Thomasena Shaw, Journal of Public Relations Education, Vol. 3, Issue 2, 59-77 Abstract "Internships have significant early career advantages for undergraduates including less time finding a first employment position, increased monetary compensation and greater overall job satisfaction. Considerable professional and scholarly evidence highlights the important role of undergraduate internships, as well as gaps that exist between students and supervisors regarding the relative importance of specific job skills and professional characteristics. While previous studies have explored the underlying feelings and expectations of the two groups in professional and academic contexts, this exploratory case study uses coorientation as the theoretical framework to examine the levels of agreement, congruency and accuracy that exist between them in relation to key jobs skills and professional characteristics linked with career success; it also provides insight into the extent to which respondents perceive that the internship improved students’ college-learning outcomes. The key findings of this study indicate that the majority of respondents believed that the experience improved performance in relation to college learning outcomes. The study also found that students and supervisors are accurately cooriented with one another in relation to job skills items, but less so when it comes to professional characteristics. This could be particularly problematic for student interns as misperceptions and misunderstanding can potentially lead to missed opportunities for collaboration and integration, and/or a self-fulfilling prophecy where supervisors’ lack of coorientation damages the possibility of a cooperative relationship with current and future student interns, and the academic programs that bring them together."

1. INTRODUCTION
The internship experience is broadly regarded by practitioners and educators as
a critical event that often serves as a transition to an entry-level position (Gault, Reding-
ton, & Schlager, 2000; Gibson, 2001) and better employment opportunities for students
(Knouse & Fontenot, 2008; Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999; Redeker, 1992; Taylor,
1988). Internships improve college performance via experiential learning (Cantor, 1997;
Ciofalo, 1989; McCarthy, 2006), improve personal habits such as time management and
dependability (Sapp & Zhang, 2009; Taylor, 1988), have the potential to strengthen
academic programs via service learning and citizenship (Fall, 2006; Mendel-Reyes,
1998), and help students make valuable connections with industry (Tovey, 2001) and
community partners (Bringle, 2002; Soska & Butterfield, 2013). Internships provide
Journal of Public Relations Education
Volume 3 (2), 2017, 59-77
Mind The Gap: An Exploratory Case Study Analysis of Public
Relations Student Intern and On-Site Supervisors’ Perceptions
of Job Skills and Professional Characteristics
Thomasena Shaw, Bridgewater State University
Abstract
Internships have significant early career advantages for undergradu-
ates including less time finding a first employment position, increased
monetary compensation and greater overall job satisfaction. Considera-
ble professional and scholarly evidence highlights the important role of
undergraduate internships, as well as gaps that exist between students
and supervisors regarding the relative importance of specific job skills
and professional characteristics. While previous studies have explored
the underlying feelings and expectations of the two groups in profes-
sional and academic contexts, this exploratory case study uses coorien-
tation as the theoretical framework to examine the levels of agreement,
congruency and accuracy that exist between them in relation to key jobs
skills and professional characteristics linked with career success; it also
provides insight into the extent to which respondents perceive that the
internship improved students’ college-learning outcomes. The key find-
ings of this study indicate that the majority of respondents believed that
the experience improved performance in relation to college learning
outcomes. The study also found that students and supervisors are accu-
rately cooriented with one another in relation to job skills items, but
less so when it comes to professional characteristics. This could be par-
ticularly problematic for student interns as misperceptions and misun-
derstanding can potentially lead to missed opportunities for collabora-
tion and integration, and/or a self-fulfilling prophecy where supervi-
sors’ lack of coorientation damages the possibility of a cooperative re-
lationship with current and future student interns, and the academic
programs that bring them together.

2. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 60
students with a unique opportunity to gain valuable interpersonal, social, and contextual
attitudes necessary for entry into non-academic settings (Anson & Forsberg, 1992), and
crystallize personal interests and career ambitions (Coco, 2000).
Professional and scholarly evidence suggests a gap exists between students and
supervisors regarding the relative importance of specific job skills and professional
characteristics (CPRE, 1999; CPRE, 2006; Daugherty, 2011; Neff, Walker, Smith, &
Creedon, 1999; Todd, 2014). While these and other studies have explored the underly-
ing feelings and expectations of the two groups in professional and academic contexts,
this study uses coorientation as the theoretical framework. Specifically, the researcher
examines the levels of accuracy, congruency and agreement that exist between the two
groups in relation to a number of job skills and professional characteristics considered
necessary for a positive internship experience and future career success. The results are
intended to extend existing understanding of the topic and suggest intentional changes
to course design and dialogue regarding teaching practices that could improve student
learning outcomes – ultimately laying the groundwork for the two groups to “coorient”
toward one another accurately.
In the next section of this paper, a review of literature defines and examines the
benefits of the internship experience, explores it in a public relations program context,
and outlines the study’s theoretical framework: coorientation. Next, the researcher out-
lines the survey methodology employed, describes results, and discusses implications of
the findings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Benefits of the Internship Experience
Internships help students transition to entry-level positions (Gault, Redington,
& Schlager, 2000; Gibson, 2001), improve interconnections between service learning
and citizenship education (Fall, 2006; Mendel-Reyes, 1998), and have the potential to
strengthen relationships between the academy and business and community partners
(Tovey, 2001). An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education states that academic
internships are valuable partnerships that allow students to collaborate closely with fac-
ulty, and strengthen ties between the academy and the community—whether students
are paid or not (Westerberg & Wickersham, 2011). Regarding the benefits to the organi-
zation, internships provide direct business contact for students in an employment setting
(Gupta, Burns, & Schiferl, 2010), prepare students with realistic expectations of their
future careers, and an opportunity to gain on-the-job experience (Paulins, 2008). They
provide additional well-educated, talented labor capacity (Brindley & Ritchie, 2000;
Callanan & Benzing, 2004; Mihail, 2006), “compensation efficiencies,” and an oppor-
tunity to see how much potential a student has in the field before hiring them (Coco,
2000). Indeed, Watson (1995) estimated that it is $15,000 per person less expensive to
hire interns than to recruit and select candidates from an at-large pool. Maertz, Stoeberl,
and Philipp (2014) assert that interns are often more loyal toward the company and stay
longer than the average non-intern hire.
College Internship Experiences Defined
The earliest recorded college-endorsed employment program was established
in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati’s Cooperative Education Program (Thiel & Hart-
ley, 1997). Typical contemporary internship programs have the following attributes:
they offer a specific number of work hours, paid or unpaid employment, credit for col-

3. Shaw 61
lege classes, supervision by a faculty coordinator or other university contact, and super-
vision by an organization mentor (DiLorenzo-Aiss & Mathisen, 1996; Gault, Redington,
& Schlager, 2000; Roznowski & Wrigley, 2003). To maximize the internship experi-
ence, Coco (2000) asserts that students should be held accountable for projects and
deadlines. Lubbers and Bourland-Davis (2012) suggest that on-site supervisors should
provide incoming interns with some kind of orientation, where goals are clearly articu-
lated, and with access to regular meaningful feedback. This type of internship experi-
ence resembles what Kuh (2008) describes as high impact . Learning experiences such
as internships are considered high impact practices when they are effortful, help stu-
dents build substantive relationships, help students engage across differences, provide
students with rich feedback, help students apply and test what they are learning in new
situations, and provide opportunities for students to reflect on the people they are be-
coming.
Divine, Linrud, Miller, and Wilson (2007) indicate that approximately 90% of
U.S. colleges offer internships or similar experiential opportunities. In 2016, a US News
and World Report survey of 324 ranked colleges and universities found that on average
40% of the undergraduate class of 2014 had internship experience. At the eight schools
with the highest rates of participation, 100% of undergraduates completed an internship
(Smith-Barrow, 2016). A National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE,
2016) report found that more than 56% of students from the class of 2015 who partici-
pated in an internship had received at least one job offer by April of that year (compared
to only 36.5% of undergrads who did not have an internship) and that the intern conver-
sion rate was 51.7%.
The Internship Experience in a Public Relations Program Context
Internships are strongly encouraged and valued among both public relations
educators and employers; the experience lends credibility to university public relations
programs (Van Leuven, 1989a), and allows students to observe public relations practi-
tioners in the roles of manager, strategist, planner, problem solver and counselor to
management (Baxter, 1993). Lubbers, Bourland-Davis and Rawlins (2008) describe it
as a process of socialization through which interns learn the values associated with the
profession.
The industry’s largest organization of public relations professionals, the Public
Relations Society of America (PRSA), encourages internships as a key way for students
to enhance their education, résumé, portfolio, networking, and technical skills (Beebe,
Blaylock, & Sweetser, 2009). A national study conducted by the Commission on Public
Relations Education entitled “A Port of Entry” recommends a supervised work experi-
ence as one of the core courses for students majoring or pursuing an emphasis in public
relations (CPRE, 1999); the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass
Communications (ACEJMC) also advocates and encourages opportunities for internship
and other professional experiences outside the classroom (ACEJMC, 2013).
Research also supports the notion that a quality public relations internship in-
creases job satisfaction after graduation (Horowitz, 1997), is a necessity for mass com-
munication students making the transition from college to career (Beard & Morton,
1999), and is typically favored by students to seek mentoring and to make contacts
(Basow & Byrne, 1993).
With regard to discipline-specific skills supervisors believed most necessary
for public relations interns, Beard and Morton (1999) identify six predictors for intern-
ship success in a public relations context: (1) academic preparedness, (2) proactivity/
aggressiveness, (3) positive attitude, (4) quality of worksite supervision, (5) organiza-

4. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 62
tional practices and policies, and (6) compensation. Brown and Fall (2005) identified
writing, oral, and organizational skills, and note that the most valued professional char-
acteristics were intangible: motivation and “healthy, upbeat attitudes” (p. 303). The
aforementioned “Port of Entry” report (1999, p. 12) identified the following as core
skills: mastery of language in written/oral communication; community relations, con-
sumer relations, employee relations and other practice areas; research methods and anal-
ysis; problem solving and negotiation; and informative and persuasive writing.
Disparities Regarding Learning Outcomes
Despite the obvious benefits of the internship experience, research does indi-
cate that disparities exist between how public relations practitioners, academic pro-
grams, and students perceive the importance of job skills and professional characteris-
tics, which has the potential to lead to missed opportunities for all parties.
A study conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Uni-
versities (Hart, 2016) indicated that the college learning outcomes employers considered
top priorities include demonstration in “cross-cutting skills” related to communication,
teamwork, ethical decision-making, critical thinking, and applying knowledge in real-
world settings (p.1). Sixty percent of employers indicated that they would be much
more likely to consider a candidate that had recently completed an internship. However,
44% felt that recent college graduates were not well-prepared to apply their knowledge
in real-world settings, and gave students low scores for preparedness across a range of
college learning outcomes including ability to communicate orally, working effectively
with others in teams, and critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills. There was
alignment in the category referred to as staying current with new technologies; however,
students were more than twice as likely as employers to think they were prepared in
terms of oral communication, written communication, critical thinking, and creativity.
Two separate Commission on Public Relations Education reports (CPRE,
1999; CPRE, 2006) indicate that a number of key competencies and skills were weak or
missing among entry-level public relations graduates, including: writing skills, under-
standing of business practices, and critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Neff,
Walker, Smith, and Creedon (1999) assert that gaps exist between the outcomes educa-
tors and employers desire and those presently achieved in public relations education.
They found that public relations graduates don’t always meet entry-level outcome com-
petencies expected by employers, and recommended changes in curriculum, pedagogy
and assessment.
It would appear that these disparities also spill over into the internship experi-
ence. Meng (2013) found differences between students and practitioners; practitioners
ranked strategic decision-making capability, ability to solve problems and produce de-
sired results, and communication knowledge and expertise highest. Meanwhile, public
relations students rated ability to solve problems and produce desired results, being
trustworthy and dependable, and relationship-building abilities highest. Sapp and Zhang
(2009) found that industry supervisors rated students’ performance in the categories of
attitude and interaction the highest, and skills related to the students’ writing skills,
ability to take initiative, professional skills, spoken communication skills, and time
management skills among the lowest. In Daugherty’s (2011) study, students indicated
that they wanted more skill development and hands-on training, while on-site supervi-
sors saw their role as more holistic. Todd (2014) found that public relations managers
rated the job skills and professional characteristics of their entry-level millennial charg-
es significantly lower than the latter group rated themselves.

5. Shaw 63
Many of the research articles, studies and reports detailed above explore the
public relations internship experience from a variety of perspectives, including that of
student interns and their on-site supervisors, but none have explored the degree of coor-
ientation—agreement, congruence and accuracy—each group perceives the other to
have with his/her own evaluations in relation to recognized job skills and professional
characteristics. Coorientation rests on the assumption that a person’s behavior is based
on a combination of his/her personal construction of the world and the perception of
orientations of those around them (Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1953). As such, the theory
suggests methods for measuring the degree of mutual orientation of individuals, groups
or organizations toward an object, or the consensus among them about an object
(Pearson, 1989). In this study, coorientation theory will be used to explore if perceptions
regarding the job skills/professional characteristics necessary for a successful public
relations internship experience are accurate or not. This will identify underlying dispari-
ties (if they exist), and facilitate discussion of implications for public relations educa-
tors, student interns, and on-site supervisors.
Theoretical Framework: Coorientation
Coorientation theory stems from the study of social psychology. Essentially,
the term coorientation refers to simultaneous orientations, so if person A (on-site super-
visor) feels negatively toward B (student intern) and positively about X (job skills and/
or professional characteristics), and finds out that B feels positively about X as well,
then the system can be said to be imbalanced, or asymmetrical. Ultimately, this imbal-
ance can impede any moves toward balance or improvement of the relationship between
the two parties. Therefore, coorientation can be seen as a relational term, and it is via
communication that it is achieved. According to Johnson (1989), from this perspective,
it is imperative that consensus is examined as an interaction between people rather than
being the property of a single individual.
Perhaps the most recognizable names in this research stream are McLeod and
Chaffee (1973) who developed a coorientation measurement model with three variables:
agreement, congruency and accuracy. Perfect communication between the two groups
(A and B), totally free of constraints, would not necessarily improve agreement, and it
might even reduce congruency. Indeed, if the two are motivated to coorient, it can actu-
ally facilitate understanding, but it should always improve accuracy, even to the point
where each person knows exactly what the other is thinking; this would be perfect com-
munication in a quite literal sense.
The model, outlined in Figure 1, provides a visual representation of coorienta-
tion in relation to this study, which explores the relationship between the two
groups’ (on-site supervisors and student interns) self-reported attitudes toward an object
(rating of job skills and professional characteristics) as well as their perceptions of each
other’s self-report. This produces three coorientation variables: agreement, congruency
and accuracy.
Coorientation Variables Defined: Agreement, Congruency and Accuracy
Agreement indicates the degree to which the two groups’ beliefs on the issue (rating of
job skills and professional characteristics) are similar. Perceived disagreement/
agreement on the issue by the two groups is described as congruency. Accuracy is the
extent to which one group’s cognition (e.g., interns’ perception of supervisors’ ranking
According to Kim (1986), of the three measurements, accuracy is considered to
be the most important because it can provide a clear picture of the effects of communi-

6. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 64
cation. For example, in terms of this study, agreement on the focal point—what job
skills and professional characteristics are most important—must take place before true
understanding can occur. Although communication may often produce some increase in
accuracy, it rarely produces total agreement because each person arrives at his/her be-
liefs through personal experiences. Communication can produce marked increases in

7. Shaw 65
accuracy between the two groups because the more two parties coorient by communi-
cating private values to each other, the more accurate perceptions of those values have
the potential to become (Chaffee & McLeod, 1968).
It is important to note at this point that the coorientation variables—agreement,
congruency and accuracy—are not functionally independent of one another, since each
is based on two measures. Thus, if agreement is low and congruency is high, accuracy is
necessarily low; if agreement and congruency are both high (or low), accuracy is high.
A change in one of these variables will affect change in another if the third is held con-
stant (Chaffee & McLeod, 1968). For example, if a public relations program makes stu-
dent interns more accurate in their perceptions of the rigors and demands of actual pub-
lic relations practice, then congruency for that public will also change. The direction of
the change, higher or lower congruency, depends on the degree to which the initial su-
pervisors’ definition of the issue was similar to student interns’ views.
Examples of the theory being used by public relations researchers include use
in the exploration of public issues (Broom, 1977), media relations (Kopenhaver, Martin-
son, & Ryan, 1977), understanding between government organizations and interest
groups (Grunig, 1972), non-profit organizations and donors (Waters, 2009), journalist
and practitioner attitudes toward social media (Avery, Lariscy, & Sweetser, 2011), and
international relations (Verčič & Verčič, 2007).
There can be no doubt that student interns are operating in more competitive
and dynamic environments than ever before, and it is therefore imperative that both
groups identify issues that may help or hinder their relationship. Expanding knowledge
of the role and importance of the relationship that exists between them, as well as how
each group reacts to similar stimuli/events (i.e., improving the level of coorientation),
will potentially lead to improved student effectiveness and success, and more fruitful
collaborations between academic programs and real-world industry/organizations.
Research Questions
This study will address the following research questions:
RQ1a: How do respondents’ rate/score specific job skills (JS) and professional
characteristics (PC)?
RQ1b: Is there a significant difference in the levels of coorientation (agreement,
congruency and accuracy) regarding JS and PC between the two groups?
RQ2: Do respondents perceive that the internship experience improves students’
learning outcomes?
METHODS
Survey instrument
The researcher secured IRB approval, and pre-tested the survey with a small
sample of faculty and students to verify categorical representation, and assess validity
and comprehension. A Qualtrics survey link was then distributed to all students listed as
belonging to the Strategic Communication/Public Relations concentration in the final
three weeks of a traditional 15-week fall (2015) semester (N = 135) at a mid-sized pub-
lic Northeastern regional university. All of the students who participated had completed
(or were currently taking) a public relations practicum class, which uses a 120-hour
required field experience as a focal point (course prerequisites include Introduction to
Public Relations and Strategic Writing). Students worked at the job site 6-8 hours per
week with an on-site supervisor (who is employed in a public relations capacity at the
job site) and engaged in similar types of activities—event planning and coordination,

8. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 66
strategic writing, preparing strategic awareness/promotion materials, etc. The on-site
supervisor survey was emailed to students’ supervisors (students provided contact infor-
mation in their survey). An initial solicitation email with a web-link to the survey was
distributed to both groups and followed up with one reminder email; this yielded 32
completed student surveys (n = 32; response rate = 22%) and 15 supervisor surveys (n =
15, response rate = 50%).
The survey was comprised of three sections. The first gathered relevant demo-
graphic data from respondents, the second section asked respondents to rate/score eight
job skills and 12 professional characteristics according to (1) his/her own perceptions,
and (2) how they predict the other group would rank them (1 being most important, 12
least important).
This section has preliminary convergent validity as it adapts criteria presented
in a study conducted by Todd (2014) that also divided tasks and responsibilities into two
of these constructs. The third section of the survey explored the extent to which the in-
ternship experience improved students’ abilities related to a number of college learning
outcomes (5-point Likert scale; 1 = no improvement, 2 = slight improvement, 3 = mod-
erate improvement, 4 = significant improvement, 5 = not applicable). This section has
preliminary convergent validity because it uses several of the same constructs presented
in a study conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universi-
ties that identified college learning outcomes employers considered top priorities. The
Cronbach's α score was 0.86, which demonstrates acceptable internal reliability. The
final section of the survey asked respondents to answer open-ended questions related to
the overall experience, and challenges/suggestions. The convenience nature of the sur-
vey and small sample size mean that external validity for both the quantitative and qual-
itative parts of the study are low; therefore, only face validity can be assumed.
RESULTS
Description of Respondents
Of the 47 respondents participating in the study, 68% (n = 32) were student
interns and 32% (n = 15) were on-site supervisors. Sixty-eight percent (n = 24) of the
interns were female and 32% (n = 8) were male; on-site supervisors were 53% female (n
= 8) and 47% male (n = 7). Student respondents were mostly aged 21-25 (93% of stu-
dents; n = 28); on-site supervisors’ ages ranged from 26-65, the median age being 39.
The majority of both student and on-site supervisors identified as Caucasian (81%; stu-
dents n = 26 and supervisors n = 13). The student respondents were mostly seniors
(93%; n = 28), 19 % (n = 6) were juniors. All on-site supervisors (n = 15) reported hav-
ing a 4-year college degree, two of them (20%) have a master’s degree. In the on-site
supervisor group, 67% (n = 10) work in private not-for profit (charitable organization),
the remainder work in other non-profit settings (local government n = 2; state govern-
ment n = 2). Just over half of the students (53%; n = 17) reported that this was their first
internship; 22% (n = 7) have had two; 19% (n = 6) have had three internships. In terms
of how many hours students have worked at their internships, 66% (n = 21) worked
under 10 hours; 19% (n = 6) worked over 15 hours. On-site supervisors indicated that
47% (n = 7) have had just one student intern, 33% (n = 5) have had more than three,
and 20% (n = 3) had two interns. The majority of supervisors indicated that interns
worked fewer than 10 hours per week (80%; n = 12).

9. Shaw 67
RQ1a: How do respondents rate/score the importance of related job skills and pro-
fessional characteristics?
Job skills: student interns. With regard to the eight job skills (see Table 1),
student interns reported their top four (in order of preference) as, quality of work (M =
6.28, SD = 1.37), overall performance (M = 5.72, SD = 2.55), writing skills (M = 5.56,
SD = 1.62), and job task preparation (M = 5.06, SD = 2.15). Their bottom four were
oral communication skills (M = 4.81, SD = 1.92), knowledge of social media (M = 3.19,
SD = 2.07), computer skills (M = 3.0, SD = 1.66), and research skills (M = 2.4, SD =
1.38).
Table 1
Job skills – Students’ and Supervisors’ Self Mean
Job skills: on-site supervisors. On-site supervisors reported their top four job
skills (see Table 1) in order of preference as, quality of work (M = 6.5, SD = 1.50),
writing skills (M = 5.91, SD = 1.22), oral communication skills (M = 5.48, SD = 1.84),
and job task preparation (M = 5.13, SD = 2.40). Their bottom four were research skills
(M = 3.84, SD = 2.54), overall performance (M = 3.31, SD = 2.84), knowledge of social
media (M = 3.14, SD = 1.33), and computer skills (M = 2.9, SD = 1.03).
Professional characteristics: students. As there are 12 professional charac-
teristics (PC), the researcher divided them into two groups—top and bottom (see Table
2). Student interns reported the top PC needed by interns as, willingness to learn (M =
9.75, SD = 2.47), time management (M = 9.12, SD = 1.69), attention to details (M =
9.03, SD = 2.54), accept responsibility (M = 7.87, SD = 2.54), follow instructions (M =
7.84, SD = 2.7), and punctuality (M = 6.34, SD = 3.17). The bottom lower ranked were,
take on new tasks (M = 6.12, SD = 2.98), cooperation (M = 5.96, SD = 2.23), accept
criticism (M = 5.65, SD = 2.71), work independently (M = 5.25, SD = 3.3), aware of
ethics (M = 2.65, SD = 2.85), and understand diversity (M = 2.37, SD = 1.94).
Professional characteristics: on-site supervisors. On-site supervisors reported
their top PC as (see Table 2), willingness to learn (M = 11.87, SD = 0.516), attention to
details (M = 10.13, SD = 1.55), follow instructions (M = 7.93, SD = 2.54), time man-
agement (M = 7.4, SD = 2.13), accept responsibility (M = 7.27, SD = 1.94), and work
independently (M = 6.93, SD = 3.47). The bottom ranked PCs were, cooperation (M =
6.07, SD = 1.86), accept criticism (M = 5.93, SD = 1.94), take on new tasks (M = 5.2,
SD = 1.78), punctuality (M = 3.93, SD = 2.78), aware of ethics (M = 3.07, SD = 3.49),
Job Skill
Student self-
mean
Supervisor
self-mean
Difference
in means
Research skills 2.4 3.84 -1.44
Computer skills 3.0 2.9 .10
Knowledge of social media 3.19 3.14 .05
Oral communication skills 4.81 5.48 -.67
Job task preparation 5.06 5.13 -.07
Writing skills 5.56 5.91 .35
Overall performance 5.72 3.31 2.41
Quality of work 6.28 6.5 .22

10. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 68
and understand diversity (M = 2.27, SD = .88).
Table 2
Job skills – Students’ and Supervisors’ Self Mean
RQ1b: Is there a significant difference in the levels of coorientation (agreement,
accuracy, congruence) between the two groups?
Coorientation variables.
Agreement. When respondents’ self–reports are compared to the self-reports
of members of the other group, a coorientational insight into the level of agreement that
exists between the two groups was obtained by utilizing a non-parametric statistical
measure: the Mann-Whitney U test. The central question here is: Do students and super-
visors agree on the rating/scoring of the items (student self vs supervisor self)?
Mann-Whitney U-tests indicated that, for the most part, the two groups agreed
with one another on the ratings/scores of the eight JS presented in the survey. The only
exception relates to the item overall performance (z = -2.813, p = 0.005). Here, stu-
dents’ mean scores were higher than supervisors’ self-reports (student mean = 5.7; su-
pervisor mean = 3.30).
Regarding the 12 PCs, respondents’ scores were similar on the majority of the
items except for three items: (1) willingness to learn (z = -3.474, p = 0.001)—
supervisors rated it higher than students (supervisor mean = 11.80; student mean =
9.70); (2) time management (z = -2.601, p = 0.009)—students rated it higher than super-
visors (student mean = 9.1; supervisor mean = 7.40); and (3) punctuality (z = -2.503, p
= 0.012)—students rated it higher that their on-site counterparts (student mean = 6.3;
supervisor mean = 3.9).
Congruency. To achieve coorientational insight into the level of congruency,
respondents’ self–reports are compared to their projections of “other group” responses.
Mann-Whitney U-tests compared respondents’ selections. The central question here is:
Professional Characteristics
Student self-
mean
Supervisor
self-mean
Difference
in means
Understand diversity 2.38 2.27 .11
Aware of ethics 2.66 3.07 -.41
Work independently 5.25 6.93 -1.68
Accept criticism 5.66 5.93 -.27
Cooperation 5.97 6.07 -.10
Take on new tasks 6.12 5.20 .92
Punctuality 6.34 3.93 2.41
Follow instructions 7.83 7.93 -.10
Accept responsibility 7.88 7.27 .61
Attention to details 9.03 10.13 -1.10
Time management 9.13 7.40 1.73
Willingness to learn 9.75 11.87 -2.12

11. Shaw 69
How similar are respondents’ ratings/scores of job skills and professional characteristics
to how they perceive their counterparts will rate/score the items (student self vs. student
other; supervisor self vs. supervisor other)?
Student interns. Student intern ratings/scores were congruent with their per-
ceptions of how supervisors would rate/score the items. No significant differences oc-
curred in the JS category. Regarding professional characteristics, congruence also exists
across all items; students’ ratings/scores were similar to their perceptions of how super-
visors’ would rate/score the items across all items.
Table 3
Professional Characteristics – Supervisor Congruency
On-site supervisors. Supervisors’ ratings/scores of job skills were congruent
with their perceptions of how students would rate/score all JS items except for social
media (z = -1.900, p = 0.050). However, in the PC category, there was a distinct lack of
congruency across all items except work independently (z = -1.827, p = 0.068; see Ta-
ble 3); supervisors’ ratings/scores were significantly different to their perceptions of
how students would rate/score the items.
The central question was: How similar are respondents’ ratings/scores of job
skills and professional characteristics to how they perceive their counterparts will rate/
score the items (student self vs. student other; supervisor self vs. supervisor other)? Stu-
dents displayed high levels of congruency—how they ranked all items in the job skills
and professional characteristics categories matched how they perceived their supervisor
counterparts would rank the items. On-site supervisors also displayed high levels of
congruency in the job skills section; however, in the professional characteristics catego-
ry, supervisors perceived that students’ selections would be different to their choices.
Accuracy. Finally, when student intern self-reports (or on-site supervisors)
were compared to their projections of how the other group would respond, a coorienta-
tional insight into the level of accuracy that exists between the two groups is obtained.
Mann-Whitney U-tests calculated accuracy within the student intern and on-site super-
visor groups respectively. The central question here is: How do respondents’ (self) rat-
ings/scores compare with their counterparts’ perceptions (other) of how they will rate/
Professional Characteristics z score p value
Willingness to learn -4.670 .000
Attention to details -2.585 .010
Follow instructions -1.996 .046
Time management -2.936 .003
Accept responsibility -3.330 .001
Punctuality -4.037 .000
Cooperation -4.231 .000
Accept criticism -3.639 .000
Take on new tasks -4.648 .000
Work independently -1.827 .068
Understand diversity -4.670 .000
Aware of ethics -3.656 .000

12. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 70
score the items (student self vs. supervisor other; supervisor self vs. student other)?
Student interns. Regarding JS, student interns’ ratings/scores compared with
on-site supervisors’ perceptions of how they would respond was mostly accurate, except
in relation to the item overall performance (z = -2.447, p = 0.014). Regarding the PC
items listed in the survey, student interns’ ratings/scores compared with supervisors’
perceptions of how they would respond was accurate for just three items: willingness to
learn, attention to details, and time management. Inaccuracy existed in relation to the
ratings/scores of nine items: following instructions (z = -2.338, p = 0.019), taking re-
sponsibility (z = -2.453, p = 0.014), punctuality (z = -3.320, p = 0.001), cooperation (z =
-4.197, p = 0.000), accept criticism (z = -4.197, p = 0.000), taking on new tasks (z = -
3.680, p = 0.000), working independently (z = -3.982, p = 0.000), diversity (z = -5.362, p
= 0.000), and ethics (z = -4.801, p = 0.00).
On-site supervisors: Regarding JS items, supervisor’ ratings/scores compared
with student interns’ perceptions of how they would respond was mostly accurate. The
only exception was regarding the items oral communication (z = -2.754, p = 0.006) and
overall performance (z = -2.716, p = 0.007). In relation to the rating/score of PC items,
on-site supervisors’ ratings/scores compared with students’ perceptions of how they
would respond was accurate across most of the items. Inaccuracy existed in relation to
three: willingness to learn (z = -3.103, p = 0.002), time management (z = -2.556, p =
0.011), and punctuality (z = -2.687, p = 0.007)
The central question here is: How do respondents’ (self) ratings/scores com-
pare with their counterparts’ perceptions (other) of how they will rate/score the items?
In this study, supervisors provided stronger evidence of coorientational accuracy than
their student counterparts. When asked to project themselves as the opposite group, su-
pervisors were better at predicting on-site supervisors’ responses (inaccuracy only oc-
curred in two job skills items: oral communication and overall performance; and three
professional characteristics items: willingness to learn, time management and punctuali-
ty). Students did display evidence of accuracy in their predictions of supervisors’ ratings
of job skills (except for one item, overall performance); however, they were very poor at
predicting their counterparts’ responses in the majority (nine) of the professional char-
acteristics categories (they only accurately predicted students’ ratings of willingness to
learn, attention to detail and time management).
RQ3: Do respondents perceive that the internship experience improved students’
learning outcomes?
A Mann-Whitney U-test revealed that significant differences did not exist be-
tween the two groups regarding perceptions of whether the internship experience im-
proved students’ learning outcomes; both groups reported that the experience resulted in
moderate to significant improvement across all 12 recognized college learning outcomes
(Cronbach's α = 0.86).
Students. On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = no improvement, 2 = slight improve-
ment, 3 = moderate improvement, 4 = significant improvement, 5 = not applicable), the
majority of student respondents (N = 32) indicated that they improved across all college
learning outcome categories while working as an intern (M = 3.43).
Supervisors. On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = no improvement, 2 = slight im-
provement, 3 = moderate improvement, 4 = significant improvement, 5 = not applica-
ble), the majority of on-site supervisors indicated that students improved across all col-
lege learning outcome categories while working as interns (M = 3.49).
Responses to open-ended questions

13. Shaw 71
Students and supervisors were asked several open-ended questions about chal-
lenges they experienced related to the internship, and suggestions related to curriculum/
coursework to make the internship experience more successful.
Students. Student interns indicated that the most significant challenges they
faced related to:
Time and work-load management
[My challenges] were definitely being able to balance the work load [while]
still being a full time [sic] student. Being involved on campus, having 3 intern-
ships in total, and still trying to make money [with] a part time job. It was
tough balancing everything, as all the work from each of these things was in-
credibly important…at times it was really hard to make [priority] decisions.
The unpaid nature of internships. “[When] the internship is unpaid, it makes it
very difficult to make ends meet. This is especially true when having to travel
to the job site.”
The strong emphasis on writing ability:
I think one of my biggest challenges was being able to write press releases
since I never [wrote] them at a professional level before. I definitely had trou-
ble with certain types of writing such as creating brochures and news releases.
Adapting to working in a ‘professional’ environment. “Learning the expecta-
tions of my co-workers/supervisor and making sure I always met, and/or ex-
ceeded them. This was a challenge at times because I was new to the real world
[sic] environment and didn't know what to expect.”
With regard to suggestions to the curriculum/coursework to make the intern-
ship experience more successful, most students did not respond to this question. Those
who did were very satisfied with their preparation and experience: “I wouldn't change a
thing, it was a great experience. I loved the balance between the classroom and the field
experience.” Another student stated: “I can't imagine it being more successful. I learned
so much.”
Some student suggestions included: “[Adding] a writing refresher workshop
prior to beginning [the] internship would be beneficial,” and “Taking a business man-
agement class may have really helped too.” Additionally:
Possibly a class with reminders on basic guidelines on how to write press re-
leases and other basic PR writing tools. I found myself looking at past assign-
ments from previous years for help, my writing was not always as strong as I
wanted it to be.
When asked what the internship taught them about their major/discipline, stu-
dents indicated that they learned more about the scope of public relations: “It taught me
valuable writing skills and how to tailor wording to meet the needs of specific audienc-
es. I think I improved my listening skills as well. Two other students responded:
I learned that there are many different facets to public relations, and problems
are always going to occur. Working for a non-profit was challenging, but there
were also many benefits. I now know that it requires passion and a dedication
not required in most regular office jobs.

14. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 72
I definitely learned how to communicate in a more professional setting, i.e.
through emails, phone calls, person-to-person, etc. This experience opened my
eyes to not only the inner workings of a real world business, but also to new
workplace skills that I will definitely use in the future.
Supervisors. With regard to challenges, for supervisors it seems that the
biggest issue related to the limited time interns worked on-site: “[The] only challenge
was that she only worked two days a week and [I] felt bad trying to reach her to follow
up on items during days when she wasn't working.” Another student stated:
I couldn't be happier with the experience I've had with my intern. All of her
work has been of the highest quality and she never hesitates to take on new
tasks and responsibilities. She consistently surpasses expectations and brings
great insight and value to my department. The only challenge I may have en-
countered was keeping her busy because she was so efficient!
Regarding suggestions, supervisors indicated that perhaps more interaction
with academic advisors would be helpful:
More correspondence from the advisers is always helpful - I like having a
weekly bi-weekly or monthly check-in with the college staff to ensure the stu-
dent, adviser, and internship supervisor are all on the same page.
I felt like my intern had a very strong grasp of communication principles, spe-
cifically in regards to public relations and social media. Her coursework abso-
lutely prepared her for work in those fields. Communications work can often
come with broad job descriptions and require the communicator to wear many
‘hats’ [sic]. It seems to me that my intern had a strong academic foundation
that would be an asset in adapting to this kind of situation.
Finally, additional comments offered by supervisors were complimentary of
interns:
Our experience so far has been awesome. We currently have two different
interns here for different reasons and they are both very motivated, intelligent
and helpful. They are a great addition to our organization.
I'd just like to compliment the faculty on offering a generation of new commu-
nicators such a high level of preparation for an industry that changes daily with
the advent of new technologies and vehicles for messaging. I'm excited to see
what these future professionals will bring to the table!
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discipline-specific skills that supervisors consider most necessary for public
relations interns include strategic writing, oral, and organizational skills, research skills;
problem solving and negotiation; and informative and persuasive writing (Brown &
Fall, 2005; CPRE, 1999). Meng (2013) and Sapp and Zhang (2009) found that the prac-
titioners rank strategic decision-making capability, problem solving, and communica-
tion knowledge and expertise highest, while public relations students rate ability to
solve problems and produce desired results, writing skills, oral communication skills,
and time management skills among the lowest. The results of this study indicate that
students mostly agreed with on-site supervisors (and vice-versa) in relation to their rat-

15. Shaw 73
ings of job skills and professional characteristics. Students placed high ratings on
quality of work, overall performance, writing skills, and job task responsibility; oral
communication, knowledge of social media, computer skills and research skills were
lower rated. On-site supervisors’ top-rated job skills were quality of work, writing
skills, oral communication and job task responsibility; lower rated items were re-
search skills, overall performance, knowledge of social media and computer skills.
While there are many benefits related to the internship experience, dispari-
ties do exist between how students and supervisors perceive the importance of job
skills and professional characteristics, which can lead to missed opportunities for all
(Meng, 2013; Sapp & Zhang 2009; Todd, 2014). This survey indicates that regarding
job skills, student interns and on-site supervisors are both cooriented to one another
across all three coorientation variables (agreement, congruency and accuracy). Re-
garding professional characteristics items, both groups were also cooriented to one
another regarding the agreement variable (student self vs. supervisor self); however,
significant differences exist among on-site supervisors regarding the congruency vari-
able (supervisor self vs supervisor other), and students regarding the accuracy varia-
ble (student self vs supervisor other). This finding is potentially more problematic for
student interns than on-site supervisors because, according to Kim (1986), of the
three measurements, accuracy is the most important; it must take place before true
understanding can occur. Misperceptions and misunderstanding have the potential to
result in missed opportunities for collaboration and integration, and/or a self-fulfilling
prophecy where a lack of coorientation between both students and supervisors dam-
ages the possibility of a cooperative relationship with current and future student in-
terns, and the academic programs that provide access to students.
With regard to college learning outcomes, literature indicates that employers
believe that engaging students in internships improves college-learning outcomes,
makes students better prepared for career success, and potentially a high-impact
learning experience that deepens learning (Hart, 2016; O’Neill 2010). In this study,
the majority of students perceived that improvement was “significant,” while supervi-
sors’ perceived improvement was “moderate.” These findings differ from several
reports that indicate that public relations graduates re not meeting entry-level out-
come competencies (CPRE, 1999; CPRE, 2006; Neff, Walker, Smith, & Creedon,
1999). The high-impact focus of the internship experience respondents of this study
participated in may have deepened perceptions of learning and successful outcomes
for students.
In the open-ended portion of the survey, students stated that they valued the
real-world nature of the experience, and learned a lot about the scope of public rela-
tions; challenges mostly related to time and work-load management, the unpaid na-
ture of experience, and the strong emphasis on writing ability. Supervisors identified
limited time interns worked on site as a key challenge, but for the most part, they
reported being very satisfied with their interns.
The findings of this study suggest that both groups were cooriented to one
another in relation to perceptions of the job skills associated with the internship expe-
rience; however, in relation to the professional characteristics category, supervisors
indicated lower levels of congruency (supervisor self vs. supervisor other), which
means accuracy and overall coorientation between the two groups is low. Blindly
assuming that all parties share a common understanding of goals, outcomes, tasks and
responsibilities can lead to missed opportunities for collaboration and integration,
and/or damage the possibility of a cooperative relationship with current and future
student interns, and the academic programs that provide access to students

16. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 74
Suggestions to overcome discrepancies
1. Faculty supervisors should clearly communicate to all parties (not just students)
what practical expectations, roles, and responsibilities are associated with the expe-
rience. This can be achieved by encouraging collaboration between student and
supervisor (prior to the start of the internship) in the learning goals and outcomes
identification process.
2. Details related to projects and deadlines, expectations regarding the degree of au-
tonomy/independence versus teamwork/direction could also be established. This
could be achieved by collaborating in the creation of a “contract” document in the
opening days/weeks of the internship.
3. In addition to collaboration related to expectations, the provision of rich feedback to
the student from both the faculty and on-site supervisor can benefit all parties and
the hallmark of ‘high impact’ internships. This feedback can relate to the practical
day-to-day tasks/responsibilities, but also engaging students and their supervisors in
reflective conversations related to the interns’ career goals and opportunities to re-
flect on the people they are becoming.
4. Scaffolding relevant prior learning (Introduction to Public Relations and Public
Relations Writing classes as prerequisites), and encouraging reflection on challeng-
es/opportunities can take the form of journals—shared with faculty and on-site su-
pervisors—that hone writing skills and prompt students to engage in critical think-
ing related to the experience; it can also provide an opportunity to coorient more
accurately with one another.
To conclude, the two groups in this study have a lot more in common than they
don’t; perfect communication may not necessarily improve accuracy between these two
groups, but if two are motivated to coorient, it can facilitate understanding. For the public
relations educator and student intern, the goal of communication must be to improve accu-
racy, even if they agree to disagree or even choose not to coorient to the same things in the
same degree. As such, greater dialogue about the fact that students are more cooriented to
supervisors regarding the importance of jobs skills and professional characteristics than
supervisors suspected, will ultimately lead to greater understanding and opportunities for
all parties involved.
Limitations and Future Study
Although the survey was sent to over 135 strategic communication/public rela-
tions concentration students, the response rate and subsequent sample size was small. The
convenience sample nature of the supervisor sample—determined by student interns
providing their supervisors’ contact information—is also a limitation and while the re-
sponse rate was relatively high, the researcher acknowledges that external validity for the
study is low. The study’s results may not be generalizable with a certain margin of error
toward the larger population of student interns and on-site supervisors. Another limitation
is that that the majority of students who participated in the study worked at the internship
site fewer than 10 hours; their experiences would likely differ from students whose intern-
ships require them to work significantly greater hours. Despite these limitations, the results
provide a valuable exploratory insight into how respondents’ rate job skills and profession-
al characteristics, the level of coorientation that exists between them, and the extent to
which they view the internship experience improves a variety of college learning out-
comes.

17. Shaw 75
Future research could expand this study by incorporating some qualitative ele-
ments, and increasing the representativeness and generalizability of the study by increas-
ing sample size (including other universities). The researcher intends to incorporate a lon-
gitudinal approach, continuing to gather and analyze information from student interns and
their supervisors and explore the implications of their orientations on the quality of the
experience for both parties.
References
Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC)
(2013), “Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communica-
tions (ACEJMC) Accrediting Standards,” Retrieved from https://www2.ku.edu/
~acejmc/PROGRAM/STANDARDS.SHTML .
Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community transi-
tional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 200-231.
Avery, E., Lariscy, R., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Social media and shared—or diver-
gent—uses? A coorientation analysis of public relations practitioners and jour-
nalists. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(3), 189-205.
Basow, R. R., & Byrne, M. V. (1993). Internship expectations and learning goals. Jour-
nalism Educator, 47(4), 48-54.
Baxter, B. L. (1993). Public Relations Education: Challenges and Opportunities: Public
Policy Committee of the Public Relations Society of America. New York.
Beard, F., & Morton, L. (1999). Effects of internship predictors on successful field expe-
rience. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 53(4), 42.
Beebe, A., Blaylock, A., & Sweetser, K. D. (2009). Job satisfaction in public relations
internships. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 156-158.
Brindley, C., & Ritchie, B. (2000). Undergraduates and small and medium-sized enter-
prises: opportunities for a symbiotic partnership? Education+ Training, 42(9),
509-517.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus–community partnerships: The terms of
engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516.
Broom, G.M. (1977). Coorientational measurement of public issues. Public Relations
Review, 3(4), 110-118.
Brown, A., & Fall, L. T. (2005). Using the port of entry report as a benchmark: Survey
results of on-the-job training among public relations internship site managers.
Public Relations Review, 31(2), 301-304.
Callanan, G., & Benzing, C. (2004). Assessing the role of internships in the career-
oriented employment of graduating college students. Education+ Training, 46(2),
82-89.
Cantor, J. A. (1997). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom and
community. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED404949.pdf (accessed April 27, 2017)
Chaffee, S.H., & McLeod, J.M. (1968). Sensitization in panel design: A coorientational
experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 45, 661-669.
Ciofalo, A. (1989). Legitimacy of internships for academic credit remains controversial.
Journalism Educator, 43(4), 25-31.
Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. SAM Advanced Man-
agement Journal, 65(2), 41-43.
CPRE (1999). Public relations education for the 21st century: A port of entry. Retrieved
from http://www.prsa.org/_Resources/resources/pre21.asp?ident=rsrc6.
CPRE (2006). Public relations education for the 21st century: The Professional Bond.
Retrieved from http://www.commpred.org/theprofessionalbond/index.php.

18. Volume 3 (2), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 76
Daugherty, E. L. (2011). The public relations internship experience: A comparison of
student and site supervisor perspectives. Public Relations Review, 37(5), 470-
477.
Fall, L. (2006). Value of engagement: Factors influencing how students perceive their
community contribution to public relations internships. Public Relations Re-
view, 32(4), 407-415.
Gault, J., Redington, J., & Schlager, T. (2000). Undergraduate business internships and
career success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 45-
53.
Gibson, D. C. (2001). Communication faculty internships. Public Relations Review, 27
(1), 103-117.
Grunig, J.E. (1972). Communication in community decisions on the problems of the
poor. Journal of Communication, 22, 5-25.
Gupta, P., Burns, D., & Schifer, J. (2010). An exploration of student satisfaction with
internship experiences in marketing. Business Education & Administration, 2
(1), 27-37.
Hart Research Associates. (2016). Falling short? College learning and career success.
NACTA Journal, 60(1a).
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Horowitz, E. M. (1997, August). Does money still buy happiness: Effects of journalism
internships on job satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Associa-
tion for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, Il.
Johnson, D. J. (1989). The Coorientation Model and Consultant Roles. In: Botan, C.H.
and Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.). Public Relations Theory (pp. 243-263). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kim, H.S. (1986). Coorientation and communication. In B. Dervin and M.I. Voight
(Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences (pp. 31-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Knouse, S.B, Tanner, J. R, & Harris, E. W. (1999). The relation of college internships,
college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 36(1), 35-43.
Knouse, S. B. & Fontenot, G. (2008). Benefits of the business college internship: A re-
search review. Journal of Employment Counseling, 45(2), 61-66. doi: 10.1002/
j.2161-1920.2008.tb00045.x
Kopenhaver, L.L., Martinson, D.L., & Ryan, R. (1984). How public relations practition-
ers and editors in Florida view each other. Journalism Quarterly, 61(4), 860-
865,884.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are,
Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Assoc. of Am. Colleges and
Univ., Washington, DC.
Lubbers, C., Bourland-Davis, P., & Rawlins, B. (2008). Public relations interns and
ethical issues at work: Perceptions of student interns from three different uni-
versities. PRism 5(1&2). Retrieved from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-
line_journ.html
Lubbers, C. A., Bourland-Davis, P. G., & DeSanto, B. (2012). An exploration of public
relations internship site supervisors’ practices. In M. A. Goralksi and H. P.
LeBlanc (Eds.), Business Research Y earbook, (511-518). International Acade-
my of Business Disciplines and International Graphics, Beltsville, MD.
Maertz Jr, C., A., Stoeberl, P., & Marks, J. (2014). Building successful internships: Les-

19. Shaw 77
sons from the research for interns, schools, and employers. Career Development
International, 19(1), 123-142.
McCarthy, P., & McCarthy, H. (2006). When case studies are not enough: Integrating
experiential learning into business curricula. Journal of Education for Business,
81(4), 201-204.
McLeod, J., & Chaffee, S. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research.
American behavioral scientist, 16(4), 469-499.
Mendel‐Reyes, M. (1998). A pedagogy for citizenship: Service learning and democratic
education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998(73), 31-38.
Meng, J. (2013). Learning by leading: Integrating leadership in public relations educa-
tion for an enhanced value. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 609-611.
Mihail, D. (2006). Internships at Greek universities: An exploratory study. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 18(1), 28-41.
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2016). 2016 Internship & Co
-op Survey. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/intern-co-op-survey/.
Neff, B., Walker, G., Smith, M., & Creedon, P. (1999). Outcomes desired by practition-
ers and academics. Public Relations Review, 25(1), 29-44.
Newcomb, T.M. (1953). The approach to the study of communication acts. Psychologi-
cal Review, 60, 393-404.
O’Neill, N. (2010). Internships as a high-impact practice: Some reflections on quality.
Peer Review, 12(4), 4-8.
Redeker, L. (1992). Internships provide invaluable job preparation. Public Relations
Journal, 22(3), 20.
Sapp, D., & Zhang, Q. (2009). Trends in industry supervisors' feedback on business
communication internships. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(3).
Smith-Barrow, D. (2016). 10 colleges where almost everyone gets internships. US News
and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-
colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2016-03-08/10-colleges-where-most-
students-get-internships.
Soska, T., Sullivan-Cosetti, M., & Pasupuleti, S. (2010). Service learning: Community
engagement and partnership for integrating teaching, research, and service.
Journal of Community Practice, 18(2-3), 139-147.
Taylor, S. (1988). Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(3), 393.
Thiel, G., & Hartley, N. (1997). Cooperative education: A natural synergy between busi-
ness and academia. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 62(3), 19.
Todd, V. (2014). Public relations supervisors and Millennial entry-level practitioners rate
entry-level job skills and professional characteristics. Public Relations Review,
40(5), 789-797.
Tovey, J. (2001). Building connections between industry and university: Implementing
an internship program at a regional university. Technical Communication Quar-
terly, 10(2), 225-239.
Verčič, D., & Verčič, A. T. (2007). A use of second-order co-orientation model in inter-
national public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(4), 407-414.
Waters, R. (2009). Comparing the two sides of the nonprofit organization–donor rela-
tionship: Applying coorientation methodology to relationship management.
Public Relations Review, 35(2), 144-146.
Watson, B. (1995). The intern turnaround. Management Review, 84(6), 9-13.
Westerberg, C., & Wickersham, C. (2011). Internships have value, whether or not stu-
dents are paid. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://
www.chronicle.com/article/Internships-Have-Value/127231/.