predictors of diversification of journalism & mass ... · journalism & mass communication educator...

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION EDUCATOR 26

Predictors of Diversificationof Journalism & MassCommunication Faculties1989-1998LEE B. BECKER, JISU HUH AND TUDOR VLAD

Lee B. Becker ([email protected]) is a professor in the Grady College of Journalism and MassCommunication and director of the James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Commu-nication Training and Research at the University of Georgia. Jisu Huh ([email protected])is a doctoral student and research assistant in the Cox Center. Tudor Vlad ([email protected])is assistant director of the center. Preparation of this report was made possible by a grantfrom the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

The percentage of faculty injournalism and mass communicationprograms who are women is increasing,but the change is so gradual that, at thepresent rate, it will be around the year2035 before the faculty looks like thestudents enrolled in journalism andmass communication programs todayin terms of gender.

The situation is much the same interms of race and ethnicity. Growth inthe percentage of faculty who are notwhite is such that, at the present rate,it will be at least 2035 before the facultyis as diverse as today’s students. Thetarget is moving, however, and by 2035,the percentage of students who aremembers of racial and ethnicminorities is likely to be higher than it

is today. This means that if today’s rateof change in journalism and masscommunication faculty continues, in2035 there still will be a gap betweenthe characteristics of the faculty andthe students.

From 1989 to 1998 — the periodfor which data on the characteristicsof faculty in journalism and masscommunication are available— theamount of change averaged acrossfaculties in the country represented theaddition of three-fourths of a womanto the faculty. In terms of minorities,the average change was an increase ofhalf a faculty member.

Yet some journalism and masscommunication programs have madestrides in diversifying their faculties,

SPRING’ 0327

both in terms of gender and race. Forexample, one journalism programadded thirteen women to its facultyfrom 1989 to 1998, and one added sixfaculty members who are members ofracial or ethnic minorities.

What explains that variation? Whyhave some journalism and masscommunication programs enjoyedmore success than others indiversifying their faculties? This articleexamines three different factors thatcould explain the variability: thecharacteristics of the region in whichthe journalism program is located, thecharacteristics of the university thathouses the program, and thecharacteristics of the journalismprogram itself.

Interviews and observational dataare used to answer questions about theforces that explain variability indiversification outcomes.

Literature ReviewSystematic research on the

determinants of diversification injournalism and mass communicationprograms has not been undertaken todate. The review of basic data on thestatus of women and minorities injournalism education by Manning-Miller and Dunlap1 in this journaloffered a sound springboard for studyof the topic.

Much has been written generallyabout diversity issues in highereducation, with current literaturefocusing on the impact of affirmativeaction on student enrollments and theconsequences of that enrollment.Bowen and Bok, in their study ofstudents at selective colleges anduniversities, found that black studentsperformed well in those institutions,

graduated at rates higher than thenational average, and were successfulin their careers after college.2 Cole andBarber, however, reported that blackstudents did less well at selective thanat less selective institutions.3

The “Top 10 percent” plan used inTexas as an alternative to affirmativeaction has been shown to be ineffectivein returning minority enrollment levelsto their level under affirmative actionat the state’s two most selective publicuniversities.4 Renner has noted that,while access to higher education hasincreased for all Americans in the lastthirty years, the biggest gains have beenmade by whites, not by Hispanics orblacks, resulting in an increasing gapbetween the races.5

In general, research has shown thathaving appropriate faculty role modelsat institutions improves suchaffirmative action goals as improvedenrollment and retention rates.Blackwell, 6 for example, found that thebest predictor of black studentenrollment in professional schools andgraduation from those programs wasthe number of Black faculty in thatschool. Kaigler-Love7 conducted in-depth interviews with seven femalefaculty members at two universities inOklahoma to determine how mentoringaffects retention of female minoritystudents. The female faculty whoparticipated in this research said thattheir mentoring not only increased thenumber of female minority students butalso was key for the purposes ofrecruiting and retaining qualified anddiverse candidates through tograduation. Cole and Barber, however,found that role model’s race and gendermade virtually no difference on studentcareer decisions once they are in theuniversity.8


While Reskin9 shows that there isgenerally support for the principles ofaffirmative action in the general public,at least one study of university facultyand administrators has shownlimitations to that support. Miller 10

found in a study at one urban collegethat those not targeted for affirmativeaction tend to show negativeperceptions based on the view thatthose hired by the affirmative actionprogram are less competent thanothers. Those against affirmative actionsaid that diversification initiativesignore merit, seek quotas, and lowersstandards of quality.11

Research has shown theimportance of administrativeleadership in hiring more diversifiedfaculty. Hill12 conducted interviewswith departmental leaders and searchcommittee chairs in two publicdoctoral granting universities andshowed that how a search committeedefines affirmative action dependedlargely on how the department chairdefines the term. Smith13 studiedminority doctoral degree recipients andshowed that a close workingrelationship between the searchcommittee and the administrationcontributed to the success of the searchand the hiring of minority faculty. Hitt,Keats, and Purdum14 surveyedpersonnel and affirmative actionofficers of colleges and universities ina southwestern state. These expertsalso identified commitment fromhigher administration and a receptiveattitude on the part of key universitypersonnel as the two most criticalfactors that contributed to effectiveaffirmative action programs. Reskin15

has concluded, based on her review ofresearch in the workplace generally,that an organization whose leaders

support affirmative action is likely toimplement substantive programs, andsubstantive programs translateaffirmative action policies intonondiscriminatory practices.

An essential part of affirmativeaction in the workplace, according toReskin,16 is the replacement ofsubjective and biased hiringprocedures with practices that treat allprospective and actual employeesuniformly through job posting, openrecruitment methods, andstandardized evaluations. Smith17 hasargued that approaching the searchprocedure in the usual ways would notincrease diversification. Mickelsonand Oliver18 found that institutionaldifferences are less important thanindividual attributes in predicting howblack students will perform in graduatestudies. They concluded that thetraditional way in which qualifiedcandidates for academic positions areidentified, screened, and selected forthe short list has hindered affirmativeaction programs from achievingsignificant changes in universities. Inthe hiring process, search committeesoften rely on so-called provencategories of evaluation such asranking of a candidate’s graduatedepartment and the recommendationsof prestigious scholars. Thesetraditional screening criteriadisadvantage many minorityapplicants, who may have attendedless prestigious programs due tovarious reasons other than talent, andmay have not had opportunities towork with prominent scholars becauseof lack of support and mentoring forminority students.

The research evidence is thatnarrowness of the search network is abarrier to diversification.

SPRING’ 0329

Administrators at prestigiousuniversities interviewed by Knowlesand Harleston 19 said that unfamiliaritywith the work of minority scholars anda failure to note minority scholars’achievements or accomplishmentslimits searches for faculty. Manyassume that minority scholars excelonly in minority subjects, thusnarrowing the scope of recruitment,the administrators said. Smith20

concluded, based on her interviewswith doctoral degree recipients, thatinstitutions must be more active insearch for minority faculty bydeveloping personal connections ornetworking with diverse scholars. Shealso concluded that universities musthave diverse search committees toaccess and evaluate candidates fromunderrepresented groups.

Tradition and the status quo onmany campuses have been found to bean obstacle to diversification offaculties, contributing to the stresslevel of women and minority facultymembers. Smith,21 who interviewed299 minority Ford, Mellon andSpencer Fellowship recipients whohad earned their degrees between 1989and 1995, found that isolation, lack ofappreciation, institutional disinterestin diversity, racism, and sexismcreated an unsupportive climate oncampuses, making it hard for manyminority faculties to earn tenure.Burroughs,22 who conductedinterviews with female facultymembers at a major research universityin Texas, found that female facultiesperceived the organizational culture ofthe university as patriarchal andunsupportive for women. Turner andMyers23 interviewed 55 minorityfaculty members in institutions thatwere members of the Midwestern

Higher Education Commission. Thefaculty members reported a “chillyclimate” in many universities andunsupportive work environment.

Aisenberg and Harrington,24 basedon interviews with 62 women,including widely recognized scholarsand successful teachers as well as thosewho have left the university, reportedthat women faculty members engage inteaching more often than in researchand that they are less satisfied withtheir positions than their malecounterparts. Iacona25 surveyed morethan 1,300 faculty members in 372different universities and colleges andfound that female faculty weresignificantly less satisfied with theirpresent positions, current salary, anddepartmental structure than males, andthe likelihood to leave academia wasgreater for women and minorities thanfor the white male majority. Mason andGoulden,26 based on data from 1973-1999 from the National ScienceFoundation research on doctoraldegree recipients, found a consistentand large gap in achieving tenurebetween women and men who hadchildren early in their careers. Insciences and engineering, for example,the gap between men and women was24 %, with women being lower.Nabinet 27 found in a survey of 649faculty in three state researchuniversities that black and Hispanicfaculty spent a disproportionateamount of time in community-relatedactivities, on and off campus, thereforelimiting available time and energies foracademic research.

Administrators of highereducation institutions report that thepool of job applicants has made itdifficult for them to diversify theirfaculties.28 In fact, according to the


most recent NSF Survey of EarnedDoctorates, in 2001 females received44.0 % of all doctorates, which is thehighest percentage of women everrecorded by the survey. A total of 4,254members of U.S. racial minority groupswere awarded doctorates, representing16.1 %of the U.S. citizens earningresearch doctorates in 2001. Thepercentage represents an increase from15.8 %in 2000, and is the highestpercentage yet recorded in the survey.Blacks earned the most doctorates(1,604) of the four main U.S. minoritypopulations in 2001, followed byAsians (1,382), Hispanics (1,116), andAmerican Indians (149).

Rai and Critzer examined datafrom forty-one states in an effort todetermine which social and politicalfactors predicted success in achievingfaculty diversification at both publicand private institutions.29 They foundlittle evidence that the politicalideology of state leaders had an impact.Level of industrialization, urbanizationand income in the state also did notmake a difference. What did matter wasthe minority groups’ percentage withina state. Public institutions also weremore diverse than private ones.

ExpectationsThis literature provides a

perspective for analyzing the outcomeof efforts to increase the diversity offaculties of journalism and masscommunication around the country. Itsuggests that forces outside theindividual university — that is, thecharacteristics of the region in whichthe journalism program is located —might have impact. It also suggests thatcharacteristics of the university thathouses the program may make a

difference. Finally, the literaturesuggests that the characteristics of thejournalism program itself, such as thenature of its leadership, may beimportant.

MethodologyTo examine the forces at work in

determining success of journalism andmass communication programs increating diverse faculties, data weretaken from a number of sources. Onesource was the Annual Survey ofJournalism & Mass CommunicationEnrollments, conducted in the JamesM. Cox Jr. Center for International MassCommunication Training andResearch, a unit of the Grady Collegeof Journalism and MassCommunication at the University ofGeorgia.30

Schools listed in either theAEJMC Journalism & MassCommunication Directory or TheJournalist’s Road to Success, A Careerand Scholarship Guide, prepared byThe Dow Jones Newspaper Fund Inc.,are included in the population ofsurveyed schools.

In October of each year, aquestionnaire is mailed to theadministrator of each of theseprograms. Subsequent mailings of thissame questionnaire are sent to non-responding schools in December,January and February. Non-respondingschools are subsequently contacted bytelephone and asked to complete thequestionnaire over the telephone.31

Even after these efforts, not allschools report and not all respond toall questions asked. Two characteristicsof schools—membership in theAssociation of Schools of Journalismand Mass Communication and

SPRING’ 0331

accreditation by the AccreditingCouncil on Education in Journalismand Mass Communication — are usedto make projections when schools donot report complete data. Data from thereporting accredited schools are usedto estimate characteristics of theaccredited schools for which there wasany missing information. Similarly,statistical means from the non-accredited ASJMC schools are used toestimate missing data from similarschools, and data from the non-accredited schools not affiliated withASJMC are used to estimate missingdata for those schools. The overallestimates, then, are based on completeinformation and best approximationsabout data not reported.

The survey instrument includesquestions on number of studentsenrolled in the program, characteristicsof those students, and the number ofdegrees granted, as well as thecharacteristics of those receiving thedegrees. In the 1989, 1992, 1995 and1998 enrollment surveys,administrators were asked to report thecharacteristics of their facultymembers by gender, race/ethnicity andrank.

Data gathered by the NationalCenter for Education Statistics and bythe U.S. Bureau of the Census wereused to supplement the informationobtained from the Annual Survey ofJournalism & Mass CommunicationEnrollments. University-widepercentages of minority and femalefaculty members were computed fromthe Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System (IPEDS) “FallStaff Data” collected in 1993 and 1997.The percentages of minority andfemale students enrolled inuniversities were obtained from IPEDS

“Fall Enrollment Data” for 1990 and1997.32 The percentage of minorities inthe region was taken from the 2000 U.S.Census. Data were collected by stateand then classified into the followingnine categories: New England, MiddleAtlantic, East North Central, WestNorth Central, South Atlantic, EastSouth Central, West South Central,Mountain and Pacific.33

In addition, case studies wereconducted of six journalism and masscommunication programs, three ofwhich had achieved above averagediversification from 1989 to 1998, andthree, similar in relevant respects, thathad not.34 Each of the successfulprograms had gained at least fourfemale and four minority facultymembers from 1989 to 1998,representing a change of more than 9%in the faculty characteristic in eachcategory. The three ”control” programshad gained two minority facultymembers among them and four women.

Researchers spent two daysvisiting each of the selected sixprograms and asked administrators andfaculty to discuss how they hadachieved diversification. Some of thediscussions were in group settings.Many were one-on-one. Theadministrators of all six programsallowed free reign during the visits.The visits were in 2001 and 2002.

Following the visits to the threesuccessful programs, telephoneinterviews were conducted with forty-seven female and minority facultymembers from the three successfulinstitutions. For each university, thefaculty interviewed represented morethan half of the female and minorityfaculty members. The interviewsfocused on faculty members’experiences while they were being


recruited to the universities and in theyears after when they actually servedas faculty members. The interviewsalso asked about faculty members’backgrounds, their experiences insearching for jobs, and the jobinterviews that brought them to thethree successful universities. Inaddition, the faculty members alsowere asked about their personalexperiences on the job.

What the Numbers ShowThe number of full-time faculty

members teaching journalism and masscommunication across the countryincreased from 4,126 in 1989 to 5,038in 1998, representing a growth of22.1%. During that time, the numberof part-time faculty went from 3,028 to3,771 — or a growth of 24.5%. Thesefigures are estimates based on actualcounts of faculty size and theprojections.

In 1989, the average journalismand mass communication faculty had10.4 full-time members. In 1998, it was11.2 faculty members. Becauseenrollments grew by only 3,407undergraduate students during thisperiod, the gross student/faculty ratiowas considerably lower in 1998 at 29.6students to 1 faculty member than itwas at 35.3 to 1 in 1989.

The figures on faculty growth arein one sense misleading. The increasein the total number of nearly athousand full-time journalism andmass communication faculty membersover this time period can be attributedto the increase in the number ofprograms in the country, from 395 in1989 to 451 in 1998.

The growth rate is probably muchcloser to 2.9%, the rate of increase in

faculty size for the 263 programs in theAnnual Survey of Journalism & MassCommunication Enrollments thatreported faculty data in 1989 and 1998.The amount of change between 1989and 1998 in full-time faculty at the 263journalism and mass communicationprograms averaged a third of a person(.34).35 This change resulted from theaddition of just more than three-quarters of a woman (.81), half aminority (.55) (sometimes also awoman), and a decrease of three-fourths of a white male (-.79).

Between 1989 and 1998, thepercentage of journalism and masscommunication faculty members whowere female increased from 28.7 to 35.5(Figure 1). In 1998, 61.3% of theundergraduate students in theseprograms were women!36 Growth in thepercentage of female faculty was about2 percentage points in each of the lastthree-year periods, meaning that it willbe 2035 before parity is reached if thecurrent percentages for studentsremain relatively stable.37

Between 1989 and 1998, thepercentage of journalism and masscommunication faculty members whowere members of racial or ethnicminorities increased from 9.6 to 15.3(Figure 1). In 1998, 27.1% of theundergraduate students enrolled injournalism and mass communicationprograms around the country weremembers of racial or ethnic minorities.Growth in the percentage of minorityfaculty members averaged about .33percentage points per year in the lastsix years, meaning it would beapproximately 2035 before parity withthe 1998 figures is reached.38 Thenumber of minority students can beexpected to increase to an estimated41% by that time.39

SPRING’ 0333

Journalism and masscommunication faculty lookremarkably like faculty for theuniversities as a whole, and changeappears to be at about the same rate.40

Journalism and mass communicationdoes no worse than average, and nobetter.

Across the nine-year period of1989 to 1998, the journalism and masscommunication faculty has becomemore senior. In 1998, 27.1% of thefaculty held the rank of professor. In1989, the figure was 24.2%.Conversely, the percentage of thefaculty that held the rank of assistantprofessor dropped from 32.3% in 1989to 26.6% in 1998.

Gender and RankWomen are not equally

represented at the various faculty

ranks. In 1989, only 11.0% of the fullprofessors were women (Figure 2). Thatfigure grew to only 14.7% in 1992,19.1% in 1995 and 22.1% in 1998.Women come closest to parity at theinstructor and assistant professorranks. Instructors and assistantprofessors usually do not have tenureand have much less control overteaching assignments and depart-mental governance than do associateand full professors.

Race/Ethnicity and RankThe largest ethnic group

represented on journalism and masscommunication faculties is AfricanAmericans, who made up 9.1% of thefaculty nationally in 1998 (Figure 3).Hispanics made up 2.4%, and AsianPacific Islanders made up 2.3%. NativeAmericans made up less than 1% of the

Figure 1GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF JOURNALISM FACULTY MEMBERS


faculty nationally, or only about fortyindividuals. Only African Americansshow consistent, if small, increasesacross the nine years for which data areavailable.

Diversity is not evenly visibleacross the various faculty ranks. Onlyabout one in ten of the full professorsare members of a racial or ethnicminority, while nearly two of ten of theassistant professors are minorities(Figure 4). Power in the universityusually rests with faculty in the higherranks, who often have more controlover teaching assignments,departmental service assignments, andpromotion and hiring decisions.

While the upper ranks havebecome more diverse in recent years,reflecting a sharing of faculty power,the lowest two ranks (assistantprofessor and instructor) were slightly

less diverse in 1998 than three yearsearlier. The differences are small, butthey suggest a weakening of thediversification effort in journalism andmass communication programs, asmost new hires at universities are atthe lowest ranks.

External Predictors ofDiversification

To say that there was no change inthe composition of journalism facultiesin terms of gender and race is notcorrect. But the change was far fromdramatic. On average, journalism andmass communication units gainedabout three quarters of a woman(average unit increase = .81) and a halfa minority (average unit increase = .55).They also lost three-fourths of a whitemale (mean = - .79). These estimates

Figure 2FULL-TIME FACULTY: PERCENT FEMALE

SPRING’ 0335

Figure 3RACE/ETHNICITY OF FULL-TIME FACULTY

Figure 4RACIAL/ETHNIC MINORITY FULL-TIME FACULTY


are based on the 263 programs thatreported data in 1989 and 1998.41

Of course, there was variabilityaround these means. The University ofAlabama’s College of Communicationand Information Sciences, for example,gained four minority members andeight female members over the period.The University of Florida’s College ofJournalism and Communicationsshowed a gain of six minority facultymembers and ten female facultymembers during the period. TheUniversity of Missouri netted fiveminority faculty members and thirteenfemale faculty members. The standarddeviation for the unit change score forwomen across the 263 programs was3.2, while the standard deviation forthe unit change score for minoritieswas 3.0.

Why were some programs moresuccessful in recruiting minorityfaculty members than others? Whatexplains this variability around themean?

A number of factors that lie“outside” the journalism unit mightaccount for the success or failure of aunit in recruiting female or minorityfaculty members. For example, auniversity that has increased minorityor female faculty representation inother units might have broughtjournalism along with it or held it back,without the unit having invested agreat deal of its own energies. Auniversity that has increased thenumber of female or minority studentsmight have also increased thepercentage of faculty as part of ageneral shift in the university notexplained by local unit efforts.

The presence of graduate programscould impede diversification efforts,since graduate faculty usually require

more certification (higher degrees),thereby restricting the labor pool forfaculty recruitment. Public institutionsmight feel more pressure fordiversification to represent thegovernmental units that fund them.Journalism programs that are in smalltowns might have more difficultyrecruiting women and minorities, sincesuch towns rarely provide a diversecultural experience. Area of thecountry might be a factor as well, sincesome regions, such as the upper plainsstates, have relatively few minoritygroups in their populations, whileothers, such as the south, have more.

It also could be the case that unitsgrowing in size in terms of studentenrollments might have moreopportunity to diversify their facultythan units not growing, as facultyresources often follow, thoughimperfectly and slowly, after studentenrollment growth.

Also, journalism units accreditedby the Accrediting Council onEducation in Journalism and MassCommunication (ACEJMC), whichplaces much emphasis ondiversification as one of its goals,should have experienced more successin faculty diversification than units notaccredited by ACEJMC.

The answer to the question of suchvariable success in diversification isthat most of these factors matter verylittle.

An increase in the percentage offemale faculty members university-wide in the 1993-97 period was onlyweakly related to journalism unitfaculty diversification in terms ofgender (Table 1).42 The correlationcoefficient (Pearson Product Moment)was +.09. (The range of possible valuesis from -1 to +1.)

SPRING’ 0337

An increase in the percentage offemale students at the university wasunrelated to an increase in the numberof female faculty in the journalism unit(r=-.04).43 Presence of a master’s degreeprogram (in the journalism unit) is veryslightly positively (not negatively)related to female faculty diversificationin the journalism unit.

Public institutions are very slightlymore likely to have experienceddiversification in terms of gender. Units

that experienced growth in journalismenrollments were a bit more likely tohave increased the representation ofwomen on the faculty. In fact, this isthe only correlation shown in Table 1of any note. All three of these measures(existence of graduate programs,private versus public status, andenrollments) are measured in theAnnual Survey of Journalism & MassCommunication Enrollments.

Table 1CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN FACULTY DIVERSITY AND INSTITUTIONAL

CHARACTERISTICS FROM 1989 TO 1998

Note: Entries are Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients. The number ofcases is 263 except in the cases of Location, where there are 262, and increase injournalism students, where there are 254.


An increase in the percent ofminority students at the university isassociated very slightly with anincrease in the number of minorityfaculty in the journalism and masscommunication programs (r=.12).44

The presence of a master’s degreeprogram also is slightly linked to theincrease in minority faculty. Publicinstitutions are just barely more likelyto have increased minority faculty. Thepercentage of minority residents in theregion is slightly related to an increasein minority faculty, as is growth in thenumber of students in the journalismunit.45

Strikingly absent is evidence thataccreditation had any impact on thehiring of female or minority facultymembers by journalism and masscommunication programs during thetime of the study (Table 2).46 The 88accredited programs available for theanalysis had a mean increase of 1.0female faculty members from 1989 to1998, while the 175 non-accreditedprograms had a mean increase of .7female faculty members. Theaccredited journalism programs had amean increase of .5 minority facultymembers, while the non-accreditedprograms had a mean increase of .6minority faculty members.

Accreditation clearly had no impact ondiversification of faculties during theperiod.

Accredited programs prior to1989–the reference year for the analysisabove–were more diverse than non-accredited programs. Only 3.0% of theaccredited programs in 1989 had nowomen on the faculty, while 19.2% ofthe non-accredited programs had nowomen at that time. In 1989, 38.4% ofthe accredited programs had nominorities on their faculty in 1989,while 62.6% of the nonaccreditedprograms had no minorities. In termsof change from 1989 to 1998, however,accreditation was not a factor.

Removing Historically BlackColleges and Universities (HBCUs)from the analysis does offer someevidence of impact of accreditationafter 1989. Accredited units that are notHBCUs gained 1.2 women during the1989-1998 period and 0.7 minorities.Non-accredited units that are notHBCUs gained 0.7 women and 0.4minorities.47

All of the variables shown in Table1 were used in a regression analysis tocheck on any hidden effects for a singlevariable that might emerge if the effectof the other variables were controlled.That did not happen.

Table 2CHANGE IN FACULTY DIVERSITY FROM 1989 TO 1998:

ACCREDITED AND NON-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS

Note: Entries are mean change scores for the journalism units from 1989 to 1998.

SPRING’ 0339

Unit Predictors ofDiversification

If the characteristics of theuniversity do not predict to success indiversification, what does? What canexplain the variability in thediversification experiences of thejournalism and mass communicationunits across the 1989 to 1998 period?

The case studies provide someanswers.

Three Successful ProgramsThe three successful programs

were selected because they met sixcriteria: they had provided data acrossthe four years of the study; they hadnot changed administratively duringthat period; they had gained at leastfour female faculty members during theperiod; the gain in female facultymembers represented at least a 10percent change; they had gained at leastfour minority faculty members, and thepercentage of gain represented at leasta change of 9%. Only three programsmet these qualifications.

The programs are allcomprehensive, have journalismeducation as their core, are accreditedby ACEJMC, and are state institutions.All three universities dominate thesmall towns in which they are located.

The interviews and observations atthe three universities were surprisinglyconsistent. These can be summarizedby nine specific observations.

I. It was clear that change comesabout only when there is strongcommitment to diversification on thepart of the unit leader.

A willing faculty also is essential.In fact, the leaders downplayed theirown role in bringing aboutdiversification, saying they could have

accomplished what was accomplishedonly with the support of the faculty.The faculty said the directive camefrom the top, and it seems unlikely itwould have come from the faculty.

“It starts with the leadership,” adepartmental administrator at one ofthe universities said. “There is a realcommitment by (the dean) to do this.(The dean) has walked the talk.”

While the involvement of thedeans in actual searches varied at thethree universities, there wasinvolvement at all three. In some cases,it was clear, the dean’s hand was verystrong.

“I feel it important for the dean tobe involved and to help set theagenda,” one of the deans said. “I admitI’ve tried to change the culture.”

II. At least some level of supportfor diversification and the initiativesof the unit administration from centraladministration is extremelyimportant.

Each of the three programs hadbeen able to use targeted hiring toincrease the representation ofminorities on the faculties. In somecases, the unit was able to hire evenwithout an opening if it identified aqualified minority. In other cases, extrasupport was provided for hiring aminority identified in the normalrecruitment process. These programscreated an incentive for the unit toproduce change.

One of the administrators said thecentral administration used promisesof incentives to encourage minorityhiring, but the promises weren’t alwaysmet. The promises, the administratorsacknowledged, had produced action,undertaken with the hope the centraladministration would live up to thepromises.


III. Each of the units enjoyedflexibility in its hiring in part becauseof its size, and flexibility led todiversification.

Because the units had largefaculties, they didn’t have to hire aperson to fit a very narrow teachingslot. Other faculty could cover. It wastherefore possible to hire a woman ora minority with strong credentials butwho didn’t fit a narrow definition ofthe job description.

“You need to be flexible in termsof the slot being filled,” one dean said.“The classic mistake is ‘We’re hiringsomeone to replace Joe Smith. Joetaught feature writing and copyediting. We need someone to teachfeature writing and copy editing.’ Youneed to think of people, not slots.”

Another dean put it simply. “Sizeis important. It gives you more degreesof freedom.”

IV. Curricular diversity can beused as a recruiting tool in hiring.

Female and minority faculty wantto be hired because of their expertise,not because of their gender or color.Courses in race and gender issues wereused to interest and entice female andminority faculty. Having these courseson the curriculum before recruitmentbegan was a big help in hiring.

“There are lots of minorities incritical cultural studies,” one seniorfaculty member said. “If that is not partof your curriculum, you are screeningpeople out.”

V. Successful recruitmentresulted from networking.

Minorities and women want to seethe administrators at meetings andelsewhere even when there are no jobsbeing offered. Because suchnetworking is so important, it is easierto recruit minorities and women once

the faculty is diverse than beforediversification. Getting the first hiresis the hardest part.

“There are all kinds of networksthat people who really want todiversify their faculty become a partof,” one senior faculty member said.“You cannot just send forms to blackand women’s groups. You need to knowthese people. These are the kinds ofpersonal contacts that pay off in thefuture.”

VI. The difficulty of gettingminorities and women to the threeuniversities, located in southern,conservative college towns, seemed tocreate an added incentive.

The units worked hard toovercome the barriers. Almosteveryone interviewed said theircommunity was a hard sell, but theyfound ways of making the sell. Theyfocused on housing costs, theeducation system, and even thereligious community as ways to recruit.

“People have more than auniversity life,” one centraladministrator who collaborated withthe journalism dean on recruitmentsaid. The university got thecommunity, particularly the ministers,involved in recruiting to help promotepositive characteristics of thecommunity.

VII. In all three universities,considerable emphasis was placed onthe need to diversify doctoralprograms, since they provide theprimary pool for hiring.

Each of the units has a doctoralprogram, and each felt more needed tobe done both locally and nationally toget minorities in particular interestedin the doctoral program. As oneadministrator said, this has to be donevery early. Minorities and women need

SPRING’ 0341

to be told about academic careers asundergraduates or before if doctoralprograms are to become more diverse.

“If we are serious aboutdiversifying faculty, we have got to getmore diversity into doctoral programs,”one senior faculty member said. “Thisstarts with our undergraduates. We’vegot to tell them about graduate school.”

VIII. Hiring wasn’t enough;considerable effort had to be placed onretention.

The administrators made it clearthey could not rest once they had hiredminorities and women. They had to doeverything they could to mentor andassist them. But even so, they knewthey were going to lose people, so theyhad to double their efforts to makeprogress. None of the administratorsand few of the faculty interviewed feltthey had achieved the level of diversityin the faculty that they wanted. Theydid not consider their programs to bemodels or that they had enjoyedenough success.

“The key is mentoring,” one of thecentral administrators we spoke withsaid. “When you bring people in whoare different from you, it is not as easyto mentor. But the faculty who havebeen successful have had goodmentors.”

IX. Students were used asrecruiters.

The old notion that a diversefaculty leads to a diverse student bodywas turned around at theseuniversities. They used the diversity ofthe student body as a recruitment toolfor faculty. Prospective facultymembers were made aware that theywould be teaching students like them.

“It made it more appealing to methat minority students were here,” saidone minority faculty member. “But it

also is important for minority studentsto see people of color as authorityfigures.”

Comments from FacultyMinority and female faculty could

have had different points of view fromthose of the administrators, who weredisproportionately male andinfrequently members of minoritygroups. Interviews with the female andminority faculty members at the threesuccessful institutions were conductedto test this possibility.

The idea that change comes aboutonly when there is a strongcommitment to diversification on thepart of the unit leader was reinforcedin these interviews. A majority of thepeople interviewed mentioned that theideas, values and level of commitmentto diversity held by the dean wereinstrumental factors in theirrecruitment process. The faculty alsosaid that it was important tocommunicate this commitment “downthe chain” and at every level.

“You have to have totallycommitted leaders,” one facultymember said. “Someone alwayspushing. We try in our faculty meetingsand elsewhere to spend timearticulating how important diversity is.Everyone knows that we will be betterwith people unlike us.”

“You have to have a pro-activeeffort to create a culture that valuesdiversity in every sense of the word,”another interviewee told us.

Characteristics of the universitywere taken into consideration byminorities and women when theymade their decision about jobs to applyfor, places to visit, and offers to accept.

Prospective faculty are interestedin how the jobs will affect their


families, in the presence of a diversecommunity, and in lifestyle in general.The three universities observed did abetter job of marketing the structuresin place in their communities than didothers.

“Environmentally, it is a goodplace to live,” one faculty member said.“But there isn’t really a blackprofessional community here. Mostlythere are blue-collar workers. But it isa safe place.”

Faculty members we spoke to saidthat involvement with the students wasvery important to them, and theyplaced a high value on teaching adiverse group of students. In additionto being a tool for recruitment,diversity of the student body seemslikely to be important for retention.

The faculty members also said thatit is important to attract minoritystudents into doctoral programs. Somesaid that the pool is simply too smallat the university level and thatuniversities need to make efforts tocommunicate with high schoolstudents about the potential ofacademic careers.

“Look at whom you have in yourgraduate programs,” one of thoseinterviewed said. “If it (diversity) is notthere, it may not be anywhere else.”

Many of the faculty interviewedsuggested journalism and masscommunication programs should turnto the professions for faculty, ratherthan rely on the doctoral programfeeder system. In fact, this had beendone at the three programs we visited,with varying degrees of success.

“We need to look at how to findpeople who are established in theindustry,” one faculty member said.“We should look for leadingjournalists, perhaps at mid-career, who

are looking for a change.”Each of the three programs we

visited had used targeted hiring toincrease representation of minoritiesand women on the faculty. The facultywe interviewed said this practicecommunicated that the administrationwas willing to go the “extra mile” tobring about change.

“In searching and advertising ofjobs, you have to be cognizant of thefact that the departments are usuallywhite and especially white male andthey don’t give a very welcomingfeeling,” one faculty member said.“This university came and found me.That is a positive step — taking a pro-active stance to find diversity.”

The negative side of such a focuson hiring diversity is that some facultysaid that they sometimes felt they werehired merely to “fill a slot” to completeaccreditation requirements. “I think Iwas selected to fill a slot for a female,”one faculty member said. Anotherfaculty member said simply, “I did notwant to be hired when people had anexpectation I would be the diversityelement.”

The faculty said curriculardiversity was an indicator of theflexible nature of the program and ofan interest in topics other than thoseof concern to white males.

A frequent suggestion was to workwith alumni and to involve them in therecruitment process. “Keep the alumnias a functional part of the program,”one faculty member. “Help them stayclose to the college and allow them togive back to the college. Professionalscan give a lot back.”

The faculty said it is important tofocus on retention. Inadequatementoring was cited as a problem.Some also felt there was an imbalance

SPRING’ 0343

in teaching loads. With a fewexceptions, the faculty interviewedreported a high level of satisfactionwith the job and life outside the workenvironment.

“I feel very supported by mycolleagues and the administration,”one faculty member said. “They wereaccommodating in terms of benefitsand salaries and the like. It has beenjust fabulous.”

“This is a great job,” anotherfaculty member said. “I’m teachingexactly what I want to teach. Thefaculty has been great, and the programhas a nice reputation.”

Institutional Change at the ThreeSuccessful Universities

Central administrators at the threesuccessful universities identified thejournalism programs there asexemplary in terms of facultydiversification efforts and praised theefforts and dedication of the unitadministrators. They also said the unitswere exceptions on campus, havingachieved more success than otherprograms.

In fact, the College ofCommunication at the University ofAlabama increased the percentage offemales on its faculty from 7.1% in1989 to 30 percent in 1998, or a changeof 22.9 percentage points.48 For theuniversity overall, the change was from30.7% to 36.4%, or a change of 5.7percentage points. The College wasbehind the overall university figure. In1989, the Communication College hadno minority faculty members, while12.2% were minority in 1998. At theUniversity of Alabama Tuscaloosacampus overall, the percentage of thefaculty that was minority was 7.0 in

1989 and 9.1 in 1998. The College ofCommunication had a larger amountof change and exceeded the universityfigure in 1998.

At the University of Florida, thefaculty of the College of Journalism andCommunications was 22.6% female in1989, while in 1998 it was 39.3%female. At the University of Florida,the faculty was 23.6% female in 1989and 27.2% in 1998. The faculty of theCollege of Journalism andCommunications was 9.4% minority in1989 and 19.6% minority in 1998. Thefaculty of the University of Floridaoverall was 8.9% minority in 1989 and12.9% minority in 1998.

At the University of Missouri, thefaculty in the School of Journalism was20.6% female in 1989 but 40.8%female in 1998. At the University ofMissouri Columbia campus, 21.8% ofthe faculty were female in 1989 and27.5% were female in 1989. Thefaculty of the School of Journalism was2.9% minority in 1989 and 12.2%minority in 1998. For the university,the figures were 10 percent minorityin 1989 and 13.8% minority in 1998.

Clearly, the three journalism unitsled their campuses, not followed them,in terms of the amount of gender andracial/ethnic diversification of theirfaculties in the study period.

Three Unsuccessful ProgramsThe three programs selected to

serve as a “control” group for thesuccessful programs were similar inkey aspects but decidedly different interms of outcome. Two of the programshad gained two female facultymembers, while the other had notincreased the number of women on thefaculty. Two of the programs hadgained one minority faculty member in


the 1989 to 1990 period, while theother had shown no change. Theprogram that had not shown a gain infemale faculty also was the one thathad not shown a gain in terms ofminority faculty.

The programs were comparable tothe successful programs in terms ofsize, accreditation status and generalmission. Each was a public institutionin a community it dominated, though,in one case, the community was notwhat one would normally call a“college town.” One was in a southernstate; the other two were in areas withsmall minority populations.

The visits underscored theimportance of leadership in bringingabout diversification. At one of theprograms, leadership had changedrecently, and, in fact, six women andfour minorities had been added to thefaculty after 1998. One of those whoobserved both administratorsexplained the difference. Bothadministrators were committed todiversification, the observer said, butthe new administrator had the politicalskill and understanding of universityprocedures to bring it about. Theformer administrator did not.

At all three universities, there wasstated support for diversification incentral administration, with targetedhiring possible. In one case, however,there was confusion on the part ofthose in central administrationinterviewed about what actually waspossible. The journalism and masscommunication administrator did notbelieve the program actually operated.

Among the three programs, theone that had enjoyed the most successin recent years clearly was the one withthe most flexibility in its hiring anddiversity in its curriculum. The least

successful program was severelyconstrained by significant budgetdifficulties. The other program had thenarrowest curriculum of the sixinstitutions studied. It hired for fixedslots, and this seemed to be an obstacleto diversification.

The importance of understandingthe network for minority faculty wasstressed by a senior faculty member atone of the programs. “Minorities makeup a separate labor market,” the facultymember said. “It has its own rules andits own incentives. The universitydoesn’t understand that.”

Administrators and faculty at allthree of these programs said their owncommunity was an obstacle to thehiring of women and minorities. Onlyat the program that had recently hadsome success under the newadministrator was there a sense that thecommunity could be overcome as anobstacle by careful recruitment.

All three of the units had doctoralprograms. The program that hadrecently enjoyed some success underthe new administrator had begun torecruit minorities from outside the statein a very targeted way. The others madeno special effort to accomplish this. Atthe recently successful program,minority students were singled out andused to market the program foroutsiders.

Considerable tension was presentat one of the visited programs over theissue of expectations of new facultybeing considered for promotion andtenure. The tension seemed to colormany of the discussions about hiringof minorities and women.

“The standards here for promotionand tenure have been raised,” theadministrator said. “More of the newhires are women and minorities. This

SPRING’ 0345

means that they are being held to ahigher standard than those of us whocame before, and we’re mostly whitemales.”

ConclusionsThe journalism and mass

communication faculty has changedsince 1989. The direction of change istoward diversity, but the amount ofchange is small. Students today still aredifferent from those who are supposedto be their role models. Students areless likely to be white and more likelyto be female than those at the front ofthe classroom. Those at the front of theclassroom who are female and areAfrican American or Hispanic orNative American or Asian Americanare less likely to be senior faculty thanare the white, male professors studentsencounter.

Something can be done about this.Some journalism and masscommunication programs have beatenthe norm, that is, added more than afraction of a woman and a fraction of aminority to their faculties. They havedone this because they engaged instrategies that produce results.

Specifically, the administrators ofthose programs provided strongleadership and unambiguousinstructions in hiring. The facultymembers accepted the goal of hiringnew faculty members who did not looklike them. The central universityadministration provided incentives tomake this outcome more likely.

These conclusions are based onthe case studies of the six universities,three of which were successful in

diversification and three of which werenot. These case studies showed thatflexibility in hiring is important, thatnetworking makes a difference, andthat negative features of communitiescan be overcome. They also showedthat a diverse student body can be usedto recruit a diverse faculty.

Which of the factors or strategiesis most important is difficult to say.What does seem to be clear is thatstrong leadership is essential, and thatfaculty acceptance of the diversity goalis crucial. Rigidity in hiring also islikely to work against diversity.Advertisements that call for a left-handed copy editor with experience ona newspaper with more than 100,000circulation located in a specific regionof the country are not likely to producea diverse pool of applicants.Advertisements that recruit talentedpeople with diverse research andteaching experiences are.

Universities in the United Statesgenerally have not enjoyed muchsuccess in diversifying their faculties.It would be easy for journalism andmass communication educators to usethat as an excuse for the limitedsuccess of the field. The example of thethree successful programs suggests analternative. The University of Alabamahas adopted a phrase, “Beating theOdds,” as a motivation tool in itsdiversification efforts. Journalism andmass communication educationnationally would do well to do thesame. Mass communication — andmass communication education — istoo important an enterprise in societyto do otherwise.


Endnotes1 Carmen L. Manning-Miller and Karen B.

Dunlap, “The Move Toward Pluralism inJournalism and Mass CommunicationEducation,” Journalism & MassCommunication Educator, 57(spring2002):35-48.

2 William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, The Shapeof the River: Long-Term Consequences ofConsidering Race in College and UniversityAdmissions (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1998).

3 Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber, IncreasingFaculty Diversity: The Occupational Choicesof High-Achieving Minority Students(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).

4 Marta Tienda, Kevin T. Leicht, Teresa Sullivan,Michael Maltese and Kim Lloyd, Closing theGap: Admissions & Enrollments at the TexasPublic Flagships Before and After AffirmativeAction. (24 January2003).

5 K. Edward Renner, “Racial Equity and HigherEducation,” Academe 89 (January-February2003): 38-43.

6 James E. Blackwell, Mainstreaming Outsiders(Bayside, NY: General Hall, Inc., 1981).

7 Anquantia Kaigler-Love, “Women MentoringMinority Women in Universities: RetentionStrategies for Female Minority Students”(Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma, 2001).

8 Cole and Barber, Increasing Faculty Diversity.9 Barbara F. Reskin, The Realities of Affirmative

Action in Employment (Washington, DC:American Sociological Association, 1998).

10 Lawrence A. Miller, “Affirmative Action andDiversity as Public Policy Issues in HigherEducation: A Case Study of AffirmativeAction and Diversity in Faculty HiringPractices at Queens College” (Ph.D. diss., TheUnion Institute, 1998).

11 Miller, “Affirmative Action and Diversity,” andReskin, The Realities of Affirmative Action inEmployment.

12 Douglas M. Hill, “Affirmative Action, EqualOpportunity Employer: Perception andImplementation of the Term by SearchCommittees at Two Public Universities”(Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, CollegePark, 1987).

13 Daryl G. Smith, “How to Diversify theFaculty,” Academe 86 (September-October2000):48-52.

14 Michael A. Hitt, Barbara W. Keats, and SusanPurdum, “Affirmative Action EffectivenessCriteria in Institutions of Higher Education,”

Research in Higher Education 18 (1983): 391-398.

15 Reskin, The Realities of Affirmative Action inEmployment.

16 Reskin, The Realities of Affirmative Action inEmployment.

17 Smith, “How to Diversify the Faculty.”18 Roslyn A. Mickelson and Melvin L. Oliver,

“Making the Short List: Black Candidates andthe Faculty Recruitment Process,” in TheRacial Crisis in American Higher Education,ed. Philip G. Altbach and Kofi Lomotey(Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress, 1991), 149-166.

19 Marjorie F. Knowles and Bernard W. Harleston,Achieving Diversity in the Professoriate:Challenges and Opportunities, A Report forthe American Council on Education(Washington, DC:American Council onEducation, 1997).

20 Smith, “How to Diversify the Faculty”.21 Smith, “How to Diversify the Faculty”.22 Lisa K. Burroughs, “Female Faculty of the

Organizational Culture at a Major ResearchUniversity” (Ph.D. diss., Texas A&MUniversity, 2000).

23 Caroline S. V. Turner and Samuel L. Myers, Jr.“Faculty Diversity and Affirmative Action,” inAffirmative Action’s Testament of Hope, ed.Mildred Garcia (Albany, NY: State Universityof New York Press, 1997), 131-148.

24 Nadya Aisenberg and Mona Harrington,Women of Academe: Outsiders in the SacredGrove (Amherst, MA: University ofMassachusetts Press, 1988).

25 Carla M. Iacona, “A Study of Women andMinority Faculty of EducationalAdministration” (Ph.D. diss., IndianaUniversity, 1987).

26 Mary A. Mason and Marc Goulden, “Do BabiesMatter?: The Effect of Family Formation onthe Lifelong Careers of Academic Men andWomen,” Academe 88 (November-December,2002): 21-8.

27 S. Karie Nabinet, “A Comparison of MobilityPatterns of Minority Faculty (Male andFemale) and White Female Faculty inSelected State Schools of Higher Education”(Ph.D. diss., Adelphi University, 1985).

28 Knowles and Harleston, Achieving Diversity inthe Professoriate.

29 Kul B. Rai and John W. Critzer, AffirmativeAction and the University: Race, Ethnicityand Gender in Higher Education Employment(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000).

30 Funding for the Annual Surveys of Journalism& Mass Communication Enrollments in 2000

SPRING’ 0347

was provided by the American Society ofNewspaper Editors, the Association forEducation in Journalism and MassCommunication, the Association of Schools ofJournalism and Mass Communication, CoxNewspapers Inc., The Freedom Forum(Sustaining Sponsor), Gannett, the HearstCorporation, Jane Pauley and NBC, theMagazine Association of Georgia, the NationalAssociation of Broadcasters, the Newsletter &Electronic Publishers Foundation, theNewspaper Association of AmericaFoundation, the Radio-Television NewsDirectors Association, the Scripps HowardFoundation, and the Henry W. Grady Collegeof Journalism and Mass Communication at theUniversity of Georgia. The John S. and JamesL. Knight Foundation became a SustainingSponsor beginning in 2001.

31 Among those in the Cox Center providingassistance with data collection for andproduction of this report were: graduatestudents George Daniels, Todd Drake, JoellePrine, Aswin Punathambekar and KinetraSmith, and undergraduate research clerksRaushanah Boney, Leslie Buschbom, KeertiHasija, Anna-Elisa Mackowiak and KrystinPatterson.

32 Both datasets are available from the IPEDSwebsite at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/data.html.

33 The data were taken manually for each statefrom the Census Bureau website at http://www.census.gov/.

34 The successful programs were at the Universityof Alabama, the University of Florida, and theUniversity of Missouri. The unsuccessfulprograms, by agreement, cannot be identified.The assistance of the administrators, facultyand staff at all six programs is gratefullyacknowledged.

35 The number of full-time university facultymembers overall increased from 1989 to 1999by 12.8%. The actual increase was fromroughly 524,000 full-time faculty membersnationally to 591,000. See U.S. Department ofEducation. National Center for EducationStatistics. Digest of Educational Statistics,2001, Table 228. Washington, D.C. 2002.

36 Lee B. Becker, Gerald M. Kosicki, HeatherHammatt, Wilson Lowrey, S.C. Shin andJeffery M. Wilson, “Enrollment and DegreesGranted Continue 5-year Growth Trend,”Journalism & Mass Communication Educator54 (1999): 5-22,100-110.

37 The average change over the last nine yearswas .755. Using that rate, rather than 2% overthree years (.667), produces an estimate ofyear 2032 for parity. The figure of 2% wasused because change was exactly 2% from1992 to 1995 and 1.8% from 1995 to 1998.

Either 2032 or 2035 is only a gross estimate.In fact, the percentage of women enrolled injournalism and mass communicationprograms does seem to be growing slight. Inthe autumn of 2001, women made up anestimated 63.4% of the undergraduates injournalism and mass communicationprograms, in comparison with the figure of61.3% in 1998. See Lee B. Becker, Tudor Vlad,Jisu Huh and George L. Daniels, “AnnualEnrollment Report: Growth in Number ofStudents Studying Journalism and MassCommunication Slows,” Journalism & MassCommunication Educator 57 (2002): 184-212.

38 The rate of .33 percentage points for the last sixyears actually produces an estimate of 2034. Ifgrowth rate for the whole nine year period isused, parity with the 1998 figure would bereached in 2017. If the growth rate for the lastthree years is used, parity with the 1998figures would be reached in 2086!

39 U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of theUnited States: 2000 (120th Edition). Table No.16. Washington, D.C. 2000. The projection isan extrapolation of projections for thepopulation of the U.S. for 2030 and 2040,rather than for the population of collegestudents. At present, minorities are under-represented at universities, but that situationcould improve by 2035. In the autumn of2001, an estimated 26.3% of the enrolledundergraduate students in journalism andmass communication programs were racial orethnic minorities. See Lee B. Becker, TudorVlad, Jisu Huh and George L. Daniels,“Annual Enrollment Report: Growth inNumber of Students Studying Journalism andMass Communication Slows.”

40 U.S. Department of Education. National Centerfor Education Statistics. Digest of EducationalStatistics 1992 (Table 212), Digest ofEducational Statistics 1994 (Table 220),Digest of Educational Statistics 1996 (Table221), Digest of Educational Statistics 1999(Table 226), Digest of Educational Statistics2000 (Table 230) Washington, D.C., 1993,1995, 1997, 2000, 2001.

41 Accredited programs were much more likely tobe represented in this data base than in theoverall population of schools. One clear effectof accreditation is the production of andwillingness to report statistics monitored inthe enrollment survey. Of the 104 accreditedprograms in 1998, 88 (84.6%) had reportedcomplete data on faculty characteristics for1989 and 1998. For the remaining 347, only175 (50.4%) had complete data files.

42 The data are taken from the National Center forEducation Statistics IPEDS data file. The 1993to 1997 period was the only one available foranalysis.


43 The data come from IPEDS and cover the 1990to 1997 period.

44 The period covered, using the IPEDS data file,is 1990 to 1997.

45 The data come for the 2000 U.S. Census.Region was divided into nine categories (NewEngland, Middle Atlantic, East North Central,West North Central, South Atlantic, EastSouth Central, West South Central, Mountain,Pacific).

46 Accreditation is measured as part of theenrollment survey. Accreditation status in1998 is used in these analyses.

47 The authors thank Dr. Lionel C. Barrow,emeritus professor at Howard University, forhis comments on an earlier version of thispaper suggesting this analysis.

48 The Information Sciences Department wasadded to the College after 1998.

predictors of diversification of journalism & mass ... · journalism & mass communication educator...

Documents