Representation on college and university websites

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand how colleges and universities use language to represent themselves on their institutional websites (official websites of higher education institutions). Organizations, like colleges and universities, seek to create and maintain a distinctive identity in an effort to build legitimacy (i.e., status) and attract students (i.e., tuition dollars). Institutional websites are increasingly important to the admissions and marketing practices of colleges and universities due to their ability to rapidly communicate a significant amount of content to a vast audience. Colleges and universities use language, whether textual (i.e., written) or visual (i.e., images), to position and differentiate themselves from other institutions and promote their efforts. This study utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine the language on the institutional websites of 12 colleges and universities across a number of characteristics (e.g., control, type, geographic region, admissions selectivity) in the United States. Theoretically, CDA provides the means to examine everyday language in an effort to raise awareness about issues of inequality, such as access to education. Methodologically, Fairclough's approach to CDA has three dimensions of analysis. The first dimension is descriptive analysis where the intent is to describe the properties of the textual and visual elements. The second dimension involves interpretive analysis where the goal is to examine the contents of language and its functional parts to understand and interpret the connections between the role of language and the greater social structures it reflects and supports. Societal analysis, the third dimension, focuses on explanations of larger cultural, historical, and social discourses surrounding interpretations of the data. The analyses from this study suggest that colleges and universities utilize a common promotional discourse en masse to market rather systematic representations of "higher education" despite the fact that they vary widely by a number of institutional characteristics. Specifically, analyses reveal that institutions use language to repeatedly establish prestige and relevancy by touting the accomplishments of their institutional 2 actors. The institutions attempt to engage the viewer with relational language, present numerous co-curricular experiences along with numerous images related to generic institutional characteristics (e.g., architecture, campus scenery), and multiple layers of navigation. The scholarly commitment associated with higher education plays a reduced role while the intangibles available to the prospective student are at the forefront of representations in the sample. Institutions also poorly represent other social goods (e.g., class, sexual orientation). Of the 453 images in the study, 98 feature a non-white actor (21%) and 146 feature a female actor (32%). Representations of diverse actors often appear in the form of caricatures (e.g., Native American in tribal dress). Given the mission a...

“Cosmetic diversity”: University websites and the transformation of race categories.

“…4We present screenshots that include institutional names instead of translating the information from the websites into an anonymous spreadsheet form. The content of a university website is considered publicly discoverable—that is, it was created with the intention of being widely viewed (methodological precedents: Saichaie, 2011; Saichaie and Morphew, 2014). We want to provide direct evidence for our claims by providing screenshot data from primary sources and believe the choices made in presenting the data contribute necessary insight into the discourse being analyzed.…”

Tourism education enrolment among Kenyan public universities: Socioeconomic aspects

“…Another notable finding indicated that a degrees' tuition rates influence a prospectus student's enrolment (M=2.02, SD=0.954). While the institutions always want to maximize their revenue by increasing the cost of the courses they offer, study costs and tuition fees have been reported as one of the major factors influencing students' choice for their higher education institution (Saichaie, 2011). However, these findings contradict Çokgezen's (2014) study, which reported a non-significant relationship between the fee charged by an institution and the students' choice to enrol at the institution.…”

Can We Buy Virtue? Implications from State University Funding On Musical Instrument Performance Teacher Mandate

“…Studies of the websites of educational institutions have been conducted within several fields (Callahan, 2005;Campbell-Price, 2017;Leathwood & Read, 2009;Zhang & O'Halloran, 2013). Studies of university prospectuses suggest an increased shift from how universities earlier communicated their identity as academic communities of scholars and learners toward increased marketization and the use of corporate branding language (Askehave, 2007;Fairclough, 1993;Hoang & Rojas-Lizana, 2015;Lažetić, 2019;Saichaie, 2011). Differences in university websites have also been identified as the consequences of national and institutional cultures (Callahan, 2005).…”