universities’crisis of imagehow journalismimpacts on the value of highereducation

Mario Creatura

Copyright © Mario Creatura 2011All rights reserved.

www.linkedin.com/in/mariocreaturaEmail mario_creatura@hotmail.comTwitter @MarioCreaturaBlog mariocreatura.blogspot.com

Edited and typeset by Adam D’SouzaSet in Comfortaa and Caslon

Mario Creatura is a PR practitioner, specialising in higher education communications and campaigns. He is passionate about reforming government engagement and contributes to Platform 10, a blog campaigning for a modern, progressive Conservative Party. Experience includes PR and digital communications at the University of Surrey, corporate communications for the 1994 Group and supporting the National Union of Students in political strategy. He studied classics at Royal Holloway, where he held a Dangoor Scholarship, and recently became a Member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.

ContentsIntroduction 4

Methodology 6

Analysis 9

Individual perceptions 13

Conclusions & recommendations 23

Appendix 26

Bibliography 31

3

Under the last Government, an enquiry was commissioned to examine the potential for overhauling the funding system for British universities.

Former BP chief executive Lord Browne of Madingley was recruited to head this inquisitorial team who, after much deliberation and consultation, released the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding in October 2010. The ultimate result? ‘Rather than the Government providing a block grant for teaching to higher education institutions, their finance now follows the student who has chosen and been admitted to study. Choice is in the hands of the student.’

On adopting the main thrust of the Browne Review, but intent on keeping a cap on £9,000 fees per year, the 2010 Coalition Government decided that a large reduction in funding and a significant re-prioritisation of the role of the student within an organisation was essential to the long-term strategic future of the sector.

Following the New Labour drive to increase the number of young people in higher education, in 2000 it was reported that 39% of people between the ages of 18 and 30 entered HE, with one in 10 failing to find employment within six months of graduating. By 2010 admissions had risen to 45% with up to 40,000 failing to get a job in the same period. Parents and students have started to ask themselves: what is higher education for? What do I get for my investment? Should we take the risk? Where is the value in higher education?

These questions and more have intensified over the last year as a result of significant policy developments in the sector. The undeniable intensification

4

Introduction

of media coverage demonstrates an insatiable public appetite for the trials and tribulations of British universities. Prime-time media slots have displayed disgruntled students, horrific protest marches and union walkouts. Parents have been interviewed fearing for their children’s future; and academics fearing for their jobs. All of this has been documented in meticulous detail for the nation to witness in horror. For better or for worse, could this influence the public perception of higher education?

Now more than ever, a strategic imperative is emerging to create a narrative of success and value in an ever more crowded international university market. All institutions are fighting for an ever decreasing, ever more discerning group of students; fussier research funding and the same positive media spaces. Good communication management matters more now than ever before. With the work of in-house teams and politically aligned representative groups being dragged into the national arena, a desperate battle has begun to convince the British public of the worth of higher education.

This research aims to test the hypothesis that the reporting of higher education in the media has impacted negatively on the overall perception of the value of HE in Britain. It aims to chart the disconnect between communications from large sector organisations and compare and contrast this against the sentiment expressed by the print media at large.

I hope to be able to conclude with an accurate summary of the reputational issues facing HE communications strategies over the coming years by highlighting the disparity between how the sector wants to be seen and how they are seen.

5

Research parametersThis research examines the reputational disconnect between the sentiments

expressed about HE in the media, and that which is desired by HE groups. Due to the wealth of commentary and media activity surrounding higher education, strict parameters of investigation have had to be enforced to remove as many variables as possible. It was decided that five key dates in the sector over the last year would be used to focus the research. These are:

12 October 2010Launch of the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding

10 November 2010Education White Paper, The NUS/UCU ‘Demo-lition’ protests

24 November 2010The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts demonstration

9 December 2010Government wins Parliamentary vote to increase tuition feesNUS/ULU and NCAFC Parliament Square demonstration

28 June 2011The launch of the Government Higher Education White Paper

Methodology

6

7

Based on these defined periods, a media content analysis will be carried out alongside news and message outputs from several large higher education organisations. There are many such organisations so for the purposes of this small study they have been limited to:

Universities UK•The Russell Group•The 1994 Group•University Alliance•The National Union of Students •The Universities and Colleges Union•

It is important to note the necessary restrictions in the methodology were largely a result of limitations in budget and research time allocation. As I discuss in Conclusions and Recommendations (see page 23) there is an opportunity for more detailed research to be undertaken over a more defined period to supply a comprehensive reputational analysis of the impact of the media on higher education perceptions. This ideally would include all content analysis and not be restricted solely by landmark dates.

Media content analysisTo answer the research question, I conducted an analysis of all of the online

content of UK weekday newspapers on the five dates stated above. As the unit of analysis I used the words “higher” and “education” and “universities” or searched on the publication’s website.

The publications concerned are: The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Independent, The Daily Mirror, The Sun and The Daily Star. The Times and The Financial Times were excluded from the analysis due to their content being restricted to only those with pay wall access. The Daily Sport was excluded as it ceased publication in April 2011 and therefore does not complete the period of investigation.

Data was collated by publication, headline, date, and writer and allocated a favourability rating using the following criteria:

8

Positive: article generally reported favourably of higher education.Neutral: factual reporting with no comment.Negative: article opposed or used largely negative language in reference to higher education.

It is worth noting that local and regional media were excluded from the sampling due to cost of collection and statistically less readership impact. Other forms of media including television, radio and online commentary were also excluded on similar grounds. This restriction also applies to the use of print media where difficulty in locating past publications added to the potential cost of collecting clippings over the total year long period of investigation.

The ultimate purpose of the media content analysis is to answer two of the questions needed for the co-orientational model1:

1. What are the print media’s actual views on the issue?2. What is the dominant view within the media of the HE organisation’s views?

The second survey was open to the public to gauge general feedback on the questions from a user perspective:

1. What do the public think the value of higher education is?2. What do the public believe others believe the value of higher education is?3. Does the public believe the value of higher education is accurately represented in the media?4. Does the public believe that the print media has a positive, neutral or negative impact on the perception of HE?

This is intended for comparison with the distilled core messages from the representative organisations and from the media content analysis. The aim being to find out which of the statements resonates most closely with respondents’ perceptions of the value of higher education.

1 See Appendix (page 26) for discussion of the co-orientational model

9

Analysis

Media content analysisIn total there were 204 articles concerning higher education over the five

dates. As can be easily seen from the general chart below, the vast majority of them are negative in their framing of the sector. It must be noted that although the five dates were selected as a result of key legislative landmarks for the sector, that it also captures the corresponding high-profile demonstrations. Although it could be argued that these events could have ‘skewed’ the data, they were judged to have been impactful as defined by Fan’s (1988) theory of infons.

10

Negative Neutral PositiveTelegraph 49 26 26Guardian 44 36 20Mail 73 9 18Independent 62 24 14Mirror 81 19 0Express 81 19 0Star 92 8 0Sun 100 0 0

Percentage of reports out of total reported on

There is a correlation between the number of pieces published about higher education and the number of positive articles. The more articles written, the more favourably they tend to look upon the sector. Those that are traditionally broadsheets write more and look more favourably upon HE. This is a larger issue and certainly worth examining in future research: what is the reason for the general lack of coverage about universities in tabloid publications?

Although The Sun had the fewest stories about higher education they were entirely negative, focusing mainly on the violent disruption of the demonstrations and very little on the factual process that created them. The same is true of The Daily Star though they had one neutral piece laying out the factual conditions of the Parliamentary vote, which is encouraging.

Detailed analysis of data from each of the dates clearly demonstrate the favourability of language used when reporting on higher education in each of the publications.

If one studies the change in content versus favourability over time, it can be seen that The Daily Express and The Daily Star were the two publications that most consistently produced negative coverage over the five dates. More detailed analysis of the dates in between these would certainly produce a more accurate picture about the publication’s position on the value of higher education.

11

Core message analysisAs stated in the Methodology, public statements from the HE

organisations were collated from their websites and statements. These were then, where possible, supplemented from responses from surveys answered by the groups.

Universities UK“Universities contribute to a healthier, more co-operative and more democratic

nation. Universities improve political engagement, foster interpersonal trust and improve health, benefiting the whole population, not just those who went to university. UUK estimates the value of these outcomes alone is £1.31 billion. They also generate higher social mobility, support volunteering and culture.”

The Russell Group“Universities play a major role in the intellectual, cultural and economic life

of the UK. Researchers are furthering our understanding of the world, pursuing new knowledge for its own sake, and are also helping to find solutions to global challenges. They play a major role in raising aspirations and awareness and in transmitting the values of a common culture across all segments of society. They provide vital elements in the cultural life of our nation and its regions. Universities actively contribute to their local communities and economies, yet also influence and achieve impact on a truly global scale. Universities create and catalyse a diverse range of economic activity which has a major impact on the economy of the UK.”

The 1994 Group“We view higher education as an integral part of the UK’s social and economic

fabric. Universities and other HEIs produce well-rounded, well-educated graduates; and produce the research innovation needed to drive forward the economy and provide insight to social issues. They also play a huge role in the global stage, helping to foster understanding and relations that extend beyond national borders.”

University Alliance“Higher education is essential to the economic, cultural, ethical, social,

political and educational (etc.) development of the world.”

The National Union of Students “The NUS believes in the value of higher education for the individual as a

driver of social mobility as well as the cultural, social and intellectual value of that education to the individual. Society benefits economically from the export of higher education and from the extra productivity of graduates as well as from the intangible benefits that learning and knowledge bring.”

The Universities and Colleges Union“UK universities add at least £1.31 billion a year in value to UK society in

the form of health and well-being, citizenship and political engagement. The best way to advance social mobility is to invest in education and people’s life chances. The government should take account of the social contributions made by higher education and value them accordingly. As well as universities’ obvious benefits to the economy, they also do much more that has not always been easily measurable. Education is key if people are to be given the best chance to get on in life.”

12

13

Individual perceptions

According to Broom and Dozier (1990), to find out the disparity between the agreement, accuracy and perceived agreement, the views of the individuals

within the organisation must be sought.All respondents to the HE organisation survey were answering the questions

in a personal capacity. A selection of qualitative answers has been supplied for contextual analysis.

Responses from HE organisations’ spokesmenTo what extent does your organisation believe that the way Higher Education is portrayed in the media has an impact on the public perception of the sector?

100% of those who participated in the survey believed that the media impacted on the public perception of the sector to a great extent. They also commented that:

“The media obviously has an impact on public perception and probably influences the public focus on the economics of higher education.”

“The vast majority of the public most likely view higher education in terms of undergraduate students.’

“It will vary enormously according to geographic, educational and cultural background. Sadly, far too few know enough about it and misperceptions,

14

often created by politicians and the media, do inordinate damage. Even those who understand and value the contributions to all aspects of life made by HE frequently do NOT understand how universities work best and fixate on financial, political and social-engineering arguments.”

“Too many people, at all levels and despite many professing not to be, are influenced by what they read or see in the news. It is only human nature, especially if your ‘favourite’ media channel takes a political view in line with your own.”

Does your organisation believe that the media is accurately presenting the value of higher education?

Here there is a divergence of opinion with no consensus emerging. It is worth noting that none of the respondents believed that the media was wholly accurate in its representation of HE:

“Sometimes accurate: The debate in the media almost always comes from an economic point of view, and focuses on the financial vale of skills.”

“Usually accurate: The ways in which HE is presented in the media is usually accurate, but limited. The mainstream press focus mainly on issues around undergraduate education (and funding) to the exclusion of (e.g.) research.”

“Rarely accurate: Even when there is a basis of truth in a story, the need to make it ‘newsworthy’ often results in distortion, misuse or biased selection of the facts. I say ‘rarely’ mainly because I don’t believe most reporters or investigators know or understand enough about it.”

Do you believe that your organisation’s messages are accurately represented in the media?

Here, two thirds of respondents believed that their organisation’s messages were usually accurately presented: [Usually accurate] “The media have a specific editorial point of view that they

15

stick to and it can be hard to get more subtle messages communicated but our messages on individual topics are accurately represented.”

[Usually accurate] “When our messages are picked up by the media they are generally presented accurately. However, the media is very selective about what it picks up, with messaging around undergraduate admissions and funding issues most likely to gain traction.”

[Rarely accurate] “Any organisation/institution obviously wants ‘its’ message to be presented in the media in the way that it wants. The media either tries to be ‘independent’ or has its own angle on a story: as it writes the piece, its version is the one that goes out.”

Responses from the public96 people completed the public survey. The quantitative data is shown on the

following pages, along with Wordles for the qualitative answers to highlight key repeated themes. This visually represents the most common descriptive phrases used when answering the questions. The larger the font size, the more the word was used.

16

Is there, in your opinion, a value to higher education?Here there is evidently an overwhelming feeling amongst participants that there is a value in HE and that this is closely connected to providing societal benefits which are tied closely to the promulgation of knowledge; the impact on careers and the benefit to individual development.

How do you believe members of the public perceive the value of higher education? The most common theme in answering this question was the view that it depends on the individual’s experience when interacting socially or with media about higher education. The more positive their experience in either, the more positive they are likely to view the sector.

17

What do you believe the following newspapers’ views are on the value of HE?Interestingly there is a disconnect between the public’s view of the print

media outlets and the content analysis. Of those publications where respondents thought they understood the view of the paper, The Guardian in particular was believed to be the champion of positive HE coverage (85%) when analysis shows otherwise (20%). Similarly it was perceived that The Guardian had limited negative coverage (3%) when content demonstrated 44%.

The Daily Telegraph was perceived to be 8% negative, 43% neutral and 30% positive when it was actually 49%, 26% and 26% respectively. As suggested earlier, these results may alter were a longer-term media content analysis to be carried out.

Do you believe that the way the media currently portrays the value of higher education is accurate?A unanimous vote for inaccurate in most answers with the view being that the only coverage is “simplistic” and concerns little more than discussion about fees designed to “sell papers”.

18

To what extent do you believe that the way Higher Education is portrayed in the media has an impact on the public perception of the sector?Replies believed that although the views expressed in the media were a “representation” of the sector, that it was generally felt that these were “twisted” either by the outlet or by the individuals quoted to pursue a particular agenda or “angle”. The general consensus was that the story would follow what would sell the most papers and not necessarily that which is totally free from bias.

19

20

Findings applied to communications theoryBroom and Dozier’s co-orientational model is designed to help discover

three things: agreement, accuracy and perceived agreement. To do this I had to provide satisfactory answers to the following questions:

What are the organisation’s views on the issue?1. What is the dominant view within the organisation of the public’s view?2. What are the public’s actual views on the issue?3. What is the dominant view within the public of the organisation’s views?4.

With the substitution of the ‘organisation’ for ‘HE groups’, the public as ‘the UK print media’ with the issue being ‘what do we think of the value of higher education?’ then it would follow that, once the model is applied, then agreement, accuracy and perceived agreement between those providing the information and those mass communicating the information can be ascertained.

So in answer to the first question – the HE organisation view of the value of higher education:

It is important to note that the terms used when describing the value of higher education by these groups are entirely positive. Repeated words such as social, culture, life, political, economy and global all align with the positive messaging that was analysed from the statements and releases made on the five

21

identified dates.Note, however, that there are striking differences between the views of the

HE organisations and the members of the public surveyed. However, this falls out of the remit of this research so I shall not comment extensively on this fascinating area further.

The second question asks what the HE organisations believe the view of the media is. This was collected from the organisational survey where they were asked if they believed HE was fairly represented in the print media. They believed that, although their messages were usually fairly represented, the framing and presentation of those issues is generally dictated by what is ‘newsworthy’ rather than what is necessarily accurate. The HE sector is almost always portrayed in economic terms and therefore tends to use biased facts to create an easy to digest news narrative.

The third question focuses on how the media actually views higher education. As seen from the media content analysis this is far from favourable with the most positive articles coming from The Daily Telegraph at only 26% of its total coverage and the least negative pieces proportionally coming from The Guardian at 44%. All other publications had proportionally more negative articles than The Guardian and significantly less positive stories than The Daily Telegraph.

The fourth question seeks to discover what the print media thinks the HE organisations think. With a logistical and temporal difficulty in ‘asking the print media’ the public were asked whether they thought that universities were fairly represented in the media. As stated earlier the public believed that universities views were rarely fairly represented 57% of the time, 47% believed that they were usually fairly represented.

Is there agreement on the issue between the two groups? No. Content analysis from the HE organisations generally portrays the value of HE in a positive light whereas the media content analysis paints a largely negative picture.

When it comes to perceived accuracy, the HE organisations generally believe that there is a media bias against them, but that they are still able to gain some fair representation. The public, however, believe that HE is generally rarely fairly represented.

Finally, are their views about each other’s position accurate? Statistically the

22

organisations underestimate the negative position they hold in the print media. Similarly the print media’s negative position does not align with the largely positive releases coming from the groups.

“False consensus” is therefore the concluding label for the relationship between HE organisations and the print media. There is actual disagreement on what constitutes the value of higher education and this, to a greater or lesser extent, is wrongly perceived by both parties.

Conclusions and recommendations

There is a wide gap between the positions of the higher education organisations and the presentation of the value of HE by print media. The perceived and

defined value of higher education must be clarified in order to strengthen the future of the HE sector for the continued economic, social, cultural and political contributions that it makes to Britain.

There are several campaigns currently in operation (including one by Universities UK) that are focusing on clearing up confusion specifically on the subject of the new tuition fees system. There are also individual institutionally focused recruitment publicity drives aimed at extolling the virtues of studying at their location to a higher level. There is nothing co-ordinated nationally.

It is the altering of the general perception of the value of higher education that must be the focus of a nationally unified campaign. The aim should be to better the communications between HE organisations and the media by cultivating relationships that enable it to not only change what people know and feel about the sector, but also to increase the accuracy of their perceptions of how it impacts on their lives.

The following is advised for preliminary discussion:Sector-wide media relations strategies•Internal communication reinforcement between HE groups and •

23

institutionsContinued and enhanced non-partisan thought-leadership initiatives.•Comprehensive endorsement of widening participation initiatives and •information, advice and guidance.Joined up corporate social responsibility programmes, internally and with •the professions, both locally and nationally.

Following the launch of targeted reputation-focused campaigns, public opinion surveys should ideally be regularly commissioned to track changes in attitude towards the HE sector.

Research developmentsThe stringent parameters of the project assignment criteria have led to a

number of variables that affect the results of this analysis. Were I to carry out this research project again, with additional time and resource, the results would be infinitely more concrete and would be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Selection of areas for future improvement of data reliability:Enhancing the surveying technique to include more quantitative options•Source gathering to include physical print and not just online media.•Expand the dates so include a larger, and more varied, period of time.•Include the use of other forms of media, including digital and broadcast.•Include more HE organisations and refine data presentation techniques.•

There are many opportunities for further research. Suggestions include:Carry out study with similar research objectives but include all forms of •accessible media.Investigate reasons for a lack of higher education coverage in the tabloid •press and suggest ways to overcome.Investigate the disparity between the general public’s view of the value of •higher education and the view of the HE organisations.

It has been demonstrated in this minor piece of research that the media is

24

perceived to have an impact on the perception of the value of higher education. The views of people who tend to have little interaction with the sector (other than what they read or watch) must, based on the findings in this report, be altered to ensure the long-term respect and financial stability of British higher education. The same applies to all others who come into contact with universities.

David Weiner (2006) accurately sums up the communication challenges and opportunities now faced by the HE sector: “The Chinese expression for crisis, wei ji, is a combination of two words – danger and opportunity. While no company would willingly submit itself to the dangers inherent in a crisis, the company that weathers a crisis well understands that opportunity can come out of adversity. A well-managed crisis response, coupled with an effective recovery program, will leave stakeholders with a favourable impression and renewed confidence in the affected company.”

We should take his advice.

25

AppendixLiterature review

26

Grunig and Repper (1992) extolled what they believe to be the key requirements of a strategically managed communications function in a

corporate organisation. “To be strategic,” they write, “public relations must pass one basic test: at a minimum, everything done must be aligned with the corporate vision or mission – the company’s reason for being – and must substantially contribute to achieving the organisation’s objectives.” This seems logical, but relies on something that is arguably missing from the HE sector – the singular, defined reason for it existing in its current guise.

It is a noted difficulty in the sector that many different institutions have many different strategic objectives both in terms of research, recruitment and policy, all of which make sector-wide representation on key issues fraught with reputational risks. Olson’s (1982) theory of collective action was developed to demonstrate the power that groups can have in affecting organisational policy. According to Olson, for greatest impact the group must “actively seek to influence and change a condition…committed and organised behind appropriate leadership to reach their goals – which could be political, economic, or social.” But it is when separate groups all fighting over the same core issues discover the power of the mass media, that effective definition of an organisations core objectives becomes evermore complex.

Larissa Grunig (1992) argues that “media coverage conveys legitimacy.

27

Agenda-setting theory holds that the media provide a form of legitimacy and confer status on the individuals involved in activism.” It is with this observation that the risk associated with a negative portrayal of higher education in the media is at its most critical as Olien, Donohue and Tichenor (1978) reinforce: “Investigators in ‘agenda-setting’ research have frequently concluded that media coverage of events creates citizen definition of the importance of those events.”

But does the media, whether positive or not, influence perceived reputation? Graber (1993) believes that media impact on the political status quo is more readily demonstrated when the focus “shifts from individuals who learn particular stories after a single brief exposure, to political socialisation through exposure to multiple stories covering the same topic areas over extended periods of time; and to political images and values shared by groups of people who have been socialized in the same environment.” There is much evidence to show that audiences learn generalised perceptions of their world from the media over long periods of time. So provided that there is a consistent message theme, Graber’s meta-analysis argues that the media can influence crucial perceptions.

However, there is some evidence that media images do not create precise blueprints for what the public thinks about political and social issues. Barkin (1985) claims that interaction with the media “presents a first draft of reality, which audiences then edit, revise and reformulate to fit into the thinking structures of individual audience members”, but that this only goes so far as the parameters defined by the level of information received. In other words the amount of extrapolation and interpretation of what is viewed or read in the media will only be interpreted if it equates to another mass media source.

Edelman (1988) supported both Graber and Barkin’s claim when he wrote about the role individual media producers or journalists play in shaping public opinion. He believed that even those who claimed to be simply a “mirror on the world” failed to acknowledge that journalists “play a very active part in providing the raw materials and the tools for creating and sustaining cognitive, emotional, and moral beliefs that undergird our society’s political structures and policies.” The way in which media producers view the world and their constant repetition lends them the “aura of public legitimacy” and the potential impact on changing an audience’s perception which “fluctuates depending on journalists’ choices of

subject matter and framing.”Fan (1988) wrote about the “predictions of public opinion from the mass

media” and compared different methods of analysing persuasive meaning in texts. Fan concluded that although there can be several different positions represented within an article, the overall balance of the piece is what alters perception and persuades the reader: “Although several infons [a message component favouring one of the possible positions being considered] within a message can favour the same position, each individual infon can only support one position. Whenever a message supports more than one position, that message must be divided into infons, at least one for each of the positions favoured.” Organisational identity is defined by Löwensberg (2006) as being the sum total of proactive, reactive and unintentional activities and messages of organisations and is largely determined by internal reputational processes. What this means in practice is that the sentiment and overall tone of messages will influence the corporate image, their reputation and the perceived identity of the sector.

Mizerski (1982) asserts that the main reason that negative publicity is so powerful is due to its high credibility as well as the “negativity effect”, that being a tendency for negative information to be weighted more than positive information in the evaluation of people, objects, and ideas. This is not helped when the prevalence of bad press is also taken into account – Dennis and Merrill’s (1996) research shows that the media has a preference for reporting negative stories.

Negative representation by the media has been demonstrated as having a strong impact on the perceptions of those audience members who had little interest in the story at the start. Ahluwali et al (2000) investigated consumer commitment to a brand and subjected this brand to negative publicity. They argued that low-committed audience members would show greater changes in attitude to negative information when compared to positive information. High-commitment consumers do not. Their evidence supported the hypothesis that negative information does affect reputation, but has significantly more impact on those who had no view before messaging took place. This provides significant cause for concern with the reputation of higher education in the public consciousness if negative media framing of the sector can be demonstrated.

28

29

The relationship between an organisation and one of its publics, says Broom and Dozier (1990), is partly a result of what the individuals know about the organisation and visa versa. How the two constituents then feel about each other also has an impact on the relationship, though this may not be based on any factual knowledge. They assert that the most frequently used audit of public-organisational relationships involves:

Conducting interviews or document reviews to establish the organisations position 1. on an issue.Surveying members of the target public to determine the prevalent view of the 2. same issue.Calculating the distance between the two sides of the issue. 3.

Although this is a simple method of analysis, Broom and Dozier believe that there is a more complete method of reputational analysis known as the ‘co-orientational model’ where the four questions that need to be answered are:

What are the organisation’s views on the issue?1. What is the dominant view within the organisation of the public’s view?2. What are the public’s actual views on the issue?3. What is the dominant view within the public of the organisation’s views?4.

Using these four questions it is possible to discover three things:

First, agreement – this represents the extent to which the organisation and public hold similar views on the issue (including both their definitions and evaluation of the issue).

Second, accuracy – this indicates the extent to which one side’s estimate of the other’s views is similar to the other’s actual views.

Third, perceived agreement – the extent to which one side’s views are similar to their estimate of the other’s views.

Whereas the first audit estimates the gap between the organisation and its public on agreement, the co-orientational model incorporates analysis of the

potential critical impact of perceived agreement and the inaccurate perception that it generates. When using the co-orientational model, there are several different possible outcomes.

If the two sides hold accurate perceptions of each other’s position on an issue then there are two possible results from the audit. The first is that true consensus occurs - where both the public and the organisation both agree on an issue and accurately know that the other agrees. If the two sides disagree on an issue and know that they disagree then dissensus occurs.

When one or both in the relationship hold inaccurate views of the other’s position, two so called ‘false states’ are possible. False consensus occurs when there is actual disagreement that is wrongly perceived as agreement. False conflict occurs when there is actual agreement that is inaccurately perceived as disagreement.

When dissensus occurs, the relationship issue revolves around accurately held perceptions so the constituents should develop strategies to change their own or the other’s position to improve the quality and effectiveness of the relationship. However, where false consensus and conflict are concerned it is the altering of perception that needs to be the focus of any campaign. The result should be to better the relationship between an organisation and its publics by not only changing what people know and feel about an issue and each other, but also by increasing the accuracy of their perceptions of each other’s views.

With a few minor alterations, could the co-orientational model be used to answer the research question? If we substitute the “organisation” for “HE groups”, the public for “the UK print media”, with the issue being “what do we think of the value of higher education?” then it would follow that once the model is applied then agreement, accuracy and perceived agreement between those providing the information and those mass communicating the information can be ascertained to support the hypothesis that media is influencing the nation’s view on the value of higher education.

This is the theory that underpins this research paper.

30

Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E. and Unnava, H.R. (2000) “Consumer response to negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment”, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, pp. 203-214.

Barkin Steve M. (1985) “Introduction: media and society, social reality and media representations” in Gurevitch, M. and Levy, M.R. (eds) Mass Communication Review Yearbook, Vol. 5, Beverley Hills CA: Sage, pp. 185-88.

Broom, G. and Dozier, D. (1990) Using Research in Public Relations, Prentice Hall.

Dennis, E.E. and Merrill, J.C. (1996). Media debates: issues in mass communication. White Plains NY: Longman.

Edelman, M. (1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fan, D.P. (1988) “Predictions of public opinion from the mass media – computer content analysis and mathematical modelling.” Contributions to the Study of Mass Media and Communications, 12, London: Greenwood Press.

Graber, D.A. (1993) “Media impact on the Political Status Quo: where is the evidence?” in Spitzer, R. (ed) Media and Public Policy, Westport CT: Praegar Publishers.

Grunig, J.E. and Repper, F.C. (1992) “Strategic management, publics, and issues” in Grunig, J.E. (ed) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

31

Bibliography

Grunig, L.A. (1992) “Activism: how it limits the effectiveness of organisations and how excellent public relations departments respond” in Grunig, J.E. (ed) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Löwensberg, D. (2006) “Corporate image, reputation and identity” in Tench, R., & Yeomans, L. (eds) Exploring Public Relations, London: Pearson

Mizerski, R.W. (1982) “An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information”, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 301-310.

Olien, C.N., Donohue, G.A. and Tichenor, P. J. (1978) “Community structure and media use”, Journalism Quarterly, 55, pp. 445-455.

Olson, M. (1982) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Weiner, D. (2006) “Crisis communications: managing corporate reputation in the court of public opinion”, Ivey Business Journal online, University of Western Ontario.