Institutional Identity Practices on Twitter

Year 2019, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 29 - 39, 31.12.2019

Göklem Tekdemir , Büşra Alparslan

https://doi.org/10.33817/muhakeme.618185

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate
how a rector of a public university in Turkey, as an academic manager,
displayed and managed an institutional identity through using Twitter. The
theoretical framework of the study was based on Interaction Process Analysis
and Positioning Theory. The tweets by a former rector of a public university,
posted during his period of office, were examined in terms of communication
preferences based on social-interactional domains, as defined by Bales, and
types of self in relation to pronoun use. A qualitative analysis of the tweets
showed a preference for task oriented/instrumental social interaction rather
than socioemotional, with more frequent uses of the “inclusive we” personal
pronoun. The goal of tweeting was to give information about university events,
clarify certain discussions, direct students toward the responsible parties
regarding their problem, and evaluate certain situations. The analysis revealed
that the preference for using Twitter in a task related manner to share
information and offer solutions increased over the years of service. Further,
over the years, the former rector started to tweet more actively and displayed
more socioemotionally based reactions toward his public. In terms of the nature
of self and other positioning displayed in this sample of tweets, pronoun-use
analysis revealed that the former rector positioned himself as a member of a
community, indicated by the more frequent uses of 'we' in task related
utterances, as well as negative socioemotional reactions. These results were
evaluated in terms of cultural characteristics displayed in language use and
leadership.

Keywords

Interaction Process Analysis, positionings, identity practice, twitter

Supporting Institution

İstanbul Üniversitesi BAP

Project Number

54855

Thanks

This study (project number: 54855) was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University.

Twitter'da Kurumsal Kimlik Pratikleri

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın
amacı, akademik yönetici olarak bir devlet üniversitesi rektörünün kurumsal
kimliğini Twitter kullanımı ile nasıl ortaya koyduğu ve yönettiğidir. Seçilen
devlet üniversitesinin eski rektörünün görev süresi sırasında gönderdiği
tweetler, Bales’in tanımladığı çerçevedeki sosyal-etkileşimsel alanlardaki
iletişim tercihleri kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Twitter mesajlarının nitel ve
nicel içerik analizleri bu mesajlarda sosyo-emosyonel etkileşim amacından çok
görev-yönelimli etkileşim amaçlarının sergilenmesinin tercih edildiğini
göstermiştir. Twitter’ın kullanılma amacının üniversite hakkında bilgi vermek,
çeşitli tartışmalara açıklık getirmek, öğrencileri ilettikleri problemlerle
ilgili kişilere yönlendirmek ve belli durumları değerlendirmek olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
Analiz sonucunda Twitter’ı görev-yönelimli kullanma ve çözümler önerme
biçiminde kullanımın, rektörün görev yaptığı yıllar süresince arttığı tespit
edilmiştir. Ayrıca görev yılları süresince Twitter’ın daha aktif kullanıldığı
ve sosyo-emosyonel içerikli mesajların oranının da arttığı gözlenmiştir.
Kendini ve karşıdaki kişiyi konumlandırmalar açısından bakıldığında ise,
mesajlardaki kişi zamiri kullanımının daha çok birinci çoğul şahıs zamiri olan
“biz” şeklinde gerçekleştirildiği ve bu anlamda da kurumsal kimlik inşasında
rektörün kendini topluluğun bir üyesi olarak hem görev-yönelimli hem de
sosyo-emosyonel gönderilerinde konumlandırdığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlar,
dil kullanımı bağlamında görülen kültürel özellikler ve liderlik anlayışı bağlamında
tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Etkileşim Süreç Analizi, konumlandırmalar, kimlik pratikleri, twitter

Project Number

54855

References

• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. M. (2013). College presidents out-blog and out-tweet corporate ceo's as higher ed delves deeper into social media to recruit students. Retrieved 22 September 2017, from: http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/socialmediaresearch/collegepresidentsoutblog/
• Borysenko, K. (2014). Commit, connect, engage: How college and university presidents are using Twitter. Eduventures. Retrieved 22 September 2017, from http://www.eduventures.com/2014/01/commit-connect-engage-college-university-presidents-using-twitter.
• Burke, K. (1974). Communication and the human condition. Communication, 1, 135-152.
• Chua, E. G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles in low- and high- context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32-37.
• Drew, P., & Sorjonen, M. L. (1997). Institutional dialogue. In T. van Dijk (Eds.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 92-118). London: Sage.
• Fahy, P. J. (2005). Two methods for assessing critical thinking in computer-mediated communications (CMC) transcripts. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(3). Retrieved 20 June 2019, from http://www.itdl.org/journal/mar_05/article02.htm
• Hawkins, K., & Power, C. B. (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision-making group discussions. Small Group Research, 30(2), 235-256.
• Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In R. Sanders & K. Fitch (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 103-146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1988). building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334.
• Kimmons, R., Veletsianos, G., & Woodward, S. (2017). Institutional uses of Twitter in U.S. higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 97–111.
• Köseoğlu, Ö., & Köker, N. E. (2014). Türk üniversiteleri Twitter’ı diyalogsal iletişim açısından nasıl kullanıyor: Beş Türk üniversitesi üzerine bir içerik analizi. [How Turkish universities use Twitter in terms of dialogical communication: A content analysis of five Turkish universities.] Global Media Journal: TR Edition, 4(8), 213-239.
• Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1978). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.
• Lin, J., & Peña, J. (2011). Are you following me? A content analysis of TV networks’ brand communication on Twitter. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 17-29.
• Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability and community dynamics in an online health community. Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction [Special Issue on Social Issues and HCI], 12(2), 201-232.
• Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people. The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Nam, C. S., Lyons, J. B., Hwang, H., & Kim, S. (2009). The process of team communication in multi-cultural contexts: An empirical study using Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 771-782.
• Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(3), 287-306.
• Palmer, S. (2013). Characterisation of the use of Twitter by Australian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 333-344.
• Paşa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(7), 559-589.
• Peña, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33(1), 92-109.
• Qiu, L., Lin, H., Ramsay, J., & Yang, F. (2012). You are what you tweet: Personality expression and perception on Twitter. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6). 710-718.
• Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. M. (2005). Online focus groups. An in-depth comparison of computer mediated and conventional focus group discussions. International Journal of Market Research, 47(2), 131-162.
• Savolainen, R. (2015). The role of emotions in online information seeking and sharing. A case study of consumer awareness. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1203-1127.
• Stiles, W. B. (1980). Comparison of dimensions derived from rating versus coding of a dialogue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 359-374.
• Tamburrini, N., Cinnirella, M., Jansen, V. A. A., & Bryden, J. (2015). Twitter users change word usage according to conversation-partner social identity. Social Networks, 40, 84-89. Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
• Washington, M., Boal, K. B., & Davis, J. N. (2008). Institutional leadership: Past, present, and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Handbook of organization institutionalism (pp. 721–736). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 121-131.
• Zhang, X., Tao, W., & Kim, S. (2014). A comparative study on global brands' micro blogs between China and USA. Focusing on communication styles and branding strategies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8(4), 231-249.
• Yielder, J., & Codling, A. (2004). Management and leadership in the contemporary university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 315-328.
• Yolcu, Ö. (2013). Twitter usage of universities in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12, 360–371. Retrieved 20 September 2017, from: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v12i2/12233.pdf
• Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–183