A Phenomenological Study of the Internship Experience:
Reflections from Three Perspectives
Paper Presented to the
Internships and Careers Interest Group
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
National Convention
Baltimore, Maryland
August 1998
by
Emma Daugherty
Associate Professor
Journalism Department
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90840
Phone: (562) 985-5400
Fax: (562) 985-5300
[log in to unmask]
* The author thanks Dr. Mary Poplin of Claremont Graduate University for her
invaluable
guidance in the development of this study.
ABSTRACT
A Phenomenological Study of the Internship Experience:
Reflections from Three Perspectives
Emma Daugherty
Associate Professor
Journalism Department
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90840
Phone: (562) 985-5400
Fax: (562) 985-5300
[log in to unmask]
Journalism and mass communication educators have long valued internships
for students. With all the importance placed on experiential learning
experiences, such as internships, scant literature exists on the subject. In
order to understand the underlying expectations and perspectives of the
internship experience for the three groups of participants - interns, site
supervisors, and college internship coordinators - a phenomenological method of
inquiry was used in this study. This qualitative study included 25 interns, 25
site supervisors, and
30 internship coordinators as participants and found similarities and
differences in their responses that can be used to help improve the internship
experience.
A Phenomenological Study of the Internship Experience:
Reflections from Three Perspectives
Introduction
Journalism and mass communication educators have long valued internships
for students. Internships are praised by scholars as a way for undergraduates
to gain real-life experience (Ward, 1981), as a useful training tool for
students (Hanson, 1984), and as a way for students to discover long-term
interests and aspirations (Watson, 1992). Through these experiences, students
become more independent, ambitious, and focused. Their career interests are
heightened, and they become more satisfied with their major (Pedro, 1984).
Internships are seen as a sound pedagogical instrument and an important
educational experience (Downs, Harper, & Hunt, 1976). Basow and Byrne (1993)
found that students take internships to practice what they have learned and to
acquire new skills. Internships also have been viewed as a springboard for
further learning (Bourland-Davis, Graham, & Fulmer, 1997).
Review teams from the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and
Mass Communications (ACEJMC) assess the extent programs are in compliance with
Standard 7, Internships and Work Experience. The handbook provided by ACEJMC
states: "Journalism and mass communications internships, practicums, and
student publications can add a significant and realistic component to a
student's education" (p. 51).
The Internships and Careers Interest Group, affiliated with the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), formed in 1994 to
serve educators and professionals interested in student work experiences. In
1997, 85 members belonged to the AEJMC Internships and Careers Interest Group.
Furthermore, the National Communication Career Services Network formed in 1998
to provide a forum for faculty and administrators who serve as internship and
placement coordinators in communications programs. Other organizations, such as
the Intern Research Group (Garrison, 1983) and the Internship Committee of the
Association for Education in Journalism (Garrison, 1981) have appeared in the
literature for more than a decade.
Internships, however, can be traced to the earliest beginnings of
journalism education. One of the most noteworthy moves toward journalism
education came from General Robert E. Lee, who was president of Washington
College, now Washington and Lee University. In an effort to rebuild the South
after the Civil War, he proposed journalism education to his Board of Trustees
in 1869. He requested 50 scholarships to train young men to become editors by
placing them in printing internships. Since printers were editors of most of
the publications at that time, Lee's hope was to train the printer to become an
editor rather than make an editor into a printer.
Still, with all the importance placed on experiential learning experiences,
such as internships, for journalism and mass communication students, scant
literature exists on the subject. Most of the literature is anecdotal or
descriptive in nature. Few studies address the actual experiences and
expectations of the three major participants in the internship process:
students, site supervisors, and faculty internship coordinators. This study
focuses on these three interrelationships as a means for understanding
underlying expectations so that internship experiences can be improved.
Literature Review
Articles in academic journals about the importance of internship
experiences for journalism students began to appear regularly in the mid-1970s.
Cole (1974) discussed the merits of full-time semester internships, and Peters
(1975) addressed some pitfalls of internships, including menial tasks performed
by students, a lack of control by faculty coordinators, and ineffective site
supervisors. The use of internship contracts and their potential legal problems
were debated (Ware, 1976; Williams & Konsky, 1976).
Other topics included recommended guidelines for internships (Ware, 1977)
and the importance of a rigorous student screening process in order to avoid
unrealistic expectations and employer disappointments (Fedler & O'Keefe, 1977).
Articles addressed the merits of requiring internships (Femmel, 1978) and the
increase in the number of formal internship classes offered for credit (Cowdin,
1978). The growth of internships in advertising curriculum (Agee, 1979) and
wide acceptance of internships in public relations (Agee, 1979) were reported.
Moreover, after completing an internship, students were found to be more
realistic in their judgments about the media but more critical in their
appraisals of their academic program (Fosdick, 1979), and the benefits of
week-long internships were shared by Halverson (1980). Mills, Harvey and
Warnick (1980) found that most editors wanted a more developed internship
program.
Thus, educators feel the need for internships and work-related experiences
for their students, but the literature suggests that problems exist in the way
internships are structured, assessed, and managed for quality. In addition,
most of the literature is anecdotal or suppositional in nature, focusing on
particular programs and their methods. Hanson (1984) offered suggestions based
on a three-year program at Rutgers University, and Ward (1981) explained the
interdisciplinary approach used by The Pennsylvania State University at Erie.
The structure of the internship program at Marquette University, which
emphasizes the analysis of the internship experience, was shared (Garrison,
1981). The virtues of requiring students from all disciplines at Bethany
College to take internships were explained (Carty, 1983), and students assessed
their newspaper internships at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (Riley, 1983). James (1986) discussed the critical-thinking
component in the internship program at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
Some scholars made recommendations about internship models and outcomes.
Berger (1991) offered suggestions to professionals about ways to strengthen
internship programs. Fulmer (1993) presented advice about academic preparation,
structure, and administrative procedures for public relations internships.
Garrison (1983) reported six internship models implemented by journalism and
mass communication programs, and Gibson (1996) outlined 10 criteria for
establishing and evaluating public relations internship systems. Hinck and
Dailey (1994) proposed a model of supervisory styles used by internship
coordinators, and Watson (1992) suggested approaches to monitor, administer, and
maintain the quality and integrity of internship programs.
Ciofalo (1989) cited the need for faculty to become familiar with the
pedagogy of experiential learning and called for the site supervisor's
appointment as an adjunct faculty member if credit is to be offered for the
completion of an internship.
Moreover, other studies surveyed the number of internships offered in
journalism and mass communication programs, units available for credit,
compensation methods, and program requirements. Internship practices in
advertising (Keenan, 1992), public relations (Kendall, 1980), and broadcast
(Meeske, 1988) have been reported. These studies yielded descriptive data
detailing internship programs in these areas.
More recent studies used both quantitative and qualitative research
methods. Basow and Byrne (1993) studied how students' attitudes change after
they completed an internship. They surveyed 291 journalism students and
graduates and found that students need to develop realistic expectations about
what they will learn and do during their internships. Feldman (1995) analyzed
the results of the American Society of Newspaper Editors study and found that if
students are exposed to the journalism field, their chances of working as a
print journalist increase significantly.
Horowitz (1997) surveyed 136 graduates in journalism and mass communication
and found that a quality internship increased job satisfaction after graduation.
Bourland-Davis, Graham, and Fulmer (1997) explored the internship experience for
public relations students by analyzing 102 student letters and found that
students need to be armed with a variety of skills, such as interpersonal,
technical, and planning. They suggested that their study "becomes a step toward
a macroscopic analysis of expectations and outcomes for the three components of
an internship program: the intern, the academic supervisor, and the site
supervisor" (p. 33).
However, in all of this literature about internships, few studies seek
students' perceptions of the experience. Few studies examining the
expectations, fears, and challenges of all internship participants - students,
site supervisors, and faculty internship coordinators - exist. Although the
literature encompasses the qualities of a good internship program - including
skills needed by students and ways to screen and monitor sites - and methods of
supervision by internship coordinators, little research focuses on the qualities
of an effective site supervisor.
Therefore, the purpose of this phenomenological study is to collect
qualitative data from interns, site supervisors, and internship coordinators to
better understand the internship experience and the characteristics that help
ensure a good internship as seen through the eyes of the participants. Through
a process of data analysis, the experiences will be described, and through data
triangulation, similarities and differences will be determined from the
perceptions of a "good internship."
Participants
Interns: Fifteen students enrolled in a spring internship course and 10
students enrolled in a summer internship course at a large comprehensive, urban
state university in Southern California were involved in this study. Students
met weekly during a regularly scheduled class to discuss their progress and
concerns. They also presented work to their classmates and raised issues about
career development. All were seniors who completed most of their course work.
The average student age was 23. Twenty-two were female, and three were male.
Eighteen were public relations students, and seven were broadcast students.
Nine students were interning at broadcast organizations, eight in agencies,
two in hospitals, four in corporations, one in government, and one for a
nonprofit organization. The students interning at the broadcast organizations,
the office of an elected government official, a public relations agency
specializing in entertainment, and the nonprofit organization received no
compensation for their work. One hospital intern received a $500 stipend and
one corporate intern was paid $100 per press release. The remaining 11 public
relations interns were paid an average of $9.50 an hour. Of the students who
reported their ethnicity, one was East Indian, one was African American, one was
Asian, eight were Hispanic, and 10 were Caucasian.
Site Supervisors: The site supervisors of the 25 interns were also
participants in this study. All site supervisors in the internship program are
screened to ensure that they have five or more years of experience in the
communications field, and site supervisors must agree to offer the intern a
meaningful educational experience, which must include skill development. A job
description of the internship position, provided by the site, is submitted for
faculty approval.
The broadcast professionals held the following positions: producer for a
morning news program at an independent television station, correspondent for a
nationally syndicated news-entertainment television program, news operations
manager for a large ethnic television station, news administration manager for a
network owned-and-operated television station, production assistant for a cable
sports television network, internship coordinator for a network television
publicity department, director of communications for a television network
owned-and-operated station, and community relations manager for a network
owned-and-operated television station.
The rest of the site supervisors included two public relations managers
from area hospitals, five principals of small public relations firms, a vice
president and two account supervisors at mid-sized public relations agencies, a
marketing vice president and two public relations managers at three high-tech
corporations, a public relations director for an automotive company, a press
secretary for an elected state official, and a public relations manager at a
nonprofit organization.
The site supervisors reported having an average of 12 years of
communications experience. They also said they had supervised an average of 42
interns during their career, citing as few as one and as many as 300. Of the
participants who reported their gender, 11 of the site supervisors were women
and 10 were men. The average age was 35 with four not responding to the
question. Of the 20 who reported their ethnicity, one was African American, one
Indian, one Asian, three Hispanic, and 14 Caucasian.
Internship Coordinators: Using names from the 1997 internship/placement
coordinators directory compiled by Beth Gaeddert and Don Heider, 89 journalism
and mass communication internship coordinators from U.S. colleges and
universities were faxed a questionnaire. All individuals listed in the
directory with a working fax number were sent a questionnaire. Two months
later, non-respondents were faxed another questionnaire. A total of 30
internship coordinators returned completed questionnaires, resulting in a 34%
response rate.
Of the respondents who completed the demographic information, 17 were men
and 11 were women. Their average age was 50, and they had an average of 11
years of internship coordination experience. Nine were full professors, 11
associate professors, three assistant professors, and one instructor. Five were
in staff positions. Twenty of the faculty were tenured. Most respondents (12
of them) were from a comprehensive university. Nine were from a liberal arts
college and seven from a research institution. They represented a wide range of
subject areas, but more than half (15) reported print journalism as their
academic specialty.
Phenomenological Methodology
In order to understand the underlying expectations and perspectives of the
internship experience for the three groups of participants - interns, site
supervisors, and internship coordinators - a phenomenological method of inquiry
was used. This method examines the way subjects experience their environment
and interpret the meaning of those experiences (Patton, 1990). The objective is
to understand and describe the experience from the participant's point of view
(Mertens, 1998). Experiences are grouped, analyzed, and compared to identify
the patterns and relationships of meaning, thus the essence of the phenomenon
for the various participants.
A questionnaire for each group of participants was designed with almost
identical open-ended questions that each individual was to answer from his or
her own perspective. Interns, site supervisors, and college internship
coordinators were asked to answer questions about their hopes and expectations,
greatest fears and anxieties, and greatest challenges in their internship roles.
In addition, they were asked about the qualities of a good and bad intern and
traits of a good and bad site supervisor. Interns were asked to describe the
management style of their site supervisors. In turn, site supervisors were
asked to describe their own management style. All participants were asked how
the internship experience could be improved.
The responses were analyzed by coding the data and placing responses into
themes. The emerging themes were then triangulated among the three groups to
determine differences and similarities. The use of triangulation enhances the
ability to identify converging results and helps determine the importance of any
contradictions and different perspectives that may surface (Creswell, 1994).
Results
The questionnaires for the interns were administered at the class meeting
during the seventh week of the spring semester and the third week of the summer
session. A total of 25 students participated in the study.
The questionnaires for the site supervisors were sealed in an envelope and
accompanied by a return envelope along with a letter requesting their
participation in the study. Interns delivered the questionnaires to their site
supervisors during the seventh week of the spring semester and third week of the
summer session. Site supervisors were given two weeks to respond and asked to
return the questionnaire in a sealed envelope via the intern or through the
mail. All of the 25 site supervisors from the two internship classes
participated in the study.
Every faculty internship coordinator with a fax number listed in the
Gaeddert and Heider internship/placement coordinators directory was faxed a
questionnaire and accompanying letter during the fifth week of the spring
semester. Internship coordinators were asked to respond within one week.
Because the response rate was low (23%), a follow-up questionnaire, asking the
coordinators to respond within three weeks, was sent during the thirteenth week
of the semester. Internship coordinators were asked to mail or fax their
completed questionnaires. As a result, 30 internship coordinators (34% response
rate) participated in the study.
Answers to the open-ended questions for each group of participants were
analyzed by sorting the responses into categories and coding them by their
emerging themes or topics. Themes or topics were identified by patterns of
descriptive words and phrases used by participants, frequency of the words and
phrases, the extensiveness of comments, and the intensity of responses.
Interns
Hopes and Expectations: Two themes emerged from students' responses about
their internship hopes and expectations: internal immediate rewards and
external future rewards. The internal immediate rewards included skills
acquisition (writing, editing, reporting, computer, production), obtaining
real-world experience, getting class credit to graduate, discovering if the
field is for them, and gaining a better understanding of the field. The
external future rewards were to make contacts to get a good job, get hired by
their site supervisor, and develop a portfolio or work samples that will help
them get a position. Experience, skill development, learning, and contacts were
mentioned most.
Greatest Fears and Anxieties: When asked about their greatest fears and
anxieties, students' responses overwhelming indicated that they feel powerless
to get enough work and experience, to be assigned meaningful tasks, to learn the
job, and to know if they are doing the right kind of job. Some of the comments
included "not clearly understanding what is being asked of me to do" and "not
having anything to do_sitting around and doing nothing since I'm not getting
paid." Fourteen of the students addressed the "fear of doing something wrong,
messing up." One student said her greatest fear was "that sometimes I make
mistakes. Sometimes they are so busy that they ask you to do something or get
them something and they haven't told me how to do it. So I do my best and just
wait for what they have to say." Others said, "It frustrates me that I don't
have more responsibility and that I really don't understand the product we sell"
and "My greatest fear is that I will not come out of it ready."
Greatest Challenges: Students' greatest challenges mirrored their fears
and anxieties but with more depth. Coping with unfamiliarity in a fast-paced
environment where people are "too busy for you" was the emerging theme in their
responses. Some comments about their greatest challenges were "learning who is
who, learning where everything is and even learning how to use some of the
machines" and "finding exactly what people need and making sure that it is right
or that it is good enough." One broadcast student said her greatest challenge
was "establishing relationships with those in the newsroom. They're always too
busy for you."
"Trying to know what supervisors assume you should know already" was a
challenge for one student because "sometimes they assume you know a lot when you
don't." Others were coping with understanding a particular industry with
challenges like "learning all the technical jargon" and "understanding our
product line and the terminology used to describe it."
Qualities of a Good Intern: When asked to describe a good intern, the
majority of students addressed the ability to take direction, to take the
initiative, to ask lots of questions, to be proactive, to assign tasks to
yourself, to be a fast learner, and to accept new challenges. Here emerges a
theme of independence.
Qualities of a Poor Intern: When describing a poor intern, students cited
lack of motivational skills. Their comments included descriptive words and
phrases, such as "lazy," "unmotivated," "doesn't take initiative to get work,"
"doesn't ask for more work," "afraid to ask questions," "poor attitude,"
"doesn't take internship seriously," and "arrives late to work." As one student
said, "A poor intern is someone who needs to be hand held with each project and
needs instructions throughout the project from beginning to end_.afraid to ask
questions, which may lead to work not being done or not being done correctly."
Traits of a Good Site Supervisor: The major theme of how students viewed a
good site supervisor was willingness - willing to spend time, be available,
mentor, teach, help, communicate, show, explain, interact, cooperate, offer
feedback, answer questions, and give direction. A good site supervisor was
described as "someone who is willing to help the intern get the most out of the
experience" and someone "willing to let you try and fail and learn."
Traits of a Poor Site Supervisor: Although more than half of the students
mentioned a site supervisor's unwillingness to spend time with the intern as a
trait of a poor site supervisor, the larger emerging theme was indifference.
They saw poor sites supervisors as not caring, not taking time, and inattentive.
Students described poor site supervisors as the following:
( Someone who doesn't take the time to converse with the intern or discuss
any issues
and doesn't understand that an internship is a learning experience.
( Someone that doesn't talk to you or is too busy to show you
necessary things.
( Someone who's too busy and wants an office clerk.
( Someone who is too busy to teach you anything and doesn't give you
proper directions
to complete tasks.
( Someone who doesn't care about what the intern is doing or doesn't
have the time to
discuss needs and concerns of the intern.
( Someone who doesn't care what you're doing.
Management Style of Site Supervisor: When students were asked to describe
the management style of their site supervisors, three themes surfaced. Site
supervisors fell into three categories: one who acts as a mentor, one who is
busy but approachable, and one who is preoccupied.
Comments about the ones who acted as mentors included "caring, insightful,
wants me to succeed, willing to take risks on me by giving me more and more
challenging work." "She sits with me and explains concepts. She sometimes
makes me come up with questions," another student said. "Then she sits and
watches me complete a task. If something is wrong, she is not shy to tell me.
She is very helpful."
Those who were busy but approachable were described as "very busy, but does
make time to show me how to do things. Demanding but supportive." Another
student said, "Self-directedness is encouraged. Supervisor does not watch you
at all times. You're on your own to produce work. Meetings are conducted
before and after the work day to discuss the day's work."
Other comments that support a site supervisor who is preoccupied include
"she is very nice, but she is always so busy. I never have time to talk to her
or ask her any questions" and a "very 'tough guy' attitude. She has many things
to do and it seems like she gets them done."
Suggestions for Improvement: Most students called for more interaction
with the site supervisor when asked how the internship experience could be
improved. Students asked for "more one-on-one contact with the site supervisor"
and for site supervisors to "talk to the student in a little more detail about
how his or her job duties should be performed." One student wrote, "For a
person who may not be as self-directed, more instruction/supervision should be
provided."
They also wanted more hands-on work and less observing by saying the
experience could be improved if they would be given "more challenging tasks and
more interaction with other departments," "more hands on and not as much
observing," "more hands-on experience with production," and "tasks other than
doing a lot of faxing and copying."
Site Supervisors
Hopes and Expectations: The hopes and expectations of site supervisors
when they accept or are assigned an intern fall into three themes: solid work
ethic, professional development, and contributions to the business. Interns
with a solid work ethic were most important. They expected dependable,
disciplined, teachable, organized, and eager-to-learn students with a positive
attitude. Site supervisors hoped that the internship would provide training to
clarify career goals, a better understanding of the field, and career
connections. One site supervisor hoped "that the student will enjoy a
substantive, well-rounded introduction to the field." Moreover, they wanted
something in return. Some comments included the following:
( My expectations are that I will receive some relief in my workload along
with some
creative input on current projects.
( The organization and its clients will benefit from near-professional
level work.
( That the organization will form a relationship with a talented student
capable of
moving into a full-time position.
Greatest Fears and Anxieties: The greatest fears and anxieties of site
supervisors were getting an intern with a poor work ethic and mistakes made by
the intern. "The greatest fear would be an intern that does not possess the
desire to learn and contribute," said a site supervisor. "Techniques,
strategies and process can be learned; work ethic cannot."
Eight participants cited making mistakes as a concern that caused them
anxiety. The following are comments from broadcast professionals:
( The interns play a vital role in our pre-production of live events. It
is a constant
concern that the interns maintain their performance level and assist
our staff as best as
possible. Any errors will reflect poorly on the program.
( An anxiety would be a leak of information on a breaking news
story...improper
conduct in the handling of calls to the station.
( That they'll screw up a story or insult a contact due to their
inexperience.
Public relations practitioners voiced the same concerns. One public
relations executive said his greatest fear was "that the intern will affect
client relationships in a negative way."
Greatest Challenges: When asked about their greatest challenges when
supervising an intern, a lack of time was mentioned by 16 of the 25
participants. Some of their comments were as follows:
( Making the time to ensure the intern is truly learning and growing from the
experience
rather than it being a part-time job.
( Having time to help them develop their skills.
( Having time to explain job functions.
( Finding enough time to manage/instruct appropriately.
( With responsibilities extending beyond the internship program, I
sometimes find it
difficult to train our (intern) staff as completely as I would
like.
Qualities of a Good Intern: The most important characteristic of a good
intern for site supervisors was a solid work ethic. Mentioned 38 times in their
responses, attributes of an ideal worker were vital. Site supervisors clearly
wanted interns who are dependable, motivated, interested, prompt, diligent, and
willing to learn. Interpersonal skills, intelligence, and independence were not
mentioned as often as a solid work ethic but were clear themes among the
responses.
Mentioned 16 times by participants, interpersonal skills included being
personable, friendly, enthusiastic, and a good communicator and having a
positive attitude and good sense of humor.
Being intelligent surfaced nine times with phrases like "common sense,"
"intelligence," "bright," "retains information," "has ability to grasp new
concepts," and "a person who can think." Not surprisingly, independence was
mentioned nine times: "independent worker," "takes ownership of projects,"
"ability to work well on own with little direction," "confidence to engage,"
"ability to ask questions," and "has some level of self-direction."
Qualities of a Poor Intern: Site supervisors mentioned qualities that
dealt with attitude 25 times when describing a poor intern. They expressed
traits such as "is apathetic," "has a bad attitude," "has a know-it-all
attitude," "has a hidden agenda," "is a star-struck groupie," and "will not
value the experience they are getting and will not take their role in the
company seriously." Eight participants mentioned careless work: "negligence,"
"sloppy," "flakiness," "unreliable," and "careless proofreading." Five site
supervisors referred to a poor intern as one who required high maintenance. A
poor intern "requires micro-management" and "step-by-step guidance daily."
Traits of a Good Site Supervisor: The emerging theme in the site
supervisors' responses about what makes a good site supervisor was clearly
mentoring and teaching qualities. They mentioned these qualities 46 times.
Qualities included being open, approachable, friendly, patient, concerned, and
helpful and making time to teach, give direction, and provide support. Some of
their responses were the following:
( I believe a good site supervisor should take time with the interns, show
interest in their
goals, and do everything possible to help them achieve them.
( A good site supervisor is someone who is organized and has the time to
fully explain
assignments and critique them.
( A good site coordinator will take time to know the students. Someone
who is hands-on
with the intern.
( Someone with the time to mentor the intern and the patience to engage
the individual
in meaningful projects.
( Someone who interacts with the students and wants them to get as much as
possible
from the internship that will help them in their future careers.
( Someone who explains job functions, is patient, and allows the intern to
learn and
grow.
( One who takes the time out of a busy day to teach the intern new tasks,
involves the
intern in planning/strategy meetings, and allows the intern to do a
variety of tasks to
keep the job interesting.
( A person who provides a structured environment that allows for learning
growth and
exploration of qualities that make a good practitioner. That means
part coach, part role
model, part listener.
Traits of a Poor Site Supervisor: When asked what makes a poor site
supervisor, the theme emerging from their responses was someone who was
unavailable and unapproachable, mentioned 28 times in their comments:
( A poor site supervisor does not have direct contact with the training and
development
of the intern.
( A poor site supervisor fails to manage in any real way, doesn't explain,
doesn't provide
adequate time, and doesn't seem open.
( One who doesn't take time with their interns.
( Someone who doesn't listen or care.
( Someone who doesn't care and is too busy to explain job tasks.
( Someone who is looking for inexpensive assistance and is not willing to
pay the added
cost of time and mentoring.
( Someone too busy to provide direction. Someone just looking for a go-for to
run
errands.
Management Style of Site Supervisor: When describing their own management
style, site supervisors saw themselves as one of three types of internship
managers: a nurturer, provider, or team player.
Nurturer:
( We try to provide real work experience with reasons as to why
assignments are
important. Also try to provide an opportunity for the intern to tackle
creative projects
that involve writing. I try to be open to questions, provide guidance,
and integrate the
intern into the agency day to day.
( Open, friendly, helpful.
( Open attitude, hands-on approach, willing to teach or demonstrate
whatever they want
to learn.
Provider:
( Perhaps it's best defined as the trial-by-fire approach. That is to
expose the intern to as
much of the day-to-day marketing process as possible.
( I prefer to give projects to the intern and allow them to ask questions as
needed.
I would rather not have multiple meetings with the intern every
week.
( I provide hands-on experience and autonomy to my workers.
( I assign work, let the intern work independently, then check work and
offer
suggestions.
( I give directions, explain goals to allow the intern to succeed or fail,
and then review
work.
Team Player:
( I delegate a lot of work, am not very rigid in my management, and like
to foster the
team.
( Team management. Everyone has assignments, but we help each other and work
together to achieve a goal.
( I like to provide the intern with practical knowledge and information
intended as a
supplement to collegiate education. It also appears effective
to use team work as an
educational tool - pairing more experienced interns with newer
ones. People seem to
work well on their own. I hope to guide or steer interns
through their experience at the
office.
( Open, direct, informative, assertive and challenging the best at all times,
no nonsense,
results oriented, team player.
( Patient, tolerant yet firm.
( I treat them just like the account staff. They do the same work, get the
same feedback.
( Fast-paced, quick instructions, and a desire for someone who is quick to
understand.
Suggestions for Improvement: When asked how the internship experience
could be improved, site supervisors called for more involvement by and with the
intern:
( We would like to spend more time with interns_whenever possible provide an
opportunity to join staff meetings, client meetings, etc.
( More involvement in press conferences, off-site projects, direct involvement
in
projects, more responsibility.
( If interns have enough time to dedicate, they should visit the office as
much as
possible, observe at live events and in the studio, talk with
contacts, make themselves
available for assignments, be a self-starter, look for tasks,
make it known that they are
interested in a career through verbal notes and physical
actions.
( The experience is all what the intern makes it.
( Up to the intern to express - up to us to listen.
Having a better understanding of the college and university requirements
was another emerging theme among site supervisors to improve the internship
experience:
( Provide a more detailed outline of roles, expectations, overall place in the
curriculum_provide excerpts from the curriculum itself.
( Oral/written communication from college coordinators.
( I feel the process can be improved by gaining a better understanding of the
intern's
program of study and expectations of the internship at the onset
of the relationship.
Internship Coordinators
Hopes and Expectations: Most of the responses from internship coordinators
to this question were focused on skill development and hands-on professional
experience for interns:
( I want them to learn that the "real world" does indeed demand of them
the same
respect for accuracy, deadlines, completeness that we demand in class.
I also hope
they'll develop portfolio material of professional quality.
( My expectation is that they work harder than they ever thought possible,
that they look
for ways to fit in and be a team player, that they actively pursue
products for a
portfolio, that they will be honest with me and themselves about what's
succeeding
(and not) in the process.
Greatest Fears and Anxieties: Internship coordinators were quick to cite
an unproductive internship experience as their greatest fear and anxiety. Some
of the contributing factors were that site supervisors will not provide a
suitable experience, students will treated as go-fors, or students will be
unprepared for their experience:
( The biggest fear I have is that the students will not have a real internship
experience
that includes writing and the other journalistic skills taught
in our classes.
( The greatest fear I have is that the student's skills will not be
utilized. Employers do
not always offer a well-developed internship program. Students
are occasionally stuck
in dead-end, boring jobs.
( That the supervisor will see the student intern as slave labor and will
treat him or her as
a go-for.
Greatest Challenges: The greatest challenge for internship coordinators
was finding time to ensure a worthwhile learning experience for the intern.
Faculty needed time to find sites, to interview potential site supervisors, to
screen sites, to complete paperwork, to oversee student experiences, and to
visit sites. Most said that were unable to visit sites personally and
communicated with the site by phone. Some mentioned distance as a major
obstacle that prevented them from ensuring a quality experience for their
students:
( Keeping track of what they're doing - is the work really valuable for
them or not?
I can't visit most sites in person, which makes me nervous.
( Making sure their assignments are appropriate, learning experiences.
Qualities of a Good Intern: Two themes emerged when internship
coordinators were asked what makes a good intern: a solid work ethic and taking
the initiative. These themes appeared in 40 out of the 30 responses. These
comments best demonstrated their viewpoint:
( A student who arrives early, stays late, learns to do all tasks
well_asks questions if
necessary_and asks for work when the job is done.
( Initiative (doesn't have to be told what to do), seizes opportunity -
doesn't expect
things to be handed to them, "whatever needs to be done" attitude,
resourceful (can
find a dancing monkey in New York City at 3 a.m.), anticipates employer
needs.
( In my opinion, the good intern is the student who approaches the
internship as if it
were a regular job and who exercises some real initiative in making the
internship the
best possible work experience. Occasionally, an internship supervisor
will say, "I wish
Sally (or Joe) were a little more aggressive." The intern needs to see
opportunities,
sometimes create opportunities. The intern needs to ask for more work,
for more
responsibility, for more opportunities to learn.
Qualities of a Poor Intern: Almost all of the faculty participants felt
that poor interns were the opposite of good interns - they lacked a solid work
ethic and initiative - as demonstrated by these comments:
( Lack of drive, the "I'll just sit here and watch" syndrome.
( A student who won't take initiative, waits to be assigned a task, and
then fails to follow
through.
( The poor intern sits and waits for guidance - "Tell me what to do and
show me how" -
and then complains because the supervisor didn't give him/her much to
do. Many
internship supervisors are just too darned busy to take the student by
the hand. The
supervisor will help but doesn't have the time nor the inclination to
baby sit.
Traits of a Good Site Supervisor: As shown in their responses, internship
coordinators clearly viewed good site supervisors as being effective, on-site
teachers who are genuinely concerned about students' educational welfare:
( Someone who gives guidance as needed but who lets the intern do work that
he/she can
claim as his/her own. A good supervisor will give regular
constructive feedback -
both positive and negative as appropriate.
( Someone who takes an active interest in the intern. A person who will
initiate
new/creative projects, train the student/intern properly, and
work closely with our
interns to see that they are making a contribution.
( A good site supervisor is one who is committed to the student receiving
the best
possible internship experience, allowing them to apply what they have
learned in the
field.
( The one who finds the time to work with the interns, to give professional
feedback, to
be an active participant in the learning experience of the
student.
( Gives regular, constructive feedback to student and school, clearly
specifies
expectations/responsibilities of student, secure and willing to
allow intern to learn,
shares knowledge and experience.
Traits of a Poor Site Supervisor: Poor site supervisors are viewed by
internship coordinators as being the opposite of good ones. They show little
interest in interns, spend little time with them, and treat them with little
respect:
( Someone who gives weak guidance - who lets the intern sink or swim on
his/her own.
( A poor site supervisor is one who uses students merely as flunkies to run
errands
and do busy work.
( Also someone who assigns inappropriate tasks. I once had an intern who
was asked to
rake the lawn as part of his duties at a radio station!
( The supervisor uses the student interns as go-fors. He/she has the intern
answer the
phone, fetch and sort the mail, duplicate, fold, and stuff, etc.
We all realize that there
are times when all staff members have to pitch in_but when that
becomes all that's
asked of the intern we have a poor supervisor.
Suggestions for Improvement: When asked how the internship experience
could be improved, two themes emerged in the responses of internship
coordinators. First, they called for more communication among the three
participants. Internship coordinators felt that students need to understand
fully what to expect and the importance of taking the initiative. In addition,
site supervisors need to understand clearly the importance of their role as
professional educators:
( Better preparation of students before going into the work site by discussing
initiative,
resourcefulness, etc. Unfortunate that many of these qualities
are difficult to teach.
Students either have them or not. Prep students on what to
expect.
( By ensuring employers understand they (internships) are learning experiences
that
require involvement in a coaching context.
( Make sure students get more feedback from their internship employers.
( More interchange among the faculty supervisor, the professional
supervisor, and the
student might help.
( Better coordination between employer and school.
Second, faculty felt that closer monitoring of sites and student activities
would improve the process. They wanted more site visits, more effective
intern-site supervisor matches, and better pre-screening of sites:
( Internships can be improved by constantly monitoring the experience the
student receives and eliminating those that provide poor
internship experience.
( More on-site visits from faculty. Better control of quality of sites.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Responses were triangulated to determine similarities and differences among
the three groups of participants. When triangulating responses about the hopes
and expectations of the internship experience, interns and faculty internship
coordinators shared the same themes. Both groups wanted skill development and
hands-on experience for interns. Site supervisors, however, felt more
comfortable giving students broad exposure and an introduction to the field -
perhaps by osmosis rather than an assignment-driven approach (see Exhibit 1).
Students had reason to be concerned about their fear of "messing up"
because it was also shared by site supervisors in their responses. One major
anxiety of interns was that they were powerless (see Exhibit 2). Although
students read a description of the internship provided by the site, most did not
seem to be given adequate orientation, indoctrination, and direction at the
onset of their internship. Their responses indicated that few got a tour of the
building or other departments, were adequately introduced to fellow workers,
told about procedures unique to that office environment, shown the equipment, or
told about expectations and management styles. There was a sense that they felt
powerless to even take the initiative in some cases.
Site supervisors and internship coordinators shared the same challenges:
finding enough time. Site supervisors appeared to want to spend more time
interacting with interns, but the pressures of their professional lives limit
such exchanges. Furthermore, site supervisors realized the need to oversee the
internship experiences of their students more closely, but the demands of
academic life inhibit the extent of their supervision. On the other hand, the
greatest challenge for interns was coping with an environment that is too busy
to give them adequate attention (see Exhibit 3).
All participants agreed that a good intern must take the initiative, be
independent, and possess a solid work ethic. Students, however, stressed being
independent and taking initiative most, probably because the realities of being
an intern were so fresh in their minds (see Exhibit 4). A poor intern to
students was one who lacked motivational skills - initiative, resourcefulness,
and the ability to find work and ask questions. To a lesser degree, interns
agreed with internship coordinators that a poor work ethic also made a poor
intern. Site supervisors focused on bad attitude, careless work, and high
maintenance as qualities of a poor intern (see Exhibit 5).
Site supervisors and internship coordinators were in agreement about the
traits of a good site supervisor. Site supervisors must be effective teachers
and mentors. Students, however, cited only a site supervisor's willingness to
help them and communicate with them (see Exhibit 6). All participants felt that
a poor site supervisor did not take adequate time to get involved with an
intern. Students went beyond time, however. They expressed an overall
indifference as a trait of a poor site supervisor, which would include someone
who did not care about them, did not take time to interact with them, and was
inattentive to their needs. Internship coordinators added a lack of respect to
the traits of a poor site supervisor, referring to poor site supervisors as ones
who treat students like go-fors (see Exhibit 7).
The management styles identified by interns and site supervisors were
similar. Those styles seen as "mentors" to interns were the "nurturers" to the
site supervisors, the "busy but approachable" ones were the "providers," and the
"preoccupied" appeared to be the "team players."
To improve the internship experience, students clearly wanted more
interaction with site supervisors and more hands-on work experience. Similarly,
site supervisors wanted more involvement with interns. Internship coordinators
felt the need to monitor students' experiences more closely. Both site
supervisors and internship coordinators called for more communication among all
participants for a better understanding of roles and expectations (see Exhibit
8).
These findings suggest that internship coordinators play a key role in
helping improve the internship experiences of their students by communicating to
interns and site supervisors what is expected of them in their roles. Taking
the initiative, of course, must be stressed to students. They must develop the
ability to ask pertinent questions and not hesitate to ask for more work.
Moreover, they must also be extremely assertive and use persuasive interpersonal
skills - positive attitude, enthusiasm, willingness to learn, and sense of humor
- to get the attention they need without annoying their site supervisors. Site
supervisors appeared to prize and appreciate strong interpersonal skills. They
wanted students to take the initiative but at the same time demonstrate a
positive attitude, friendliness, and a personable demeanor.
Skill development was not an emerging theme among the responses of the site
supervisors. In order to obtain skill development, interns and their internship
coordinators need to insist that students receive it. By faculty outlining
expectations and students being persistent in their goals of skill development,
site supervisors are likely to respond to the need for skills acquisition.
Studies confirm that the quality of supervision an intern receives in the
workplace is often the most important factor in determining the quality of the
internship experience (Ryan, Toohey & Hughes, 1996). A dichotomy surfaced,
however, in the responses of students and site supervisors about supervisory
approaches. Students wanted training; site supervisors wanted workplace
exposure. Students called for more supervision; site supervisors preferred
autonomy. Students saw a lack of focus in their internship experience; site
supervisors felt they were providing a holistic approach to learning by exposing
students to it all. Students wanted more individual attention; site supervisors
preferred team work. Students wanted direction; site supervisors felt interns
needed to ask for it.
Perhaps one of the frankest responses came from the only participant who
did not seem to fit into one of the three management styles: "My management
style is strongly partial to self-direction and strict adherence to standards;
occasionally distracted; generally reinforcing, supportive; and not consistently
forthcoming with necessary information."
It may be impractical for internship coordinators to find only "nurturers"
as site supervisors, but clearly, they appear to be the most effective
facilitators of student learning. Students do not seem ready for a "team
player" because they must first learn the game before they can play.
"Providers" provide opportunities if students are capable of identifying those
opportunities. Interns, however, may lack the experience to identify
opportunities placed in front of them. The findings support that interns will
seize opportunities if they can recognize them. Perhaps a more experienced or
assertive student is best matched with a "provider." "Nurturers," however,
appear to present opportunities to interns, explain the meaning and importance
of those opportunities, and guide students in ways to seize those opportunities
that enhance their learning.
Determining and matching management styles of site supervisors with interns
would be a difficult task for an already overloaded faculty member. However,
site supervisors appeared to understand their role as teachers/mentors and felt
the need to spend more time with their interns. Instead, a more informed group
of site supervisors through communication with faculty internship coordinators
and more reinforcement about the mentoring/teaching aspect of their role is
needed. Site supervisors wanted more guidance and reinforcement by recommending
increased communication with internship coordinators and a better understanding
of the internship's place in the school's curriculum. Moreover, students not
only need to be academically prepared to tackle challenging work at their
internship, they need to be mentally prepared about how to succeed at getting
such work and feedback.
In summary, the following recommendations can be made based on the
conclusions of this study:
1 Explain the need for skill development to site supervisors. Provide
clear guidelines to site supervisors about what constitutes skill
development. Offering a general introduction to the field may be
considered as skill development by site supervisors but clearly is not by
faculty coordinators and interns.
2 Encourage site supervisors to schedule an orientation period when
interns are introduced to fellow workers, shown the operation of equipment
unique to that office setting, and introduced to office procedures.
3 Stress to interns the importance of taking the initiative and the need
to use effective interpersonal skills at the internship so that they will
be assertive enough to get quality assignments without being offensive to
others in the workplace.
4 Outline to site supervisors the role they play as mentors and on-site
teachers in writing and other forms of skill development. Reinforce their
role during phone conversations or site visits so they clearly understand
the expectations of the college or university.
5 Communicate the part the internship plays in the curriculum of the
educational program to site supervisors. Give them an overview of the
coursework requirements in the program, catalog copy, and syllabus to
enhance their understanding of the educational component of the internship
experience.
6 Try to determine the management style of the site supervisors. If the
individual seems to be a "team player," most students do not appear ready
for the experience. "Nurturers" are ideal, but "providers" may be
appropriate for a more mature or assertive student.
This study attempted to identify and understand the underlying expectations
and perspectives of the internship experience for the three groups of
participants, but it was limited by the small number of participants.
Furthermore, a closer study of site supervisor management styles may help
internship coordinators and interns develop strategies for working with such
individuals and thus improve the overall internship experience.
PO `!1
A Phenomenological Study of the Internship Experience:
Reflections from Three Perspectives
Paper Presented to the
Internships and Careers Interest Group
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
National Convention
Baltimore, Maryland
August 1998
by
Emma Daugherty
Associate Professor
Journalism Department
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90840
Phone: (562) 985-5400
Fax: (562) 985-5300
[log in to unmask]
* The author thanks Dr. Mary Poplin of Claremont Graduate University for her
invaluable
guidance in the development of this study.
ABSTRACT
A Phenomenological Study of the Internship Experience:
Reflections from Three Perspectives
Emma Daugherty
Associate Professor
Journalism Department
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90840
Phone: (562) 985-5400
Fax: (562) 985-5300
[log in to unmask]
Journalism and mass communication educators have long valued internships
for students. With all the importance placed on experiential learning
experiences, such as internships, scant literature exists on the subject. In
order to understand the underlying expectations and perspectives of the
internship experience for the three groups of participants - interns, site
supervisors, and college internship coordinators - a phenomenological method of
inquiry was used in this study. This qualitative study included 25 interns, 25
site supervisors, and
30 internship coordinators as participants and found similarities and
differences in their responses that can be used to help improve the internship
experience.
A Phenomenological Study of the Internship Experience:
Reflections from Three Perspectives
Introduction
Journalism and mass communication educators have long valued internships
for students. Internships are praised by scholars as a way for undergraduates
to gain real-life experience (Ward, 1981), as a useful training tool for
students (Hanson, 1984), and as a way for students to discover long-term
interests and aspirations (Watson, 1992). Through these experiences, students
become more independent, ambitious, and focused. Their career interests are
heightened, and they become more satisfied with their major (Pedro, 1984).
Internships are seen as a sound pedagogical instrument and an important
educational experience (Downs, Harper, & Hunt, 1976). Basow and Byrne (1993)
found that students take internships to practice what they have learned and to
acquire new skills. Internships also have been viewed as a springboard for
further learning (Bourland-Davis, Graham, & Fulmer, 1997).
Review teams from the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and
Mass Communications (ACEJMC) assess the extent programs are in compliance with
Standard 7, Internships and Work Experience. The handbook provided by ACEJMC
states: "Journalism and mass communications internships, practicums, and
student publications can add a significant and realistic component to a
student's education" (p. 51).
The Internships and Careers Interest Group, affiliated with the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), formed in 1994 to
serve educators and professionals interested in student work experiences. In
1997, 85 members belonged to the AEJMC Internships and Careers Interest Group.
Furthermore, the National Communication Career Services Network formed in 1998
to provide a forum for faculty and administrators who serve as internship and
placement coordinators in communications programs. Other organizations, such as
the Intern Research Group (Garrison, 1983) and the Internship Committee of the
Association for Education in Journalism (Garrison, 1981) have appeared in the
literature for more than a decade.
Internships, however, can be traced to the earliest beginnings of
journalism education. One of the most noteworthy moves toward journalism
education came from General Robert E. Lee, who was president of Washington
College, now Washington and Lee University. In an effort to rebuild the South
after the Civil War, he proposed journalism education to his Board of Trustees
in 1869. He requested 50 scholarships to train young men to become editors by
placing them in printing internships. Since printers were editors of most of
the publications at that time, Lee's hope was to train the printer to become an
editor rather than make an editor into a printer.
Still, with all the importance placed on experiential learning experiences,
such as internships, for journalism and mass communication students, scant
literature exists on the subject. Most of the literature is anecdotal or
descriptive in nature. Few studies address the actual experiences and
expectations of the three major participants in the internship process:
students, site supervisors, and faculty internship coordinators. This study
focuses on these three interrelationships as a means for understanding
underlying expectations so that internship experiences can be improved.
Literature Review
Articles in academic journals about the importance of internship
experiences for journalism students began to appear regularly in the mid-1970s.
Cole (1974) discussed the merits of full-time semester internships, and Peters
(1975) addressed some pitfalls of internships, including menial tasks performed
by students, a lack of control by faculty coordinators, and ineffective site
supervisors. The use of internship contracts and their potential legal problems
were debated (Ware, 1976; Williams & Konsky, 1976).
Other topics included recommended guidelines for internships (Ware, 1977)
and the importance of a rigorous student screening process in order to avoid
unrealistic expectations and employer disappointments (Fedler & O'Keefe, 1977).
Articles addressed the merits of requiring internships (Femmel, 1978) and the
increase in the number of formal internship classes offered for credit (Cowdin,
1978). The growth of internships in advertising curriculum (Agee, 1979) and
wide acceptance of internships in public relations (Agee, 1979) were reported.
Moreover, after completing an internship, students were found to be more
realistic in their judgments about the media but more critical in their
appraisals of their academic program (Fosdick, 1979), and the benefits of
week-long internships were shared by Halverson (1980). Mills, Harvey and
Warnick (1980) found that most editors wanted a more developed internship
program.
Thus, educators feel the need for internships and work-related experiences
for their students, but the literature suggests that problems exist in the way
internships are structured, assessed, and managed for quality. In addition,
most of the literature is anecdotal or suppositional in nature, focusing on
particular programs and their methods. Hanson (1984) offered suggestions based
on a three-year program at Rutgers University, and Ward (1981) explained the
interdisciplinary approach used by The Pennsylvania State University at Erie.
The structure of the internship program at Marquette University, which
emphasizes the analysis of the internship experience, was shared (Garrison,
1981). The virtues of requiring students from all disciplines at Bethany
College to take internships were explained (Carty, 1983), and students assessed
their newspaper internships at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (Riley, 1983). James (1986) discussed the critical-thinking
component in the internship program at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
Some scholars made recommendations about internship models and outcomes.
Berger (1991) offered suggestions to professionals about ways to strengthen
internship programs. Fulmer (1993) presented advice about academic preparation,
structure, and administrative procedures for public relations internships.
Garrison (1983) reported six internship models implemented by journalism and
mass communication programs, and Gibson (1996) outlined 10 criteria for
establishing and evaluating public relations internship systems. Hinck and
Dailey (1994) proposed a model of supervisory styles used by internship
coordinators, and Watson (1992) suggested approaches to monitor, administer, and
maintain the quality and integrity of internship programs.
Ciofalo (1989) cited the need for faculty to become familiar with the
pedagogy of experiential learning and called for the site supervisor's
appointment as an adjunct faculty member if credit is to be offered for the
completion of an internship.
Moreover, other studies surveyed the number of internships offered in
journalism and mass communication programs, units available for credit,
compensation methods, and program requirements. Internship practices in
advertising (Keenan, 1992), public relations (Kendall, 1980), and broadcast
(Meeske, 1988) have been reported. These studies yielded descriptive data
detailing internship programs in these areas.
More recent studies used both quantitative and qualitative research
methods. Basow and Byrne (1993) studied how students' attitudes change after
they completed an internship. They surveyed 291 journalism students and
graduates and found that students need to develop realistic expectations about
what they will learn and do during their internships. Feldman (1995) analyzed
the results of the American Society of Newspaper Editors study and found that if
students are exposed to the journalism field, their chances of working as a
print journalist increase significantly.
Horowitz (1997) surveyed 136 graduates in journalism and mass communication
and found that a quality internship increased job satisfaction after graduation.
Bourland-Davis, Graham, and Fulmer (1997) explored the internship experience for
public relations students by analyzing 102 student letters and found that
students need to be armed with a variety of skills, such as interpersonal,
technical, and planning. They suggested that their study "becomes a step toward
a macroscopic analysis of expectations and outcomes for the three components of
an internship program: the intern, the academic supervisor, and the site
supervisor" (p. 33).
However, in all of this literature about internships, few studies seek
students' perceptions of the experience. Few studies examining the
expectations, fears, and challenges of all internship participants - students,
site supervisors, and faculty internship coordinators - exist. Although the
literature encompasses the qualities of a good internship program - including
skills needed by students and ways to screen and monitor sites - and methods of
supervision by internship coordinators, little research focuses on the qualities
of an effective site supervisor.
Therefore, the purpose of this phenomenological study is to collect
qualitative data from interns, site supervisors, and internship coordinators to
better understand the internship experience and the characteristics that help
ensure a good internship as seen through the eyes of the participants. Through
a process of data analysis, the experiences will be described, and through data
triangulation, similarities and differences will be determined from the
perceptions of a "good internship."
Participants
Interns: Fifteen students enrolled in a spring internship course and 10
students enrolled in a summer internship course at a large comprehensive, urban
state university in Southern California were involved in this study. Students
met weekly during a regularly scheduled class to discuss their progress and
concerns. They also presented work to their classmates and raised issues about
career development. All were seniors who completed most of their course work.
The average student age was 23. Twenty-two were female, and three were male.
Eighteen were public relations students, and seven were broadcast students.
Nine students were interning at broadcast organizations, eight in agencies,
two in hospitals, four in corporations, one in government, and one for a
nonprofit organization. The students interning at the broadcast organizations,
the office of an elected government official, a public relations agency
specializing in entertainment, and the nonprofit organization received no
compensation for their work. One hospital intern received a $500 stipend and
one corporate intern was paid $100 per press release. The remaining 11 public
relations interns were paid an average of $9.50 an hour. Of the students who
reported their ethnicity, one was East Indian, one was African American, one was
Asian, eight were Hispanic, and 10 were Caucasian.
Site Supervisors: The site supervisors of the 25 interns were also
participants in this study. All site supervisors in the internship program are
screened to ensure that they have five or more years of experience in the
communications field, and site supervisors must agree to offer the intern a
meaningful educational experience, which must include skill development. A job
description of the internship position, provided by the site, is submitted for
faculty approval.
The broadcast professionals held the following positions: producer for a
morning news program at an independent television station, correspondent for a
nationally syndicated news-entertainment television program, news operations
manager for a large ethnic television station, news administration manager for a
network owned-and-operated television station, production assistant for a cable
sports television network, internship coordinator for a network television
publicity department, director of communications for a television network
owned-and-operated station, and community relations manager for a network
owned-and-operated television station.
The rest of the site supervisors included two public relations managers
from area hospitals, five principals of small public relations firms, a vice
president and two account supervisors at mid-sized public relations agencies, a
marketing vice president and two public relations managers at three high-tech
corporations, a public relations director for an automotive company, a press
secretary for an elected state official, and a public relations manager at a
nonprofit organization.
The site supervisors reported having an average of 12 years of
communications experience. They also said they had supervised an average of 42
interns during their career, citing as few as one and as many as 300. Of the
participants who reported their gender, 11 of the site supervisors were women
and 10 were men. The average age was 35 with four not responding to the
question. Of the 20 who reported their ethnicity, one was African American, one
Indian, one Asian, three Hispanic, and 14 Caucasian.
Internship Coordinators: Using names from the 1997 internship/placement
coordinators directory compiled by Beth Gaeddert and Don Heider, 89 journalism
and mass communication internship coordinators from U.S. colleges and
universities were faxed a questionnaire. All individuals listed in the
directory with a working fax number were sent a questionnaire. Two months
later, non-respondents were faxed another questionnaire. A total of 30
internship coordinators returned completed questionnaires, resulting in a 34%
response rate.
Of the respondents who completed the demographic information, 17 were men
and 11 were women. Their average age was 50, and they had an average of 11
years of internship coordination experience. Nine were full professors, 11
associate professors, three assistant professors, and one instructor. Five were
in staff positions. Twenty of the faculty were tenured. Most respondents (12
of them) were from a comprehensive university. Nine were from a liberal arts
college and seven from a research institution. They represented a wide range of
subject areas, but more than half (15) reported print journalism as their
academic specialty.
Phenomenological Methodology
In order to understand the underlying expectations and perspectives of the
internship experience for the three groups of participants - interns, site
supervisors, and internship coordinators - a phenomenological method of inquiry
was used. This method examines the way subjects experience their environment
and interpret the meaning of those experiences (Patton, 1990). The objective is
to understand and describe the experience from the participant's point of view
(Mertens, 1998). Experiences are grouped, analyzed, and compared to identify
the patterns and relationships of meaning, thus the essence of the phenomenon
for the various participants.
A questionnaire for each group of participants was designed with almost
identical open-ended questions that each individual was to answer from his or
her own perspective. Interns, site supervisors, and college internship
coordinators were asked to answer questions about their hopes and expectations,
greatest fears and anxieties, and greatest challenges in their internship roles.
In addition, they were asked about the qualities of a good and bad intern and
traits of a good and bad site supervisor. Interns were asked to describe the
management style of their site supervisors. In turn, site supervisors were
asked to describe their own management style. All participants were asked how
the internship experience could be improved.
The responses were analyzed by coding the data and placing responses into
themes. The emerging themes were then triangulated among the three groups to
determine differences and similarities. The use of triangulation enhances the
ability to identify converging results and helps determine the importance of any
contradictions and different perspectives that may surface (Creswell, 1994).
Results
The questionnaires for the interns were administered at the class meeting
during the seventh week of the spring semester and the third week of the summer
session. A total of 25 students participated in the study.
The questionnaires for the site supervisors were sealed in an envelope and
accompanied by a return envelope along with a letter requesting their
participation in the study. Interns delivered the questionnaires to their site
supervisors during the seventh week of the spring semester and third week of the
summer session. Site supervisors were given two weeks to respond and asked to
return the questionnaire in a sealed envelope via the intern or through the
mail. All of the 25 site supervisors from the two internship classes
participated in the study.
Every faculty internship coordinator with a fax number listed in the
Gaeddert and Heider internship/placement coordinators directory was faxed a
questionnaire and accompanying letter during the fifth week of the spring
semester. Internship coordinators were asked to respond within one week.
Because the response rate was low (23%), a follow-up questionnaire, asking the
coordinators to respond within three weeks, was sent during the thirteenth week
of the semester. Internship coordinators were asked to mail or fax their
completed questionnaires. As a result, 30 internship coordinators (34% response
rate) participated in the study.
Answers to the open-ended questions for each group of participants were
analyzed by sorting the responses into categories and coding them by their
emerging themes or topics. Themes or topics were identified by patterns of
descriptive words and phrases used by participants, frequency of the words and
phrases, the extensiveness of comments, and the intensity of responses.
Interns
Hopes and Expectations: Two themes emerged from students' responses about
their internship hopes and expectations: internal immediate rewards and
external future rewards. The internal immediate rewards included skills
acquisition (writing, editing, reporting, computer, production), obtaining
real-world experience, getting class credit to graduate, discovering if the
field is for them, and gaining a better understanding of the field. The
external future rewards were to make contacts to get a good job, get hired by
their site supervisor, and develop a portfolio or work samples that will help
them get a position. Experience, skill development, learning, and contacts were
mentioned most.
Greatest Fears and Anxieties: When asked about their greatest fears and
anxieties, students' responses overwhelming indicated that they feel powerless
to get enough work and experience, to be assigned meaningful tasks, to learn the
job, and to know if they are doing the right kind of job. Some of the comments
included "not clearly understanding what is being asked of me to do" and "not
having anything to do_sitting around and doing nothing since I'm not getting
paid." Fourteen of the students addressed the "fear of doing something wrong,
messing up." One student said her greatest fear was "that sometimes I make
mistakes. Sometimes they are so busy that they ask you to do something or get
them something and they haven't told me how to do it. So I do my best and just
wait for what they have to say." Others said, "It frustrates me that I don't
have more responsibility and that I really don't understand the product we sell"
and "My greatest fear is that I will not come out of it ready."
Greatest Challenges: Students' greatest challenges mirrored their fears
and anxieties but with more depth. Coping with unfamiliarity in a fast-paced
environment where people are "too busy for you" was the emerging theme in their
responses. Some comments about their greatest challenges were "learning who is
who, learning where everything is and even learning how to use some of the
machines" and "finding exactly what people need and making sure that it is right
or that it is good enough." One broadcast student said her greatest challenge
was "establishing relationships with those in the newsroom. They're always too
busy for you."
"Trying to know what supervisors assume you should know already" was a
challenge for one student because "sometimes they assume you know a lot when you
don't." Others were coping with understanding a particular industry with
challenges like "learning all the technical jargon" and "understanding our
product line and the terminology used to describe it."
Qualities of a Good Intern: When asked to describe a good intern, the
majority of students addressed the ability to take direction, to take the
initiative, to ask lots of questions, to be proactive, to assign tasks to
yourself, to be a fast learner, and to accept new challenges. Here emerges a
theme of independence.
Qualities of a Poor Intern: When describing a poor intern, students cited
lack of motivational skills. Their comments included descriptive words and
phrases, such as "lazy," "unmotivated," "doesn't take initiative to get work,"
"doesn't ask for more work," "afraid to ask questions," "poor attitude,"
"doesn't take internship seriously," and "arrives late to work." As one student
said, "A poor intern is someone who needs to be hand held with each project and
needs instructions throughout the project from beginning to end_.afraid to ask
questions, which may lead to work not being done or not being done correctly."
Traits of a Good Site Supervisor: The major theme of how students viewed a
good site supervisor was willingness - willing to spend time, be available,
mentor, teach, help, communicate, show, explain, interact, cooperate, offer
feedback, answer questions, and give direction. A good site supervisor was
described as "someone who is willing to help the intern get the most out of the
experience" and someone "willing to let you try and fail and learn."
Traits of a Poor Site Supervisor: Although more than half of the students
mentioned a site supervisor's unwillingness to spend time with the intern as a
trait of a poor site supervisor, the larger emerging theme was indifference.
They saw poor sites supervisors as not caring, not taking time, and inattentive.
Students described poor site supervisors as the following:
( Someone who doesn't take the time to converse with the intern or discuss
any issues
and doesn't understand that an internship is a learning experience.
( Someone that doesn't talk to you or is too busy to show you
necessary things.
( Someone who's too busy and wants an office clerk.
( Someone who is too busy to teach you anything and doesn't give you
proper directions
to complete tasks.
( Someone who doesn't care about what the intern is doing or doesn't
have the time to
discuss needs and concerns of the intern.
( Someone who doesn't care what you're doing.
Management Style of Site Supervisor: When students were asked to describe
the management style of their site supervisors, three themes surfaced. Site
supervisors fell into three categories: one who acts as a mentor, one who is
busy but approachable, and one who is preoccupied.
Comments about the ones who acted as mentors included "caring, insightful,
wants me to succeed, willing to take risks on me by giving me more and more
challenging work." "She sits with me and explains concepts. She sometimes
makes me come up with questions," another student said. "Then she sits and
watches me complete a task. If something is wrong, she is not shy to tell me.
She is very helpful."
Those who were busy but approachable were described as "very busy, but does
make time to show me how to do things. Demanding but supportive." Another
student said, "Self-directedness is encouraged. Supervisor does not watch you
at all times. You're on your own to produce work. Meetings are conducted
before and after the work day to discuss the day's work."
Other comments that support a site supervisor who is preoccupied include
"she is very nice, but she is always so busy. I never have time to talk to her
or ask her any questions" and a "very 'tough guy' attitude. She has many things
to do and it seems like she gets them done."
Suggestions for Improvement: Most students called for more interaction
with the site supervisor when asked how the internship experience could be
improved. Students asked for "more one-on-one contact with the site supervisor"
and for site supervisors to "talk to the student in a little more detail about
how his or her job duties should be performed." One student wrote, "For a
person who may not be as self-directed, more instruction/supervision should be
provided."
They also wanted more hands-on work and less observing by saying the
experience could be improved if they would be given "more challenging tasks and
more interaction with other departments," "more hands on and not as much
observing," "more hands-on experience with production," and "tasks other than
doing a lot of faxing and copying."
Site Supervisors
Hopes and Expectations: The hopes and expectations of site supervisors
when they accept or are assigned an intern fall into three themes: solid work
ethic, professional development, and contributions to the business. Interns
with a solid work ethic were most important. They expected dependable,
disciplined, teachable, organized, and eager-to-learn students with a positive
attitude. Site supervisors hoped that the internship would provide training to
clarify career goals, a better understanding of the field, and career
connections. One site supervisor hoped "that the student will enjoy a
substantive, well-rounded introduction to the field." Moreover, they wanted
something in return. Some comments included the following:
( My expectations are that I will receive some relief in my workload along
with some
creative input on current projects.
( The organization and its clients will benefit from near-professional
level work.
( That the organization will form a relationship with a talented student
capable of
moving into a full-time position.
Greatest Fears and Anxieties: The greatest fears and anxieties of site
supervisors were getting an intern with a poor work ethic and mistakes made by
the intern. "The greatest fear would be an intern that does not possess the
desire to learn and contribute," said a site supervisor. "Techniques,
strategies and process can be learned; work ethic cannot."
Eight participants cited making mistakes as a concern that caused them
anxiety. The following are comments from broadcast professionals:
( The interns play a vital role in our pre-production of live events. It
is a constant
concern that the interns maintain their performance level and assist
our staff as best as
possible. Any errors will reflect poorly on the program.
( An anxiety would be a leak of information on a breaking news
story...improper
conduct in the handling of calls to the station.
( That they'll screw up a story or insult a contact due to their
inexperience.
Public relations practitioners voiced the same concerns. One public
relations executive said his greatest fear was "that the intern will affect
client relationships in a negative way."
Greatest Challenges: When asked about their greatest challenges when
supervising an intern, a lack of time was mentioned by 16 of the 25
participants. Some of their comments were as follows:
( Making the time to ensure the intern is truly learning and growing from the
experience
rather than it being a part-time job.
( Having time to help them develop their skills.
( Having time to explain job functions.
( Finding enough time to manage/instruct appropriately.
( With responsibilities extending beyond the internship program, I
sometimes find it
difficult to train our (intern) staff as completely as I would
like.
Qualities of a Good Intern: The most important characteristic of a good
intern for site supervisors was a solid work ethic. Mentioned 38 times in their
responses, attributes of an ideal worker were vital. Site supervisors clearly
wanted interns who are dependable, motivated, interested, prompt, diligent, and
willing to learn. Interpersonal skills, intelligence, and independence were not
mentioned as often as a solid work ethic but were clear themes among the
responses.
Mentioned 16 times by participants, interpersonal skills included being
personable, friendly, enthusiastic, and a good communicator and having a
positive attitude and good sense of humor.
Being intelligent surfaced nine times with phrases like "common sense,"
"intelligence," "bright," "retains information," "has ability to grasp new
concepts," and "a person who can think." Not surprisingly, independence was
mentioned nine times: "independent worker," "takes ownership of projects,"
"ability to work well on own with little direction," "confidence to engage,"
"ability to ask questions," and "has some level of self-direction."
Qualities of a Poor Intern: Site supervisors mentioned qualities that
dealt with attitude 25 times when describing a poor intern. They expressed
traits such as "is apathetic," "has a bad attitude," "has a know-it-all
attitude," "has a hidden agenda," "is a star-struck groupie," and "will not
value the experience they are getting and will not take their role in the
company seriously." Eight participants mentioned careless work: "negligence,"
"sloppy," "flakiness," "unreliable," and "careless proofreading." Five site
supervisors referred to a poor intern as one who required high maintenance. A
poor intern "requires micro-management" and "step-by-step guidance daily."
Traits of a Good Site Supervisor: The emerging theme in the site
supervisors' responses about what makes a good site supervisor was clearly
mentoring and teaching qualities. They mentioned these qualities 46 times.
Qualities included being open, approachable, friendly, patient, concerned, and
helpful and making time to teach, give direction, and provide support. Some of
their responses were the following:
( I believe a good site supervisor should take time with the interns, show
interest in their
goals, and do everything possible to help them achieve them.
( A good site supervisor is someone who is organized and has the time to
fully explain
assignments and critique them.
( A good site coordinator will take time to know the students. Someone
who is hands-on
with the intern.
( Someone with the time to mentor the intern and the patience to engage
the individual
in meaningful projects.
( Someone who interacts with the students and wants them to get as much as
possible
from the internship that will help them in their future careers.
( Someone who explains job functions, is patient, and allows the intern to
learn and
grow.
( One who takes the time out of a busy day to teach the intern new tasks,
involves the
intern in planning/strategy meetings, and allows the intern to do a
variety of tasks to
keep the job interesting.
( A person who provides a structured environment that allows for learning
growth and
exploration of qualities that make a good practitioner. That means
part coach, part role
model, part listener.
Traits of a Poor Site Supervisor: When asked what makes a poor site
supervisor, the theme emerging from their responses was someone who was
unavailable and unapproachable, mentioned 28 times in their comments:
( A poor site supervisor does not have direct contact with the training and
development
of the intern.
( A poor site supervisor fails to manage in any real way, doesn't explain,
doesn't provide
adequate time, and doesn't seem open.
( One who doesn't take time with their interns.
( Someone who doesn't listen or care.
( Someone who doesn't care and is too busy to explain job tasks.
( Someone who is looking for inexpensive assistance and is not willing to
pay the added
cost of time and mentoring.
( Someone too busy to provide direction. Someone just looking for a go-for to
run
errands.
Management Style of Site Supervisor: When describing their own management
style, site supervisors saw themselves as one of three types of internship
managers: a nurturer, provider, or team player.
Nurturer:
( We try to provide real work experience with reasons as to why
assignments are
important. Also try to provide an opportunity for the intern to tackle
creative projects
that involve writing. I try to be open to questions, provide guidance,
and integrate the
intern into the agency day to day.
( Open, friendly, helpful.
( Open attitude, hands-on approach, willing to teach or demonstrate
whatever they want
to learn.
Provider:
( Perhaps it's best defined as the trial-by-fire approach. That is to
expose the intern to as
much of the day-to-day marketing process as possible.
( I prefer to give projects to the intern and allow them to ask questions as
needed.
I would rather not have multiple meetings with the intern every
week.
( I provide hands-on experience and autonomy to my workers.
( I assign work, let the intern work independently, then check work and
offer
suggestions.
( I give directions, explain goals to allow the intern to succeed or fail,
and then review
work.
Team Player:
( I delegate a lot of work, am not very rigid in my management, and like
to foster the
team.
( Team management. Everyone has assignments, but we help each other and work
together to achieve a goal.
( I like to provide the intern with practical knowledge and information
intended as a
supplement to collegiate education. It also appears effective
to use team work as an
educational tool - pairing more experienced interns with newer
ones. People seem to
work well on their own. I hope to guide or steer interns
through their experience at the
office.
( Open, direct, informative, assertive and challenging the best at all times,
no nonsense,
results oriented, team player.
( Patient, tolerant yet firm.
( I treat them just like the account staff. They do the same work, get the
same feedback.
( Fast-paced, quick instructions, and a desire for someone who is quick to
understand.
Suggestions for Improvement: When asked how the internship experience
could be improved, site supervisors called for more involvement by and with the
intern:
( We would like to spend more time with interns_whenever possible provide an
opportunity to join staff meetings, client meetings, etc.
( More involvement in press conferences, off-site projects, direct involvement
in
projects, more responsibility.
( If interns have enough time to dedicate, they should visit the office as
much as
possible, observe at live events and in the studio, talk with
contacts, make themselves
available for assignments, be a self-starter, look for tasks,
make it known that they are
interested in a career through verbal notes and physical
actions.
( The experience is all what the intern makes it.
( Up to the intern to express - up to us to listen.
Having a better understanding of the college and university requirements
was another emerging theme among site supervisors to improve the internship
experience:
( Provide a more detailed outline of roles, expectations, overall place in the
curriculum_provide excerpts from the curriculum itself.
( Oral/written communication from college coordinators.
( I feel the process can be improved by gaining a better understanding of the
intern's
program of study and expectations of the internship at the onset
of the relationship.
Internship Coordinators
Hopes and Expectations: Most of the responses from internship coordinators
to this question were focused on skill development and hands-on professional
experience for interns:
( I want them to learn that the "real world" does indeed demand of them
the same
respect for accuracy, deadlines, completeness that we demand in class.
I also hope
they'll develop portfolio material of professional quality.
( My expectation is that they work harder than they ever thought possible,
that they look
for ways to fit in and be a team player, that they actively pursue
products for a
portfolio, that they will be honest with me and themselves about what's
succeeding
(and not) in the process.
Greatest Fears and Anxieties: Internship coordinators were quick to cite
an unproductive internship experience as their greatest fear and anxiety. Some
of the contributing factors were that site supervisors will not provide a
suitable experience, students will treated as go-fors, or students will be
unprepared for their experience:
( The biggest fear I have is that the students will not have a real internship
experience
that includes writing and the other journalistic skills taught
in our classes.
( The greatest fear I have is that the student's skills will not be
utilized. Employers do
not always offer a well-developed internship program. Students
are occasionally stuck
in dead-end, boring jobs.
( That the supervisor will see the student intern as slave labor and will
treat him or her as
a go-for.
Greatest Challenges: The greatest challenge for internship coordinators
was finding time to ensure a worthwhile learning experience for the intern.
Faculty needed time to find sites, to interview potential site supervisors, to
screen sites, to complete paperwork, to oversee student experiences, and to
visit sites. Most said that were unable to visit sites personally and
communicated with the site by phone. Some mentioned distance as a major
obstacle that prevented them from ensuring a quality experience for their
students:
( Keeping track of what they're doing - is the work really valuable for
them or not?
I can't visit most sites in person, which makes me nervous.
( Making sure their assignments are appropriate, learning experiences.
Qualities of a Good Intern: Two themes emerged when internship
coordinators were asked what makes a good intern: a solid work ethic and taking
the initiative. These themes appeared in 40 out of the 30 responses. These
comments best demonstrated their viewpoint:
( A student who arrives early, stays late, learns to do all tasks
well_asks questions if
necessary_and asks for work when the job is done.
( Initiative (doesn't have to be told what to do), seizes opportunity -
doesn't expect
things to be handed to them, "whatever needs to be done" attitude,
resourceful (can
find a dancing monkey in New York City at 3 a.m.), anticipates employer
needs.
( In my opinion, the good intern is the student who approaches the
internship as if it
were a regular job and who exercises some real initiative in making the
internship the
best possible work experience. Occasionally, an internship supervisor
will say, "I wish
Sally (or Joe) were a little more aggressive." The intern needs to see
opportunities,
sometimes create opportunities. The intern needs to ask for more work,
for more
responsibility, for more opportunities to learn.
Qualities of a Poor Intern: Almost all of the faculty participants felt
that poor interns were the opposite of good interns - they lacked a solid work
ethic and initiative - as demonstrated by these comments:
( Lack of drive, the "I'll just sit here and watch" syndrome.
( A student who won't take initiative, waits to be assigned a task, and
then fails to follow
through.
( The poor intern sits and waits for guidance - "Tell me what to do and
show me how" -
and then complains because the supervisor didn't give him/her much to
do. Many
internship supervisors are just too darned busy to take the student by
the hand. The
supervisor will help but doesn't have the time nor the inclination to
baby sit.
Traits of a Good Site Supervisor: As shown in their responses, internship
coordinators clearly viewed good site supervisors as being effective, on-site
teachers who are genuinely concerned about students' educational welfare:
( Someone who gives guidance as needed but who lets the intern do work that
he/she can
claim as his/her own. A good supervisor will give regular
constructive feedback -
both positive and negative as appropriate.
( Someone who takes an active interest in the intern. A person who will
initiate
new/creative projects, train the student/intern properly, and
work closely with our
interns to see that they are making a contribution.
( A good site supervisor is one who is committed to the student receiving
the best
possible internship experience, allowing them to apply what they have
learned in the
field.
( The one who finds the time to work with the interns, to give professional
feedback, to
be an active participant in the learning experience of the
student.
( Gives regular, constructive feedback to student and school, clearly
specifies
expectations/responsibilities of student, secure and willing to
allow intern to learn,
shares knowledge and experience.
Traits of a Poor Site Supervisor: Poor site supervisors are viewed by
internship coordinators as being the opposite of good ones. They show little
interest in interns, spend little time with them, and treat them with little
respect:
( Someone who gives weak guidance - who lets the intern sink or swim on
his/her own.
( A poor site supervisor is one who uses students merely as flunkies to run
errands
and do busy work.
( Also someone who assigns inappropriate tasks. I once had an intern who
was asked to
rake the lawn as part of his duties at a radio station!
( The supervisor uses the student interns as go-fors. He/she has the intern
answer the
phone, fetch and sort the mail, duplicate, fold, and stuff, etc.
We all realize that there
are times when all staff members have to pitch in_but when that
becomes all that's
asked of the intern we have a poor supervisor.
Suggestions for Improvement: When asked how the internship experience
could be improved, two themes emerged in the responses of internship
coordinators. First, they called for more communication among the three
participants. Internship coordinators felt that students need to understand
fully what to expect and the importance of taking the initiative. In addition,
site supervisors need to understand clearly the importance of their role as
professional educators:
( Better preparation of students before going into the work site by discussing
initiative,
resourcefulness, etc. Unfortunate that many of these qualities
are difficult to teach.
Students either have them or not. Prep students on what to
expect.
( By ensuring employers understand they (internships) are learning experiences
that
require involvement in a coaching context.
( Make sure students get more feedback from their internship employers.
( More interchange among the faculty supervisor, the professional
supervisor, and the
student might help.
( Better coordination between employer and school.
Second, faculty felt that closer monitoring of sites and student activities
would improve the process. They wanted more site visits, more effective
intern-site supervisor matches, and better pre-screening of sites:
( Internships can be improved by constantly monitoring the experience the
student receives and eliminating those that provide poor
internship experience.
( More on-site visits from faculty. Better control of quality of sites.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Responses were triangulated to determine similarities and differences among
the three groups of participants. When triangulating responses about the hopes
and expectations of the internship experience, interns and faculty internship
coordinators shared the same themes. Both groups wanted skill development and
hands-on experience for interns. Site supervisors, however, felt more
comfortable giving students broad exposure and an introduction to the field -
perhaps by osmosis rather than an assignment-driven approach (see Exhibit 1).
Students had reason to be concerned about their fear of "messing up"
because it was also shared by site supervisors in their responses. One major
anxiety of interns was that they were powerless (see Exhibit 2). Although
students read a description of the internship provided by the site, most did not
seem to be given adequate orientation, indoctrination, and direction at the
onset of their internship. Their responses indicated that few got a tour of the
building or other departments, were adequately introduced to fellow workers,
told about procedures unique to that office environment, shown the equipment, or
told about expectations and management styles. There was a sense that they felt
powerless to even take the initiative in some cases.
Site supervisors and internship coordinators shared the same challenges:
finding enough time. Site supervisors appeared to want to spend more time
interacting with interns, but the pressures of their professional lives limit
such exchanges. Furthermore, site supervisors realized the need to oversee the
internship experiences of their students more closely, but the demands of
academic life inhibit the extent of their supervision. On the other hand, the
greatest challenge for interns was coping with an environment that is too busy
to give them adequate attention (see Exhibit 3).
All participants agreed that a good intern must take the initiative, be
independent, and possess a solid work ethic. Students, however, stressed being
independent and taking initiative most, probably because the realities of being
an intern were so fresh in their minds (see Exhibit 4). A poor intern to
students was one who lacked motivational skills - initiative, resourcefulness,
and the ability to find work and ask questions. To a lesser degree, interns
agreed with internship coordinators that a poor work ethic also made a poor
intern. Site supervisors focused on bad attitude, careless work, and high
maintenance as qualities of a poor intern (see Exhibit 5).
Site supervisors and internship coordinators were in agreement about the
traits of a good site supervisor. Site supervisors must be effective teachers
and mentors. Students, however, cited only a site supervisor's willingness to
help them and communicate with them (see Exhibit 6). All participants felt that
a poor site supervisor did not take adequate time to get involved with an
intern. Students went beyond time, however. They expressed an overall
indifference as a trait of a poor site supervisor, which would include someone
who did not care about them, did not take time to interact with them, and was
inattentive to their needs. Internship coordinators added a lack of respect to
the traits of a poor site supervisor, referring to poor site supervisors as ones
who treat students like go-fors (see Exhibit 7).
The management styles identified by interns and site supervisors were
similar. Those styles seen as "mentors" to interns were the "nurturers" to the
site supervisors, the "busy but approachable" ones were the "providers," and the
"preoccupied" appeared to be the "team players."
To improve the internship experience, students clearly wanted more
interaction with site supervisors and more hands-on work experience. Similarly,
site supervisors wanted more involvement with interns. Internship coordinators
felt the need to monitor students' experiences more closely. Both site
supervisors and internship coordinators called for more communication among all
participants for a better understanding of roles and expectations (see Exhibit
8).
These findings suggest that internship coordinators play a key role in
helping improve the internship experiences of their students by communicating to
interns and site supervisors what is expected of them in their roles. Taking
the initiative, of course, must be stressed to students. They must develop the
ability to ask pertinent questions and not hesitate to ask for more work.
Moreover, they must also be extremely assertive and use persuasive interpersonal
skills - positive attitude, enthusiasm, willingness to learn, and sense of humor
- to get the attention they need without annoying their site supervisors. Site
supervisors appeared to prize and appreciate strong interpersonal skills. They
wanted students to take the initiative but at the same time demonstrate a
positive attitude, friendliness, and a personable demeanor.
Skill development was not an emerging theme among the responses of the site
supervisors. In order to obtain skill development, interns and their internship
coordinators need to insist that students receive it. By faculty outlining
expectations and students being persistent in their goals of skill development,
site supervisors are likely to respond to the need for skills acquisition.
Studies confirm that the quality of supervision an intern receives in the
workplace is often the most important factor in determining the quality of the
internship experience (Ryan, Toohey & Hughes, 1996). A dichotomy surfaced,
however, in the responses of students and site supervisors about supervisory
approaches. Students wanted training; site supervisors wanted workplace
exposure. Students called for more supervision; site supervisors preferred
autonomy. Students saw a lack of focus in their internship experience; site
supervisors felt they were providing a holistic approach to learning by exposing
students to it all. Students wanted more individual attention; site supervisors
preferred team work. Students wanted direction; site supervisors felt interns
needed to ask for it.
Perhaps one of the frankest responses came from the only participant who
did not seem to fit into one of the three management styles: "My management
style is strongly partial to self-direction and strict adherence to standards;
occasionally distracted; generally reinforcing, supportive; and not consistently
forthcoming with necessary information."
It may be impractical for internship coordinators to find only "nurturers"
as site supervisors, but clearly, they appear to be the most effective
facilitators of student learning. Students do not seem ready for a "team
player" because they must first learn the game before they can play.
"Providers" provide opportunities if students are capable of identifying those
opportunities. Interns, however, may lack the experience to identify
opportunities placed in front of them. The findings support that interns will
seize opportunities if they can recognize them. Perhaps a more experienced or
assertive student is best matched with a "provider." "Nurturers," however,
appear to present opportunities to interns, explain the meaning and importance
of those opportunities, and guide students in ways to seize those opportunities
that enhance their learning.
Determining and matching management styles of site supervisors with interns
would be a difficult task for an already overloaded faculty member. However,
site supervisors appeared to understand their role as teachers/mentors and felt
the need to spend more time with their interns. Instead, a more informed group
of site supervisors through communication with faculty internship coordinators
and more reinforcement about the mentoring/teaching aspect of their role is
needed. Site supervisors wanted more guidance and reinforcement by recommending
increased communication with internship coordinators and a better understanding
of the internship's place in the school's curriculum. Moreover, students not
only need to be academically prepared to tackle challenging work at their
internship, they need to be mentally prepared about how to succeed at getting
such work and feedback.
In summary, the following recommendations can be made based on the
conclusions of this study:
1 Explain the need for skill development to site supervisors. Provide
clear guidelines to site supervisors about what constitutes skill
development. Offering a general introduction to the field may be
considered as skill development by site supervisors but clearly is not by
faculty coordinators and interns.
2 Encourage site supervisors to schedule an orientation period when
interns are introduced to fellow workers, shown the operation of equipment
unique to that office setting, and introduced to office procedures.
3 Stress to interns the importance of taking the initiative and the need
to use effective interpersonal skills at the internship so that they will
be assertive enough to get quality assignments without being offensive to
others in the workplace.
4 Outline to site supervisors the role they play as mentors and on-site
teachers in writing and other forms of skill development. Reinforce their
role during phone conversations or site visits so they clearly understand
the expectations of the college or university.
5 Communicate the part the internship plays in the curriculum of the
educational program to site supervisors. Give them an overview of the
coursework requirements in the program, catalog copy, and syllabus to
enhance their understanding of the educational component of the internship
experience.
6 Try to determine the management style of the site supervisors. If the
individual seems to be a "team player," most students do not appear ready
for the experience. "Nurturers" are ideal, but "providers" may be
appropriate for a more mature or assertive student.
This study attempted to identify and understand the underlying expectations
and perspectives of the internship experience for the three groups of
participants, but it was limited by the small number of participants.
Furthermore, a closer study of site supervisor management styles may help
internship coordinators and interns develop strategies for working with such
individuals and thus improve the overall internship experience.
References
Agee, W. K. (1979, January). Copywriting, internships lead ad curricula changes.
Journalism
Educator, 33(4), 23-31, 116.
Agee, W. K. (1979, April). Internships way out front in PR curricula changes.
Journalism
Educator, 34(1), 6-12, 48-52.
Basow, R. R. & Byrne, M. V. (1993, Winter). Internship expectations and learning
goals.
Journalism Educator, 47(4), 48-54.
Berger, J. (1991, April). Making an internship work. Public Relations Journal,
47(4), 30-31.
Bourland-Davis, P. G., Graham, B. L., & Fulmer, H. W. (1997, Spring). Defining a
public
relations internship through feedback from the field. Journalism & Mass
Communication
Educator, 52(1), 26-33.
Carty, J. W., Jr. (1983, Spring). All disciplines require internships at this
school. Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 11-12.
Ciofalo, A. (1989, Winter). Legitimacy of internships for academic credit
remains controversial.
Journalism Educator, 43(4), 25-31.
Cole, C. O. (1974, April). Washington State interns work entire semester full
time. Journalism
Educator, 29(1), 13-14.
Cowdin, H. P. (1978, October). More and more schools offer internship credit.
Journalism
Educator, 33(3), 13-17.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downs, C. W., Harper, P., & Hunt, G. (1976, November). Internships in speech
communication.
Communication Education, 25(4), 276-282.
Fedler, F. & O'Keefe, M. T. (1977, July). Screening process upgrades student
internship
program. Journalism Educator, 32(2), 43-45.
Feldman, B. J. (1995, Summer). Journalism career paths and experiential
learning. Journalism
and Mass Communication Educator, 50(2), 23-29.
Femmel, R. (1978, October). Why not make internships mandatory for everybody?
Journalism
Educator, 33(3), 17-19.
Fosdick, J. A. (1979, July). Post-interns change views of the media,
J-education. Journalism
Educator, 34(2), 22-25.
Fulmer, H. W. (1993, August-October). Public relations internships:
Considerations for a
successful program. Journal of the Association for Communication
Administration, (3-
4), 67-73.
Garrison, B. (1981, April). Post-internship seminar can solve academic credit,
grading problems
of internship program. Journalism Educator, 36(1), 14-17, 48.
Garrison, B. (1983, Spring). Internships vary widely in structure and academic
status. Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 3-7.
Gibson, D. C. (1996, Spring). Criteria for establishing and evaluating public
relations internship
systems. Public Relations Quarterly, 41(1), 43-45.
Halverson, R. K. (1980, July). 'Mini-internships' click in management course.
Journalism
Educator, 35(2), 51-52.
Hanson, J. (1984, January). Internships and the individual: Suggestions for
implementing (or
improving) an internship program. Communication Education, 33(1), 53-61.
Hinck, S. S. & Dailey, W. O. (1994, January). The impact of situational elements
upon an
internship director's supervisory style: A model. Journal of the
Association for
Communication Administration, (1), 15-22.
Horowitz, E. M. (1997, August). Does money still buy happiness? Effects of
journalism
internships on job satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
James, B. (1986, Spring). Interns go beyond OJT - link theory to the workplace.
Journalism
Educator, 41(4), 42-43.
Keenan, K. L. (1992, Spring). Advertising field experience and experiential
learning. Journalism
Educator, 47(1), 48-55.
Kendall, R. (1980, Summer). Internship practices in public relations. Public
Relations Review,
6(2), 30-37.
Meeske, M. D. (1988, Summer). Update: Broadcast intern programs and practices.
Journalism
Educator, 43(2), 75-77.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity
with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, G., Harvey, K. & Warnick, L. B. (1980, July). Newspaper editors point to
J-grad
deficiencies. Journalism Educator, 35(2), 12-19.
O'Dell, D. F. (1935). The history of journalism education in the United States.
New York:
AMS Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pedro, J. D. (1984, August). Induction into the workplace: The impact of
internships. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 25(1), 80-95.
Peters, W. H. (1975, April). Internships may contain some unexamined pitfalls.
Journalism
Educator, 30(1), 40-42.
Riley, S. G. (1983, Spring). Some student assessments of newspaper internships.
Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 8-10.
Ryan, G, Toohey, S, & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the
practicum in
higher education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355-377.
Ward, S. A. (1981, July). Educating the communication specialist of the future:
An
interdisciplinary approach. Communication Education, 30(3), 287-296.
Ware, P. D. (1977, October). 16-point checklist unifies broadcast internship
program. Journalism
Educator, 32(3), 59-61.
Ware, R. D. (1976, January). Internship contract proves beneficial for all
concerned. Journalism
Educator, 30(4), 30-31.
Watson, K. W. (1992, October). An integration of values: Teaching the internship
course in a
liberal arts environment. Communication Education, 41(4), 429-439.
Williams, W, Jr. & Konsky, C. (1976, October). Internship contracts present
potential legal
problems. Journalism Educator, 31(3), 50-51.
PO `!1PO `!1PO `!1PO `!1PO `!1
References
Agee, W. K. (1979, January). Copywriting, internships lead ad curricula changes.
Journalism
Educator, 33(4), 23-31, 116.
Agee, W. K. (1979, April). Internships way out front in PR curricula changes.
Journalism
Educator, 34(1), 6-12, 48-52.
Basow, R. R. & Byrne, M. V. (1993, Winter). Internship expectations and learning
goals.
Journalism Educator, 47(4), 48-54.
Berger, J. (1991, April). Making an internship work. Public Relations Journal,
47(4), 30-31.
Bourland-Davis, P. G., Graham, B. L., & Fulmer, H. W. (1997, Spring). Defining a
public
relations internship through feedback from the field. Journalism & Mass
Communication
Educator, 52(1), 26-33.
Carty, J. W., Jr. (1983, Spring). All disciplines require internships at this
school. Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 11-12.
Ciofalo, A. (1989, Winter). Legitimacy of internships for academic credit
remains controversial.
Journalism Educator, 43(4), 25-31.
Cole, C. O. (1974, April). Washington State interns work entire semester full
time. Journalism
Educator, 29(1), 13-14.
Cowdin, H. P. (1978, October). More and more schools offer internship credit.
Journalism
Educator, 33(3), 13-17.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downs, C. W., Harper, P., & Hunt, G. (1976, November). Internships in speech
communication.
Communication Education, 25(4), 276-282.
Fedler, F. & O'Keefe, M. T. (1977, July). Screening process upgrades student
internship
program. Journalism Educator, 32(2), 43-45.
Feldman, B. J. (1995, Summer). Journalism career paths and experiential
learning. Journalism
and Mass Communication Educator, 50(2), 23-29.
Femmel, R. (1978, October). Why not make internships mandatory for everybody?
Journalism
Educator, 33(3), 17-19.
Fosdick, J. A. (1979, July). Post-interns change views of the media,
J-education. Journalism
Educator, 34(2), 22-25.
Fulmer, H. W. (1993, August-October). Public relations internships:
Considerations for a
successful program. Journal of the Association for Communication
Administration, (3-
4), 67-73.
Garrison, B. (1981, April). Post-internship seminar can solve academic credit,
grading problems
of internship program. Journalism Educator, 36(1), 14-17, 48.
Garrison, B. (1983, Spring). Internships vary widely in structure and academic
status. Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 3-7.
Gibson, D. C. (1996, Spring). Criteria for establishing and evaluating public
relations internship
systems. Public Relations Quarterly, 41(1), 43-45.
Halverson, R. K. (1980, July). 'Mini-internships' click in management course.
Journalism
Educator, 35(2), 51-52.
Hanson, J. (1984, January). Internships and the individual: Suggestions for
implementing (or
improving) an internship program. Communication Education, 33(1), 53-61.
Hinck, S. S. & Dailey, W. O. (1994, January). The impact of situational elements
upon an
internship director's supervisory style: A model. Journal of the
Association for
Communication Administration, (1), 15-22.
Horowitz, E. M. (1997, August). Does money still buy happiness? Effects of
journalism
internships on job satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
James, B. (1986, Spring). Interns go beyond OJT - link theory to the workplace.
Journalism
Educator, 41(4), 42-43.
Keenan, K. L. (1992, Spring). Advertising field experience and experiential
learning. Journalism
Educator, 47(1), 48-55.
Kendall, R. (1980, Summer). Internship practices in public relations. Public
Relations Review,
6(2), 30-37.
Meeske, M. D. (1988, Summer). Update: Broadcast intern programs and practices.
Journalism
Educator, 43(2), 75-77.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity
with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, G., Harvey, K. & Warnick, L. B. (1980, July). Newspaper editors point to
J-grad
deficiencies. Journalism Educator, 35(2), 12-19.
O'Dell, D. F. (1935). The history of journalism education in the United States.
New York:
AMS Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pedro, J. D. (1984, August). Induction into the workplace: The impact of
internships. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 25(1), 80-95.
Peters, W. H. (1975, April). Internships may contain some unexamined pitfalls.
Journalism
Educator, 30(1), 40-42.
Riley, S. G. (1983, Spring). Some student assessments of newspaper internships.
Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 8-10.
Ryan, G, Toohey, S, & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the
practicum in
higher education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355-377.
Ward, S. A. (1981, July). Educating the communication specialist of the future:
An
interdisciplinary approach. Communication Education, 30(3), 287-296.
Ware, P. D. (1977, October). 16-point checklist unifies broadcast internship
program. Journalism
Educator, 32(3), 59-61.
Ware, R. D. (1976, January). Internship contract proves beneficial for all
concerned. Journalism
Educator, 30(4), 30-31.
Watson, K. W. (1992, October). An integration of values: Teaching the internship
course in a
liberal arts environment. Communication Education, 41(4), 429-439.
Williams, W, Jr. & Konsky, C. (1976, October). Internship contracts present
potential legal
problems. Journalism Educator, 31(3), 50-51.
|
