No Equal Pay in PR: Today’s Gender Pay Gap of 14% Can Be Blamed on Discrimination
By David M. Dozier, Ph.D., APR, Fellow PRSA
No topic generates as much heat and as little light as does the gendered pay gap for public relations practitioners.
One fact can’t be denied: Women in public relations are paid significantly less than men. The argument becomes heated when we ask the reasons why. Most of my colleagues see gender discrimination, in one form or another, as a key explanation. Others, like my colleague Jim Hutton at Fairleigh Dickinson University, consider that explanation a myth.
As a white male who can collect Social Security, my biases might swing in Jim Hutton’s direction. As a father of two women, both successful biologists, I think my daughters ought to have equal professional opportunities with their male colleagues, including pay.
My accidental interest in the gendered pay gap dates back to 1982. Sharon Chapo, then a student at San Diego State, assisted me in crunching numbers from a PRSA membership survey, collected for other purposes. Sharon asked if women earned lower salaries than men. On a whim, we decided to find out.
Fortunately, we had collected the necessary data. Indeed, men practitioners earned $43,220 annually. Women earned $27,820, significantly lower than men. At the time, women earned 64 cents for every dollar earned by men, an intuitive inequity ratio that allows comparisons over time. This was the first of nearly a dozen studies, papers, and articles I have authored or co-authored on the gendered pay gap in public relations.
Fast-forward 28 years. Led by Dr. Bey-Ling Sha at San Diego State, researchers on the PRSA’s National Committee on Work, Life & Gender recently completed another survey of members. Good news first: Women have closed the gap somewhat. Women now make 78 cents on the dollar, when compared to men. The bad news: Women still earn (at $73,544 on average) significantly less than men (averaging $94,697 annually).
Scientific research on gender salary discrimination is difficult. Because such discrimination is illegal, only the foolish manager would “strongly agree” to a survey item: “In making salary decisions, I systematically pay women less.”
Discrimination is what’s left over, after all other reasonable explanations have been discarded. One reasonable explanation is that women have fewer years of professional experience than men. People with less experience are paid less, regardless of gender.
We don’t know why women in PR have fewer years of professional experience. Like the gendered pay gap, the gendered experience gap has also persisted over the decades.
Our most recent research shows that professional experience does contribute to the gendered pay gap. Through the power of multivariate statistics, however, we were able to remove the contribution of professional experience to the gendered pay gap. In other words, we statistically “equalized” men and women in terms of professional experience, and then computed their adjusted incomes.
We found men’s adjusted income was $87,360, once years of professional experience were equalized. Women earned $75,504, once years of professional experience were equalized. This bumps the inequity ratio from $.78 to $.86 on the dollar, but the difference still remains significant. This means we’re confident our results apply to all PRSA members, not just those in our sample.
Put another way, there’s a 22-cent gap between men and women for very dollar they earn as practitioners. Of the 22 cents, 8 cents is due to differences in professional experience between men and women. The remaining 14-cent gendered pay gap is due to something besides professional experience.
That “14 cents on the dollar” is what’s left over, after the most plausible explanation has been accounted for. My colleagues and I have looked at organizational roles, participation in management decision-making, education, and a host of other explanations for the gendered pay gap. No combination of these factors has been able to close the gendered pay gap.
My best professional judgment is that much of that 14-cent gendered inequity ratio is due to gender discrimination.
David M. Dozier, Ph.D., APR, Fellow PRSA, is a scholar of public relations and communication management, and a member of the public relations faculty at San Diego State University’s School of Communication. He was the 2008 recipient of PRSA’s Outstanding Educator Award.
Published: April 18, 2011 By:






Sadly, David, women continue to be penalized in pay just for showing up as…women. And now you can add this: according to a recent series of articles in the Wall Street Journal, research on how women are promoted points to their being promoted based on performance, while men are promoted based on their potential. http://on.wsj.com/ezDkCS
If we can fix negative attitudes about women and develop both institutional and societal will, women’s pay will reach parity.
As a woman who doesn’t buy the gender discrimination gap, I have a couple of questions about the research you did.
Did you factor in the fact that women are more likely to work for non-profit companies, that they purposefully accept lower paying jobs in return for the feeling of making a difference?
Did you ask the respondents where salary consideration ranked in their decision to take a particular job?
In my experience, women really truly don’t seem to care as much as men about salary, unless they are single parents.
Did you ask both genders if any of them derailed their own career path and uprooted themselves from a good paying job so their spouse can take a better job in another state?
Women do that all the time.
Men rarely do that.
Screams of outrage that it isn’t fair doesn’t change a thing.
It just is.
Additionally, I really would prefer that you call a spade a spade.
“We don’t know why women in PR have fewer years of professional experience.”
Really?!
Study after study has shown that the number one reason that women have less professional experience than men is that we take time off to have children.
There I said it–now can we got on with the discussion without avoiding the elephant in the living room?
Hi Cathy … strong points you make here. I will make sure the author sees this and responds
^bpittman
I’d be interested in any methodologically sound resesarch findings you have to support such anecdotal statements as women purposely choose not-for-profit organizations in order to “feel good.”
Or that women derail their careers “ALL the time” to follow spouses?
Or “WE take time off to have children?”
If you’ve got data to support your statements, that would support your position.
Otherwise, all you are offering is personal opinions that reflect your own biases, and then those of us who have NEVER uprooted ourselves to follow husbands, who do not have children, who have never had a break in work experience and who have not chosen not-for-profit careers to “feel good” can throw in our own biases and we can just have a debate on that basis.
Ms. Lewton,
Links about women in the nonprofit sector;
http://tinyurl.com/3fcne4j
http://tinyurl.com/3zal2r9
http://tinyurl.com/nonprofit-url
Links about the reasons women leave the workforce;
http://tinyurl.com/3fk7ekb
http://tinyurl.com/3vbtu5d
http://tinyurl.com/qcys5
http://tinyurl.com/htbon
http://tinyurl.com/3undh4w
While the percentages vary, depending on various factors with each study, the one thing that remains constant is that the number one reason women leave the workforce is family responsibilities.
Links about relocation;
http://tinyurl.com/3kzoj6x
http://tinyurl.com/3wzl3zr
http://tinyurl.com/3qq36wq
http://tinyurl.com/3u36295
And the fact that yes, I did employ a bit of hyperbole (Women do that ALL the time) doesn’t negate the fact that many more women than men uproot themselves to accommodate the spouse’s relocation, and find their long-term prospects impacted more greatly than a man’s.
Focusing on one hyperbole doesn’t change that hard, cold fact.
I asked some simple questions which need to be addressed if this issue is to be resolved.
The fact that you, Ms. Lewton, chose to jump to the conclusion that I have children, left a job for a spouse, or have even been married, seems to expose YOUR biases.
Oh, and one more thing.
Many of these studies are at least 10 years old, which should indicate that these presumptions need to be tested again, as society is ever changing; unlike the hard sciences, where chemical reactions and physical properties are fairly constant.
Since you work for a company that services the Science community, (an impressive list of clientele, btw) perhaps you are aware of this small study?
http://tinyurl.com/3vjy5cj
I work in the Sciences, in a lab environment.
And if I went to my scientist bosses with the above article, in an attempt to get them to acknowledge a gender pay gap, the first thing they would say;
“Well, so-an-so just left to have a baby. And So-and-so just took leave to attend the birth of X grandchild; that’s the number one reason we have to hire temps. So what does this author mean, that they don’t know why women have less professional experience?” Then they would dismiss the article, the author AND ME.
Where in this article is acknowledgment of what anyone in the work place can easily observe?
Are you willing to put your clients’ money where this author’s mouth is?
Are you willing to risk your professional integrity on the basis of this study?
Would you go to your clients with this article and expect them to take your advice?
If we want to be taken seriously as PR professionals, then we must use critical thinking skills to evaluate our sources and ask the hard questions.
How can I go to a CEO and ask for scarce resources, if I can’t think of opposing arguments and then assemble research to address/discredit those arguments?
If I can find all these factors about women’s reasons for leaving the workplace in a matter of minutes, where are the questions in the survey which provide insight into these very REAL issues, as well as others I didn’t even ask?
Why would I waste limited company resources hiring a survey team that doesn’t give me my money’s worth?
If the results are inconclusive…at least report that you asked the questions!
They had the people there, willing to answer questions.
Researchers must ask pertinent questions for the clients.
Did they not ask these questions because they couldn’t think of a way to quantify them?
What’s the explanation for this huge gap in their survey?
Until they give us the answers, this entire article is nothing but a piece of PC fluff, apparently written by people who lack the ability to assemble/evaluate preliminary research and design a survey that will acquire concrete answers to the hard questions.
My bosses would never pay a research team for this shoddy workmanship and they would reprimand/fire me if I conducted such incomplete research.