UNIVERSITY SELF-IDENTITY NARRATIVES: A FOUCAULDIAN CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS by Eric Albert Pearse...

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.

iii

DEDICATION

To my dear wife Hilda for her love, understanding, and patience

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

http://www.harvard.edu/teaching-learning-innovation/

http://www.harvard.edu/social-media

http://www.harvard.edu/harvard-multimedia

http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/about-faculty/faculty-blogs

http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/about-faculty/faculty-blogs

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

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/

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

http://www.yale.edu/departments/index.html

http://web.library.yale.edu/

http://www.yale.edu/museums/index.html

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.

http://www.uchicago.edu/students/

http://www.uchicago.edu/faculty/

http://www.uchicago.edu/staff/

http://www.uchicago.edu/alumni/

http://www.uchicago.edu/parents/

http://visit.uchicago.edu/

https://directory.uchicago.edu/

https://maps.uchicago.edu/

http://www.uchicago.edu/quicklinks/

http://a2z.uchicago.edu/showlinks.php?index=1&page=1

https://my.uchicago.edu/

http://alumniandfriends.uchicago.edu/site/c.mjJXJ7MLIsE/b.4662137/k.9377/Annual_gifts.htm

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

http://www.uchicago.edu/jobs/

http://www.uchicago.edu/notices/

http://www.uchicago.edu/notices/

http://emergency.uchicago.edu/

https://xmail.uchicago.edu/

http://www.uchicago.edu/contact/

http://thisis.uchicago.edu/global-reach/



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

http://thisis.uchicago.edu/academics/

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

http://www.uchicago.edu/research/labs

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

http://www.google.com/

http://www.yahoo.com/

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

http://www.kinginstitute.info/

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

http://museum.stanford.edu/

http://binghall.stanford.edu/

http://binghall.stanford.edu/

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


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

http://www.upenn.edu/about/founder.php

http://www.upenn.edu/programs


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

http://www.upenn.edu/programs/interschool.php

http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/costs-financial-aid

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

http://finalreport.upenn.edu/campaign/faculty.php

http://finalreport.upenn.edu/campaign/faculty.php

http://diversity.upenn.edu/

http://finalreport.upenn.edu/engagement/

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

http://sdstate.edu/campus/index.cfm

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

http://www.nu.edu/OurUniversity.html?utm_source=newsoutlets&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_content=nonprofituniversity&utm_campaign=holidaybowl2013&track=holidaybowl2013

http://www.nu.edu/OurUniversity.html?utm_source=newsoutlets&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_content=nonprofituniversity&utm_campaign=holidaybowl2013&track=holidaybowl2013

http://www.nu.edu/OnlineEducation.html?utm_source=newsoutlets&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_content=onlineeducation&utm_campaign=holidaybowl2013&track=holidaybowl2013

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

http://www.massachusetts.edu/

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


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.

http://www.detc.org/



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


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 breathtaking. 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


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



http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/costs-financial-aid

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.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/disrupting_college.html

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.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi





file://apoazdatac1na1/users2$/onl-az-phoenix1/drbearda/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Dissertation%20Files/Submission%20Process/Process%203/C:/Users/eapearse/Documents/UOPX%20-%20DM/Doc%20733/Submission/http

http://58.192.114.227/humanities/sociology/htmledit/uploadfile/system/20100510/










http://58.192.114.227/humanities/sociology/htmledit/uploadfile/system/20100510/20100510161946344.pdf

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

http://www.spa.hust.edu.cn/2008/uploadfile/2009-9/20090916221539453.pdf

http://www.spa.hust.edu.cn/2008/uploadfile/2009-9/20090916221539453.pdf

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

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

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.

http://www.bkconnection.com/





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.

242

Zizek, S. (2000). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. London,

UK: Verso.

UNIVERSITY SELF-IDENTITY NARRATIVES: A FOUCAULDIAN CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS by Eric Albert Pearse...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY SELF-IDENTITY NARRATIVES: A FOUCAULDIAN CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS by Eric Albert Pearse...