Institutional Identity Practices on Twitter
Öz
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.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Interaction Process Analysis,positionings,identity practice,twitter
Destekleyen Kurum
Proje Numarası
Teşekkür
Kaynakça
- 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.