 ro r* CO r* C r- f*) ro O r-rH *W co i—i ro \Q O rH 00 ro in »H rH a • • • • • * • • • «

| H ro no CM

w •

-P r- r- ro O o r- o •H rH VD 00 vO KD m in VD o iH

C) • • • # • • • • • •

4J W CO ** rd > t •H W O ro o r- O o F* r- T^ r-to 0) o CO in KD in in rH vD VD VD CU to • » * • • • « « •

A ro

• a> CO ro R>• o o O O r- O •P rH vD 00 00 VD o m o in rH in CO <D « • • • « • • • • *

a CO ro ro CNJ rH CN ro H

« • 0 O o O O O ro r- o 0) in o in in o 00 rH in vD VD

,—s tr c • • • * • • • • •

a 2

to n$

H ro ro ro

0 •

u -P CO o r- h- O r-« O o o •H 00 o VO rH v£> VD O rH in o

a> TJ • • • • • • • • «

X •p fd W ro ro ro ro

<D > •

N •H CO ro r-- o o O O o ro ro *H to 0) co rH in in KO in m in ro CO w cu to • « • « « « • • «

X P-I ro ro

• <D o o O r- ro r- ro o o •P « rH o o O rH VD ro VD ro in in w +J a>: * • # • • • • • • •

C w EH ' * * ro rH rH rH ro H C

H •

O ro o R- r-r-O O O ro rH <w 00 in V0 iH VD VD m in O oo rH c • • • • • * • • •

W H Kj* ro rH rH rH H g to W •

w 4J o o ro ro ro ro o r-ffi •> •H o o ro ro VD ro 00 o VD iH fcH U *0 • • • • • • • •

CO H s •H rH W ro rH rH rH ro

to fc •9 •

M fc CO o ro ro O ro ro CO ro O r-K 04 0) ID CO ro O ro ro CO ro O vD t-f to • • • • • • « • « •

s Cm ro ro ro CM CM rH

£ a! o O ro ro R- CO o r-o rH o O ro 00 VD 00 in rH o rH

• 0) * • • • • • •

W •p ro ro CM w CO EH * a •

H O o ro t ^ ro • • • r o O <w in ro v£> 00 § • • rH VD o £-» Q) C « • • • •

a tr H rH ro m W m •

N •P o ro O o r-r r-» ro O o H •H in 00 O in 00 VD vD 00 in o

% «u • • • • • • H Cj A w CM rH rH rH ro ro

o iH •

CO A CO r-r-O ro O t- o CO <D rH rH \o o 00 in rH VD rH in 9 cu u • • • • • • • a O a* ro CM ro

O 03 £

Q) •H CM ro in VD r- 00 o\ o 13 -P ro ro ro ro ro ro ro CO ro

1 H * * *

nJ O •H 4J CO •H 4J «J 4J CO

6 o u

no <D 4J fd d H 6 H

rH CL)

CO 6 <U -P *H

APPENDIX G

153

TABLE XIV

OPINIONNAIRE SUMMARY DATA FROM COLLEGE PRESIDENTS

154

Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5

Item No. % No. % No. % NO. % No. %

1 2 3 2 3 28 48 25 43 2 • • • . 3 5 4 7 17 29 34 59 3 • • • • 1 2 4 7 20 34 30 52 4 • • • • • • • • 2 3 26 45 30 52 5 1 2 • • . * 4 7 20 34 32 55 6 1 2 • • • • 3 5 28 48 26 45 7 1 2 8 14 12 21 19 33 17 29 8 1 2 4 7 14 24 28 48 11 19 9 2 3 4 7 6 10 23 40 23 40

10 1 2 3 5 14 24 21 36 18 31 11 1 2 2 3 5 9 24 41 26 45 12 • • • • • • • • 4 7 21 36 24 41 13 10 17 23 40 15 26 7 12 2 3 14 1 2 6 10 7 12 29 50 14 24 15 2 3 5 9 15 26 23 40 12 21 16 1 2 15 26 14 24 17 29 9 16 17 • • • • 1 2 3 5 32 55 22 38 18 • • • • • • • • 11 19 27 47 19 33 19 1 2 3 5 3 5 22 38 29 50 20 6 10 11 19 14 24 14 24 12 21 21 1 2 3 5 36 62 18 31 22 • • • • 1 2 5 9 33 57 18 31 23 • • • • 2 3 3 5 32 55 20 34 24 10 17 31 53 12 21 3 5 2 3 25 • • • • 3 5 7 12 27 47 17 29 26 7 12 18 31 12 21 17 29 4 7 27 . . • • mm 1 2 11 19 9 16 28 11 19 30 52 9 16 7 12 « • • #

29 15 26 31 53 11 19 1 2 • • • .

30 • • • • 8 14 12 21 30 52 8 14 31 • • • • 2 3 6 10 32 55 18 31 32 3 5 • . . • 7 12 27 47 19 33 33 1 2 4 7 13 22 24 41 15 26 34 6 10 10 17 1 2 13 22 27 47 35 1 2 , • ,. • * • • 14 24 26 45 36 1 2 3 5 6 10 15 26 13 22 37 1 2 7 12 10 17 7 12 13 22 38 • • • • * • • • • • • . 22 38 32 55 39 4 7 2 3 7 12 22 38 22 38 40 . . « . 2 3 16 28 39 67

155

TABLE XV

OPINIONNAIRE SUMMARY DATA FROM DAILY NEWSPAPER EDITORS

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5

Item NO. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 3 4 7 10 14 20 34 48 12 17

2 2 3 8 11 10 14 31 44 19 27

3 4 6 18 25 6 8 27 38 15 21

4 3 4 17 24 4 6 32 45 15 21

5 4 6 7 10 16 23 26 37 17 24

6 2 3 7 10 15 21 30 42 16 23

7 5 7 12 17 12 17 29 41 13 18

8 9 13 17 24 13 18 20 28 12 17

9 5 7 11 15 17 24 25 35 13 18

10 5 7 14 20 13 18 25 35 13 18

11 2 3 11 15 8 11 38 54 12 17

12 • * • • 4 6 8 11 30 42 9 13

13 7 10 19 27 23 32 15 21 7 10

14 2 3 9 13 16 23 35 49 9 13

15 3 4 16 23 26 37 16 23 8 11

16 10 14 28 39 17 24 11 15 4 6

17 4 6 3 4 11 15 38 54 15 21

18 5 7 3 4 11 15 34 48 17 24 19 • • .. 6 8 3 4 41 58 20 28

20 7 10 12 17 23 32 25 35 4 6 21 • . * . 12 17 20 28 29 41 10 14

22 • • • 4 6 11 15 25 35 31 44 23 3 4 15 21 13 18 29 41 10 14 24 3 4 28 39 19 27 14 20 5 7 25 2 3 11 15 19 27 35 49 4 6 26 7 10 24 34 27 38 11 15 2 3 27 • • • • 1 1 6 8 11 15 1 1 28 12 17 42 59 11 15 5 7 1 1 29 17 24 44 62 9 13 1 1 • • • • 30 9 13 17 24 13 18 26 37 6 8 31 2 3 2 3 6 8 29 41 32 45 32 3 4 4 6 19 27 31 44 14 20 33 1 1 3 4 8 11 31 44 28 39 34 5 7 9 13 12 17 27 38 18 25 35 1 1 1 1 3 4 22 31 21 30 36 1 1 •. • • 4 6 22 31 17 24 37 3 4 7 10 8 11 17 24 12 17 38 • • • • • • . • 11 15 42 59 17 24 39 1 1 6 8 24 34 28 39 10 14 40 1 1 • • 8 11 33 46 28 39

156

TABLE XVI

OPINIONNAIRE SUMMARY DATA FROM COLLEGE INFORMATION DIRECTORS

Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 Item No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 1 2 29 51 21 47 2 1 2 2 4 28 49 26 46 3 . . . . 1 2 24 42 30 53 4 • • • * 1 2 25 44 29 51 5 • * • • 1 2 26 46 30 53 6 • . • • 1 2 6 11 28 49 22 39 7 7 12 12 21 4 7 22 39 12 21 8 • • • • 2 4 5 9 24 42 24 42 9 • • • • 1 2 7 12 24 42 25 44

10 . . 1 2 3 5 30 53 21 37 11 1 2 2 4 3 5 23 40 27 47 12 • # • • • • • • 5 9 21 37 26 46 13 21 37 19 33 6 11 8 14 2 4 14 1 2 1 2 5 9 27 47 23 40 15 • • • • 5 9 10 18 20 35 22 39 16 3 5 13 23 7 12 17 30 15 26 17 .. .. 2 4 23 40 31 54 18 1 2 • , . . 5 9 21 37 30 53 19 • • 1 2 1 2 22 39 33 58 20 15 26 20 35 2 4 12 21 8 14 21 1 2 1 2 3 5 30 53 22 39 22 * « • • 5 9 6 11 22 39 24 42 23 1 2 3 5 27 47 26 46 24 16 28 35 61 4 7 1 2 25 . . 7 12 4 7 27 47 19 33 26 8 14 17 30 9 16 15 26 8 14 27 • • • * • • • • • • • • 10 18 12 21 28 25 44 21 37 6 11 4 7 1 2 29 32 56 20 35 3 5 1 2 1 2 30 3 5 7 12 11 19 21 37 15 26 31 2 4 • . • • 4 7 21 37 30 53 32 • • • * 1 2 5 9 28 49 23 40 33 • • • • 4 7 3 5 21 37 28 49 34 5 9 8 14 5 9 13 23 26 46 35 2 4 2 4 • • • • 10 18 25 44 36 . . 1 2 2 4 16 28 15 26 37 5 9 4 7 7 12 9 16 13 23 38 • • • • • • . . 4 7 23 40 30 53 39 4 7 9 16 12 21 16 28 16 28 40

• • • • 3 5 13 23 41 72

157

TABLE XVII

OPINIONNAIRE SUMMARY DATA FROM TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS

Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 Item No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 1 2 9 19 9 19 21 45 6 13 2 5 11 6 13 7 15 21 45 8 17 3 1 2 17 36 4 9 20 43 4 9 4 • • • • 17 36 5 11 20 43 4 9 5 1 2 10 21 14 30 18 38 4 9 6 1 2 10 21 8 17 22 47 6 13 7 • • •. 11 23 9 19 25 53 2 4 8 4 9 13 28 7 15 19 40 2 4 9 1 2 13 28 17 36 12 26 4 9

10 1 2 11 23 10 21 22 47 3 6 11 9 19 16 34 4 9 14 30 4 9 12 •. • . 4 9 3 6 13 28 2 4 13 1 2 16 34 14 30 10 21 6 13 14 1 2 8 17 11 23 23 49 3 6 15 7 15 16 34 4 9 18 38 •. • • 16 7 15 25 53 3 6 8 17 3 6 17 • • • * 3 6 9 19 24 51 11 23 18 1 2 1 2 11 23 28 60 6 13 19 • • .. 3 6 3 6 32 68 9 19 20 3 6 6 13 18 38 16 34 2 4 21 • • . . 9 19 16 34 20 43 2 4 22 • • .. • • . • 2 4 28 60 16 34 23 • • . , 12 26 6 13 24 51 3 6 24 26 55 8 17 10 21 3 6 25 3 6 10 21 16 34 15 32 2 4 26 2 4 13 28 17 36 13 28 2 4 27 • • . . 2 4 • • •. 12 26 5 11 28 5 11 24 51 13 28 4 9 1 2 29 8 17 28 60 9 19 1 2 1 2 30 6 13 12 26 8 17 19 40 2 4 31 .. . . 2 4 3 6 17 36 25 53 32 2 4 10 21 12 26 20 43 3 6 33 7 15 5 11 21 45 14 30 34 • • . . 8 17 7 15 23 49 7 15 35 • • • • 6 13 3 6 15 32 8 17 36 1 2 • • .. 1 2 13 28 8 17 37 4 9 12 26 3 6 11 23 3 6 38 • * # • 2 4 2 4 33 70 10 21 39 .. . . 6 13 7 15 21 45 12 26 40 • • . . .. .. 28 60 18 38

TABLE XVIII

COMPARATIVE OPINIONNAIRE RESPONSES BETWEEN EDITORS OF LARGE AND SMALL DAILY NEWSPAPERS

158

Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

Item L~% S-% L-% S-% L-% S-% L-% S-% L-% S-%

1 3 5 12 8 18 21 52 45 15 18 2 3 3 9 13 12 16 48 39 24 29 3 11 36 16 6 11 42 34 15 26 4 8 33 16 3 8 45 45 18 24 5 11 3 16 30 16 33 39 30 18 6 5 3 16 21 21 45 39 27 18 7 13 15 18 18 16 45 37 21 16 8 12 13 18 29 24 13 30 26 15 18 9 13 12 18 27 21 39 32 21 16 10 13 12 26 21 16 42 29 21 16 11 5 21 11 18 5 52 55 9 24 12 6 5 18 5 36 47 3 21 13 6 13 39 16 24 39 21 21 9 11 14 3 3 9 16 27 18 48 50 12 13 15 3 5 15 29 39 34 27 18 12 11 16 15 13 42 37 24 24 9 21 6 5 17 6 5 6 3 15 16 52 55 21 21 18 9 5 • • 8 12 18 48 47 27 21 19 3 13 « • 8 70 47 24 32 20 • • 18 18 16 42 24- 30 39 9 3 21 • • • . 24 11 33 24 39 42 3 24 22 12 • . 9 21 24 45 55 34 23 3 5 24 18 30 8 21 58 18 11 24 3 5 30 47 30 24 24 16 9 5 25 3 3 12 18 27 26 48 50 9 3 26 9 11 33 34 42 34 15 16 .. 5 27 • • 3 6 11 15 16 .. 3 28 12 21 55 63 21 11 12 3 .. 3 29 24 24 67 58 6 18 3 • • • *

30 12 13 33 16 15 21 30 42 9 8 31 3 3 6 • * 9 8 36 45 45 45 32 6 3 3 8 30 24 42 45 18 21 33 3 8 9 13 55 34 33 45 34 15 * • 12 13 18 16 33 42 21 29 35 3 3 6 3 33 29 21 37 36 3 9 3 27 34 18 29 37 3 5 9 11 21 3 18 29 12 21 38 • m • • • * 15 16 70 50 12 34 39 • • 3 3 13 " 52 18 36 42 3 24 40 3 12 11 48 45 36 42

NO Answer L-% S-%

.. 3 3 ,. 3

3

36

36 29 42 34 36 32 3 6 . . 3

159

TABLE XIX

COMPARATIVE OPINIONNAIRE RESPONSES BETWEEN NEWS DIRECTORS OF LARGE AND SMALL TELEVISION STATIONS

Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Strongly Disagree L-% S-%

5 . . 5 15 5

4 4

15 4 4

19 • •

4 4

5 22 5 22

7 7

19 19 22

15

Disagree L-% S-X

20 19 10 15 35 37 35 37 35 11 25 19 25 22 35 22 15 37 20 26 30 37 15 4

, 25 41 15 19 45 26 70 41 15

5 . . 5

20 7 7

25 15

20 30 50 59 20 22 25 30 • . 7 50 52 60 59 45 11 10 . . 30 15 20 11 10 22 25 4

30 22 . . 7

5 19

Undecided L-% S-%

25 15 20 11 10 7 10 11 30 30 20 15 15 22 15 15 60 19 40 15 10

7 4 4

45 19 35 15 15

5 4 7

15 22 25 22

5 7 30 4 4 40 30 10 15 11 20 15 40 30 50 26

35 22 20 19 15 19 10 4 25 26 10 11 30

5

5 5

4 7 4 7 4

10 19

Agree L-% S-%

35 52 60 33 50 37 55 33 30 44 50 44 60 48 45 37 20 30 35 56 35 26 30 26 25 19 45 52 35 41 20 15 50 52 55 63 70 67 35 33 35 48 45 70 45 56 25 19 30 33 25 30 30 22 15 4

5

35 44 35 37 4 5 41 65 30 55 44 25 37 20 33 25 22 80 63 70 26 70 52

Strongly Agree

L-% S-%

15 11 5 26

. . 15

. . 15 11 19

7 7

11 7

15 7

19 11

.. 11 20 26 15 11 20 19 . . 7 . . 7 45 26 15 . .

5 7 . . 7 . . 7 . . 19 . . 4 . . 4

5 4 45 59 . . 11 5 4 8

. . 26

. . 30 5 26

. . 11 15 26 10 37 25 4 8

No Answer L-% S-%

4 4

45 59

5 . . . 7 . . 4

10

. . 4 5 4

5 .

70 52

5 4 45 22 70 37 40 22

5 5 . .

APPENDIX H

160

161

TABLE XX

COMPOSITE RECORD OF INSTRUMENTS MAILED AND RECEIVED

Opinionnaires Recipients Mailed Received Not Usable

Colleqe Presidents Small Public 27 15 2 Large Public 41 25 1 Small Private 30 19 3 Large Private 8 6 1

College Information Office Representatives

Small Public 27 15 4 Large Public 41 28 1 Small Private 30 15 2 Large Private 8 6 • •

Television Stations Large 48 28 7 Small 58 36 10

Newspapers Large 45 32 • .

Small 76 42 3

Questionnaires Recipients Mailed Received Not Usable

College Information Office Representatives

Small Public 27 15 4 Large Public 41 28 1 Small Private 30 15 2 Large Private 8 6 • •

BIBLIOGRAPHY

162

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley, "Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research on Teaching," Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by H. L. Gage, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1963.

Fine, Benjamin, College Publicity in the United States, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941.

Glass, Gene V. and Julian C. Stanley, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1965.

Schoenfeld, Clarence A., The University and Its Publics, New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954.

Turney, Billy and George Robb, Research in Education; An Introduction, Hinsdale, 111., The Dryden Press, Inc., 1971.

Wert, James E., Charles 0. Neidt, and J. Stanley Ahmann, Statistical Methods in Educational and Psychological Research, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954.

Articles

Ames, Seth, "Neutralizing College Foes," College and University Journal, VII (Winter, 1968), 13.

Armstrong, Donald L., "PR Maxims," College Management, 6 (July, 1971), 42-43.

163

164

Arrowsmith, William, "Toward Universities of the Public Interest," Current, 118 (May, 1970), 46-51.

Bittner, John R., "The News Media," Vital Speeches, XXXVI (December 15, 1969), 139-141.

Bonham, George W., "The Ivory Tower Crumbles," Saturday Review, XLIX (May 21, 1966), 66-67, 73.

Breen, John, "News Reporting: Is It Fair?," College Management, 4 (December, 1969), 9-12.

Budd, John F., Jr., "A Board Member Looks at PR," College and University Journal, X (Spring, 1971), 13-15.

Cutlip, Scott M., "'Advertising' Higher Education: The Early Years of College Public Relations," College and University Journal, IX (Fall, 1970), 21-28.

, "'Advertising' Higher Education: The

Early Years of College Public Relations," College and University Journal, X (January, 1971), 25-33.

DuBois, Eugene E. and Richard J. Frankie, "Community Col-leges Must Invest in Public Relations Professionals," College and University Journal, X (March, 1971), 28.

Flynn, Charles E., "If I Were Starting Over Again," College and University Journal, IX (Spring, 1970), 13-15.

Fromson, Murray, "Mass Media's Role in Reporting," College and University Journal, IX (Spring, 1970), 5-8.

Gleckler, Arthur Dan, "Campus PR in Crisis," College and University Journal, VIII (Summer, 1969), 13-15.

Gould, Samuel B., "Bridging the Interpretation Gap," College and University Journal, X (May, 1971), 14-16.

Harte, Houston H., "A Publisher Looks at the Campus," College and University Journal, X (May, 1971), 14-16.

"Information Please," College Management. 5 (May, 1970), 10-14.

165

Ivey, A. G., "Information Office Revisited," College and University Journal, VIII (Fall, 1969), 27-31.

"The Job Gap for College Graduates in the 70's," Business Week (September 23, 1972), 48-51, 54-55.

Kirk, Grayson, "A Crisis in Financing," U. S. News and World Report, LXIII (July 17, 1967), 88.

"Latest 'Growth Industry'—Colleges in U. S.," U. S. News and World Report, LXIII (July 17, 1967), 86-88.

Lauter, Victor, "The Gown Goes to Town," Junior College Journal, XL (November, 1969), 35-37, 40.

Lono, J. Mark, "Institutional Development," College and University Business, 50 (March, 1971), 21, 23-24.

Marland, Sidney P., Jr., "Criticism, Communication, and Change," College and University Journal, X (Spring, 1971), 17-19.

McGill, William J., "The Courage to Lead," College and University Journal, IX (Fall, 1970), 37-40.

Noyes, Newbold, "Manipulation of the Press," College and University Journal, X (May, 1971), 25-26.

Perry, Benjamin L., Jr., "An Educator Considers the Non-Campus," College and University Journal, X (March, 1971), 23-24.

Pray, Francis C., "A PR Trilogy," Junior College Journal, XXXIV (November, 1963), 16-20.

Rodnitzky, Jerome L., "Public Relations, The Public, and

The University: Some Historical Perspective," Journal of Higher Education, XXXIX (June, 1968), 336-339.

Shea, James M., "Metamorphosis in College PR," College and University Journal. X (March, 1971), 4-8.

Smith, Richard W., "The Gaps in Educational Journalism," Educational Record, 45 (Summer, 1964), 333-336.

166

Sorenson, Theodore, "Dangers Facing the University," College and University Journal, VIII (Summer, 1969), 28.

Topping, Robert W., "How to Become an Anachronism Without Really Trying," College and University Journal, XI (January, 1972), 12-15.

Walsh, Doris, "No Question Goes Unanswered," College Management, 5 (October, 1970), 18-19.

Reports

JV Courtney, E. Wayne, Use of the F-Statistic, Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State University, 1971.

Directory of Texas Daily Newspapers, Houston, Texas, Texas Daily Newspaper Association, 1972.

Fact Book on Higher Education, Washington, D. C., American Council on Education, 1971.

Institutions of Higher Education in Texas, Austin, Texas, Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, 1971.

^ Simon, Kenneth A., Projections of Educational Statistics /*$ to 1979-80, Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971.

Television Factbook, Washington, D. C., Television Digest, Inc., 1971.

Newspapers

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, December 2, 1971.

Interviews

Personal Interview with Jack Butler, Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

167

Personal Interview with Glenn Dromgoole, Assistant City Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

Personal Interview with Roy Eaton, Director of Television News, WBAP-TV, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1S72.

Personal Interview with Sibyl Hamilton, Director of Public Relations, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas, Texas, February, 1972.

Personal Interview with R. Jan LeCroy, Vice Chancellor, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas, Texas, February, 1972.

Personal Interview with Charles Pitts, President, Dallas Baptist College, Dallas, Texas, February, 1972.

Personal Interview with Joe B. Rushing, Chancellor, Tarrant County Junior College District, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1972.

Personal Interview with Ken Whitt, Director of News and Information Services, University of Texas at Arlington, February, 1972.