Two views on "Women in Public Relations: How Gender Influences Practice"

Communication World, June, 2001 by Frank Wylie, Tamara Gills

by Larissa A. Grunig, Elizabeth Lance Toth, Linda Childers Hon The Guilford Press, 2001, 424 pages.

When three respected educator-researchers combine to address a vital subject, it is interesting news. This team effort, however, does not meet the high level of expectation. The research on women in PR looks primarily at the arguments that women should be promoted higher, paid more. The premise is sound. The execution is marred by poor editing and redundancy.

There is considerable commentary on the feminization of public relations and how that may diminish the stature and role of PR. That most PR students are women was an established fact some 10 to 20 years ago. To that we must now add the fact that more women than men are enrolling in college. Feminization is coming, and rather than bemoan the fact that PR will be feminized, why not assert that in a world heading for feminization, PR is in the lead? Rather than assume that feminization means diminution, why not consider the priorities of basic emotions? Do we really believe that sexism, or feminization, will have a greater impact than greed? Women are demonstrating not just their equality but also their superiority. They are the talent!

It is also often overlooked that many women are in PR because it pays better than other job alternatives. To that we must add that "equal pay for equal work" is now the law in the U.S., and it will exert an increasingly profound effect on salary equality for women. The pay gap gets smaller each year, and I hope it will equal out soon.

The reader might wish that the text explored in more depth the opinions of leading women in the field and comments of leading CEOs. This could have contributed important insight. It could also have built a strong basis of support for women's role.

The text blithely refers often to the PR profession and then recants slightly. But most people, women included, enter PR with just a bachelor's degree. To bypass additional advanced degrees and licensing and then claim special status seems quite unreasonable.

More attention might have been focused on the fact that what students learn in courses other than PR is at least equally important, perhaps more so. The authors might also suggest that a PR undergraduate degree with a marketing minor, or the PR undergraduate degree paired with an MBA, may be the best combinations.

One might have wished for a further discussion of the fact that our society places a greater communication burden-opportunity on women, teaching them to listen and thus begin to understand communication's most basic aspects. Indeed, many educators would agree that not only are most students women, but also the best students are women. They communicate, observe, listen and write better.

The authors do a fine job of presenting the additional problems that women face as they juggle the three careers of work, marriage and parenting. Their review of feminist literature is excellent but may seem overpowering and tedious to some.

In their discussions of the feminization of public relations and a questionable future for it, they make the suggestion that it could be subsumed under another discipline, possibly marketing. Why shouldn't the opposite be possible? Perhaps because neither PRSA nor IABC, nor each of us, has done enough to explain and promote the practice of quality public relations. There has been-is-no PR for PR! Could that be the primary priority?

I've been asked to review this text as I am myself embarking on a career promotion to chairperson of my academic department. I should preface my review by saying that the authors of the text will probably label me subscriber to a liberal feminist perspective because I believe in the free will of each individual to chart his or her destiny and thus adapt to each business situation. I prefer to analyze the text from a Machiavellian perspective and to remind the reader that all business is based on rules of self-preservation, regardless of gender. The bottom line is preservation of the profession and its value in business today.

As a practitioner and educator who happens to be female, I find much of the content of this book old news...a history of gender inequality in the United States. But for anyone new to the profession or lacking in the historical foundation of the issues of gender inequity in the profession specifically, and the work force in general, this is a good review.

The authors of this research study admit early in the text that they are not being comprehensive in the material presented (because of space constraints) and they do not claim to be completely objective (consider that they are three white females). To their credit, the text is a review of gender work-place issues. Many issues are repeatedly raised in consecutive chapters, creating redundancy and fueling stereotypes of women in the work force. This can be tedious reading at times.

As a researcher, I say this is all well and good; but as a practitioner, I think a more practical guide for diversity (as a more inclusive issue) in the work place might better serve the profession. For a practitioner, more emphasis on models or suggestions for improving conditions for all public relations practitioners (women and men) is in order. Because the text focuses more on the history of gender inequity, a balance of propositions and suggestions for improving conditions would be helpful. But it was not forthcoming.