University Websites: Attractive or Casual?

Abstract

International student mobility is increasing around the world and the number of students who prefer Turkey for higher education is increasing every year. It is also important for universities to be able to influence students' preferences and attract more successful students. The most used and most important means of universities to introduce themselves to students coming from another country, to leave a positive image and to increase their organizational attractiveness are the corporate websites of universities. Universities create an image about themselves with the visuals they use on their websites. In this study, the image attractiveness of the websites of universities in Turkey towards international students was examined. For this purpose, it has been examined by using visual content analysis whether there are contents that will positively affect the organizational attractiveness of the university for foreign students on the home pages of the websites of state and private universities in Turkey. Among 129 state and 74 private universities in Turkey, 25 universities were selected by proportional stratified sampling method. The codes determined as a result of the visual analysis were gathered under four themes. It has been found that universities mostly include their scientific studies on their websites, and private universities give more space than state universities to the educational environments, buildings, campuses and visuals of their students interacting in these environments, which create the first impression of the university for international students.

Keywords

• University websites
• organizational image
• organizational attractiveness
• international student

References

1. Al-Qahtani, A. (2021) Website representations of Saudi Universities in Makkah region: A Critical discourse analysis approach, Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8(1), 1-30. DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2021.1895463
2. Anctil, E. J. (2008). Marketing and advertising higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(2), 89-98.
3. Anderson, C., & Reid, J. (1999). Are higher education institutions providing college-bound high school students with what they want on the Web? A study of information needs and perceptions about university and college Web pages. Proceedings of the 1999 Symposium for the Marketing of Higher Education, American Marketing Association, Chicago, 54–59.
4. Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2002). Managing the multiple identities of the Corporation. California Management Review, 44(3), 72.
5. Barich, H., & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94-104.
6. Bingöl, B., & Aksu, A. (2019). Örgütsel çekicilik ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. In Eraslan, M. (Ed.), ICHES Uluslararasi İnsani Bilimler ve Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Tam Metin Kitabı (122-129). Asos Yayınevi.
7. Brown, C., Varley, P. & Pal, J. (2009). University course selection and services marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27 (3), 310–325.
8. Cubillo, J. M., Sánchez, J., & Cervino, J. (2006). International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 101-115. DOI: 10.1108/09513540610646091

9. Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2002). Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 144-158.
10. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
11. Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation, Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695-702.
12. Greenwood, G. (2012). Examining the presence of social media on university web sites. Journal of College Admission, 216, 24-28.
13. Güler, M., & Basım, H. N. (2015). Adayların kuruma katılma niyetlerinde örgütsel çekicilik ve kurumsal itibarın etkisi, İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 2(2), 115-126.
14. Hartley, M., & Morphew, C. C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college view books. Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 671–691.
15. Highhouse, S., Lievens F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 986-101.
16. Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987) Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207-221.
17. Karani, A., Thanki, H., & Achuthan, S. (2021). Impact of university website usability on satisfaction: A structural equation modelling approach. Management and Labour Studies, 46(2), 119–138. DOI: 10.1177/0258042X21989924
18. Kennedy, S. H. (1977), Nurturing Corporate Images, European Journal of Marketing, 11(3), 119-164. DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000005007
19. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodologies. London: Sage.
20. Menon, M. E. (2004). Information search as an indication of rationality in student choice of higher education. Education Economics, 12(3), 267–283.
21. Mogaji, E. (2016). University website design in international student recruitment: Some reflections. In T. Wu & V. Naidoo (Eds.), International marketing of higher education (99–117). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Moogan, Y. J. (2011). Can a higher education institution's marketing strategy improve the student-institution match? International Journal of Educational Management, 25(6), 570–589.
23. OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/69096873-en.
24. Peker, S., Kucukozer-Cavdar, S., & Cagiltay, K. (2016). Exploring the relationship between web presence and web usability for universities: A case study from Turkey. Program: electronic library and information systems, 50(2), 157–174.
25. Polat, S., & Arslan, Y. (2017). Uluslararası öğrencilerin üniversite seçimini etkileyen etmenler. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 7(2), 94–104. doi:10.2399/yod.17.007
26. Poock, M. C., & Lefond, D. (2001). How college-bound prospects perceive university Web sites: Findings, implications, and turning browsers into applicants. C & U Journal. Summer. 15-21.
27. QS (2020). International Student Survey 2020. Retrieved from https://www.qs.com/portfolio-items/international-student-survey-2020/
28. Ramasubramanian, S., Gyure, J. F., & Mursi, N. M. (2003). Impact of internet images: Impression-formation effects of university web site images. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 12(2), 49-68.
29. Ramli, M. F. (2019). University image, culture, perceived teaching quality and recommendation as predictors that contribute to international students’ choice for place of study: Focus universities in Malaysia, Journal of Advanced Research Design. 53(1), 15-25.
30. Rose, G. (2002). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.
31. Saichaie, K. & Morphew, C. C. (2014) What college and university websites reveal about the purposes of higher education, The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 499-530. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2014.11777338
32. Tracy, P. E., & Carkin, D. M. (2014). Adjusting for design effects in disproportionate stratified sampling designs through weighting. Crime & Delinquency, 60(2), 306–325. DOI: 10.1177/0011128714522114
33. YÖK (2021). Üniversite Bazında Öğrenci Sayıları. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/