LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
O'Mara, K; Morrish, L (2010)
Publisher: The Diversity Collection; Common Ground Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The term diversity is ubiquitous in university mission statements, strategic plans, recruitment brochures, and university websites. This paper argues aims to compare university diversity statements from US Research Tier 1 universities with those from the elite UK Russell group universities In order to compare the language of diversity, we have used the techniques of corpus linguistics. A corpus is an electronic collection of sample texts which can then be processed by software, in this case the Oxford Wordsmith Tools (Scott 1996) package. This enables a corpus to be searched for frequent words, concordances (the linguistic environment of target words), and collocations (the company that those words keep). The resulting analysis suggests that there are differences between US and UK diversity statements, significant enough that they cannot be said to conform to the same 'genre'. There is overall similarity in terms ofvocabulary choice and of grammatical structures used (nominalizations, modalities etc), however, the UK Russell group diversity statements display a modality position of certainty, which resonates with the noun commitment. In contrast, US Research university diversity statements are formulated more as aspirations, and focus on benefit to the community, but claim a less certain outcome. Diversity is seen as 'a good thing' and signified by multiple linguistic markers of appreciation. The word frequency analysis of the diversity statements suggests that they are largely made up ofsemantically vague lexical items - Strategically Deployable Shifters - which contribute little to the overall meanings of the statements. These words, e.g. excellence, diversity, respect, even equality are multi-functional, polysemic abstractions which invoke fair play. Discursively embracing diversity commits institutions to recognizing little difference, and certainly not to institutional or structural change, rather diversity is seen as the property of individuals, and is congruent with the project of the neoliberal university.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bendix-Petersen, E. and Davies, B. 2010 forthcoming. In/Difference in the neoliberal university. LATISS (Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences).
    • Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and Repetition. Trans. Paul Patton. New York: Columbia University Press.
    • Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
    • Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Polity Press.
    • General Medical Council. 2007. Valuing diversity Guide-General Principles of Anti-Discrimination Legislation, http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/valuing_diversity_anti_discrimination.asp. Accessed 11 March 2010.
    • Gombrich, Richard. 2000. British Higher Education Policy in the last Twenty Years: The Murder of a Profession. http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/papers/LHCE/uk-higher-education.html 28th January 2000
    • Katznelson, Ira. 2005. When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth Century America. NY: W.W.Norton & Co.
    • Maher, Frances A. and Tetreault, Mary K.T. 2007. Privilege and Diversity in the Academy. New York: Routledge.
    • Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    • Martin, J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.) Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction ofDiscourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142-75.
    • Rogers, Ibram. 2009. On the American Black Campus Movement in 1968. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. 21:4. 464-473.
    • Scott, M . 1996. Wordsmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Stubbs, M . 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • Sauntson, Helen and Morrish, Liz. 2010. Vision, values and international excellence: The 'products' that university mission statements sell to students. In Molesworth Mike, Nixon, Elizabeth and Scullion, Richard (Eds). The Marketisation of UK Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. London: Routledge.
    • Tapia, Richard A . 2007. True Diversity Doesn't Come from Abroad. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 54:5. B34.
    • Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    • Tuchman, G. 2009. Wannabe U: Inside the Corporate University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Urciuoli, Bonnie. 2003. Excellence, leadership, skills, diversity: marketing liberal arts education Language and Communication. 23. 3-4. 385-408
    • Urciuoli, Bonnie. 2000. Strategically deployable shifters in college marketing, or just what do they mean by 'skills' and 'leadership' and 'multiculturalism' ? Language and Culture Symposium 6. http://language-culture.binghampton.edU/symposia/6/index.html
    • Woog, Dan. 2008. What Affirmative Action and Inclusion Mean to Workers, http://career-advice.monster.com/job-search-essentials/diversity-inclusion/
    • Zuiches, James J. & The N . C . State Community Engagement Task Force. 2008. Attaining Carnegie's Community Engagement Classification. Change. January/February 2008, 42-45
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article