View of ROLE CONCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATOR: A SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION PRACTITIONERS IN HIGHER PRACTITIONERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

(1)

Journal of Economic Empowerment Strategy (JEES) Vol. 06, Number 02, August 2023

79

ROLE CONCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATOR: A SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION PRACTITIONERS IN HIGHER PRACTITIONERS IN HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Ardi Muhammad Zamzam¹, Made Panji Teguh Santoso²

1,2Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a significant role in public scientific communication. Only a few studies, however, have looked at HEI communication practitioners, who play a critical role in influencing institutions' public relations and outreach communication. We polled 189 communicators from all 42 Swiss HEIs, assuming that HEI communicators varied in their job conceptions as well as professional and educational backgrounds. We identified four categories of communicators using segmentation analysis: (1) the leading all-rounder, (2) the generalist, (3) the science mediator, and (4) the service partner, who differ not only in their job conceptions, but also in their professional traits and organizational settings.

Keywords: Public Relations at a University; Communicators of Science; Role Definition

INTRODUCTION

The environment of higher education has shifted dramatically in recent decades, and the relevance of organizational communication has grown significantly as a result.

(Fahnrich, 2018; Marcinkowski et al., 2014; Schafer & Fahnrich, 2020).

Universities, as centers of knowledge generation, provide substantial contributions not just to the transfer of scientific information to society, but also to broad public communication about science (Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014; Entradas & Bauer, 2022;

Fahnrich, 2018; Heath & Waymer, 2021). Against this context, public communication at higher education institutions (HEIs) has drawn increased scholarly interest in the subject of scientific communication. Existing research suggests that communication and public relations (PR) departments at HEIs have become more professional in terms of education, processes, and standards. They have also grown greatly in recent decades, as demonstrated by the increase in

resources, utilised channels, or addressed stakeholders (Bühler et al., 2007; Elken et al., 2018; Engwall, 2008; Fürst, Volk, et al., 2022).

However, little is known about the main participants in this process:

communication practitioners working in HEI communication departments. In this article, we examine their role conceptions, as such ideas have been shown to result in distinct role behavior or performances (cf. Hanitzsch, 2018;

Koch & Schulz-Knappe, 2021).

According to the limited earlier research in this topic, HEI communication practitioners have a variety of roles and have diverse professional and educational backgrounds ranging from public relations or marketing to journalism, science, and HEI administration. (e.g., Elken et al., 2018; Schwetje et al., 2017; VanDyke & Lee, 2020). Peters (2012, p. 223) according to the report, communicators inside research institutions are still stakeholders (Bühler et al., 2007; Elken et al., 2018;

(2)

80 Engwall, 2008; Fürst, Volk, et al.,

2022). However, little is known about the main participants in this process:

communication practitioners working in HEI communication departments. In this article, we examine their role conceptions, as such ideas have been shown to result in distinct role behavior or performances (cf. Hanitzsch, 2018;

Koch & Schulz-Knappe, 2021).

According to the limited earlier research in this topic, HEI communication practitioners have a variety of roles and have diverse professional and educational backgrounds ranging from public relations or marketing to journalism, science, and HEI administration. (e.g., Elken et al., 2018; Schwetje et al., 2017; VanDyke & Lee, 2020). Peters (2012, p. 223) according to the report, communicators inside research institutions are still Theoretical background University PR, university communication, institutional science communication, higher education communication, or more broadly science PR research has been conducted in a variety of disciplines, including PR research, higher education research, science and technology studies, science communication, and organizational sociology (Fahnrich, 2018; Koivumaki et al., 2021; VanDyke & Lee, 2020).

Until a decade ago, scientific organizations' public communication and public relations got little scholarly attention; however, communication in, from, and about HEIs has become the subject of an increasing number of research (Fahnrich, 2018; Schafer &

Fahnrich, 2020), primarily on external public communication and less on internal HEI communication (e.g., Bühler et al., 2007; Elken et al., 2018;

Schwetje et al., 2020). We focus on

communication practitioners' role conceptions in communication departments in this study since they are responsible for communication inside and across HEIs. The current status of research on role concepts in public relations and science communication Professional role research has a long history in the public relations business, dating back to Broom and Smith’s (1979) pioneering four-role typology and Dozier and Broom (1995) later elaboration of a two-dimensional idea of technical and management roles.

Since then, several differentiated conceptualizations of professional roles have been suggested (for an overview, see, e.g., Fieseler et al., 2015), concentrating on specific topics such as gender or leadership positions.

Roles are often defined as the values, norms, behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes associated with a position in social or organizational situations (Falkheimer et al., 2017). These are linked to unconscious or explicit expectations that external reference groups attribute to a certain function, impacting daily interactions. This position's occupants might internalize such external expectations as part of their role self- concept, impacting their role conduct. Professional roles can be characterized by communicators' actual jobs, activities, or job profiles, as well as by others' expectations of these positions (Falkheimer et al., 2017).

Over time, the scope of empirical study has expanded to cover numerous professional domains and organizations within public relations, for example, researching practitioners' activities in areas such as corporate social responsibility (e.g., Kim &

Reber, 2008) or public policy (e.g., Koch & Schulz- Knappe, 2021; von den Driesch & van der Wurff, 2016).

(3)

81 However, research in public relations

has paid little attention to a professional group that is expanding in importance:

communicators within scientific institutions. (Schafer ¨ & Fahnrich, 2020; VanDyke ¨ & Lee, 2020).

The study of role conceptions has emerged more recently in science communication research, often focusing on scientists' roles in public communication, such as as experts, teachers, research managers, or general stakeholders (Peters, 2021; see also Davies & Horst, 2016; Herrmann- Giovanelli, 2013; Kessler et al., 2022).

Another research focus is on the diverse roles of science journalists, who serve as curators, conveners, public intellectuals, and civic educators in addition to traditional journalistic roles such as reporters or watchdogs (Fahy

& Nisbet, 2011), or as populist mobilizers and adversarial journalists (Stocking & Holstein, 2009). Despite a few exceptions (e.g., Peters, 1984), researchers have only lately begun to investigate the role conceptions of professional scientific communicators.

Existing research on professional roles can be systematized by adopting a taxonomy (cf. Hanitzsch, 2018) that distinguishes normative from cognitive role orientations (i.e., the construction of values or beliefs associated with a role) and practiced vs. narrated role performance (i.e., the behavioral dimension or practice of roles).

Accordingly, we differentiate between:

• what communicators think they ought to do (normative role orientation), typically assessed through interviews or surveys

• what communicators aspire to do (cognitive role orientation), typically assessed through interviews or surveys

• what communicators actually do (practiced role performance), typically assessed through observations or content analyses

• what communicators say they do (narrated role performance), typically assessed through narrative or biographical interviews

When viewed through this lens, research on HEI communicators mostly has focused on cognitive role orientations or narrated role performance, i.e., the roles, tasks, and activities that communicators aspire to do or say that they do during a workday. Some studies also have examined others’ (e.g., HEI leaders) expectations of these positions (Rodder, 2012). However, few extant empirical studies have examined communicators’ roles in HEIs.

Specifics of HEIs and their communication

HEIs are a specific type of organization that fulfills a mixture of social, cultural, and economic functions in society (Maassen & Stensaker, 2019; Shields &

Watermeyer, 2020). HEIs’ specific functions often are referred to as three missions: research; education; and the third mission, a combination of activities, e.g., knowledge or technology transfer to society, contributing to societal development or innovation, and engaging in public outreach (Gulbrandsen & Sliperseater, 2007; Kim et al., 2019; Shields &

Watermeyer, 2020; Weingart, 2022).

Universities also differ from organizations such as businesses in their internal organization (Krücken &

Meier, 2006), historically exhibiting lesser degrees of hierarchy, centralization, and formalization, which has led to conceptualizations as loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976) and organized anarchies (Cohen et al., 1972). Even though recent New Public Management reforms relativized these

(4)

82 organizational peculiarities within

universities, they still persist (Krücken

& Meier, 2006; Maassen & Stensaker, 2019; Musselin, 2006) and carry consequences for communication in and from HEIs (e.g., Engwall, 2008;

Schwetje et al., 2020). Against the backdrop of increasing competition, university administrations today pursue a greater variety of goals and tasks, including attracting excellent researchers and students, fundraising, building a good reputation, or demonstrating societal impact of research (Friedrichsmeier & Fürst, 2012; Fürst, Volk, et al., 2022;

Krücken, 2021). Due to these specifics, research from the corporate context and PR is not directly and fully transferable to HEIs (e.g., Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016; Raupp, 2017; Weingart, 2022).

The peculiarities and transformation of universities as organizations also have had far-reaching consequences for HEI communication. Studies from different European countries indicate that HEI communication departments produce more output and target more audiences today than they did two decades ago (Bühler et al., 2007; Elken et al., 2018;

Engwall, 2008; Fürst, Volk et al., 2022; Schwetje et al., 2017). While the literature indicates increasing professionalization of departmental structures and a diversification and intensification of HEI communication outputs, little is known about the communicators who work in such departments and how they understand their roles (Schwetje et al., 2020).

Evidence about communicators working in university communication departments mostly is based on qualitative case studies (e.g., Hauser, 2020) or semi-structured interviews (e.g., Elken et al., 2018; Kallfass, 2009; Koivumaki & Wilkinson, 2020;

Lo et al., 2019; Rowe & Brass, 2011;

Watermeyer & Lewis, 2018). These

studies have been conducted in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany, the Nordic and Baltic countries, South Africa, and Taiwan. To the best of our knowledge, standardized surveys of HEI communicators have been conducted only in Germany (e.g., Bühler et al., 2007; Hohn, 2011; Marcinkowski et al., 2013; Meier & Feldmeier, 2005;

Schwetje et al., 2017). These studies indicate that HEI communication departments fulfill a wide variety of tasks and functions, e.g., science communication, as well as student marketing, PR, and/or internal communication. The most recent study by Schwetje, Hauser and Leßmollmann (2017) examined 280 communicators’

role conceptions and professional backgrounds, but did not develop a typology of roles through statistical analysis.

Based on a thorough review of the literature and empirical studies on HEI communication practitioners, various activities that are part of HEI communicators’ role portfolios are systemized below.

HEI communicators’ role conceptions

A key activity of HEI communicators is public outreach, by either disseminating scientific knowledge (Autzen, 2014; Kallfass, 2009;

Koivumaki & Wilkinson, 2020;

Samuel et al., 2017; Schwetje et al., 2017) or engaging the public in dialogue (Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014;

Weingart & Joubert, 2019; Wormer, 2017). Job titles for this role have included translator, mediator, popularizer, public outreach officer, and public information officer (Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014; Davies &

Horst, 2016; Fischer & Schmid-Petri, 2023; Peters, 1984; Schwetje et al.,

(5)

83 2017; Shipman, 2015; VanDyke &

Lee, 2020). Moreover, HEI communicators view themselves as media relations or press officers, e.g., answering inquiries from journalists and inducing coverage themselves by creating content or media releases (Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014; Kallfass, 2009; Kaplow, 2019; Lo, Huang, &

Peters, 2019; Peters, 2012; Rodder, ¨ 2020). Similarly, scholars have observed communicators working to prevent negative news headlines about their HEIs (Bauer & Gregory, 2007;

Engwall, 2008; Kallfass, 2009), a role known as gatekeeper (Schwetje et al., 2017) or broker (Rowe & Brass, 2011).

In fact, the task of handling relations with the media was the driving force behind HEIs establishing communication departments and thereby became manifested in communicator role conceptions (Fürst, Vogler, et al., 2022).

Driven by New Public Management reforms and accompanying competitive pressures on HEIs, another core task of communicators is to strengthen their organizations’

public reputation and visibility (Bühler et al., 2007; Engwall, 2008;

Friedrichsmeier & Fürst, 2012; Heath

& Waymer, 2021; Kohring et al., 2013; Lo et al., 2019; Rowe & Brass, 2011). Moreover, university communicators are also partly responsible for maintaining public trust and legitimizing funding of HEIs (Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014;

Schwetje et al., 2017). In addition to these tasks being oriented toward the public, communicators also help facilitate HEIs’ internal organization and coordination, e.g., through internal communication with students and staff (Bühler et al., 2007; Elken et

al., 2018; Kallfass, 2009). This role has been described as an administrator, coordinator, or service provider (Elken et al., 2018; Fischer &

Schmid-Petri, 2023; Hauser, 2020;

Leßmollmann, 2019; Schwetje et al., 2017; Watermeyer & Lewis, 2018).

Some authors also have ascribed communicators the task of taking a critical stance toward their organization and its scientific achievements (Roedema et al., 2022;

Wormer, 2017).

The available, albeit limited, evidence in the field indicates that HEI communicators often take on multiple roles simultaneously (Hauser, 2020)—even in large, specialized departments (Schwetje et al., 2020)—

and often switch between roles to meet different expectations. In qualitative interviews with HEI communicators in Germany and the U.K., the professional role was found to be unfocused and blurry, mirroring

“boundary spanning” activities (Schwetje et al., 2020, p. 189; see also Fischer & Schmid-Petri, 2023) and lacking “a clear and agreed definition”

(Watermeyer & Lewis, 2018, p.

1696). These fuzzy or ambiguous role conceptions also are reflected in a broad variety of job titles in the occupational field (Engwall, 2008).

The roles identified among HEI communicators indicate both similarities and differences with those found in the broader field of PR. This can be exemplified through Broom and Smith’s (1979) seminal typology that distinguishes technicians, expert prescribers, communication facilitators, and problem-solving process facilitators from each other, with the latter three later combined into a manager role, as they were

(6)

84 highly correlated (Dozier & Broom,

1995). Similarities to HEI communicators’ roles are apparent:

Communication facilitators have strong similarities with HEI communicators’ task of facilitating access to science and engaging the public; expert prescribers correspond to HEI communicators’ task of supporting university leadership; and technicians overlap with HEI communicators writing media releases and conducting internal communication.

More generally, parallels also exist between fundamental science communication models and PR models, which can be demonstrated using the four models of PR that Grunig and Hunt (1984) proposed. For example, HEI communicators’ role as knowledge disseminators is conceptually similar to the deficit model of science communication, which assumes a deficit of scientific knowledge among the broader public (Besley & Dudo, 2022; Kessler et al., 2022; VanDyke &

Lee, 2020). This model aligns closely with Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) public information model of PR, which focuses on the one-way dissemination of information from an organization to mass audiences (cf. Borchelt &

Nielsen, 2014). Moreover, HEI communicators’ role as public engagers of the audience mirrors the public engagement model of science communication (cf. Kessler et al., 2022;

VanDyke & Lee, 2020) and finds its translation to PR literature in Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) two-way model of PR, which focuses on the transmission of information, but incorporates dialogue or audience feedback (cf.

Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014; VanDyke &

Lee, 2020). Finally, HEI

communicators’ role as reputation builders overlaps with Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) publicity model, which aims to create public awareness and persuade audiences (cf. Borchelt &

Nielsen, 2014).

Despite these similarities, differences between HEI communication and PR scholarship exist as well. First, some scholars have argued that HEI communication largely is aimed at legitimizing funding of the organization and attracting additional funding, including both basic public funding and third-party funding (Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014;

Koivumaki ¨ & Wilkinson, 2020).

Second, as HEIs are also knowledge production sites based on values such as truthfulness and good scientific practice, scholars have argued that HEI communication should differ from other fields, e.g., by assuming a critical role internally as well as externally (Besley & Dudo, 2022;

Fischer & Schmid-Petri, 2023;

Roedema et al., 2022; Wormer, 2017).

Both roles do not translate directly in the four PR models, even though the latter parallels later conceptualizations of PR roles, including a reflective role, with practitioners taking an external perspective and putting changing values in society up for discussion with members of the organization (Verˇciˇc et al., 2001).

HEI communicators’ sociodemogra phic and professional backgrounds This juggling of different roles and potentially opaque understandings of professional roles also might be due to HEI communicators’ heterogeneous educational and professional backgrounds (Koivumaki &

(7)

85 Wilkinson, 2020; Lo et al., 2019;

Peters, 2012). A recent study found that more than half of employees in German HEIs’ communication departments lacked a pertinent communication background (Schwetje et al., 2017). Earlier studies found an even smaller proportion of employees with a university education or vocational training in German HEIs’

communication departments (Bühler et al., 2007; Hohn, 2011). Although evidence from other countries increasingly indicates better training of HEI communicators, they still differ in terms of education and career paths (e.g., Elken et al., 2018;

Engwall, 2008; Peters, 2012). While some studied humanities, others graduated with PR or marketing degrees, while some have natural science degrees. Others have been trained in PR or journalism and just happen to work in higher education, while others have worked as scientists or have previous professional experience in HEI administration and moved into a communication role (VanDyke & Lee, 2020). We assume that such differences in occupational socialization, as well as differences in working years or position, may correspond to different role conceptions.

Furthermore, organizational contexts also may influence role conceptions.

We expect that HEI communicators’

role conceptions might differ as a function of autonomy, strategic influence, or task division factors in the particular communication department (e.g., Elken et al., 2018;

Hadji, 2022; Kohring et al., 2013;

Schwetje et al., 2020; Watermeyer &

Lewis, 2018; see also Grunig &

Grunig, 2008). Moreover, we assume that role conceptions may differ across

HEI types. For example, communicators working at research universities might view their role more strongly as disseminating scientific knowledge to the public than communicators working at universities of applied sciences, where dialogue with regional stakeholders may be more important (Lepori, 2008).

Considering the current state of research and in response to recent calls for quantitative research on HEI communicators’ roles (e.g., Koivumaki

& Wilkinson, 2020; Schwetje et al., 2020), our study examined two questions:

RQ1: What types of HEI communicators can be reconstructed based on their role conceptions?

RQ2: How do these types of HEI communicators differ in terms of their sociodemographic, professional, and organizational backgrounds?

METHODS

We conducted a whole-population survey of communication practitioners working in the communication departments of all 42 Swiss HEIs and used segmentation analysis to reconstruct HEI communicator types.

Segmentation analysis often is employed in social marketing or audience research and is used increasingly in PR research (see, e.g., Fieseler et al., 2015; Koch & Schulz- Knappe, 2021; Vieira & Grantham, 2014). Generally, segmentation analysis aims to divide populations into segments that are internally relatively homogeneous (Hine et al., 2014;

Slater, 1996). Specifically, we took a psychographic approach to segmentation (Wind, 1978), i.e., we classified communicator types based

(8)

86 on cognitive perceptions of their

professional roles, rather than using behavioral data on their performed roles. In a second step, we then enriched the identified segments by taking sociodemographic and organizational variables into account.

The Swiss HEI landscape

Switzerland is one of the most innovative countries in the world, with a competitive higher education system dense with world-renowned HEIs (Fumasoli & Lepori, 2011). The HEI landscape in Switzerland comprises research universities (RU), universities of applied sciences (UAS), and universities of teacher education (UTE; also termed colleges of education) (SERI, 2020). While most RU have a long history and offer a broad spectrum of disciplines (Pasternack & Schulze, 2011), UAS and UTE were both founded in the 1990s and 2000s. UAS specialize in applied research and UTE in teacher education (Lepori, 2008). New Public Management reforms have resulted in growing competition for public visibility among HEIs (Fumasoli &

Lepori, 2011; Krücken, 2021). This development has increased the importance of HEIs’ communication departments (Fürst, Volk, et al., 2022). We assume that Switzerland can be viewed as a typical case for the general expansion and diversification of higher education systems.

Online survey

A list of all communicators from all 42 Swiss HEIs was compiled using publicly available information.

Altogether, 552 contacts were identified (297 from RU, 186 from UAS, and 69 from UTE) and invited by email to participate in a

standardized online survey, which we programmed using EFS survey software. As Swiss HEIs are located in three different linguistic regions, the survey was available in French, German, and Italian between September 1 and December 1, 2020.

We sent out two email reminders, and the Swiss Universities Public Relations and Information Officers Conference (SUPRIO) encouraged their members to participate.

Overall, 60 people on our list could not be reached or did not work in the HEIs’ communication offices. Of the 492 successfully contacted individuals, 203 participated in the survey, accounting for a satisfactory response rate of 41%. The current analysis includes all respondents who completed the questions on role conceptions (n = 189), with 14 cases excluded due to missing values.

Operationalization

HEI communicators’ individual role conceptions were measured using 11 items by asking respondents about their cognitive role orientations, i.e., what they aspire to do: “I consider it my task to….” Respondents replied on a seven-point scale, from 0 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much.” As HEIs are specific organizations, the development of items was informed by previous studies on HEI communication (particularly Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014; Bühler et al., 2007; Elken et al., 2018;

Kallfass, 2009; Rowe & Brass, 2011; Schwetje et al., 2017), with items specifically capturing HEI communicators’ roles, rather than borrowing items from PR research.

This is in line with studies examining role conceptions in other

(9)

87 subfields, e.g., public affairs (von

den Driesch & van der Wurff, 2016). In doing so, we aimed to ensure that the items fit HEI communicators’ work context and language (cf. L’Etang, 2004). To assess their quality and comprehensibility, we invited ten participants to complete the questionnaire and provide comments and suggestions.³ Following the pretest, we adapted some questions and items’ wording and added several new items to the questionnaire.

Factor analysis revealed one factor that we termed “engage in proactive and reactive media relations,”

comprising four items.⁴ Thus, we reduced our measurement to eight items. Descriptive statistics (see Table 1) revealed the strongest agreement with the task boosting visibility and reputation (M = 5.6, SD = 0.7), followed by the task supporting university leadership (M

= 4.9, SD = 1.3) and communicating scientific knowledge to society (M = 4.7, SD = 1.5).

Respondents identified with a critical role (M = 2.9, SD = 1.7) least frequently.

With the resulting eight items, we performed a cluster analysis using the Ward method and employed squared Euclidean distance as the measure. All variables were z- standardized. Based on the commonly used elbow method (Burscher et al., 2016,

p. 535), we identified a four-cluster solution that offered the clearest interpretation. To validate our cluster solution, we ran a discriminant analysis, which found that 89% of cases were classified

correctly.

Further measures

To arrive at a more nuanced understanding of these clusters, we measured a variety of individual- level variables and considered … Table 1

Descriptive statistics on individual role conceptions (n = 189 communicators).

I consider it

my task to… M SD % Boost my

instituti on’s public visibility and reputation

5.6 0.7 94.2 Support

university leadership in their work

4.9 1.3 74.1 Communicate scientific knowledge to

society

4.7 1.5 68.7 Improve

internal communicatio n

at my institution

4.4 1.6 59.8

Allow citizens to engage in dialogue with

my institution

4.4 1.4 51.9 Engage in

proactive and reactive media relations

3.7 1.5 42.3 Justify the

fundin

g of

my institution

3.5 1.8 36.0 Shed a

critical light on my institution

2.9 1.7 20.6 Notes. M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation; % = share of

(10)

88 respondents who strongly or very

strongly agree with the respective statement (answering 5 and 6 on a seven-point scale, from 0 = ^“not at all” to 6 = “very much”).

variables at the departmental and organizational levels.

Individual level. First, we captured participants’ age, gender, formal education level, and, if applicable, the subject of the participant’s higher education degree (e.g., communication, marketing, humanities, natural science, other).

We also asked respondents whether they had long-term professional experience in certain areas (PR, journalism, marketing, or HEI administration; multiple answers were possible), and whether they hold a leadership position (team leader or department leader). We also captured the number of working years in HEI communication, whether respondents have a part-time job, and, if applicable, what their secondary employment is.

Furthermore, using a seven-point scale, from 0 = “not at all important” to 6 = “very important,”

we also asked respondents to assess the importance of networking with diverse internal groups at their HEIs, as well as external stakeholders (i.e., communicators from other HEIs or communicators from other industries). The latter two items were combined to form an “external networking” index (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73).

Moreover, respondents replied on a seven- point scale from 0 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much” on how strongly they kept up with professional developments and

trends in the field of social media, crisis communication, ethical guidelines for organizational communication, instruments of corporate communication, and changes in the media landscape.

These five items were combined to form a “continuing education”

index (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75).

Finally, respondents reported how intensively they personally engage with different contact groups (i.e., scientists, university leadership, students, and journalists) on a six- point scale: 0 = “(almost) never”; 1

= “(at least) annually”; 2 = “(at least) monthly”; 3 = “(at least) weekly”; 4 = (almost) daily”; and 5

= “multiple times a day.”

Departmental level. Using a seven- point scale from

0 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much,”

we asked participants how they rate their communication departments’

influence on the university’s strategic decisions, how autonomous their department is in setting its own topics and deciding freely on its content, and how clear the division of tasks is between employees in the department. Moreover, respondents reported on their departments’

focus on certain target groups, namely employees, (prospective) students, alumni, the Swiss public, and/or news media. The latter represents a “news media” index comprising three items (i.e., local and regional media, national media, and international media;

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79).

Organizational level. We asked respondents whether they worked in the communication departments of research universities (RU),

(11)

89 universities of applied sciences

(UAS), or universities of teacher education (UTE).

Sample description

The surveyed communicators were balanced in terms of gender (see Table 2). More than half worked in communication departments at RU (n = 98), while 28% were employed at UAS (n = 54) and 11% at UTE (n = 20); 17 respondents did not indicate an HEI type. The variations in respondents per HEI type reflect actual differences in size between

HEIs’ communication

departments (see Section 3.2). On average, respondents were 45 years old (SD = 8.7 years) and had worked at their HEI since 2013 (SD = 5.4 years). More than seven out of ten respondents had a master’s degree, while 11% had a bachelor’s degree, 12% had completed an apprenticeship degree or had a high school diploma. 57% had no leadership position, and the remaining communicators either led a team (19%) or the entire department (24%).

Of the respondents with degrees (n

= 151), 39% graduated with humanities degrees, 28% with communication studies or journalism degrees, and 6% with social science degrees. The remaining respondents had marketing or business degrees (12%), a STEM degree (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) (10%), or a degree in another discipline (6%) (e.g., tourism).

Regarding professional work

experience, 55% had long-term PR experience, 46% in journalism, 39% in media design, 33% in marketing, and 28% in HEI administration. On average, respondents had an employment contract with a job percentage of 83%, which corresponds to roughly 33 working hours per week, and 21% had secondary employment and worked on the side, e.g., as a communicator (e.g., freelancer) in science (e.g., lecturer), journalist, or a position in HEI administration.

Organizational size varied widely, with the largest university serving more than 27,000 students, and the smallest serving 80 students.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

RQ1: What types of HEI communicators can be reconstructed based on their role conceptions?

Cluster analysis identified four distinct types of HEI communicators, which we labeled leading all- rounder, generalist, science mediator, and service partner.

Overall, the clusters service partner and science mediator have quite distinctive role conceptions. The clusters leading all-rounder and generalist perform almost all roles, but with different intensities.⁵ For all clusters, promoting their institutions’

public visibility and reputation is the role conception with the highest agreement compared with all other dimensions (see Table 3), which may indicate that HEI communicators’

professional identities are becoming more closely aligned with the PR profession than with journalism, as Peters (2012) observed.

• The leading all-rounders account for 40% of all cases. Respondents in

(12)

90 this cluster score above average on

every dimension we asked and, thus, adopt a wide range of responsibilities. In their role conceptions, respondents strongly emphasize enhancing their HEIs’

public visibility and reputation (M = 6.0). They also view it as their task to support university leadership (M = 5.6), followed by internal communication (M = 5.3) and knowledge transfer (M = 5.2).

Moreover, they also are engaged strongly in justifying funding (M = 4.5) and in media relations (M = 4.6).

The generalists represent 23% of all cases. Their role conception is almost equally characterized by

enhancing reputation (M = 5.2), as well as supporting leadership (M = 5.1), followed by internal communication (M = 4.9) and knowledge transfer (M = 4.8). They are near the average in almost every dimension except media relations (M

= 2.9), where they score comparably low.

• The science mediator cluster contains 23% of the cases. Aside from enhancing reputation (M = 5.6), their role conceptions focus on Table 2

Sample description (n = 189 communicators) knowledge transfer (M = 5.1) and engaging the public (M = 4.6).

Table 3

Individual role conceptions of the four clusters.

I consider it my task to… M M M M

Enhancin g

reputatio n

Boost my institution’s public visibility and reputation

6.0 5.2 5.6 4.9

Supporting leadership

Support university leadership in their

work

5.6 5.1 3.7 4.6

Internal

communication

Improve internal communication at my

5.3 4.9 2.6 4.0

Gender Age Education Leadership HEI

type

Female: 49% 24–

39

years: 30%

Apprenticeship/ high school: 12%

No lead position: 57%

RU: 52%

Male: 50% 40–

50

years: 43%

Bachelor: 11% Team lead: 19% UAS:

28%

Non- binary: 1%

51–

64

years: 27%

Master: 72%

Doctorate: 5% Department lead:

24%

UTE:

11%

Not reported:

9%

(13)

institution Knowledge

transfer

Communicate scientific knowledge to

society

5.2 4.8 5.1 2.7

Engaging the public

Allow citizens to engage in dialogue with

my institution

4.8 4.5 4.6 2.6

Media relations Engage in proactive and reactive media

relations

4.6 2.9 3.4 2.9

Justify funding Justify the funding of my institution 4.5 3.2 3.2 1.6 Critical stance Shed a critical light on my

institution

3.8 3.2 1.6 2.2

N 76 43 43 27

Notes. M = arithmetic mean (seven-point scale from 0 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much”).

(14)

• They score relatively high on media relations (M = 3.4) and the lowest on taking a critical standpoint toward their own HEI (M = 1.6).

• The service partners account for 14% of all cases. Respondents in this cluster view it primarily as their task to enhance reputation (M = 4.9), support leadership (M = 4.6), and improve internal communication (M = 4.0). They score comparably low on almost all other dimensions.

RQ2: How do these types of HEI communicators differ in their sociodemographic, professional, and organizational backgrounds?

To answer RQ2, we enrich this typology using data at the level of the individual communicator, department, and HEI (see Table 4).

• The participants in the cluster leading all-rounder are more likely female (55%) than male, typically hold a leadership position (67%), and in many cases are department leaders (40%). They have a background in communication science (32%), the humanities (32%), or marketing (14%) and have long-term practical experience in PR (63%) and/or journalism (45%). They value internal (M = 5.2) and external (M = 4.1) networking and are most active in continuing education (M = 4.3). Their top personal contacts are members of university leadership (M = 3.3) and scientists at their HEI (M = 3.1), with whom they have weekly or more frequent contact. Leading all- rounders typically work in departments that address a wide variety of different target groups, particularly (prospective) students (M =5.3), employees (M = 5.0), and the Swiss public (M = 4.4).

Respondents in this cluster reported the highest perceived autonomy (M = 5.1) and strategic influence (M = 3.7) in their department, which is plausible given that many have leadership roles. Leading all-

rounders typically are employed at RU (53%) and UAS (37%).

• Communicators in the generalist cluster are rather unspecific when it comes to age and gender compared with other clusters. Altogether, 30% hold a leadership position, typically have a background in the humanities (37%) or in communication science (27%), and have long-term experience in journalism (46%) and PR (39%). They emphasize internal networks (M = 5.2), rather than external networks (M = 3.4) in their work. Their top contacts are scientists at their HEIs (M = 3.0) and students (M = 2.6), whom they contact at least weekly or several times a month, respectively. The most important target groups in their departments are students (M = 5.1) and employees (M = 5.0). Generalists perceive that their departments have high levels of autonomy (M = 4.8) and medium strategic influence (M = 3.3) in the HEI. They mostly can be found at communication departments in RU (65%) and equally often at UTE (18%) and UAS (18%).

• Science mediators typically are male and have above-average experience in their jobs. Some are in leadership positions (28%). They tend to have a background in the humanities (50%), rather than in communication science (25%) or natural sciences (11%), and have above-average practical experience in PR (65%) and/or journalism (55%). They engage more in internal (M = 4.7) than external networking (M = 2.8). They communicate with their main contacts— scientists (M = 3.2) weekly.

They work in departments with an emphasis on students (M = 5.0), the Swiss public (M

= = 4.7), and the news media as target groups (M =4.3). Science mediators perceive that their department has comparably low autonomy (M = 4.4) and strategic influence (M = 2.8) in the HEI.

Typically, they work in communication departments in RU (68%), but rarely in UTE (5%).

• Individuals in the service partner cluster are more often male than female and on average younger (M = 42.9) compared with

(15)

their peers in the other clusters. Only 18%

hold leadership positions. They mostly have a background in the humanities (47%) or communication science (21%) and have medium practical experience in PR (40%) and journalism (30%). They are more engaged in external networking (M = 4.6) than internal networking (M = 2.6) and are least active in continuing education (M = 3.4). Their top contacts are members of university leadership (M = 2.7) and scientists at their HEIs (M = 2.4), with whom they have at least monthly contact.

Service partners work in departments with a distinct emphasis on students (M = 5.5) and employees (M = 5.3), as well as alumni (M = 3.8), as target groups. They rate their departments’ autonomy (M = 4.4) and strategic influence (M = 3.1) in their HEIs as rather low. Typically, they work at UAS (46%) or RU (36%).

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the growing research on PR in the context of science communication by examining HEIs as an organizational type that often has been neglected in prior research. Conceptually, the study underscores that role conceptions are important as an analytical construct that influences communicators’ role performance, even if other factors also influence this performance. Furthermore, the study indicates that role conceptions should not be viewed as isolated from professional socialization.

The findings carry implications for the professionalization of HEI communication:

It seems necessary to strengthen the understanding of HEI communicators’

professional roles and to strive for a clearer and more specialized division of tasks in communication departments. From an organizational perspective, this likely will prevent efficiency loss and allow for clearer positioning of HEI communicators vis-a-vis organiza` tional leadership (Schwetje et al., 2020). This is important given New Public Management reforms that call for more accountability regarding HEI

communication’s impact, particularly as

budgets and responsibilities increase (Fürst, Volk, et al., 2022; Leßmollmann, 2019).

From a societal perspective, it appears desirable to sharpen the role of science mediators, who strive for public engagement and participation in science, not just a transfer of knowledge. Professional associations and universities could develop education, training, and continuing education programs in science communication for this purpose (Jamison, 2022). Moreover, given that Swiss HEI communicators strive mostly for reputation gain, it is also crucial to strengthen the role as a critical voice within HEIs and institutionalize principles of good science communication in professional role conceptions.

Our study naturally has several limitations:

First, our findings do not allow us to conclude on the specifics of how university communicators understand their roles compared with PR practitioners in other professional fields, e.g., corporate communication or public administration.

Here, we see potential in comparative studies that use the same operationalizations, rather than

organization-specific items with the goal of contrasting roles and educational backgrounds across organizational contexts (see Tindall & Holtzhausen, 2011).

Regarding our measurement, we cannot rule out that some participants might have conflated their cognitive role orientations, i.e., what they aspire to do, with normative role orientations, i.e., what they ought to do.

In this regard, future research could benefit from more sophisticated, multi-item measures. Our factor analysis revealed that the eleven items could be grouped into eight distinct factors, with only the media relations task comprising more than one item. As a result, we relied on single items to measure role conceptions’ varying aspects. Future studies could use the items proposed in this study as a starting point from which to develop and test more comprehensive scales to measure HEI communicators’ role conceptions.

(16)

Second, we collected empirical data in Switzerland, but we can assume that the four types of HEI communicators also plausibly could be found in other Western countries, which have undergone similar developments in the HEI sector and also have experienced a professionalization of HEI communication (Davies & Horst, 2016;

Elken et al., 2018; Friedrichsmeier & Fürst, 2012). Future studies should aim for comparative designs and identify similarities and differences in HEI communicators’ role conceptions and their occupational socialization across countries.

Third, in addition to collecting role orientations through self- reported data, observations or shadowing of university communicators (Nothhaft, 2010) would reveal how various roles actually are performed in practice and how, when, and why communicators switch between roles.

Future studies might ask what challenges and possible consequences arise from a mix of different role orientations for HEI communicators’ well-being and professional standing. Observations also could focus on communicators’

interactions with university leaders and other HEI departments, as well as offer nuanced insights into the (potential lack of) strategic influence. Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine the extent to which role sets and degrees of specialization actually affect PR departments’ positioning and influence (Grunig & Grunig, 2008), and not just rely on self-reported perceptions. Fourth, we did not ask respondents about their last job and employer (e.g., in journalism, PR, or science; in the private or public sector) before starting their job as communication practitioners at their HEIs, so collecting such data could be valuable in the future.

Finally, research into HEI communicators’

role perceptions should be expanded to communicators working in decentral units at HEIs (e.g., for departments resp. research institutes, schools, or centers), which often are loosely coupled and are quite

autonomous in terms of communication with the central level. The few extant studies indicate that decentral communicators also have very different professional backgrounds and enact different roles (Entradas & Bauer, 2022; Entradas &

Santos, 2022). Comparisons between communicators’ role conceptions in central communication offices and decentral units might result in interesting variations or commonalities as a function of the degree of coupling, e.g., regarding communicators’

perceived autonomy, positioning, and strategic influence in the HEI. Overall, we trust that the study of HEIs’ particularities and their communication promises interesting new avenues for PR research.

REFERENCES

Autzen, C. (2014). Press releases—The

new trend in science

communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030 02.

Bauer, M. W., & Gregory, J. (2007). From

journalism to corporate

communication in post war.

Britain. In M. W. Bauer, & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations (pp. 33–51). Routledge.

https://tinyurl.com/3zkaf9cj.

Besley, J., & Dudo, A. (2022).

Strategic science

communication. Johns Hopkins University Press.

https://www.press.jhu.edu/boo s/title/1 2411/strategic science communicat ion.

Borchelt, R. E., & Nielsen, K. H.

(2014). Public relations in science: Managing the trust

portfolio. In M. Bucchi, & B.

Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public

communication of science and technology (2nd ed.,pp.58

(17)

-69).Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/978020348 3794.

Broom, G. M., & Smith, G. D. (1979).

Testing the practitioner’s impact on clients. Public Relations

Review,5(3),47–59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363- 8111(79)80027-2.

Bühler, H., Naderer, G., Koch, R., &

Schuster, C. (2007).Hochschul PR in Deutschland. Ziele, Strategien und Perspektiven [Public relations of German higher educationinstitutions: Goals, strategies,and

perspectives]. DUV.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 8350- 9148-1.

Burscher, B., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2016). Frames beyond words: Applying cluster and sentiment analysis to news coverage of the nuclear power issue. Social

Science Computer Review, 34(5), 530 -545.

https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393 15596385

Cohen, J., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P.

(1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.2307/

2392088.

Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2016).

Science communication:

Culture, identity and citizenship.

Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1 137- 50366-4.

Dozier, D., & Broom, G. (1995).

Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3–26.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532 754xjprr0701_02.

Elken, M., Stensaker, B., & Dedze, (2018). The painters behind the profile: The rise and

functioning of communication departments in universities.

Higher Education, 76(6), 1109-

1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 018- 0258-x.

Engwall, L. (2008). Minerva and the media: Universties protecting and promoting themselves. In C. Mazza, P. Quattrone, & A. Riccaboni

(Eds.), European universities in transition: Issues, models and cases (pp. 31–48). Edward

Elgar.https://doi.org/10.4337/

9781848441415.00012.

Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2022). Public communication activities of

research institutes. In M.

Entradas, & M.W. Bauer (Eds.), Public communication of research universities: ‘Arms race’ for visibility or science substance (pp. 3– 22). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/97810030 27133.

Entradas, M., & Santos, M. W. (2022).

Professionalizing the

communication of research institutes. In M. Entradas, & M.W.

Bauer (Eds.), Public

communication of research universities: ‘Arms race’ for visibility or science substance (pp.37-56). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/97810030 27133-5.

Fahy, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism,

12(7), 778–793.

1464884911412697.

Fahnrich, B. (2018). Einflussreich, aber wenig beachtet? Eine Meta-Studie zum Stand der

¨ deutschsprachigen Forschung über strategische Kommunikation von Wissenschaftsorganisationen

[Strategic communication of science organizations– A meta

analysis of the German field].

Publizistik, 63(3), 407–426.

https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11616 018- 0435-z.

Falkheimer, J., Heide, M., Nothhaft, H., Platen, S., von, Simonsson, C., & Andersson, R.

(2017). Is strategic

communication too important to be left to communication professionals?

Managers’ and coworkers’ attitudes towards strategic communication and

(18)

communication professionals. Public

Relations Review, 43(1), 91 101.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubr ev.2016.10.011.

Fieseler, C., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M.

(2015). An inquiry into the transformation of the PR roles’

concept.Corporate Communications:An International Journal, 20(1),76 -89.

https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02 2014- 0013.

Fischer, L., & Schmid-Petri, H. (2023). “There really is a lot of shared understanding, but

there are also differences”: Identity configurations in science communicators’ professional

identity. Journal of Science Communication, 22(01), A07.

https://doi.

org/10.22323/2.22010207.

Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016).

Characteristics of public sectors and their consequences for strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 10(3), 149–152.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X 2016.11 76572.

Friedrichsmeier, A., & Fürst, S. (2012). Neue Governance als Wettbewerb um

Sichtbarkeit. Zur veranderten Dynamik der ¨ Offentlichkeits-und

Medienorientierung ^¨ von

Hochschulen [New governance as competition for visibility. On the changing dynamics of universities’

orientation to the public and the media]. Die Hochschule, 21 (2),46–64.

https://folia.unifr.ch/unifr/docume nts/3037 45.

Fürst, S., Vogler, D., Sorensen, I., &

Schafer, M. S. (2022).

Communication of higher ¨ education institutions: Historical developments and changes over the past decade. Studies in

Communication Sciences, 22(3),459–469.

https://doi.org/10.24434/j.

scoms.2022.03.4033.

Fürst, S., Volk, S. C., Schafer, M. S., Vogler, D., & S¨ orensen, I. (2022).

Assessing changes ¨ in the public communication of higher institutions: A survey of leaders of Swiss universities

and colleges. Studies in Communication Sciences, 22(3), 515–534. https://

doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.03 3489.

Fumasoli, T., & Lepori, B. (2011).

Patterns of strategies in Swiss higher education institutions. Higher Education,

61(2), 157

178.https://doi.org/10.1007/s1073 - 010-9330-x.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008).

Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future.

In A. Zerfass,B. Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research (pp.

327 347). VS Verlag fu¨r

Sozialwissenschaften.https://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3- 531- 90918-9_22.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart &

Winston..https://tinyurl.com/3mej6mdm .

Gulbrandsen, M., & Sliperseater, S. (2007).

The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A.

Bonaccorsi, & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–

143). Edward Elgar.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847206848.

00011.

Hadji, J. M. (2022). Analysing the strategic role of communication practitioners in South African universities. Communicatio, 48(2),110–135.

02500167.2022.2086593

Hanitzsch, T. (2018). Roles of journalists.

In T. Vos (Ed.), Journalism (pp. 43–

62).De Gruyter Mouton.

https://doi.org/10.1515/97815015000 84-003.

Hauser, C. (2020). Akteure und Organisationsweisen der Hochschulkommunikation. Eine Analyse der Akteurkonstellationen und Akteur- Struktur-Dynamiken an deutschen Hochschulen [Actors and organizational practices in university communication: An analysis of actor constellations and actor-structure