¿(Cómo) escuchan las universidades? Un estudio sobre los sitios web de las mejores universidades del mundo
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2024-576Palabras clave:
escucha organizacional, educacion superior, universidad, sitios web, comunicacion digital, comunicación bidireccional, interactividad, partes interesadasResumen
Introducción: Este estudio investiga métodos de escucha organizacional en la enseñanza superior mediante análisis comparativo de sitios web de principales universidades globales y las tres mejores de Lituania. Se enfatiza el rol de estos sitios como plataformas digitales y evalúa cómo facilitan la comunicación bidireccional con partes interesadas. Metodología: Se seleccionaron los sitios web según clasificaciones mundialmente conocidas, incluyendo instituciones de cada continente. El análisis cualitativo utilizó categorías predefinidas y emergentes para evaluar interactividad y características de escucha organizativa. Resultados: Se identificó un mapeo consistente de partes interesadas, con disparidades en herramientas y canales que afectan la participación efectiva en tiempo real, asíncrona y simétrica. Estructuras de comunicación variaron de roles integrados a responsabilidades fragmentadas, influenciando accesibilidad y transparencia. Discusión: Se abordan implicaciones para prácticas de comunicación organizacional, enfocándose en soluciones para mejorar el compromiso a través de sitios web institucionales. Se destaca el papel crucial de equipos de gestión de comunicación. Conclusiones: Al promover el aprovechamiento de avances tecnológicos, se propone transformar los sitios web en plataformas proactivas para la escucha organizacional, recomendando el desarrollo de estrategias de comunicación adaptadas para optimizar el compromiso y la eficacia en contextos de educación superior.
Descargas
Citas
Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978777 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978777
Canelón, A. R. (2013). Análisis de las páginas web de universidades de AUSJAL. Revista Internacional De Relaciones Públicas, 3(5), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.5783/revrrpp.v3i5.189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5783/revrrpp.v3i5.189
Capriotti, P., & Zeler, I. (2023). Analysing effective social media communication in higher education institutions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02187-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02187-8
Claro, C. (2021). Análisis de la existencia de una cultura de la escucha organizacional, desde los directivos en el sector multitiendas en Chile. Revista de Comunicación, 20(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.26441/rc20.1-2021-a4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26441/RC20.1-2021-A4
Durlak, J. T. (2012). A typology for interactive media. In Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 743-757). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678672
García García, M., Carrillo-Durán, M. V., & Tato Jimenez, J. L. (2017). Online corporate communications: website usability and content. Journal of Communication Management, 21(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-08-2016-0069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-08-2016-0069
Fernández-Gubieda, S. (2024). Marco conceptual de la reputación. Implicaciones para el gobierno universitario. https://doi.org/10.15581/10171/69256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/10171/69256
Harro-Loit, H. (2019). Feedback and feedforward as a dialogic communication in the learning environment. The Essence of Academic Performance, 18. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89645
Hill, L. N., & White, C. (2000). Public relations practitioners’ perception of the world wide web as a communications tool. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00029-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00029-1
Ismail, A., Kuppusamy, K. S., & Paiva, S. (2020). Accessibility analysis of higher education institution websites of Portugal. Universal Access in the Information Society, 19, 685-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00653-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00653-2
Kohring, M., Marcinkowski, F., Lindner, C., & Karis, S. (2013). Media orientation of German university decision makers and the executive influence of public relations. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.01.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.01.002
Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3–4), 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2016.1228064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2016.1228064
Macnamara, J. (2018). Toward a Theory and Practice of Organizational Listening. International Journal of Listening, 32(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076
Macnamara, J. (2022). Organizational listening and the nonprofit sector. In G. Gonçalves, & E. Oliveira (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of nonprofit communication (85-93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003170563 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003170563-12
Macnamara, J. (2023). Digital corporate communication and organizational listening. In V. Luoma-aho , & M. Badham (Eds.), Handbook on digital corporate communication (pp. 357-370). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802201963.00037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802201963.00037
Marzena, F. (2015). Internet website as a tool of communication in scientific institutions. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organitzations, 18(4), 37-76. https://doi.org/10.14611/minib.18.04.2015.09
McHaney, R. (2023). The new digital shoreline: How Web 2.0 and millennials are revolutionizing higher education. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447979 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447979
Meikle, G. (2014). Future active: Media activism and the Internet. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315024325 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315024325
Miklosik, A., Evans, N., & Hlavaty, I. (2023). Communicating knowledge-focus through websites of higher education institutions. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 666-684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551521101447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014475
Naval, C., Sádaba-Chalezquer, C., & Pérez-Alonso-Geta, P. M. (2012). Relaciones de pares, tecnologías de la comunicación y educación ciudadana. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fpsi.20074778e.1.1.1
Vercic, D., & Zerfass, A. (2016). A comparative excellence framework for communication management. Journal of Communication Management, 20(1), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2015-0087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2015-0087
Sande, P. V., Martínez, P. P., & Lombao, T. F. (2017). Interactividad en las salas de prensa online de los Parlamentos autonómicos españoles: luces y sombras. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72, 1435-1452. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2017-1227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2017-1227
Verhoeven, P., Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Moreno, Á., & Tench, R. (2020). Strategic Communication across Borders: Country and Age Effects in the Practice of Communication Professionals in Europe. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(1), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1691006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1691006
Walther, J. B., & Jang, J. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x
Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998
Yeon, H. M., Choi, Y., & Kiousis, S. (2007). Interactive communication features on nonprofit organizations’ webpages for the practice of excellence in public relations. Journal of Website Promotion, 1(4), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J238v01n04_06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J238v01n04_06
Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Nothhaft, H., & Werder, K. P. (2020). Strategic communication: Defining the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 487-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1493485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1493485
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Mariana Sueldo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Non Commercial, No Derivatives Attribution 4.0. International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.), that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
