Post on 27-Feb-2023
UNIVERSITY SELF-IDENTITY NARRATIVES:
A FOUCAULDIAN CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
by
Eric Albert Pearse
Copyright 2014
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
University of Phoenix
ii
ABSTRACT
This research study, which is a qualitative case study informed by the philosophical ideas
of Michel Foucault, employed the Foucauldian discourse analysis methodology
developed by Jäger (2001) and Jäger and Maier (2009) to answer two critical research
questions: What knowledge is found in the discourse(s) of American traditional and non-
traditional university websites? And, What internal and external concordances or
contradictions exist in the discourse(s) that contain(s) the knowledge found on these
traditional and non-traditional university websites? It applied Foucauldian critical
discourse analysis to the self-identity texts or “discourse fragments” found on 10
traditional and 10 non-traditional university websites. The Home, About, History, and
Mission Statement pages, as the most public informational spaces constructed by these
institutions, offer particular informational intentionality. The initial Concept of the
University used was the Humboldtian paradigm that eventually developed into the
traditional research university in the United States (Christensen & Eyring, 2011).
Following analysis of the discursive plane of the higher education’s sector and sub-
sectors, the study provided a “Synoptic Analysis” (Jäger & Maier, 2009, p. 56), or
summary, of the university’s “Discursive Position” (M. Jäger, 1996: 47 in S. Jäger, 2001,
p. 49; Jäger and Maier, 2009, p. 49). It concluded with a comparative synoptic analysis
(Jäger, 2001, p. 56) that allowed the boundaries of the discursive plane to be delimited,
and provided the context for the conclusions and recommendations.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to many academic colleagues for sharing their knowledge and
experience. My mentor, Dr. Robin Jackson and my committee members, Dr. Frank
Salamone and Dr. Irene Stein challenged me to achieve my best. I am grateful to the
Universidad Latinoamericana, whose sponsorship made my doctoral journey possible. I
thank my family, friends, and colleagues whose interest, support, and patience helped me
persevere in this endeavor.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Tables ............................................................................................. ix
Chapter 1: The Higher Education Debate in the United States ...................1
The Humboldtian University Paradigm .............................................. 2
The Humboldtian Paradigm in Question ............................................ 2
The Non-traditional Universities ........................................................ 4
The Radicalization of the Higher Education Debate .......................... 7
A Foucauldian Contribution to the Higher Education Debate ........... 9
Problem Statement ............................................................................ 10
Purpose Statement ............................................................................. 13
Research Questions ........................................................................... 14
Significance of the Study .................................................................. 15
Limitations ......................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review .....................................................................18
Organizational Identity ...................................................................... 19
Institutional Isomorphism and Legitimacy ....................................... 20
The Humboldtian University Narrative ............................................ 23
The Crisis of the Modern University ................................................ 27
Foucauldian Discourse Analysis ....................................................... 28
Critical Discourse Analysis .................................................. 28
Foucault and Discourse ........................................................ 30
Chapter 3: Method .....................................................................................32
vi
Research Questions ........................................................................... 32
Sub-questions .................................................................................... 33
The Sample ........................................................................................ 34
Methodology ..................................................................................... 37
The Methodological Approach ............................................. 37
An Introduction to Jäger and Maier’s (2009) CDA Methodology .. 37
Data Collection .............................................................................................. 38
Data Analysis .................................................................................... 39
A Structural Analysis of the Discourse Strand .................... 41
Detailed Analysis of Typical Discourse Fragments ............ 42
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................44
Traditional Research Universities ..................................................... 45
Harvard University ............................................................... 45
Princeton University ............................................................. 54
Yale University ..................................................................... 59
Columbia University in the City of New York .................... 66
The University of Chicago ................................................... 77
Massachusetts Institute of Technology ................................ 85
Stanford University ............................................................... 93
Duke University .................................................................. 107
University of Pennsylvania................................................. 113
California Institute of Technology ..................................... 120
Online Universities .......................................................................... 129
vii
Western Governors University ........................................... 129
South Dakota State University ........................................... 138
California University of Pennsylvania ............................... 146
Dakota State University ...................................................... 153
National University ............................................................. 160
UMass Lowell ..................................................................... 168
Bellevue University ............................................................ 174
The University of Nebraska at Kearney ............................. 179
Columbia Southern University ........................................... 185
Park University ................................................................... 195
Chapter 5: Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations ......................203
Synoptic Analysis of the Traditional Research Universities ......... 204
Synoptic Analysis for Online Universities ..................................... 211
Research Questions Answered ........................................................ 216
Expectations of the Study ............................................................... 221
Ten Conclusions and Eleven Recommendations ........................... 222
References ................................................................................................233
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Traditional University DNA ........................................................26
1
Chapter 1
The Higher Education Debate in the United States
Saichaie (2011) contends that a university’s website serves as a key channel for
disseminating information about the institution that designs and supports the site. This
study compared the self-identity narratives on the websites of 20 traditional and non-
traditional universities in the United States. The study used Foucauldian critical
discourse analysis to examine the different paradigms of the traditional and non-
traditional university relating to the institution’s purposes, histories, values, academic
offerings, and activities.
The study noted that higher education in the US is transitioning from the
traditional research university paradigm followed for over a century, and that a new
standard model, or models, has not yet been adopted. A number of researchers have
categorized this situation as a crisis (Barrow 2010; Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares,
2011; Tadmor, 2003; Thompson, 2004). If true, it is not a spectacular and immediate
crisis, but rather a structural one that has been long in the making. The crisis has had a
significant impact upon the social cohesion, competitively, national identity, and
development potential of the US. Higher education, previously regarded as a vehicle of
social mobility, a knowledge creation engine, and a source of both regional and national
pride today is regarded as largely inaccessible for minorities and other non-traditional
students, disconnected from the nation’s labor markets, and increasingly irrelevant to the
nation’s economic development.
2
The Humboldtian University Paradigm
The Humboldtian paradigm had been created at the beginning of the nineteenth
century for local and highly specific reasons (Ash, 2006). Wilhelm Von Humboldt’s
university reforms were intended to redress the deficiencies of a medieval university
model in a Germany under challenge from modernity. In the US, Harvard University was
the first to replicate the Humboldtian model developed in Germany between 1807 and
1810 (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Subsequently, the model was copied by many US
land grant universities with considerable success, and it became the foundation for
America’s concept of University. Not-for-profit traditional universities, supported by both
private and government funds, were obligated legally to provide higher education as a
public good, thus strengthening the nation’s character and its scientific and technological
achievements. In this manner, traditional universities consolidated their power and
influence by establishing the Humboldtian model as the standard for higher education
accreditation bodies, official rankings and classifications, state governments, and
Congress. Nevertheless, after a century of dominance in US higher education, the
totalizing Humboldtian paradigm of the university (Lyotard, 1984b) began to suffer
fissures as a result of the enormous social, economic, and cultural shifts occurring in the
latter half of the twentieth and the beginning of the present century.
The Humboldtian Paradigm in Question
In the US, traditional research universities promoted higher education as a public
good. More people than ever imagined began to demand access to tertiary education,
principally because it became the gateway to social mobility and prosperity (Saichaie,
2011). Middle-class eighteen-year-olds were joined by individuals from other social
3
strata in seeking university degrees. US taxpayers began to shoulder the cost of what
proved to be a costly and inefficient higher education model, and public subsidies proved
unviable in the long term. The substantial appetite of industry and commerce for new
knowledge increased with the onset of the information society, even as postmodern
skepticism concerning the traditional research university’s role as the sole creator and
distributor of knowledge placed the Humboldtian paradigm under stress from multiple
sources simultaneously.
The traditional University responded by developing a culture of performativity
(Lyotard, 1984) still grounded in the Humboldtian narrative, but more closely tied to
government, industry, and commerce than to the independent pursuit of knowledge for its
own sake. Readings (1996) describes this mutation of the traditional university paradigm
as the “University of Excellence” (Readings 1996, p. 55). The “University of Excellence”
integrates research, teaching and professional training, and subordinates teaching and
research as elements of professional life to administration. For Readings (1996), the new
focus of the university (administration) fails to replace the integrating Humboldtian
paradigm, and for Christensen, Horn, Caldera, and Soares (2011), even the evolved
paradigm of the university fails to meet the social, financial, and commercial demands
made upon it. Christensen and Eyring (2011) argue that the Harvard DNA (that of the
traditional research university paradigm) has been too powerful to allow the changes
required by society. Lyotard (1984b) is convinced that the position of the university
professor within the Humboldtian paradigm is doomed to extinction. The professoriate
rejected the “marketization” of higher education (Barrow, 2010) with its demands for
efficiency and efficacy, and developed an idealized vision of the traditional research
4
university paradigm to defend the central governance role of faculty within the university
afforded by the Humboldtian paradigm.
State or state-subsidized universities become dysfunctional as they attempt to deal
with the contradictory demands of performativity and accessibility (Barrow, 2010).
Meanwhile, the state demanded greater efficiency and accountability from the traditional
universities, by using a modified performativity version of the Humboldtian paradigm to
justify lower subsidies. The federal government, as a result of cost reduction, also
required state universities to cover a higher proportion of their costs through research
contracts and productivity measures that inevitably affected faculty. Despite efforts by
higher education to meet the new demands, the government criticized the traditional
institutions, by applying the same idealized Humboldtian paradigm. The state alleged that
academic quality had decreased, and that universities had lost sight of their public
mission, although it was government strictures that had brought about those very same
conditions being criticized. Government did make more funds available in the form of
student loans. The new funding, however, drove up the cost of tuition, and, ironically,
reduced the pressure for higher education reform. Recent graduates burdened with
student loan debt, discovered that a university degree could no longer guarantee a
prosperous future.
The Non-traditional Universities
The non-traditional universities arose in response to the increased demand for
higher education, the need for greater accessibility, and the needs of previously
unattended groups such as working adults and ethnic minorities. By the end of the
twentieth century, educational innovators and entrepreneurs had exploited new
5
information technologies to develop cost-effective models to meet the changing higher
education market. Teaching and research do not necessarily need to be unified, especially
in a knowledge society. For example, California’s extended network of teaching colleges
is supported by institutions that focus more on research (Anderssen, 2012). Courtyards,
gardens, and sports arenas are not essential elements in a quality higher education, and
administrative functions do not need to be performed by academics. Non-traditional
universities find themselves in ideological competition with traditional research
universities, despite the obvious differences between the two types of institutions.
Accreditation, classification, and access to public largesse depend on higher educational
institutions complying with the Humboldtian paradigm and the time-honored practices
that have grown up around it. New institutions of higher education serving a non-
traditional student population, and often using a distributed education modality, have
discovered, however, that they pay a high price for the academically, socially, and
commercially acceptable nomination of University. Government, accrediting bodies, the
media, and conventional competitors can require the new universities to accept the
quality criteria, organizational structures, and infrastructure that pertain to a completely
different, traditional vision of higher education (Capogrossi, 2002).
Some individuals from industry and commerce, who decry the parlous state of
higher education and denounce its deficient graduates, demand more accountability and
efficiency and greater alignment with the nation’s utilitarian needs. Other critics suggest
that higher education should become more businesslike and less politicized. Some
politicians and special interest groups criticize the new, non-traditional universities for
low degree completion rates, poor utilitarian education, and high student debt. This,
6
despite the fact that the new universities tend to serve socially and culturally marginalized
segments of the population that traditionally have not had access to higher education, as
well as age groups that traditional research universities neglect.
Educational corporations that have acquired accredited traditional universities and
combined them with blended learning and online operations extend the existing
accreditation from the former to the latter. These attempts at automatic legitimization
have begun to fail, as accrediting bodies have withdrawn accreditation from the older
universities involved. For example, in 2012 Ashford University, a mostly online
university owned by Bridgepoint Education, lost a bid to become accredited by the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges due to the lack of core faculty, high drop-
out rates, and doubtful academic standards (Fain, 2012). Non-traditional universities use
part-time faculty to keep costs low, and their drop-out rates are usually higher than those
of traditional universities because of the population segments they serve, and their
academic standards are commensurate with their less academically demanding entrance
requirements
Accreditation bodies that specialize in non-traditional institutions have emerged,
but the problem of legitimization persists in that these new legitimizing agents do not
have the recognition and prestige of the traditional accreditation bodies (Admin, 2012).
Often, difficulties arise for students wanting to transfer credits from nationally (usually
for-profit institutions with distributed education programs) to regionally recognized
(more often, traditional research) universities.
7
The Radicalization of the Higher Education Debate
The higher education debate in the US has become politicized. Left-wing
politicians speaking on “behalf” of the minorities, and supported by the professoriate of
the traditional universities, have held Congressional hearings on the business model of
the new universities. The title of the majority report of the hearing chaired by US Senator
Tom Harkin in 2012 was “For profit higher education: The failure to safeguard the
federal investment and ensure student success.” Yet the Harkin majority report did not
question the level of accountability and achievement of the traditional universities funded
by taxpayers in the same manner. McLennan (2008) makes the case that “Some
‘traditionalist’ ideas of higher education can be part of a reasserted ‘progressivist’ social
ethics (p. 195).” On the other hand, some right-wing politicians see the higher education
sector as both a new ideological battle and an opportunity to promote the open market. In
2005, lobbyists representing the new universities were successful in persuading Congress
to pass student loan legislation that increases the percentage of student income from
public funding without any requirement to address the obvious deficiencies of their
model.
NeoCon cultural warriors, seeing the traditional university narrative faltering,
connect the problems of the university with the decline of American culture and morality
in general. Some of these traditionalists have called for “a return” to the Humboldtian
paradigm, and even to Cardinal Newman’s aristocratic vision of the university as a
civilized place where men of culture socialize with other gentlemen (Bombongan, 2008;
Farrow, 2011). Thus, the University in its idealized form is a moral and humanistic
bastion against uncultured, modern, and postmodern tenets and practices.
8
The great traditional research universities in the US ride above the fray, protected
from the vicissitudes of the higher education sector by billion-dollar endowments.
Community colleges offer an inexpensive and consequently limited option to students
who cannot access higher education. Many of them attend community colleges because
they can transfer their two-year credits upon acceptance to a four-year university. Middle
ranking not-for-profit universities keep up Humboldtian appearances, but make use of
increasing numbers of adjuncts to teach undergraduates, while using tuition income to
lure high-profile academics to carry out research within their precincts. Meanwhile, the
nation’s position as the country with the greatest number of graduate students is at risk
(Wendler, Bridgeman, Cline, Millet, Rock, Bell, & McAllister, 2010), with multi-national
companies outsourcing research to low-cost research centers in Asia and elsewhere.
The legitimacy of the traditional research university is in question because their
ability to comply with their public good mandate has been curtailed by powerful and
often conflicting forces including the rising demand for further education, reductions in
public funding, the rising cost of maintaining infrastructure and research faculty,
government intervention to meet social demands, and the knowledge society’s
independent ability to create and circulate knowledge. New universities have emerged to
address social and commercial needs using technological and educational innovation.
However, these non-traditional universities have lacked legitimacy as a result of business
models and practices which preclude conformity to the Humboldtian ideal paradigm.
Higher education in the US requires comprehensive reform, but the debate around reform
continues to be framed in terms of the compliance of individual institutions with obsolete
and dysfunctional norms, and it does not allow innovative, comprehensive initiatives to
9
emerge. Ideological interest groups that have seized upon this impasse to further their
own agendas, do little to contribute solutions for the broad, transcendental problems
faced by the higher education sector.
A Foucauldian Contribution to the Higher Education Debate
The future of higher education is a prominent topic in US public debate (Brody,
2012). The debate is chaotic, noisy, and irrational, and not all relevant arguments are
heard or respected. The Humboldtian narrative needs to be evaluated in relation to the
multiple resistances (Gordon, 1980) that predominate. Institutions legitimized by the
narrative of the traditional research university need to be seen as participants in a US
higher education ecosystem, where different narratives coexist and flourish as a prelude to
change. From a Foucauldian perspective, the discursive plane of higher education is a
strategic field (Gordon, 1980), in which change is accepted as natural and inevitable and
new possibilities continually emerge.
This study uses Foucauldian critical discourse analysis to analyze the self-identity
narratives of the traditional and non-traditional universities as presented on their
websites. It has been chosen over other types of discourse analysis because Foucault
(1972) considers discourse as the means by which power operates and circulates in
society. According to Jäger (2001), there are five central issues in Foucauldian critical
discourse analysis: what (valid) knowledge exists, how this knowledge has developed,
how it is transmitted, the function of such knowledge for the creation of subjects and the
influencing of society, and the effect of this knowledge on social development.
The higher education debate in the US has been fuelled by criticism of the
performativity and free-market changes that occurred at the end of the twentieth century
10
and the beginning of this century in traditional and non-traditional universities (Harkin
2012; Williams 2012), although Bennet, Lucchesi, and Vedder (2010) defend for-profit
higher education on economic grounds by arguing that the profit motive is merely the
way to efficiently allocate resources in a free-market society. Multiple explanations about
the functions of a University exist, but the discussion of higher education continues to be
framed by the Humboldtian narrative of the university. The Humboldtian ideal
legitimizes or delegitimizes new forms of higher education in relation to the extent these
innovative manifestations conform to this dominant paradigm. Foucauldian analysis
seeks to reveal a plane of social conflict in which different narratives are evaluated for
their relationship to the truth as opposed to normativity (Gordon, 1980).
The intent of this study is to problematize the Humboldtian totalizing narrative by
critically analyzing the existing various higher education narratives that compete for
prestige and other resources. Foucauldian critical discourse analysis does not attempt to
subvert or judge the dominant narrative, but to demonstrate its relationship to the other
discourses that operate within the same discursive plane (Gordon, 1980). Gordon (1980)
argues that Foucault adopted an essentially neutral approach to the analysis of power that
does not depend on moral philosophy, social classifications, or categories. Foucault was
skeptical concerning the possibility of substituting one program with another superior
one. According to Foucault, even a highly deficient status quo contributes positively to
strategic change (Gordon, 1980).
Problem Statement
The dominant paradigm in US higher education is that of the traditional research
university. Its power is the result of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell,
11
1983), a phenomenon that occurs when institutions are bound to copy the most
prestigious protagonists in their industry or field. The traditional research university
paradigm has delegitimized the educational innovations offered by non-traditional
universities at a time when US higher education is in crisis and novel solutions are
required (Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011). Non-traditional universities
experience difficulty in obtaining academic, political, and social acceptance because they
do not conform to the research university paradigm that originated with Von Humboldt’s
founding of the University of Berlin between 1807 and 1810, and which, after refinement
by Harvard University and other US traditional universities, became the grand narrative
(Lyotard, 1984b) of higher education in the West.
There is a lack of literature that critically analyzes the knowledge and power
(Foucault, 1980) of the grand narrative of the traditional research university. Academic
literature naturally emerges from within the discursive field conditioned by that very
same meta-narrative. Williams (2012) has announced the birth of a new academic field,
Critical University Studies, but the contributors appear to criticize only divergence from
the Humboldtian paradigm, especially from the important tenet of faculty control over
decision making. The totalizing narrative of the research university exercises its effect
through “discourses of truth” (Foucault, 1980) that regiment the higher education sector.
However, if the grand narrative of the research university is problematized, emerging
narratives can flourish and be judged on their own merits. The act of problematizing a
narrative consists in revealing its history, context, and relationships with other narratives
within the same field, and of not exempting it from critical examination because it is the
current accepted standard or norm. At a time of debate concerning the future of higher
12
education in the US, it is necessary to examine the discourses of both traditional and non-
traditional universities critically.
The critical analysis should not be undertaken with the aim of eliminating one
narrative in favor of another, but rather to describe the discursive formation of higher
education, illuminating the contradictions, unconformities, irregularities, and differing
relationships (Foucault, 2002). Philosophers such as Zizek (2000) have criticized
Foucauldian discourse analysis for lacking a concept of the subject, whereas Heracleous
(2006) has argued that Foucault at least has an implicit idea of subjects who not only are
recipients of discourses but also develop them. Jäger (2001) has argued that Foucault
does not deny the role of the subject, but rather seeks to place it firmly within its socio-
historic context. Kendall and Wickham (2006) have criticized Foucault for promoting the
social over politics and the state, for devotion to subjective critique that cannot withstand
empirical scrutiny, and for a dialectical approach that desires the victory of one party over
another. Regarding the Zizek-Foucault controversy, Vighi and Feldner (2007) have
stated, “Foucauldian criticism has only deconstructed the world in different ways; the
point, however, is to discern the Real in what seems to be a mere discursive construct,
and to change it” (p. 1). Jäger (2001) has concluded that Foucault was dualistic in that he
failed to fully accept the interrelationship between discourse and the world of objective
reality. However, Jäger and Maier (2009) have suggested that Leontjev’s activity theory
can function as a bridge between discourse and reality, thus countering this important
criticism of Foucault. Perhaps more important, Jäger (2001) has suggested that Foucault’s
essential contribution to critical discourse analysis lies in making the hidden power of
knowledge visible, and weakening it by doing so.
13
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to give a voice to subjugated knowledges (Foucault,
1980) within US higher education, that is, providing a channel of expression for the
delegitimized knowledge(s) of the non-traditional universities over and against the
dominant paradigm (Foucault, 1980) of the traditional research university. Power
permeates any social body, and is constituted, and functions, by means of a discourse
(Foucault, 1980). This study will employ a Foucauldian critical discourse analysis to
examine “the truth of power” (Foucault, 1980) in order to make an analytical contribution
to the often ideological and politicized debate surrounding the development and
reformation of US higher education.
Foucault developed five connected understandings of discourse in his
“Archaeological” period that he later redefined in his “Genealogical” period (Heracleous,
2006), yet he never developed a specific critical discourse analysis method based on his
philosophy (Foucault, 1991, as cited in Jäger & Maier, 2009; Cataldi, 2004; Graham,
2005; Vighi & Feldner 2007). Indeed, Heracleous (2006) has pointed out that Foucault’s
philosophy is frequently regarded as impractical. Nevertheless, Heracleous (2006) has
used Philips and Hardy’s (2002) analytical framework of organizational discourse
approaches to propose a possible taxonomy of Foucauldian contributions to
organizational discourse analysis. Philips and Hardy (2002) have stated that Foucault’s
contributions to the analysis of organizational discourse consists of the understanding of
discourses both as grand narratives that position subjects and create objects and as
examples of Foucault’s will to power associated with institutions and their practices. In
justification of Foucauldian-type analysis, Jäger (2001) considers that all knowledge is
14
irrevocably related to power, and that when knowledge is undermined the power that is
associated with it can be diminished. Here, knowledge is understood as the Foucauldian
savoir; that is, knowledge which lives through a specific discursive practice. Jäger
(2001) and Jäger and Maier (2009) have developed a practical critical discourse analysis
methodology, “A little toolbox for discourse analyses” that is based explicitly upon the
Foucauldian critical discourse analysis approach which informs this study. This
methodology allows the full scope of the discourse plane, or “the societal location from
which ‘speaking’ happens” (Jäger, 2001, p. 49), of higher education in the US to be
identified.
Research Questions
The two research questions posed by this study are as follows.
1. What knowledge is found in the discourse(s) of traditional and non-traditional
university websites respectively? “‘Knowledge’ refers to all kinds of contents
that make up a human consciousness, or in other words, all kinds of meanings
that people use to interpret and shape their environment” (Jäger & Maier,
2009, p. 34).
2. What internal and external concordances or contradictions exist in the
discourse(s) that contain(s) the knowledge found on traditional and non-
traditional university websites?
The four research sub-questions posed by this study are as follows.
1. What are the origins of the knowledge identified by the study?
2. What discursive techniques are employed to convey the identified knowledge?
3. How does this knowledge constitute subjects?
15
4. What social consequences does this knowledge provoke?
In accordance with the Foucauldian methodology used, the sub-questions will be
reinforced by the following Foucauldian critical discourse concerns (Jäger, 2001): how
the identified elements are presented or expressed, the institutional concept created for
the subject, and the social consequences of objects created by discourse.
Significance of the Study
The study is a qualitative case study of the constructivist type. That is, although
the study is contingent on the observer’s perspective, its focus is pluralistic, and the
tension between subject and object is fully acknowledged (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
Following Yin (2003), Baxter and Jack (2008) establish four criteria for a case study: 1)
when, how, and why questions are involved; 2) you cannot influence the behavior of the
participants in the study; 3) you wish to include the context of the phenomena under
study because it is relevant; and 4) there is no clear boundary between the phenomenon
and its context. Three of these four defining criteria are relevant to this study. Yin (2009)
establishes three criteria for a good case study: 1) the case is uncommon and of general
public interest; 2) the fundamental issues of the case are of national concern; and 3) the
case meets both criteria. This study complies with Yin’s criteria in that it will expand the
discussion of higher education to include the inherent social, commercial, and political
interests. This reframing of the debate breaks with the tradition of the Humboldtian
university narrative being the sole referent for a discussion of higher education. This
study’s comprehensive approach opens the possibility of a wide-ranging review of the
multiple complex issues now facing US higher education.
16
The Foucauldian approach demands that a narrative (and its associated) program,
whose legitimacy, permanency, and utility traditionally have not been questioned be
problematized. This problematization reveals both its nature in a neutral fashion and the
nature of the alternative narratives that inevitably occur within the strategic space that the
dominate narrative appears to occupy. The Foucauldian approach also moves the higher
education debate away from its epicenter of the discourse of crisis and the consequent
distractions. Use of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis allows higher education to be
revealed as a discursive plane which strategic activity makes use of by identifying and
fashioning the possibilities (Gordon, 1980). With such a perspective, the debate can begin
to include discussion of evolutionary change, radical alternatives, and emerging
possibilities (Scharmer, 2009).
Limitations
This study shares many of the limitations of case study research identified by
Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) including the difficulties in representing the
complexity studied, the inability to generalize, accusations of “subjectivity” related to the
role of the researcher, and the failure to answer multiple apposite research questions.
Given that the sample of universities studied is relatively small, the study does not
aspire to provide an exhaustive examination of the nation’s approximately 4,200
university identities, or to fully answer all of the questions the study will provoke. The
roles of carrying out the interpretative analysis required and describing the findings are
those of an individual with a prior and committed point of view regarding the complex
social phenomena being researched (Van Dijk, 2001). This study attempts to reveal the
full extent of the higher education discursive plane and its dominant and dissident
17
narratives as well as its future possibilities. It also makes recommendations for the
stakeholders of US higher education are based on its findings.
18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The field of Critical University Studies emerged in the 1990’s, informed by Soley
(1995), Readings (1996), Slaughter and Leslie (1997), and Williams (2012). The authors
criticized the corporatization and professionalization of the University that was
undermining the faculty’s Humboldtian-sanctioned power. According to Williams (2012),
Critical University Studies has been consolidated in by the work of Noble (2001),
Washburn (2005), Berry (2005), Bousquet (2008), Williams (2006, 2008), Newfield
(2008), and Massé and Hogan (2010). Now, the focus is on the commercialization of
higher education, research undertaken for financial gain, and the exploitation of faculty,
staff, and students (Williams, 2012). Williams (2012), who also studied the privatization
of the University and the threats to publicly funded higher education, argued that CUS is
“progressive,” apolitical, and nonjudgmental. From a constructivist view, all such claims
for objectivity have to be considered within the intended totalizing narrative promoted by
their protagonists.
Chapter 2 surveys the literature that informs this study in four parts.
Organizational Identity surveys the field of organizational identity. Institutional
Isomorphism and Legitimacy discusses how institutional isomorphism provides
organizations with legitimacy. The Humboldtian University Narratives summarizes the
US higher education debate. The Foucauldian Discourse Analysis focuses on Foucauldian
discourse analysis.
19
Organizational Identity
The seminal work of the field of organizational identity is Albert and Whetten
(1985) according to Puusa (2006), and its origin lies in the scholarship of individual
identity (Albert & Whetten 1985; Gioia 1998; Puusa 2006). The field of organizational
identity is a highly problematic one (Puusa, 2006). There are numerous definitions of
organizational identity, and relatively little research has been carried out within the
organizational context (Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010). The range of
paradigmatic assumptions about the ontology and epistemology of organizations can lead
to organizational identity being considered as insubstantial (Puusa, 2006).
The literature can be classified into three different perspectives (Gioia, 1998):
functionalist or social realist studies (e.g., Elsbach & Kramer, 1996), interpretative or
constructionist studies (e.g., Pratt & Rafaeli, 1997), and post-modern or semiotic studies
(e.g., Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). The first perspective assumes that identity is an
asset that an organization possesses, and as such it can be studied through objective
observation. The second perspective assumes that identity is subjective and requires
interpretation by scholars who participate in the acting out of the identity they study. The
third perspective assumes that identity, as a constantly changing illusion sustained by the
dominant forces in society, requires scholars to approach it through critical discourse
analysis.
Albert and Whetten (1985) have argued that organizational identities have two
fundamental characteristics, namely, “distinctive” and “enduring.” Following their
affirmation, the study of organizational identity has moved in different directions, by
using the concept of organizational culture to explain organizations’ understanding of
20
themselves (Grant & Iedema, 2005; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Voss, Cable & Voss, 2007),
and by exploring the relationship between identity, environment, and organizational
change (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).
One study has identified the three studies that have examined how organizations
create their identities (Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010). The studies provide
indications of two fundamental elements that influence the creative process.
Organizational identity is formed either through attempts to achieve legitimacy by
isomorphism and differentiation, or through the existence of a positive external
environment. One line of research still unexplored that is germane to this study is how
power and politics affect continuity and change of identity (Puusa, 2006).
Institutional Isomorphism and Legitimacy
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) contributed to organizational theory with their
discussion of institutional isomorphism, stating that organizations in any established field
tend to imitate other organizations in the same field that are considered to be more
prestigious and successful, in order to attain legitimacy. According to DiMaggio and
Powell (1983), institutional isomorphism limits the benefits to be derived from the
changes brought about by innovating organizations, in that the identities and structures
assumed by the originators of change may be inappropriate for the organizations that seek
to imitate them for purposes of legitimacy rather than efficiency. More recent scholarship
has questioned the impact of institutional isomorphism as a homogenizing force,
demanding that more attention be devoted to heterogeneity in the study of sociological
institutionalism (Beckett, 2010). Universities imitate the accepted model of success,
frequently copying the research university with the highest international ranking, but
21
localized differences need to be acknowledged (Zha, 2009). There is a growing tendency
to distinguish between legitimacy that depends largely on institutional isomorphism, and
reputation that is determined by a number of variables (Deephouse & Carter, 2005;
Bitektine, 2011).
Status groupings, unlike the structure of legitimacy dimensions that are
dichotomous, can be expressed through the use of an ordinal scale (Bitektine, 2011).
When an organization is perceived to belong to a familiar category of organizations, it is
accepted as a known entity, and is not scrutinized further by an interested party;
legitimacy is conferred upon it, whereas reputation depends on the comparisons made
between different organizations (Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Higher education institutions
that are immediately recognized as universities are exempted from rigorous examination,
and are seen as legitimate. New universities that do not conform to the characteristics
derived from the Humboldtian paradigm and comprise the category of University
(research oriented, a majority of full-time faculty, extensive physical infrastructure
installations, and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake) have to depend upon the
reputations for legitimacy constructed by the interested parties who compare them to
other traditional universities.
This process can place new universities at a disadvantage in relation to traditional
universities in the competition for resources because the new universities they do not
satisfy conform to the norm. Different levels of status exist, and the manner in which
organizations move from one level to another higher level can be complex. Elevation
does not depend exclusively on performance (Burris, 2004; Weber, 1968). Bitektine
(2011) points out that membership in a status group is granted through “behavioral
22
‘negotiation’ with other actors” (as cited in Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, & Norman, 1998, p.
161). These insights into socio-political and cognitive legitimacy demonstrate that it can
be difficult for new organizations that do not fit into already established social
categories, to gain acceptance, and consequently to survive and prosper. They also
suggest that identities and their expression are of critical importance to the success or
failure of organizations (Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010). How identity is
expressed and in relation to what are especially critical issues for the survival and success
of universities that belong to previously unknown categories such as online, for profit, or
non-traditional.
Recent research regarding the identities of institutions of higher education offers
support for the existence of institutional isomorphism in the sector of higher education
(Santiago, Carvalho, & Relva, 2008). Santiago, Carvalho, and Relva (2008) state that
since the emergence of the Humboldtian paradigm the modern University has developed
an identity framework based on the disinterested quest for knowledge, the integration of
research and teaching, and the fostering of student development as individuals, and that
this framework influences how new higher education institutions represent themselves on
their websites. Santiago, Carvalho, and Relva (2008) employed content analysis of
university websites to determine that most Portuguese universities used research to
present themselves as research universities to their stakeholders (as cited in Bordieu,
1989, 2006) to obtain kudos and restore their images. Institutional isomorphism can be so
powerful in higher education that institutions with a foundational paradigm different from
the Humboldtian University often are obliged to adopt the research university profile
(Lepori, 2008).
23
Building on work by Santiago, Carvalho, and Relva (2008) and Lepori (2008),
this study will examine the extent to which traditional and non-traditional universities
present themselves in relation to the Humboldtian tradition to obtain resources, and the
effects on both the identities projected on their institutional websites and on the
development of society. Using the same sources, it will identify the new legitimization
narratives, especially those espoused by non-traditional universities, that have emerged,
or are emerging, in US higher education, and how they differ from, or replicate the
Humboldtian paradigm.
The Humboldtian University Narrative
The dominant university identity narrative is that of the traditional research
university that derives from the founding by Wilhelm von Humboldt of the University of
Berlin between 1807 and 1810 (Lyotard, 1984). The Humboldtian idea of the university
emerged in opposition to the Prussian state’s utilitarianism (Winckler, 2009), and as a part
of the modernistic triumph of the rational over the traditional (Clark, 2006). This new
type of institution of higher education was concerned principally with discovering new
knowledge and searching for truth rather than teaching and learning (Winckler, 2009).
According to Krull (2005), there are four elements of the Humboldtian university: the
combination of teaching and research; the freedom to teach and to study; the
requirements of solitude and freedom in the independent pursuit of truth; and the seminar
system as the principal mechanism of integrating teachers and students as a community.
Ash (2006) has identified the four essential characteristics of the Humboldtian university
model as the freedom to teach and learn; the integration of teaching with research; the
unification of science and scholarship; and the superiority of pure science over vocational
24
training. Philosophically, the Humboldtian paradigm had a threefold aspiration according
to Lyotard (198 4b): “deriving everything from an original principle,” “relating
everything to an ideal,” and “unifying this principle and this ideal in a single Idea” (p.
33).
Ash (2006) described the Humboldtian paradigm as a construct- created around
1900 for use in the confrontations surrounding Germany’s internal university politics,
whereas Clark (2006) attributed the birth of the research university to political and
commercial pressure rather than any academic initiative. Whatever the exact origin of the
Humboldtian paradigm, it continues to be of profound importance to the academic
community (Ash, 2006). Clark (2006) and Ash (2006) have suggested that one of the
major reasons for the paradigm’s longevity is the power it bestows on faculty. The
Humboldtian paradigm provides the university, according to Ash (2006), with a ready-
made “corporate identity,” albeit in the form of a “counter-utopia” (p. 249). Von
Humboldt’s writings were not made public until after the nineteenth century, although his
ideas were widely known and respected prior to 1900 (Morgan, 2010). The Humboldtian
paradigm did not consist of a fully developed set of ideas and practices that were later
uniformly applied in the creation of universities around the world (Krull, 2005).
Christensen and Eyring (2011) identify elements of the Humboldtian paradigm
that were implemented at Harvard College by former university presidents Eliot and
Lowell. They discuss the effects of the elevation of postgraduate education and research
over undergraduate teaching at Harvard College and argue that when the German
paradigm of dedicated graduate schools and specific research aims are superimposed on
an undergraduate institution, then the more experienced faculty tend to devote their time
25
and effort to scholarship and graduates, leaving undergraduate teaching in the hands of
less tried and tested professors. Christensen and Eyring (2011) assert that President Eliot
superimposed the clearly demarcated German-type graduate schools and highly specific
scholarship on the largely undergraduate, integrated model of the English college. Table 1
lists the characteristics of the “Harvard DNA,” which they argue became the basis for
“Traditional University DNA” throughout the US and the characteristics that did not
transfer (p. 134).
26
Table 1
Traditional University DNA
Strategically Significant Traits Copied from Harvard College
Face-to-face instruction
Rational/secular orientation
Comprehensive specialization, departmentalization, and faculty self-
governance
Long summer recess atop the college
Private fundraising
Competitive athletics
Curricular distribution (GE) and concentration (majors)
Academic honors
Externally funded research
Up-or-out tenure, with faculty rank and salary distinctions
Admissions selectivity
Traits That Did Not Transfer Generally
Extension school (degree programs for non-traditional students)
Residential house system
Ivy Agreement (limitations on competitive athletics)
Four-year graduation
Christensen and Eyring (2011) argue that it is time for US universities to change
this static DNA unchanged since the 1960s: “Universities have grown larger, more
complex, and more expensive but their basic character still reflects decisions made in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The times now require additional
“evolutionary adaptation” (p. 379). In announcing the birth of Critical University
27
Studies, Williams (2011) has described this new academic field as a mechanism for
academics to criticize the development of US higher education over the last two decades,
with special emphasis on the influence of business on academia. This study aspires to
make a Foucauldian contribution to this new academic field through its examination of
the abiding influence of the Humboldtian paradigm (including its subsequent derivations)
and the restistances (Foucault, 1980) that have grown up around it upon the discursive
plane of US higher education as well as the effect of this dominant higher paradigm on
social development.
The Crisis of the Modern University
The modern university is in crisis (Barrow, 2010; Christensen, Horn, Caldera, &
Soares, 2011; Tadmor, 2003; Thompson, 2004). The University has lost its hegemony
over the distribution of knowledge, its legitimacy, and its ability to guarantee continuance
as an institution (Santos, 2005, as cited in Fischman, 2008). Solutions to this higher
education crisis such as disruptive technology (Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares,
2011), have been offered by business and industry, but Barrow (2010) has denounced the
marketization of higher education. The term, knowledge factory (Aaronowitz, 2000),
suggests that the University is evolving into a corporate entity.
Surprisingly, voices on the political left and right define this crisis as a crisis of
values and suggest a return to previous University ideals, since the genuine idea of the
University has been lost and its lofty ideal has been reduced to job placement and
utilitarianism (Farrow, 2011). Bombongan (2008), McLennan (2008), Loughlin (2010),
and Farrow (2011) all look to Cardinal Newman as a source of ideas for the regeneration
of the University. McLennan (2008), Kirwan (2010), and Minor (2011) turn to von
28
Humboldt for solutions to the University’s problems in this century, and Petkovska
(2010) turns to Karl Jaspers. Thompson (2004) makes use of Heidegger’s deconstruction
of Plato’s myth of the cave as well as the concept of Heidegger’s Dasein (being there) to
make the case that research and teaching in the University can be unified, to revive
philosophical perfectionism, and to thwart the technologization of US higher education.
With so many different voices advocating the revitalization of traditional ways of
thinking about higher education, it is important to reject the proposed narratives on the
grounds that they are part of a time-honored tradition and have social acceptance. The
ideas of Foucault (1980) concerning power and knowledge and their operation through
discursive fields allow such narratives to be identified within their socio-historical
context, and thus problematized through discourse analysis.
Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis
According to Meyer (2001), there is a wide range of critical discourse analysis
theories, e.g., Scollon (micro-sociological perspectives), Jäger, Fairclough, and Wodak
(Foucauldian theories of society and power), and Van Dijk (social cognition theories).
The objective of this study is to make a contribution to the US higher education debate
including proposals to return to different forms of the Humboldtian paradigm (Barrow,
2010; Williams, 2012), the political defense of public education (Harkin, 2012), and an
economic defense of the profit motive in higher education (Bennet, Lucchesi, & Veder,
2010). To make a new and significant contribution to the polarized debate, the study
addresses the broad topics of knowledge and power in society over and above any
specific or localized ideological, sociological, and linguistic concerns. Foucault, with his
29
interest in the political economy (Foucault, 1980) of truth and its different traits, allows a
broad non-ideological and social approach to critical discourse analysis.
Foucault’s (1980) assertion that society is permeated by power and that discourse
is the means by which power exists and is exercised in society has been challenged by
both ideological and methodological critics. Zizek (2000) accuses Foucault of lacking
“An appropriate notion of the subject” (p. 257), whereas as cited in Meyer (2001),
Fairclough “focuses upon social conflict in the Marxist tradition and tries to detect its
linguistic manifestations in discourses” (p. 22). Wodak’s approach to critical discourse
analysis is also linguistic in focus (Meyer, 2001). Jäger is close to Foucault’s structuralist
interpretations of discourse (Meyer, 2001), but he is conscious of Foucault’s principal
critical analysis defect, i.e., the failure to mediate between between discursive practices
and the products of these practices (Meyer, 2001). To remedy this deficiency, Jäger and
Maier (2009) propose using Leontjev’s activity theory, in which the subject acts as a
bridge between discourse and reality. Jäger (2001) also attempts to reinterpret Foucault’s
concept of discourse when it becomes entangled in the verbal (Meyer, 2001).
Heracleous (2006) defines discourses as, “The sites of polyphonic struggles as
domains of power-knowledge relations that can dominate subjectivity in favor of the
already powerful” and cites Phillips and Hardy’s (2002) framework of organizational
discourse approaches to suggest how Foucault’s work from both his Archaeological and
Genealogical periods can contribute to the analysis of organizational discourse (p. 79).
Foucault himself (1980) characterized the latter two terms as, “‘Archeology’ would be the
appropriate methodology of this analysis of local discursivities, and ‘genealogy’ would be
30
the tactics whereby, on the basis of the descriptions of local discursivities, the subjected
knowledges which were thus released would be brought into play (p. 85)”.
Foucault and Discourse
Foucault (1972) views discourse as the way in which power circulates and
operates in society. His archeology of language and culture provides tools by which
power and perpetuating narratives can be understood. Foucault (1972) sees power as an
ether that permeates society, operating powerfully but clandestinely. Graham (2005) cites
Luke (1999) to explain that Foucault’s analysis of discourse does not have to do with
linguistics or with ideology, but with how power is exercised within society. Lessa (2006)
summarizes Foucault’s definition of discourse as “systems of thoughts composed of
ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the
subjects and the worlds of which they speak” (p. 3).
Foucault (2002) also argues that a given discourse is a reflection of power
structures, and that what one deems to be truth or valid knowledge is based upon the
discourse of a particular moment in history. The critical theorist seeks to uncover power
structures as a part of the struggle for social equality. By using discourse analysis, power
structures may be uncovered and analyzed for their truth claims (Dwivedi, 2011). Two of
the tools of Foucault’s discursive analysis are the statement and discursive formations
(Graham, 2005). Once a statement has been identified, Foucault (1972) requires the
observer to place it within the broader context of the discursive field. This broader
context includes other possible types of statement that the identified statement excludes
from consideration. Foucault (1972) demands that one stop regarding statements as self-
evident and instead liberate the problems they contain (Graham, 2005).
31
Foucault (1972), who describes the reflexive categories used or consumed as non-
universal constructs, reveals that all discursive themes are linked to others, which in turn
are part of a complicity that is understood by all those implicated, but that is never
brought into the open so that their truth-creating capacity can be evaluated. For Foucault
(1972), what has been expressed hides what has not been said, and the unexpressed
subverts the said. Therefore, one must bring the unsaid into the light of examination and
consciously decide what is legitimate and what is not. One should not accept the said
without understanding how it came about, and without understanding the justification for
its existence. Gordon (1980) refers to the importance of the Foucauldian type of
neutrality in the analysis of power relationships, affirming that Foucault insisted on the
positive and productive aspects of the modern structures of power within a regime of
truth.
This study is Foucauldian in that it intends to reveal the “program” of the
traditional university narrative and the “resistances” to that program (Gordon, 1980, p.
256). Gordon (1980), who asserts that even the deficiencies, contradictions, and
weaknesses of the status quo are of use within a strategic field, argues that by using
Foucault’s tools change can be brought about. This study provides insights into the nature
of the discursive field of US higher education by using a Foucauldian approach that gives
a voice to subjugated knowledges (Foucault, 1980, p. 81) that are unvoiced alternative
understandings of phenomena, thereby contributing a new perspective to the debate.
32
Chapter 3
Method
This study is a qualitative multiple embedded case study (Yin, 2009) that employs
a synchronic (Jäger & Maier, 2009) critical discourse analysis (CDA) based on the
philosophical ideas of Michel Foucault. A synchronic analysis examines that which is
said, and is permitted to be said, at a given moment, although the historical nature of
discourse, even when captured at a particular instant, can never be ignored completely
(Jäger & Maier, 2009). Van Dijk (2008) defines CDA as, “A type of discourse analytical
research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are
enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (p.
85). In this synchronic discourse analysis, the Foucauldian-based methodology
developed by Jäger (2001), and Jäger and Maier (2009) was used to answer the following
research questions and sub-questions.
Research Questions
1. What knowledge is found in the discourse(s) of traditional and non-traditional
university websites respectively? This study follows the definition of
knowledge by Jäger & Maier (2009), which “refers to all kinds of contents
that make up a human consciousness, or in other words, all kinds of meanings
that people use to interpret and shape their environment” (p. 34).
2. What internal and external concordances or contradictions exist in the
discourse(s) that contain(s) the knowledge found on traditional and non-
traditional university websites?
33
Sub-questions
3. What are the origins of the knowledge identified by the study?
4. What discursive techniques are employed to convey the identified knowledge?
5. How does this knowledge constitute subjects?
6. What social consequences does this knowledge provoke?
Foucault (1980) argued that society is permeated by power, and that discourse is
the means by which power exists and is exercised in society. Heracleous (2006) defines
discourses as, “The sites of polyphonic struggles as domains of power-knowledge
relations that can dominate subjectivity in favor of the already powerful” (p. 79), and
cites Phillips and Hardy’s (2002) framework of organizational discourse approaches as a
suggestion of how Foucault’s work from his Archaeological and Genealogical periods
can contribute to the analysis of organizational discourse. Phillips and Hardy (as cited in
Heracleous, 2006, p. 101) identify two potential Foucauldian contributions to
organizational discourse analysis:
Discourses as totalities determining subject positions and constituting objects
(Archeology).
Discourses as manifestations of the will to power, linked to practices and
institutions (Genealogy).
This study attempts to discover the contribution of the Humboldtian narrative to
the creation of the object of the modern University, and how and to what extent the
narrative delimits the boundaries of the discursive plane of US higher education. Foucault
did not suggest that one ideological position be substituted for another, hence his use of
the metaphors archeology and genealogy. According to Gordon (1980), Foucault
34
promoted a kind of neutrality, “a regime of truth” under which generally accepted ideas
are problematized; that is, their origins and contradictions are revealed in their entirety (p.
131).
The Sample
Coyne (1997), who studied the complexity and confusion surrounding qualitative
sampling in the literature, argued that there is no optimal sampling procedure. Following
Patton (1990), Coyne (1997) affirmed that qualitative research sampling is inevitably
intentional, and that the composition of such sampling is dictated by the requirements of
the study. Coyne (1997) described Patton’s “15 different strategies for purposefully
selecting information-rich cases” while stating that the unswerving adoption of a sole
strategy should not take place if that strategy is not congruent with the objective of the
study (p. 627). This study employs three of Patton’s fifteen strategies (as cited in Coyne,
1997):
Homogeneous samples
Typical case sampling
Sampling politically important cases
Marshall (1996) states that, “An appropriate sample size for a qualitative study is
one that adequately answers the research question” (p. 522). The sample in this study
consisted of ten traditional research and ten non-traditional universities in the US
according to the top ten rankings listed in the “US News and World Report (2013)
National Universities Rankings” and the “Guide to Online Schools (2013) College
Rankings.” The reasons for using these particular sources were to obtain two
homogeneous sub-samples that are typical of their respective categories including
35
prominent institutions that figure in the US higher education debate, and that are
information rich (Patton, 1990) and are intended for broad public dissemination.
The stated methodologies of the two sources reinforce the homogeneity,
representativity, and political importance of the two sub-samples (traditional research
university; non-traditional university). The introductory description of the methodology
used by the “US News and World Report (2013) National Universities Rankings” states:
Schools in the National Universities category, such as Columbia University and Stanford
University, offer a full range of undergraduate majors, plus master’s and Ph.D. programs.
These colleges also are committed to producing groundbreaking research.
The utility of its rankings as a source of the traditional research university sub-
sample lies in the categorization of the colleges in the rankings as research universities
offering all levels of academic degrees, and the fact that the rankings were created
independently using a published methodology rather than in the scientific rigor of the
methodology. The ten universities in the traditional research university sub-sample in
order of ranking are:
1. Harvard University
2. Princeton University
3. Yale University
4. Columbia University
5. University of Chicago
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7. Stanford University
8. Duke University
36
9. University of Pennsylvania
10. California Institute of Technology
The introductory description of the methodology used by the “Guide to Online
Schools (2013) College Rankings” states that students need to be properly informed prior
to making a decision to study online, and that consequently the aim of the Guide’s
rankings is to establish a quality benchmark for online schools and colleges that has been
created using principles that concern most candidates.
The utility of the “Guide to Online Schools 2013 College Rankings” lies in the
categorization of the colleges included in the ranking as online educational institutions,
the practical intent of the rankings, the orientation of the rankings towards the average
student, and the fact that the rankings were created independently using a published
methodology rather than in the scientific rigor of the methodology. The ten universities in
the non-traditional university sub-sample in order of ranking are:
1. Western Governors University
2. South Dakota State University
3. California University of Pennsylvania Online
4. Dakota State University
5. National University
6. University of Massachusetts at Lowell
7. Bellevue University
8. University of Nebraska at Kearney – Online
9. Columbia Southern University
10. Park University Online
37
All higher education institutions in the sub-samples had “University” in the title.
However, only three in the non-traditional university sub-sample had “Online” even
though all were online universities.
Methodology
The Methodological Approach
Foucault did not provide any systematic or detailed discourse analysis procedures
(Cataldi, 2004; Foucault, 1991as cited in Jäger & Maier, 2009; Graham, 2005; Vighi &
Feldner, 2007). Consequently, this study used the tools built upon Foucault’s theoretical
framework in Jäger’s (2001) and Jäger and Maier’s (2009) toolbox for discourse
analyses. Jäger and Maier’s (2009) critical discourse analysis methodology will be
described with reference to the specific characteristics of this study.
An Introduction to Jäger and Maier’s (2009) Critical Discourse Analysis
Methodology
Jäger (2001) maintains that Foucauldian critical discourse analysis addresses five
central issues (pp. 32-33):
What knowledge consists of
How this knowledge evolves
How it is passed on
What function it has for the constitution of subjects and the shaping of society
What impact this knowledge has on the overall development of society
To begin a critical discourse analysis research project, the researcher selects a
Subject Matter (Jäger & Maier, 2009). The subject of this study is university self-identity
narratives. Next, the researcher must identify the Discourse Strands (Jäger & Maier,
38
2009) where universities produce utterances concerning their identities. Discourse
strands, unlike the abstract Discourse, consist of tangible statements and pronouncements
(Jäger & Maier, 2009). To identify the discourse strands to be analyzed, the researcher
needs a Discourse Concept (Jäger & Maier, 2009) of the University. In this study, the
Concept of the University is the Humboldtian paradigm and its derivation, the traditional
research university. Subsequently, the researcher selects and justifies the choice of a
Discourse Plane and the specific Sector or Sectors (Jäger & Maier, 2009) that are rich in
the discourse strands to be analyzed. In this study, the discourse plane is US higher
education, the sector is university websites, and the sub-sectors are the webpages (Home,
About, History, and Mission Statement and/or Values) that contribute to a university’s
self-identity narrative.
Data Collection
The data consisted of discourse fragments (texts) found on the three standard
pages of the source university websites. University websites were used because they are
the most public informational spaces constructed by these institutions, and because of
their particular informational intentionality. Educational institutions announce and project
their identities by means of websites that are readily available on the Internet. Saichaie
(2010), who noted that by 1997 all US universities possessed an institutional website,
emphasized the importance that universities give to their sites and how they are used to
represent the institution. The study used the following webpages:
The Home pages of the university websites
The “About” and/or “History” webpages on each university website
39
The pages annunciating the institutional philosophy (mission, vision, and
values statements)
The data was collected and analyzed with NVivo 10 software that allows whole
websites to be imported into an NVivo project as PDF files via the NCapture browser
plug-in. The analysis included the computer assisted coding and categorization of the
discursive fragments in the university webpages to reveal significant emerging patterns
(Yin, 2009). This study agreed with Yin’s (2009) caution that software cannot replace an
analysis strategy in a qualitative study. The coded data was organized into two
categories: Traditional and Non-traditional Universities. The categorization facilitated the
analysis using Jäger and Maier’s (2009) critical discourse analysis methodology, and the
comparison of the different discursive positions in synoptic analysis reports.
Data Analysis
Yin (2009) offers four general analytic strategies, of which the most important is
to pursue the theoretical assertions which provoked the case study. The relevant
assertions that led to this study are: that the Humboldtian paradigm is the dominant
university identity narrative in the discursive plane of US higher education; that, as a
result of this dominance, institutional isomorphism has taken place, but that new
university identity narratives have arisen, because the innovations in higher education
institutions brought about by growing social demands cannot be subsumed within the
traditional university narrative.
Yin (2009) affirms that an “explorative study” will not have any assertions but
only a purpose (location 814). Yin’s affirmation contradicts the Foucauldian thesis that all
research has its own narrative and can never be completely objective. It also contradicts
40
the tenets of critical discourse analysis which recognize that researchers hold social
propositions and commence their research from a specific (even ideological) position.
However, the second general analytical strategy that Yin (2009) proposes is “Developing
a case description.” Although Yin catalogued it as being inferior to the first, the two
strategies can be used in conjunction. Developing a case description strategy is more
aligned with the Foucauldian concept of revealing a discursive plane in all of its
contradictions and complexity. Although these resistances are incapable of overcoming
the dominant strategy, they subsist alongside it.
The expectation for this study was that it would reveal not two diametrically
opposed, pure discursive positions, but an Entanglement of Discursive Strands (Jäger &
Maier 2009), in which one discursive strand intertwines with another (p. 47). Discursive
entanglements are perhaps a sign that a discursive plane is shifting in new and previously
unimagined directions, which in itself is a significant finding. Yin (2009), writing about
the avoidance of bias in research studies, concerns himself with the extent to which
researchers are prepared to countenance unexpected findings. This openness was an
essential element in this study.
Foucault’s approach to critical discourse analysis was not ideological, and did not
intend to facilitate the substitution of a dominant but failing discourse with a more
vigorous narrative. Foucault, rather, desired to reveal all that is hidden within a discursive
plane including all strategic moves that continually take place within a plane’s confines,
giving voice to previously unheard discursive positions. The purposes of this study were
to answer the two research questions and through analysis to confirm or disprove a
number of theoretical propositions. However, this study was also intended to disseminate
41
its findings as a contribution to a better understanding of the discursive plane, US higher
education.
The identity projected on a university’s website consists of discourse strands that
can be problematized (demythologized) using Foucauldian critical discourse analysis to
reveal the nature and the implications of the narrative adopted by the institution. For this
purpose, this study used an approach to analyzing university websites similar to that
suggested by Santiago, Carvalho, and Relva (2008). The analysis built up a thick
description (Geertz, 1973) of the institution’s identity by examining the texts or discourse
fragments usually found on university websites. First, the home page of the website was
analyzed and its structure identified to establish the salient themes of the self-identity
narrative. Second, the “About” (that is, about the university) and/or “History” page text
was analyzed. Third, any institutional philosophy texts (mission, vision, and values) were
analyzed to identify both common and divergent philosophical themes. All themes
relevant to the universities’ identities were identified and coded, and the material
processed until no new themes or insights appeared, i.e., until saturation was reached.
A Structural Analysis of the Discourse Strand
This study used five of the six steps developed by Jäger and Maier (2009):
1. A list of all the “Discursive Fragments was compiled. A discursive fragment is
a text or a sub-section of a text on a specific topic.
2. All of the relevant aspects of the text(s) in question, i.e., layout, illustrations,
key words, and images, were recorded. The selection of the texts for analysis
was an ordered but not an automatic process, because the selection depended
on the research project being carried out.
42
3. The sub-themes of a discursive strand were identified and categorized.
4. The frequency of appearance of sub-themes was established, and those which
were emphasized more than others or those which might be expected to
appear but did not, were identified.
5. Any Discursive Entanglements were noted. Discursive entanglements occur
when one discursive strand is mixed in with another.
Upon completion of the steps, the researcher needs to take a holistic view of the
data captured in order to interpret it. From this interpretation, an overall Discursive
Position (Jäger & Maier, 2009) emerges. The discursive position in this study is a
university’s self-perception and the location from which it speaks. Jäger and Maier
(2009) maintain that discursive positions are relatively standardized within a hegemonic
discourse, and that dissident discourse positions pertain to “counter-discourses” (p. 50).
The structural analysis of a discourse strand should facilitate the subsequent fine analysis
of the stereotypical discourse fragments and the writing of the Synoptic Analysis (Jäger &
Maier 2009), that establish an institution’s discursive position, and that is the ultimate
objective of a critical discourse analysis (p. 56).
The Detailed Analysis of Typical Discourse Fragments
Jäger and Maier (2009) provide detailed recommendations for the fine analysis of
discursive fragments (texts and/or sections of texts) organized under the headings:
1. Context
2. Surface of the text
3. Rhetorical means
4. Content and ideological statements
43
5. Other peculiarities of the discourse fragment
6. Discourse position and overall message of the discourse fragment
The conclusions from the detailed analysis were interpreted together with those
from the structural analysis to produce the synoptic analysis. Jäger (2001) recommends
that when researchers deal with several discourse corpora, as in the case of this study’s
analysis of texts published by a number of universities, “an additional comparative
(synoptic) analysis follows, especially when striving for statements about complete
discursive planes” (p. 56). This study produced two synoptic analyses: one on traditional
and the other on non-traditional universities. Subsequently, these analyses were compared
to provide conclusions concerning Jäger’s discursive plane, “the societal location from
which ‘speaking’ happens” (p. 49). The final analytical report included in this study is a
cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009, Kindle location 3409), the descriptive analysis offering
possible explanations for what has been observed within the discursive plane of higher
education in the US.
44
Chapter 4
Findings
Two analytical reports and a summary were based on examining specific
webpages of the twenty traditional research and non-traditional universities in the data
set. Following Jäger (2001), the first report was a structure analysis designed to analyze
the website content in relation to the discourse strand under consideration, and the second
report was a fine analysis of the discourse fragments that are as typical as possible of the
sector (p. 53). The summary, a combination of Jäger’s guidelines 1.3 and 2.6, identified
the university’s discourse position and overall message of the discourse strand (pp. 55-
56). Every university’s homepage was examined in the structure analysis report, and the
About, History, Mission, and/or Values webpages were examined in the fine analysis
report.
This chapter presents each university’s two reports and summary in order of the
school’s ranking in the “US News and World Report (2013) National Universities
Rankings” and the “Guide to Online Schools (2013) College Rankings.” The structure
analysis report appears first, followed by the fine analysis report and the summary.
45
Traditional Research Universities
1. Harvard University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from Harvard University’s
website consisted of the texts of the Homepage, About Harvard, Harvard University
History, and Harvard University Mission Statement. The top of the Harvard Homepage
features two ribbons of tabs and one of links. The first tab ribbon contains the following
tabs: Apply, Faculty, Students, Alumni, Parents, Visitors, and Media. The second tab
ribbon begins with the Harvard logo, a shield that displays three open white antique
books with the motto, Veritas, spread across them. The university’s name (Harvard is in a
larger size than University) is in a classic font next to the logo. To the right of the logo
appear the tabs, About Harvard, Admissions & Aid, Schools, and Resources and Offices.
The row of links contains the following: GAZETTE NEWS, EVENTS, CONTACT
HARVARD, HARVARD CAMPAIGN, and GIVE.
Below the rows of tabs and links, a video carousel dominates the Homepage
displaying an array of ever-changing headlines from the Harvard Gazette such as
“Harvard researchers develop long-needed standards for gauging ‘good’ stem cells,” and
“Step in preventing Type 2 diabetes.” Below the video carousel a ribbon of Featured
Events announces cultural talks and presentations. Below Featured Events are nine panes
of information and items with photographs, video, or audio. More panes are activated by
clicking on an arrow at the bottom of the page. Since each pane is designed and organized
differently, a visitor encounters an enormous patchwork of knowledge, achievement, and
topics of interest.
46
The central pane of the initially displayed three panes features a video, The
Harvard Houses, and the supporting text, “Experience House life at Harvard, where
communities of students and faculty eat, sleep, study and play together under the same
roof.” The rich and attractive video talks about the diversity of students at Harvard, and
how the community makes a Harvard education distinctive. The panes deal with every
topic and activity imaginable, ranging from foreign relations to Harvard’s athletic
achievements. The panes have graphically unobtrusive titles such as GLOBAL
ENGAGEMENT, TEACHING & LEARNING INNOVATION, and CAMPUS &
COMMUNITY that link to even more information, articles, and text. The effect is
overwhelming for the visitor. Harvard has so much to offer academically, culturally,
socially, artistically, and in athletics that there is not enough space for all of its attractions
and benefits to appear on a web page, even when video carousels, text, photos and audio
are used.
Below the panes are the tabs, SOCIAL MEDIA, MULTIMEDIA, and FACULTY
BLOGS and below them are two horizontal strips. The first strip, “Connect with Harvard
via: Twitter and Facebook” contains recent tweets and Facebook postings from the
university, the alumni association, and the faculty. The strips are superimposed on photos
of the campus. The second horizontal strip, “Find Harvard on:” contains a link to
subscribe to the Harvard Gazette, and links to social media sites. The Homepage ends
with a black horizontal strip on which appear the university’s logo, contact information
and links to Havardarts, Havardscience, Harvardworldwide, and Harvardinthecommunity.
The impression the visitor has by the end of the page is that Harvard has, does, and is
everything that one could expect from a university, and much more. The very bottom of
47
the page has links to the Harvard sitemap, contact Harvard, report security issue, and
other practical information and services.
Fine analysis. The About Harvard webpage features a photo of a large white
classical building seen at a distance through fall foliage, below which is a short text. The
text begins, “Harvard University is devoted to excellence in teaching, learning, and
research, and to developing leaders in many disciplines who make a difference globally.”
The discourse of excellence (Readings, 1996) appears first in relation to all of the
academic activities. The discursive strands of leadership, a broad academic offering, and
globalization also appear in this opening statement. The text continues with the topic of
the Harvard faculty: “Harvard faculty are engaged with teaching and research to push the
boundaries of human knowledge.” The Humboldtian elements of the indissoluble
combination of teaching, research, and the pursuit of knowledge also appear in the text.
The text then turns to the student experience at Harvard with a significant preface:
“For students who are excited to investigate the biggest issues of the 21st century,
Harvard offers an unparalleled student experience.” Students “investigate” on the
grandest of scales imaginable, which results in an “unparalleled student experience.”
There are no half measures here: everything is described using superlatives and the
discourse of excellence is taken to the extreme. Part of the student experience includes “a
generous financial aid program, with over $160 million awarded to more than 60% of our
undergraduate students.” The paragraph concludes with the number of degree-granting
schools at Harvard (twelve) “in addition to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study,”
all of which offer “a truly global education.” Harvard has an enormous academic scope,
and an education that is truly global. This distinction is not explained in the text, but what
48
appears to be a book cover with the title, “Discover GLOBAL HARVARD learn more
about Harvard’s impact around the world” is at the bottom of the page along with a red
“EXPLORE” button. The button takes the visitor to the Harvard Gazette articles, “Asia
Center supports summer travel for 65 students” and “Korea Institute funds research,
study, and work.”
The second paragraph of the “About Harvard” text mentions the university’s
history and unique status in US higher education: “Established in 1636, Harvard is the
oldest institution of higher education in the United States.” The paragraph concludes by
mentioning the size of the Harvard community: “The University, which is based in
Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts, has an enrollment of over 20,000 degree
candidates, including undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. Harvard has
more than 360,000 alumni around the world.” It is probably not necessary to state where
Harvard University is located, but the text does so in order to stress the university’s
global reach. Harvard is only “based in Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts”, as it is a
genuinely global university.
Harvard’s History webpage displays several texts: HISTORY, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES, THE HARVARD SHIELD, WHY CRIMSON? and U.S.
PRESIDENTS AND HONORARY DEGREES. The first paragraph of the History text
states that, “Harvard is the oldest institution of higher education in the United States,
established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony.” It goes on to explain the origin of the university’s name: “It was named after the
College’s first benefactor, the young minister John Harvard of Charlestown, who upon
his death in 1638 left his library and half his estate to the institution.” It ends by making
49
reference to a famed landmark: “A statue of John Harvard stands today in front of
University Hall in Harvard Yard, and is perhaps the University’s best known landmark.”
The second paragraph of the text explains the university’s size and growth, “from nine
students with a single master to an enrollment of more than 20,000 degree candidates
including undergraduate, graduate, and professional students.” The paragraph ends by
informing the reader that, “There are more than 360,000 living alumni in the U.S. and
over 190 other countries.”
No explanation of John Harvard’s beneficence is given, nor is any significance
attached to it. The result of Harvard’s history is its size and global reach. The Harvard
University Archives text consists of four sentences explaining where the archives are
held, and that they are a great means of obtaining access to Harvard’s historical record.
The Harvard shield text tells how Harvard President Josiah Quincy at Harvard’s
bicentennial on September 8, 1836 announced that he had found the first rough sketch of
the Harvard shield. The text concludes, “It became the basis of the seal officially adopted
by the Corporation in 1843 and still informs the version used today.” The “Why
Crimson?” text narrates how thanks to a pair of rowers, the university came to adopt
crimson as the official color on May 6, 1875. The U.S. Presidents and Honorary Degrees
text lists the thirteen Presidents, starting with George Washington, who have received an
honorary degree.
This is an unusual collection of discursive fragments with which to inform a
visitor of the history of the university: the simple story of the young minister John
Harvard that ends in the celebration of the global reach of his university; an
announcement of where the historical records of the university can be found; the arcane
50
story of the Harvard shield; the whimsical story of the origin of its official color; and the
imposing list of American presidents who have received honorary degrees from the
institution. The fragments constitute the story of an institution whose history is so long
and impressive that it cannot be summed up on a webpage – hence the need to resort to
the archives. This is a history that is not hurt either by the obscure or whimsical. On the
contrary, the history’s collection of idiosyncratic minutiae is intriguing and amusing, and
places a smile on the face of the reader. The historical narrative ends with the list of
American presidents, starting with Washington and ending with Kennedy – the most
powerful of the powerful – who have received degrees from the institution. The purpose
of the History webpage is not to inform, but to display the extent and depth of Harvard’s
power. The very design and composition of the page is an act of power. The page begins
with the briefest of factual histories followed by two whimsical texts almost as long, but
ends with the list of US Presidents. The whimsical texts are an indulgence on the part of a
revered institution which can afford a light-hearted moment of intimacy with the visitor
because its power is unquestioned.
Harvard University’s website does not have a webpage dedicated to Mission,
Vision, and Values. However, the “Frequently Asked Questions” webpage does ask the
question, “What is Harvard’s mission statement?” The answer is divided into two parts.
The first part consists of the statement, “Harvard University (comprising the
undergraduate college, the graduate schools, other academic bodies, research centers and
affiliated institutions) does not have a formal mission statement.” It would appear that an
academic institution of Harvard’s size, diversity, and scope cannot distill its essence into
a mission statement, or perhaps it has not chosen to follow a practice that is more typical
51
of business organizations. The above statement is followed by the two-line
announcement, “Harvard College, the undergraduate program, released the following
mission statement.” The word released has connotations of an announcement by the
school’s press office, and the word following suggests that there might have been other
and equally valid “Mission Statements.” For Harvard University, the single word, Veritas,
on its logo is an ample explanation of its mission. However, the university apparently
realizes that the expectation today is that a prominent organization will have a mission
statement. What follows is a text with the title, “THE MISSION OF HARVARD
COLLEGE” that was issued by Harry R. Lewis, Dean of Harvard College, on February
23, 1997.
This discursive fragment begins by announcing that, “Harvard College adheres to
the purposes for which the Charter of 1650 was granted: ‘The advancement of all good
literature, arts, and sciences; the advancement and education of youth in all manner of
good literature, arts, and sciences; and all other necessary provisions that may conduce to
the education of the … youth of this country….’” The extract from the 1650 Charter is
followed by a gloss upon it: “In brief: Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the
minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of
their educational opportunities.” This twentieth- century interpretation of the seventeenth-
century text provides a cogent insight into Harvard’s understanding of its identity and
purpose. In his text, the former dean of the previously meticulously identified and
differentiated Harvard College referred to his charge as “Harvard” which creates a certain
doubt in the reader’s mind as to the scope of reference of the text.
52
The introduction to the 1650 Charter text gives the reader to understand that
Harvard maintains the same purposes now as in previous centuries. The introductory
phrase “In brief” that is subsequent to the Charter text creates the expectation that what
follows will summarize those purposes. However, it is arguable whether the word
“advancement” should or can be rendered as “Creation” (of knowledge). The former
implies the development and evolution of something already extant and possessed by
someone, whereas the latter speaks of an almost God-like act of will to bring something
into being; two very different phenomena. The seventeenth-century words
“Advancement” and “Education” become the late twentieth-century hierarchical project
(borrowed from the Enlightenment) of “opening minds to that knowledge” (viz. the
knowledge that has already been created in the university). Finally, “the advancement and
education of youth in all manner of good literature, arts, and sciences; and all other
necessary provisions that may conduce to the education of the … youth of this country”
reduces to “enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities.”
“Education” rather than being defined in present day terms becomes part of a
modernist narrative about the opportunities provided by education, and how they should
be “taken best advantage of.” Earlier ideas concerning gentlemanly personal development
and refinement now mix with the narrative of the Enlightenment, the ideas underlying
Humboldtian reform of the University of Berlin, and early twentieth-century concepts of
the purpose of higher education in the modern world.
The long Mission Statement text continues with a statement of the values that
Harvard College espouses as a means of achieving its stated mission: “To these ends, the
College encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in
53
discovery and in critical thought; to pursue excellence in a spirit of productive
cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions.”
Freedom of thought, research, and critical thinking, the pursuit of excellence within a
community, and personal responsibility are modern representations of the Humboldtian
paradigm. The Humboldtian paradigm also makes its appearance in the subsequent
statements contained in this extensive discursive fragment, with the inclusion of the
liberation of students, exploration, creation, challenge, and leadership at (again)
“Harvard” to which is added the idea of the College as a support for its students by using
a metaphor of construction (“Foundation” and “are built”) in order that they develop
“self-reliance and habits of lifelong learning.” The text ends with the expectation that
Harvard students, after having experienced the “scholarship and collegiality” fostered in
them by Harvard will be led “to advance knowledge, to promote understanding, and to
serve society.”
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Harvard narrative are truth, power,
unparalleled excellence, difference, globalization and global reach, continuity, the
creation and propagation of knowledge, exceptional student experience, exploiting
educational opportunities, and service to society. Several discursive entanglements exist
in the Harvard discourse fragments (Jäger 2001). These entanglements include
seventeenth-century (almost Renaissance and Cardinal Newman-like) concepts of
gentlemanly education mixed with the Enlightenment project, the Humboldtian
paradigm, and Harvard’s own Humboldtian-based paradigm of the modern research
university. There is also a discursive knot between education and the creation and
54
propagation of knowledge and a discursive entanglement between Cambridge and Boston
and what is global.
In the mission statement discursive fragment a visitor does not discover how
Harvard University in its entirety sees itself and its purpose. Nevertheless, the text leads
the visitor to understand that Harvard considers itself the guardian of a centuries-old
tradition by which young people are inducted into the mysteries of knowledge and its
acquisition, with the difference in this century, that the knowledge students acquire is
produced by the university itself. Students take advantage of this process so that “in their
later lives” they can repeat the cycle and contribute to society. The contribution to be
made to society is not defined. This attempt to maintain a consistency of purpose for
Harvard throughout its history leads to an entanglement of Renaissance, Enlightenment,
Humboldtian, and performative discourses.
2. Princeton University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Princeton University
website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, About Princeton,
Princeton’s History, and Princeton’s Profile. The top of the Princeton Homepage features
a narrow horizontal video pane with scenes from campus life, the university logo, name,
site information, and search engines. The logo is a shield, an open Bible (representing
both the Old and New Testaments), and a chevron (suggesting the rafters of a building).
The university Profile states that sometimes the university’s motto, Dei Sub Numine
Viget, appears below the logo on a ribbon, although this is not the case on the Homepage.
Beneath the horizontal video pane are two columns. The left column is a series
of links to information about the university and the services offered to the university
55
community and potential students and their families. The right column has two sections,
“News at Princeton” and “Featured Events.” The first section contains items such as,
“Four win Jacobus Fellowship, top graduate student honor” and “For second straight
year, bonfire to celebrate Princeton Football.” The second section announces events, such
as “University Concert Jazz Ensemble to perform,” and information such as, “Exhibition
to Focus on Human Rights.” To the right of these columns a large rectangular video pane
that dominates the page contains photos of a book (“A Child of One’s Own: Parental
Stories by Rachel Bowlby”) and the author, who appears to be giving a tutorial to a
student. The pane’s title is “Bowlby: Perspective on Parental Stories.”
Below the video pane are three videos: “Princeton University School of
Architecture,” “Insights With Douglas Massey,” and “Student work: ‘Princeton Sound
Kitchen.’” Below them are three sections: “Community Resources,” “Website
Highlights,” and “Multimedia.” Below the Community Resources section there is a link
with the title, “GIVING to Princeton,” and below the Multimedia section there is a social
media area with links to the principal social media networks. The Homepage ends with
copyright by “The Trustees of Princeton University” and the university’s contact
information. The page unostentatiously presents the richness of the academic, athletic,
cultural, and social life of Princeton University, and offers information to potential
students, but does not explicitly promote itself to them.
Fine analysis. The About Princeton: Overview webpage contains four lines of
text in three paragraphs. Immediately, the text establishes Princeton University as “a
vibrant community of scholarship and learning” and “in the nation’s service and in the
service of all nations.” Here, the Humboldtian precept of the University at the service of
56
the nation is, in a modern reconceptualization, extended to “all nations.” Rather than
globalization, this idea of “all nations” belongs to a much older intellectual stream of
thought, that of internationalism. The text establishes Princeton’s historical pedigree:
“Chartered in 1746, Princeton is the fourth-oldest college in the United States.” It
describes the nature and scope of the educational and academic offerings with no
comment or additional observations: “Princeton is an independent, coeducational,
nondenominational institution that provides undergraduate and graduate instruction in the
humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and engineering.”
The text then addresses the question of research; with Princeton auto-denominated
as “a world-renowned research university.” The description is immediately followed by,
“At the same time, Princeton is distinctive among research universities in its commitment
to undergraduate teaching.” The Humboldtian bond between research and undergraduate
teaching is clear, but what is unclear is the claim that Princeton differs from other
research universities in this respect. After the indissoluble link between undergraduate
education and research has been acknowledged, the text presents this Humboldtian
relationship in terms of excellence: “Princeton seeks to achieve the highest levels of
distinction in the discovery and transmission of knowledge and understanding.” This is a
description of the nature of education at Princeton University, i.e., knowledge is first
discovered and then transmitted (to students) along with understanding. The text cites
statistics on the size of the university community: “Today, more than 1,100 faculty
members instruct approximately 5,200 undergraduate students and 2,600 graduate
students.” Finally, there is a commitment to social inclusion and diversity: “The
University’s generous financial aid program ensures that talented students from all
57
economic backgrounds can afford a Princeton education.” Talent, and not social origin, is
the key to being able to enter Princeton University. However, the implication of “can
afford” is still that the university is expensive and that “a Princeton education” is
exclusive.
The Princeton’s History webpage is also cryptic, containing only three lines of
text and links to “Historical Publications & Tools” and “Mudd Manuscript Library
Resources.” However, it does show a photo of Nassau Hall with the caption, “Nassau
Hall was the scene of meetings of the Continental Congress in the spring and fall of
1783” and explains the unusual graphic in the top left corner of the page as, “Above left:
This Princeton cherub is calling out the Princeton skyrocket cheer on a 1909 postcard
created by an unknown artist.” The photograph of a massively imposing classical
building at dusk, a building indelibly associated with American history, appears on the
same page as a curio from 1909. The power and strength of the former sanctions the
whimsy and wholly idiosyncratic humor of the latter. The text explains that the
university was originally (1746), and subsequently for 150 years, named “the College of
New Jersey” and did not move to Princeton until 1756, where it was housed in Nassau
Hall which was built on land donated by Nathaniel FitzRandolph.
Not until 1896 did the college obtain university status. It was renamed Princeton
University “in honor of its host community of Princeton.” The text notes that, “Four years
later, in 1900, the Graduate School was established.” No further information is given
concerning Nathaniel FitzRandolph, no explanation is provided as to how the college
became a university, and how and why the graduate school was founded. Further
comment is unnecessary; the few historical details provided are sufficient, given that the
58
subject is Princeton University. Despite the fact that the Princeton University website
offers limited information about the university and its history, and has no mission
statement, it does provide a lengthy downloadable document entitled, “Profile”, with
information about the university, the campus (“9 million square feet of space in 180
buildings on 500 acres”), research, internationalism, community service, “Fun Facts,”
and other topics. The educational mission is “to prepare students to help address the
challenges of the future.” The means by which this somewhat vague mission is to be
achieved are then described as,
To this end, the University aims to enroll the most capable students from all parts
of the world and to provide them with an educational experience that strengthens
their intellects, sharpens their skills, expands their horizons and prepares them for
leadership – aiming in all that it does for the highest possible standards of
excellence.
Summary. The sub-themes in the Princeton narrative include American history,
power, size, merit, excellence, generosity, service, internationalism, research, community
(of scholarship and learning), and the future. The discursive entanglements that exist in
the Princeton discourse fragments include service to the nation and service to all nations,
research with a special commitment to undergraduate teaching, exclusivity with inclusion
on the basis of merit, and education and personal development with leadership.
Princeton University recruits an elite, multinational body of talented students, and
in Humboldtian fashion, educates and develops them, and “prepares them for
leadership.” All of this activity takes place within a context of excellence, with the
university “aiming in all that it does for the highest possible standards of excellence.” A
59
university that does not need a mission other than “to prepare students to help address the
challenges of the future” and that chooses not to provide easily accessible information
about itself or its long history (other than about Nassau Hall with its connections to the
Continental Congress) speaks of an institution totally confident of what it is, and of what
it is doing (although this may not be totally clear to outsiders). This is a university that
exerts itself only sufficiently to state that it is different from other research universities of
the same type, although the distinction is not made patent. Princeton exudes an absolute
confidence and faith in itself that requires no detailed explanation to an age that perhaps
no longer understands internationalism and legitimization through a generosity that
provides for inclusion based on merit. This unshakeable confidence forged over centuries
of power and prosperity is well expressed by the English translation of the Latin motto,
“Under God’s Power She Flourishes.”
3. Yale University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Yale University
website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the following pages: Homepage,
About Yale, and About Yale – History. At the top of the Yale homepage a wide horizontal
strip in blue contains the name Yale University in white and a search engine box. There is
no logo, nor are there any tabs near the university’s name. The design is minimalist.
Information tabs that appear in blue on the left side of the homepage beneath the
university’s name include “Academic Programs,” “Yale and the World,” and “Giving to
Yale.”
Below the vertical list of tabs there is a section entitled “Gateways” beneath
which appears another list of informational tabs (in light gray) for the university
60
community, and other tabs/links such as students’ parents, foundations and corporations,
patients, and visitors. The page is dominated by a graphic pane displaying a photo of a
group of students dressed in Yale blue who are participating in a scientific experiment.
The caption says, “World-class research and education – at the undergraduate and
graduate levels – happen together at Yale. More than 100 high school students from the
2017 applicant pool attended the third annual Yale Engineering and Science Weekend.”
The Humboldtian ideal of combining teaching and research is clearly represented in this
impressive photograph of potential Yale students.
Below the graphic pane is a news section with a single item. A color graphic with
the names Harvard and Yale appears, and below the title, “11 Historic Tidbits about The
Game” followed by, “Here are 11 historic tidbits about the Yale-Harvard football game,
which this year will be played on Saturday, Nov. 23 in New Haven.” To the right of the
Yale News section is an informational area with links to different directories, a calendar,
“Contact Us, “Quick Links,” and a search engine, below which there is an area with links
to social media networks. The Homepage ends with another horizontal blue strip
containing the word “Yale” below which appears copyright information, the university’s
privacy policy, and “Contact Us” links in small print. Everything on the page is simple
and understated and with a minimum of text.
Fine analysis. The Yale University “About” webpage contains a cryptic
paragraph of just five lines accompanied by a photo of a soaring clock tower. The visitor
is informed about the academic structure of the university, “Yale University comprises
three major academic components: Yale College (the undergraduate program), the
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and the professional schools.” The text informs
61
the visitor that the university possesses a plethora of other entities and installations, “In
addition, Yale encompasses a wide array of centers and programs, libraries, museums,
and administrative support offices.” The paragraph ends by citing the number of students,
“Approximately 11,250 students attend Yale.” The text is completely practical with no
attempt to provide anything other than factual information. It is dynamic so that the
visitor can discover more about certain of the key items by clicking on hyperlinks
embedded in the text. The impression of the university on the visitor is one of size and an
enormous variety of academic and non-academic resources.
The About History webpage has the same blue and white design and layout (with
informational tabs in a vertical list on the left side) as the Homepage. However, the blue
tabs include topics such as “Yale Facts,” “History,” and “Governance & Historic
Documents.” The text on the page begins with an invitation to the visitor, “to view an
illustrated timeline of Yale’s history in addition to reading the brief overview on this
page.” Embedded in the text on the left side of the page and just two lines below its
beginning is the facsimile of a historic document headed by a large red wax seal, and
below which is written in copperplate cursive the caption “Yale Charter.” The five-
paragraph text begins by describing the university’s roots in the 1640s, “when colonial
clergymen led an effort to establish a college in New Haven to preserve the tradition of
European liberal education in the New World.” The text goes on to explain, “This vision
was fulfilled in 1701, when the charter was granted for a school ‘wherein Youth may be
instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be
fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State.’” The text then explains
the origin of the university’s name: “In 1718 the school was renamed ‘Yale College’ in
62
gratitude to the Welsh merchant Elihu Yale, who had donated the proceeds from the sale
of nine bales of goods together with 417 books and a portrait of King George I.”
The text continues with an overview of the next three centuries of Yale’s
existence, which includes a tangential definition of what for Yale a true university is:
“The nineteenth and twentieth centuries brought the establishment of the graduate and
professional schools that would make Yale a true university.” Postgraduate education is
required if an institution of higher education is to be regarded as a genuine University.
The third paragraph of the text lays out Yale’s credentials as a long-standing international
university: “International students have made their way to Yale since the 1830s, when the
first Latin American student enrolled” and “Today, international students make up nearly
9 percent of the undergraduate student body, and 16 percent of all students at the
University.” The paragraph goes on to point out that many of the faculty have foreign
academic connections, and states that an increasingly important aspect of the curriculum
is international studies and academic exchanges, “and many whose fields of research
have a global emphasis; and international studies and exchanges play an increasingly
important role in the Yale College curriculum.” The paragraph ends on a somewhat
discordant note when the last line introduces the topic of female participation at Yale:
“The University began admitting women students at the graduate level in 1869, and as
undergraduates in 1969.” This reference is almost an afterthought, and seems to seek to
cover popular twentieth-century emphases on global themes, internationalism, and gender
neutrality.
The fourth paragraph deals with the way in which Yale University is organized
into residential colleges. The model for this structure is identified as “medieval English
63
universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.” However, the Yale college system, although
based on a medieval model, is used to justify a Humboldtian combination of a small
academic community and research on a large scale:
Taking medieval English universities such as Oxford and Cambridge as its model,
this distinctive system divides the undergraduate population into twelve separate
communities of approximately 450 members each, thereby enabling Yale to offer
its students both the intimacy of a small college environment and the vast
resources of a major research university.
The extent to which Yale imitates the Oxbridge college system is revealed in the
impressive description in the last two lines of the paragraph of the organization and
physical layout of the colleges. The text juxtaposes, “the intimacy of a small college
environment and the vast resources of a major research university.” The second part of
this medieval-Humboldtian oxymoron is maladroit, as the use of the hyperbolic phrase
“vast resources” sits uneasily with the rather more prudent self-denomination of Yale as
“a major research university.”
The final paragraph provides a vivid, highly self-laudatory picture of Yale
University today. The paragraph opens with the totally unabashed statement, “Today, Yale
has matured into one of the world’s great universities.” What follows is a torrent of
statistics dealing with topics of all sorts: numbers of students, their origins, numbers of
faculty, the size and physical diversity of its different campuses, the large number of its
buildings, and a description of their architectural design (including this statement about
Yale’s central campus, which “one architecture critic has called ‘the most beautiful urban
campus in America”). The paragraph ends with more information about the size of the
64
university’s current installations and physical resources: “Yale’s West Campus, located 7
miles west of downtown New Haven on 136 acres, was acquired in 2007 and includes 1.6
million square feet of research, office, and warehouse space that provides opportunities to
enhance the University’s medical and scientific research and other academic programs.”
The size of the huge spaces the university occupies links to the possibility of
enhancing its research and academic programs, although this asseveration is not
elaborated upon. The last two lines of this final paragraph provide information on the
amount of centrally located, unbuilt- land the university “maintains” in New Haven: “The
University also maintains over 600 acres (243 hectares) of athletic fields and natural
preserves just a short bus ride from the center of town.” The overwhelming impression is
one of the vast physical resources the university has at its disposal – their number,
incredible beauty, and convenience. The conclusion reached by the visitor to this page is
that Yale’s three hundred years of history have endowed it with a number and diversity of
resources that extend far beyond any practical need of an institution of higher education.
The Yale website only provides a mission statement for Yale College (Yale’s
undergraduate program). No explanation of why only the undergraduate program has a
mission statement is given. The “Yale College Mission” consists of the following
paragraph:
The mission of Yale College is to seek exceptionally promising students of all
backgrounds from across the nation and around the world and to educate them,
through mental discipline and social experience, to develop their intellectual,
moral, civic, and creative capacities to the fullest. The aim of this education is the
65
cultivation of citizens with a rich awareness of our heritage to lead and serve in
every sphere of human activity.
The ideas expressed in this mission statement are essentially Humboldtian in
origin, as they include the concept of higher education as a means to develop students’
moral and civic as well as their “intellectual...and creative capacities to the fullest.” The
aim of such an education is, as with von Humboldt, “the cultivation of citizens” that
possess “a rich awareness of our heritage to lead and serve in every sphere of human
activity.” The Humboldtian ideal of the citizen graduate has already been modified in the
mission statement to include “exceptionally promising students of all backgrounds from
across the nation and around the world.” These citizen-graduates are also to have a keen
understanding of the specifically Yale heritage “to lead and serve in every sphere of
human activity.” The visitor to this mission statement must conclude that Yale exists to
produce an elite international cadre of Servant-Leaders (Greenleaf, 1977) who will be
active in “every sphere of human activity.”
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Yale narrative are: greatness, size,
merit, excellence, service, material resources, internationalism, research, community, and
servant-leadership. The discursive entanglements in the discourse fragments include the
medieval university with the research university, the physical installations of a university
with the quality of its academic programs, education with personal and moral
development, and leadership with service.
The Yale style as represented in the discursive fragments is minimalist. The only
exception is the university’s rather unfortunate attempt to meld medievalism with the
Harvard derivative of the Humboldtian paradigm, i.e., Oxbridge-style colleges and
66
community with the enormous resources of a modern research university. The
university’s size and wealth are mentioned, yet not overly dwelt upon. There is a classical
ease and confidence about Yale as represented by the lack of self-explanation (like
Harvard, Yale does not have an institutional mission statement) and the brevity of the
expositions provided. Yale is exclusive, excellent, and powerful. It will, as it has always
done, educate elite graduates to be leaders for the US (and now internationally) and to
serve in each and every sphere of human endeavor.
4. Columbia University in the City of New York
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Columbia University
website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, Columbia – History,
and Mission Statement. At the top of the Columbia University in the City of New York
homepage there is a broad blue horizontal strip which contains a stylized crown logo and
the university name in white to the left, and a white search engine slot with white
informational tabs in small print for “Email,” “Quick Links,” “Main Menu,” and “A-Z
Index” above it. Large white information tabs appear in a light blue vertical strip on the
left hand side of the page beneath university’s name. Among the tabs are: ABOUT,
ADMISSIONS, ACADEMICS, GIVING, ARTS, ATHLETICS, and GLOBAL
COLUMBIA. Below these appears another list of tabs under the title of “Resources for”:
STUDENTS, FACULTY & STAFF, ALUMNI, NEIGHBORS, and
MANHATTANVILLE.
To the right of these tabs is a graphic pane that dominates the whole page and
displays a photograph of the university campus with the title “Late Autumn on Campus.”
Below the photograph title is a clickable ABOUT hyperlink. To the right of the pane there
67
is a vertical strip of alternative photographs which can be displayed by clicking on an
arrow icon. Below the graphic pane there is the “University News,” and the “Events &
Announcements” sections. Among the news items appear the following, “Columbia
Engineers Make World’s Smallest FM Radio Transmitter” and “Percussionist and
Columbia Music Lecturer Jeffrey Milarsky Wins 2013 Ditson Conductor’s Award.” The
events section is calendarized, and announces such events as “Prison Healthcare
Advocacy Programs” and “Football vs. Brown.” Between these two sections are two
logos: one for the Columbia Community Service Annual Appeal, and another which says,
“Find Us on You Tube.” The very bottom of the page contains contact information in
small print and a horizontal strip of informational tabs CONTACT US, COMPUTING,
EMPLOYMENT, VISITING COLUMBIA, and a series of social media icons.
Fine analysis. The Columbia history page contains an extremely long and rich
discursive fragment. The text begins in a straight forward manner with a very direct
statement concerning the founding of the institution and its antiquity, “Columbia
University was founded in 1754 as King’s College by royal charter of King George II of
England. It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the state of New York and the
fifth oldest in the United States.” However, then the text intertwines two discursive
strands throughout its length. The first strand has to do with the university’s different
locations during its history and the construction and development of the buildings at each
of the different campuses. This discursive strand provides the basic structure for the text
as it moves through time from campus to campus; with illustrations of three of the four
sites embedded in the text: Trinity Church schoolhouse, 49th Street and Madison Avenue,
East 49th Street and Madison Avenue, and Morningside Heights. Three other photographs
68
appear in the text: “The construction of Low Memorial Library,” “The construction of
South Hall (later renamed Butler Library),” and the “Statue of Alexander Hamilton,
Hamilton Hall.”
The second discursive strand in the fragment has to do with people, university
presidents (whose dates of tenure also provide structure for the chronological movement
in the text), and revered alumni and faculty. This discursive knot is punctuated by three
mentions of controversies and conflicts which affected first the founding and later the
growth and development of the university. The first controversy has to do with the
religious affiliation and location of the university, “Controversy preceded the founding of
the College, with various groups competing to determine its location and religious
affiliation. Advocates of New York City met with success on the first point, while the
Anglicans prevailed on the latter.” The second one concerns the period of the American
Revolution, “The American Revolution brought the growth of the college to a halt,
forcing a suspension of instruction in 1776 that lasted for eight years.” The third mention
is related to the Vietnam War:
It was also in the 1960s that Columbia experienced the most significant crisis in
its history. Currents of unrest sweeping the country—among them opposition to
the Vietnam War, an increasingly militant civil rights movement, and the ongoing
decline of America's inner cities—converged with particular force at Columbia,
casting the Morningside campus into the national spotlight.
The text reports that the first conflict was resolved amicably, with each side
obtaining something of what it wanted, and with a general agreement concerning one of
the most elemental freedoms enjoyed by the university, “However, all constituencies
69
agreed to commit themselves to principles of religious liberty in establishing the policies
of the College.” This conflict, while retarding the physical growth of the institution for a
period of eight years, did not destroy the university’s influence on the national life,
“However, the institution continued to exert a significant influence on American life
through the people associated with it.” Also, when the college reopened it was revitalized
and re-oriented, “The revitalized institution was recognizable as the descendant of its
colonial ancestor, thanks to its inclination toward Anglicanism and the needs of an urban
population, but there were important differences. Columbia College reflected the legacy
of the Revolution in the greater economic, denominational, and geographic diversity of
its new students and leaders.”
The conflict at the university over the Vietnam War was traumatic and damaging
to the university,
More than 1,000 protesting students occupied five buildings in the last week of
April 1968, effectively shutting down the University until they were forcibly
removed by the New York City police. Those events led directly to the
cancellation of a proposed gym in Morningside Park, the cessation of certain
classified research projects on campus, the retirement of President Grayson Kirk,
and a downturn in the University’s finances and morale.
Nevertheless, these negative events also produced positive consequences, as the
university became a more democratic institution, “They also led to the creation of the
University Senate, in which faculty, students, and alumni acquired a larger voice in
University affairs.” These conflicts in the university’s history present a narrative of
stoicism concerning Columbia in which, during the university’s long history, it always
70
has been able to rise above violence and crisis to continue, reenergized and stronger than
before.
There are also two lesser series of discursive punctuations in the text. The first of
these is connected to the university’s frequent change of name. Columbia University
began life 1754 as “King’s College.” After the American Revolution it changed its name
to Columbia College, “The college reopened 1784 with the name—Columbia—that
embodied the patriotic fervor that had inspired the nation’s quest for independence.” In
1896 it changed its name yet again as it became a university: “In 1896, the trustees
officially authorized the use of yet another new name, Columbia University.” Finally, the
university operates today under the name of Columbia University in the City of New
York. The text suggests that each change of name represents a new stage in the
university’s evolution from colonial college to a modern urban university serving the City
of New York.
The second lesser discursive punctuation consists of just two quotations, but they
are essential to an understanding of how Columbia University sees itself. The first
quotation describes the education provided at Kings College, which was intended to
“Enlarge the Mind, improve the Understanding, polish the whole Man, and qualify them
to support the brightest Characters in all the elevated stations in life.” The college offered
a holistic education designed to develop not just the intellect, but the whole person. This
education was also intended to equip the students to occupy the very highest offices. The
second quotation comes from a very eminent alumnus, the writer Herman Wouk, who
describes Columbia as “a place of ‘doubled magic,’ where ‘the best things of the moment
were outside the rectangle of Columbia; the best things of all human history and thought
71
were inside the rectangle.’” In this more modern quotation, the emphasis has shifted from
a specific type of education designed to produce an elite, to a physical place – an almost
magical “rectangle” which encompasses, “the best things of all human history and
thought.” This hyperbolic statement leaves the reader with no doubt whatsoever about the
excellence and lasting power of Columbia University. All that is ephemeral and
superficial is outside Columbia’s demesne, while all that is profound, lasting and of
fundamental importance belongs inside it.
The text explains that Columbia University’s first home was “in a new
schoolhouse adjoining Trinity Church, located on what is now lower Broadway in
Manhattan.” From its very beginnings the university occupied prime real estate in the city
of New York; from Broadway it moved to “Park Place, near the present site of city hall.”
And then on to another downtown location (49th Street and Madison Avenue) where,
Columbia rapidly assumed the shape of a modern university. The Columbia
School of Law was founded in 1858. The country’s first mining school, a
precursor of today's Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science,
was established in 1864 and awarded the first Columbia Ph.D. in 1875.
It is interesting to note the above entanglement between the physical and
academic shapes of “a modern university.”
However, it was the next relocation, in 1897, that was to create the Columbia
“rectangle” within the Morningside Heights campus. This campus was “designed as an
urban academic village by McKim, Mead, and White, the renowned turn-of-the-century
architectural firm. Architect Charles Follen McKim provided Columbia with stately
buildings patterned after those of the Italian Renaissance.” This description of the new
72
campus juxtaposes “an urban academic village” with “stately buildings patterned after
those of the Italian Renaissance.” The desire to project the quasi-medieval image of a
community that occupies an “academic village” vies with the even more powerful need to
project Columbia as a stately legatee of the renaissance, with the connotation of the
origins of the Enlightenment. The Morningside Heights campus is developed with new
schools and imposing installations, and the text informs the reader, by now rather
gratuitously, that, “The University continued to prosper after its move uptown in 1897.”
The development of the Morningside Heights campus continues apace, and in
different and impressive ways, “In 1928, Columbia–Presbyterian Medical Center, the first
such center to combine teaching, research, and patient care, was officially opened as a
joint project between the medical school and The Presbyterian Hospital.” Columbia
University continues its growth until, “This growth mandated a major campus building
program in the 1960s, and, by the end of the decade, five of the University's schools were
housed in new buildings.” However, subsequently, even more construction was to take
place,
Under the leadership of President Michael Sovern, the 1980s saw the completion
of important new facilities, and the pace intensified after George Rupp became
president in 1993. A 650-million-dollar building program begun in 1994 provided
the impetus for a wide range of projects, including the complete renovation of
Furnald Hall and athletics facilities on campus and at Baker Field, the wiring of
the campus for Internet and wireless access, the rebuilding of Dodge Hall for the
School of the Arts, the construction of new facilities for the Schools of Law and
73
Business, the renovation of Butler Library, and the creation of the Philip L.
Milstein Family College Library.
The overwhelming impression given here is one of vast resources dedicated to a
proliferation of buildings and new facilities: with each burst of refurbishment and
construction defining a specific president’s tenure.
The text continues to describe construction projects up to and including 1999, and
ends its description of Columbia’s physical growth somewhat disingenuously by
suggesting that its physical plant is but the visible representation of the university’s
research and teaching activity.
These and other improvements to the University’s physical plant provide a visible
reminder of the continuing growth and development of Columbia's programs of
research and teaching. From its renowned Core Curriculum to the most advanced
work now under way in its graduate and professional schools, the University
continues to set the highest standard for the creation and dissemination of
knowledge, both in the United States and around the world.
The university’s buildings are the physical manifestation of Columbia’s prime position in
the world as a creator and disseminator of knowledge. This asseveration comes very late
in the text, and it is the impression of the immense size, the symbolism, and power of
Columbia’s physical campus that remains as the text closes.
Samuel Johnson, who gave the first classes at King’s College in 1754, is the first
personage that the reader encounters in the text, but he is immediately followed by a host
of early eminent Americans associated with the college.
74
Among the earliest students and trustees of King’s College were John Jay, the first
chief justice of the United States; Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the
treasury; Governor Morris, the author of the final draft of the U.S. Constitution;
and Robert R. Livingston, a member of the five-man committee that drafted the
Declaration of Independence.
These luminaries in turn are succeeded by a list of highly successful university
presidents: Seth Low (1890), who moved Columbia to Morningside Heights, Nicholas
Murray Butler (1902–1945) during whose presidency “Columbia emerged as a
preeminent national center for educational innovation and scholarly achievement,”
President Michael Sovern, (1980s), who completed “important new facilities,” George
Rupp (1993), who was responsible for even more construction, and current President Lee
C. Bollinger, under whose presidency, “Columbia is proud to celebrate its 250th
anniversary and look ahead to the achievements to come.” The only exception mentioned
to this illustrious line is President Grayson Kirk, whose retirement was provoked by the
campus occupation of 1968 during the Vietnam War.
The text is full of the names and exploits of eminent donors, faculty and alumni:
“The School of Journalism was established by bequest of Joseph Pulitzer in 1912,” “John
Erskine taught the first Great Books Honors Seminar at Columbia College in 1919,” “By
the late 1930s, a Columbia student could study with the likes of Jacques Barzun, Paul
Lazarsfeld, Mark Van Doren, Lionel Trilling, and I. I. Rabi, to name just a few of the
great minds of the Morningside campus,” and “The University's graduates during this
time were equally accomplished—for example, two alumni of Columbia's School of Law,
Charles Evans Hughes and Harlan Fiske Stone (who was also dean of the School of
75
Law), served successively as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court,”
“Research into the atom by faculty members I. I. Rabi, Enrico Fermi, and Polykarp
Kusch brought Columbia’s Department of Physics to international prominence in the
1940s.” To this long list of names must be added those of the benefactors of the named
buildings and facilities at Columbia, for example, the Butler Library and the Philip L.
Milstein Family College Library. The text provides the reader with a roll-call of honor of
the different stakeholders of the university that leaves an impression of unrivalled
success, prosperity, and eminence.
The Columbia University in the City of New York Mission Statement page boasts
the blue on white crown logo with a paragraph in black text on a pale blue background
below which appears a fisheye lens photo of Manhattan Island and New York City. The
text begins by linking research and teaching and learning in Humboldtian fashion,
“Columbia University is one of the world’s most important centers of research and at the
same time a distinctive and distinguished learning environment for undergraduates and
graduate students in many scholarly and professional fields.” It then emphasizes the
importance and benefit of the school’s location in New York City, “The University
recognizes the importance of its location in New York City and seeks to link its research
and teaching to the vast resources of a great metropolis.” The text introduces the themes
of internationalism and globalization, “It seeks to attract a diverse and international
faculty and student body, to support research and teaching on global issues, and to create
academic relationships with many countries and regions.”
The text closes with an aspirational statement concerning the advancement of
knowledge and learning and the dissemination of the fruits of the university’s efforts
76
throughout the entire world, “It expects all areas of the university to advance knowledge
and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.”
The first sentence of the statement indirectly describes the university’s mission, but then
becomes more of a vision than a mission statement. It explains how it “seeks” to exploit
its location, and harness the “the vast resources of a great metropolis.” The final sentence
of the statement, with its use of the verb “expects” is also visionary in its modernized
Humboldtian efforts to benefit the world by means of the “advance of knowledge and
learning at the highest level.” The statement appears designed not to inspire but to
impress. Although the text lacks cohesion, and is almost matter of fact in tone, it seeks to
impress the reader with Columbia’s pre-eminence and excellence, privileged location,
and the high demands it places upon itself.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Columbia narrative are greatness, size,
growth and expansion, excellence, infrastructure, internationalism and globalization,
research, its location in and links to the City of New York, and a phoenix-like evolution
from colonial college to modern urban university. The discursive entanglements in the
Columbia discourse fragments include the association of the physical installations of the
university with the pre-eminence of its research and teaching and learning; and its
imposing physical plant with the eminent people who have contributed to the university’s
growth, development and success, respectively.
The history of the University of Columbia in the City of New York is a long tale
of changes of campus and name with setbacks along the way, but always Columbia is on
an unstoppable march upwards and onwards. The physical size of Columbia with its vast
number of buildings is imposing. However, its excellence and pre-eminence linked to the
77
physical, but transformed into an almost mystical state of power and influential
manifested in both the vibrant metropolis of New York City, but also around the globe, is
even more so. Even so, the reader is left with the impression not of an institution that has
learned from the centuries of its history, creating an integrated personality through time,
but of a survivor adapting to each new situation, moving relentlessly and ever more
successfully towards an unnamed destination.
5. The University of Chicago
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the University of
Chicago website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, and the
University of Chicago – History and the Office of the President pages. The top of the
University of Chicago Homepage has a narrow dark gray horizontal strip containing two
clusters of small-font informational hyperlinks in white and a pale gray search engine
box. The left cluster includes Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni, Parents, and Visitors. The
right cluster includes Directories, Maps, Quick Links, A–Z, My.UChicago, and Giving.
Below the informational links strip there is a broad dark maroon horizontal band with the
University of Chicago logo and name in a classical font in white, with the word Chicago
in bold type. The logo depicts a shield with an antique book in its upper part. Written on
the open pages of the book is the university motto, Crescat scientia; vita excolatur. The
ideals of the unlimited pursuit of knowledge at the service of humankind expressed in this
motto are Humboldtian in origin. In the lower part of the shield a phoenix emerges from
the flames. Below the logo is a series of white hyperlinks, namely, About, Admissions &
Aid, Academics, Research, Medicine, Civic Engagement, and Campus Life.
78
Below these links, the large graphic pane dominating the page displays colorful
untitled photos of university life (for instance, a faculty member next to technological
equipment). The photos change every few minutes, and flashes of university news appear
in the pane, too. Below the graphic pane there is a news section with photos to the three
the corresponding stories, “Institute for Molecular Engineering doubles size of faculty
with innovative researchers,” “Chinese vice premier joins U.S. and Chinese university
presidents for discussion on higher education,” and “Dan Gaylin named president of
NORC at the University of Chicago.” To the right of the news stories a “Latest News”
flash area links to “UChicagoNews” and “UChicagoConnect.” Below the news section,
to the left is a vertical list of university events such as “WHPK Jazz Film Screening: “A
Great Day in Harlem” and “J. S. Bach Project: Annual Celebration.” To the right of
“Events” six colored tabs link to the library, The University of Chicago Press, and other
university destinations. Below the colored tabs are four attractive photograph tabs,
GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT, DIVERSITY & INCLUSION, ATHLETICS, and ARTS.
Below these are links to the social media and to two YouTube videos. The first is “The
Work Behind the Prize” (“Moderator Gary S. Becker leads panelists James J. Heckman,
John C. Heaton, John H. Cochrane, and Tobias J. Moskowitz in a discussion of the
research contributions of 2013 Nobel Laureates Eugene F. Fama and Lars Peter
Hansen.”) and the second is “Center in Beijing: An Intellectual Destination.” Even further
below two more video panes appear, one displaying a video about the Hyde Park campus,
and the other with the title, “Explore Campus.”
At the very bottom of the page is a broad gray horizontal strip, which to the left
has the same tabs in white that appear at the top of the page. In the center of the strip is
79
the university logo and to the right a vertical list of tabs, Job Opportunities, Campus
Notices, Emergency Info, xMail, and Contact Us, and the university’s contact
information. Beneath this strip there are small white hyperlinks to different social media
sites. The University of Chicago’s Homepage is colorful, tasteful, and graphic. Through
its photographs, news sections, video panes, and YouTube videos the impression given is
of a rich university life, with a broad range of academic, social, and athletic activities and
an impressively located and endowed campus. Rather than overwhelming the visitor, the
page conveys the importance, seriousness, and profundity of the University’s studies,
activities, and events.
Fine analysis. Apart from a series of basic facts about the university and a video
entitled “Explore UChicago,” the About page contains four short texts: “An intellectual
destination,” “A transformative education,” “Groundbreaking research,”, and “A
commitment to enrich society”. “An intellectual destination” immediately establishes the
university’s academic and research credentials and its intellectual leadership since its
founding in 1890: “One of the world’s premier academic and research institutions, the
University of Chicago has driven new ways of thinking since our 1890 founding.” The
text describes the university as an “intellectual destination” that attracts “inspired
scholars” to both its original and “international campuses” and keeps “UChicago at the
nexus of ideas that challenge and change the world.”
The focus on UChicago as an intellectual destination leaves the reader with no
doubt as to the purpose of the University. It is an intellectual and academic magnet for
scholars and maintains itself at the confluence of ideas “that challenge and change the
world.” There is no mention of undergraduate study or learning, or of the University as a
80
place of exploration or discovery for students. The University, as epitomized by
UChicago, is a static pole of attraction for established scholars involved in the
development of profound, world-changing ideas. This vision is very much in agreement
with the Humboldtian paradigm’s pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Although in this
text, the idea of the University as having a powerful position in the affairs of the world
(which situation the university is obliged to maintain) is also present.
“A transformative education” deals with undergraduate education. Again, original
thinking and ideas are supremely important and form the heart of the education offered,
“Our education empowers individuals to challenge conventional thinking in pursuit of
original ideas.” The “rigorous Core curriculum” expands the undergraduates’ vision of
“world issues.” Graduate education “transforms scholars into leaders and grants access to
professors often lauded as some of the world’s greatest thinkers.” The question of why
scholars should be transformed into leaders is not addressed, and the use of “grants
access” shows how privileged these graduate students are to be able to sit at the feet of
“some of the world’s greatest thinkers.” Transformative education here has to do with the
liberation and development of undergraduate students (in relation to world issues). In the
case of graduates at the University of Chicago it has to do with their becoming those who
wield power in the world and have access to the greatest minds available. However, the
ideas of a physical intellectual destination and of physical contact with intellectual giants
are somewhat anachronistic, especially when they are expressed and promoted on a
university website.
“Groundbreaking research” begins with the statement of a Humboldtian
“commitment to free and open inquiry.” Scholars undertaking research at UChicago
81
engage in work that “transforms the way we understand the world, advancing—and
creating—fields of study.” This research is world-changing and creates new knowledge.
University of Chicago scholars are pathfinders, who “lead the country in scientific and
technological innovations, often in partnership with our affiliated laboratories.” The text
cites the three major laboratories, and it is clear that it emphasizes the idea of knowledge
as science and technology, while also giving examples from economics and education.
The new knowledge thus generated has a far-reaching impact in both time and space,
“Generating new knowledge for the benefit of present and future generations, UChicago
research has had an impact around the globe.” The concept of research presented here is
that of the Western Scientific paradigm and the Enlightenment project, and of progress
achieved through the creation of new knowledge.
“A commitment to enrich society” begins by describing how UChicago enriches
the local community:
Located in one of the world’s greatest cities, UChicago is enriched by and
invested in the community we call home. As the second-largest private employer
in Chicago, our talented faculty, physicians, and staff comprise a dedicated team
committed to the mission of the University.
The text expands the Humboldtian commitment and obligation of the University
to society. This transition begins with the enriching of the city’s South Side and of
universities everywhere in similar locations: “We partner with our South Side neighbors
on innovative initiatives with local benefits and replicable outcomes for urban
universities everywhere.” This enrichment process and the obligation to carry it out
82
quickly move beyond immediate communities to the international sphere and then they
become universal:
Meanwhile, our research and ideas have broad impact, crossing borders to drive
international conversations. The same is true of our diverse and creative students
and alumni, who found businesses, create masterpieces, and win Nobel Prizes. In
all we do, we are driven to dig deeper, push further, and ask bigger questions—
and to leverage our knowledge to enrich all human life.
UChicago alumni benefit the world not only by starting businesses; they also
“create masterpieces, and win Nobel Prizes.” The mission of UChicago is to carry out an
unrestricted and persistent pursuit of knowledge “to dig deeper, push further, and ask
bigger questions,” with the final goal being “to leverage our knowledge to enrich all
human life.” This is a faithful representation of the Humboldtian paradigm of the
University, but one taken far beyond Von Humboldt’s original ideal of contributing to a
nation state. In the Chicago vision the ultimate goal of the University is that of enriching
“all human life.”
The University of Chicago website does not have a mission statement. However,
it does have a message signed by the president on the Office of the President page, which
offers a summary of the university’s mission and its core activities. This short text begins,
“From its inception in 1892, the University of Chicago has been committed to open,
rigorous, and intense inquiry with a shared understanding that this must be the defining
feature of the University.” Continuing in a Humboldtian vein, the text makes the
assumption that the University exists to make contributions to the growth of knowledge,
learning, and society: “We recognize that our most important contributions to discovery,
83
education, and society rest on our focus, the power of our ideas, and the openness of our
environment to the development and testing of these ideas.” The most crucial
contributions result from “the power of our ideas” and the existence of an atmosphere of
freedom that is conducive “to the development and testing of these ideas.”
The text proclaims the University of Chicago’s academic and intellectual
leadership, and lists some of the fields that have been transformed by its efforts:
“economics, science, energy production, mathematics, medicine, law, business, religion,
policy, sociology, archeology, and historical, cultural and literary analysis.” The text adds,
We have always drawn the most original agenda-setting faculty and students, who
work together in an interactive and genuinely multidisciplinary atmosphere.
Students from the College, graduate schools, and professional schools have been
empowered by their education and have become leaders in virtually every area of
endeavor.
The latter part emphasizes its location in Chicago, and the impact of its activities
and initiatives on life in the city.
We are located in a dynamic city, Chicago, with our main campus in the Hyde
Park neighborhood and a notable presence in our facility downtown. We operate
two major national laboratories, an internationally renowned hospital, an
outstanding pre-K-12 private school, a charter school with four distinct campuses,
our own professional theatre, museums, and the nation's largest academic press.
This part of the text provides a rounded view of the university, in that it is
involved not only with medical and scientific entities, but also with academic,
educational, and cultural ones. The text ends by describing the university’s global
84
dimension, which consists both of a physical presence and a worldwide network of
scholars and students:
We also have a strong global presence with our own facilities in Beijing, London,
Paris, and Singapore, active educational programs in the College in locations
throughout the world, and the ongoing interaction of scholars and students at
work with colleagues from around the globe.
The university’s mission is knowledge and its diffusion, which is carried out
within the context of a strong commitment to Chicago, society, and whole of humankind.
The University of Chicago leads academically and intellectually, and develops leaders.
The university is present in and intervenes positively in society through medical,
educational, academic, and cultural endeavors. Its integration and association with the
city of Chicago does not prevent it from having a strong global presence.
Summary. The University of Chicago is above all, “an intellectual destination.”
Ideas bestow power on those who are able to develop and test them. The university’s
ability to attract the very best academic talent enables it to enjoy preeminence and
entertain aspirations of enriching “all human life.” The discursive strand found on the
university website takes essential elements of the Humboldtian paradigm and inflates
them. Within the University’s context even the fulfillment of the university’s civic
responsibility assumes global importance. Here, Von Humboldt’s academic freedom and
research takes on almost mythical dimensions, bringing benefits to all humanity. The
university’s leadership in the world of ideas and scientific discovery leads naturally to the
role of leadership for its graduate in the city and globalized world outside its walls.
85
The sub-themes in the University of Chicago narrative are intellectual ferment,
research and inquiry, academic freedom, intellectual and academic leadership, service to
the community and humankind, community of faculty and students, transformative
education, power, leadership and achievement, and global presence. The discursive
entanglements in the University of Chicago discourse fragments include the intellectual
with the educational, urban with social and global, intellectual with social leadership, and
the scientific with the educational and cultural.
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the
Homepage and the About< MIT At a glance” and the MIT Story pages. The MIT website
homepage is somewhat unusual in design, in that it does not occupy all of the screen real
estate available. The utilized space is bordered by two pale gray blocks of empty space.
This is obviously a design decision because above the empty blocks runs the same narrow
black horizontal strip which appears above the central populated section of the page.
Above the central section, this black strip displays MIT in yellow and green stylized
block letters. Next to this logo, the full name of the Institute followed by the day and date
are in yellow. In the top right corner of the central section are the informational tabs,
“MIT Google,” “People,” and “Offices” and below there is a search engine slot.
The central part of the section is dominated by a graphic pane with the title,
“today’s spotlight” which features, “Handicraft 2.0 ‘Smart tools’ meld personal technique
with computerized control systems.” On either side of the pane there is a dark gray
vertical strip. The left strip contains informational tabs with titles in lowercase in yellow
86
and the options below in white: “about,” “admissions,” “education,” “research,”
“community,” “life@MIT,” “initiatives,” and “impact.” The right vertical strip has the
title “news” in lowercase, and contains four news items in white such as “Reif releases
preliminary report of Task Force on the Future of MIT Education” and “Researchers
break a theoretical time barrier on bouncing droplets.”. Half way down the vertical strip
are three tabs in yellow: “research,” “campus,” and “press.” Below these tabs is “events”
with the two publicized events below it, “MIT Humanitarian Speaker Series: Rich Serino
of FEMA (Monday)” and “From Lab to Startup (Tuesday).”
Below the news and events strip, a narrow gray rectangle appears with the title,
“Today’s image.” The page ends with another narrow black horizontal strip containing
practical information tabs, Institute contact information, and four icons which are
hyperlinks to social media sites. Also on this strip, but to the right and separated from the
other items, is a white rectangle, GIVE TO MIT and a clickable arrow in light gray. The
page is minimalist, functional, and unprepossessing. With the exception of the graphic
pane and its “image of the day,” there is nothing here to catch the eye, impress, or delight:
black, gray, and yellow dominate the page.
Fine analysis. The About page, apart from the MIT history and mission, contains
a series of basic facts about the Institute in “Institute Facts”< “MIT at a Glance.” The
information is cryptic but highly significant and not merely informative, because of the
particular facts that have been selected to provide this overview. The visitor learns that
MIT was “Incorporated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on April 10, 1861,” that
the Latin motto, Mens et manus, translates as “Mind and hand,” that the MIT campus of
168 acres in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has 18 student residences and 26 acres of
87
playing fields; that members of the MIT community have garnered 80 Nobel prizes , and
that the student population is 11,301 including 3,500 international students, and that 90%
of students receive “some form of financial aid.” The image presented with by these
facts is that of a large, venerable, and financially successful institution that has a massive
campus and a large student population (one third of the students are foreign and almost
all receive subsidized tuition), and that MIT is intellectual but also has a practical effect
on the world. MIT presents itself as a very powerful, self-assured institution indeed.
The history on the MIT Story page consists of two separate but related elements.
The first element described as FEATURED HISTORY, has five categories: PEOPLE,
DISCOVERY, EDUCATION, CULTURE, and SERVICE. A recent event or achievement
is featured under each category. For instance, under PEOPLE is a photo of MIT President
Reif dated JULY 2, 2012 and captioned “Seventeenth president, L. Rafael Reif” followed
by the beginning of a text. Clicking on a featured article displays the full text as a part of
the university’s timeline. All of the featured articles are recent in origin, and none
concerns anything that could be described as historic. MIT does not attempt to present
itself as an historic institution. In effect the institution says that its history is the sum of
all of the happenings present in the timeline.
The second element on the history page is a hyperlink with the title, VIEW THE
FULL TIMELINE. When the visitor clicks on this link, the MIT HIGHLIGHTS
TIMELINE appears. This visually attractive timeline begins in 1846 with the featured
Education article dated “MAR 13, 1846 Plan for a Polytechnic School in Boston” and
ends with the Education/People article dated “NOV 20, 2012 MIT names the first director
of digital learning.” The timeline provides at least one article for every year from 1846 to
88
2012, and in some years, such as 2000, there are up to six articles on MIT news and
events. It is as if MIT decided “to let the facts speak for themselves.” The article
rectangles have photos or graphics, and the visitor can share them, or mark them as
“Liked” as if they were social media posts. The impression is that of an institution with
an overwhelming collection of achievements, but this does not appear self-serving or
pretentious. The timeline has something for everyone. MIT wears its power and glory
lightly and sensitively, and a visitor comes away impressed by the sheer number of events
and volume of activity.
Not until 1862 does a category appear other than that of EDUCATION. The first
PEOPLE article is dated MAY 6, 1862 and titled “First President, William Barton
Rogers.” For the rest of the century the category of Education continues to dominate, but
People and Culture appears frequently. At the end of the century, the category of
Discovery makes its appearance, and increases in frequency throughout the twentieth
century. The category of Service, when it appears, which is not often, frequently links to
another category above the corresponding articles. Certain categorizations are of interest,
such as “Education 1909 Cambridge Site,” “Culture 1910 Swim Team organized,”
“Culture JAN 17, 1914 Official mascot, the beaver,” and “Education SEP 9, 1966 Pierce
Boathouse.” MIT frames its physical expansion as Education and its athletics as Culture,
and many scientific and other achievements as People. These categorizations make the
timeline more acceptable to the visitor by smoothing the edges of success. The visitor
leaves the page with the impression of MIT as a humane institution that does not flaunt
its wealth and power, and which has greatly benefited humanity. A hyperlink at the top of
89
the page takes the visitor who seeks a more conventional view of the institution’s history
to MIT HISTORY RESOIURCES.
The MIT mission statement is presented differently on different pages, e.g., on
MIT At a glance, the mission is presented as a conventional black text on a white
background, whereas on the History page it appears as a white text on a black
background with the key points picked out in colors. These colored points are hyperlinks
which take the visitor to the already seen five categories of the MIT timeline. The text
corresponding to each category describes and extrapolates on the highlighted points in the
MIT mission statement. The key points of the mission statement are as follows:
advance knowledge (yellow)
educate students (lime green)
MIT community (muted red)
(work) wisely, creatively, and effectively (orange)
betterment of mankind (light blue)
Advance knowledge takes the reader to “Discovery” where a short text states that,
“The soul of MIT is research.” The text describes the 150 years of world-changing
advancements discovered at MIT. “Educate students” takes the reader to “Education”
where the text describes, starting in 1861, the “abiding commitment to advance
knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and related areas of scholarship.”
It is important to note that “advance knowledge” is placed before “educate students.” In
the final sentence of this text this sequence is reversed, “Teaching and research – with
relevance to the practical world as a guiding principle – continue to be the Institute’s
90
primary purpose as it serves the nations and the world.” The two elements of teaching
and research are fused into a single “primary purpose” as they are placed at the service of
the nation and the world.
Combining research with teaching and placing this combination at the service of
the nation are clearly Humboldtian in origin, with service to the world as a twenty-first
century extension of the original ideal also present. MIT Community takes the reader to
People, where he or she is reminded of the incorporation of MIT in 1861, and is assured
that since then, “MIT has created a place for students, faculty members, researchers, and
scientists to advance our understanding of the world through world-class scholarship and
leadership that continues to serve the nation and the world.” It is interesting to note the
separate places given to researchers and scientists apart from students and faculty,
although all of these members of the MIT community participate in advancing
understanding of the world. The Humboldtian mixing of students with faculty who are
also researchers is abandoned; with researchers being introduced into the Institute’s
academic community as a separate category, along with “scientists.” However, the
professional researchers and scientists are placed at the service of the nation and by
extension the world, as the academic researchers had been in the Humboldtian paradigm.
Yet, even here, a newer element presents itself, as the concept of excellence
(“world-class scholarship”) impinges upon the concept of inquiry for inquiry’s sake.
Also, the idea of leadership that serves the world goes beyond an extension of the
Humboldtian ideal of forming a national elite and preparing it to govern. Clicking on “the
ability to work wisely, creatively, and effectively” takes the reader to “Culture” where the
text takes a view of culture different from its use in the MIT timeline. The Culture text
91
appears to be speaking of national and ethnic cultures as it mentions inclusion and
diversity in the MIT community. MIT is described as supporting student development by
giving students opportunities “to bond, expand and grow” as well as to see the world
from a different culture’s point of view. The text ends, “Engaging in those perspectives
leads to a greater understanding of the world and our place in it.” It is in this text that
MIT seems least assured and confident of itself and its mission. The carefully designed
and executed equivalency system of mission statement bullet points and timeline
categories breaks down, and the text resorts to vagaries such as “bond, expand, and
grow” to describe the students’ experience in relation to culture. The uniqueness of
MIT’s perspective in all that it does fails to appear in this text, which is reduced to
phrases such as “a greater understanding of the world and our place in it” which are
unconvincing as expressions of the institution’s purpose.
Clicking on “betterment of humankind” takes the reader to “Service” which says,
“MIT maintains a commitment to serving both the local community and the world
through education and technology.” The text makes reference to “the broad range of
community services that draw support from students, faculty, and staff,” but without
specifying the nature and scope of these services, it links to OpenCourseWare, MITx, and
edx, the free educational content and services that MIT (in the case of edx in conjunction
with Harvard University) offers. This worldwide service is offered so that, “MIT
continues to make the wonders of technology and discovery relevant to people near and
far.” With this statement the reader encounters the Western Scientific paradigm, and an
expression of it in which “the wonders” of science and research are revealed to the
benefit of mankind. Abstract knowledge is made relevant, that is, useful, to those who
92
otherwise would not have access to it or its benefits. It is significant that MIT has chosen
to link the altruism of its academic community with the institution’s much discussed
(although unproven) Massively Organized Open Courses (MOOCS) in an implied
breadth of service. This approach is preferred to the more conventional research
University tactic of stating that its discoveries in technology and medicine have improved
the lives of people around the world. Although this approach is original, again it does not
convince. The impressive power and might of MIT is under-recognized because of the
university’s failure to adequately describe its concrete contributions to society and the
wider world.
Summary. The sub-themes in the Massachusetts institute of Technology narrative
are research and inquiry, leadership, service to the community and humankind,
academic/scientific education, power, achievement, the Western Scientific paradigm, and
internationalism. The discursive entanglements that exist in the MIT discourse fragments
include the local with the social and the international, culture as high culture with culture
as ethnicity, personal with institutional altruism, scientific discovery and its paradigm
with the educational, and the intellectual with the practical (especially referring to
abstract knowledge becoming useful to people).
MIT promotes the Humboldtian relationship of teaching with research, but this
combination tends to be overshadowed by an emphasis on outstanding research and
discovery. In a global extension of key elements of the Humboldtian paradigm, MIT
places its formidable capacity for research and discovery at the service of humanity. The
size and wealth of MIT, number of discoveries, and its Nobel Prize winners are
impressive. However, MIT does not seem capable of blending its practical achievements
93
with its educational philosophy in a coherent narrative concerning the type of experience
it is able to offer students as a result of its excellence. MIT’s failure to deal with
abstraction also manifests itself in the somewhat unconvincing expressions of its
approach to service to others.
7. Stanford University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Stanford University
website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage and the About
Stanford-Stanford Facts, Stanford – History, and Stanford’s Mission pages. Across the top
of the homepage runs a crimson horizontal strip with the university’s name printed in
white, and to the right of the name there is a white search engine box. Below the crimson
strip runs a narrow beige strip containing the five information tabs, ABOUT
STANFORD, ADMISSION, ACADEMICS, RESEARCH, and LIFE ON CAMPUS. In
the center of the page and below the beige horizontal strip, a graphic pane displaying an
aerial view of the Stanford campus, with the title, “Soaring above Stanford - From red
roofs to outdoor art, the campus offers an eclectic mix of breathtaking views.” This
highly impressive photograph dominates the whole page.
Below the aerial view of the campus are the EVENTS and Sports sections to the
right and the UNIVERSITY NEWS and AT STANFORD sections to the left. The events
calendar includes “NOV 27 Peter Emerson: The Honest Landscape, 11:00 am, and DEC 1
Family Film: Tales of the Night, Noon.” The Sports calendar contains just one event:
“NOV 23 Football vs California, 1 p.m.” Under the announcement of this event is a link
to GO STANFORD, which is the university’s comprehensive athletics page. The
University News section features stories on “Childhood anxiety” and Rewriting
94
astrophysics” with accompanying eye-catching photographs. To the right of these there is
a MORE STORIES section, with three more research-focused stories. Below the
University News Section is the AT STANFORD section which features a story, “Stanford
Ignite brings innovation & entrepreneurship to cities around the world” accompanied by a
colorful, intriguing photograph.
To the right of the central sections, a vertical strip running from the top to the
bottom of the page displays titles such as “Gateways for……,” “Top Destinations,” and
“Research,” with detailed informational tabs underneath them. Below these tabs appear
“Slideshow – Stanford in Pictures” and the “Stay Connected” (social media) sections.
The page ends with another horizontal crimson strip containing white informational tabs:
“Search,” “Contact,” “Jobs,” “Accreditation,” “Emergency Info,” “Terms of Use,” and
“About this Site.” To the right of the crimson strip there is a “Make a Gift” tab. The page
is pleasantly designed, clean, uncluttered, and attractive.
Fine analysis. The “About Stanford” page begins with a short introductory text
that gives the university’s location as being “in the heart of California's Silicon Valley”
immediately describes Stanford as “one of the world’s leading teaching and research
universities.” The text ends by mentioning Stanford’s opening date as 1891, and
describing the university since then as “dedicated to finding solutions to big challenges
and to preparing students for leadership in a complex world.” Although the assertions in
the text are grand in scope, they are stated plainly as facts. The Stanford Facts tab takes
the reader to a text with the title “Stanford Facts at a Glance,” which also immediately
establishes Stanford as a major research university, “Stanford University is one of the
world's leading research universities.”
95
The text then informs the reader that Stanford University is recognized for its
“entrepreneurial character” that originates “from the legacy of its founders, Jane and
Leland Stanford, and its relationship to Silicon Valley.” There is no attempt to explain
this statement or to elaborate on the somewhat unusual juxtaposition it contains. The
visitor is informed that both research and teaching at the university stress
“interdisciplinary approaches to problem solving.” The text goes on to address the
university’s “Areas of excellence” which “range from the humanities to social sciences to
engineering and the sciences.” This seems to imply that all of the university’s academic
disciplines are “Areas of excellence.” The final sentence again mentions the university’s
location, and the benefits, “Stanford is located in California’s Bay Area, one of the most
intellectually dynamic and culturally diverse areas of the nation.” It is interesting to note
the use of “nation” rather than “country.” The implication apparently being that what is
being described here is not a geographical but a valuable cultural location.
Below the text are eight titles, beneath which facts about the university are
arrayed. These facts show us that Stanford University is large in student population and
physical size, and has more graduate than undergraduate students. The campus covers
8.180 acres, contains nearly 700 buildings, and 97% of the undergraduates live there.
There are seven schools and over two thousand faculty members. Twenty-two of the
faculty are Nobel Prize winners, and the teaching ratio is five to one. Without being
overwhelming, these facts provide an impression of a vast, well-established university
where research is of paramount importance.
The History of Stanford Page consists of the five texts, “The Birth of the
University,” “The New Century,” “The Rise of Silicon Valley,” “Changing Times &
96
Campus,” and “The 21st Century.” “The Birth of the University” deals with the founding
Stanford family and how, on the loss of their only son, Leland and Jane Stanford
decided that “the children of California shall be our children.” They used Leland’s
fortune made in railroads to found two institutions in their son’s name: a university and a
museum. The text states from its conception the university was unusual in several ways:
“the university would be coeducational, in a time when most were all-male; non-
denominational, when most were associated with a religious organization; and avowedly
practical, producing ‘cultured and useful citizens.’”
The text goes on to inform the reader that the university opened in 1891 after six
years of planning, and was popular from its inception despite prophecies of doom
published in a “New York newspaper.” It ends with a paragraph dedicated to the
university campus, “The Stanfords engaged Frederick Law Olmsted, the famed landscape
architect who created New York’s Central Park, to design the physical plan for the
university.” The last sentence speaks of the relevance of the original plan even today,
“Today, as Stanford continues to expand, the university’s architects attempt to respect
those original university plans.” The text does not inform the reader as to how successful
this attempt has been. Stanford University has an unusual foundation story, and an
original institutional purpose which is described in a rather sentimental fashion. The text
says that the university was the result of an unusually long period of research and
planning by its founders, and that from its very outset it was unconventional in a
significant number of ways. The text is accompanied by a black and white photograph
with the title, “THE STANFORD FAMILY - Leland, Jane and Leland Jr. sat for this
portrait at the Watery Studio in Paris c. 1881-1883.”
97
The next history text, “The New Century,” tells the reader of the trials and
tribulations the university faced when, on the death of Leland Stanford his estate was
challenged by the US government. Jane Stanford is singled out as the person who took
responsibility for the university’s future. The text informs us that Jane, after selling her
railroad investments delivered $11 million to the university’s trustees. The text turns
sentimental in tone when it quotes then-university President Jordan as having said, “The
future of a university hung by a single thread, the love of a good woman.” When Jane
Stanford died in 1905, control of the university passed to the university trustees. Before
she died, Jane had “supervised construction of the buildings she and her husband had
envisioned, including the magnificent Memorial Church.”
The text continues with the narrative of what happened to the university as a
result of the 1906 earthquake, “Graduation was postponed until September, but by then
there was no doubt that Stanford’s entrepreneurial spirit would carry it through whatever
obstacles lay ahead.” The discursive strand of entrepreneurism is woven into a post-facto
success narrative framed as destiny. After noting the increase in the number of
professional schools, the text digresses, dealing with the number of university members
who lost their lives in World War I, and Stanford graduate and future President of the
United States Herbert Hoover’s establishment of a collection of documents on war and
peace at the university. This digressive penultimate paragraph ends, “In 1928, Hoover
was elected president of the United States.” The final paragraph informs the reader of the
founding of Stanford Associates by a group of alumni in 1934, “to raise money for the
university and ensure the development of its programs and facilities.” The paragraph ends
on a positive and highly significant note, “From then on, Stanford alumni would play a
98
key role in maintaining the university’s expansion and improvement.” The text is
accompanied by a black and white photograph captioned, “1906 EARTHQUAKE - The
earthquake did extensive damage to Stanford’s new campus, including this collapsed
arcade wall along Laruen Mall.”
“The Rise of Silicon Valley” text associates Stanford University irrevocably with
the founding and growth of this technological phenomenon, “In 1939, with the
encouragement of their professor and mentor, Frederick Terming, Stanford alumni David
Packard and William Hewlett established a little electronics company in a Palo Alto
garage. That garage would later be dubbed ‘the Birthplace of Silicon Valley.’” The use of
dubbed “has led some to consider him the father of Silicon Valley,” and “known as the
“father of the Internet” show the extent to which this history engages in myth-making.
The discursive strand of excellence also appears in “the university embarked upon a
campaign to build “steeples of excellence” and “clusters of outstanding science and
engineering researchers who would attract the best students.” The discursive strand of the
“entrepreneurial spirit” makes another appearance in, “He (Professor Terming) created an
entrepreneurial spirit that today extends to every academic discipline at Stanford.” The
text mentions the university’s “most iconic scientific institutions” and then describes the
achievements of a list of scientists associated with Stanford University.
The final paragraph returns to the theme of Silicon Valley, particularly of the
Internet, again with a myth-making intent. “The Internet, of course, is central to the story
of Silicon Valley. Google, the web’s most popular search engine and one of the world’s
most influential companies, got its start at Stanford when…” (my italics), and “Before
them, alumni Jerry Yang and David Filo founded Yahoo.” The paragraph and page end
99
with a roll-call of honor of Silicon Valley companies associated with Stanford University.
“Other legendary Silicon Valley companies with strong ties to Stanford include Cisco
Systems, Hewlett-Packard Company, Intuit, Silicon Graphics, and Sun Microsystems.”
(my italics) The text is accompanied by a black and white photograph with the title,
“BIRTHPLACE OF SILICON VALLEY – Stanford alumni David Packard and William
Hewlett in their famous Palo Alto garage.”
The third history text, “Changing Times & Campus,” deals with postwar Stanford,
the university’s expansion to 8,223 students in 1947, and other changes the university
suffered during the 1960s and later. However, Stanford seems to have been set apart
from the vicissitudes of the outside world, secure in its abilities, “As all great universities,
Stanford both reflected and acted upon the larger world.” The second paragraph deals
with the civil rights movement and the struggle for gay and lesbian rights. The third
paragraph addresses the turmoil around the Vietnam War, and the Stanford community’s
concerns, “students and faculty were particularly concerned about ROTC training, CIA
recruitment and Stanford’s role as a defense researcher.” No mention is made of any
institutional stance adopted by Stanford towards the war during this period, or of any
action taken by the Stanford community as a result of its concern.
The following paragraph speaks about how racial politics affected the university:
“In the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s assassination, students successfully demanded
that more non-white students be recruited and admitted.” This paragraph informs the
reader that in 1969 the first ethnic studies program was founded at Stanford, the first such
program at a private institution in the United States. Stanford also attempted to attract
Native Americans, an effort that “coincided with the discontinuation of the ‘Indian’ as
100
Stanford’s mascot.” No information is provided concerning the success of these efforts,
or their impacts on university life. The students’ fight against apartheid is mentioned,
“The University eventually would divest many of its holdings in companies that did
business in South Africa.” The paragraph ends with, “In 1985, in a singular honor,
Stanford was chosen to house the papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” although no
explanation of the reason for or the significance of this choice is given. The final
paragraph deals with the progress of women at Stanford; from initially being restricted in
number (“Jane Stanford had specified that no more than 500 female students ever be
enrolled at one time.”) to unrestricted access in 1973. Although the text goes on to
describe the opening of a major in feminist studies at Stanford in 1981, and the
establishment of a research institute first on women and later on gender (1986), it does
not seem as though the university did anything special or unusual to further the cause of
feminism.
The final paragraph deals with the “Culture Wars.” “According to the text,
Stanford’s replacement of traditional requirements with a “Cultures, Ideas and
Values requirement” in 1988 “set off a nationwide debate on the humanities canon.” The
impression is a university that was living its era being presented as being innovative and
progressive in some way. The paragraph and text end by relating the creation of different
undergraduate courses established “to ensure that Stanford undergraduates would have an
educational experience akin to that of far smaller liberal arts schools.” This statement
creates dissonance with the Stanford principle of being practical and oriented towards
problem solving. Nevertheless, it does introduce the ideas of personalized attention and a
well-rounded undergraduate education despite previous evidence of a bias towards
101
technology and postgraduate education. This is the Stanford history text which is the
least focused and self-assured. The text relates the key happenings of each era but fails to
show any clear evidence of the university having been engaged in these happenings, or
having influenced them in any meaningful way. The text attempts to insert the university
into history are awkward and unsatisfactory. With the exception of diversity, the
university’s proud foundational traditions (of entrepreneurial spirit, diversity, and
practicality) are strangely absent. The text is accompanied by a black and white
photograph with the title, “TUMULTOUS TIMES - Students took action in the 1960s and
70s. This demonstration rally took place in Old Union Courtyard in 1968.”
The “Twenty-first Century” text begins with a somewhat formalized and rather
superficial description of today’s world, “We live in an increasingly interconnected world
that faces complex problems on a global scale.” It continues with the assertion that
Stanford is uniquely positioned to help solve many of the world’s problems by dint of a
unique constellation of assets and talent. “At the start of the 21st century, Stanford is
uniquely prepared among universities – by its breadth of scholarship, entrepreneurial
heritage and pioneering faculty – to provide research and real-world approaches to
address many of these issues.” Stanford’s traditional values of entrepreneurial spirit and
practicality along with “its breadth of scholarship” and “pioneering faculty” are able “to
provide research and real-world approaches to address many of these issues.” The
discursive strands of entrepreneurial spirit and practicality are combined with the Western
Scientific paradigm to offer solutions to modern problems.
The second paragraph deals with “The Stanford Challenge,” “an ambitious five-
year, 4.3 billion dollar campaign, to ensure that Stanford continues to educate future
102
leaders, and to find solutions to the most pressing global challenges. Stanford is focused
on educating leaders as well as solving problems – now on a global scale. The third
paragraph talks of the early success of the campaign which started in 2006 and resulted in
the “Woods Institute for the Environment” “housed in the landmark Jerry Yang and Akiko
Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building (Y2E2),” which opened in 2008. The
penultimate paragraph describes Stanford’s responses to globalization. These include,
“research on issues such as international security, exchanges with foreign universities,
overseas opportunities for undergraduates, and collaboration with colleagues worldwide.”
While these responses are impressive, they do not appear to be the practical solutions to
problems upon which the university traditionally has prided itself. The paragraph also
describes the university’s pioneering research in health care, and its growing
“commitment to the arts” which manifests itself in yet more buildings, installations and
facilities: “Stanford is also expanding its commitment to the arts by creating a new ‘Arts
District’ on campus, anchored by the existing Cantor Arts Center and the Bing Concert
Hall, a new performing arts center which opened in 2013.”
The final paragraph cites the university’s President when he describes the
Stanfords’ founding of the university: “When Jane and Leland Stanford founded this
university, they were investing in the future, President John Hennessy has noted. Stanford
University continues to do just that.” The modernist ideal of progress through scientific
discovery is noticeably present. The paragraph ends with a certainty: it will be Stanford
alumni who will be “the most knowledgeable leaders” and “skillfully guide” the next
hundred years of “progress and excellence.” “We can’t predict, but we can ensure that our
students will be the most knowledgeable of leaders, that they will make a difference and
103
that they will creatively and skillfully guide the next century of progress and excellence.”
The text is accompanied by a color photograph captioned, “21ST CENTURY CAMPUS -
Stanford's new Science & Engineering Quad includes the Y2E2 building, home to the
Woods Institute for the Environment.”
The history section with its division into five separate pages that deal with the
founding of the university; expansion, its foundational association with Silicon Valley, the
social changes of the late twentieth century, and the huge potential of the university to
play a key role in the this century suggests a lineal and predetermined nineteenth-century
vision of history. The five texts that constitute the history section present an uneven and
somewhat forced narrative of the university’s origins, purpose, development, and destiny.
They begin with naïve romanticism regarding the university’s founding legacy of
“entrepreneurial spirit” and independent will. They then build upon a modernist view of a
world in which problems can be solved, to finally imply that they will be through the
contribution of research and leadership of Stanford University.
The concluding sentence of the final section of the history is redolent with
nineteenth- century themes. It conveys the idea that mankind is able to guide its own
destiny, and that this ability will result in “progress and excellence.” The familiar,
hyperbolic utterances, although intended to motivate and energize, reveal a basic
insecurity concerning the future of both Stanford University and humanity. Most
surprising is an absence of a sense of history. Matters start out as they should be, then
events happen, and nature and social and political turmoil upset the given order, but
eventually matters take their natural course and everything continues as before just as it
should, only bigger and better.
104
The Mission page begins by referring to the university’s grant of November 11,
1885 which delineated its founding principles. From inception, Stanford was to be a
university of the highest order, focused on practical disciplines, but with everything
required for a humanistic education.
Its nature, that of a university with such seminaries of learning as shall make it of
the highest grade, including mechanical institutes, museums, galleries of art,
laboratories, and conservatories, together with all things necessary for the study of
agriculture in all its branches, and for mechanical training, and the studies and
exercises directed to the cultivation and enlargement of the mind.
This university was to produce graduates who were personally successful, and of
practical usefulness, “Its object, to qualify its students for personal success, and direct
usefulness in life.” Nevertheless, the university was also intended to serve the public
good by promoting human, civilized values, and by teaching the benefits of freedom
under the rule of law, and respect for the principles of government as enshrined in the US.
Constitution,
to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity
and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating
love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the
inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These principles provide an invaluable insight into the minds and purposes of its
founders. However, the Mission page does not have a mission statement for the
university. Nor does it confirm whether the principles laid out in the founding grant are
those by which the university guides itself today. Although the text of the Stanford
105
University Founding Grant appears under the title, “Stanford’s Mission,” the reader can
only assume that this is the case. There is no sense that the university’s history or
changing times have brought about any questioning of its 1885 founding tenets, or any
significant modification of them. Beneath the Founding Grant appears, “Each of
Stanford’s seven schools has its own mission statement and those can be found by
following the links below.” Below this statement appear links to the schools. Three of
these links provide the reader with formal mission statements, whereas the others make
do with texts such as “About” and “School.” Below the links to the schools’ mission
statements appear seven headings: “A Brief History of Stanford,” “Leland and Jane
Stanford,” “The Case for a Liberal Education,” “Stanford Lands and Architecture,”
“Current Perspectives,” “Stanford People,” and “Looking Ahead.” The final section
“Looking Ahead” can be taken as a form of vision statement. It quotes the President’s
2002 Annual Report,
In 1904, Jane Stanford defined the challenge for the young University ... Each
generation at Stanford has taken this to heart and boldly launched new efforts,
from the classroom to the laboratory ... We will continue to innovate and invest in
the future ... The pioneering spirit that led the founders and early leaders to ‘dare
to think on new lines’ continues to guide us.
The university’s vision is “to continue to innovate and invest in the future.”
Innovation is perhaps a clear concept, but “investing in the future” can be interpreted as
investing in the university and its installations, or in some future state of humankind
which requires particular resources to be brought about. The mission and vision of
106
Stanford University appear to be the same, that is, continuing in the same manner that it
has conducted itself from its founding.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Stanford University narrative are
research, progress, excellence, service to the community and humankind, leadership,
modernism, rugged individualism, independence and self-help, entrepreneurialism,
practicality, diversity, achievement, the Western Scientific paradigm, the campus, and
globalization. The Discursive entanglements that exist in the Stanford University
discourse fragments include the future of Stanford University (and especially its campus)
with the Future, persistence and effort with invincibility, entrepreneurial spirit and
education, a specific geographical area with intellectual dynamism and diversity, history
and myth, buildings as surrogates for educational and cultural phenomena, and the
twenty-first century and its challenges such as globalization as a more complicated kind
of nineteenth century.
From the unusual origin of its foundation, to its founders’ focus on
entrepreneurialism and practicality, and to its enormous size and wealth, Stanford
University is exceptional. However, the extended history of the institution presented on
its website fails to make it truly unique. Above all, it reveals holding onto a mythical past
in the face of a complex and perplexing future. The narrative presented here is that
Stanford’s uniqueness has allowed it to deal with tribulations, and that the institution’s
future will be the same triumphant progress through time and adversity. There is no sense
in this narrative of an organization that has profoundly examined its origins and history,
and has arrived at a significant appreciation of where its future lies.
107
8. Duke University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Duke University
website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage and the “The About
Duke – Duke University at a Glance,” “Duke – History,” and the “Duke Mission” pages.
Across the top of the homepage runs a blue horizontal which when examined closely
reveals itself as color-washed panoramic photo of the university. In the foreground there
is a partial close up of a gargoyle standing watch over a stone building, in the distance
there is the gothic tower of Duke Chapel, and in the middle ground there is a collection of
university buildings.
In the upper right corner of the blue strip appear three faint information tabs:
ABOUT DUKE, SCHOOLS, and UNIVERSITY INSTITUTES. Below the tabs and to
the left is the university’s name printed in white, with DUKE in a large font and
university in smaller capital letters beneath. To the right of the strip and on the same level
as the university name there is a white search engine box. Along the bottom of the strip
runs a series of white capitalized information tabs: ADMISSION & AID, ACADEMICS,
MEDICAL, RESEARCH, GLOBAL, ARTS, LIBRARIES, ATHLETICS, and GIVING
TO DUKE. Below the blue horizontal strip there a large graphic pane dominates the
page. The photo in the pane is of a singer, with a light brown information box covering
the right part of the photograph. The box contains the following title in capitals,
“Humanities Writ Large. A five-year initiative aimed at redefining the role of the
humanities in undergraduate education.” Below the title there is a hyperlink with the title
“Learn More” and below the link there is a line of photographs of other participants in the
initiative.
108
Below the central graphic pane is the “Duke Today” section featuring articles
such as “Duke Researcher Creates Detailed Map of T Rex’s Brain” accompanied by small
photos. Below this section a series of hyperlinks can be used to generate a welcome in a
number of different languages. The EVENTS@DUKE section is a calendar with events
such as “Duke Wrestling vs. Ohio State Durham N.C.” and “Duke Performances: eighth
blackbird Baldwin Auditorium.” The “At DUKE” section features three illustrated news
stories: “DUKE FOOTBALL BEATS SECOND RANKED OPPONENT, CRACKS AP
TOP 25,” “DUKE’S $3.25 BILLION CAMPAIGN MOVES FORWARD,” and
“ENERGY INITIATIVE - Exploring creative solutions to energy problems, bringing
solutions into practice, and preparing tomorrow’s leaders.” More stories can be accessed
by clicking on the links next to the section title.
Along the bottom of the Homepage is a black horizontal strip with two clusters of
informational tabs in yellow. The left cluster contains links to practical university
information and the social media and the right cluster contains links intended for different
segments of the university community as well as visitors. Between the two clusters is a
box with a small photograph and the title, DUKE VIDEO with the text, “Duke
Neurohumanities in Paris: Duke Neurohumanities in Paris is a 6-week global education
program to advance theorizations at the crossroads of humanities and neuroscience.”
Below the black strip and to the left appears the university’s contact information in gray
and to the right there is a series of blue tabs: “Accessibility,” “Style Guide,” “About
Duke.edu,” and “Contact Us.” To the right of the tabs are six icons for social media,
YouTube, and other digital services.
109
Fine analysis. The “At a Glance” page begins with a short text that immediately
lays claim to Duke belonging to the elite group of American research universities despite
its short history, “Younger than most other prestigious U.S. research universities, Duke
University consistently ranks among the very best.” The text goes on to state that the
university’s professional schools, “are among the leaders in their fields.” The next topic
covered in the introduction is the university campus (“of nearly 9,000 acres”) and its
location in Durham, N.C. The text then points out that “Duke is active internationally
through the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School in Singapore, Duke Kunshan
University in China and numerous research and education programs across the globe.”
The final topic touched upon in the introduction is service: “More than 75% of Duke’s
students pursue service-learning opportunities” and the “university’s mission of
‘knowledge in service to society.’”
The rest of the page contains short texts on Duke Chapel, Duke Medicine, Duke
Libraries, Duke Athletics, Sarah P. Duke Gardens, Nasher Museum of Art, The Marine
Laboratory, Duke Forest, and Duke Lemur Center. The texts are illustrated by beautiful
and colorful photographs of the Duke Chapel tower, the mock-Tudor tower of the
principal university library, a bridge in a Japanese garden, and a minority student at the
helm of a large sailing vessel. The page is attractively designed, and although full of text,
it does not overpower the reader. The image provided is that of a large, well-established
and aesthetically pleasing university, which offers a complete and rounded experience:
spiritual, aesthetic, academic, and recreational.
This page is followed by another “Duke University at a Glance” page full of
detailed information and related statistics. The visitor learns that Duke has a total
110
enrollment of 14,600 students, with 6,495 Undergraduates, and 8,105 Graduate and
Professional students. Statistics are given on the ethnic composition of the university with
Caucasian students making up 49%, Asian-American 21%, Afro-American 10%, and so
on, of the Undergraduate population. Duke’s 8,740 acres contain 252 buildings, and the
university has 35,510 employees. The Financial Data section states that a year’s (2013–
2014) undergraduate tuition cost $61,404, but a note at the bottom states, “About 5 out of
10 undergraduates receive financial aid.” The numbers presented on this page are huge,
and create an immediate and lasting impression of size, wealth and power.
The Duke University Mission Statement page is titled Board of Trustees Duke
University, followed by Mission Statement in smaller letters. The exceptionally long
mission statement text begins with the following statement in italics, “Approved by the
Duke University Board of Trustees October 1, 1994, and revised February 23, 2001, the
Mission Statement for Duke University reads as follows.” Then follow three paragraphs,
the first of which contains James B. Duke’s founding Indenture of Duke University. The
text directs the members of the university to “provide real leadership in the educational
world” by choosing individuals of “outstanding character, ability, and vision,” by
carefully selecting students of “character, determination and application,” and by
pursuing teaching and scholarship that “help to develop our resources, increase our
wisdom, and promote human happiness.”
The second paragraph describes the mission itself:
The mission of Duke University is to provide a superior liberal education to
undergraduate students, attending not only to their intellectual growth but also to
their development as adults committed to high ethical standards and full
111
participation as leaders in their communities; to prepare future members of the
learned professions for lives of skilled and ethical service by providing excellent
graduate and professional education.
This call for excellence in education, leadership, and service is elaborated upon in the
remainder of this very long paragraph by means of a litany of highly specific and grand
actions which the university’s mission requires. The entire paragraph is a single sentence
punctuated by semi-colons. The statement demands the very highest of standards in
education, ethics, research, free and open inquiry, health care for those who suffer
(“through sophisticated medical research”), educational opportunities for “traditional
students, active professionals and life-long learners using the power of information
technologies,” diversity, citizenship, and “a commitment to learning, freedom and truth.”
The range and sophistication of Duke University’s aspirations for its functioning are
breath-taking. After the initial overwhelming effect has subsided, the reader is left with a
doubt whether all this can be possible. The statement appears to lack sincerity and
authenticity; to do so much, so well, at all levels, and all at the same time, would appear
to be impossible.
The final paragraph of the text once again makes a plea for excellence from all
those involved with the university, “By pursuing these objectives with vision and
integrity, Duke University seeks to engage the mind, elevate the spirit, and stimulate the
best effort of all who are associated with the University.” This pursuit is undertaken in
order to contribute to humanity, and to achieve, and, “to contribute in diverse ways to the
local community, the state, the nation and the world; and to attain and maintain a place of
real leadership in all that we do.” Again, the scope and ambition of the university’s
112
aspirations, for instance, to provide service at local, state, national, and universal levels
and above all “to promote human happiness,” is superficially impressive. However, the
noble sentiments are undermined by the final sentence of the paragraph which returns to
the university’s desire for leadership in absolutely all of its activities, and by the
emotional exhaustion of the reader after many lines of such elevated and diverse
ambitions expressed in hyperbolic language.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Duke University narrative are
unparalleled excellence, exclusivity, ethics, humanism, service to the humanity at every
level, leadership in everything it does, diversity, range of educational segments, the
Western Scientific paradigm, research and the pursuit of knowledge, free and open
inquiry, and globalization. The discursive entanglements in the Duke University
discourse fragments include exclusivity with diversity, the pursuit of knowledge and
development with the promotion of human happiness, youth with tradition, and the desire
to be all (exceptional) things to all men and women.
It is difficult not be impressed by the size, scope, and ambition of Duke
University. Its website bombards the reader unrelentingly with superlatives. From James
B. Duke’s founding Indenture and to the university’s mission statement and dedication
“to promote human happiness” nothing in the website is short of superb. Nevertheless,
such unmitigated excellence palls after a time, and the lack of humility displayed in the
discursive fragments does not allow the reader to accept that all that is described, tallied,
and quantified therein as exceptional.
113
9. University of Pennsylvania
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the University of
Pennsylvania (Penn) website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage
and The About – Introduction to Penn, Penn – Heritage, and Penn Mission pages. Across
the top of the homepage runs a dark blue horizontal strip showing the University of
Pennsylvania logo the university’s full name, three tiers of informational tabs, and a
search engine box. The first tier includes tabs for the Penn community and prospective
students and a GIVE TO PENN tab in white. The second tier includes yellow tabs for
practical information, and the third and principal tier includes larger tabs in white for
Academics, Admission & Aid, Research, Life at Penn, About, and More.
Below the dark blue horizontal strip a graphic pane dominates the page. The
photo in the pane shows sports installations with high-rise buildings in the distance. To
the left of the photograph and superimposed on it there is a red box with a smaller photo
of a pond or lake in a garden below which appears the caption and text, “A Look Inside
Penn’s Outdoor Spaces - In Philadelphia—a city famed for its perpendicular streets and
silver skyline—a step onto Penn’s campus can take visitors into a verdant, yet wildly
urban setting.” Below the text is a link to more photos. The lower part of the box contains
NEWS and EVENTS. There are three news stories featured: “Penn Celebrates Opening
of Krishna P. Singh Center for Nanotechnology,” “A Year Later, Penn a ‘Powerhouse’ in
Open Learning,” and “Penn Prof Studies Black and Latino High School Achievement.”.
A “More News” tab at the bottom of the box leads to more news stories.
Another dark blue strip runs across the bottom of the Homepage. Most of this
strip is empty, but to the right appears a logo for PENN COMPACT 2020 which is a link
114
to the new vision for the university. To the right of the logo are the five yellow tabs,
ADMISSIONS, ABOUT PENN, LIFE AT PENN, ACADEMICS, and VISIT PENN.
Beneath each of the large tab titles appear several capitalized sub-topics picked out in
white. Below the information tabs appears the university’s contact information in light
blue, with “Contact Us” and MOBILE VERSION tabs in white. Finally, at the very
bottom of the page beneath the university name appear the COPYRIGHT, PRIVACY, and
DISCLAIMER tabs also in light blue.
Fine analysis. The University of Pennsylvania “About” page contains an
“Introduction to Penn” which consists of a letter from the university’s president. The
message begins, “Welcome to the University of Pennsylvania.” An introductory
paragraph follows which stresses Penn’s intellectual and academic credentials in relation
to its history: “Penn has a long and proud tradition of intellectual rigor and pursuit of
innovative knowledge, begun by Benjamin Franklin in 1740.” The first paragraph ends
with the assertion that the academic tradition is alive and well today in the form of “the
creativity, entrepreneurship, and engagement of the university community. That tradition
lives today through the creativity, entrepreneurship, and engagement of our faculty,
students, and staff.” This transformation is not explained or elaborated.
The first of the succeeding paragraphs about specific aspects of university life is
“Scholarship and Learning” which informs the reader of the supreme academic
excellence of Penn and its impressive size: “Academic life at Penn is unparalleled, with
an undergraduate student body of 10,000 from every U.S. state and around the world.”
Having told the visitor that “Academic life at Penn is unparalleled”, the text categorizes
Penn as “Consistently ranked among the top 10 universities in the country.” The
115
paragraph ends with a welcome to “an additional 10,000 students” and another mention
of Penn’s superior status, “Penn welcomes an additional 10,000 students to our top-
ranked graduate and professional schools.” The following paragraph describes the
quality and motivational ability of the faculty, “Penn’s eminent, award-winning educators
and scholars” who “encourage students to follow their passions, pursue inquiry and
discovery, and address the most challenging problems through an interdisciplinary
approach.” Such an interdisciplinary approach is more representative of postmodernism
than of the Humboldtian paradigm.
The succeeding paragraph, “Beautiful Urban Campus,” refers to the “expansive
college greens and recreational spaces” and “Landmark architecture.” The latter refers to
Penn’s twelve schools located on a single campus. The text relates this geographical
cohesion to the university’s academic approach: “Penn’s geographical unity is unique
among Ivy League schools, fostering our integrated approach to education, scholarship,
and research.” The “Research Discovery” paragraph establishes Penn’s world-class
power as a research and teaching institution: “Penn is one of the world’s most powerful
research and teaching institutions, with a research budget last year topping $800 million
and more than 4,000 active faculty members.” Although the paragraph title refers
exclusively to research discovery, the text combines research and teaching when
discussing the power and superiority of the university and its interdisciplinary academic
approach: “The scale and interdisciplinary character of research and teaching sets Penn
apart.” Once again the reader is confronted by the university’s claims to uniqueness. The
“Access and Affordability” paragraph states, “Financial need is not a barrier to a quality
Penn education.” Penn appears to be extremely generous with aid to undergraduate
116
students, since “all financially eligible undergraduates have all loans replaced with
grants.” However, the paragraph does not explain the conditions for “eligibility.”
The text continues to speak about Penn’s access and affordability, stating
specifically that Penn has more than doubled the amount dedicated to undergraduate
financial aid in the previous eight years despite the highly adverse economic climate
during that period. The section ends with the information that in the 2014–2015 academic
year, on average the support provided for students receiving financial assistance will
amount to $41,700. The amount of assistance dispensed by Penn to its undergraduates is
impressive. The “Integrated Knowledge” paragraph begins with the anodyne statement
that, “Solving today’s complex problems requires knowledge that crosses traditional
boundaries.” The text then links theory and practice, and describes this combination as
being “True to our roots” and ends by placing this theoretical-practical education
approach within the context of the university’s exceptionalism. “Penn encourages both
intellectual and practical pursuits, and has attracted some of the most
eminent, interdisciplinary scholars and teachers working today.”
The “Dynamic and Diverse Community” paragraph states the university’s
commitment to community. “Penn is committed to creating a community of
students, scholars and staff that reflects the diversity of the world we live in.” The
paragraph ends by claiming that “This range of perspectives and dialogue contributes to
educational excellence and an inclusive, dynamic campus environment.” Even the
composition of the academic community at Penn is framed within the context of
excellence. The final paragraph, “Community Engagement,” begins by emphasizing the
importance of civic engagement, “At Penn, civic engagement is an integral part of
117
campus life.” The text refers specifically to Penn’s relationship with the Philadelphia
where the university is located, “Penn was named a ‘number one good neighbor’ among
universities in 2009.” The paragraph ends by claiming excellence for Penn in relation to
community service, “We are a national leader in academically based community service.”
Although this introduction by the university’s president is presented as a letter, it
lacks authenticity. The titled paragraphs give the reader the impression of reading bullet
points. The lack of intimacy is reinforced by the letter’s categorical insistence on Penn’s
excellence in every topic mentioned.
The “Penn’s Heritage” page is a history of the university and it is illustrated by
photos and drawings of university buildings starting in colonial times. The first three
paragraphs of the text deal with the foundation of the university, a process started in 1740
by George Whitefield. The information provided is inconsistent with the “Introduction to
Penn” page, which tells the visitor that the university was founded by Benjamin Franklin
in 1740. It would appear that Whitefield’s “New Building” constructed on Fourth and
Arch Streets in Philadelphia in 1740 was left unfinished for a decade due to a lack of
funds until Benjamin Franklin “organized 24 trustees to form an institution of higher
education” in 1749. Franklin’s trustees purchased the New Building and assumed the
responsibility for Whitefield’s project, and in 1751 “Penn opened its doors to the children
of the gentry and common people alike as the ‘Academy and Charitable School’ in the
Province of Pennsylvania.” Possibly, the inconsistency can be explained by Penn’s desire
to regress its foundation ten years to 1740, so it can be one of the oldest American
universities, and still be founded by Benjamin Franklin.
118
The fourth paragraph describes Franklin’s innovative mission in the 1750s “to
train young people for leadership in business, government and public service.” Franklin’s
proposed curriculum was unlike that followed by the other colonial American colleges
which prepared young men for the Christian ministry, being “much more like the modern
liberal arts curriculum.” The university authorities did not accept Franklin’s original
educational project and soon implemented a more traditional curriculum. However, if in
intention only and for a very short period, the University of Pennsylvania stood apart
from its colonial peers. The fifth paragraph identifies various milestones including
obtaining a collegiate charter (1755) and building a new campus in West Philadelphia
(1872).
The next three paragraphs speak of Penn’s academic excellence in the modern era.
They give an example, “Penn developed ENIAC, the world’s first electronic, large-scale,
general-purpose digital computer.” The text attests to Penn’s prodigious ability to attract
leaders, “Penn has also welcomed countless leaders through its doors. Nine signers of the
Declaration of Independence and 11 signers of the Constitution are associated with the
University.” The number of Nobel winners is also given, “Since 1923, more than a dozen
Penn scholars have been awarded the Nobel Prize.” The paragraph in two somewhat
uncohesive sentences mentions two feminist firsts, “In 1994, Judith Rodin became the
first woman to be inaugurated president of an Ivy League institution, and in 2004 Amy
Gutmann became the first female Ivy League president to succeed another female.”
The final paragraph text changes subject radically when it describes Penn’s 302-
acre urban campus with more than 200 buildings as part of the university’s heritage. It
cites two architectural firsts for the university, informing the reader of Penn’s large
119
number of research centers and institutes “including Houston Hall, the nation’s first
student union; Franklin Field, the country’s first double-decked college football stadium;
and 165 research centers and institutes.” The text ends with a sentence about Penn’s
superior and exemplary present: “The University of Pennsylvania remains an eminent,
world-class institution for the creation and dissemination of knowledge, serving as a
model for colleges and universities throughout the world.”
A hyperlink at the bottom of the page takes the visitor to the University Archives.
As its title implies, this page speaks to Penn’s “heritage” rather than its history, that is, all
of the unique or original elements contributed to the U.S. and the world during Penn’s
250-year history. The university’s age, history, size, unique achievements, and prestige
are all combined on this page with the purpose of setting it apart from similar institutions.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the University of Pennsylvania’s identity
narrative are exceptionalism, campus, wealth, power, excellence, unique achievement,
community service, the Western Scientific paradigm, and research and the pursuit of
knowledge. The discursive entanglements in the University of Pennsylvania’s discourse
fragments include physical installations with heritage, community engagement with
location, being first with being the best, and age with prestige.
The webpages are full of impressive information. The university’s campus, size,
power and wealth, civic engagement, research, and excellence all speak of
exceptionalism spiced with a passing mention of its achievements in the feminist
struggle. From the short-lived liberal curriculum mentioned in its founding narrative to
the student union building and the double-decked football stadium, it would appear that
Penn has always been first at something or in some form. This relentless attempt to
120
convince the reader that Penn is the best because it has been first detracts from the
university’s truly impressive resources and achievements. Penn departs from the
Humboldtian paradigm with the mention of an inter-disciplinary approach to problem
solving, but in general is an exemplar for modernism, with “world class” research and the
pursuit of knowledge given a special place in the narrative.
10. California Institute of Technology
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the California Institute
of Technology website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage and the
About and Mission pages. The California Institute of Technology website is the most
unusual of the websites examined in this study in that it consists of a large collection of
colorful items superimposed on a dark background rather than clearly demarcated
sections. A black and gray backdrop looks scientific, but in fact is a washed version of the
spectacular color photo accompanying the featured news item, “A New Laser for a Faster
Internet.” A narrow black horizontal strip across the top of the page mentions that Caltech
is the home of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and also has four small “Quick
Links” for FACULTY, STUDENTS, STAFF, and ALUMNI.
On the dark backdrop there are five small tabs, VISIT, APPLY, GIVE,
DIRECTORY, and ACCESS. Below these is a white and orange search box with the
faintly etched title, “What are you interested in?” inside. To the left of the search box and
on the opposite side of the page “Caltech” appears in large burnt-orange colored letters.
Below and running across the central strip of the page are four large white information
tabs: “About Caltech,” News & Events,” “Research & Education,” and “Join Us.” A thin
orange line the width of the page separates the tabs from ten horizontal strips each with
121
three irregularly sized slots of different hues that cascade down the page. Twenty-seven
of these slots contain large, colorful photos with titles superimposed in white. For
example, one slot features a photo of a cloister with the title, “Distinguished Alumni
Awards” in white and yellow, with the subtitle, “Caltech names Six distinguished
Alumni.” The one slot not lacking a photo contains an orange rectangle with Caltech in
white, a gray clickable arrow, and the title “Caltech Strategic Identity Project: Telling the
Caltech Story.”
The photos illustrate news stories such as “Gravity Measurements Confirm
Subsurface Ocean on Enceladus,” “NuStar Reveals Radioactive Matter in Supernova
Remnant,” Other photograph titles are readily understandable but still scientific in nature
such as “New Method Could Improve Ultrasound Imaging” and “A Changing View of
Bone Marrow Cells.” There are other titles, usually those accompanying photos of people
such as “Daniel Yergin to Deliver Commencement Address.” At the bottom of the dark
backdrop there is a large white title CONNECT WITH CALTECH with an orange arrow.
Clicking on the arrow takes the reader to seven social and multi-media icons and excerpts
of postings and a video from these sites below them. The retrieval black strip ends with
“Contact Us,” “Report a Copyright Infringement,” and “Privacy Statement.”
The visual effect of this postmodern pastiche is stunning. Once the eye becomes
accustomed to the bursts of color, it strays towards the titles of the photographs, and the
reader becomes aware of the varied and rich world of scientific learning at Caltech. The
small amount of text on the page is modern; by using the abbreviation Caltech even the
university’s name is understated. The force of the Caltech Homepage comes from the
122
impression of the sheer volume of scientific research, and the impacts on the world of the
new knowledge thus created.
Fine analysis. Clicking on the arrow over the Caltech name on the first block on
the Homepage gives access to the 1:45-minute video, “Caltech Strategic Identity Project
– Telling the Caltech Story.” The video begins by explaining that it will show “What sets
Caltech apart from our peers, the institutions we compete with for talent, resources, and
visibility.” The video then asks “What is Caltech?” and says that the answer was supplied
by over 2,000 faculty, students, administrators, staff, alumni, and donors. In a way which
is not explained, “What is Caltech?” becomes “What makes Caltech special?” The
community members express their pride in “Caltech’s pioneering research,” and “its
number one university ranking.” Apparently, the members also told Caltech that they
wanted more people to know about Caltech’s “achievements and impact.”
The input helped to create the “New Identity System” which is “an expression of
who we are and why we matter.” The “System” includes a “Positioning Statement,”
“Caltech pioneers audacious science and technology that transforms our world” a “bold
new logo,” digital icon, fonts, and color palettes. A video presenter tells the viewer not to
worry as the institution’s traditional orange color and seal have been retained. The
presenter explains that these elements will help everyone at Caltech speak with one voice,
and the video shows new identity on smartphone screens, brochures, letterheads, tote
bags, a ring binder, a folder, etc. The presenter says that the new unified voice will help
expand support and appreciation for Caltech’s “achievement, leadership, and impact”, on
campus “and around the world.”
123
The video tells the story of Caltech’s rebranding, i.e., the conceptual and visual
repositioning needed to attract “talent, resources, and visibility.” Instead of a mission or
Vision statement the viewer is provided with a “Positioning Statement.” Although the
Positioning Statement employs bold language (“pioneers,” “audacious,” and “transforms
our world”), the concepts derive from the Western Scientific paradigm. However
uplifting the effect initially, the sensation soon dissolves into bathos as the screen shows
promotional items with the new logo. This effect is compounded by the ensuing
discussion of color palettes and the retention of the traditional orange color and seal. The
viewer waits in vain for noble purpose, for “the audacious science and technology that
transforms our world.” Caltech’s new unified voice appears to be not the result of the
consensus of the members of its community, or even of a survey of their opinions, but of
an attempt to raise the university’s profile in order to attract more resources. The
dissonance created between Caltech’s ambitious aspirations as expressed in its
Positioning Statement and the self-revealed marketing tactics by which it intends to
pursue them echo long after the soundtrack ends.
The About Caltech page begins, “Caltech is a world-renowned and pioneering
research and education institution dedicated to advancing science and engineering.” The
institution establishes itself as superior and innovative, and (in the Humboldtian tradition)
“dedicated to advancing” knowledge. Like the Homepage, there are eight colorful blocks.
“Our Vision” says, “Caltech was founded on the premise of learning through discovery,
and cultivates an environment where scientists and engineers can pursue solutions to the
world’s greatest challenges.” Caltech’s vision is based on learning through research, and
where “the world’s greatest challenges” can be met. The colorful block, “Caltech Again
124
Named World’s Top University by Times Higher Ed,” shows the “l” in Caltech
transformed into “1.”
Even the introduction to the text behind the block, “For the third year in a row, the
California Institute of Technology has been rated the world’s number one university in
the Times Higher Education global ranking of the top 200 universities” does not
compensate for the less than elegant visual sleight of hand practiced on the reader. Not
every block on the page provides information about Caltech; the block with “Every Gift
Matters” is subtitled “Give Now.” All of the texts behind the block are decisive
statements. They do not give the impression that they result from careful consideration.
Each short text is accompanied by increasingly attractive photographs, until what was
attractive and impressive on the Homepage becomes oppressive and tedious on “About”
page.
The “History & Milestones” page shows two paragraphs and a timeline,
“Caltech’s Pioneers.” The story of the founding of Caltech is told in a straight forward
manner, without pretension, and in a familiar tone. In September 1891, Pasadena
philanthropist Amos Throop rented the Wooster Block building in Pasadena for the
purpose of establishing Throop University, the forerunner to Caltech. In November,
Throop University opened its doors with 31 students and a six-member faculty.
The first paragraph ends with the story of how the astronomer George Ellery Hale
“began molding the school into a first-class institution for engineering and scientific
research and education.” The second paragraph explains how by 1921 the institution had
been renamed “the California Institute of Technology” and that Hale was “joined by
chemist Arthur A. Noyes and physicist Robert A. Millikan.” The second and final
125
paragraph of this history ends with a roll call of honor of the men who ensured that
Caltech became the institution it is today: “Millikan and his successors—Lee DuBridge,
Harold Brown, Marvin Goldberger, Thomas Everhart, David Baltimore, and now Jean-
Lou Chameau—have led the Institute to its current academic and scientific preeminence.”
The short text’s matter-of-fact, staccato style gives the impression of Caltech having
become the world’s top university by predestination. The information is almost given
away; fact after fact, male name after male name, without any comment on the process
and the importance of what happened in the life of the institution. With the exception of
the initial 31 students, undergraduates and women played little part in the history of
Caltech.
The timeline is unusual in that it is organized around “Caltech’s Pioneers. This
visually attractive section begins with two paragraphs. The first consists of a two-line
categorical statement, “Scientists, engineers, and-above all-innovative thinkers, Caltech
researchers advance scientific frontiers.” The emphasis on the Caltech scientists and
engineers as innovative thinkers directs the reader’s attention from their professions and
towards the heroic task of “advancing scientific frontiers.” The second paragraph
stresses their achievements: “They have launched new fields in molecular biology,
geochemistry, and aerospace. They have created methodologies for integrated circuit
design, determined Earth’s age, and discovered the fundamental building blocks of
matter. And through the Caltech Office of Technology Transfer, they have obtained more
than 2,000 patents since 1980.”
Clearly, the paragraph is intended to astound the reader with the researchers’
achievements: the amount, depth, and scope of the new knowledge created. However,
126
juxtaposing the discovery of “the fundamental building blocks of matter” with obtaining
patents “through the Caltech Office of Technology Transfer” can leaves the reader
thinking that as many achievements as possible (both mythical and mundane) have been
enumerated in order to impress. The timeline shows achievements in Chemistry, Physics,
Aerospace, Earth Science, Astronomy, and Health Science. Each discipline shows its
own timeline of achievements, with the last one always being TODAY.
Almost all the achievements are personalized, corresponding to a specific
individual, for example, “CHEMISTRY – 1930’s – Arnold Beckman (PhD ’28) develops
the pH meter. When the individual is a Nobel Prize winner, it is mentioned. Some
achievements are ascribed to specific groups like “Caltech faculty and students,” and
“JPL engineers and campus researchers.” Some achievements are ascribed to the
university itself like “Earthquake science is born at Caltech with the invention of the
seismograph” and “Caltech leads the LIGO project.” Although all achievements link to
the university directly or through individuals associated with Caltech, the timeline
ultimately is about a collection of individuals and discoveries made at the university
rather than the university as an institution with its own particular history. The timeline
does not help the reader understand how and why Caltech developed as it did, and what it
is today as a result.
The Mission Statement is a two-sentence paragraph. The first sentence says the
mission is “to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated
with education.” It is interesting that the idea of benefitting society is included as part of
the mission, rather than the idea of increasing humankind’s store of knowledge or
benefitting humanity as a whole. This concept of society is not mentioned in the other
127
webpages. The way in which human knowledge is to be expanded and society is to
benefit is “through research integrated with education,” that is, by compliance with the
Humboldtian paradigm. However, research will be integrated with education rather than
the other way round. Education is not informed, nourished, or supported by research, but
“integrated.” The use of “integrated” would seem to preclude any ongoing, organic, or
natural relationship between the two.
The second sentence employs the superlative in its description of Caltech’s
mission. Using “We” adds strength and is congruent with the ideas of collegiality and an
interdisciplinary atmosphere (Humboldt versus postmodernism) in the sentence.
Caltech’s research addresses the most difficult and important problems in science and
technology, and nothing less could ever be acceptable. The word “Singularly” clashes
with “collegial,” yet emphasizes Caltech’s exceptionalism. The final clause of the
sentence states that Caltech students are exceptionally intelligent and talented, and that
the purpose of their education is to make them not merely useful members of society, but
“creative members of society.” This concept of teaching creativity is new; the way in
which Caltech students are taught to be creative has not been explained previously. Even
more important than this new element, however, is the sentence structure; Caltech is
engaged in research of the very highest level and “while” so engaged, it educates its
students. Caltech’s priorities are research first and undergraduate education second,
despite their integration.
As with the other nine traditional research universities, Caltech’s mission is
expressed in grandiose terms, at the level of the species. The university does not only
carry out research and education, but it serves society and humanity as a result of these
128
activities. Caltech’s research is concerned only with the greatest problems that science
and technology face, and it confronts these problems within the especially collegial and
interdisciplinary “atmosphere” its community creates and maintains. There is something
almost mystical about how Caltech achieves what it states it achieves. Finally, at the
same time as carrying out this exceptional research, Caltech says that it educates
exceptionally gifted students to occupy a very special place in society – that of creator.
The reader marvels at the university’s unique capability and its service to both society
and humanity, although the nature of the distinction made is never fully explained.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the California Institute of Technology’s
identity narrative are exceptionalism, invention, positioning, exclusivity, ability to create
change, power, excellence, unique achievement, service to society and the world, the
Western Scientific paradigm, and research and the pursuit of knowledge. The discursive
entanglements that exist in the California Institute of Technology’s discourse fragments
include mixing the personal achievements of its researchers with those of the university,
altruism with normal activities, marketing positioning with philosophical and ethical
purpose as an institution, knowledge with invention, creativity with invention, innovation
with discovery, and consultation with community decision-making.
The impacts of the marketing makeover and rebranding exercise which Caltech
discusses in technical detail on its website: the colors, eye-catching techniques, and
attention-grabbing short, sharp statements create a unique visitor experience. Caltech’s
firsts, the superlative timelines of creators and inventors’ achievements in the name of
Caltech create an impression of an unequalled organization that has placed all of its
copious talents at the service of society. Nevertheless, the limitations of an approach
129
designed to draw attention to itself soon become apparent. Caltech has taken the
Humboldtian paradigm to a new modernistic level. Research is directed towards solving
the greatest problems of the time, and is “integrated” with education, so that Caltech’s
graduates will become “creative members of society.” Caltech has developed a single
voice by recourse to surveying 2,000 members of the community. Yet, even when
discussing the ways by which the institution interacts with its community, the discursive
fragments give the impression of having been produced without much reflection upon the
institution’s history and achievement. Caltech appears to be reduced to a series of
promotional statements and a list of male faculty and alumni and their amazing and
practical inventions and discoveries.
Online Universities
1. Western Governors University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Western Governors
website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, and the About WGU
– The WGU Story, and the About WGU – Our Mission pages. The first element on the
WGU Homepage is the university’s logo of a blue outer circle with the university’s name
and a yellow core inside with W G U intertwined. Next to the logo the university’s name
appears in large bold letters, and underneath are ONLINE, ACCELERATED,
AFFORDABLE, and ACCREDITED. There is no motto, only the four words which
together represent the unambiguous WGU offering. To the right of the logo and on the
same white strip there are two yellow tabs, REQUEST INFO and APPLY NOW, and an
800 phone number with “Or call us at” above this invitation. Below the two tabs is a row
of five informational tabs: DEGREES AND PROGRAMS, ADMISSIONS, TUITION &
130
FINANCIAL AID, ABOUT WGU, and THE WGU EXPERIENCE. It is telling that
tuition and financial aid appears in the first row of tabs.
A red stripe separates a gray area below that contains graphic links to four
academic colleges on the left and a video pane on the right. Under the titles, “Explore a
College,” “WGU’s Teachers College,” “College of Business,” “College of Information
Technology,” and “College of Health Professions,” each featuring a photo of a smiling
older student from a different ethnicity, provide information about both “Bachelors” and
“Masters” degrees. To the right of this vertical list, a large video pane shows a mature
smiling student adorned in cap and gown in front of a classical pillar. To the right of the
photo appear the texts “Learn more. Become more.” and “Online” printed in red. Below
them is the question, “What would you like to do next?” and three large rectangular tabs,
“Explore degrees & programs at WGU,” “Read about WGU in the news,” and “Apply for
admission to WGU” underneath.
Below the three tabs there are three sections, “About WGU,” “News & Events,”
and “What is Competency-Based Education?” The first section shows a “WGU Learning
Results” logo accompanied by “WGU is an accredited online university offering online
bachelors and master’s degree programs.” Below the logo and text, the following bullet
points appear: “Respected online degrees.” “Earn a degree employers value.” “Flexible,
online study.” “You learn when and where it fits your life.” and “Affordable, lower
tuition. WGU is a nonprofit online.” The section bombards readers with short, attractive
messages about WGU’s programs and study, and what they bring.
The third section shows graduating students and a longer text explaining the
benefits of “Competency-based education”. The emphasis is on earning a degree on the
131
basis of what the prospective student already knows and not on time in the classroom.
The text informs the prospective student that the competency-based education model
allows for previous academic and work experience to be taken into account, which
“means you could accelerate your program, saving time and money.” The section ends
with LEARN MORE and a clickable red arrow.
It is unusual to see a university’s homepage give such prominence to a specific
educational model. However, here this information is highly congruent with everything
else stated on WGU’s Homepage. If the level of flexibility of study and the employer-
oriented results that promised by WGU are true, then WGU indeed has a different type of
educational model.
The page ends with a dark blue horizontal stripe with tabs to more information
about resources, degrees, colleges, and state institutions. At the bottom of the stripe the
WGU logo appears along with small Privacy Policy, Site Map, and Contact Us links, and
a reiteration of the text, “WGU is an accredited online university offering online
bachelor’s and master’s degree programs.” In the right bottom corner of the page are
colorful links to social media sites and YouTube.
Fine analysis. The WGU Story page accessed from the About WGU page
contains two discursive fragments, “Designing an Online University” and “An Online
University with a Mission”, which attempt to project the essence of WGU and explain
why it differs from other universities. The “Designing an Online University” text informs
the reader that the nineteen Western state governors who envisioned WGU enlisted the
support of two official educational entities to help design the new university: the Western
Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE), and the National Center for
132
Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). No further information is supplied,
but the titles are impressive, and mentioning them along with the founding governors is
clearly part of WGU’s strategy to legitimize itself as an institution of higher education.
The text identifies five themes central to WGU’s founding:
Responsiveness to employment and societal needs.
A focus on competency-based education.
Expanding access.
Cost-effectiveness.
Development of a technology infrastructure.
These themes are not derived from the Humboldtian paradigm, or any other
traditional source of university legitimization, nor do they belong to the newer university
discourse of excellence (Readings, 1996). Rather, their authority as valid objectives for
an institution of higher education is based on the principle of performativity (Lyotard,
1984), “The desired goal becomes the optimal contribution of higher education to the best
performativity of the social system. Accordingly, it will have to create the skills that are
indispensable to that system” (Lyotard 1984, p. 48).
The five self-explanatory themes focused on performativity are a powerful and
compelling vision for prospective students who wish to find their place in society, and
consequently for society itself. As Lyotard (1984) points out, “It cannot be denied that
there is persuasive force in the idea that context control and domination are inherently
better than their absence. The performativity criterion has its ‘advantages’” (p. 62).
The “An Online University with a Mission” text describes WGU as “very mission
driven.” The text explains in very simple terms that the university was created, “to
133
expand access to higher education through online, competency-based degree programs.”
WGU is about higher education accessibility, learning technology, and a practical,
competency-based approach to education. The university’s mission is one “of helping
hardworking adults meet their educational goals and improve their career opportunities.”
WGU exists to help individuals prepared to make sacrifices to reach educational targets
that make them more employable: “At the risk of scandalizing the reader, I would also
say that the system counts severity among its advantages” (Lyotard 1984, p. 62). The
university’s “affordable, flexible, and student-focused” characteristics are mentioned as a
means to fulfill WGU’s mission. The theme of accessibility means that those who have
been excluded from higher education in the past (minorities, poor people, people living
far from campus) will find a place at WGU.
The last paragraph states that, in spite of its geographical coverage and size,
WGU “remains non-bureaucratic and innovative” and that WGU “continues to receive
praise for its academic model and to enhance its reputation with employers for the
emphasis on graduating highly competent professionals.” It is telling that WGU’s
educational model based on skill acquisition is self-described as an “academic model.” Its
self-described reputation is that of an university attractive to employers because WGU
focuses on turning out highly skilled (professional) graduates. The words connote
manufacturing and producing rather than educating and developing. There is a linguistic
congruence with performativity in its use and a closed circle of production (competency
acquisition leads to employment and employers who appreciate the competency-based
model).
134
The “WGU Story” page presents the university’s history. The “Unique History of
WGU” section informs the visitor that WGU “is a nonprofit online university founded
and supported by 19 U.S. governors.” The text concludes, “At no other time in the
history of higher education have the governors of several states joined together to create a
university.” The founding is presented as a unique historical event, but no explanation of
the significance of or the reasons are forthcoming. A “Timeline” shows the university’s
pre-history and history from 1995 to 2011. No attempt is made to distinguish the events
in terms of their importance for the university or their impacts on WGU’s growth and
development.
Instead, these issues are addressed in a twelve-minute video celebrating WGU’s
founding and its first fifteen years. The video contains the discursive threads, addressing
economic and educational needs, innovation and uniqueness in higher education,
competency based-education, the support of business and industry, technology,
accreditation and acceptance, flexibility and affordability, and the realization of students’
personal and professional aspirations. The concept of performativity can be identified
when one founder says that not only was there a need to rethink the idea of the University
for economic reasons, but also for “what business needed to be successful, what job
creators needed,” and when the viewer learns that WGU adds “affordable capacity to
state higher education systems.” The realization of personal and professional aspirations
is presented in the form of testimonials. However, Lyotard (1984) found that individuals’
aspirations can be molded so that they align with what the system decides.
The (system’s) decisions do not have to respect individuals’ aspirations: the
aspirations have to aspire to the decisions, or at least to their effects.
135
Administrative procedures should make individuals “want” what the system needs
in order to perform well (p. 62).
The video presents WGU as a highly innovative social and educational institution,
“A new kind of university for the 21st century.” Business leader Scott McNealy, who
supported the founding, describes the university as, “One of the most fascinating, new
unheralded educational institutions on the planet.” WGU’s innovative model is presented
as “competency-based education, and a desegregated faculty role.” It is telling that the
latter innovative element is cited in the video by the Dean of the WGU Teachers College
and Associate Provost for Assessment. WGU departs from one of the principles of the
Humboldtian paradigm: faculty primacy and governance. The short video does not
explain the benefits of this innovation, and the point is not raised in the other discursive
fragments studied.
The video does emphasize the difficulty of innovating in higher education and the
founding of WGU is represented as a singular event that overcame innate resistance to
change. The video emphasizes that with such a new and different approach stakeholders
need time to assimilate it. In the text underneath the video pane, WGU is presented as
championing a new educational model that has revolutionized US higher education,
associating it with Christensen’s concept of disruptive innovation: “More importantly,
WGU’s model continues to be a disruptive innovator, changing the way we think of
higher education for working adults.” WGU presents the most patently innovative of
educational approaches of the ten online universities examined in the study. However,
many of its innovations were predicted in Lyotard’s 1979 report on knowledge. In that
136
report Lyotard (1984) suggested ways in which the university would develop in a
postmodern era that no longer accepted the Humboltian grand narrative.
The text in “It Started with an Idea” repeats key strands of the video narrative,
but with some subtle changes. Performativity appears again when the viewer is told that
Utah governor Mike Leavitt had the prescience to appreciate that online learning had the
potential to solve a major problem faced by the western states: the combination of
rapidly increasing population and finite funding for public education. Founding the
university is represented not as a cumulative process as in the video, but as an instant
decision, “The governors decided then and there to create their own university.” The text
ends with three innovative elements of the founding impulse: “They (the western
governors) agreed that this new university would make maximum use of distance
learning technologies, would be collaborative among the western member states, and
would use competencies rather than seat time as the measure of its outcomes.”
The Mission Statement page states that “The principal mission” of Western
Governors University is quality improvement and the expansion of tertiary education
through the provision of learning opportunities that are not restricted by temporal and
geographical considerations, and which are accepted by both other institutions of higher
education and employees. The use of “principal” implies that this mission is not the sole
task, but the implication is not taken up elsewhere. In the video, Governor Leavitt says
that prior to WGU’s founding, “people had to go back to be educated again and again.” In
other words, something was deficient about the educational “delivery” model. It appears
that WGU defines it as the transmission of knowledge, and not as a developmental
process. The way in which quality is to be improved and access broadened is through
137
distance education and earning “competency-based degrees” that are “credible to both
academic institutions and employers.” “Credibility” within the higher education system
and the labor market legitimizes WGU.
Summary. The sub-themes in the WGU narrative are competency-based
education, affordability, accessibility, size, success, innovation, uniqueness, distance
learning technologies, accreditation, acceptance, and performativity. The discursive
entanglements in the WGU discourse fragments” include the economic needs of public
higher education and educational innovation, competency-based education and
performativity, competence-based education and a disaggregated faculty model,
disruptive innovation and a competency-based educational model.
Of all the non-traditional universities, WGU is perhaps the most innovative.
While WGU adopts the premises of affordability, flexibility, and student centeredness of
its peers, it manages to differentiate itself from other non-traditional universities. WGU
promotes its competency competency-based learning approach as a new “educational
model” and prides itself on cultivating connections with business and commerce.
However, WGU’s innovation is not really innovative, and subjected to closer scrutiny, the
model appears to be based on the performativity that Lyotard (1984) predicted would
dominate higher education after the passing of the Humboldtian grand narrative. Along
with the traditional research university model, WGU rejects the personal development
and self-realization in favor of skills acquisition. Society will no doubt receive good
value for its money from WGU’s “new” model, yet the prospect of becoming part of a
performative system is not likely to bring about radical change. WGU makes a genuine
effort to innovate and find its own identity. This, however, is not enough to realize the
138
positive impacts the institution claims on its website. WGU’s is not a model that provides
a rich educational experience, or an alternative that is sufficiently attractive and powerful
enough to overcome established knowledge(s) and be widely replicated.
2. South Dakota State University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the South Dakota State
University (SDSU) website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage
and the About Us – the History and the Mission and Vision Statements pages. The first
elements on the Homepage are the tabs, ABOUT US, ACADEMICS, ADMISSIONS,
RESEARCH, EXTENSION, STUDENT LIFE, ATHLETICS, and ALUMNI GIVING.
Below are the university logo which consists of the letters S and D intertwined next to the
university’s name in white and the motto, “Be Great. Start here” in yellow.
The page design is basic, the colors are plain, and the logo and motto are
unremarkable. Centered at the top of the page a digital carousel produces messages and
photographs with messages such as “Impacting Wellness: Education and Human Sciences
at SDSU” (a photo of a place setting featuring a plate with the SDSU logo), “Impacting
Research: Agricultural and Bio-systems Engineering” (a photo of a combine harvester in
a field), “Bison My Way! Kristin Olsen: Student Impact at SDSU” and “Student launches
“Bison My Way! cook book” (photo of a steak covered in gravy, and a flash with a photo
of the front cover of the student’s cookbook). And finally, there is a wall of black and
white photographs of speakers who were invited to the university during the current
semester.
Below the carousel are “News,” “Events,” and “Quick Links: Prospective
Students, Current Students, Parents, Alumni, Faculty & Staff, Prospective Employees,
139
and Visitors.” The news section features items such as “Sign up underway for Physics
Bowl” and “SDSU rep to visit community colleges. The events section includes “Africa
Night,” “South Dakota BIG Job Fair,” and “State University Theatre Presents the Shape
of Things,” with corresponding times and dates. The page ends with a different SDSU
logo: the cupola of a classically styled building with the university’s name printed next to
it. The university’s address and telephone number, copyright symbol, and links to
“Contact Us” and “Apply Now” appear in small print below the name. To the right of the
logo there are links to social networks and the information links, “D2L,” “Inside State,”
“My State,” and “Web Advisor.” Below these there is a row of information links in small
print: “Accessibility,” “Bookstore,”, “Employment,” “Feedback,” “Legal,” “Library,”
“Online Education,” “Parking,” and “Safety & Security.” (It is curious why a university
ranked second in the 2013 Guide to Online Schools puts the link to information about its
online degree courses in the third from last position in a row of links that include parking
at the very bottom of the Homepage.) To the right of the links at the bottom there is a
blue, green, and yellow logo with the text, “Yellow & Blue (the university’s colors) Make
Green.” This link takes the reader to a “Green State” university webpage on
“sustainability and environmental stewardship.” As a state university SDSU does not
place emphasis on promoting or commercializing its courses.
Fine analysis. Although the Homepage does not contain any discursive
fragments, clicking on the first information tab accesses the “About Us” page, which
features three paragraphs written in a highly conversational tone, “We are the state’s
largest university-and if you ask us, the best.” The first paragraph emphasizes the
SDSU’s academic offerings, “from aerospace to zoology.” The second paragraph
140
continues with this theme by mentioning the 183 fields of study. It emphasizes the
“personal, practical education” offered on a “vibrant campus” where classes are “led by
dedicated professors.” There is an emotional note sounded here, too, “nearly all of our
alumni carry lifelong memories of their Jackrabbit years.” SDSU emphasizes “Hands-on
research projects with nationally respected professors, internships that bring coursework
to life” rather than primary research. The second paragraph ends with information about
student life, “choices from over 200 student organizations ensure that there is something
for everyone.”
The final paragraph of the text deals with the legitimization of the university, and
adds a new theme (responsible global leadership) which strikes a dissonant note
juxtaposed with the colloquial tone of the fragment (“So it’s no surprise that…”) and
SDSU’s history : “As a land-grant university, we’ve always served South Dakota; today
we build on that tradition by developing responsible global leaders.” The land grant
universities date to the Morell Acts of 1862 and 1890 (Kamenetz, 2010), and include
prestigious private universities such as Cornell and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (Higher Education Resources Hub! 2008). Kamenetz (2010) explains that at
the land-grant universities there was a novel emphasis on equality in admissions and
practical utility in program design. States founded schools such as Texas A & M with the
specific intention of enhancing rural economic development. The reader is told that
SDSU graduates’ prospects are “the envy of their friends from other universities.” The
text ends by explaining that “95 percent of our students go onto jobs, graduate school, or
other opportunities such as internships and fellowships.” This text is unpretentious and
flowing, almost colloquial in style, and non-threatening. What the “About Us” text lacks
141
is information about the university’s highly ranked online degrees.
The SDSU History page has three short factual paragraphs about the origins,
development, and current status of the university. The first paragraph deals with the
university’s “land-grant heritage.” SDSU was founded as an agricultural college in 1861,
and as a result of the Morrill Act of 1862, the state was “granted 160,000 acres of land for
the use and support of the agricultural college. By accepting this land allocation, the State
had to designate the Agricultural College as a land-grant college.” The second paragraph
addresses the university’s development between 1887, when “the Hatch Act established
Agricultural Experiment Stations at land-grant colleges throughout the United States to
conduct research and disseminate information relating to agriculture and home
economics,” and 1994, when “the Federal Government granted 29 tribal college (four in
South Dakota) land-grant status.”
The final paragraph begins with the awarding of university status to South Dakota
State College by the South Dakota Legislature on July 1, 1964. It ends by listing several
changes to the university structure: “In 1975 the Department of Education was
reorganized and renamed the Division of Education. In 1989 the Division of Education
was granted college status. The College of Home Economics was renamed the College of
Family and Consumer Affairs.” The History page concludes with a list of SDSU’s nine
colleges. No extended rhetoric or hyperbole is used to elaborate upon the university’s
antiquity or land-grant status. All events are stated in a factual and unvarnished manner.
The history of the university is what it is, and requires no ancillary comments or
observations. This is congruent with its origin and status as a land-grant university and its
subsequent development in accordance with the needs of the State of South Dakota.
142
The Mission Statement is a two-page document found in the SOUTH DAKOTA
BOARD OF REGENTS Policy Manual that is accessed by using the search box. The
first paragraph states, “The legislature established South Dakota State University as the
Comprehensive Land Grant University to meet the needs of the State and region by
providing undergraduate and graduate programs of instruction in the liberal arts and
sciences and professional education in agriculture, education, engineering, human
sciences, nursing, pharmacy, and other courses or programs as the Board of Regents may
determine (SDCL 13-58-1).” The second paragraph specifies how SDSU fulfills its
mission, “The University’s primary goal is to provide undergraduate and graduate
programs at the freshman through the doctoral levels. The university complements this
goal by conducting nationally competitive strategic research and scholarly and creative
activities. Furthermore, South Dakota State University facilitates the transference of
knowledge through the Cooperative Extension Service with a presence in every county
and through other entities, especially to serve the citizens of South Dakota.”
Clearly, the university exists to serve the state through the provision of degree
programs, by conducting “strategic research,” and by “the transference of
knowledge….especially to serve the citizens of South Dakota.” There is no Humboldtian
pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. SDSU is completely at the service of the
state and its citizens. Although the university’s research is “nationally competitive,” it is
also “strategic,” presumably conducted to contribute to the growth and development of
South Dakota. SDSU requires no legitimization other than its designation as a land-grant
university by the state legislature, and requires no wider purpose than that of its utility to
143
the state. It is noteworthy that the university’s mission statement is available in in a policy
manual published by Board of Regents.
Searching for Vision Statement produced no result. However, IMPACT 2018, the
university’s strategic vision cited in its five-year strategic plan accessed through the
“Strategic Plan” link on the Homepage includes sections on “Vision,” “Mission,” and
“Core Values.” The SDSU Vision is, “As a leading land-grant university, South Dakota
State University champions the public good through engaged learning, bold and
innovative research and creative activities, and stewardship within a global society.” This
statement is more expansive than the other discursive fragments on the website. The
university “champions the public good” in general, and not just that of South Dakota.
Here, its research is “bold and innovative” rather than “strategic.” Finally, the broad
concept of “stewardship within a global society” has been adopted as part of the
university’s vision rather than the regional or national arenas referred to in other
discursive fragments on the website.
The Mission Statement is more Humboldtian in scope, with the caveat that
citizenship is seen in global rather than national terms. The statement shows how the
university’s thinking developed by adding concepts to its original land-grant university
purpose: “South Dakota State University offers a rich academic experience in an
environment of inclusion and access through inspired, student-centered education,
creative activities and research, innovation and engagement that improve the quality of
life in South Dakota, the region, the nation and the world.” The first textual additions are
“a rich academic experience,” “an environment of inclusion and access,” and “inspired,
student-centered education, creative activities.” The academic experience must be “rich”
144
and the education “inspired” and “student centered” and include “creative activities.”
Next, diversity and access to higher education are added. The achievement of “innovation
and engagement” that will “improve the quality of life” not only in South Dakota and the
surrounding region, but in “the nation and the world,” is now the mission. The discourse
shows a university in transition from a utilitarian and local narrative to one full of modern
phrases such as quality of life and engagement in an international context.
The university’s core values include academic excellence; passion for the mission
itself as a value; the improved quality of life for South Dakotans, the nation, and the
world (as in the mission statement); appreciation for human achievement; diversity;
civility, integrity and trustworthiness; transparency; accountability; and sustainability.
These values range from the projection of the university’s traditional values onto the
national and international scenes to traditional ethical values, the discourse of excellence;
corporate social responsibility business values; valuing the university’s mission itself; and
renaissance humanism. This list differs from traditional utilitarian principles. Its range is
exceptional and includes most of the popular values promoted as solutions to the complex
social, international, environmental, ethical, and spiritual problems of today. There is a
dissonance between the discourse of the 2007-2014 Strategic Plan and the university’s
habitual self-identity narrative expressed in texts such as the “About Us” discursive
fragment, the authorized mission statement, and the history narrative. This speaks of an
institution that desires change, but has not discovered the best way to reconcile its simple,
powerful, but extremely limited foundational narrative with what is now needed to make
the university relevant and attractive to a modern audience.
145
Summary. South Dakota State University does not subscribe to or uphold the
Humboldtian paradigm. It is an unpretentious university which sees its role as serving its
state for the same reasons that it was established. The research it conducts is strategic and
its graduates are almost always guaranteed local employment. However, it also wants to
modernize. The reader can perceive this aspiration the self-identity narrative which
begins to include inflated Humboldtian elements such as the development of “responsible
global leader” “stewardship within a global society,” and service to the state, nation, and
world as well as the inclusion of business-oriented performativity.
SDSU’s status as a land-grant university means there is no compelling need for
legitimization. Nevertheless, the university appears to have realized that it must insert
itself into modern life. It has made progress with its distributed education initiative, but
apparently does not see this success as the path towards the future. It does not include
online education as a significant part of its self-identity narrative. SDSU seems to be a
university in suspension – aware that its particular traditional narrative cannot take it
forward, but not yet ready to risk addressing its problem.
The sub-themes in the South Dakota State University narrative are utility,
practical application, and service to the local community, supplemented by newer themes
such as globalization, information technology in education, diversity, and inclusiveness.
The discursive entanglements in the SDSU discourse fragments include service to the
local community with service to the nation and the global community. Traditional ethical
values (civility, trustworthiness, and integrity) mixed with the late capitalistic mantras of
transparency, accountability, and sustainability. The narrative of the enjoyment of student
146
life on campus (as a SDSU “Jackrabbit”) exists alongside the demands of “sustainability
and environmental stewardship” (“Yellow and Blue Makes Green.”).
3. California University of Pennsylvania
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the California
University of Pennsylvania (CAL U) website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of
the Homepage, the About Us page, and the Mission, Vision and Values page. The layout
and images illustrating each of these fragments differ, but the CAL U logo features
prominently. The Homepage is commercial in appearance, and is dominated by a
photograph of a pair of contented young adults in business attire working together at a
computer under the title, BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. This same photo, but smaller
in size, appears on the right side of the Homepage, with similar photos advertising
programs including Mechatronics and Golf Management.
The bottom of the page has a carousel with the tabs, NEWS, EVENTS, and
CAMPUS. The first two panes of the carousel show an ad for a performance by the choir
and orchestra which is about to perform oratorios from Handel’s “Messiah” and an
announcement that the women’s soccer team’s season ended in defeat. The motto,
BUILDING CHARACTER, BUILDING CAREERS, appears prominently at the very
bottom. Several links appear under the motto, with the most visible being,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION. The section tabs on
the left side of the page are “Academics” and “Global Online.” The page is a postbox red,
relieved by only by the different photographs and a border of bright blue sky with fluffy
white clouds right at the top of the page. This color scheme and the commercial style
147
photographs give the immediate impression of a large and somewhat brash
advertisement.
Fine analysis. The CAL U Homepage is dominated by visuals. The principal
focus is on the programs the university offers, supported by attractive photos of students
enjoying what they are doing. The aggressive red color, stark, block red CAL U logo,
photos, and the prominent, attention- grabbing motto center the viewer’s attention on a
vibrant, ambitious university and its happy, satisfied students. There is no immediately
visible promotional information or material which might reduce this impact. The carousel
is dedicated to activities (choral music and competitive sport) that one might expect of a
more traditional university, but which complement the initial impression of the liveliness
of the university. PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION
introduces a theme which is reinforced in the “About Us” fragment, that of belonging to a
state higher education system.
The “About Us” page is dominated by two large photographs. The first, strung
across the top of the page, shows the entrance to the campus, with attractive greenery in
the foreground and a multiplicity of modern buildings behind the entrance sign. The
second is of a large Victorian-type brick building in the Provençal style with two soaring
towers, one of which houses a large clock and an arched portico. The text introduces the
university as “a learning community dedicated to excellence in the liberal arts, science
and technology, and professional studies” and the community as “diverse, caring, and
scholarly.” The community (past, present and future) theme is also found in the texts
dedicated to the university’s institutional philosophy.
On the Institutional Philosophy page, the university’s age (150 years) is connected
148
to its core values of “Integrity, Civility and Responsibility.” In the same manner the
description of the large and beautiful campus is linked to character-building and
preparation for a “meaningful career.” The linkages of the university’s age with moral
values and the beauty of its campus with character building and career building are not
subject to any special comment. The page appeals to the paradigm of the traditional
Humboldtian University: moral and civic purpose enveloped in beautiful physical
surroundings producing “character.” The only new, and slightly discordant, discursive
element in this fragment is that of “career-building.”
The text continues by mentioning the university’s status as a member of the
Pennsylvania state system of higher education and its size (8,600 students). The fragment
ends on a promotional note with a reference to the university’s repeated appearance in the
Princeton Review’s Best in the Northeast listing, “recognizing Cal U as one of the best
regional universities in the northeastern United States.” There is no self-consciousness
about Cal U’s use of the opinion of a traditional research university to establish itself as
an outstanding university in a corner of the US. Rather, the imprimatur of an Ivy-league
institution is perceived as exceedingly valuable. The reference to Princeton reinforces by
association the Humboldtian concepts in the discourse fragment.
CAL U’s Mission Statement begins with an enunciation of the university’s
identity. CAL U defines itself both in terms of geography and in the scope of its
academic offerings (liberal arts, science and technology, and professional studies) as “a
comprehensive regional institution of higher education.” The themes of excellence and
character, and career building are repeated, as is the university’s membership in a state
system of higher education. The university’s core values, integrity, civility, and
149
responsibility are reiterated, and reference is made to the CAL U’s “Bill of Rights and
Responsibilities.” This “bill” deals with three elemental topics: safety and security,
respect, and fairness which are to be enjoyed by every individual and extended to all
members of the university. The framing of this document as a “Bill of Rights and
Responsibilities” leads to bathos when the reader discovers the rather basic and
unexceptional nature of its content and its limited moral scope in contrast to CAL U’s
range of programs, and character and career-building designs. However, this grandiose
presentation is congruent with the university’s aspirations to being an ethical and moral
entity, and not solely a provider of professional training.
The Mission Statement focuses on “student achievement and success, institutional
excellence, and community service” to be achieved by means of “high quality faculty,
students, programs and facilities.” These four enablers are expounded upon in the Vision
Statement. The mission statement points out that these enablers are funded through “an
energetic program of resource acquisition and stewardship.” This enigmatic statement is
not explained or elaborated, and the reader is left to surmise what effect this “energetic”
program might have upon the students and their educational experience. The impression
is that the full cost of everything offered at the university will not be borne by its current
members. This theme is addressed in the final aspiration in the Vision Statement: “Create
an ever larger community of supporters and an endowment that will perpetuate the work
of the University and enable constant innovation and renewal.” This particular intention
is reminiscent of the traditional research universities with their considerable endowments,
engaged alumni associations, and prominent requests for donations.
The CAL U Vision is, “Be recognized as the best comprehensive public
150
university in America.” The university is no longer satisfied with its categorization as one
of the best regional universities. CAL U aspires to be the very best “comprehensive”
public university in the nation. The university mentions eighteen actions it intends to
carry out to achieve its goal. They touch upon the following themes: character and career
building (4), excellence (7), learning for its own sake (2), a beautiful campus and the
latest facilities and equipment (9), the university’s special mission in science and
technology (10), continuous improvement (13), philanthropy (17), and the creation of a
broader community to support and perpetuate the university’s work (18).
The themes are almost equally divided between those pertaining to the
Humboldtian paradigm and the University of Excellence (Readings, 1996) and
educational performativity (Lyotard, 1979). This contradiction is inherent in the vision of
becoming “the best comprehensive public university in America itself.” The best consists
of transcendental ideas concerning the university inherited from the Humboldtian model
coupled with the demands and requirements upon the University by modern society, and
funded by both public and private funds. Legitimization now necessarily includes both
the old and the new. The grand narrative (Lyotard, 1979) of the Humboldtian University
is no longer credible in the postmodern era, but is maintained because the attempt to
create a new totalizing narrative out of excellence and performativity is insufficient to
legitimize CAL U.
The final discursive fragment on the CAL U Mission and Vision page is
“Legacy.” It is significant that this fragment is not included in the title of the page, but
enjoys a place next to the principal explanations of the university’s institutional
philosophy. The legacy section makes emphatic reference to the university’s age by
151
mentioning both the date of its founding, and its “150 years of service.” Although
antiquity was not an original element of the Humboldtian project (which, on the contrary,
was intended to modernize higher education in Germany), it has now become wholly
associated with the image of a high quality traditional university – the older the better.
The strong allusion to CAL U’s antiquity (although only 150 years old – not that old for a
Western university) is followed by a commitment to “academic excellence and
intellectual rigor in the context of personal and institutional Integrity, Civility and
Responsibility.” The text ends with the positioning of this public university within the
Humboldtian tradition, albeit minus the quintessential melding of basic research and
teaching.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the CAL U narrative are those contained in
its motto/mission of careers and character, excellence, science and technology,
community, and what the university describes as “Legacy” (described as a combination
of its 160 years of existence, and a commitment to excellence and integrity). Echoes of
the Humboldtian research university are present in the discursive fragments, above all in
its vision of “a learning community known for its academic excellence, intellectual rigor
and civil discourse,”, distinguished faculty, academic excellence, and surprisingly (given
the university’s commitment to “Careers”) the Humboldtian concept of “Instill not just
learning but the love of learning.”
Several discursive entanglements exist in the CAL U discourse fragments, some
of which create significant dissonance. One is the intertwining of the love of learning for
its own sake with preparation for the “World of Work.” Another is the university’s
concept of legacy, that emphasizes its founding and “special mission in science and
152
technology.” The self-narrative combines an architecturally and naturally beautiful
campus with “state of the art facilities and equipment.” Other discursive knots consist of
the university’s desire to be recognized for thought and inquiry related to character and
leadership with its 294-acre campus on the Monongahela River, and the mixing of the
idea of an academic community of excellence with philanthropy and community service.
The alliterative BUILDING CHARACTER, BUILDING CAREERS veils another
discursive entanglement in which career-building and character-building become
inseparable. These knots raise questions about the University’s ultimate goals and
priorities, which can be answered partially by reference to the Humboldtian paradigm.
Janus-like, CAL U appears to looking to old and new in its discursive fragments.
Its discursive strand is rich in Humboldtian elements of the original and Harvard variety.
Yet, it is conscious of the need to fulfill its obligations as a public university in the
modern era. The world of work and the competitive need to present itself as exceptional
that impinge upon the idyll of an academic community instilling the love of learning in
its students. CAL U’s identity narrative, perhaps more than that of any other non-
traditional university is riven with discursive entanglements and knots. Its success in the
online rankings does not seem to provide it with a strategic direction, and its cultivation
of a Humboldtian narrative about its past is not sufficient to sustain it on its journey in the
new century.
153
4. Dakota State University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Dakota State
University (DSU) website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, and
the History and Mission Statement pages. The Homepage is topped by the DSU initials in
yellow on a blue background, beneath which appears DAKOTA STATE and the motto,
TECHNICALLY, WE’RE BETTER. The motto is a play on words, as the popular
modifier technically refers to the institution’s academic offerings, which are composed
mostly of technology programs. The tabs along the top of the page include links to
athletics, research and student life and “Admissions,” “Academics,” and “About DSU.”
The Homepage is dominated by a digital carousel that presents photos and
announcements of the university’s achievements and awards and an invitation to potential
students to sign up for a campus visit. A video offers five slides containing variations on
the motto: TECHNICALLY, WE’RE BETTER TEACHERS, TECHNICALLY, WE’RE
BETTER SCIENTISTS, TECHNICALLY, WE’RE BETTER PROGRAMMERS, etc. It
also provides the exact percentage of graduates who find jobs in their field:
94.215627401%; again, humor is used to emphasize the focus on science and technology.
Fine analysis. There is a significant discursive fragment on the DSU homepage,
which contains four concepts in bold: “a better college experience,” “technology
advantage,” “a better way to learn,” and “DSU is affordable.” The college experience
is described as being “both challenging and fun” and faculty who are experts in their
professional fields, “thought-provoking classes,” and technology are an integral part of
the learning environment with a personal tablet PC and unlimited access to the campus
network. The technology advantage consists of having access to the same hardware and
154
software as those used in the real world, and the university’s use of social networking to
communicate with its students. Again, the idea that technology is all-pervasive at DSU is
emphasized. DSU’s “better way to learn” is summarized by the assertion that graduates
from every major are “tech-savvy.”
Affordability is not only about “reasonably priced tuition” but also encompasses
the university’s “competitive scholarship and financial aid program.” The discursive
fragment ends with DSU being characterized by the commercial phrase, “an outstanding
value” followed by the type of statement frequently used in advertising: “- not something
you’d expect from a leading, high-tech university.” The service provider points out to the
potential purchaser what should impress him or her positively. This sales tactic
additionally involves the creation of the designation of a “high-tech university.” This
neologism uses the familiar but imprecise term “high-tech” to blend the ideas of learning
about advanced technology with the university’s use of high technology and offering it to
students at a reasonable cost.
The lower part of the Homepage contains “News” and “Events” sections. The
News section mixes announcements of concerts and new academic offerings with
whimsical items such as “DSU Dean Emeritus puts local spin on murder mystery.” The
Events section announces sporting events, official holiday dates, and social and career
events. The lowest area on the page provides contact information, information about
other DSU sites. Included in this area are the statement, “DSU is governed by the Board
of Regents of South Dakota and is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission” and a
hyperlink to the latter.
155
The DSU History page traces the university’s origins to 1881 “as the first teacher
education institution in the Dakota Territory.” DSU’s different manifestations as a
“normal,” a college, and finally on July 1, 1989, as a university are documented next to a
photo of a statue, presumably a founder, although the statue’s identity is not revealed or
discussed. The history recounts that DSU’s tradition of educating primary and secondary
teachers continued and that its educational offering was broadened through the addition
of business and traditional arts and science programs in the 1960s and health services
programs in the 1970s. The institution’s elevation to university status in 1989 is explained
by the statement, “The University title was conferred on the institution by the South
Dakota Legislature in order to better reflect its purpose in the total scheme of the state’s
higher education system.” This enigmatic statement gives the reader to understand that
DSU’s designation as a University had more to do with the State of Dakota’s education
system’s needs and authority than any substantive change in the institution itself or in the
purpose it originally envisaged.
DSU underwent a major change in 1984 when, “The South Dakota Legislature
and the South Dakota Board of Regents turned to Dakota State University to educate
leaders for the information age.” It is this initiate on the part of the South Dakota
legislature and Board of Regents that explains the university’s “development of leading-
edge computer/information systems degree programs.” The uses of rather tired phrase as
“leading-edge” and the anachronistic expression “computer/information system” do not
support the institution’s self-proclaimed identity as a “high-tech university.” The text
leaves history aside when it goes on to point out rather mundanely that, “The graduates of
these programs enjoy enviable status in the national marketplace.” The text adds that
156
DSU is a pioneer in the application of computer technology to traditional academic fields,
and which has led to producing “unique degree programs in biology, English,
mathematics, and physical science.” This latter claim speaks more to the university’s
prowess in education than in the field of technology.
The more recent history consists of the university’s awards and rankings including
being “selected as one of the ten finalists for the 1987 G. Theodore Mitau Award” (this
award represents “peer recognition by the nation’s largest association of higher education
institutions, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, of the nation’s
top state colleges and universities for innovation and change”), being “named to Yahoo
Magazine’s list of the 100 most wired universities in the U.S.”, and “For two consecutive
years, 2007 and again in 2008, Dakota State University in Madison is the best public
baccalaureate college in the Midwest according to U.S. News & World Report’s annual
analysis of ‘America’s Best Colleges 2008.’” The listing ends with “Dakota State is
ranked first in the category of Top Public Baccalaureate Colleges in the Midwest region.”
Although the listing is long, the achievements are not overly impressive – one of ten
finalists, two consecutive years, first in a regional category. The achievements mentioned
do not consolidate or even support a consistent and cogent identity for the university as a
leading “high-tech university.”
The page concludes, with the grandiose statement that “Dakota State University
continues to serve the needs of a changing society in its second century” juxtaposed with
“DSU has taken a step forward in distance education and offers courses and academic
programs via Internet, the Governor’s Electronic Classroom, and the Rural Development
Telecommunications Network” and the commitment, “As society’s educational needs
157
change, Dakota State University will continue to evolve to meet these needs with
education, scholarship and service.” The discursive knot of technology as high
technology serving society in the information age and educational technology employed
in distance learning initiatives continues, with the added but isolated element of
“scholarship” not having been mentioned before, and whose importance and relevance
are not elaborated.
The Mission Statement begins, “Following is the mission statement of Dakota
State University as stated in SD Codified Law 13-59-2.2.” Rather than providing a
transcendental reason for the existence of DSU, it details the two state-authorized
purposes, “The primary purpose of Dakota State University at Madison in Lake County is
to provide instruction in computer management, computer information systems,
electronic data processing and other related undergraduate and graduate programs. The
secondary purpose is to offer two-year, one-year and short courses for application and
operator training in the areas authorized by this section.” The concepts of “instruction in”
and “short courses application and operator training” are not congruent with the self-
designation of “a high-tech university” on the Homepage, or the reference to
“scholarship” on the History page. The remainder of the statement discusses the courses
authorized by the Board of Regents that are provided.
Another discursive fragment appears,
The mission of Dakota State University as it appears in the Board of Regents
Policy Manual (1:10:5, adopted 08/07) states: The Legislature established Dakota
State University as an institution specializing in programs in computer
158
management, computer information systems, and other related undergraduate and
graduate programs as outlined in SDCL § 13-59-2.2.
A special emphasis is laid upon the preparation of the elementary and secondary teachers
with expertise in the use of computer technology and information processing in the
teaching and learning process. Here, the mission is couched exclusively in terms of the
delivery of specific technological programs and teacher training programs, which equip
students to use “computer technology and information processing in the teaching and
learning process.” The fragment ends by explaining that the mission laid down in SDCL
§ 13-59-2.2 was realized by the university’s board, “authorizing undergraduate and
graduate programs that are technology-infused and promote excellence in teaching and
learning.” The programs support “research, scholarly and creative activities” and provide
“service to the State of South Dakota and the region.” These discursive fragments that
entangle “scholarship” and service to the region appeared previously but again they are
not developed or explained. The text concludes, “Dakota State University is a member of
the South Dakota System of Higher Education.”
The Mission Statement page contains a “Curriculum” that begins with, “Degrees
are authorized at the associate, baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral levels. The following
curriculum is approved for the university.” The “curriculum” which follows is a list of
programs that are approved by the university. The university’s mission and government
“authorized” purposes are seen as one and the same, and carrying out the mission is
interpreted in terms of the delivery of programs “approved” by the university’s Board of
Regents. Thus, the mission is entangled with the legitimacy granted by these two official
bodies. There is no concept of the university as an organic community possessing self-
159
justifying reasons for its existence and its mission. The mention of “research, scholarly
and creative activities” is almost as an afterthought, without consciousness of how such
activities are an essential part of, contribute to, and enrich university life. Faculty,
students (as individual learners or as a collective), and the wider world are not mentioned
or discussed in relation to the mission. The university was given a functional purpose (or
purposes) by the state legislature, and its Board of Regents ensured that these purposes
were met by the delivery of practical academic programs related directly to those specific
programs; nothing more or less.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the DSU narrative are technology (“Hi-
tech”) as an integral element of the university (both in the programs and the services it
provides), service to South Dakota and the surrounding region, technology as a skill
which can be exploited by its graduates in education and other professional fields,
scholarship and research, and the legitimacy of the university provided by state law and
the approval of the Board of Regents. The latter should not really be regarded as a sub-
theme because it is so important that it subsumes the university’s mission. The mission
consists of what has been authorized and approved by the state and university authorities,
respectively. In this manner, the theme of legitimacy through authorization and approval
becomes de facto the major theme of the self-identity narrative.
The discursive entanglements existing in the DSU discourse fragments include
mixing of the technological content and focus of the university’s programs with the
technological services and benefits (such as a PC tablet, and 24/7 access to the campus
network – being “wired”) it offers to its students. Technology is also entangled with
education and teacher education (the institution’s original purpose) through distance
160
education. The concepts of “scholarship,” “research,” “excellence,” and “service” (to
society and the local region) are also related to its approved programs, but with the
exception of the latter, which is supported by a list of moderate awards and achievements,
these sub-themes are never fully developed or exploited in the discursive fragments
analyzed.
Dakota State University, as its name suggests, is part of the state system of
education, and the state and its legislature play a dominant role in the university’s
understanding of its identity. From its origins in education, DSU has grown to include
new programs required by the state, as well as a new mission to assist the state in meeting
the challenge of the information age. The self-narrative developed around this new
mission sounds as though DSU is preparing to fight yesterday’s war. DSU’s self-
designation as a “high-tech” university sounds hollow once the reader is introduced to the
university’s achievements in this area. The desperate-sounding efforts to accumulate
somewhat dubious “firsts” are complemented by an isolated reference to “scholarship.”
The university does not speak convincingly of its success in distributed education. This
achievement appears in the discursive fragments on its website within the context of the
university’s original purpose, and not as a technological and educational innovation. DSU
does not express a unique vision for a state University in a technological era.
5. National University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the National University
(NU) website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, and the History
and Mission Statement pages. The Homepage is dominated by a digital space and a photo
of a pen, a calendar, and a text, “One-Course-Per-Month.” Below are two tabs, “Our
161
Programs” and “Admissions.” To the immediate left of the digital space is a box with
three sections, “Get Started,” “Campus Finder,” and “Areas of Study. Below “Get
Started” is “Prospective Students” which features a photo of a student and the links “Our
Programs,” “New Student Orientation,” and “Apply on Line.” Below these links are
“Current Students,” “Graduation,” “Teachers,” “Community Colleges,” “Military,”
“Alumni and Friends,” “International Admissions and Student Services,” and “Webinars”
for the community and prospective students.
To the right of “Prospective Students” is a text entitled, “Change Your Future
Today.” Below, is a series of university news items, two of which relate to military
veteran and active-duty service personnel, respectively. To and to its right “National
University Holiday Bowl” announces that “National University is the proud title sponsor
of the 2013 National University Holiday Bowl on December 30, 2013.” The same
information appears in the news section A video space, “Featured Student Stories”
displays a photo of a young Asian woman and student testimonials. To the right of this
space an events calendar provides festive and academic dates and informational sessions
on education and financial aid. To the right of the calendar is “Featured Location” with
information about “our conveniently-located campuses throughout California and
Henderson, Nevada.” The page ends with links to social media and information about
where to apply online and call for more information.
The Homepage has a blue header with the logo on the left. The page design is
attractive, modern, spare, and uncluttered, but contains a variety of technological
elements including video, a search engine, tabs, links, and social networks. Most of them
provide prospective students with the opportunity to acquire more information (even in
162
non-informative spaces such as the events calendar) about, or apply to, the university.
Even the news section contains items that might appeal to prospective students such as
current and former military personnel. The announcement of the university’s sponsorship
of the “Holiday Bowl” catches the visitor’s eye immediately. What impresses the visitor
about the Homepage is its promotional impact. Everywhere there are phrases, images,
and tools inviting student enrollment, offering information, and promoting the university
and its programs and events. However, the page does not appear overcrowded or
commercial.
Fine analysis. The first discursive fragment on the Homepage consists of the text,
“One-Course-Per-Month.” The text presents the format of National University’s
programs which provide the student “with unprecedented focus and flexibility.” It
emphasizes the speed at which students can move through programs; therefore, “you’ll
reach your goals sooner than through a traditional college format.” The text is informal
and direct in tone. It is aimed at the potential student (“you” “you’ll, and “your” being
employed), and contrasts the NU approach with the “traditional college format.” The
second fragment is “Change Your Future Today.” The text mentions the date of the
founding of the university (1971), and its high-sounding mission “dedicated to making
lifelong learning opportunities accessible, challenging, and relevant to a diverse student
population.”
As a result of dedication to its mission, NU has become “the second-largest
private, nonprofit institution of higher education in California and 12th largest in the
United States.” The text ends by referring to the “wide range of educational opportunities
that will help you earn your associate’s, bachelors or master’s degree or teaching
163
credential” and “the more than 45 convenient locations throughout California and
Nevada.” NU has become successful by pursuing an altruistic mission as a “private,
nonprofit institution of higher education” and today there are multiple locations in two
states.
The history narrative does not begin on the History page, but in the last paragraph
of the text announcing that NU will be the 2013 sponsor of the Holiday Bowl. The reader
learns the founding date (1971), and size (“the second-largest private, nonprofit
university in California. With 30,000 students and more than 130,000 alumni”). This text
defines the NU as “the flagship institution of the National University System” and a de
facto mission statement, “National University is dedicated to making lifelong learning
opportunities accessible, challenging, and relevant to a diverse population of students.”
The text continues with specific information about the university’s academic offerings
adding, “A leader in online education, National University offers more than 70 degree
programs via the Internet.”
The text ends with the information that National University is “headquartered” in
La Jolla, California, and invites the reader to visit NU’s website. The use of
“headquartered” to describe the location is more redolent of the world of business than
academia. The reason why such important and even highly strategic information is not
available on the Homepage or the History page is unclear. Perhaps NU expects more
potential students will read the sports sponsorship announcement.
The History page’s subtitle is “A Profound Sense of Vision and Value” but this
discourse fragment concerns itself with the National University System founded in 2001,
and not the university’s history and value proposition. The National University System is
164
an “alliance of institutions committed to providing exemplary educational opportunities
to diverse populations of students and organizations.” Each of the system’s institutions
“is dedicated to serving a particular population through specific structures and curricula,
while sharing the common goals of quality and accessibility.” The institutions are
differentiated by their market segmentation and common goals are not presented. The text
states that the system has grown, owing to “vision and leadership” but does not elaborate.
The expanded system offers “learner-centered, future-focused and results-oriented
education” and the text gives no further details.
Finally, the reader learns that while the system has grown, it has been “all while
implementing innovative management strategies and maintaining a true commitment to
community.” No examples of either the management strategies or the type of
commitment to community are given. The salient elements in this text are phrases more
often found in promotional and management literature: “A Profound Sense of Vision and
Value,” “quality and accessibility,” “vision and leadership,” “learner-centered,” “future-
focused,” “results-oriented,” “innovative management strategies,” and “a true
commitment.” These trite phrases give no sense of how the National University System
originated, what the founding principles were, what its educational philosophy is, and
how and why it has grown so quickly. The History page continues with “Quick Facts”
that lists seven “affiliates” and five “Related entities.” There is no explanation of
“affiliate” and “related entity.” Consequently, this section does not add to the reader’s
understanding of the nature of the National University System. On the left side of the
page there are links to the websites of the twelve institutions on the list.
165
Below the list is another list, “System Timeline.” The timeline begins with the
founding of the National University System in 2001. There is no reference to the
founding of National University in 1971, and no items in the timeline relate to this thirty-
year interregnum. Included in the timeline are events dealing with the growth and
development of the System, such as “01/02 - Acquired the College of Oceaneering,”
“02/04 - Acquired the Advanced College of Technology,” and “05/11 - The Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) reaffirms National University’s
accreditation through 2021.” However, other, much less important, events are also
included in the System Timeline. Still other events like “01/07 - CMI absorbed by
WestMed College,” “12/07 - Center for Integrative Health replaces Institute for Wellness
and Peak Performance,” “09/10 - John F. Kennedy University establishes a presence at
National University’s campus in Costa Mesa” give the impression of witnessing the inner
modifications and reconfigurations of a commercial or industrial group.
The last nine of the 62 events listed are concerned with executive personnel
changes and eight of these with the opening of online information centers. Two involve
accreditations: “05/07 - NUVHS accredited by WASC, CITA” and “05/11 - The Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) reaffirms National University’s
accreditation through 2021,” and there are mentions of candidatures for accreditation and
approvals by boards of education. The “System Timeline” does not provide a coherent
narrative of the growth and development of the National University System, or indicate
which of the many events included are of importance to NU and why. The purpose of the
timeline appears to be emphasizing for the reader the substantial number of significant
achievements in relatively short order.
166
NU’s Mission page has the title, “National University System Mission” and the
subtitle, “Our Core Values and Guiding Principles.” To the right side of the titles and the
four paragraphs of text there is a photograph of the logo with a butterfly resting on it. The
first paragraph explains that the National University System “was established to meet a
growing mandate for educational institutions that are more flexible, responsive and
dynamic than traditional colleges and universities.” The second paragraph states that the
mission “is to serve a broad range of constituencies that extends beyond National
University’s non-traditional student body to other underserved populations historically
deprived of educational opportunities.” The university’s non-traditional student body and
the other underserved populations mentioned are not identified or described. The
paragraph finishes by linking the mission to Thomas Jefferson: “Thomas Jefferson had a
similar vision more than 200 years ago, understanding the essential link between an
educated populace and an effective democracy.”
The text implies that by means of the composition of its student population, NU is
serving society and fortifying democracy. The Jeffersonian theme continues in the third
paragraph, which describes the National University System as “a modern embodiment of
Jefferson’s vision of educational opportunities conveniently and usefully available to
everyone.” This asseveration is supported by what one assumes is a quote from Jefferson
himself as no citation is given, “without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental
conditions or circumstance." The paragraph finishes in a bombastic tone, with the idea
that the system has “deployed” the power of Jefferson’s concept through its exceptional
growth: “In a few short years, the System has deployed the power of this concept by
167
forming an array of educational and supporting institutions never before gathered under a
single umbrella in the nonprofit sector.”
Despite the rhetorical language, however, the mixing of metaphors (an array of
institutions “under a single umbrella”) produces bathos. The final paragraph elaborates
on the theme of the size and strength of the system, which allows member institutions to
operate independently but with the stability provided by the system’s framework. The
nature of the relationship is not disclosed or discussed. The paragraph ends a discursive
strand that employs grand but confused metaphors taken from construction, “Even in its
foundational period, the System is breaking ground through innovation strengthened by a
steadfast commitment to academic quality.” The discursive fragments on the Mission
page that use grandiloquent language to mix social and political ideas supported by
references to Thomas Jefferson, suggest that the university system is part of a noble,
altruistic tradition.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the NU narrative are accessibility, lifelong
learning opportunities, innovation, non-profit status, community, and strength and
stability. The discursive strands existing in the NU discursive fragments include NU as
an independent university versus the National University System. This first entanglement
is structural, as although the website examined is that of National University, the History
and the Mission presented there are those of the National University System. A second
entanglement is the transactional design and discourse of most of the Homepage with the
grandiose discourse of traditional higher education institutions on the History and
Mission pages. Discursive entanglements are most conspicuous in the System Timeline,
where the most commercially mundane (the opening of online information centers) is
168
mixed with the creation of the National University System Institute for Policy Research,
and the titles of Chief Operating Officer, President, and Chancellor are juxtaposed. A
third discursive entanglement is the mix of loosely described demographic segments
served by the university with Jeffersonian service to society. These elements have
tenuous but real connections to the Humboldtian concept of the University preparing its
students to be citizens, able to participate meaningfully in the social and political life of
the state.
NU’s self-identity narrative is confusing, with its inclusion of discordant elements
like Jeffersonian democracy and innovative management strategies. Frequently,
intriguing pieces of information are presented without any follow up, e.g., the
relationship between NU and the System is never clarified although presented as one of
the strengths of the university. The history presented in the timeline does not help the
visitor understand the reasons for NU’s success. National University appears to present a
more-cost effective alternative to traditional higher education, but the nature of its
educational innovations is not detailed. NU is an online university which appears to have
an interesting contribution to make to non-traditional higher education, but which fails to
present a coherent, convincing self-identity narrative on its website.
6. UMass Lowell
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the UMass Lowell
website analyzed in the study consisted of the texts of the Homepage and the University
Quick Facts – History of UMass Lowell and the Our Mission pages. The first element on
the Homepage is the logo in the top left corner. The rectangular logo consists of a large
white U on a black and blue background, with UMASS in black on a white background
169
underneath it, and LOWELL in blue on a white background under that. Below the logo is
the legend, “Learning with Purpose.” To the right of the logo there are two rows of links.
The first row provides practical information such as Maps/Directions and log-in’s for the
university’s e-mail and ISIS system. The second row is “Prospective Students,” “Current
Students,” “Community,” and “Media.” Below these is a row of tabs, ABOUT,
ACADEMICS, RESEARCH, ADMISSIONS & AID, STUDENT LIFE, and
ATHLETICS & RECREATION. The list is typical of the topics found on the homepages
of traditional universities, which usually include research, (campus) student life, student
athletics, and how alumni can make financial contributions to the university.
Below these tabs and on the left of the page, a large section displays “Spotlight”
and the three phrases, “Be a Difference Maker,” “Meet Our Students,” and “Get Your
Blue On!” In addition, the section features a large red button, SUPPORT UMass Lowell
and a clickable arrow to the alumni contribution page. To the right of the section, a video
pane that dominates the rest of the page, displays a photo of President John F. Kennedy
and a start arrow icon. The title is “Honoring A Legacy (JFK)”, and the short text says,
“On the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the campus community
reflects on memories of the charismatic President and his impact on their lives and the
University. Read more.” The Kennedy legacy pane contains a history of the encounters
and relationship between the Kennedy family and the university community.
To the bottom right of the video pane, a large bright green flash, “Is College
Worth It?” and “At UMass Lowell it is! Learn more about our campus on the rise”
appear, with a row of small icons for social networks below. To the right there is a large
magnifying glass passing over a list of colleges, and a corresponding list of mid-career
170
salaries; “UMass Lowell $95.1K” is number 80 on the list. Below the video pane there
are three sections, “Admissions,” “Events,” and “News.” Each section has clickable
information; for example, “Admissions” has “Undergraduate - Get ready for the work
place or graduate school with opportunities to learn through experience in almost every
major. Explore campus at Fall Preview Day, Nov. 23,” “Graduate - Learn about the wide
range of professional graduate programs that will get you ready for your next career
move,” and “Online and Continuing Education - Earn an undergraduate or graduate
degree part-time, online and on campus. Customized corporate training programs
available.” The sections also display photos of ethnically diverse students.
The Events section is largely devoted to announcements of UML hockey games
and dates. The News section includes items such as “Lowell Sun: Patrick to Announce
$20M Engineering Upgrade and “WCVB: UMass Lowell’s Reputation Rising.” The page
ends with “Contact Us,” “UMassOnline,” “UMass Club,” and “UMass System.”
Fine analysis. The “Is College Worth It?” tab on the Homepage takes readers to a
page displaying the magnifying glass graphic and a series of six published achievements
with the text:
We decided to toot our own horn about some of our latest accolades such as rising
25 points in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, being named in the top of
Forbes “Best Value College” and the number one “Most Underrated” college in
the country by Business Insider. That is in addition to opening six new buildings,
going Division 1 in all sports, and record enrollment and graduation rates.
The lively, point-packed text contains two discursive threads. One relates to the
idea of the university being objectively identified as good value for money (“Best Value
171
College” and “Most Underrated”). The other thread promotes the idea of UMass Lowell
as a star (“rising 25 points in the U.S. News & World Report rankings,” “opening six new
buildings, going Division 1 in all sports,” and “record enrollment and graduation rates”).
After the text, the specific achievements, ranking number, and source are displayed.
Below them and in the bottom left corner, a shorter text written in the same vein explains,
“In just a few years” UMass Lowell has eight more buildings, an number one athletic
conference ranking, and key performance indicators of different sorts (endowment,
alumni salaries, test scores, etc.) are all “Up, Up, Up.” This gushing, staccato-like prose
gives the reader the impression of never-ending success. Under the text is the legend,
“UMass Lowell is rising.” Although there is no History page, there is a history section on
the “University Quick Facts” page. The section is dominated by a pane which plays a
video that reprises the achievements on the “Is College Worth It?” page, supported by
powerfully punctuated electronic music. Below the video pane, a short history of UMass
Lowell, begins, “For more than a century, UMass Lowell has been preparing students to
work in the real-world, solve real problems and help real people.” The reader learns from
this introduction that UMass Lowell is over 100 years old, but the repetition of real does
not contribute to understanding the university’s history.
UMass Lowell’s creation originates in “the Lowell Normal School, a teaching
college founded in 1894” and the “Lowell Textile School, founded in 1895 to train
technicians and managers for the textile industry.” In 1975 the schools merged to form
the University of Lowell. Lowell became part of the University of Massachusetts system
in 1991. The history is highly concrete and synthetic, and does not provide information
concerning the emerging philosophy of the two legacy schools once united, or how the
172
entry of the University of Lowell into the University of Massachusetts system changed it
since 1991, or the nature of the University of Massachusetts system.
The first paragraph of the UMass Lowell Mission Statement states the essential
mission: “The University of Massachusetts System’s mission is to provide an affordable
and accessible education of high quality and to conduct programs of research and public
service that advance knowledge and improve the lives of the people of the
Commonwealth, the nation and the world.” The non-traditional university themes of
affordability and accessibility combine with more traditional themes of research and
public service, to “improve the lives of the people of the Commonwealth, the nation and
the world.” The idea of the university’s activities having an impact on the state, the
nation, and the world is a common higher educational theme for traditional universities.
The next paragraph elaborates: “In accord with the UMass System’s mission, the
University of Massachusetts Lowell is a public research university committed to
excellence in teaching, research and community partnerships,” “The University is
dedicated to transformational education that fosters student success, lifelong learning and
global awareness,” and “UMass Lowell offers affordable, experience-based
undergraduate and graduate academic programs taught by internationally recognized
faculty who conduct research to expand the horizons of knowledge.”
The use of “transformational education” and the token but resounding phrases
“student success, lifelong learning and global awareness” and “to expand the horizons of
knowledge” do not provide useful insights into how the university fulfills its mission. The
mission text does not differentiate UMass Lowell from the many other universities that
claim to engage in the same activities. The text’s highly generalized nature fails to
173
illuminate the UMass Lowell legend, “Learning with Purpose.” However, the final
sentence of the second paragraph, taken in the context of the university’s origins, allows
the reader to think about how the university might serve its local community, if not the
world: “The University continues to build on its founding tradition of innovation,
entrepreneurship and partnerships with industry and the community to address challenges
facing the region and the world.” The “challenges” are not explained. The UMass Lowell
discursive fragments provide a sense of achievement, growth, drive, and energy, but also
lack substance.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the UMass Lowell narrative are expansion
and ever-increasing success, value for money, affordability, accessibility, research, public
service, innovation, entrepreneurship, and partnership with industry. Several The
discursive entanglements existing in the UMass Lowell discourse fragments include the
regional with the national and the global, athletic achievement and physical and financial
expansion with academic quality, and the Kennedy legacy with the life and environment
at UMass Lowell.
UMass Lowell’s lively, stimulating self-identity narrative of growth, achievement,
and success combines Humboldtian elements of the pursuit of knowledge and civic
service with modern themes of innovation, partnership with industry, and
entrepreneurship. It makes use of inflated Humboldtian concepts such as contributions to
the region and the world, and its expansion of the “horizons of knowledge” as well
emphasizing its athletic prowess. Surprisingly for a public university, UMass Lowell
promotes itself tirelessly as a rising star in the higher education firmament, and exploits a
connection with the Kennedy family to make itself more attractive to potential students
174
from the state. The discursive entanglements and knots in U Mass Lowell’s discursive
strand and the failure to explain the “learning with purpose” offered to students leave the
impression that the university’s understanding of itself resides principally in its ability to
achieve success.
7. Bellevue University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Bellevue University
website analyzed in the study consisted of the texts from the Homepage, and the History,
and Mission, Vision and Values pages. The layout and images illustrating these fragments
consist of the logo and photos of contented young students, with the exception of the dour
and not readily interpretable black and white photo illustrating the History page. The
sections, with titles like “HOW TO Get Started” are functional and intended to enable
students to digest key information in order to enroll at the university. The Homepage is
dominated by visuals. The principal section on this page “HOW TO Get Started” contains
video “stories” of adults who decide to “go back to school.” These fictional pieces are
reassuring, accompanied by calming music, the characters’ decisions to re-engage with
higher education are supported by family members, and spending on education is seen as
wise. With the exception of “News & Events,” the other sections are designed to
encourage and facilitate student enrollment.
Other video clips on the page deal with topics such as “Online Learning,”
“Making College Affordable,” and “Transferring Your Credits.” There is also a degree
search engine box? and a listing of “Popular Degrees” along with information about the
experience of studying at Bellevue University, and testimonials (“Bellevue Real
Stories”). In these testimonials alumni talk positively and reassuringly about how they
175
achieved their personal and professional goals through studying online at Bellevue.
Flashes on the page cite the US News and World Report’s 2013 naming Bellevue among
the “TOP 10 ONLINE Bachelor’s DEGREES,” and “TOP 3 ONLINE Bachelors
PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS.” The page is full of reassurance, positive experience,
support, and achievement; all presented in a commercial manner and professionally
produced. The crucial sub-themes in the self-identity narrative are empathy and support
for the decision to re-enter higher education, the viability and wisdom of such decisions,
and the positive impacts of the decision in later life.
Fine analysis. Bellevue University’s narrative of its founding emphasizes its
modest beginnings in Bellevue, Nebraska. The idea for a college emerged at a meeting of
the local Chamber of Commerce in June 1965. Bill Brooks presented several eminently
practical reasons for a college: Bellevue’s growth, the air force base nearby, and
demographics. There is no lofty idealism or polished rhetoric involved in the conception
of Bellevue College (later University). The college is conceived in a totally functional
context, and with a completely utilitarian purpose: to serve a growing community. This
practicality is reflected in the university’s motto Real learning for Real Life”.
The crucial sub-themes of the Bellevue history narrative are the transition of the
institution from a College to a University, growth, achievement (especially in relation to
the online modality), and the future. Although the discursive fragment does not contain
the explicit statement that becoming a university implies expansion, these two strands are
intertwined. Growth is defined in terms of geographical expansion and student
population (11,000 students annually at 12 locations in five states). The discursive
fragment suggests that the university’s expansion can be unlimited because of its online
176
capability. The text proclaims the success of the university during its forty-year history,
and in a highly optimistic tone predicts that the university will enjoy another four decades
and more of success and growth.
The principal themes in the Mission Statement are degrees with which students
can compete in the real world, the creation of personal values and citizenship of a
globalized world, the propagation and defense of capitalism, the American “heritage,”
and democracy and freedom as a way of life. The statement is student-focused and talks
about “awards and degrees” rather than education as the means to professional and
personal success, taking control of one’s life, and participating in the “global
community.” The statement is explicitly ideological as it announces that the university
teaches free market values and the need to preserve “our American heritage” (democracy
and freedom). There is no explanation of the phrases; it is assumed that the reader
understands them. There is no sense of dissonance between students becoming
“responsible citizens of the global community” and the university teaching the
importance of capitalism and preserving the American way of life. The former is
subsumed within the latter, and globalization is not perceived as a potential opportunity
for praxis or new direction.
The university’s vision is couched as addressing “a national challenge” to increase
educational achievement. The statement extends the mission’s emphasis on the obtaining
of degrees to the national context, and frames it almost as a patriotic obligation. The
understanding on the part of the reader of the nature of educational attainment and the
reasons why it is important to the nation are taken for granted. Of the five values
Bellevue University advertises on its website, only the first, “Integrity in all we do,” is a
177
traditional value; two others (Student-centric and Innovative) are characteristics, one is a
belief (Belief in the transformational value of education ), and one is ideological (Market-
focused).
The values of integrity, belief in the transformational value of education, and
student-centrism inform the University’s stance as a straightforward, unpretentious
organization that genuinely believes it can change people’s lives for the better, and that
empathizes with the individual student’s situation and needs. Market-focused is
shorthand for the university’s explicit ideological stance as expressed in the Mission
Statement, with the added advantage of being linked to students’ professional aspirations.
Innovation supports the university’s pride in its early adoption and development of online
and blended learning modalities. These values are functional rather than transcendental,
and can be easily identified with the Bellevue’s stated educational purpose and offerings
as well as with its stated ideological position.
The Bellevue discourse fragments adopt a matter of fact tone when discussing the
university’s achievements, and there is no apology for the absence of academic or
intellectual content. The commercially oriented Homepage uses a considerable gamut of
promotional ploys to obtain enrollments. The tone of the university’s institutional
philosophy discourse fragment becomes belligerent as it presents what it considers self-
evident national and patriotic virtues. The fragments evince a conservative and localized
position, defending traditional market and national values while nodding in the direction
of globalization, but reducing the latter concept to a question of citizenship. Bellevue
University exists to serve working adults who need a university degree to take advantage
of what the American social and economic system has to offer. The university’s position
178
concerning university education is personal, nationalistic, and ideological.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Bellevue narrative are the transition of
the institution from a College to a University, growth and achievement, going to
university as a life decision which will have positive repercussions beyond the individual
concerned, and personal development which will allow the student to become involved in
the defense of the American way of life and as a citizen of the world. With the exception
of the concept of being prepared to be a worthy citizen, there is no connection to the
Humboldtian University with its emphasis on the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake,
academic freedom, and the integration of teaching and research.
Several discursive entanglements exist in the Bellevue University discourse
fragments. One is the intertwining of the very specific educational and social purpose that
the university establishes for itself (that of providing its students with the possibility of
economic betterment by obtaining a university degree) with its ideological defense of
capitalism and “our American heritage.” Lesser types of entanglement or occasional
knots found in the Bellevue discursive fragments include the combination of responsible
citizenship and globalization, and free market capitalism and freedom. These knots
provoke questions for the reader about the University’s understanding of being
“responsible citizens of the global community” and of a “free way of life.”
The self-narrative sees freedom having to do with economics and the American
political system, not with academic liberties. Teaching does not depend on research
carried out within the university. Scholarship is not one of its concerns, and instead of the
study of science in a pure sense it offers what potential students and their employers
demand. Its vision of higher education is utilitarian and civic, in that it equips graduates
179
to defend the American way of life. In the most telling departure from the traditional
concept of the University, Bellevue offers vocational preparation instead of pure
scientific research. The university is proud of its achievements in distributed education
as a means of continuing its growth and expansion.
8. The University of Nebraska at Kearney
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the University of
Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) website analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage,
and the 2013-2014 Student Catalogue – History Section and Mission and Vision pages.
The first element on the Homepage is the logo in the top left corner, which consists of U,
N, and K in blue on a plain white background, with the U outlined in blue and filled out
in white. Next to the logo and stretching across the page is the university name in an
elegant classic font. Below, a yellow strip with a row of clickable white tabs that produce
the drop-down menus: HOME, UNIVERSITY PROFILE, PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS,
CURRENT STUDENTS, FACULTY & STAFF, and ALUMNI. Beneath this row and to
the left there is a vertical list of tabs with practical information and a video pane that
dominates the page. The pane displays a photo of a large entrance building to the campus,
and an invitation to click on an arrow pointing into the campus, below which appears the
title, “Take the Virtual Tour.” The video pane’s dynamic cycle ends with a photo and an
invitation to see more photos of the campus and campus life.
The information tabs on the left side of the page are: ACADEMICS,
ADMISSIONS, DEPARTMENTS, STUDENTS AFFAIRS, EXPLORE KEARNEY,
ATHLETICS, UNK NEWS, and COMMENCEMENT. Under this vertical list of tabs
there are two search engines, Google and “Quick Links.” The latter has a pull down menu
180
with informational links. Below the search engine there is a large light blue tab with large
white letters, “TAKE A CAMPUS VISIT.” Underneath the video pane there is a large
white strip divided into “UNK News” and “Events.” The news section features general
items of interest and campus information. The events section highlights cultural events
and a link to a calendar with cultural, sporting, and academic events.
Below the white strip, a larger beige strip divided in two displays “Welcome” on
the left and “Spotlight” and “Feature” on the right. The Welcome section provides seven
information links laid out vertically, which offer a host of information for new students.
The Spotlight section offers the same virtual tour that features prominently in the upper
section of the page. The Feature section offers a YouTube on the UNK bell tower at the
heart of the campus. Below the beige strip seven light blue tabs allow student log-ins,
access to social media, YouTube, and application and information pages. The page ends
with a broad white strip containing contact information and practical links such as
“Report a Page Problem”. To the left are the Campaign for Nebraska and University of
Nebraska Foundation logos and to the right is the university logo.
Fine analysis. The first page under the University Profile tab on the Homepage is
“About UNK” with its “Welcome to UNK” text. This short text describes UNK as public
and residential, and “an affordable, student-centered regional hub of intellectual, cultural
and artistic excellence that has been a prominent part of Nebraska’s higher education
landscape for more than a century.” The university is projected here not only as a place of
higher learning but also as an intellectual, cultural, and artistic asset for the state of
Nebraska. The first paragraph of the text is followed by five bullet points: “major public
university,” “exciting careers,” “Nationally-renowned faculty,” “a rich and diverse
181
campus life,” and “A home away from home.” They provide balance between the
practical, academic, and social advantages the university offers.
The next paragraph states, “But what truly distinguishes UNK is its commitment
to providing an outstanding education in a small and personal setting” and adds to the
idea of UNK being a cohesive “community of friends” despite have a significant
population of foreign students, and “a place they will forever call “home.” The page ends
with an invitation to prospective students to “Discover why UNK is recognized as one of
the best universities in the Midwest!” The tone of the text is calm and reassuring. The
university is confident of its identity and its many offerings, and is eager for students to
discover this for themselves.
UNK does not have a History page, but the university catalogue gives a short
history of the university from its founding in 1905 to the present day. In 1905 the
Nebraska State Normal School at Kearney opened its doors to students after “the State
Legislature appropriated $50,000 to build a normal school in western Nebraska” and “the
State Board of Education accepted the City of Kearney offer of twenty acres and Green
Terrace Hall at the western edge of the city to become the site” in 1903. Subsequently, the
institution underwent two name changes: “In 1921, the name of the institution was
changed to Nebraska State Teachers College at Kearney. Then, in 1963, it became
Kearney State College.” The next significant change for the institution came almost
thirty years later, “In 1989, however, a legislative act, LB247, moved the institution from
the State College system to the University of Nebraska system. After Supreme Court
review, Kearney State College became The University of Nebraska at Kearney on July 1,
1991.” Finally, the history informs the reader of a local detail, “State Representative C.J.
182
Warner of Waverly introduced the 1903 bill creating the institution; his son, State Senator
Jerome Warner, introduced the bill making UNK a part of the University.” The history
ends with a list of the “Nine presidents/chancellors have served the institution.”
The text is spare, and almost without comment on the development of the
institution, its philosophy, and the effect of the nine “presidents/chancellors on UNK’s
growth and expansion. Once the origins of UNK have been established in detail, the text
is essentially a list of official milestones: changes in name and changes in status, but no
insights into the changing life of the institution during a century of existence. The
information about how two generations of the Warner family were involved at key
moments in the development of UNK provides a personal touch, but no more than that.
The list of the “nine presidents/chancellors” provides an opportunity to present their
respective administrations and successions in terms of the development of the university.
However, the list is not exploited in this manner, and so fails to provide an insightful
understanding of the university’s history. It is clear that UNK does not assign a
legitimizing function to its history, and does not consider it a significant element in its
current identity.
The one-sentence Mission Statement is business-like, “The University of
Nebraska at Kearney is a public, residential university.” There is no elaboration upon
what the implications of being a public university are or might be. It ends, on a partly
aspirational note, “committed to be one of the nation’s premier undergraduate institutions
with excellent graduate education, scholarship, and public service.” UNK’s aspiration is
Humboldtian, desiring to combine undergraduate teaching with postgraduate education
and research and public service. The statement also has the minor additions taken from
183
the discourse of excellence (Readings 1996), “premier” and “excellent.” Readings (1996,
p.12) states that the discourse of excellence is displacing “prior appeals to the idea of
culture as the language in which the University seeks to explain itself to itself and to the
world at large.”
However, in the case of UNK both discourses are present; as the following extract
from the “About Us” page demonstrates: “(UNK is a) regional hub of intellectual,
cultural and artistic excellence” The UNK Vision also reflects a combination of
Humboldtian and discourse of excellence elements. The text begins, “The University of
Nebraska at Kearney will achieve national distinction for a high quality,
multidimensional learning environment.” There is an unequivocal drive for excellence in
this statement. However, another crucial element is also present; the “multidimensional
learning environment” presumably refers to UNK’s growing expertise in distributed
education. The remainder of the first paragraph, “engagement with community and public
interests, and preparation of students to lead responsible and productive lives in a
democratic, multicultural society” is almost completely Humboldtian in its concept of the
University as a place to develop good and responsible citizens. At UNK, this takes place
within a “multicultural society.”
The second paragraph explains how the university’s vision is to be achieved
through a “clear focus on mission imperatives, fidelity to historic core values, and
continuous and rigorous self-appraisal or assessment of outcomes.” The old is to be
married to the new; a “fidelity to historic core values” is to be combined with tools for
achieving excellence (a “clear focus on mission imperatives” and “continuous and
rigorous self-appraisal or assessment of outcomes”). This syncretic approach is consistent
184
between both UNK’s mission and vision statements. The institutional philosophy section
ends with yet another invitation to prospective students, “Apply to UNK today or
schedule a campus visit.” This is a university that values the Humboldtian vision of the
University with its academic, cultural, and social/political functions, but is attempting to
wed that traditional understanding with the performance demands made on universities
that began to be voiced in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the UNK narrative are: a cultural function
and mission for the university, excellence, personal satisfaction within a congenial
community, research, public service, and academic programs leading to jobs. The
discursive entanglements” (existing in the UNK discourse fragments include the old with
the new, the discourse of excellence (Readings, 1996) with the discourse of the
Humboldtian University paradigm, and the academic with both the personal/social and
cultural.
The University of Nebraska at Kearney gives the impression of confidence in its
mission as a public university, and it appears to have achieved an authentic and
successful synthesis of the Humboldtian elements, community, research, and service to
the community with newer characteristics derived from the University of Excellence such
as a focus on objectives and accountability. The reader perceives authenticity in UNK’s
commitment to creating a humane and welcoming community of learning along with a
seriousness regarding its cultural mission in its region. The university’s achievements in
distributed education do not seem to form a part of its identity narrative, and do not
appear to point the way to a different future for the university. UNK seems to be
comfortable with the balance achieved between old and new, and it does not express any
185
need for dramatic change in its discursive fragments, or aspire to a role beyond its
regional/national ambit. It appears to be genuine about the liberal values it upholds and it
is unpretentious about its aspirations.
9. Columbia Southern University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Columbia Southern
University (CSU) website that were analyzed consisted of the texts of the Homepage, and
the History and Mission Statement pages. The Homepage is dominated by a digital space
occupied by a photo of a columned portico with the university name on it. The visitor can
click on this same space to watch the thirty-second video, “Together we can ACHIEVE
YOUR DREAMS.” The first presenter on the video is the Vice President for Admissions,
Marketing and Outreach, who, against a background of the university’s installations by
saying that, “Life is complicated but your education shouldn’t be.” The second presenter
is the Vice President of the CSU Education Group, who, against a background of modern
and spacious offices, mentions the “low cost tuition, quality online programs, free
textbooks, caring faculty and staff, and scholarship and partnership support.
The video emphasizes the university’s willingness and readiness to support
anyone who has decided “to make the transition to going back to school.” The support
will extend “from application to graduation.” The video is professional, and the friendly
presenters and background music create a reassuring, pleasant atmosphere. The student is
invited to join the CSU “family” and is told that “together we can achieve your dreams.”
The digital carousel shows advertisements for a Facebook “Schools App,” the university
“view book,” and an announcement that CSU is one of the top military-friendly colleges
and universities for the fifth year running. The tabs on the left side of the Homepage are
186
“Apply Now,” “Request Information,” “Online Degree Programs,” “Tuition Discount
Program,” “Academic Calendar Term,” “Schedule,” and “News & Events.” They are
largely devoted to student enrollment. Below is a text about the “CSU Promise” that ends
with “Request Info” and “Apply Today.”
The lower right side of the Homepage features a series of student testimonial
videos under the title, “See What Our Students Say.” The penultimate area of the
Homepage consists of a series of attractive graphic tabs on enrollment information,
benefits, tuition reduction, the National Sheriffs Association, and CSU merchandise. The
final section at the bottom of the Homepage contains the university’s address and
information links. The Homepage promotes student enrollment with a high graphic
content but with sensitivity towards the potential student’s life-situation as a working
adult with family commitments, enveloping a tacit invitation to join one of the public
service professions on display.
Fine analysis. There is a significant discursive fragment on the Homepage. This
fragment boasts the following title “Superior Service. Flexible Programs. Exceptional
Value”: the CSU “promise.” The promise is described as, “completely online degree
programs, open enrollment, affordable tuition rates, and a flexible learning style designed
to accommodate your life.” The text invites potential students to choose from a list of
degrees the university offers.
CSU’s History page combines four discursive strands: the contribution and
influence of the university’s founder Dr. Robert Mayes, CSU’s legitimacy as an
accredited and recognized institution of higher education, the university’s popularity and
growth, and its essential values. The history begins by establishing CSU as “One of the
187
nation’s first completely online universities” and its founding purpose as an alternative
university: “Columbia Southern University (CSU) was developed to meet the demand for
alternatives to the traditional university experience.” The narrative states that the
university was founded by Dr. Robert Mayes in 1993, “to offer individuals with
demanding and unpredictable schedules a way to achieve their dreams of higher
education.” CSU’s identity as an institution of higher education offering an alternative to
traditional universities and catering to working adults with aspirations to a degree is
established in the very first paragraph on the History page.
A brief summary of the expansion of its initial offering is followed by two
accreditation achievements: “By 2001, CSU was granted accreditation through the
Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). Five years later, CSU was approved
by the DETC to offer a Doctor of Business Administration degree, becoming the first
accredited doctoral program offered by the university.” The accreditation of the
university’s first doctoral degree is placed on the same level as CSU’s institutional
accreditation through the DETC. The Humboldtian paradigm of the University carrying
out research and the neo-Humboldtian concept of universities offering doctoral degrees
are clearly present in the de facto equivalency made between the accreditation of the
institution and that of an individual program. The sentence, “Five years later, CSU was
approved by the DETC to offer a Doctor of Business Administration degree” suggests a
single chronological narrative of how CSU became a fully recognized university. From
2006, when the university’s DBA was accredited, to 2014, no other doctoral degree has
been offered by CSU.
188
The text continues with information concerning the university’s post-accreditation
approval by “the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES)
and Veterans Affairs” for “approved tuition assistance for all active-duty and retired
military members.” CSU is then identified as having “nearly half of the student body
currently comprised of active-duty military” and as being “one of approximately 140
schools approved to offer upfront tuition assistance through the U.S. Army centralized
tuition assistance portal, GoArmyEd.” As was seen on the Homepage, CSU advertises
itself as a university for working adults and as an institution of higher education that has a
special orientation towards active duty and ex-military personnel. The history continues
with detailed information concerning the existence (since 2004) and the benefits of
“Learning Partnerships with hundreds of corporations, municipalities, police and fire
organizations around the world.” A list of the institutions that have “partnered” with CSU
reinforces the university’s identity as a working adult, employment focused, and
employer and military services friendly institution of higher education.
The discursive strand related to the university’s founder re-emerges when the
reader is informed, “2005 began an era of change for the university. In September, Dr.
Mayes passed away after 19 weeks of hospitalization.” The personalization involved in
the mentioning of the death of Dr. Mayes (for instance, the stating of the precise number
of weeks he spent in hospital prior to his death) is extended and deepened as the reader
learns, “This transition triggered restructuring of the administration including the
appointment of Robert Mayes, Jr., Dr. Mayes’ son and former executive vice president of
CSU, to assume the role of president.” There is no academic community at CSU that
elects a new President when the current one retires or dies, nor is it a corporation that
189
conducts an executive search. The founder, owner, and president is succeeded by his son
and heir: this is a family business. No further explanation or reframing of what happened
is provided or required. The text provides the reader with a comforting sense of
continuity in explaining that the Mayes family continues in control, and the son is now
president. Implicitly, the institution’s mission, vision, and values will continue under the
new administration.
The history gives an overview of the university’s achievement through organic
growth, and physical expansion, “Today, CSU is one of the most rapidly growing
universities in the U.S. with a record enrollment of more than 30,000 students. At the
beginning of 2009, a new 67,000-square-foot facility was completed to accommodate the
growth.” The new facility referred to is the Grecian-style building in the photograph that
dominates the Homepage. It is noteworthy that this “completely” online university gives
the reason for the construction of this imposing classically styled building as “to
accommodate the growth.” The History page ends, “Dr. Mayes’ vision of creating a
university designed to give educational opportunities to those trying to build a better
future lives on.” The founder’s vision of providing students with more promising futures
through educational opportunity endures.
The three essential values that support the founder’s vision are then enunciated,
“providing excellent student service, a flexible learning format for the working
professional, and a family oriented working environment for staff and faculty.” The
enduring values are not transcendental, overarching, or universal; on the contrary, they
are parochial and mundane. There is no mention of academic excellence, knowledge,
research, or service to community and country. The excellence offered by CSU is
190
transactional – client service. The flexibility of the university’s learning format enables
working professionals to study. The university provides “a family oriented working
environment for staff and faculty.” This staff-faculty family theme might strike a
dissonant note, as it had not been previously developed in the website’s discursive
strands, and its direct relevance to potential students is open to question. Nevertheless,
although “family” is mentioned here in relation to staff and faculty, in the Homepage
video the potential student is invited to join the CSU family. This theme of family
indirectly relates to the Mayes family’s ownership of the university. Becoming a student
at CSU is becoming a member of a family; there is nothing menacing, stressful, or
frightening about re-starting studies or pursuing a better future in the bosom of a family.
The Mission Statement is a description of the university’s educational offering:
“diverse learning experiences and affordable, flexible distance education programs,” the
levels of its academic offering, and its target student population (“to a global student
body”). The latter appears to be a function of the university’s online capacity rather than a
concerted effort to create an international student population or to serve a global market.
None of the previous references to potential students (who are presumed to be working
for US companies, US local government, or the US military) are associated with a
specific international focus or purpose. The Mission Statement informs the reader that the
programs are “delivered by qualified, student-centered faculty committed to teaching and
student learning.” With the exception of the reference to the existence of a “global
student body” there is no characteristic, duty, or activity presented in the statement which
is out of the ordinary. The final sentence is rather like an afterthought, “The University is
dedicated to providing exceptional academic and student support services.” This
191
particular exceptionalism is of the type that almost all contemporary universities would,
and do subscribe to, and is characteristic of the “University of Excellence” (Readings,
1996). Readings explains why such statements fail to have any impact upon readers, “The
need for excellence is what we all agree on. And we all agree upon it because it is not an
ideology, in the sense that it has no external referent or internal content (p. 23).”
The Mission Statement is supported by eleven core values. Some are ethical while
others characterize the nature of CSU and its academic offerings and services. Others
introduce new elements having to do with personal or civic responsibilities, and still
others properly belong to the Humboldtian research university paradigm. The first value,
“Integrity, fairness, tolerance, and professionalism in all operations which support our
mission” can be related to the third value, “Receptivity and respect for a diversity of
cultures, ideas, experiences, and people by all areas of the university.”
Values such as “Focus on affordable, quality online instruction including
undergraduate programs with a general education core that promotes life-long learning
and the success of its graduates” “Accessibility, flexibility, and the use of appropriate
technology in the delivery of its online programs, services, and operations,” and
“Collaboration with business, industry, the community, and governmental bodies to
create affordable and accessible learning opportunities for employees” speak to the
benefits of the education offered. The sixth value expounds on the theme mentioned in
the Mission Statement of exceptional student support services: “Provide student-centered
support services that are personal, responsive, and geared toward assisting students in
achieving their educational goals.”
192
The eighth value, “A focus on long-term relationships and serving constituencies
with special needs that include members of the armed services, public service employees,
law enforcement, fire, and public safety individuals” relates to the eleventh, “Fulfill the
role of a good corporate citizen through community participation and support,” in that
both involve community and public service. However, the eleventh value is more
altruistic in aspiration than the eighth, as it includes mention of public service and law
enforcement officers, as well as members of the armed forces who are potential students,
given the university’s segmentation of the working adults market. The ninth value, “A
professional outlook that values innovation, ongoing self-assessment, creative thinking,
and a willingness to lead positive educational change,” has to do with the personal
characteristics, inclinations, and roles that the university wishes to promote and
encourage.” However, this statement falls short of saying that the university intends to, or
will develop such positive traits in its students. The role of leading “positive educational
change” is not elaborated upon, and the reader is left wondering what the change referred
to might consist of, and whether this leadership role is to be adopted in the personal,
community, or even national sphere.
The tenth value takes up one of the three core values of the founder’s vision
referred to on the History page, “Provide staff and faculty with a stable and enjoyable
work environment enriched by a family culture of caring, respect, and open
communication.” The fifth value is resonant with faint echoes of the Humboldtian
paradigm, “Encouragement of scholarly pursuit and creative endeavors of students,
faculty, and university staff,” which sets it apart from the other ten values presented on
the Mission page. The list is striking in the variety, breadth, focus and aspirations of the
193
eleven “values”, especially, when their scope and richness are compared to the rather
spare and practical Mission Statement they are intended to support. The Mission page
ends with the university’s Vision Statement, “The Vision of Columbia Southern
University is to change and improve lives through higher education by enabling students
to maximize their professional and personal potential.” This statement reinforces the
founder’s vision of, “creating a university designed to give educational opportunities to
those trying to build a better future lives” and it is congruent with more aspirational of the
eleven values.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the CSU narrative are accessibility, client
service, flexibility, value for money, life changing educational opportunities, the
university’s receptivity towards those engaged in public and military service, and family.
Although, the discursive strands in the CSU fragments examined are largely consistent,
there are several discursive entanglements. One such entanglement is that of CSU as a
completely online university, with images of buildings of classical design that are usually
identified with American universities founded in colonial times. Another entanglement is
employer and vocational focused programs with the more personal, aspirational, and
academic values. A third entanglement arises when the university states that it addresses a
global student population (presumably because of its online capability and vocation and
agreements with “corporations, municipalities, police and fire organizations around the
world”), when almost half of its students belong to or have served in the US military, and
many more are employed by US law enforcement, fire and other public services.
Statements regarding “the encouragement of scholarly pursuit and creative
endeavors” and the provision of “exceptional academic services” (the university offers
194
one accredited doctoral program), are made alongside the description of an extensive
program of “Learning Partnerships with hundreds of corporations, municipalities, police
and fire organizations around the world.” The benefits range from “tuition discounts to
application fee waivers and also extend to the spouses and children of employees.” The
sub-theme of family appears in relation to a promotional invitation for potential students
to join the CSU family, the history of the Mayes family as the owner and chief academic
authority of the university, and the “family oriented” atmosphere and environment
provided for staff and faculty.
Columbia Southern University is a highly successful family business founded by
an entrepreneur with a simple but effective vision and values that permeate the institution
and are respected by the current generation of family management. CSU is highly
focused as an exclusively online university that caters to working adults, particularly
previously underserved higher education segments such as ethnic minorities, the military,
and public service personnel. It is appropriately accredited, has grown spectacularly, and
now has a potentially global market due to its online focus.
Nevertheless, its identity positively associates with its family origin and
welcoming soft-sell approach. However, this family values theme is partly obscured by
the prominent sub-theme of CSU being a family- like place to work. Despite its
successful product and market focus, CSU succumbs to the temptation to frame its
identity by using the Humboldtian paradigm. These can be seen in its prominently
displayed colonial style university headquarters building, its sole doctorate, and, the
somewhat discordant fifth value of “scholarly pursuit.” CSU is confident concerning
195
what it is and what it does, but the shadow of the Humboldtian paradigm frequently
detracts attention from its genuine achievements.
10. Park University
Structure analysis. The three discursive fragments from the Park University
(PU) website analyzed in the study consisted of the texts of the Homepage, and the
“About Park – Park Facts 2013-2014 – At a Glance” and the “Mission Statement, Vision
Statement and Core Values” pages. The Homepage is topped by a series of community
tabs that begin with “Future Students.” Below these a series of links begins with “Apply.”
On the left side of the page is the logo which depicts the university’s clock tower. Below
the logo are LIFE AT, PARK ADMISSIONS, ACADEMICS, ATHLETICS, GIVING,
NEWS & EVENTS, and ABOUT PARK. To the right of these tabs a digital carousel
displays messages and attractive photos with clickable titles such as “Enroll Today,”
“Military and Veterans,” “Parkville Campus,” and “Study Online.” Below the carousel
and under “Park University” are six video spaces; the three appearing under “3 ways to
Study - Park University offers academic programs nationwide and online are
PARKVILLE, MO CAMPUS (a photo of pensive-looking undergraduates in class),
NATIONWIDE LOCATIONS (a photo of three relaxed mature students in class), and
ONLINE—ANYTIME, ANYWHERE (a photo of a minority student studying online).
Under the Parkville, Mo Campus photo is the text, “In traditional 16-week
semesters, students learn to think, act and communicate with global awareness.” Under
the Nationwide Locations photo is the text, “Park has 40 campus centers nationwide that
provide face-to-face instruction with degree offerings varying by location.” The Online-
Anytime, Anywhere photo is displayed above the text, “Park University’s online learning
196
programs eliminate life’s hurdles and are very accessible and attainable.” The message in
each of the texts is crafted to attract a specific market segment. The other three spaces are
“Park’s Promise (the university’s 5 year strategic plan), “Join Today - Club 1000 Park
University” (“Membership is offered to individuals who make an annual gift of $1,000 or
more to Park University for three consecutive years to be distributed at the discretion of
the President”), and “Homeland Security – On Ground and Online – Special Discounted
Tuition for Homeland Security Employees” (“Named one of the top 20 military-friendly
schools for several years and ranked the 7th Most Affordable Private University/College
in the NATION”).
Although Park’s “Promise” concerns the university’s five-year strategic plan, the
photo below the title shows a group of students celebrating on the steps of a very solid
looking stone building. “Join Today” is the title for the Club 1000 logo which consists of
red cursive writing illuminated on a candystripe background. The “Homeland Security”
title is above a birds-eye view of Park University’s spacious campus, with the emblematic
university clock tower building shown in a beautiful autumnal setting. The page ends
with contact information, the legend, “Serving Those Who Serve Their Community and
Country,” and the same tabs that appear to the left of the page. However, in this iteration
they are followed by lists of links to the specific topics they address.
Fine analysis. Although the Homepage does not contain any discursive
fragments, clicking on “Promise” leads the reader to the university’s strategic plan, which
is accompanied by a message from the university president. The plan is structured around
five “Strategic Priorities:” “ENSURE STUDENT SUCCESS At Park University, quality
education is job one and it is our core commitment,” “STRENGTHEN THE PARK
197
BRAND Our brand is more than a marketing identity,” “ENSURE CUSTOMER
SERVICE & ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Tracking measures ensuring
consistent experience,” “OPTIMIZE THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY Expanding the
University’s reach into new global markets,” and “STRENGTHEN PARK'S FISCAL
POSITION A balanced approach to increasing revenue from tuition and non-tuition
sources.”
The first priority contradicts the idea of service as being the university’s “core
commitment” (“Ultimately, Park’s Promise is a commitment to serving our country as
well as the global village we share.”) The second is unusually frank about wishing to
reinforce the university’s “brand” but this openness is undermined when the reader is told
that at Park, a brand “is more than a marketing identity.” The university recognizes the
need to have a brand, but is reluctant to accept that this necessity is driven by marketing.
The third priority is redolent with business terminology like “tracking measures” and
“consistent experience” and is reminiscent of the “discourse of excellence” (Readings,
1996,). Unlike the explanation that accompanies the second priority, here, there is no
reluctance to embrace a business mentality. The fourth priority sounds as if it hails from
the world of business because of “optimize” and “Expanding the University’s reach into
new global markets.” The theme of globalization is encountered throughout the
university’s website, but in this particular discursive fragment it provides an insight into
the nature of the university’s relationship with globalization which is unashamedly
commercial. The fifth priority combines business with an activity more typical of a
traditional university, namely that of soliciting donations from alumni. The use of “fiscal”
198
rather than its synonym financial is of interest in that it sounds respectable, even
distinguished, and not commercial.
The first paragraph of the president’s message addresses the university’s past,
present and future: “Park’s Promise refers to the University’s proud legacy, tremendous
potential and passionate commitment to the future.” In the same paragraph the president
refers to the university’s plan that “honors Park’s rich history” and that “will further
distinguish Park as a leader in higher education.” The second paragraph contains the
Park University legend, “Park University’s primary commitment is serving those who
serve their community and country.” The theme of service is then related to life-long
learning and “to quality, future-focused programs that are globally relevant.”
The third paragraph links excellence and service: “Our Promise is one of
excellence and service first and foremost to students. That excellence and service also
extends to faculty and staff members, alumni and to our varied communities.” Park’s
“excellence and service” extends “to our varied communities.” The paragraph ends
emphatically, “Ultimately, Park’s Promise is a commitment to serving our country as well
as the global village we share.” Patriotic service, which echoes the university’s openness
to military and veterans on the Homepage, expands to include the world by the use of the
rather tired expression of “the global village we share.”
The final paragraph begins, “Park’s success in accomplishing the plan will help
build the creative, caring workforce and citizenry that our world desperately needs.”
Creativity, a caring workforce, and citizenship at the service of the world are all new
themes. The final sentence suggests that Park University has been involved with these
phenomena since its founding in 1875, and will do more of the same in the future.
199
However, the three topics mentioned are all late twentieth- or early twenty-first century
objectives for a university. This anachronism can only be explained by the desire that
permeates the president’s message to firmly legitimize the university’s present and future
by linking them to 150 years of history.
Park University does not have a page dedicated to its history, but its “Park Facts
2013-2014, At a Glance section” contains the date of the university’s founding (1875) and
has a section with the title, “Oldest Buildings.” The visitor learns that Park has two “Park
House (circa 1840)” and “Mackay Hall (construction began in 1886, occupied in 1893).”
In the case of Mackay Hall, it is interesting to note the distinction made between the year
when construction began (1886) and the year when the building was first occupied
(1893). Within the paradigm of the traditional university, antiquity is important, and the
older the buildings the better; even the logo features the clock tower of Park House
(1840). The section tells the visitor that the university’s real estate holdings consist of 700
acres of campus, a photograph of which appears on the Homepage. Other information
displayed includes the university’s motto, Fides et Labor, the sports mascots’ names,
“Pirates” and " “Sir George,” the school’s athletic conference, the number of countries
represented in its student body (103), its accrediting body (“Accreditation: Higher
Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools”), and
the number of books in the library (120,000). The date of its foundation, age of its
buildings, size of its campus, Latin motto, membership in an athletic conference, and size
of its substantial library all speak to the university’s desire to be seen as a member of an
elite group of traditional universities. These elements are US additions to the original
Humboldtian paradigm.
200
The “Park Mission, Vision, and Core Values” page is headed by the university
logo and a photo of students greeting each other enthusiastically. The standard tabs
appear across the top of the page, and to the left there is an “Apply Online” box. Below
the box is a list of ten links on information topics such as “About Park,” “Accreditation,”
and “Campus Maps.” The Mission and Vision Statements are short, and the Core Values
are six in total.
The Mission Statement says, “Park University provides access to a quality higher
education experience that prepares a diverse community of learners to think critically,
communicate effectively, demonstrate a global perspective and engage in lifelong
learning and service to others.” It repeats and summarizes themes most of which the
reader has encountered on the Homepage either visually or textually – quality, diversity,
critical thinking and effective communication, global perspective, lifelong learning, and
service to others. The Vision Statement says, “Park University, a pioneering institution of
higher learning since 1875, will provide leadership in quality, innovative education for a
diversity of learners who will excel in their professional and personal service to the
global community.” It emphasizes innovation, the university’s age, educational
leadership, quality, diversity, and professional and personal service to the global
community. The statement does not elaborate upon what the university’s innovation or
the individual’s “personal service” might consist of, or define “the global community.”
The Core Values provides a two-line introduction (“The following core values (listed
alphabetically) guide all Park University decisions and actions”) to the values of
“Accountability,” “Civility and Respect,” “Excellence,” “Global Citizenship,”
“Inclusivity,” and “Integrity.” There is no text to support these rather unexceptional
201
values and no definition of “Excellence” or explanation of the way in which “Global
Citizenship” informs the university’s “decisions and actions.” Apparently, the university’s
core values speak for themselves and require no explanation.
Summary. The sub-themes present in the Park University narrative are service
(the legend “Serving Those Who Serve Their Community and Country” appears on each
webpage ), innovation, global community, tradition (the university’s logo of its oldest
building, Park House), and lifelong learning. The discursive entanglements existing in the
Park University discourse fragments include mixing online and blended courses for
working adults and especially veterans and military (40 locations nationwide) with
tradition (old buildings, leafy campus, Latin motto, student athletics, and a large library).
Tradition is also entangled with “global perspective,” “global awareness,” and “global
citizenship.” Globalism is also entangled with having international students in the student
population, offering globally relevant programs, and “serving the global village we
share.”
This last phrase is also an example of the several discursive entanglements that
involve service. One of these consists of the intertwining of the idea of the university
serving its students with that of those students serving their communities and country
(“Serving Those Who Serve Their Community and Country”), and even “the global
community.” Another is the entanglement of professional with personal (altruistic)
service (“to the global community”), in the country of one’s origin; presumably,
professional service here is a euphemism for exercising a profession for financial gain.
Also, there is an entanglement of traditional higher educational aims such as inculcating
critical thinking and communication skills and creativity in students, with providing
202
“online learning programs (that) eliminate life’s hurdles and are very accessible and
attainable” for working adults, particularly military personnel and veterans at forty
locations nationwide. This entanglement of the old with the new is manifested in several
different forms, from serving one’s country and the global community, to personal and
professional service, to extending the university’s reach into global markets, and to being
a private university that receives “non-tuition” income.
Park University’s self-identity narrative displays the entanglements and knots
frequently found even in the most successful of non-traditional universities. It offers the
advantages of flexibility and accessibility that are typical of online education, but mixes
them with Humboldtian ideals that are sometimes inflated. Park University greatly values
service to community and country and even to the global community, but also espouses
business concepts of excellence and performativity. This combination is enhanced with
newer elements of the traditional university model, namely, old buildings on a beautiful
campus, student athletics, an outstanding physical library, and requests for donations. The
resulting impression for the visitor to the Park University website is one of a lack of
clarity and even mild confusion.
203
Chapter 5
Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations
The non-traditional universities present themselves as offering accessibility,
affordability, and excellence, with the concept of accessible tuition levels at times being
confused with accessibility to a public good as a social service. Most of these newer
universities seek to take advantage of any aspects of the original Humboldtian paradigm
or its later Harvard manifestation (collegiate sports for example, or at least sponsorship of
a college sport) they can and reframing them when necessary, to legitimize their
commercial offerings as sound and academically excellent. However, most of these
newer universities also add two important new strands to the traditional concept of the
University; namely, performativity and the business values of efficiency and efficacy, and
the commercial contextualization of the connection between the university and its
students, or potential students, as a business-client relationship.
The traditional universities make a more marked and obvious use of the
Humboldtian paradigm, especially the concept of research as one of the integral and
indispensable tasks of a University. The traditional universities consider research as the
creation of knowledge, and the engine of scientific discovery that benefits all mankind.
The legitimization of the research university is not in question. The civic and
developmental aspects of the Humboldtian paradigm are still mentioned by the traditional
universities, but service to the community or state has become some ill-defined service to
the world without mention of its cost or funding. In many traditional universities,
students’ personal and spiritual development has become transformed into preparation for
the exercise of world leadership and power. In addition, the academic excellence and
204
community of the Humboldtian paradigm have become transformed into a narrative of
power; with world rankings, campus locations and installations, lists of Nobel laureates,
scientific discoveries, and global reach on display to demonstrate a university’s
superiority. The irony is that the dimensions of the possessions and achievements on
display are so large that intelligent comparisons are difficult to make.
Competition among the non-traditional universities tends to consist of the
promotion of the advantages of the size and location of campus networks, friendliness to
minorities, public employees, and veterans, their student/client service and support
systems, and their respective value propositions. Non-traditional universities use assertive
and/or “soft-sell” commercial language to attract potential students, especially the
individuals for whom higher education will be a novel experience. On the other hand,
traditional universities use hyperbole and exaggeration to extoll their institutional virtues
and make claims to pre-eminence on a global scale. They offer foundational and other
myths, fanciful narratives in their attempts to both delineate their historical continuity and
to explain their uniqueness and superiority to their potential students.
Synoptic Analysis of the Traditional Research Universities
The ten traditional universities in this study possess the four essential
characteristics of Humboldtian university model, i.e., the freedom to teach and learn, the
integration of teaching with research, the unification of science and scholarship, and the
superiority of pure science over vocational training (Ash, 2006), but with decidedly
different emphases. The two poles marking the limits of their discursive plane consist of
maintaining a rough balance between the four Humboldtian characteristics and giving
greater importance to the unification of science and scholarship and the superiority of
205
pure science over vocational training. The discourses of scholarship as science and the
superiority of science including the elements of scientific discovery and patents over
vocational training become so prominent that what is tantamount to a new paradigm
emerges: the Research University. The Humboldtian sub-category of the modern research
university promotes postgraduate research over undergraduate teaching, and values Nobel
Prize–winning faculty, scientific discovery, and the registration of patents more than the
preservation of the academic liberty to teach and learn and now rendered irrelevant by
focusing on advanced scientific research. The ten traditional universities oscillate
between the attraction of traditional Humboldtism and that of modernism and the western
scientific paradigm. Whelshula (1999) describes the western scientific paradigm as, “This
is a worldview that claims an illustrious tradition of logic and reason, control and power,
moral and practical, rational and analytical, modern and civilized” (pp 28-29).
The ten traditional universities make boast of their wealth, possessions, and
power. However, in addition, the older ones of them weave intricate narratives that
connect their almost mythical beginnings with their current prosperity, influence and
power. While requesting donations, many of them cite their copious resources, generous
financial aid to outstanding candidates, and large research budgets. If the colonial
universities (Harvard, Yale) boast of their connections to American history, the modern
universities boast of Nobel laureates and notable faculty and alumni. The desire for and
celebration of power by both colonial and modern traditional universities spans the
spectrum between their aspirations to provide humanity with life-changing scientific
discoveries and the promotion of alumni, who are world-class leaders.
206
The colonial universities, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, appear content to display
their traditions, histories, and their influence on American history. Even though all ten
traditional universities share the discourse of excellence and of research and academic
inquiry, these three present an older and more original Humboldtian understanding of
research: that of inquiry and the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. They refer
to the existence of their academic communities and their webpages help the visitor
understand how undergraduate teaching connects organically with the research
undertaken. Yale even states that its college system is modeled on Oxford and Cambridge
universities in Great Britain. Their undergraduates are outstanding, are members of the
respective universities by merit, and personal and ethical development are integral parts
of their educational experience. In contrast to Harvard’s aspiration to global reach,
Princeton and Yale subscribe to an earlier form of internationalism. Harvard promotes
itself as “the oldest institution of higher education in the United States” while Princeton’s
self-aggrandizing motto is “Under God’s Power She Flourishes.” Yale mentions its “vast
resources” and modern research operation in addition to its medieval college structure.
These three universities are secure in their pre-eminence, and place their power and
influence at the service of society and the world through the leadership their students will
inevitably exercise once they graduate.
Columbia is the fifth-oldest university in the US. Throughout its website
Columbia weaves a narrative of overcoming trials and tribulations, expanding and
becoming more successful in its evolution from colonial college to modern university. It
values its association with the dynamic metropolis of New York City; its recent change of
name to Columbia University in the City of New York both cements the town-gown
207
relationship and positions Columbia as an urban university in a symbiotic relationship
with its host city. This is also the case for the University of Chicago and Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. These three modern research universities display a grasp of
power that is more self-conscious and unrestrained than the display of power by Harvard,
Princeton, and Yale. They take pride in the location of their main campuses, numerous
buildings, laboratories, and research centers.
All three share the Humboldtian narrative of inquiry and research, but their
creation of knowledge is rooted firmly in the western scientific paradigm. They see
themselves as the originators and sustainers of modern technological society. Through
their efforts people are cured of diseases, societies are transformed, and technological
progress is achieved. Their idea of service is not so much one of sacrifice and moral
intent, but is a natural consequence of what their immense physical, financial,
epistemological, and human resources are capable of achieving. Self-doubts and
questions stemming from more turbulent periods in their histories are omitted in their
narratives of greatness and success. For example, Chicago identifies itself as an
“intellectual destination” in addition to describing its powerful “transformative
education” and global presence and influence. Declaring that “The soul of MIT is
research,” MIT refers to its 150 years of world-changing discoveries, yet it takes pains to
place its obvious success and power within a human context, e.g., citing the contribution
of its Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) to world education. However, the campus
descriptions, the size, declared achievements, lists of famous alumni, discoveries, and
global outreach of these universities leave a visitor to their websites with an
overwhelming impression of power and ambition.
208
Stanford University shares many of the discursive themes and traits of Columbia,
Chicago, and MIT. It, too, demonstrates dedication to research within the context of the
western scientific paradigm. It presents itself as the cradle of Silicon Valley, the Internet,
and Google. Stanford proudly displays its global reach and delights in a vast campus
containing seven hundred buildings where almost all of its students are housed. Stanford,
like Columbia, Chicago, and MIT, associates with its location, and adjudicates that
locality’s characteristics to itself, namely, the creativity and diversity of the surrounding
San Francisco Bay area.
Stanford has developed a narrative of exceptionalism based not only on its
academic excellence, location, wealth, and influence, but also on the construction of its
founding narrative and its long and intense history of growth and success. Stanford
differentiates itself by its founders’ insistence on entrepreneurialism and practicality. The
history presented on its website gives examples of independence, self-help, and rugged
individualism – the continuation and maintenance of its founding principles – that have
led the university to assume the unique and predestined position it occupies today. This
narrative leaves a visitor with the impression that Stanford will continue to forge ahead as
it has always done. Stanford’s historical narrative sets it apart from the big three urban
universities by means of an almost mystical American exceptionalism.
Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania, and California Institute of
Technology also share many of the discursive themes noted in the four self-identity
narratives described above. There is the importance of research within the context of the
western scientific paradigm, where the University is the bastion of progress of the
modern world. The three schools also share the themes of excellence, power, influence,
209
scope, and achievement. Their campuses are demesnes, and their size, installations, and
physical diversity (the University of Pennsylvania’s city center campus features a forest
and extensive gardens) are breath- taking. Many of their graduates have influenced the
United States and the world.
These three universities take their exceptionalism to a new level, with claims and
aspirations that go far beyond excellence and outstanding achievement. For example,
Duke aspires “to contribute in diverse ways to the local community, the state, the nation
and the world; and to attain and maintain a place of real leadership in all that we do.”
Penn traces its heritage to a school started by George Whitefield in 1740, but also
associates its founding with Benjamin Franklin. It describes its academic life as
“unparalleled” and its position as “one of the world’s most powerful research and
teaching institutions.” Penn’s research budget exceeds $800 million annually. Penn’s texts
cite the ENIAC computer, “countless leaders,” and nine Nobel laureates as part of its
contribution to the wellbeing of the world. The texts describe Penn as “set apart” from the
rest, and “serving as a model for colleges and universities throughout the world.”
The California Institute of Technology also mentions that it is set apart from its
peers, by reason of “the audacious science and technology that transforms our world.”
Caltech dedicates itself to “the world’s greatest challenges” and it not only excels in
different scientific and technological fields but creates new ones. Caltech’s inventions
include the seismograph and its discoveries include “the fundamental building blocks of
matter.” The eminent faculty listed in its institutional history reads like a Who’s Who of
Nobel Prize winners. Caltech offers to prepare its gifted students to become creative
leaders in society. These three universities see themselves as completely unique and
210
indispensable to the progress of humanity. The ways in which they describe their real
achievements and contributions in such grandiose and exceptional terms appears to be
overreaching.
Progressing along the cline of the discursive plane of these ten traditional
universities, the inflation of two of the four Humboldtian characteristics, i.e., the
unification of science and scholarship and the superiority of pure science over vocational
training, far beyond the bounds of the original paradigm become apparent. The western
scientific paradigm has come to overshadow the original, more holistic Humboldtian
vision. From the ideal of an academic community dedicated to free inquiry that serves the
nation by educating its future citizens, the University has been transformed into the
producer of global progress and even the guarantor of human happiness. The
achievements, wealth, size, influence, and might of these ten traditional research
universities are non-debatable. However, their unbridled exceptionalism, overbearing
exclusivity, and excessive love of vast campuses and installations as symbols of power
and excellence are only partially compensated by their embrace of modern themes, such
as equality of opportunity, revolution, and ethnic and gender diversity. There is an
unthinking certainty in their self-identity narratives and a superficial confidence that their
futures will resemble their histories. The self-narratives do not appear to be well thought
out and are certainly not on a par with their immense intellectual capabilities, especially
when one self-narrative is presented as the product of a marketing repositioning initiative
(Caltech).
211
Synoptic Analysis for Online Universities
The discursive strands common to most of the ten online universities in this study
include accessibility, affordability, and excellence, but no single discursive strand is
completely representative of the ten as a group. The range of discourse is broad and
augments considerably if one considers the local entanglements identified in each
university’s discourse. The treatment of any given strand varies considerably across these
ten universities. To delineate the discursive plane, perhaps the most useful approach is to
establish the two poles of the plane and locate them in terms of their proximity to the
Humboldtian paradigm.
At the traditional pole of the discursive plane is the discursive entanglement
between the Humboldtian paradigm and the discourse of excellence and business
efficacy. The University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) takes great pride in its
impressive campus with its bell tower at the center. It styles itself as a “major public
university.” UNK represents itself as having a cultural and function and mission as a
University and as an intellectual, cultural, and artistic asset for the state of Nebraska.
Offering its students personal satisfaction through the membership of a welcoming
community (“a rich and diverse campus life”), UNK completes its Humboldtian profile
by combining undergraduate teaching with postgraduate education, research, and public
service, and by aspiring to be a place which develops good and responsible citizens “in a
democratic, multicultural society.” The fact that UNK is a highly ranked online university
is not readily perceivable. Its status as an online university is only hinted at by the
obscure phrase, “multidimensional learning environment.” Nonetheless, UNK employs
the discourse of excellence by using qualifiers, such as “premier” and “excellent.” UNK
212
also employs the language of business efficacy, e.g., “a clear focus on mission
imperatives and “continuous and rigorous self-appraisal or assessment of outcomes.”
The opposite pole of the discursive plane is the discourse of accessibility,
affordability, innovation, technology, and performativity found in the discursive
fragments of Western Governors University (WGU). Discursive entanglements also exist
here, the principal one being the economic needs of US public higher education with the
supposedly disruptive innovation of WGU’s online competency-based educational model.
WGU stakes out a new space in the US higher education discourse by declaring itself as
ONLINE, ACCELERATED AFFORDABLE, and ACCREDITED beneath its logo. WGU
was founded by nineteen Western state governors who had the following objectives:
“Responsiveness to employment and societal needs, a focus on competency-based
education, expanding access, cost-effectiveness, and development of a technology
infrastructure.” In this telling list, performativity is accompanied by disruptive
innovation, accessibility, the responsible stewardship of state higher education funds, and
technology. This powerful combination of late capitalistic preoccupations breaks
completely with the Humboldtian paradigm of the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake
within an autonomous academic community at the political service of a nation state.
Instead, WGU’s legitimacy depends on performativity. WGU says that it exists “to help
hardworking adults meet their educational goals and improve their career opportunities”
for the benefit of industry and commerce and at an acceptable cost to the state. Minorities
who previously did not have access to higher education can now do so as a result of a
higher education that has been subjected to the disruptive innovation of an online,
competency-based, faculty disaggregated educational model. WGU’s innovative model
213
did not emerge over time, but is the result of a politically and economically motivated
decision by several state governors to ensure the efficient functioning of society for the
benefit of its citizens. Absent in WGU’s discourse is any remnant of the Enlightenment
vision of the liberating and enriching power of higher education, and the idea that
universities are governed by their faculty. Between these two poles exists a discursive
plane that offers multiple variations on the boundary themes, as the plane opens up and
moves from Humboldtian idealism towards the late capitalistic preoccupation with
performance and performativity.
Beyond the Humboldtian threshold of the discursive plane of the ten online
universities, the traditional university discourse still remains, speaking of research,
character building, civic duty, community, and the love of learning. The age of an
institution and even of its legacy buildings, the size of its campus, and the success of its
athletic programs also figure prominently. The discourses of excellence and
employability begin to gain in strength. Innovation becomes an important discursive
strand as do the variations on the theme of globalization and the university-student
relationship. Critical thinking is mentioned occasionally. The university as an institution
that is congenial for students who are veterans and military personnel becomes a stronger
theme. The online universities speak consciously of their “brand” which usually needs to
be strengthened. Robust business language and utilitarian and performance-related
concepts appear on the online discursive plane more often. Science and technology also
make an appearance, sometimes in a discursive knot that involves the teaching of
technological subjects with its use in delivering a university’s academic offering.
Authorization/accreditation, whether from a state or an independent accreditation body,
214
grows in importance as a discursive strand. References to university “achievements”
(understood as rankings of different kinds and mentions in the media) become common.
Affordability is a pervasive discursive strand. Mission statements become highly
utilitarian, and the now-isolated references to research and scholarly activity as integral
parts of the life of institutions of higher education in question do not convince.
University expansion and size as well as demonstrable financial and athletic
success become themes in their own right. Entrepreneurship and partnership with
industry appear along with accessibility and innovation. “Historic” origins sound tenuous
and less relevant to the institutions in their current manifestations. Pretensions to national
and even global service and impact sound like postmodern distortions of the social and
national elements in the Humboldtian paradigm. Claims of excellence and performativity
share space in the discursive fragments with research, and discursive strands concerning
freedom, inclusiveness and sustainability emerge. Practicality is emphasized and
research, when mentioned, becomes “strategic.” The discourse of excellence and
presentation of business values as the University’s values becomes more prevalent. Life-
long learning, life-changing educational opportunities, and explicit references to fully
online program offerings along with the promise of flexibility are presented with
sophisticated commercial and media expertise in order to appeal to the working adult
student.
A discursive strand concerning an alternative university experience and the
satisfaction of students’ social aspirations along with an increased emphasis on university
status and accreditation can now be perceived as the discursive plane of the online
universities moves towards the opposite pole. There, the discourse of a new, non-
215
traditional type of university that meets the needs of previously unserved higher
education market segments and facilitates employability is found. Ethical values
transform into the characteristics of a business proposition, and students become clients.
Community and public service take on a different interpretation, as at this end of the
discursive plane they become virtues that students will exercise along with “leadership”
after graduation. Images of classical buildings; the commercial sponsorship of the type of
athletic events usually associated with traditional institutions of higher education; and
Jeffersonian references to effective democracy begin to occupy key discursive spaces on
online university websites together with the language of vision and leadership, results
orientation, and management strategy. Specific ideological social and political claims for
university education involving the defense of the “American heritage,” freedom, and the
capitalist economic system are made. The Humboldtian ideal of the active participation of
university graduates in the civic life of their nation is transmuted into the protection of a
“way of life.” Empathy on the part of the online university for the student (client’s) real
life, i.e., social and financial situations, needs, and personal and professional aspirations,
dominates as an important discursive strand.
Lyotard (1984b) had predicted the growth in importance of the themes of
excellence and performativity in university discourse as the Humboldtian paradigm
waned. However, a rich collection of entanglements, sometimes employing re-
conceptualized Humboldtian elements that are highly specific to the concerns and needs
(and sometimes commercial requirements) of the online universities and their
founders/owners was revealed. These discursive entanglements include technology as a
subject of study with technology as a learning aid; the University’s responsibility to
216
develop civic-minded patriots with a new variation, i.e., graduating “global citizens”;
confusing the University’s vocation of altruism and community with minority graduates’
participation in their own communities; service to the nation with providing services to
its military personnel; social inclusion with market segmentation; online/competency-
based education as a tool for husbanding public funds with education as a means of
providing business and commerce with professional employees. Above all, what is
present is the marketization of the discourse of the online universities as they frame
themselves and their different service offerings to appeal to the possibilities, needs, and
aspirations of potential clients in easily identifiable, underserved market segments, and
which are easily identified by possible candidates belonging to a traditional category.
Research Questions Answered
Jäger and Maier’s (2009) definition of knowledge, i.e., “all kinds of contents that
make up a human consciousness, or in other words, all kinds of meanings that people use
to interpret and shape their environment” (p. 34) found in the discourses of traditional
and non-traditional university websites did not prove to be so clearly delineated as
originally expected. In the non-traditional universities there are elements of the
Humboldtian paradigm, but also newer discursive strands of excellence, performativity,
and accessibility, along with a certain amount of exceptionalism. The narratives of the
traditional universities make greater use of the Humboldtian paradigm, and especially
scientific research within the context of the western scientific paradigm. The University is
envisaged as an engine of progress for the world. These universities display their current
power as well evincing a desire to acquire more power in the future. The size, wealth,
property, location, and influence of the universities concerned are displayed and
217
celebrated as well as their aspiration for greater expansion. The discourse strands of
excellence and a marked exceptionalism are found in the self-identity narratives of these
traditional universities.
A very large number of discursive entanglements were also detected. In these
convolutions, Humboldtian themes and business concepts are mixed in surprising ways
by the non-traditional universities. In the traditional universities, narratives of power and
privilege are mixed contradictorily with themes of equality, diversity, and service. The
oxymorons and blatant contradictions that appear in these university narratives appear to
be unintentional. No attempt has been made to untangle obviously disparate discursive
strands, or establish congruence throughout the universities’ self-identity narratives. Raw
contradictions are on display, as they are with any human personality or identity.
However, here they appear on a website, a place completely and intentionally public,
with the purpose of convincing visitors of the value of an institution and its ability to
educate and develop students in a rational and effective manner.
The origins of the knowledge(s) identified by this study reside principally in the
Humboldtian paradigm and its modern Harvard variation. In particular, the traditional
universities emphasize pure scientific research at the expense of the paradigm’s other
elements. These universities use the western scientific paradigm to justify this
reorientation and provide an altruistic explanation of what is now, for many traditional
universities, their principal legitimizing activity. Other origins of the knowledge
identified by this study are late era capitalism with its preoccupation with bureaucratic
performativity and business efficiency, and with the worlds of business and advertising.
Marketing concepts such as added value and value for money are common. Still another
218
source for origins of the knowledge this study identifies is twentieth-century liberal
democratic values and the concern with social, racial, and gender equality that the
traditional universities transform into concepts of accessibility, service to the community
(state, nation, and world), and diversity.
The principal discursive techniques employed to convey the knowledge(s)
identified in this study can be categorized and described by the four principal
legitimization strategies defined by Van Leeuwen (as cited in Fairclough, 2003, p. 98):
Authorization
Legitimization by reference to the authority of tradition, custom, law, and of
persons in whom some kind of institutional authority is vested.
Rationalization
Legitimization by reference to the utility of institutionalized action, and to the
knowledges society has constructed to endow them with cognitive value.
Moral Evaluation
Legitimization by reference to value systems.
Mythopoesis
Legitimization conveyed through narrative.
These four legitimization strategies are used indistinctly by both the traditional
and non-traditional universities in their self-identity narratives. The non-traditional
universities tend to use rationalization more than the traditional universities, whereas the
traditional universities tend to use mythopoesis more than the non-traditional universities.
The authorization tactics include mention of authorizing legislation and
government participation when describing their history, and accreditation credentials for
219
the non-traditional universities; and references to illustrious founders and faculty; patents
received, and the specification of the university’s position in international higher
education rankings for the traditional universities. The rationalization tactics include
texts concerning competency-based educational models, and estimations of graduate
employability for the non-traditional universities, and the value of research for humanity,
and invoking the western scientific paradigm for the traditional universities. The moral
evaluation tactics include the defense of popular American democratic values, expressed
admiration for the armed forces, police, and firefighters, and empathy with social and
racial equality for the non-traditional universities, and claims concerning meritocracy,
and the advocacy of conventional liberal social values for the traditional universities. The
mythopoesis tactics include foundational narratives for both the traditional and non-
traditional universities, narratives concerning community service for the non-traditional
universities, and institutional histories and narratives of altruism for the traditional
universities.
Heracleous (2006) maintains that from a Foucauldian standpoint, discourses
manufacture subjects, individuals who have been conditioned by prior exposure to
similarly informed discourse: “Foucault’s archeological position was in effect that
discourse produces the subject” (p. 86).
The acceptance of the Humboldtian ideal of the University and its derivation
affects the behavior of social actors. The discourse created by the universities affects how
individuals and groups evaluate and rank them; how much their students are willing to
pay for university offerings; how they are funded by society; how social acceptance and
prestige is assigned to them; how the expectations are established concerning the type
220
and level of employment their graduates are capable of; and how government and
industry are expected to interact with them. Universities are able to create aspirants,
consumers, leaders, admirers, partners, and boosters when individuals accept their self-
identity narratives without question. However, it is not only those who give credence to
such narratives that are influenced and constrained by them. The universities themselves
can fall prey to their own narratives. As Heracleous (2006) points out, “Subjects, rather
than being intentional producers of discourse, are at the mercy of anterior discursive
structures” (p. 87). Universities that do not question their own narratives risk becoming
irrelevant as society’s need for higher education, social service, and the creation of
knowledge changes.
The consequences of the knowledge(s) identified in this study are far-reaching
and have the potential to hinder social development in the US. The unquestioning
transmission of received wisdom concerning the nature of today’s University, mission,
and impact upon society means that consideration may not be given to newer higher
education self-identity narratives that are perhaps more appropriate for the present epoch
and the challenges it represents. Universities’ repetition or enhancement of the traditional
understanding of their role in society can prevent reflection about the ways in which US
higher education is structured at the present time, thus avoiding a critical evaluation of its
contributions to individual and social well-being. A lack of analysis of the means by
which higher education is funded and sustained limits the scope of debate concerning
potential alternatives.
Van Dijk (2008) remarks upon the way in which the control of public discourse by
powerful groups in society affects the autonomy available to the general population.
221
University narratives can create obstacles to rational decision making about US higher
education at both macro and micro levels. Political pressure can be brought to bear upon
non-conforming institutions of higher education, and potential students and their parents
as well as employers can be prevented from making decisions that are in their best
interest through the prevalence of a uniform, idealized higher discourse in higher
education.
Expectations of the Study
A number of unexpected discursive and knowledge elements emerged during this
study. This study found that the Humboldtian paradigm was the dominant paradigm in
the discursive plane of US higher education. It was expected that absolutely pure
discursive strands would not be identified, and this proved to be the case. The expectation
that discursive entanglements would be identified also proved to be the case, although the
number, diversity, and distribution of the entanglements found had not been anticipated.
The robust expectation that traditional universities would employ a discourse of power
was met.
It was also expected that traditional research universities would follow the
original Humboldtian paradigm in its entirety. Instead, they emphasized scientific
research at the expense of academic freedom, and the integration of undergraduate
teaching with research. The expectation that the traditional universities would sharply
differentiate themselves based on a keen appreciation of their uniqueness was not met. .
Almost without exception, they competed against each other, often using the same
themes: excellence, exclusivity, campuses and installations, research budgets and
achievements, and generous financial aid for students. Many of the differentiating factors
222
employed had more to do with the tangible rather than the intangible, and therefore were
easily matched or cancelled out by competitors. Finally, it was expected that most of the
non-traditional universities would create strong, original self-identity narratives based on
their innovative capabilities, and that the objective of providing accessible higher
education would be accompanied by more than utilitarian benefits. This study did not
find this to be the case, nor did the study find that they emphasized their almost exclusive
dedication to teaching as a competitive advantage.
Ten Conclusions and Eleven Recommendations
The ten conclusions described in this section derive from the detailed critical
analysis of the discursive strands identified on the websites of the twenty universities in
this study. The eleven recommendations are associated with one or more conclusions.
They have been prepared for consideration by universities and their communities,
government and educational authorities, accreditation bodies, employers, students and
their families, and a society that needs institutions of higher education that are diverse in
purpose and provide their students with opportunities for personal and professional
development.
The first conclusion derived from this study is that the Humboldtian paradigm
remains the dominant paradigm in the discursive plane of US higher education and that
both non-traditional and traditional universities use it to varying degrees in their self-
identity narratives. For instance, this finding can be seen both in the CAL U Vision
Statement, which references academic community, excellence, intellectual demands, and
social dialog, and in the Harvard College Mission Statement, which references freedom
of thought and expression, intellectual discovery and critical thinking, and collaboration
223
and personal responsibility. Two recommendations can be formed from this conclusion.
First, universities should challenge and reject unthinking institutional isomorphism within
higher education by applying critical and creative thinking to their purposes, identities,
and futures, and not just to what is studied and researched within their walls. They should
reconsider their role in US higher education, and recognize the rapidly changing nature of
higher education as well as the possible new forms this accelerated change may generate.
Second, the governmental and political authorities that exercise authority over US higher
education should examine the current and future purposes and scope of higher education
dispassionately and pragmatically. These examinations should not depend on outmoded
and irrelevant paradigms, especially ones that were never intended to provide for the
needs and diversity of the volume of students that society requires to have a tertiary
education. The educational authorities and accreditation bodies should examine each
institution in terms of its current and potential response to social needs, aspirations, and
possibilities, rather than idealized paradigms or conventionalisms.
The second conclusion is that that the non-traditional universities, with the
possible exception of Western Governors University, have not developed unique self-
identity narratives based upon their innovative educational approaches, novel
organizational structures, and expanded services to students. Instead, these newer
universities make creative use of aspects of the traditional Humboldtian paradigm to
legitimize themselves and use this legitimacy to commercialize their educational
offerings. Even where the non-traditional universities have innovated educationally, their
innovations deal with technologically driven new delivery modalities, or are related to the
newer paradigms of excellence and performativity, rather than original insights into the
224
nature of US higher education. For example, Dakota State University’s History page
juxtaposes the idea of service to society with information about the university’s
capabilities in the field of distributed education. The DSU History page contains a
revealing discursive knot involving technology as high-technology serving society in the
“information age” and the educational technology employed in the university’s distance
learning initiatives. The concept of scholarship appears on the History page, but it has not
been mentioned before and is not integrated with or explained in relation to DSU’s
technological advances. An important recommendation formed from this conclusion is
that universities should avoid isomorphism. However, this will not be possible as long as
the stakeholders of US higher education fail to recognize the profound diversity that is
necessarily present, and take social advantage of it. They should appreciate this diversity
for what it can provide rather than use historical paradigms to delegitimize it for what it
cannot.
The third conclusion is that the traditional universities tend to make greater use of
the Humboldtian paradigm than their non-traditional counterparts. Starting with Harvard ,
they have modified the original paradigm considerably principally by elevating research
above the other elements, and by associating location and physical installations with
academic excellence. The traditional universities conceive of the research they carry out
within the context of the western scientific paradigm. That is, these universities present
their research programs and initiatives as the principal source of scientific progress.
Stanford University’s “Stanford Facts at a Glance” page explains that its campus covers
8.180 acres and contains nearly 700 buildings. One of the five history texts on the
Stanford website explains how alumni David Packard and William Hewlett established a
225
small electronics company in a Palo Alto garage which later was dubbed “the Birthplace
of Silicon Valley,” and praises Professor Vinton Cerf as both “the father of Silicon
Valley” and “the father of the Internet.” Pennsylvania University’s Introduction to Penn
page states: “Penn is one of the world’s most powerful research and teaching institutions,
with a research budget last year topping $800 million.” The page also refers to
“expansive college greens and recreational spaces” and the twelve schools located on a
single campus. Caltech’s mission statement is “to expand human knowledge and benefit
society through research integrated with education.” The About Caltech page defines the
university as “a world-renowned and pioneering research and education institution
dedicated to advancing science and engineering.” One recommendation can be formed
from this conclusion. Institutional isomorphism is very powerful among the traditional
universities, and if it is not avoided, the traditional universities will not attempt to forge
new self-identity narratives based on their individual attributes.
The fourth conclusion is that there are no pure and consistent discursive strands
within the discursive plane of US higher education. This conclusion originated in the
discursive knots and entanglements found in all of the universities’ self-identity
narratives. However, certain discursive entanglements, such as the combining of service
with academic offerings, appear repeatedly in both non-traditional and traditional
university self-identity narratives. For example, Bellevue University combines the very
specific educational and social purpose that the university has established for itself (that
of providing its students with the possibility of economic betterment by obtaining a
degree) with its ideological defense of capitalism and “our American heritage.” The Yale
College mission statement affirms that the aim of education is “the cultivation of
226
citizens.” These citizens, who are very much aware of the College’s “heritage,” are
intended to “lead and serve in every sphere of human activity.”
The fifth conclusion is that discursive strands of the non-traditional universities
often focus on the marketization of higher education services, and the use of key
elements such as accessibility, affordability, and excellence are often entangled with
leadership and community service. In fact, one of Columbia Southern University’s eleven
values is, “Focus on affordable, quality online instruction including undergraduate
programs with a general education core that promotes life-long learning and the success
of its graduates,” another value is, “Accessibility, flexibility, and the use of appropriate
technology in the delivery of its online programs, services, and operations, and still
another value is, “A professional outlook that values innovation, ongoing self-assessment,
creative thinking, and a willingness to lead positive educational change.” The Harvard
College mission statement ends with the expectation that Harvard students, after having
experienced the “scholarship and collegiality” fostered in them by Harvard, will be led
“to advance knowledge, to promote understanding, and to serve society.”
The sixth conclusion is that discursive strands of the traditional universities focus
on excellence, exclusivity, exceptionalism, and power. Frequently these concepts are
combined with social and global themes, such as equality of opportunity, revolution,
ethnic and gender diversity, global reach, and progress. Yale’s About-History page
describes the university’s internationalism, with international students currently
constituting almost 9 percent of the undergraduate population, and 16 percent of the
student body as a whole. The same page mentions Yale’s history of female admission, as
women were admitted to graduate study in 1869 and to undergraduate study in 1969. In
227
the same text the university describes itself as, “Today, Yale has matured into one of the
world’s great universities” and provides the information that in New Haven the
University holds more than 600 acres (243 hectares) of sports fields and other
undeveloped areas quite close to the town center. The History page for the University of
Columbia in the City of New York relates that Vietnam era campus protests and violence
“also led to the creation of the University Senate, in which faculty, students, and alumni
acquired a larger voice in University affairs.” This page provides information about its
physical development and its position in the US and the world in the following discursive
fragment:
These and other improvements to the University’s physical plant provide a visible
reminder of the continuing growth and development of Columbia’s programs of
research and teaching. From its renowned Core Curriculum to the most advanced
work now under way in its graduate and professional schools, the University
continues to set the highest standard for the creation and dissemination of
knowledge, both in the United States and around the world.
Similarly, Duke University’s At a Glance page begins by stating, “Younger than
most other prestigious U.S. research universities, Duke University consistently ranks
among the very best.” It is followed by the statement that, “Duke is active internationally
through the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School in Singapore, Duke Kunshan
University in China and numerous research and education programs across the globe,”
and a reference to vocation of service, “More than 75% of Duke’s students pursue
service-learning opportunities” and the “university’s mission of ‘knowledge in service to
society.’”
228
One recommendation can be formed from the fourth, fifth, and sixth conclusions:
all US institutions of higher education should reflect upon what they are and are not. A
correlative is that traditional and the non-traditional universities give more importance to
the self-identity narratives they present to the public. Such a change will require courage
on the part of these institutions and a genuine belief in their unique qualities. Marketing
makeovers, or the adoption of socially acceptable views, cannot be substitutes for a
deeper understanding of their role in modern society.
The seventh conclusion is that many of the discursive entanglements identified
involve elements contained in the original Humboldtian paradigm, but that have been
conflated out of all recognition, or that have been combined with newer, alien elements.
Examples of these are civic responsibility being transformed into global responsibility,
excellence and exclusivity being mixed with accessibility, and the celebration of huge
facilities and immense campuses as representations of academic quality. The MIT
Community page features a People tab which takes a visitor to the text, “MIT has created
a place for students, faculty members, researchers, and scientists to advance our
understanding of the world through world-class scholarship and leadership that continues
to serve the nation and the world.” The Introduction to Penn page states: “Academic
life at Penn is unparalleled,” but assures prospective students that, “Financial need is not
a barrier to a quality Penn education,” since “all financially eligible undergraduates have
all loans replaced with grants.”
Many elements of the original Humboldtian paradigm are taken out of context and
repurposed, e.g., presenting higher education as a public good in order to drive a business
strategy. The Change Your Future Today section on National University’s website
229
describes the university’s mission as, “dedicated to making lifelong learning
opportunities accessible, challenging, and relevant to a diverse student population.” The
Mission page explains that the National University System “was established to meet a
growing mandate for educational institutions that are more flexible, responsive and
dynamic than traditional colleges and universities.” The System’s mission “is to serve a
broad range of constituencies that extends beyond National University’s non-traditional
student body to other underserved populations historically deprived of educational
opportunities.” The text ends with, “Thomas Jefferson had a similar vision more than 200
years ago, understanding the essential link between an educated populace and an effective
democracy.”
The university’s mission and vision as stated are consistent with its not-for-profit
status, but the design and content of the website gives the impression of a for-profit
institution. The Homepage is dominated by a digital space occupied by the title, “One-
Course-Per-Month,” with the tabs immediately below the text labelled, “Our Programs”
and “Admissions.”Get Started (Apply Online, Request Information, and Contact Us),
Campus Finder,” and Areas of Study appear to focus on promoting and selling programs.
Two recommendations can be formed from this conclusion. Institutions of higher
education, especially the more venerable ones, should engage in a serious process of self-
reflection. Having decided on a congruent and ethical identity, they should express who
they are, what they do, and what they aspire to become without hyperbole, rhetoric, or the
use of superficial legitimization strategies. Universities should think deeply about what
information, and what type of information the public needs to assess the appropriateness
230
of the different institutions for a variety of very specific needs, and how this information
needs to be presented to maximize comprehension.
The eighth conclusion is that there is little incentive for universities to re-define
themselves, and even less for them to re-conceptualize what the University is or might
become. This is because the risk of not being recognized as belonging to the socially
accepted higher education category of University (understood as the traditional research
university) is too great. Western Governors University has developed an innovative
educational approach. The Western Governors University Story page contains two
discursive fragments, Designing an Online University and An Online University with a
Mission, to project the essence of WGU and explain why it is different from other
universities. The Designing an Online University text explains that the Western governors
who envisioned WGU enlisted the support of two official educational entities to help
design the new university, the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education
(WICHE), and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
(NCHEMS).
Two recommendations can be formed from this conclusion. First, is that society
should abandon historical paradigms as the exclusive means of evaluating the worth of
institutions of higher education. Second, the entities and individuals with power over US
higher education should consider all of the possible required purposes as well as the
required scope and diversity of higher education, and act accordingly.
The ninth conclusion is that, given how existing universities currently see
themselves, their reluctance to question their own traditional narratives and their self-
interested exercise of conventional knowledge(s) make it difficult for the stakeholders of
231
higher education to visualize change, let alone demand it in order to meet society’s needs
and aspirations. The final paragraph of the last of Stanford University’s five history texts,
The 21st Century, ends with, “We can’t predict, but we can ensure that our students will
be the most knowledgeable of leaders, that they will make a difference and that they will
creatively and skillfully guide the next century of progress and excellence.” One of the
ironies of this situation is that the Humboldtian paradigm was developed to reform
German higher education freeing it from a dysfunctional medieval model. The
universities in the study, in order to legitimize themselves, perpetuate ideas, world views,
and behaviors that should be subjected to critical examination.
One recommendation can be formed from this conclusion. The different publics
who visit university websites should be provided with a variety of means by which they
can assess the appropriateness of the hosting institutions for their specific needs. Potential
students and their families should subject university self-narratives to the same level of
analysis and evaluation as they presumably do for texts on other websites promoting an
essential service. Both students and parents should have confidence in their own
judgment of what is appropriate, necessary, and fair.
The tenth, and possibly the most important, conclusion derived from this study is
that the different knowledge(s) that inform the discursive plane of US higher education
are deeply entrenched and well supported. The Brief History of Columbia page on the
University of Columbia in the City of New York’s website states the following in
reference to an interregnum in the university’s development between 1774 and 1782:
“However, the institution continued to exert a significant influence on American life
through the people associated with it.” The U.S. Presidents and Honorary Degrees text on
232
Harvard University’s website lists the thirteen American presidents, starting with George
Washington, who have received an honorary degree. The Penn Heritage page states:
“Penn has also welcomed countless leaders through its doors” with nine signatories to the
Declaration of Independence and eleven to the Constitution respectively having been
connected with the University in some fashion. The following paragraph provides
information about the number of Penn researchers who have been awarded the Nobel
Prize since 1923. Consequently, it will be difficult for the reform of US higher education
to be carried out as quickly and as radically as demanded by foreseeable social needs and
the rapid rate of technological change. One recommendation can be formed from this
conclusion. Those who are able to participate in the debate on the future of US higher
education should do so in an informed manner and without prejudice, partisanship, or
personal interest.
233
References
Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 7, 263-295.
Anderssen, E. (2012, October 11). Have universities forgotten how to teach? The Globe
and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-
to-lead/the-separate-and-equal-university/article4607908/
Ash, M. G. (2006). Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt myth and
historical transformations of higher education in German-speaking Europe and
the US. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 245-267.
Barrow, C. W. (2010). The rationality crisis in us higher education. New Political
Science, 32(3), 317-344. doi: 10.1080/07393148.2010.498197
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf
Bennet, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010). For-profit higher education
growth, innovation and regulation. Retrieved from
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/2901
0.pdf
Bombongan Jr., D. (2008). Revisiting Newman’s idea of a university for our times.
Philippiniana Sacra, 43(129), 469-483.
234
Brody, M. (2012, April 16). College and Then What?: Lawrence Mishel and the Higher
Education Debate [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.theysayiblog.com/2012/03/college-and-then-what-lawrence-mishel-
and-the-higher-education-debate.html
Cataldi, B. J. (2004). Foucault's discourse theory and methodology: An application to art
education policy discourse 1970-2000 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu
Clark, W. (2006). Academic charisma and the origins of the research university. Chicago,
Il: The University of Chicago Press.
Capogrossi, D. (2002). The assurance of academic excellence among non-traditional
universities. Higher Education in Europe, XXVII (4), 481-490.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the dna
of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college:
How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and afford-ability to postsecondary
education. Retrieved from:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/disrupting_college.html
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical
sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623-
630.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
235
Dwivedi, R. (2011). Language discourse—A critical analysis of Michel Foucault’s work
on language discourse with special reference to his masterpiece “the archeology
of knowledge.” (Research paper, Amity University). Retrieved from
http://www.works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=ratnes
h_dwivedi
EducationDynamics. (2002, April 2). Inside accreditation and the DETC. Retrieved from
http://www.elearners.com/online-education-resources/degrees-and-
programs/inside-accreditation-and-the-detc
Fain, P. (2012, July 10). Rise of the accreditor? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/10/profit-ashford-university-loses-
accreditation-bid
Feldner, H., & Vighi, F. (2007). Zizek beyond Foucault. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
MacMillan. Retrieved from
http://www.58.192.114.227/humanities/sociology/htmledit/uploadfile/system/201
00510/20100510161946344.pdf
Foucault, M. (2002). The archeology of knowledge. London, England: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. London, England: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge:
Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault (pp. 78-
108). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (2002). The archeology of knowledge. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
236
Ginsburg, C. & Noorlander, W. (2008, July/August). Investigating outsourcing and off-
shoring research. Information Today, Inc., 32(4), Retrieved from
http://www.infotoday.com/online/jul08/Ginsburg Noorlander.shtml
Gioia, D.A., Price, K.N., Hamilton, A.L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity:
An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational
identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 1-46.
Gordon, C. (1980). Afterword. In Gordon, C. (Ed.) Power/knowledge: Selected
interviews and other writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault (pp.78-108). New
York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Graham, L. J. (2005, December). Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault.
Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education 2005
Annual Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power
and Greatness. New York, NY: Mahwah. Paulist Press.
Heracleous, L. (2006). Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Higher Education Resources Hub! (2008). A listing of land grant institutions. Retrieved
from http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/land_grant_colleges.htm
Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case
research. Paper presented at the Learning and Skills Development Agency
conference: Making an Impact on Policy and Practice, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved
from http://www.education.exeter.ac.uk/../LE_PH_PUB_05.12.01
237
Humboldt, W. Von. (1809/1990) Über die innere und äussere Organisation der höheren
wissenschaftlichen Anstalten zu Berlin, in: E. MÜLLER (Ed) Gelegentliche
Gedanken über Universitäten (Leipzig, Reclam), pp. 273-283 (as cited in Ash,
2006).
Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a
critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.),
Methods of critical discourse analysis (1st ed.). London, England: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucaldian
critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In F. Maier & F. Maier (Eds.),
Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edpunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of
Higher Education. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (2006, October). Problems with the critical posture?
Foucault and critical discourse analysis. Paper presented at the Queensland
University of Technology Centre for Social Change Research Conference: Social
Change in the 21st Century, Brisbane, Australia.
Kirwan, W. (2010). The 21st century: The century of the American research university.
Innovation in higher education, 35(2), 101-111. doi: 10.1007/s10755-009-9132-1
Krull, W. (2005). Exporting the Humboldtian university. [Review of the book Humboldt
International. Der Export des deutschen Universita¨tsmodells by R. C. Schwinges
(ed.)] (Basel: Schwabe & Co. AG Verlag, 2001). 503 pp., ISBN 3-7965-1735-
238
8., im 19. Und 20. Jahrhundert.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lepori, B. (2008). Research in non-university higher education institutions. The case of
the Swiss universities of Applied Sciences. Higher Education,56(1), 45-58. doi:
10.1007/s10734-007-9088-y
Lessa, L. (2006). Discursive struggles within social welfare: Re-staging teen motherhood.
British Journal of Social Work, 36(2), 283–298. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch256
Loughlin, G. (2011). The Wonder of Newman's Education. New Blackfriars, 92(1038),
224-242. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.2010.01412
Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on knowledge (Theory and
History of Literature, Volume 10). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
MacIntyre, A. (2010). The Very Idea of a University: Aristotle, Newman and us. New
Blackfriars, 91(1031), 4-19. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.2009.01333
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-
525. Retrieved from http://www.spa.hust.edu.cn/2008/uploadfile/2009-
9/20090916221539453.pdf
McLennan, G. (2008). Disinterested, disengaged, useless: Conservative or progressive
idea of the university? Globalisation, societies and education, 6(2), 195-200. doi:
10.1080/14767720802061496
239
Minor, L. (2011). At what cost? Charting the future of American research universities:
How to “sustain, nurture and protect the bedrock values amid the politics of
cost.” Delivered to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
Morgan, K. J. (2011). Where is von Humboldt’s university now? Research in Higher
Education-Daigaku Ronshu, (42), 325-344.
Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity
knowledge and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 821-847. Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/26279173/intersection-organizational-
identity-knowledge-practice-attempting-strategic-change-via-knowledge-grafting
U.S. News & World Report. (2013). National university rankings. Retrieved from
http://www.colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-
colleges/rankings/national-universities
Oliver, D., & Roos, J. (2004). Constructing organizational identity (Working Paper 52).
Retrieved from Imagination Lab website:
http://www.imagilab.org/pdf/wp04/WP52.pdf
Petkovska, S. (2010). Questioning the idea of the university in the contemporary world.
In T. Claes & D. S. Preston (Eds.) At The Interface/Probing The Boundaries:
Frontiers in Higher Education, 72133.
Puusa, A. (2006). Conducting research on organizational identity. Electronic Journal of
Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 11(2), 24-28. Retrieved from
http://www.ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol11_no2_pages_24-28.pdf
240
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats:
Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal,
49(3), 433-458.
Sandelowski, M. (2011). When a cigar is not just a cigar: Alternative takes on data and
data analysis. Research in Nursing & Health, 34(4), 342-352.
doi:10.1002/nur.20437.
Saichaie, K. (2011). Representation on college and university websites: An approach
using critical discourse analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa).
Retrieved from http://www.ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1071
Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., & Relva, R. (2008). Research and the Universities’ Image.
European Journal of Education, 43(4), 495-512. doi:10.1111/j.1465-
3435.2008.00370.x
Scharmer, O. (2009). Theory U. San Francisco: Barret-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Retrieved
from http://www.bkconnection.com
SR Education Group. (2013). 2013 online college rankings. Retrieved from
http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online-colleges
Tadmor, Z. (2003). The golden age of the scientific technological university. The S.
Neaman Institute of Advanced Studies in Science and Technology, Technion Israel
Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel: Neaman Press. (pp. 1-26).
Thomson, I. (2004). Heidegger’s perfectionist philosophy of education in being and time.
Continental Philosophy Review, 37(4), 439-467.
241
U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (2012). For-profit
higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure
student success. Retrieved from
http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI-PartIII
selectedAppendixes.pdf
Van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H.
Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. (pp. 352-371). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.)
London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.
Voss, Z.G., Cable, D.M., & Voss, G.B. (2006). Organizational identity and firm
performance: What happens when leaders disagree about who we are.
Organization Science, 17(6), 741-755.
Whelshula, M. M. (1999). Healing through decolonization: A study in the deconstruction
of the Western scientific paradigm and the process of retribalizing among Native
Americans. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (Order No. 9940039).
Williams, J. J. (2012). Deconstructing academe. The academic backlash – “The Emerging
Field of Critical University Studies.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(25), B7.
242. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.2010.01412.x
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.