"Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use" by Smith and Watkins in Journal of Public Relations Education, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018

Public Relations Education
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Journal of
JPRE
Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742

Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742
© Copyright 2018 AEJMC Public Relations Division

Journal of Public Relations Education
Editorial Staff
Emily S. Kinsky, West Texas A&M University, editor-in-chief
Tiffany Gallicano, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, senior associate editor
Lucinda Austin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, associate editor
Chuck Lubbers, University of South Dakota, associate editor of reviews
Kathleen Stansberry, Elon University, web manager
Note from the Editor-in-Chief:
This issue reflects an enormous amount of work done prior to my editorship. The previous
editor-in-chief, Chuck Lubbers, had the research articles for this issue and most of the next
issue already queued up prior to me moving into this role on Jan. 1, 2018. A special thanks to
Chuck for his work with authors and reviewers in 2017 to get us ready for Volume 4 in 2018.

Table of Contents
Research Articles
1-24 Developing a Blueprint for Social Media Pedagogy: Trials,
Tribulations, and Best Practices
Ai Zhang and Karen Freberg
25-48 Competition and Public Relations Campaigns: Assessing the
Impact of Competition on Quality of Projects, Partners, and
Students
Christopher McCollough
49-79 Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training
Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use
Stephanie A. Smith and Brandi A. Watkins
80-100 Media Relations Instruction and Theory Development: A
Relational Dialectical Approach
Justin E. Pettigrew
Teaching Briefs
PRD GIFT Winners from AEJMC 2017
101-105 Public Relations Ethics, “Alternative Facts,” and Critical
Thinking, with a Side of Tuna
Jacqueline Lambiase
106-111 Improving PR Campaigns with a Roll of the Dice: Assuming
New Identities to Strengthen Diversity and Inclusion
Kelly B. Bruhn
Book Review
112-115 Public Relations and the Corporate Persona: The Rise of the
Affinitive Organization
Christie M. Kleinmann

Journal of Public Relations Education
2018, Vol. 4, No. 1, 49-79
Score! How Collegiate Athletic
Departments Are Training Student-Athletes
About Effective Social Media Use
Stephanie A. Smith, Virginia Tech
Brandi A. Watkins, Virginia Tech
Abstract
The primary responsibility of student-athletes is to represent
their institution on the field, but because of social media, that
role has evolved so that now student-athletes are considered
representatives of the institution to a larger public. As such,
athletic departments have implemented social media policies
and/or training programs to guide student-athletes’ online activity.
Drawing on digital literacy, this study investigates motivations
behind the development of social media policies, how student
athletes are trained about effective social media use, and how
social media policies for student athletes are enforced from the
perspective of the institution. In-depth interviews (N = 17) with
representatives from collegiate athletic departments in the U.S.
revealed social media policies were designed primarily to educate,
rather than punish, and that training about the policy helps reduce
social media violations. Theoretical and practical implications of
this research are discussed.
Keywords: digital literacy; social media; college athletes;
organizational communication
DJ Gardner, Mississippi State University basketball player. Ray-
Ray Armstrong, University of Miami football player. Ryan Spadola,
Lehigh University football player. Marlon Williams, Texas Tech
University football player. Each one of these aforementioned athletes
suffered serious consequences due to their posts on social media, including
loss of scholarships, suspension, and in some instances, even being kicked
out of their university (Sarkisova & Parham, 2013). One momentary
lapse in judgement, one statement of fewer than 140 characters, and the

50
trajectory of college athletes can change entirely. Skills relating to the
proper use of social media can be taught both within and outside of the
classroom, and, had these students learned about effective social media
use, their futures might not have been so negatively affected.
The primary responsibility of student-athletes is to represent their
institution on the field, but, because of social media, that role has evolved
to the extent that now college athletes are considered representatives
of the institution to a larger public. This has presented a new set of
challenges not only for the student-athlete but also for the athletic
department and university administration. Student-athletes are expected
to maintain standards set in place by their team, athletic department, the
institution, and the governing body for student athletes (e.g., NCAA,
NAIA). Failure to comply with these standards can result in negative
consequences including game suspensions, dismissal from the team,
removal of scholarships, and loss of eligibility (Sanderson, Snyder, Hull,
& Gramlick, 2015b). It is imperative to teach all college students, not only
college athletes, about the importance of social media etiquette to avoid
serious consequences and also to help cultivate responsible, professional
post-graduate citizens. Hence, many organizations, including athletic
departments, create social media policies that students are required to
follow.
Hopkins, Hopkins, and Whelton (2013) suggest student-athletes
face more direct consequences (e.g., loss of eligibility, loss of scholarships
or funding, and suspensions) for social media indiscretions than their
professional counterparts. Likewise, Snyder (2014) cites concerns for
athletic departments, including “privacy and liability concerns involving
drugs and alcohol use, legal responsibility, freedom of speech, challenges
in regulating posted information, and campus social disruption” (p. 134).
Hopkins et al. (2013) suggest athletic departments can benefit from the
development and enforcement of a social media policy including but not
limited to reducing the likelihood of violations, enhancing the institution
and athletic department’s brand, and reducing liability related to student-
athlete social media activity. In addition to developing social media
Smith & Watkins

Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 51
policies, athletic department officials must enforce such policies, which
often requires extensive resources. Sanderson et al. (2015b) report that
half of sports information directors at the university level have removed a
social media post by a coach or student-athlete.
Researchers have examined social media policies developed by
university athletic departments, as well as student-athletes’ perceptions of
and attitudes towards such policies (see Sanderson, 2011; Sanderson &
Browning, 2013; Sanderson, Browning, & Schmittel, 2015a; Sanderson et
al., 2015b; Snyder, 2014). These studies provide insights into the rules and
regulations outlined in the policies; however, to the authors’ knowledge,
previous studies have not investigated the intent or motivations of athletic
department officials for the creation and enforcement of social media.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to interview the people responsible
for creating and implementing social media policies for college athletes
to better understand how and why these policies are (not) developed, how
the policies are taught to students, and how the policies are enforced.
A better understanding of the organizational perspective related to the
development of social media policy will provide much-needed insights for
the development of future educational programs related to social media.
Literature Review
Student-Athletes and Social Media
It is undeniable that social media use is prevalent among college
students, including student-athletes (Syme, 2014). In fact, DeShazo
(2016), in a study for Fieldhouse Media, reports that 97% of the student-
athletes surveyed used Facebook, with a large majority also using
Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. The statistics of student-athlete social
media use are a breakdown of the larger audience of social media, which
includes usage by 80% of Americans (Greenwood, Perrin, & Duggan,
2016). College-age users of social media produce even higher engagement
with platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (Greenwood et

52
al., 2016).
The greater usage of social media creates both benefits and
consequences for users. Some potential benefits include increased
relational closeness, relationship maintenance, networking, and personal
branding. However, potential consequences include decreased privacy,
threats to safety, and sometimes loss of employment, criminal charges,
or both. Often college students report posting content they know can be
viewed as controversial, but continue to do so following what they believe
to be the common social norm regardless of its impact on their future
(Miller, Parsons, & Lifer, 2010). Employers frequently use social media
as a way to vet potential interns and employees (Peluchette & Karl, 2008;
Sanderson et al., 2015b). Hopkins et al. (2013) report that 80% of college
admissions officers consider a prospective student’s social media account
when determining admission. College students have been suspended for
posting inappropriate content on social media (Peluchette & Karl, 2008).
Therefore, all students should be cognizant of the potential impact social
media activity can have on their future, including potential job prospects.
Perhaps more so than their peers, student-athletes should be
vigilant about how they present themselves on social media. Student-
athletes, especially those who participate in high-profile sports, are likely
to have thousands more followers than their peers, thus increasing the
scrutiny of student-athlete social media activity (Sanderson et al.,2015a).
Student-athletes frequently find themselves in the spotlight for their
accomplishments, and the increased attention comes with the possibility
of a student-athlete finding himself or herself at the center of a public
relations crisis (Sanderson, 2011). As such, student-athletes are more
likely to be susceptible to the negative effects of social media than other
users (Mayer, 2012). One problematic social media post can result in
severe implications for the student-athlete, including loss of eligibility and
scholarships, removal from the team, and possible team sanctions from
the NCAA (Browning & Sanderson, 2012; Sanderson & Browning, 2013;
Sanderson et al., 2015b).
Social media provides many advantages for student-athletes,
Smith & Watkins

including displaying their personality off the field, connecting with fans,
networking with prospective employers, developing a professional brand,
and keeping in touch with family and friends from home (Browning &
Sanderson, 2012; Sanderson et al., 2015b). Most athletes are provided with
media training to help them handle interviews with members of the media,
but the continued rise in social media use has led to the need for additional
social media training and education (Sanderson, 2011). However, research
on these policies has found that student-athletes are often provided with
conflicting messages about ownership of social media content (Sanderson
et al., 2015b). Student-athletes are considered to be representatives of the
university and their respective athletic departments; thus, content they
create, even on their personal social media accounts, also reflects on the
athletic department and university at large. Therefore, student-athletes
should expect to have their social media activity monitored by the athletic
department, sometimes in addition to the university (Sanderson et al.,
2015b).
Social Media Policy and Training in Collegiate Athletics
The use of social media has infiltrated every aspect of life in both
professional and personal contexts. Thus, it is essential for organizations to
have social media policies, including universities and athletic departments.
The University of Kansas, for example, suspended the employment of a
professor because of one post he made on Twitter. After that incident, the
university created a social media policy for employees and informed them
of the policy through a university memo (Hacker Daniels, 2015). Neill
and Moody (2015) noted that social media policies for employees are
useful, and Elefant (2011) recommended that policies cover issues such
as social media use during and outside of work. However, studies lack an
explanation of how employees are trained and informed about appropriate
social media use. Vaast and Kaganer (2013) did note that guidelines
included examples of what not to post and did not include examples of
appropriate posts. This indicates that the creation of policies is primarily

54
to mitigate risk, rather than to promote value (Vaast & Kaganer, 2013).
In light of this, it is important to consider how future professionals (e.g.,
college students) are educated about proper social media use before
entering the workforce.
In response to the increasing scrutiny of social media in
professional settings, measures have been taken to educate students about
responsible uses of social media. In 2014, New Jersey Governor Chris
Christie signed a bill requiring all public schools in the state to educate
students about social media literacy (Syme, 2014). Relevant to student-
athletes, university athletic departments have started developing and
implementing social media policies and training programs for student-
athletes (Sanderson, 2011). A survey conducted by the College Sports
Information Directors of America (CoSIDA) found that of the 450
institutions surveyed, 33% had a written social media policy for student-
athletes (CoSIDA, 2013). Sanderson (2011) found 64% of Division I
athletic departments with an online handbook for student-athletes have a
social media policy.
Athletic departments and student-athletes alike must deal with
mounting pressure from the NCAA to meet all compliance standards,
including social media activity (Sanderson, 2011). The NCAA has
monitored the social media activity of student-athletes from participating
institutions for instances of misconduct (Mandel, 2010; Sanderson, 2011).
A notable example of NCAA involvement with athletic departments and
social media is the case of UNC-Chapel Hill. In 2011, the NCAA charged
the institution with inadequately monitoring social media activity that
revealed potential violations (Hopkins et al., 2013).
It is important to note that the NCAA has not yet implemented
a formal policy related to social media use or monitoring. According to
Truman, Cottingham, Bogle-Jubinville, and Lynch (2014), actual NCAA
policies related to social media are more oriented toward recruiting
violations rather than social media use by student-athletes. Hopkins et al.
(2013) noted, “The NCAA has made it clear that member institutions must
monitor social media to some extent in order to protect against possible
Smith & Watkins

NCAA sanctions” (p. 18). The authors go on to note that “NCAA member
institutions have not been provided with clear rules regarding social
media” (Hopkins et al., 2013, p. 18).
Research Examining Social Media Policy
Sanderson (2011) suggests many social media policies enacted by
athletic departments are consistent with traditional media policies. For
example, student-athletes are prohibited from making critical comments
about the school, team, or coaches and are asked to refrain from creating
social media content that can result in embarrassment for the athlete
or the university. Similarly, Sanderson et al. (2015b) found that social
media content produced by student-athletes must conform to “university
lifestyle, expectations, community standards, NCAA rules and regulations,
and federal and state law” (p. 62). Fuduric and Mandelli (2014) argue
regulating social media content like traditional media is ineffective; rather,
the focus should be on education and training, supplemented with social
media policies. Still Sanderson and Browning (2013) assert that athletic
departments appear to be more interested in monitoring social media
activity rather than educating student-athletes.
Sanderson (2011) examined the social media policies in the
student-athlete handbooks of 159 NCAA Division I schools and found
that most of these policies consisted primarily of restrictions related
to social media use. A follow-up study by Sanderson et al. (2015b)
corroborated these findings by examining social media policies from
schools participating in Division I, II, and III athletics. Sanderson (2011)
concluded that while student-athletes were free to use social media, the
policy enacted by their athletic department implied “they were duty
bound to use it responsibly, given their visibility in the community and
obligation to students, faculty, alumni, teammates, and other stakeholders”
(p. 506). Sanderson et al. (2015a) interviewed student-athletes and found
they perceived their school’s social media policy to be primarily about
compliance and punishment for negative uses of social media.

56
Furthermore, studies have revealed that student-athletes perceived
social media policies developed by the athletic department to be vague
and to be lacking effective follow-up from the administration (Sanderson
& Browning, 2013; Sanderson et al., 2015a). Sanderson and Browning
(2013) attribute the vagueness and ambiguity in social media policy as
an effort on the part of the athletic department to maintain a sense of
control. By not clearly defining inappropriate social media content, the
administrators have more leverage in determining when a violation of the
policy has occurred (Sanderson & Browning, 2013).
Snyder (2014) surveyed student-athletes to assess their perceptions
of athletic department social media policies. Results showed that student-
athletes found social media monitoring by their coach, athletic department,
athletic director, or team captain to be an acceptable policy. Student-
athletes did not believe a ban on social media use or monitoring by anyone
outside of the athletic department was acceptable. Mayer (2012) echoes
this sentiment, arguing that “allowing students to roam free using Twitter
is too lenient of a policy, but not allowing them to use Twitter at all with
a complete ban is too strict” (p. 475). Instead, athletic departments should
focus on educating student-athletes about appropriate uses of social media
(Mayer, 2012; Sanderson et al., 2015; Snyder, 2014), which, as Browning
and Sanderson (2012) suggest, will help student-athletes better understand
what constitutes problematic social media activity and how to correct it.
Some student-athletes report only learning of violations of social media
policy after a violation has occurred (Sanderson & Browning, 2013).
Further, Sanderson et al. (2015a) found student-athletes want social media
education and training but often found existing training to be “forgettable”
(p. 103).
In order to reconcile the apparent disconnect between the content
of the policy and student perception of the policies, it is necessary to add
a third perspective – that of the policymaker. As such, this study is among
the first to investigate the intent and motivations behind the development
of social media policies for student-athletes from the organizational
perspective. The organizational perspective is an important viewpoint to
Smith & Watkins

examine because organizations have different motives, strategies, and
goals than individuals. Also, because coaches, athletic directors, and
compliance officers are not traditional or trained educators, their creation
and enforcement of social media policies may vary in effectiveness with
their target audience of student athletes. This is an important area of study
because proper training can help student-athletes develop a social media
presence, respond to negative comments on social media, abide by NCAA
rules, and avoid possible public relations crises for themselves, their
teams, and their institutions. Therefore, the following research question is
posed:
RQ 1: What is the guiding philosophy of athletic departments
behind developing social media training programs for student-
athletes?
Media and Digital Literacy
Media literacy is commonly defined as “the ability to access,
analyze, evaluate, and create messages across a variety of contexts”
(Livingstone, 2004, p. 3). The addition of Internet and digital
communications require users to have a set of skills beyond those required
of traditional definitions of media literacy (Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-
Hamburger, 2004). This has led to the development of other skill-based
literacies, including digital literacy. As such, digital literacy is defined
as “an ability to read and understand hypertextual and multimedia
texts” (Bawden, 2001, p. 24). Martin (2006) provides a more elaborate
definition:
Digital literacy is the awareness, attitude, and ability of individuals
to appropriately use digital tools and facilities to identify, access,
manage, integrate, evaluate, analyze and synthesize digital
resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions, and
communicate with others, in the context of specific life situations,
in order to enable constructive social action; and to reflect upon

58
this process. (p. 19, also cited in Koltay, 2011, p. 216)
According to Ng (2012), digital literacy builds on existing literacies; thus,
a digitally literate person should be able to adapt to new technologies
quickly and efficiently.
Digital literacy expands on media literacy by going beyond just
examining text-based messages to include sounds and images (Bawden,
2001). Eshet-Alkali and Amichai-Hamburger (2004) suggest digital
literacy should include five digital skills: photo-visual skills, reproduction
skills, branching skills, information skills, and socio-emotional skills.
Scholars have purported media and digital literacy as necessary tools
for participating in civic life. According to Kellner and Share (2005),
media literacy education empowers individuals to better understand and
intelligently use media. Hobbs (2011) suggests media and digital literacy
allows audiences, especially younger audiences, to seek out information
on relevant issues, to evaluate the quality of information available, and to
engage in dialogue with others to form coalitions” (Hobbs, 2011, p. 421-
422). In a meta-analysis of research on media literacy interventions, Jeong,
Cho, and Hwang (2012) found that these interventions were generally
considered to be effective in achieving outcomes.
Media and Digital Literacy Education
According to Kellner and Share (2005), literacy is inextricably
linked with education, and it is through literacy that people learn to
communicate effectively within a system. Ashley (2015) found that
83% of instructors who teach introductory mass communication classes
include media literacy as a component of the course. Schmidt (2013)
reported that on average, secondary education faculty teach media
literacy competencies in their courses, although the extent to which this is
achieved varies widely. Furthermore, Schmidt (2015) found that students
benefited from media-focused lessons, even if that focus is a marginal
aspect of the class. Traditionally, the concept of media literacy was
focused primarily on developing interventions and education programs
Smith & Watkins

related to traditional media, but as technology evolves, so should the
application of media literacy interventions. Kellner and Share (2005)
argued that literacy must be extended to include new and digital media.
Therefore, given the prevalence of social media, especially among
younger audiences, the importance of teaching social media literacy is
paramount.
College students live and work in an integrated media
environment, which includes print, audiovisual, and digital media
(Livingstone, 2004); therefore, media and digital literacy are an
important component of the overall educational experience of students
(Rodriguez, 2011). The growing importance and prevalence of media and
communication skills means that media literacy training is essential for
college graduates (Schmidt, 2015). According to Rodriguez (2011), social
media can empower students to take more control over their learning
experience. Additionally, scholars have suggested that educational
institutions have a responsibility to prepare students for life after
graduation (Duffy & Burns, 2006; Rodriguez, 2011). Given the unique
position of student-athletes within the university, the athletic department is
best positioned to help student-athletes navigate the new terrain of social
media use.
Research has indicated that a more balanced, comprehensive
approach to social media training would be more effective than the more
restrictive policies (Sanderson et al., 2015a). Browning and Sanderson
(2012) reiterated the need to help students understand why certain social
media activities are considered inappropriate and unacceptable. Relevant
to this study, scholars have called on athletic departments to incorporate
positive uses of social media into their media training for student-athletes
(Sanderson, 2011; Sanderson et al., 2015b; Snyder, 2014). To that end, this
study not only looks at the intent behind the development of a social media
policy, but also considers how students are educated about social media
use and how the policies are enforced. The following research questions
are proposed:

60
RQ 2: How is social media training taught among college athletes?
RQ 3: To what extent is the athletic department and/or university
social media policy enforced among college athletes?
Method
Recruitment and Sample
After securing approval from the university IRB, recruitment of
potential interviewees began. In order to recruit a purposive sample with
maximum variation, a preliminary list of compliance officers (CO) and
athletic directors (AD) at various NCAA DI, DII, and DIII schools was
created and each person was contacted via email. For this first round of
recruitment, 127 people were contacted, and recruitment only continued
with those who responded to the email and expressed their interest in
participating. Then, a snowball sampling method was used to contact
additional participants. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be
currently employed with a college athletic department and have access
to, and an understanding of, the school/athletic department’s social media
policy for student-athletes. Variation within the sample was maximized
because participants had a range of experience and tenure levels and
worked in different NCAA division schools. The total sample size for this
study was 17. A further descriptive breakdown can be found in Table 1.
Interviews
Upon recruiting the sample of various compliance officers and
athletic directors, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each
participant. A structured interview guide (see Appendix A) was used to
ensure that every participant was asked the same questions and had a
similar interview experience to the other participants (Lindlof & Taylor,
2011). The interviews were conducted over the phone and began with a
review of the confidentiality of the study and a verbal agreement from the
participant to continue, understanding that they could choose to stop the
Smith & Watkins

N %
Gender
Male 12 71
Female 5 29
Division
I 9 53
II 5 29
III 3 18
Respondent Job Titles
Athletic Directors/Compliance Officers 14 82
Marketing Director of Athletic
Communication
1 6
Director of Digital Strategy for Athletics 1 6
Director of Athletic Communications 1 6
Table 2
Trustworthiness Criteria
Trustworthiness
Criteria
Description of Criteria Methods to Meet Criteria
Credibility Truth value in interpretations
are established
Implementation of
previously used methods
(interviews)
Transferability Interpretations are able to be
transferred to other similar
cases
Thick description, and
linking findings to previous
research and theory
(Digital and Media Literacy)
Confirmability Findings are observable to
others outside of the locale
Detailed data management
and recording, unit of
analysis checks
Dependability Consistency between
researcher/researched
Audit trail and participant
confidentiality protection,
member checks of data
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics

62
interview at any time or decline to answer any question asked. Each
interview was scheduled at a time most convenient for the participant to
reduce distractions and enhance the quality of the interview responses
(Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Each interview was completed in about 30
minutes, with a mean interview time of 24 minutes. The interviews were
recorded for accuracy and to create verbatim transcripts for data analysis.
Analysis
Throughout the interviewing process and data analysis, many steps
to ensure the trustworthiness of the data were taken, and an overview
of those steps can be found in Table 2. Data analysis occurred in four
stages. First, an electronic, verbatim transcript of each interview was
made. A verbatim copy of the interviews provided a sufficient level of
detail required for analysis, such as preserving exact language, noting
pauses, and capturing how things were said (Bailey, 2008). The transcripts
were independently reviewed by both researchers to increase familiarity
with the data (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). After reviewing the transcripts,
stage two of data analysis, open coding, started. Open coding occurs
when “the researchers examine the text . . . for salient categories of
information supported by the text” (Creswell, 2007, p. 160). The unit
of analysis for this study was a complete thought within the interview,
where a clear beginning, middle, and end can be identified. During open
coding, labels were assigned to the data, but the data were not categorized.
Categorization began in the third phase, axial coding.
During the axial coding stage, data were explored through
grouping, deleting, editing, and merging open codes. This stage helped
to identify themes present in the data to answer the research questions.
Owen’s (1984) guidelines of recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness were
also used to help determine themes. Following the recommendations
of Strauss and Corbin (1998), axial coding continued until theoretical
saturation occurred and no new themes emerged consistently from the
text. Thus, when observable patterns and sub-themes did not result
Smith & Watkins

in any new categories, the axial coding stage concluded and the final
stage of interpretation began. The interpretation stage is where data are
transformed to create new meaning (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Media
literacy theory was used in this stage to help theoretically interpret the data
to further explain patterns.
Findings
Media literacy and the components of digital literacy were used
to help interpret the findings. Our findings indicate that awareness can be
used to understand the guiding philosophy behind developing social media
policies for student-athletes (RQ 1); that social media training helps create
a positive attitude toward social media use by student-athletes (RQ 2);
and that the enforcement of the social media policies, particularly when
followed by training, gives student-athletes the ability to use social media
responsibly (RQ 3).

Social Media Awareness as a Guiding Philosophy for Social Media
Policy Creation
Throughout the study and across all interviews, participants
mentioned that social media use has become a part of life and made note
of the prevalence of social media and the multiple platforms available. It
is for this reason that many institutions created social media policies. A
Division I participant said:
It became clear that much more time was being spent by student-
athletes and coaches and staff on social platforms. It’s become a
normal way of conversing; it’s just part of the general way that
people communicate now. It’s no longer an accessory, and so we
said that before we have a problem, let’s make sure that everyone is
on the same page with how we want to handle these platforms and
what our expectations are for student-athletes.
A handful of other institutions said that in addition to the prevalence

64
of social media, seeing student-athletes get in trouble because of social
media caused them to put together a policy. A Division II athletic director
explained: “We had seen a couple of things just in the media, and I know
there was one thing that happened out at [institution withheld] with a
football player that kind of made us think we should get ahead of this.”
Another major reason noted for creating and enacting a social
media policy for student-athletes was to reduce social media violations.
Several athletic directors discussed how having a policy to refer back to,
which clearly outlines what constitutes inappropriate online behavior, can
help reduce the actual number of violations and the potential for future
violations. A Division III athletic director stated: “We outline what is and
is not acceptable and make them sign a contract stating they understand.
We’ve noticed this helps the students realize why certain things are not
allowed, and we have very few violations.” Collectively, the prevalence of
social media use among college student-athletes creates awareness among
athletic leadership, which guides the creation of social media policies.
Social Media Training as Attitude Cultivation for Student-Athletes
Although some participants did not have a formal social media
policy (n = 4), every participating athletic department engaged in some
type of social media training. Social media trainings ranged from team-
level training to general training with all student-athletes at the beginning
of the school year. Regardless of the format, every participating institution
discussed how they included examples of positive and negative social
media examples in their training sessions. A Division I marketing director
for athletics said:
Our athletics director brings everyone together at the beginning of
the year for a convocation. He does a slideshow and . . . if there
are any student-athletes who put something that’s inappropriate on
social media [from the previous year], he will put that up on the
video board and showcase it in front of all of their peers--[around]
500 student-athletes. [This is] kind of the threat that if you do make
Smith & Watkins

a poor decision it will be featured next year. We also show student-
athletes who are doing a great job using social media, too.
Within every interview, participants stressed how their trainings
were meant to educate student-athletes on appropriate social media use. A
Division III athletic director stated:
We want them to be engaged on social media, we want them to
understand how to use it properly and use it. I always tell our kids,
“This is your brand. This is the one thing you can control.” So we
do have a policy in place.
Additionally, each athletic department approached their social
media policies with a proactive attitude to demonstrate to the student-
athletes that they were trying to provide education about more positive,
responsible social media usage. A Division I institution participant
explained:
We bring in a personal branding coach every year, and she is a
professional not affiliated with our school or our department. She
just explains how important using social media can be for your
future. We also do other trainings too, like especially for seniors
looking for jobs.
This demonstrates that the social media trainings and approaches being
used across athletic divisions help cultivate a practical and appropriate
attitude toward social media use among student-athletes.
Social Media Enforcement to Enhance Social Media Abilities of
Student-Athletes
Every participating athletic department monitors the social
media activities of its student-athletes slightly differently. However, the
enforcement of the policy when a violation occurs is generally the same
across participating departments. As established during social media
training sessions, no one wanted to police the social media use of student-
athletes. All participants felt confident that, for the most part, their student-
athletes were capable of using social media responsibly, in part due to the

66
training provided. A Division I athletic director explained:
Our policy revolves around education and not around a bullet-
pointed document where there are steps that you have to follow . .
. . We are lucky that we have student-athletes that for the most part
are law-abiding citizens. They’re smart. They understand the realm
in which they are living in that anything on the internet is public.
This demonstrates that athletic departments believe in the ability of their
student-athletes to make good choices online.
Participants also noted how they relied upon their student-athletes
to help execute their branding and promote their teams and institutions. A
Division II compliance officer explained: “We know how many followers
our student-athletes have, and we want them to promote our programs. We
will tag them when they do cool things, and we expect the same in return.”
Using a strategy like this recognizes the power and abilities of student-
athletes online. This simultaneously makes it easier to periodically check-
in on student-athletes’ social media usage. It also makes it easier to see
if student-athletes have unexpectedly changed their social media usage,
which could be a red flag. A Division III athletic director stated:
I keep tabs on them by putting things out there I know they will
like and respond to. But some of our upperclassmen will change
their profile name. They think they’ve fooled me by changing their
name, but I can still click on their profile and see who it is, so I
keep tabs.
Although athletic departments take steps to increase the social media
abilities of their student-athletes, violations still occur. When a violation
occurs, each participating institution explained that their first step would
be a conversation with the student-athlete to figure out what happened and
explain why their behavior was inappropriate. Then, the violation would
either be over, or escalated to their coach, the school’s administration, or
the NCAA, depending on the situation. The main priority is to first let
students know why their behavior online was inappropriate and then to
make sure they understand the violation and will not make that choice
again. None of the participants had clear sanctions outlined within their
Smith & Watkins

policies, so each violation is handled on a case-by-case basis. This helps
illustrate that the social media policies for student-athletes are designed to
educate, rather than punish. Taking an educational approach to overcoming
violations also increases the abilities of student-athletes to make better
choices moving forward.
Discussion
In sum, findings from the interviews indicated that, through the
development of a social media policy or training program, awareness
for the importance of being digitally literate is emphasized for students.
Additionally, the educational focus and objective of many of these policies
and training programs is to help cultivate a positive attitude toward the use
of social media for student-athletes. Finally, through enforcement of the
policy and continued education, students master the ability to use social
media responsibly and effectively. Each of these components – awareness,
attitude, and ability – is critical to developing digital literacy competency
and has great implications for public relations educators. The findings
from this study help inform classroom education about social media
strategy.
According to our interviews, several participants cited the
ubiquity of social media as the impetus for the development of social
media policies and training for student-athletes. They also considered
the implementation of a policy or training program as a preventative
measure against future problems that could occur as a result of improper
social media use by student-athletes. Furthermore, participants described
the policies as being primarily focused on education rather than policing
students’ social media accounts for violations. This demonstrates that
although social media policies may be purposefully vague, it is not with
the intention of being able to punish for anything found on social media,
as previously indicated (Sanderson & Browning, 2013; Sanderson et.
al., 2015a). Instead, these findings explain that the vagueness within the
policies allows them to be flexible to a variety of platforms and instill

68
responsible decision-making among the students without stifling social
media use.
The actual policies and training formats varied from institution to
institution, but a consistent theme among participants was that the social
media policies and training programs were developed with the intent
to educate student-athletes about responsible social media use, rather
than to reprimand students for negative or inappropriate social media
usage (Sanderson et. al., 2015a). This aligns with calls from previous
researchers who suggest social media policies should focus on educating
students about the positive and negative consequences of using social
media (Mayer, 2012; Sanderson, 2011; Sanderson, 2015b; Snyder, 2014).
Media and digital literacy scholars echo this sentiment as they frequently
cite education as a way to develop critical-thinking skills (Hobbs, 2011;
Kellner & Share, 2005). Education, rather than restrictive policies, is
more likely to be effective in terms of helping student-athletes to identify
problematic social media habits and how to correct those habits (Browning
& Sanderson, 2012; Sanderson & Browning, 2013).
Our findings highlight the fact that the monitoring of student-
athlete social media activity is unpredictable and sporadic. This further
illustrates that institutions want to enact and train students with the intent
of educating them about effective social media use, rather than penalize
them after the fact, when a student, team, or institution’s reputation can
simultaneously suffer.
Social media policies and training sessions that are restrictive in
nature, meaning they focus more on what is not permitted rather than
what is permitted, are considered by participants as less effective than
educational-based policies. Furthermore, students are not as receptive to
these programs (Snyder, 2014). Sanderson (2015a) and Snyder (2014)
found that student-athletes are generally favorable to the idea of social
media training and to an extent even monitoring by the athletic department
officials or coaches. The training that was described within the findings
of this study demonstrates that the call to action about showing positive
and negative examples of social media use has been answered and
Smith & Watkins

implemented (Sanderson, 2011; Sanderson et al., 2015b; Snyder, 2014).
This helps to explain why many of our interviewees noted positive
feedback from student-athletes related to the training programs.
Several participants indicated that having student-athletes on
social media was beneficial for the athletic department’s brand in that they
could further act as brand ambassadors for the team and the university.
Sanderson (2015a) reiterates this point by suggesting that training
programs should help student-athletes create social media content that
furthers their personal brand. Similarly, Snyder (2014) suggests that the
athletic department should integrate the student’s personal brand with
the athletic department brand. Participants in this study noted that they
would often share relevant information from the student athlete’s account
or include the student athlete’s social media handle in athletic department
content as a way to reward positive social media behavior. This practice,
in turn, also allows the athletic department to hold students accountable to
content posted on social media. Of importance to note, this process was
typically used in tandem with training on personal branding via social
media channels.
Based on the findings of this study, it can be concluded that
athletic departments generally view the role of the social media policy
to be an educational tool that guides student-athletes to use social media
in a positive and responsible manner. Through teaching proper use of
social media, athletic departments are encouraging student-athletes to take
control of their presence on social media. Empowering digital media users
to create their own messages is an essential tenet of digital literacy (Jeong
et al., 2012) and provides students with more control over their learning
experience (Rodriguez, 2011). The education-based model of social media
training and policy development can be replicated across a variety of
organizational contexts.
Practical Implications and Suggestions
Related to digital literacy, the approach to social media policy

70
and training by the athletic department representatives interviewed in this
study focused more on creating a practical and positive attitude toward
social media use. The proactive implementation of policies and training
indicates recognition of the importance and commitment to educating
student-athletes on positive social media approaches. These findings are
especially important to educators in the classroom. Educators can begin
the conversation about responsible and effective social media use with
their students to underscore the implementation of broader social media
policies, like those set forth by universities, and to prepare students for
future employment where a social media policy will likely be enforced.
Focusing on the educational value that a social media policy or training
session can have for its members can provide mutually beneficial
relationships for the organization and its members. The findings of this
study also suggest that there are fewer social media violations by student-
athletes when they are already informed about effective social media use
from their classroom experience.
Media and digital literacy includes empowering the audience
to create its own messages (Jeong et al., 2012), which is an essential
feature of social media and Web 2.0 technologies. Hobbs (2011) goes on
to add, “generated by the rise of social media and other digital tools that
enable anyone to be an author, there is an explosion of interest in media
literacy as a tool for empowerment” (p. 422). Athletic departments are
empowering student-athletes to control their online presence through
enacting policies that encourage, rather than discourage, social media use
in a way that is mutually beneficial. In the classroom, this conversation
can be centered around the power of social media for personal branding.
Educators should consider discussing the positive impact that social media
can have on creating opportunities for students and how students can use
social media to control their online presence.
Media and digital literacy training provides users with a foundation
for more effective media use. For example, Martens (2010) explains that
by having the ability to access and analyze media messages, one can better
identify programming that meets their needs. Likewise, this knowledge
Smith & Watkins

can help a person identify potential risks inherent in media messages and
identify useful media (Schmidt, 2015). This skill is especially important
for young social media users who are often inundated with messages and
need guidance to better understand how to interpret such messages, an
area where more attention could be paid in the classroom. Furthermore,
student-athletes can use their knowledge and social media training to
enhance future job opportunities beyond collegiate athletics. Expanding
their professional network is an often-cited benefit of using social media
for all students, including student-athletes (Sanderson, 2011).
Teaching Implications
The findings from this study focus on three main areas within
media and digital literacy: awareness, attitude, and ability. These findings
help provide suggestions for social media educators. Firstly, like the
athletic departments noted, social media is a part of every student’s
life. Therefore, acceptance of the prevalence of social media, as well as
education about appropriate usage, is vital for success. Educators should
not ignore social media in their classrooms, rather, like the participants
of this study have done, they should use social media as an opportunity
to advance conversations and education. For example, discussing how to
use social media as a networking-building platform can be invaluable to
students as they prepare to search for jobs or internships. PR educators can
encourage students to make LinkedIn profiles, help students brainstorm
potential connections, and discuss how social media can be used to
break the ice with potential employers. Rather than tell students to lock
down their social media and use all the privacy settings available to
them, education should be focused around creating a professional and
responsible personal brand.
Secondly, through education, positive and responsible attitudes
about social media use can be cultivated. In classrooms, showing
examples of positive and negative social media posts can be useful, as
well as educating students on how social media can be used for personal

72
branding. However, while some athletic departments in this study noted
showing negative examples of current athletes, this should be avoided in
the classroom. What could be stronger, is showing examples of students
who created national headlines for their positive and negative social media
actions. Also, examples abound from employees who have lost their jobs
due to poor social media use (e.g., Applebee’s, Uber). These examples can
be effective in the classroom to demonstrate responsible social media use.
The difference between athletic departments using humiliation
tactics and PR educators using humiliation tactics to teach effective social
media use is important to understand. Firstly, athletic departments usually
operate with a social media contract between the department and the
student-athlete. Within the contract, there is verbiage noting that anything
student athletes post is also related to the institutional athletic brand. In
the classroom, contracts like this do not exist. Secondly, student athletes
understand through contracts and training that the athletic department and
university at-large could be monitoring their social media profiles at any
time. This understanding does not exist between educators and students,
and social media monitoring by instructors could be seen as intrusive
and inappropriate. Finally, while the humiliation strategy may work in a
tight-knit setting such as among student-athletes, it is inappropriate for the
classroom where grades and evaluation are at stake. The role of athletic
departments and coaches is not the same as the role professors play in the
lives of students. Instead, educators should rely on mainstream examples
in the classroom and follow up with tips for students to clean up and avoid
social media embarrassments.
Finally, educators should trust the abilities of their students to
responsibly use social media and educate them accordingly. Instead of
telling students what not to do online, explain that social media gives them
the potential to creatively express themselves and create awareness about
their unique skills and voices. It is paramount that educators continue
to integrate lessons about social media use into their teaching to help
establish a bridge between study and practice. Although the findings of
this study are centralized to college athletics, the implications across
Smith & Watkins

organizations are detectable. Organizations are looking to leverage the
classroom education of their employees to create better ambassadors, as
exemplified through the findings of this study. Therefore, it is necessary
that PR educators continue to teach responsible and effective social media
use in the classroom.
Limitations and Future Research
As with all studies, this one is not without limitations. One
limitation is the fact that we did not actually analyze the policies. Instead,
we relied upon our participants to inform us of their policies, which
may not have provided an entirely comprehensive understanding of the
policies. However, given the fact that we were focused on the reasoning
for creating the policy, the training surrounding the policy, and the policy
enforcement, this limitation is also an opportunity for future research.
Another limitation is that we did not speak to individual team coaches
who, based on the accounts of our participants, do have the right to
enforce a stricter social media policy within their own teams and during
the season. This provides another opportunity for future research.
The findings of this study provide insight into the administrative
decision-making related to the development of social media policy. There
is undoubtedly a power dynamic at play between institutions and athletes,
which provides an opportunity for future research to understand how
the policy comes together, who is involved in the creation, the approval
process, and how much influence a governing association has in policy
creation. It is possible that these policies also serve the interests of the
schools as much as or perhaps more than each athlete.
Critics could also argue that allowing and encouraging athletes
to use social media could lead to exploitation, which could create ethical
concerns. For example, a future study examining the ethics behind using
positive and negative examples of responsible social media use within
trainings could have valuable insight and implications for PR education.
On the other hand, individual athletes may find greater personal benefit

74
from social media than the institution. Previous research in this area does
reveal that there is apparent disconnect between the intent of the athletic
department and the perception of the policy by the student-athletes. For
example, Sanderson (2015a) interviewed student-athletes and found that
students tended to find the social media policy restrictive and did not find
educational value in the policy; whereas, results of this study indicated
that athletic departments work to emphasize the educational value of
such programs. Reconciling these differences is beyond the scope of the
current study but should be investigated in future studies to determine the
effectiveness of such programs.
Conclusion
Findings from this study provide insight into the organization’s
perspective when it comes to developing, implementing, and enforcing
social media policies for student-athletes. This study presents a perspective
of an increasingly important issue that has not yet been examined through
research. Representatives from athletic departments reported developing
policies that are designed to be more educational than punitive. Through
these policies, athletic departments aim to empower student-athletes to
take control of their social media presence to prepare them for a future
beyond athletics.
References
Ashley, S. (2015). Media literacy in action? What are we teaching in
introductory college media studies courses? Journalism & Mass
Communication Educator, 70, 161-173. doi:1077695815572191
Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: Transcribing.
Family Practice, 25, 127-131.
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of
concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57, 218-259.
Browning, B., & Sanderson, J. (2012). The positives and negatives of
Smith & Watkins

Twitter: Exploring how student-athletes use Twitter to respond to
critical tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5,
503-521.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CoSIDA. (2013). 2013 CoSIDA membership survey: Social media training
for student-athletes & coaches. Retrieved from http://cosida.com/
media/documents/2013/3/2013_CoSIDA_Survey_Results_Final1.
pdf
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeShazo, K. (2016). 2016 social media use of student athletes. Fieldhouse
Media. Retrieved from http://www.fieldhousemedia.net/2016-
social-media-use-of-student-athletes-2016-survey-results
Duffy, P., & Burns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis, and RSS in
education: A conversation of possibilities. In Proceedings Online
Learning and Teaching Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Elefant, C. (2011). The power of social media: Legal issues & best
practices for utilities engaging social media. Energy Law Journal,
32, 1-56.
Eshet-Alkali, Y., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital
literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 421-429.
Fuduric, M., & Mandelli, A. (2014). Communicating social
media policies: Evaluation of current practices. Journal of
Communication Management, 18(2) 158-175.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update
2016. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/
Hacker Daniels, A. (2015). Social media in academe: The case of David
Guth at the University of Kansas. First Amendment Studies, 49,
22-26.
Hobbs, R. (2011). The state of media literacy: A response to Potter.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(3), 419-430.

76
Hopkins, J. P., Hopkins, K., & Whelton, B. (2013). Being social: Why the
NCAA has forced universities to monitor student-athletes’ social
media. University of Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law and
Policy, 13, 1-40.
Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions:
A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62, 454-472.
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core
concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education, 26, 369-386.
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information
literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 211-221.
Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2011). Qualitative communication research
methods (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new
information and communication technologies. The Communication
Review, 7(3), 3-14.
Mandel, S. (2010, July 19). Stewart Mandel: NCAA turns up heat on
agent-player relations with more investigations. Sports Illustrated.
Retrieved April 01, 2016, from http://www.si.com/more-
sports/2010/07/19/ncaa-agents
Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts,
theories, and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy, 2, 1-22.
Martin, A. (2006). Literacies for the digital age. In A. Martin & D.
Madigan (Eds.), Digital Literacies for Learning (pp. 3-25).
London, UK: Facet.
Mayer, K. R. (2012). Colleges and universities all atwitter: Constitutional
implications of regulating and monitoring student-athletes’ Twitter
usage. Marq. Sports L. Rev., 23, 455-477.
Miller, R., Parsons, K., & Lifer, D. (2010). Students and social networking
sites: The posting paradox. Behaviour & Information Technology,
29(4), 377-382.
Neill, M., & Moody, M. (2015). Who is responsible for what? Examining
strategic roles in social media management. Public Relations
Smith & Watkins

Review, 41, 109-118.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers &
Education, 59, 1065-1078.
Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. The
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67, 274-286.
Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. (2008). Social networking profiles: An
examination of student attitudes regarding use and appropriateness
of content. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 95-97.
Rodriguez, J. E. (2011). Social media use in higher education: Key areas
to consider for educators. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 7, 539-550.
Rubin, R., & Rubin, I. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanderson, J. (2011). To tweet or not to tweet: Exploring Division I
athletic departments’ social-media policies. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 4, 492-513.
Sanderson, J., & Browning, B. (2013). Training versus monitoring: A
qualitative examination of athletic department practices regarding
student-athletes and Twitter. Qualitative Research Reports, 14,
105-111.
Sanderson, J., Browning, B., & Schmittel, A. (2015a). Education on
the digital terrain: A case study exploring college athletes’
perceptions of social media training. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 8, 103-124.
Sanderson, J., Snyder, E., Hull, D., & Gramlick, K. (2015b). Social media
policies within NCAA member institutions: Evolving technology
and its impact on policy. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics, 8, 50-73.
Sarkisova, G., & Parham, J. (2013). 15 college athletes who got in trouble
using Twitter. Complex. Retrieved from http://complex.com/pop-
culture/2013/03/15-college-athletes-who-got-in-trouble-using-
twitter/dj-gardner
Schmidt, H. C. (2013). Media literacy education from kindergarten to

78
college: A comparison of how media literacy is addressed across
the educational system. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 5,
295-309.
Schmidt, J. E. (2015). Helping students understand media: Examining the
efficacy interdisciplinary media training at the university level.
Journal of Media Literacy Education, 7(2), 50-68.
Snyder, E. M. (2014). An examination of student-athlete perceptions
of Division I social media policies. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 132-160.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Syme, C. (2014, May 30). Essentials of social media training for students
(Part 1). Retrieved from http://cosida.com/news/2014/5/30/
GEN_0530144023.aspx
Truman, J., Cottingham, M., Bogle-Jubinville, K., & Lynch, A. (2014).
Examination of social media in NCAA DII Institutions. Journal of
Contemporary Athletics, 8(2), 101.
Vaast, E., & Kaganer, E. (2013). Social media affordances and governance
in the workplace: An examination of organizational policies.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 78-101.
Smith & Watkins

Appendix
Interview Guide
How long have you been in your position?
Where were you working previously?
Tell me about your sports management background
Tell me about your social media policy for collegiate athletes
When was it developed?
Why was it developed?
Who developed it?
Has it been revised? Why?
How do you inform and educate your college athletes on the policy?
How do you establish whether or not the students have read and
understand the policy?
How is the policy enforced?
What happens if the policy is violated?
Are there variations in the policy or the enforcement based on sport? If so,
explain.
What type of student feedback have you gotten about your policy?
How much input do the students have in crafting and/or enforcing the
policy?
What do you think are the strengths of your policy?
How do you encourage positive social media use among student-athletes
(i.e. brand building and networking)?
What about weaknesses or areas for improvement/clarification?
How do you monitor trends in social media and subsequently keep your
policy current?
To what extent do you monitor the social media activities at other schools?
Editorial Record: Original draft submitted to JPRE on March 27, 2017. Revision went
under review in July 2017. Manuscript accepted for publication in September 2017. Final
revisions completed on May 8, 2018. First published online on May 21, 2018.

"Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use" by Smith and Watkins in Journal of Public Relations Education, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to "Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use" by Smith and Watkins in Journal of Public Relations Education, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018

Similar to "Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use" by Smith and Watkins in Journal of Public Relations Education, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018 (20)

More from AEJMC Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE)

More from AEJMC Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

"Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use" by Smith and Watkins in Journal of Public Relations Education, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018