Public Relations : A Tool for Scaffolding Effective Communication Between

The concern for effective communication in higher education is imperative for today’s society. Indeed, “for an active, qualified, and productive education, effective communication skills are needed among school managers and teachers”. ((Habaci et al., 2013p. 690). Accordingly, public relations has emerged lately as a compelling implement for transforming and boosting productivity in higher education because it has renovated and modernised the communication concept. Thus, it is appropriate for the kind of interaction that is suitable for the present globalized world needs. Furthermore, public relations communication can enhance effective communication at the tertiary level and thus enable the university to accelerate human progress and economic and social development. (Savio, 1992). Following the same reasoning, investing in effective communication, especially between university professors and higher education administrators, may lead to radical changes concerning quality in higher education. That is to say, if the administrators in any higher education institution are equipped with sufficient communication skills, they will likely boost understanding and trust Abstract The present study investigates how Public Relations can upgrade effective communication between university professors and higher education administrators. The data was collected through a questionnaire handed out to 135 Moroccan university professors and administrators operating in more than 10 Moroccan public higher institutions. This study aims to show the importance of public relations communication as a propitious tool conducive to quality in higher education. The results of this study corroborate that the Moroccan university professors ’interaction with higher education administration is mainly compatible with some elements of public relations communication. The results also show that Moroccan university professors and higher education administrators are aware of the positive impact of effective communication on the university’s reputation and the good functioning of the teaching and scientific research at the tertiary level. The findings also reveal some aspects that hinder effective communication between university professors and administrators. Received: 04/05/2022

Public relations as a communication vehicle and as a tool of corporate or marketing management has a vital role to play in developing effective communications or effective relationships with a wide diversity of publics or audiences who could impact organizational performance. (p.23). The above definition incorporates two key elements: communication management and effective relationships. Indeed, many researchers (Grunig, Ferrari &France, 2009, Grunig(2000, Cutlip et al. (2000) agree that there is a need to consider PR as a communication management discipline since it can play a strategic role in managing organisational relationships with different internal and external publics. Cutlip et al. (2000), for example, point out that PR is "the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics on whom its success or failure depends".(p.6). The idea of mutual understanding is apparent in many definitions of PR. For instance, Jefkins, a British writer, states, "Public relations consists of all forms of planned communication both inward and outward between an organization and its publics to achieve objectives concerning mutual understanding." ( Jefkins, cited in Ofulue, 2006:3).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Many researchers worldwide have tackled this study's topic from different angles and contexts. In this respect, (Habaci Et al. 2013) carried out a study that examined the positive impact of using effective communication on the success and improvement of the relationships between an educational and the constituents of an educational institution.
The study's results affirm that since communication constitutes the fundamentals of interpersonal relationships, university managers, school directors, administrators, and teachers need practical communication skills to create an appropriate environment for productivity and education authorities on a regular basis about the changes that occurred inside and outside the university, were much better in terms of management and reputation.
In his study, Yi Luo used some of Grunig's principals of an excellent communication department to examine whether these principals were operational in the two universities he took as a case study. As for the result of this study, Yi Luo first confirmed that both universities had good internal and external communication. In this context, he stated that there were regular meetings (every two weeks) between heads of all departments and the deans and the staff in charge of the communication department. These meetings tackled all issues related to the flow of information among the university staff as well as the challenges facing effective communication. Furthermore, the findings of the study delineate that although two-way communication was occasionally used when communicating with professors, students and some "publics" like donors, there was a dominance of one-way communication in both universities. That is to say, communication programs used mainly the information model, which presented only favourable information about the universities.

METHODOLOGY
This study seeks to explore the communication practices between Moroccan university professors and higher education administrators and see if they match elements of public relations communication. A questionnaire was administered to university professors and administrators to obtain the quantitative data. The adoption of this research instrument is justified because of the nature of the issue under study. Creswell (2012 &2014) elaborates on the importance of questionnaires in social sciences. In this respect, he states that "one can approach research in two ways-through a quantitative study or a qualitative study depending on the type of problem you need to research" (2012:2). Quantitative research, or what (Newman& Benz, 1998) referred to as "hypothesis testing", is a tool used in research to explain phenomena through the collection of various numerical data, which are analysed using different mathematical operations. Creswell (2012) further explains that the main characteristic of quantitative research is "describing a research problem through a description of trends or a need for an explanation of the relationship among variables" (p.13). In this study, the questionnaire is structured and employs many kinds of question and response modes, including closed-ended questions (Bowling, 2005), (Cohen et al., 2007) and (Dawson, 2009. This is justified by the fact that "highly structured closed questions are more suitable for large scale surveys as they are quick for respondents to answer and are easy to analyse using statistical techniques enabling comparisons to be made across groups" (Lewin,2005:219). Dornyei (2003) convincingly states that "having designed a questionnaire and administrated it to an appropriate sample is half the battle" (p: 96). Indeed, the analysis of the data is very crucial and decisive. In the context of this study, the data were analysed through the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). This is to "produce professional graphs, tables and pie charts which can be used in your final report" (Dawson, 2002:123).

THE RESULTS
This part embarks to present and discuss the results obtained from the quantitative data.

Figure 1. Gender
These results indicate that females are less represented in Moroccan higher education institutions. This, of course, might influence the interaction between professors and administrators. The above table describes the respondents' age. The findings convincingly depict that the majority of Moroccan professors are still young. Indeed, people are energetic, creative and willing to cooperate and interact well at this age.

Professors/ administration communication
The elements in this part of the questionnaire are derived from the communication models stated by different academics; Grunig's excellence theory of communication management (1992), Grunig and Hunt's (1984) public relations models of communication, Stacks' (2011) communication models, to name but a few. Actually, these items constitute the backbone of this study since they tackle deep issues related to professors/ administrators' communication and how they relate to public relations communication. Five questionnaire items dealt with the professors' meetings with the university administration. The first item asked the respondents if the university administration called professors for meetings. The results showed that the majority of the respondents said yes (91.1%), while a small percentage of respondents said no (8.9%). Hence, we can say that nearly all higher education institutions' administrations call professors for meetings.
The second item demanded that the subjects of this study if they attend these meetings. The results showed that (32.6%) of the respondents always attended these meetings, (48.9%) of the informants said that they sometimes did, (8.9%) of the respondents revealed that they rarely did and (2.2%) of the respondents confirmed that they never attended meetings between professors and the university professors. Table 3 emphasizes these results. The third item inquired the respondents about the different issues discussed in the meetings which professors had with the university administration. In this context, a note shall be made that the respondents were given a list of four choices. The results indicated that (72.6%) of the subjects agreed that these meetings tackled issues related to the general management of the faculty, while (17%) said no. Moreover, (72.8%) of the respondents declared that these meetings discussed ways to enhance the quality of teaching and research in the faculty; however (14.8%) said no. Similarly, (43.7%) of the informants revealed that these meetings discussed the students' performance, while (45.9) answered no. The last item in the choices asked the respondents whether these meetings talked about the professors' problems. The results displayed that (47.4%) of the respondents agreed while (42.2%) of the respondents said no. Therefore, we can say that the meetings between the university administration and the university professors debated all the issues cited in the choices.
The fourth item queried the respondents if they participated actively in the meetings between professors and the university administration. The results indicated that (72.6%) of the respondents always expressed their opinions and gave their suggestions during these meetings. Similarly, (14.8%) of the respondents confirmed that they sometimes did. However, (2.2%) of the respondents reported that they rarely expressed their opinions or gave suggestions during these meetings. As shown in table 4, the number of the respondents who participated actively in these meetings outnumbers those who did not. The fifth item requested the respondents if the administration took their suggestions into account. The results indicated that (5.2%) of the informants acknowledged that their suggestions and queries were always considered. Similarly, (50.4%) of the subjects said that sometimes their requests were taken into consideration by the administration. On the other hand, (28.9%) of the respondents admitted that their suggestions and queries were rarely welcomed. While, (2.2%) of the respondents confirmed that their suggestions were never considered. The above results obviously showed that the majority of the subjects thought that the university administration sometimes took their suggestions about different issues discussed in the meetings into account. Table 5 further illustrates these results.

5-2-2.University decision makers' communication with professors
Items: six, seven, eight, and nine of the questionnaire examined an important aspect of public relations communication. That is to say; these items targeted the daily communication practice between the university administration and the professors. Hence, the sixth item asked the respondents whether the decision-makers in the institutions where they worked used a participative approach when dealing with different academic and managerial issues. The results stipulated that (66.7%) of the respondents thought that they do. However, (33.3%) of the subjects of this study thought the opposite. Figure 2 delineates these results.

Figure 2. University decision makers' use of a participative approach
The seventh item solicited the respondents about their appraisal of this participative approach. The results indicated that (6.7%) of the respondents evaluated it as (100%), (45.2%) thought it was (50%), (17%) of the respondents assessed it as (25%), while (31.1%) of the respondents thought that it was (10%). These results showed that more than half of the respondents positively evaluated the participative approach between the university decision makers and the university professors by giving it a high percentage (50%). Table 6 below further explains these results. The eighth item in the third part of the questionnaire requested the informants whether the higher authorities in the university where they worked had ever administered questionnaires to know their opinions about different academic or managerial issues. Consequently, the results demonstrated that (62.2%) of the respondents reported that they had never received any questionnaire from the higher authorities in the university. (21.5%) of them thought that they had often received questionnaires from the university decision-makers and expressed their views. Similarly, (16.3%) of the respondents reported that they were sometimes given questionnaires from the university higher authorities asking them to give their opinions about different academic and managerial issues. Therefore, we may state that the results shown in table 7 below clearly clarify that more than half of the respondents confirmed that the administration never asked them to express their opinions about issues related to the management of the university they worked in. The ninth item of the questionnaire demanded that the subjects of this study evaluate the communication between the university administration and the university professors. The results pinpointed that (10.4%) of the respondents thought that it was excellent. Similarly, (29.6%) thought that it was good, and (50.4%) reported that it was acceptable. However, (9.6%) said that it was bad. The results clearly showed that the majority of the respondents (more than 80%) positively evaluated the communication between the university administration and the university professors. Figure 3. Illustrates more the above results:

3.University professors' perception of the communication between administration and professors in other Moroccan universities
Items: ten, eleven and twelve of the questionnaire dealt with the university professors' perception of the communication between the university administration and professors in other Moroccan universities. The first item in this section inquired whether the informants were aware of the kind of relationship between the administration and professors in different universities in Morocco. The results indicated that (76.3%) of the respondents answered positively, while (23%) of the respondents answered negatively. These results are interesting since they obviously imply that Moroccan university professors are inquisitive about the kind of communication between the decision-makers and professors in other Moroccan higher institutions. Figure 4 below further embodies these results.

Figure 4. Professors' relation with the administration in other universities
The eleventh item in this part of the questionnaire investigated whether the respondents who answered the tenth item affirmatively thought that the relationship between the university administration and the professors in other Moroccan universities was the same as in the universities they worked in. The results showed that (17.8%) of the informants answered that it was the same, while (60.7%) of the respondents said that it was not the same. Hence, these results clearly showed that the respondents thought that the relationship between the university administration and the university professors in the universities they worked in was different from those in other universities. Table 8 displays the above results. To justify this difference, the item above asked the respondents who claimed that the relationship between the university administration and the universities in other Moroccan universities was different from the one in the universities they worked in. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that four were given choices. The first choice asked the respondents whether they thought the difference was due to the nature of the decision-makers in these universities. The results indicated that (90.7%) of the respondents answered yes, while (9.3%) said no. Therefore, we may infer that the majority of the respondents strongly agreed that the university's decision makers affected the communication between the administration and the professors.

Discussion of the results
The results of this study show efficiently that in their regular interaction, Moroccan university professors and administrators use many elements of public relations communication.
Indeed, the findings are very compelling since they resonate well with the contentions of renowned experts in PR, namely Grunig (1992& 2011. In this respect, (Grunig et al., 2002 asserted that one of the public relations' functions is harmonising the interests of an organisation with those of the people on whom its success depends. Overall, the findings of this study were valuable since they highlighted some interesting aspects of public relations communication. One of these aspects was concerned with the meetings between professors and the administration inside the institution where they worked. The findings revealed that (32.6%) of the respondents always participated actively in meetings with higher education authorities, and (48.9%) confirmed that they sometimes did. This finding obviously showed the professors' willingness to communicate and contribute to improving their institutions. Besides, the results also indicated that (72.6%) of the respondents acknowledged that those meetings tackled issues related to the general management of the university as a whole and (72.8%) of them revealed that the meetings discussed ways to enhance the quality of teaching and research in the faculty. Indeed, the finding mentioned above obviously resonates well with (Gunig et al. (2002) and Botan (2006). They both explained that symmetrical communication inside a workplace helps build a participative culture, which in turn promotes employee satisfaction.
Another aspect of public relations communication, which was apparent in the findings, was professors' awareness of the importance of participative approach. To illustrate more, more than half of the respondents positively evaluate the participative approach between the university decision makers and the university professors. This of course is very revealing and of great importance since it meets Grunig& Hunt (1984), Grunig (1992) and (Grunig et al., 2002) views about the importance of strengthening vertical and horizontal communication within an organisation.
Nevertheless, some elements about professors and high education administrators were not compatible with public relations communication. One example was involving the university professors in different managerial and academic issues through the administration of questionnaires or surveys. With regard to this point, Grunig (1992) and (Cutlip et al., 2006) explained that organisations, be them public or private, should seek to know their publics' needs, worries and suggestions through carrying out research or surveys. The finding indicated that (62.2%) of the respondents confirmed that the higher education administrators in their universities had never administered a survey or a questionnaire to ask them about their opinions concerning issues related to management, teaching, research and others. This is a tangible example of what Grunig and Hunt (1984) called one-way asymmetrical communication. According to these theorists, this model often leads to dissatisfaction and impedes the 'publics' from establishing a favourable image for the university.

Conclusion
Many researchers, such as Grunig (2011) and (Baines et al., 2004) think that one of the key elements to organisational effectiveness and success in this century is relationships. Indeed, if great attention is paid to the issue of relationships, especially in higher education institutions, it can surely promote cooperation, reduce conflicts and increase quality. Similarly, listening and being open to the 'publics' opinions, needs and suggestions are imperative to organisational effectiveness these days. In other words, this century, which is characterised by the evolution in the field of technology accompanied with the spread of the internet and the emergence of a new culture related to the right to be informed and the right to participate in decision-making, needs a sophisticated kind of communication. In the case of this study, it is public relations communication.
Accordingly, the results of this study are significant since they delineate fascinating aspects of the communication between Moroccan university professors and the administrators at the tertiary level. First, despite the absence of public relations services in the Moroccan university, several elements related to public relations communications were noticed in the interaction between the Moroccan university professors and administrators. Moreover, even though these communication activities are not defined in PR terms, they belonged to PR communication .Second, these findings revealed that both the Moroccan university professors and the higher education authorities in Morocco were aware of PR communication and they used some of its elements. Third, although there is an endeavor from the part of Moroccan higher education administrators and university professors to communicate effectively , the communication models which are omnipresent in the Moroccan university are what Grunig and Hunt (1984) called 'one-way or 'two-way asymmetrical communication'. That is to say, Moroccan higher education administrators and professors tend to focus only on the transmission of their messages without making an effort to engage in strategic cooperation.
To conclude, (Landrum et al., 2001) state, "The image portrayed by institutions of higher education plays a critical role in the attitudes of the institution's publics towards that institution" (Landrum et al., 2001), Cited in Jonathan Ivy, 2001. The corollary of this is that the results of this study, do not only concern the professors and the higher education administrators, but also the university and society as a whole. Nowadays, many universities all over the world have started to benefit from public relations communication so that they could improve the quality of their interaction with their publics and scaffold a favourable image of their universities.