Impression management by academic lectures in their own opinion and the students
y | 13 jul 2022
Article Category: Research Article
Publicado en línea: 13 jul 2022
Páginas: 11 - 26
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcm-2022-0006
Palabras clave
© 2022 Justyna Dziedzic et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This article aims to show the importance of prestige assessment, creating an image of scholars within the context of managing the image of scientists’ work, scientific research being a profession of prestige. Projecting impressions in others affects many professions and industries because it is an inherent attribute of social life and the exemplification of socio-cultural changes related to image management during times when a culture of achievements is dominant.
The attempt by academic lecturers to present themselves as specialists and professionals in the eyes of others can result in perks, such as the building of an expert's ‘brand’. Therefore, the impression that people make on others is important because of social tendencies for others to consciously shape judgements based on those impressions. This can affect how a person is treated and what opinions others express about him or her.
This is especially important in high-prestige professions, where a high opinion about specialists can elevate them to a more privileged position. Professionals care about the audience's opinions, therefore, and compete with each other to gain a good impression. Being aware of this induces them to deliberately influence the process of forming a public opinion about themselves by actively creating the right impression. Impression management (IM) processes are becoming increasingly important in this context. IM is a conscious process of building the expected forms of self-presentation through conscious actions regarded as suitable to the profession and for the purpose of recipient's needs being fulfilled.
Lecturers face opinions about superiors, colleagues, academics, and researchers. Their image is also subject to formal evaluation and ranking by students. The increasing attention of universities towards the general parameterization of the work and research results and the quality of the classes and lectures conducted can cause the scientific community to try to intentionally manage the impression it makes on others. In this sense, lectures and classes at universities have become a public arena of speech. In addition to the transfer of knowledge, lecturers may also be interested how they are perceived as experts in their scientific fields.
Managing impressions transfers the profession's elite status as scientists to the discourse of self-presentation and its effect on an audience. Consciously building an impact on others used to be associated with behavior present in the media, that is, among artistic ‘stars’, public figures, and politicians. Now it is required of members of professions with public and high social status as a result of the modern achievement-based culture. This intentional process for projecting and managing an impression may be driven more by an intent towards its reception on the part of evaluators than a desire for self-presentation. Nevertheless, what is more interesting from our point of view is the conscious process of managing the impression made by lecturers. The article's structures this in eight parts: impression management by scholars in an age of self-presentation in a culture of evaluation, impression management in the context of social interaction (literature review), impression management in the organizational sphere, theoretical background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
The development of the information society and the age of achievements is causing society to increase a preference for visual reception of information. Through public presentation of abilities and accomplishments, members of society demonstrate their self-development. This causes many people to professionalize their image and message, which is read by recipients of their content, whether in real or virtual reality. Social media, supported by visual value, causes more and more attention to be directed to the pure message and its form. Therefore, professionals in many industries try to ensure the best possible reception, which is inherent in creating and managing a personal image. Impressions are kept in check because public people exist in the field of reception (ratings and criticism) of one's person by others. Similar phenomena may apply to scientific staff, who, in addition to possessing pure knowledge, are capable also of dealing with strategies for inducing an appropriate and desired impression, which burnishes their brand.
Academic lecturers’ private imaginings about themselves can result in an external representation of themselves. In professions such as scientific research, this prestige adds important value because it is a socially respected profession. What others think about academics may be important because these opinions can build elevated reputation and approval for their careers. However, it seems insufficient to direct attention just toward specific behaviors directed at building impressions of academic scientists. The analysis should go beyond the concepts of the behavior itself and take into account actions that aim to build prestige beyond the image's creation at any given moment of reception. Building a scientific career and establishing themselves as specialists in a given area of knowledge and science involves time-consuming effort. Simply in the process of focus on developing their careers, Academic lecturers participate in the struggle for prestige.
Impression management (IM) is interchangeably linked with the concept of self-presentation in the literature. Both phrases refer to creating a picture of oneself for presentation to others in order to gain their approval or recognition within a profession or for reception by the public. Nevertheless, the IM is a broader concept than self-presentation (Leary & Kowalski, 1990, p. 35). In addition to managing their impression in others’ contexts, it is also important to control the impression about themselves. Managing impressions as a broader construct than self-presentation involves two processes: impression motivation and impression construction (Leary & Kowalski, 1990, p. 35). The first category refers to monitoring how to get the impression of another sphere to ensure their public personality is intact. Motivation in this dimension refers to the desire to create impressions on others. Creating a particular impression is associated with the motivation to manage the impression. The second process, that of impression construction, carries it a step further; that is, there is a concrete vision for managing the impression in addition to the initial desire to create one (Leary & Kowalski, 2019, p. 36). This construct consists of self-concept, desired and undesired identity images, role constraints, target values, and current or potential social image (Leary & Kowalski, 1990, p. 36). A literature review by E. Morrison & R.J. Bies, describes impression management as divided by interpretations of feedback-seeking behavior (Morrison & Bies, 1991). They refer specifically to the orientation towards distinct mechanisms through which feedback-seeking impacts impressions and impression opportunities and public deception about the image's influence (Morrison & Bies, 1991). Neha Anand points out that we live in a time when this feedback is dependent on the poison of the message and the virtue of self-presentation (Anand, 2013)—pointing to the importance of the first impression (appearance, body language, tone, voice tempo, the content of what is expressed), which is an image of a person that persists in the subsequent process of social or business relations (Anand, 2013).
The literature review of IM analysis was also conducted by Niamh M. Brennan, Encarna Guillamon-Saorin, and Aileen Pierce (Brennan et al., 2009). They found an overall measure for the analysis of experience management and for detecting errors in incorporated narratives resulting from experience management. The authors have shown a strong trend for experience management in corporate financial communication. It is based on the observation that positive information is exaggerated, and negative information is ignored (Brennan et al., 2009).
A.J. DuBrin points out the following individual factors contributing to IM: self-monitoring, Machiavellianism, trustworthiness, extraversion, optimism, cognitive skills, and gender differences (DuBrin, 2011). He also outlines dimensions of organizational culture associated with IM: power struggling; fear as a value; the importance of human interaction, trust, and respect for the individual; organizational heroes and heroines; and individual versus collective culture (DuBrin, 2011). These are dimensions of culture that A.J. DuBrin uses to demonstrate the positive and negative aspects of IM.
The social component of interaction is associated with the advisability of types of communication. The nature of communications can lead to positive or negative assessments in a workplace environment. For example, studies were directed at finding the effects of using assertive and defensive tactics in instant messaging in a supervisor's assessment of the likeability and performance of employees (Bolino et al., 2012).
Psychology researchers point to IM analysis in terms of personality and achievement motivation (Elliot et al., 2018). The researchers noted that people with a high degree of self-control direct their competencies and main desires towards intrapersonal success in the form of mastery at work (Elliot et al., 2018).
Self-esteem maintenance in impression management is read by congratulations and praise and better self-centered indicators. Therefore, people may want to make a better impression, but this concept focuses more on motives than on managing that impression. Engaging in self-presentation drives the development of the identity process. Identity is derived from social concepts and refers to symbolic thinking. R.M. Kowalski & M.R. Leary give an example of when an assistant professor can prime his academic identity by behaving according to symbolic behavior patterns (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).
Researchers’ motivation for managing the impression they make might be that having a good reputation in the eyes of the student community increases the likelihood that they will be invited events of an expert nature, or that they will be invited, for example, by the media to act as commentators. Nevertheless, the importance of their reputation's role is probably not as obvious as, for example, in a medical environment, where doctors gain patients, thanks to good impressions of their skills,, or in the networks of designers, lawyers, and representatives of craft professions who may gain clients. This observation may also apply to clergy who maintain images of high morality as guides to their congregations/believers. Scientists can build an impression on the basis of perpetuating their own scientific identity or managing the impressions they make, taking care of their reputation in the entire academy's environment. Scientific prestige is associated with the evaluation of achievements. It brings associations related to lecturing's value as based on their work quality as ‘selling their knowledge and talent’. Furthermore, deviations from the academy's prescribed roles that form a bad image could lead to serious sanctions by the university authorities.
The development of the information society offers a new perspective on managing the impression made by scholars. New technologies allow scientists to share their work and socialize research. Promoting intellectual effort, work, and earning reputation constitute the scientific identity studied by M.L. Radford, V. Kitzie, S. Mikitish, D. Floegel, G.P Radford, L.S. Connaway (Radford et al., 2020). The authors conducted qualitative research considering the impact on scientific identity of online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and Twitter. The authors use “scholarly identity platforms” in their areas of interest, concluding that they benefit from development opportunities or support academic libraries. On the other hand, they indicated that their participation is also associated with reputational risk (Radford et al., 2020).
The public discourse of scientists is related to their identity. One example of the manifestation of scientists’ inner beliefs and knowledge is an interview (Lee & Roch, 2003). Yew-Jin J. Lee and Wolff-Michael M. Roth's case study focuses on social interaction, demonstrating professionalism, objectivity, passion, and selflessness as characteristics of a member of the scientific community. They also point to the problem of self-presentation during research interviews, questioning this method as a neutral tool for collecting data (Lee & Roch, 2003). Thus, it can be seen that impression management can occur even in the context of research tools.
Researchers frequently use Goffman's theory of IM studies, which refers to social interaction. Goffman understands social interaction through the prism of events in which the management of impressions is disrupted or fails (Sheridan, 2014, p. 84). These critical conditions can be an interesting area of research exploration because they reveal possible irregularities in the management of impressions, and bring to mind the recognition of authenticity, the collapse of reality, and possible manipulations that can bring about the creation of images of oneself and power and control (Goffman, 1959). In these diagnoses, Goffman serves as a metaphor for actors who evoke the attenuation and the audience that receives their messages. This interaction can result in various dramaturgical phrases of social reception. Using Goffman's concept, scientists discuss managing the impression from the control side or controlling others’ impression about themselves.
Managing impressions on an organizational basis is examined in the boss/subordinate relationship. Laboratory and field studies covering such issues have been strictly related to tactics of Internet messaging (Bolino et al., 2014). Repeated use of assertive and defensive tactics in messages is associated with assessments of sympathy and dislike. In particular, the value of messages such as ingratiation and self-promotion and apologies and justifications were revealed. The time and frequency of the application of these messages also turned out to be important in this respect. It was confirmed that an increase in positive evaluations by the boss was related to ingratiation. The apology had a negative impact on the boss's evaluation of the work results of an employee. The sympathy and dislike on the part of superiors were found to be related to the communication tactics of their subordinates. Therefore, IM is conditioned by communication and disposition in the directed messages (Bolino et al., 2014).
Work efficiency is an important factor in scientific analysis of an organization from many different perspectives. Researchers also analyzed work efficiency in the application of experience management and found that empirical results did not confirm an association between experience management and work performance (Ispas et al., 2014). In sales positions, where success relies on social conditioning, communicators differed in their meta-analyses regarding work results and assessment. IM has shown validity for testing questions concerning the traits of conscientiousness and cognitive ability in job performance (Ispas et al., 2014).
Impression management is also undertaken to analyze leadership behaviour in an organization in decline (Han Ming Chng et al., 2015). A management simulation game designed with experienced Chinese managers clarified some behavior. It turned out that the managers initiated IM when the openness of the organizational decline raised the leaders’ concerns about their image. The research shows that incentive remuneration strengthens leaders’ concerns about their image. Thus, organizational collapse strengthens leaders’ concern for the impression they create (Han Ming Chng et al., 2015).
Research into the use of IM tactics in a mentoring system in Chinese organizations were found to be related to the quality of mentoring, mentor behavior, and knowledge sharing (Wang et al., 2016). A positive link between mentor-oriented tactics and the quality of monitoring and mentors’ behavior in knowledge sharing was identified (Wang et al., 2016). It is worth pointing out, however, that the research was conducted in the context of Chinese culture, where mentoring may be valued more highly than in some western cultures.
IM within organizational cultural norms has been tested on employees from Brazil (Kenneth et al., 2013). The findings showed that exemplification and intimidation were linked to burnout and occupational tension. It also indicated that behaviors resulting from experience management have positive associations with desired career outcomes. In turn, the intimidation culture is strongly associated with burnout and employee tension (Kenneth et al., 2013).
Post-failure IM is an interesting research direction, as it reveals the interactions between organizational failure, impression, and entrepreneurial narratives (Kibler, 2020, pp. 286–318). Public narratives have revealed several strategic tendencies in the semantic analysis of organizational failures. Typology of the narrative of failure has shown that entrepreneurs pursue different strategies for managing impressions. Typologic options include triumph, harmony, embarace, offset, show (Kibler, 2020, p. 286). In the lives of organizations and employees, many negative situations arise that cause the need and even the compulsion for them to use impression management. Such events include image crises, stressful situations, liquidation of the organization, communication errors, and failures. Making an impression can be a strategy for surviving, repairing, or treating various problems and disfunction It can also be used as a tool for positive stimulation. It plays an important role in the relationship between job insecurity and productivity (Probst et al., 2020, p. 307).
Job candidates can use the impression strategy to mitigate nervousness during an interview (Kibler, 2020, p. 286). Different candidates proceed differently; they may expose their achievements, omit aspects of their professional past, and even fabricate events. Concerns about self-presentation may be related to candidates’ low honesty and use of deceptive messages (Powell et al., 2020, p. 837). These mechanisms are also used among the members of the organization. Employees engage in relationships with people of good repute because they believe it can impact positive career development (Al-Shatti, & Ohana, 2021, p. 8). A similar problem also applies to institutions. Stock market performance in the annual reports of European banks showed responses to the financial crisis (Jones et al., 2020, p. 474). Charts of stock market performance in the annual report were omitted (Jones et al., 2020, p. 476). This case shows that financial institutions are adopting an impression management strategy.
Researchers also point to emerging relationships between corporate social responsibility and impression management (Chang & Stone, 2021; Gao & Zhang, 2021). There are inquiries about the marketing factors to promote sustainable development (Gao & Zhang, 2021). Organizations are evaluated for the condition of the external environment and also for social and ecological activities and all charitable activities. Transparency of activities and the possibility of evaluation have strengthened the development of social media. Celebrities use an impression management strategy for expressing their charitable attitudes in the media as a result of its treatment as consumption of cultural capital or as a goal to gain social capital and the attention of recipients or fans (Gao & Zhang, 2021, p. 2). It also motivates them to imitate charitable and activist behavior and strengthens their commitment to these activities (Gao & Zhang, 2021, p. 2). The social and institutional environment also forces them to assess the degree of the organization's responsibility, which may prompt them to adopt tactics for managing impressions (Martins st al., 2021, p. 2).
IM can also concern the ways of presenting corporate content, reports, and visualization of managerial activities. Symbolic visualization boils down to making the message more attractive and creating an interesting story for the audience (Usmani, 2020, p. 338). Impression management tactics can attempt to idealize content and descriptions, even in the scientific community among researchers, by using ethnography and storytelling (Klitgaard, et al., 2021).
As the diagram (Figure 1) presents, we have proposed that impression management is related to many components and activities, which are made public intentionally to create the desired impression. Alternatively, it creates an impression through an activity that is associated with the prestige of the scientific profession and is, in a sense, a symbolic artifact of this profession. These components include creating the scientific image, that is, disseminating a vision of scientific work as an emblematic representation of the researcher's work in culture and society. It is also the publication of one's scientific brand's prestige by sharing information about scientific achievements, including publications. Another factor is disseminating bureaucratic activities and functions in the university and beyond organizational authority, scientific cooperation, and brand in the expert industry. Many intentions can dictate IM, so researchers take up the issue of the correlation of sensitivity with ethical issues (Lönnqvist et al., 2014). In this context, a thread of hypocrisy may be hidden in impression tactics’ moral choices. This moral problem was highlighted by Jan-Erik Lonnqvist, Bernd Irlenbusch, and Gari Walkowitz using the in-dictator game method. By exposing, among other things, people's tendency to say one thing and do another (Lönnqvist et al., 2014). The ethical aspects of impression management bring new professions of organizational discourse precisely in terms of conscious practices of influencing the desired reactions to others’ actions and evaluations.
Figure 1
Managing the impression of a academic lecture's –components.
Source: Authors’ own study.
It can be concluded that we live in a time of the professionalization of work. This is reflected in the specialization and objectivity of performance evaluation criteria. Similar transitions have happened in the academic space. University work is associated with widespread parameterization and rankings. Generally accepted assessment criteria are used to assess lecturers. Methods for evaluation quality in higher education are also proposed (Ciobǎnicǎ, 2013). The prestige of scientific work is also associated with gratification, and the results of researchers’ work are financially modified. Therefore, in this context, the term “prestige economy” is referred to, which is used in higher education (Blackmore & Kandiko, 2011). The criteria of prestige can be, for example, publications, Hirsh Index, participation in international studies and projects, or positions held at the university. We have recognized them as important factors that make them public and become criteria for managing scientific impressions. Measurement of scholarly esteem and status has its reflection in prestige research. Because of this theatrical framework and the research conclusions, we have drawn hypotheses:
H 1. Scientific prestige impresses students H1.a. Age and scientific experience are important in managing impressions. H1.b. The scientific impression is connected with scientific prestige (publications, expert activities, scientific achievements).
According to Blackmore, prestige is social, for it does not follow of itself but reveals recognized attributes of achievements (Blackmore, 2016). Therefore, we regard scientists’ prestige as a social phenomenon in which shared values become an opportunity to build associations that give an individual or group a higher status. Therefore, Blackmore points to the psychological and sociological view of prestige as what people think and do and how they relate to others (Blackmore, 2016). Cybel-Machalska uses a metaphor to further describe this phenomenon, wondering whether the scholar is a publishing provider for parameterization purposes (Cybel-Machalska, 2019). It raises deeper questions about whether, in such a situation, he is still the discoverer of scientific truth. (Cybel-Machalska, 2019). Standardization of work in numerical representations (points for publications in peer-reviewed journals, number of citations – Hirsch index) reflects the activities differentiating scientists from each other. Undoubtedly, the context of self-identification is related to the nature of identity in a world in which scientists become actors of parameterization in the game's theater for greater prestige important here (Cybel-Machalska, 2019). In this regard, it is also worth mentioning the broader context of the problem, going beyond the parameterization of scientists and universities. It is connected with building prestige beyond the typical scientific rankings. Val Burris’ research indicates that faculties’ prestige is not a question of scientific productivity but of acquiring social capital (Burris, 2004).
An age of achievements brings high rates of specialization and general parametrization of work results (Darnon et al., 2009; Elliot and Reis, 2003). This phenomenon may lead to the need to improve in a given industry, but it can also bring dysfunctional behavior like a sporting race for success. The increase in strict recognition criteria in the profession means even better objective evaluation criteria. Unfortunately, they may entail a process of dehumanizing scientists through the prism of their uniqueness, which cannot be parameterized. Especially in the scientific profession, this may be a topic that needs to be discussed separately.
Managing an impression in the academic profession involves representations of similar industries, which should be considered in axiological contexts, like medical, legal, and public service. Therefore, this is linked to professionals’ social image, that is, who should be regarded as highly expert and with integrity. Therefore, any representation should refer to these associations and have a socialization dimension to the image. They refer to social image notions such as learning and truthfulness perceived by others as an impression (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
The desired images from impression management can be selected from several tactical perspectives. Pittman and Jones described them as pointing to integration – opinion conformity, to be likable; self-promotion; brag; exemplification – work hard to be seen as dedicated; intimidation – to be menacing; supplication to be seen as needy (Pittman & Jones, MartinMar 1982). Analyzing the impressions of academic lecturers in a cultural context allows for interpreting the representation of cultural artifacts in the researcher's images. The impression then refers to any representation of his or her physicality, dress code, and objects that lecturers perceive as professional or belonging to the profession's elitism.
Conscious image management involves facing the opinions of others and cause the desired influence on the audience (Table 1). Therefore, it can give rise to different associations present in the collective consciousness and in the profession's categorization – academic lecturers. Such representations may include archetypal and metaphorical representations of scientists present in the cultural space. Serpil Pekdoğan conducted studies on certain association categories concerning the environment of scientists (Pekdoğan, 2019). Her research was based on observing children's (5–6 years old) impressions of scientists. It turned out that their ideas about scientists relate to several images that we would consider present in public sphere, namely: among them were visions of a scientist working in a laboratory, having research materials, conducting experiments, and looking like intellectuals with a positive disposition (Pekdoğan, 2019).
Methodical structure
| Ciobǎnicǎ 2013 |
Scientific prestige: |
The assessment of the attractiveness of an academic lecturer is influenced by academic achievements (number of publications), scientific achievements (prestige of publications held), knowledge, ability to pass on knowledge to students, seniority, scientific title, university's functions, exercise of power in the university, perform functions in prestigious non-university organizations, circulating opinions among other students. |
| Baumeister & Leary 1995 |
Image creation: |
The assessment of the attractiveness of an academic lecturer is influenced by: social media, academic PR, dress code, image, media appearances. Creating an image is important to lecturers. They need to create an image. Lecturers are focused on creating their personal brand. Students are impressed by a lecturer who takes care of his image. Lecturers promote each other among students. Lecturers take care of their image to impress students. |
| Pekdoğan 2019 |
Image of the scientist |
The assessment of the attractiveness of an academic lecturer is influenced by: awakening cognitive curiosity in students, high demands on students. Lecturers associate with characters present in culture, i.e., sorcerer, mad scientist. A scientist is more interesting for students when he or she is surrounded by an atmosphere of mystery. A scientist who has respect among students must be demanding. |
Source: Authors’ own study
Among the traits that can make scientists attractive may also be their talent for public speaking, personality traits such as personal charm and a quality of mysteriousness, or scientific reflexivity as a characteristic of narrative skills. Emerging tendencies to focus interests towards certain narratives existing in imaging and language may reflect labeling, which is the key to power or responsibility (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2010). Management science became intensely interested in conveyors and metaphors since Gareth Morgan's book in 1986 (Morgan, 1986/1997). Using the term ‘impression’ brings to mind the word ‘image’. This idea should be treated as a certain mental construction, which embeds the first impression in memory. It is worth recalling concepts that appeared in management science and served as associative descriptions in organization or management. In thinking about a certain image, one can use the language of Gareth Morgan's organizational associations. Metaphors are therefore present in management science and support explanations. They help interpret various aspects of the organization and aid understanding of the experience of similarities or differences between one examined subject and another, which is a reference point (Morgan, 1986/1997). Thus, when examining image as a factor of impression management, one can refer to metaphors that bring to mind general, commonly known associations. Metaphors were used to analyze organizations, and Czarniawska-Joerges points out that they can figuratively ’illustrate‘ meanings, thus appealing to the imagination (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2010, p. 108). Metaphorically they can function well as control tools, as encoded suggestions also referring to personal development and autonomy (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2010, pp. 108–109).
The survey was attended by students of management, logistics, philology, and psychology from two business universities in Poland and nontitular and titular (MA, Ph.D., Prof.) staff of academic lecturers from the same universities. The survey was available online for one month and disseminated by e-mail and social media. The selection of choosing samples was nonrandom. There were
Descriptive statistics of participants
| Sex | Female | 159 | 78.3 |
| Male | 44 | 21.7 | |
| Group | Lecturer | 54 | 26.6 |
| Student | 149 | 73.4 | |
| Title | MA | 55 | 27.4 |
| PhD | 19 | 9.5 | |
| Does not have | 122 | 60.7 | |
| Professor | 5 | 2.5 | |
| Dyscypline | Psychology | 117 | 60.6 |
| Management | 46 | 23.8 | |
| Philologies | 9 | 4.7 | |
| Others | 12 | 6.2 | |
| Logistics | 9 | 4.7 |
Source: Authors’ own study
The main research question was:
A self-prepared tool was created to collect data, which consisted of three parts. Part one is concerned mainly with questions about the
To begin with, the reliability analysis checked whether the variables created based on the literature are internally reliable. For
In addition to the questions in the EDA questionnaire, a question was also asked directly: ‘To what extent do you rate the profession of the academic lecturer as prestigious?’ Rate on a scale from 0 – definitely not prestigious to 10 – definitely prestigious. Descriptive statistics can also be found in Annex 3.
In step 1, the relationships among prestige assessment, image creation, and the image of the scientist was checked. It is assumed that a lecturer's scientific impression is correlated with
It turned out that prestige is significantly, if moderately, positively associated with image creation (
Correlation analysis of prestige, image creation, the image of a scientist
| Image creation | 0.506*** | – | |
| Image of the scientist | 0.311*** | 0.493*** | – |
| Prestige_2 | 0.266*** | n.i. | 0.178* |
Source: Authors’ own study
In step 2, we looked at whether there was any difference between academic lecturers with titles and students in prestige assessment, image creation, and image of the scientist. It is assumed that age and scientific experience are important in managing impressions. We compared people who hold a degree – lecturers (Mgr, Dr, Prof.), and those who do not have a degree – students. Given that the groups were uneven in number of participants, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used.
In step 3, we looked at whether there is a difference in prestige, image creation, and image of scientists between lecturers and students of psychology and management (Figure 2, Table 4). In order to answer this question, a multivariable two-way analysis of variance in a 2 × 2 scheme was computed Table 5). It turned out that there was no main or interactive effect for the measured variables.
Figure 2
Mean of prestige, image creation, the image of scientist and for prestige (direct question) in groups with different scientific titles. Source: Authors’ own study
Means of prestige, image creation, the image of scientist and for prestige (direct question) in groups with psychology and management
| Lecturer | Psychology | 3,26 | 3,16 | 2,91 | 7,18 |
| Management | 3,32 | 2,90 | 3,00 | 8,33 | |
| 3,26 | 3,13 | 2,92 | 7,29 | ||
| Student | Psychology | 3,01 | 3,00 | 2,83 | 7,53 |
| Management | 3,09 | 3,31 | 2,91 | 7,07 | |
| 3,03 | 3,10 | 2,85 | 7,38 | ||
| Total | Psychology | 3,07 | 3,04 | 2,85 | 7,44 |
| Management | 3,10 | 3,29 | 2,91 | 7,15 | |
| 3,08 | 3,11 | 2,87 | 7,36 |
Source: Authors’ own study
Results of multivariable two-way analysis of variance in 2 × 2 scheme
| GROUP_1 | PRESTIGE | 1 | .800 | .372 | .144 |
| IMAGE_CREATION | 1 | .346 | .557 | .090 | |
| IMAGE_SCIENTIST | 1 | .153 | .696 | .067 | |
| PRESTIGE_2 | 1 | .597 | .441 | .120 | |
| GROUP_2 | PRESTIGE | 1 | .062 | .804 | .057 |
| IMAGE_CREATION | 1 | .016 | .900 | .052 | |
| IMAGE_SCIENTIST | 1 | .129 | .720 | .065 | |
| PRESTIGE_2 | 1 | .346 | .557 | .090 | |
| GROUP_1* GROUP_2 | PRESTIGE | 1 | .001 | .974 | .050 |
| IMAGE_CREATION | 1 | 1.617 | .205 | .244 | |
| IMAGE_SCIENTIST | 1 | .000 | .987 | .050 | |
| PRESTIGE_2 | 1 | 1.858 | .175 | .273 |
Source: Authors’ own study
In Step 4, we based our analysis on which indicators we can predict the perceived prestige (Table 6). In the regression analysis using the input method, the dependent variable was the declaration to the question “To what extent do you assess the profession of the academic teacher as prestigious?” (PRESTIGE_2), while the factors are prestige (average of questions; see Annex 2), image creation, and the image of a scientist. It turned out that the prestige of a lecturer can be predicted based on factors included in the PRESTIGE factor as prosperity, seniority, title (
Results of regression analysis
| 1 | Constant | 5.163 | .653 | 7.910 | .000 | |
| PRESTIGE | .575 | .174 | .261 | 3.301 | .001 | |
| IMAGE_CREATION | −.181 | .225 | −.070 | −.807 | .421 | |
| IMAGE_SCIENTIST | .342 | .205 | .131 | 1.671 | .096 |
From 0 – definitely not prestigious, to 10 – definitely prestigious.
Source: Authors’ own study
The result obtained indicated that the greater the number of publications and achievements, the lecturer's seniority, participation in functions in universities and other institutions, the greater his or her charm, demanding and mysterious, the greater the perceived prestige.
We faced the need to approve practical implications for individuals and organizations. Researchers divide their lives between publishing responsibilities and teaching activities. Both actions require effort and are evaluated. While scientific efforts can be parameterized, issues related to the student's relationship can be analyzed from an image perspective. Due to the many factors and circumstances, we decided to test several important links between variables and ask participants key research questions. We asked about the relation between the variables, the prestige of scientists, creating an image, and scientists’ image. We discuss what kind of role the academic title plays in assessing prestige, creating the image, and image of the scientist. We thought that the perspective of a student, lecturer, and discipline (psychology vs. management) plays a role in assessing prestige and creating the image of academic lecturers. Finally, we asked which indicators are useful in predicting perceived prestige. The results of quantitative studies brought us interesting conclusions. The scientific impression is assumed to be related to scientific prestige (publications, expert activities, scientific achievements). It turned out that prestige is significantly, if moderately, positively associated with image creation (
Managing the impressions of scientists is an important phenomenon in the context of social interactions, because of the different signals of the culture of achievements and the age of self-presentation. We pay attention to many problems that arise from the questions we pose in the face of these threats. The issues related to the ethical aspects of managing the impression of scientists and the problem of loss of reputation in the public discourse of online space may turn out to be of particular interest for future exploration. The phenomena of differences in the assessment of lecturers by themselves by departments and students also seem significant. These differences may indicate certain reception irregularities, which may not be associated with genuine scientific value and knowledge but with external or social factors, which are also worth paying attention to through further research. The article brings to the theory a new analysis of IM in the context of the image, prestige, and image of scientist factors, which distinguishes our view from other studies about the impression made by academic lecturers. This article may also be useful for brand management practitioners in high-end specialization professions. We recommend further exploration of managing the impressions of universities and research groups.