مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد بازاریابی آموزش عالی و ادعاها در اطلاع رسانی های دانشگاه – اسپرینگر ۲۰۱۸

springer

 

مشخصات مقاله
ترجمه عنوان مقاله یکپارچگی در بازاریابی آموزش عالی (تحصیلات دانشگاهی) و ادعاهای گمراه کننده در اطلاع رسانی های دانشگاه: بعدا چه اتفاقی افتاد… و آیا کافی است؟
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Integrity in higher education marketing and misleading claims in the university prospectus: what happened next…and is it enough?
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۱۸
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۱۸ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
پایگاه داده نشریه اسپرینگر
نوع نگارش مقاله
مقاله پژوهشی (Research article)
مقاله بیس این مقاله بیس نمیباشد
نمایه (index) master journals – DOAJ
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
رشته های مرتبط مدیریت، علوم تربیتی
گرایش های مرتبط بازاریابی، مدیریت آموزشی
نوع ارائه مقاله
ژورنال
مجله / کنفرانس مجله بین المللی برای یکپارچگی آموزشی – International Journal for Educational Integrity
دانشگاه The Mede – Moor Road – Ashover – Chesterfield – Derbyshire – UK
کلمات کلیدی یکپارچگی، آموزش عالی، بازاریابی، Marketisation، اطلاعیه، استانداردهای تبلیغاتی
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی Integrity, Higher education, Marketing, Marketisation, Prospectus, Advertising standards
شناسه دیجیتال – doi
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0026-9
کد محصول E10478
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

فهرست مطالب مقاله:
Abstract
Introduction
Media response
Academic response
The advertising standards authority and committees of advertising practice
The new ASA/CAP guidance as a response to misleading university advertising
Reflections on ‘misleading university marketing’ as an example of identification and engagement with a ‘social problem
Discussion
References

 

بخشی از متن مقاله:
Abstract

In 2013 this journal published the paper ‘Integrity in Higher Education Marketing: A typology of misleading data-based claims in the university prospectus.’ It argued that UK universities were using data and statistics in a misleading way in their advertising and proposed a nine-part typology to describe such claims. The present paper describes the subsequent responses in national media and academic writing. It then analyses recent developments in the regulation of university marketing in the UK, where the Advertising Standards Authority has publically rebuked universities and issued new guidance. Rulings against six UK universities are analysed and the paper considers the extent to which the new guidance addresses the nine types of misleading claims. The paper goes on to consider how issues such as this come to be addressed by regulators and what incentives will encourage universities to ensure the integrity of their marketing.

Media response

Times Higher Education, generally known simply as THE, is published weekly in London and reports on all aspects of international higher education. Following the publication of the 2013 paper, the author drew it to the attention of the editor of THE who then assigned a reporter to look at the story. The following week THE made the paper their lead article, featured on the front page and covered over two pages inside under the headline ‘Rosy prospectuses ‘misleading’ students’ (Mathews, 2014a). THE also publishes a weekly ‘audio podcast’ in which contributors discuss topics from the week’s news. The ‘misleading claims’ paper was a lead item of the week’s podcast. The back page of THE traditionally carries a satirical page written by a popular ‘media academic’ which describes events at the fictional ‘University of Poppleton.’ The subsequent edition of the University of Poppleton News described this establishment defending itself against accusations of misleading information in its prospectus and referenced the ‘misleading claims’ paper (Taylor, 2014). Interestingly, THE chose to go further than the original paper. The paper had not named the universities in the research sample ‘because any shortcomings identified in the integrity of these prospectuses are likely to be found more widely across the sector. As such, it seems unfair to name (and potentially shame) those institutions that were randomly selected for study.’ However THE was able to match quotations in the paper to online prospectuses and thereby identify three of the universities in the sample. THE contacted the three universities to ask for a response. One explained that the misleading claim was ‘an error of attribution’ and would not be used again; one said that in future it would source all its data from the official Unistats website and one declined to comment on the grounds that ‘…the author recognised that it was unfair to name – and potentially shame – those institutions that were randomly selected.’ The following week THE again made the paper a lead story. This time they focussed on the author’s suggestion that: ‘The two bodies with regulatory responsibilities in the field, Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, (QAA), do not take a proactive approach and have limited impact on the accuracy of university marketing materials.’ Under the headline ‘Are questionable marketing claims slipping past the watchdogs?’ THE contacted the two regulators to seek their response to the suggestion (Mathews, 2014b). A spokeswoman for the Advertising Standards Authority responded: ‘The ASA relies largely on the public to bring misleading advertising to its attention. Although in areas such as gambling and alcohol advertising it proactively looks for problems without waiting for complaints, university marketing is not one of those priorities.

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد.