WEBOMETRİK SIRALAMA SİSTEMİNDEKİ ÜNİVERSİTELERİN KURUMSAL BAŞARILARI İLE FACEBOOK POPÜLERİTELERİ ARASINDA BİR İLİŞKİ VAR MIDIR? TÜRK ÜNİVERSİTELERİNİN BÜTÜNSEL ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Amaç: Sosyal medya bireyleri ve kurumları bir araya getiren en önemli dijital platformlar arasındadır. Dijital çağda, üniversiteler sosyal medyayı haberler ve kurumları, araştırmaları, öğretim ve sosyal faaliyetleri hakkında güncel bilgileri paylaşmak için kullanmaktadırlar. Sosyal medyada başarılı bir üniversite hesabı yönetim sürecinin belki de en önemli göstergelerinden bir tanesi takipçi sayısıdır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada üniversitelerin kurumsal başarılarının bir göstergesi olan üniversitelerin Facebook resmi hesap takip sayıları ile üniversitelerin Webometrics üniversite başarı sıralaması ölçeği arasındaki ilişki arasında bir ilişki olup olmadığını incelenmiştir. Yöntem: Çalışmada Türkiye'de bulunan 161 üniversiteye odaklanılmıştır. Bu kurumların resmi Facebook hesaplarının takipçileri ile Webometrics’de yer aldıkları başarı sıraları 2017 yılında iki farklı ikincil veri seti kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Varsayılan ilişkiler korelasyon analizleri ve SPSS 20 istatistik yazılımı kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, üniversitelerin Facebook sayfalarındaki takipçi sayıları ile Webometrics sıralama puanları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, elde ettiği bulgularla yükseköğretim kurumlarının Webometrik sıralamasındaki başarısı ile bir sosyal medya kanalındaki resmi hesap popülerlikleri arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik literatürde katkı sağlayabilecek öncü bir araştırma olacaktır. Bu araştırma sonuçları dikkate alındığında yükseköğretim kurumlarının üst yöneticileri ve üniversitelerin kurumsal değer yönetimi için katkı sağlayacağı beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal başarı sıralaması
• Sosyal medya popülerliği
• Üniversiteler
• Webometriks

IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONAL SUCCESS OF UNIVERSITIES IN WEBOMETRIC RANKING SYSTEM AND THEIR POPULARITY ON FACEBOOK? A HOLISTIC CASE OF TURKISH UNIVERSITIES

Öz

Purpose: Social media is among the most important digital platforms that bring individuals and institutions together. In the digital age, universities use social media to share news and updates about the institution, research, teaching, and social activities. Perhaps, one of the most critical indicators of success in the university account management process in social media might be the number of followers. Hence, this study examined whether there is a relationship between universities’ Facebook official account follower counts and universities’ position in the Webometrics university success ranking scale, which is an indicator of universities' institutional success. Method: The present study focused on 161 universities located in Turkey. The official Facebook accounts of these institutions and ranking success position in Webometrics were examined by using two different secondary data sets from 2017. Findings: The assumed relationships were tested through correlation analyses by using SPSS 20 statistical software. The results showed that there was a significant relationship between universities’ follower counts on Facebook pages and Webometrics ranking scores. Originality: This study would be pioneering research that can contribute to the literature on the relationship between the success of higher education institutions in Webometric ranking and the popularity of official accounts in a social media channel. Considering the results of this research, it is expected that the top managers of higher education institutions and universities will contribute to institutional value management.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institutional ranking success
• Social media popularity
• Universities
• Webometrics.

Kaynakça

1. Adi, A. (2015). Occupy PR: An analysis of online media communications of occupy Wall Street and occupy London. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 508-514. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.001.
2. Adi, A., Miah, A. (2011). Open source protest: Human rights, online activism, and the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. In Lester, L., Cottle, S. (Eds.), Transnational protest and the media: Toward global civil society (pp. 213-224). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
3. Adi, A., & Moloney, K. (2012). The importance of scale in occupy movement protests: A case study of a local occupy protest as a communication tool through public relations and social media. Revista Internacional De Relaciones Públicas, 4(2), 97-122.
4. Allagui, I., & Breslow, H. (2016). Social media for public relations: Lessons from four effective cases. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 20-30. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.12.001
5. Anisimova O., Vasylenko V., Fedushko S. (2019). Social networks as a tool for a higher education institution image creation. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2392, 54-65. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2392/paper5.pdf
6. Avidar, R. (2011). Israeli public relations and the internet. Israel Affairs, 17(3), 401-421.
7. Basil, D. Z., & Erlandson, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility website representations: A longitudinal study of internal and external self‐presentations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 125-137. doi:10.1080/13527260701858497
8. Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the internet: How fortune 500 company websites assist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29-41. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00196-0

9. Chen, K., & Chan, A. H. S. (2014). Predictors of geotechnology acceptance by older Hong Kong Chinese. Technovation, 34(2), 126-135. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.010
10. Chen, X., Chen, O, & Chen, N. (2012). How public relations functions as news sources in China. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 697-703. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.04.007
11. Childers, L. (1989). J. Grunig’s asymmetrical and symmetrical models of public relations: Contrasting features and ethical dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(2), 89-93.
12. Constantinides, E., & Stagno, M. C. Z. (2012). Higher education marketing: A study on the impact of social media on study selection and university choice. International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing (IJTEM), 2(1), 41-58.
13. Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by non-profit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 90-92. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.003
14. De Bussy, N. M., & Wolf, K. (2009). The state of Australian public relations: Professionalization and paradox. Public Relations Review, 35(4), 376-381. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.07.005
15. Desai, S., & Han, M. (2019, April). Social media content analytics beyond the text: A case study of university branding in Instagram. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Southeast Conference, 94-101.
16. DiStaso, M. W., McCorkindale, T., & Wright, D. K. (2011). How public relations executives perceive and measure the impact of social media in their organizations. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 325-328.
17. Doolan, D. M., & Froelicher, E. S. (2009). Using an existing data set to answer new research questions: A methodological review. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 23(3), 203-215.
18. Dougall, E. K. (2006). Tracking organization public relationships over time: A framework for longitudinal research. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 174-176. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.012
19. Ridley, D. (2017). How today’s colleges and universities are using social media. Retrieved from Vital Design https://vtldesign.com/digital-marketing/social-media/how-todays-colleges-and-universities-are-using-social-media.
20. Eger, L., Egerova, D., & Kryston, M. (2019). Facebook and public relations in higher education. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 21(1), 7-30.
21. Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-319.
22. Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000). Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327-344.
23. Eyrich, N., Padman, M.L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication technology. Public Relations Review, 34(4), 412-414. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.010.
24. Frame, A., & Brachotte, G. (2015). Le tweet stratégique: Use of Twitter as a PR tool by French politicians. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 278-287. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.005.
25. FUTURARTS (2011). Üniversitelerin Sosyal Medya Kullanımı, Retrieved from: https://futurarts.wordpress.com/ (Access Date: August 24, 2017).
26. Gümüş, N., Türkel, E., & Gözde, Ş. E. N. (2015). Üniversite tercihlerinde öğrencilerin yararlandıkları bilgi kaynaklarının belirlenmesine yönelik kastamonu üniversitesi öğrencileri üzerinde bir araştırma. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 43-67.
27. Hallahan, K. (2001). Improving public relations websites through usability research. Public Relations Review, 27(2), 223-239. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00082-0.
28. Hox, J.J., & Boeije, H.R. (2005). Data collection, primary versus secondary. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 593-599.
29. Hou, Z., Zhu, Y., & Bromley, M. (2013). Understanding public relations in China: Multiple logics and identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(3), 308-328. doi:10.1177/1050651913479926.
30. Internet World Stats. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/. (Access Date: June 13, 2020).
31. Jun, J. (2011). How climate change organizations utilize websites for public relations. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 245-249. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.04.001.
32. Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (2nd ed), pp. 643-656. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
33. Kilic, A, O., & Ataberk, U. (2012). Social media adoption among Turkish public relations professionals: A survey of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 56-63. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.11.002.
34. Kimmons, R., Veletsianos, G., & Woodward, S. (2017). Institutional uses of Twitter in US higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 97-111.
35. Lahav, T. (2014). Public relations activity in the new media in Israel 2012: Changing relationships. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 25-32. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.12.007.
36. Lee, H.-Y., Ahn, H., Kim, H. K., & Lee, J. (2014). Comparative analysis of trust in online communities. Procedia Computer Science, 31, 1140-1149. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.370.
37. Lee, H., Park, Sun- A., Lee, Young Ah., & Cameron, G.T. (2010). Assessment of motion media on believability and credibility: An exploratory study. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 310-312. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.003.
38. Lee, W., Xiong, L., & Hu, C. (2012). The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence on intention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 819-827. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.018.
39. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through twitter: How non-profit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313-318. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005.
40. Magee, T., Lee, S.M., Giuliano, K.K., & Munro, B. (2006). Generating new knowledge from existing data: The use of large data sets for nursing research. Nursing Research, 55(2), 50-56.
41. Maresova, P., Hruska, J., & Kuca, K. (2020). Social media university branding. Education Sciences, 10(3), 74.
42. McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: a ten-year reflective survey on dialogic internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 320-322.
43. Momoc, A. (2013). Social media-PR tools for Romanian politicians? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 81, 116-121. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.398.
44. Moore, J.H., & Carlson, A. (2013). Reaching the audience: New communication technology practices in college sports public relations. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 23(1), 109-126. doi:10.1080/21639159.2012.744515.
45. Myers, C. (2015). An analysis of social media ownership litigation between organizations and PR practitioners. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 515-522. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.003.
46. Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Jung, Y., & Cole, R. T. (2013). Engagement across three social media platforms: An exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 526-533. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.09.013.
47. Rubin, A. (2011). Living in the age of emotional rationality: Wendell bell, social media and the challenges of value change. Futures, 43(6), 583-589. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.04.006.
48. Sanderson, J., Barnes, K., Williamson, C., & Kian, E. T. (2016). 'How could anyone have predicted that #askjameis would go horribly wrong?' Public relations, social media, and hashtag hijacking. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 31-37. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.005.
49. Seçkiner, E. B., & Tahtalioğlu, H. (2017). Türkiye'de üniversitelerin sosyal medya kullanimi: Gazi Üniversitesi örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakülte Dergisi, 22(Kayfor 15 özel sayısı), 2405-2423.
50. Shin, J.-H., Carithers, H., Lee, S., Graham, M., & Hendricks, N. (2013). The current trends in social media usage at corporations: analysis of Facebook fan pages of fortune 500 companies. In Al-Deen, H. S. N. & Hendricks, J. A. (Eds.), Social media and strategic communications (pp. 62-79). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
51. Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M.A. (1993). Secondary research: Information sources and methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52. Sommerfeldt, E. J., Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2012). Activist practitioner perspectives of website public relations: Why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the dialogic promise? Public Relations Review, 38(2), 303-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.001.
53. Toledano, M., & Avidar, R. (2016). Public relations, ethics, and social media: A cross-national study of PR practitioners. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 161-169. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.012.
54. Toledano, M., & Wolland, L. (2011). Ethics 2.0: Social media implications for professional communicators. ethical space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 8(3-4), 43.
55. Triantafillidou, A., & Yannas, P. (2014). How public relations agencies in Greece respond to digital trends. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 815-817. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.09.004.
56. Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media “Good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170-177. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.009.
57. Valentini, C., & Kruckeberg, D. (2012). New media versus social media: A conceptualization of their meanings, uses, and implications for public relations. In S. Duhe (Ed.), New Media and Public Relations, (pp.3-12). Newyork: Peter Lang.
58. Van Der Meer., T. G. L. A., Verhoeven, P., Beentjes, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). When frames align: the interplay between PR, news media, and the public in times of crisis. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 751-761. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.008.
59. Van Leuven, S., Deprez, A., & Raeymaeckers, K. (2013). Towards more balanced news access? a study on the impact of cost-cutting and web 2.0 on the mediated public sphere. Journalism, 15(7), 850-867. doi:10.1177/1464884913501837.
60. Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., & Verčič, D. (2012). How European PR practitioners handle digital and social media. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 162-164. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.015.
61. Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how non-profit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102-106. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006.
62. Webometrics. (2017). Ranking web of universities in Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.webometrics.info/en/Asia/Turkey (Access Date: June 10, 2020).
63. Webometrics. (2021a, January). Current calculation of indicators. Ranking web of universities. Retrieved from http://www.webometrics.info/en/Methodology. (Access Date: June 10, 2020).
64. Webometrics. (2021b, January). Methodology. Ranking web of universities. Retrieved from http://www.webometrics.info/en/Methodology. (Access Date: June 10, 2020).
65. Webometrics. (2021c, January). Philosophy and justification. ranking web of universities. Retrieved from http://www.webometrics.info/en/Methodology. (Access Date: June 10, 2020).
66. Willis, P. (2015). Preach wine and serve vinegar: public relations, relationships, and doublethink. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 681-688. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.004.
67. Xifra, J., & Huertas, A. (2008). Blogging PR: An exploratory analysis of public relations weblogs. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 269-275. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.022.
68. Ufuk, M. Üniversitelerin yeni yıldızı sosyal medya. Retrieved from http://www.Yeniakit.Com.Tr/Haber/Universitelerin-Yeni-Yildizi-Sosyal-Medya-11993.Html (Access date: February 24, 2021).
69. Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business & Society. 47(1), 68-101.