Multilingual Communication on the Social Media Accounts of the University of Eastern Finland

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Philosophical Faculty

School of Humanities

Foreign Languages and Translation Studies English Language and Translation

Emma Elina Kemppainen

Multilingual Communication on the Social Media Accounts of the University of Eastern Finland

MA thesis June 2021

(2)

University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty School of Humanities

English Language and Translation

Kemppainen, Emma E.: Multilingual Communication on the Social Media Accounts of the University of Eastern Finland

MA Thesis, 66 pages, 1 appendix (1 page) June 2021

Keywords: social media, multilingual communication, institutional communication, science communication

This study investigates the role of multilingual communication on the social media accounts of the University of Eastern Finland. More specifically, the aim is to analyze the role of different languages and in the ways which multilingual communication is visible on the accounts. This study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

Multilingual communication can be defined as “the use of several languages for the common purpose of participants” (House & Rehbein, 2004: 1). One form of multilingual communication is codeswitching, which can be defined as the act of “switching between different languages or dialects” (Kelly-Holmes, 2005: 10). In Finnish universities, there seems to be an obvious need for multilingual communication due to the internationalization of the Finnish academic world (Solin & Pienimäki, 2020).

The University of Eastern Finland’s (UEF) social media accounts in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were selected as the research material due to the visibility of several languages on the accounts. After preliminary inspection it was evident, that at least two languages were used consistently on the accounts. Because multilingual communication was visible in the accounts, the material would provide insights into the role of multilingual communication and use of different languages.

The analysis of the multilingual communication revealed that both Finnish and English have a clear role on the accounts, as 66 % of the posts on the social media accounts included the use of Finnish and 40 % the use of English. Other languages, Karelian and Portuguese, were both utilized only on one occasion each. The role of multilingual communication was studied not only by the amount of the use of different languages, but on the aspect of these languages’ utilization simultaneously in one published content.

When analyzing this aspect, it became apparent that only minority of the content used several languages simultaneously, as only approximately 16 % of content was multilingual in this sense. It can be concluded from the results of this study that the social media communication of UEF relies heavily on Finnish and English, but Finnish is the main language of communication. In addition, while only a minority of the published content used several languages simultaneously, the social media communication of UEF is multilingual in the sense that it utilizes several languages continuously in its communication.

(3)

Itä-Suomen yliopisto, Filosofinen tiedekunta Humanistinen laitos

Englannin kieli ja kääntäminen

Kemppainen, Emma E.: Multilingual Communication on the Social Media Accounts of the University of Eastern Finland

Pro gradu -tutkielma, 66 sivua, 1 liite (1 sivu) Kesäkuu 2021

Asiasanat: sosiaalinen media, monikielinen viestintä, organisaatioviestintä, tiedeviestintä

Tämä tutkimus tarkastelee monikielisen viestinnän roolia Itä-Suomen yliopiston sosiaalisen median tileillä. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on analysoida eri kielien roolia ja selvittää, millä tavoin monikielinen viestintä on tileillä näkyvissä. Tämä tutkimus hyödyntää sekä kvantitatiivisia että kvalitatiivisia tutkimusmetodeja.

House ja Rehbein (2004: 1) määrittelevät monikielisen viestinnän olevan useiden kielten käyttämistä osanottajien yhteisen päämäärän saavuttamiseksi. Yksi monikielisen viestinnän muoto on koodinvaihto, jonka Kelly-Holmes (2005: 10) määrittää olevan vaihtamista eri kielten tai dialektien välillä.

Suomalaisissa yliopistoissa näyttää olevan selvä tarve monikieliselle viestinnälle, koska suomalaisesta yliopistomaailmasta on tulossa yhä kansainvälisempi (Solin & Pienimäki, 2020).

Itä-Suomen yliopiston sosiaalisen median tilit Facebookissa, Instagramissa ja Twitterissä valikoituivat tämän tutkimuksen tutkimusmateriaaliksi, koska useiden kielien käyttö on niissä selkeästi näkyvissä.

Alkukartoituksen jälkeen oli selvää, että tileillä käytetään vähintään kahta kieltä säännöllisesti. Koska monikielinen viestintä oli tileillä näkyvissä, tästä materiaalista on mahdollista saada tietoa monikielisen viestinnän roolista ja eri kielten käytöstä.

Monikielisen viestinnän analyysi paljasti, että sekä suomen että englannin kielellä oli selvä rooli tileillä, sillä 66% julkaisuista sisälsi suomea ja 40% englantia. Tileillä käytettiin ainoastaan kahta muuta kieltä, karjalaa ja portugalia, joista kumpaakin vain kerran yhdessä julkaisussa. Monikielisen viestinnän roolia tarkasteltiin kielien käyttömäärän lisäksi myös toisesta näkökulmasta, eli kielten yhtäaikaisesta käytöstä yhdessä julkaistussa sisällössä. Tämän näkökulman tutkiminen paljasti, että vain vähemmistössä sisällöistä käytettiin useaa kieltä yhtä aikaa, sillä vain noin 16% sisällöistä oli monikielisiä. Tämän tutkimuksen tuloksista voi päätellä, että Itä-Suomen yliopiston sosiaalisen median tilien viestinnässä suositaan selkeästi suomea ja englantia, ja näistä suomen kieli on selkeästi viestinnän pääkieli. Lisäksi, vaikka vain vähemmistössä sisällöistä käytettiin useaa kieltä yhtä aikaa, Itä-Suomen yliopiston sosiaalisen median viestintä on silti monikielistä siinä mielessä, että siinä käytetään jatkuvasti useita kieliä.

(4)

1. Introduction

The topic of this MA thesis is the use of multilingual communication on the social media accounts of the University of Eastern Finland. More specifically, this study focuses on the visibility of different languages and in what ways multilingual communication is utilized.

In Finland, the use of social media by institutions has grown clearly in the 2010’s. While in 2013 38 % of institutions used social media, the number was 63 % by 2017 (Official Statistics of Finland, 2013, 2017a).

Institutions use social media, for example, for marketing and recruitment purposes as well as for promoting their image, and for receiving opinions, evaluations, and questions from their customers (Official Statistics of Finland, 2017a). The objective for the use of social media as a part of institution’s communication is to reach their target groups and potential customers (Muurinen, 2013). Social media also enables reaching large target groups since, for example, in 2018 61 % of Finns between the ages of 16–89 used social media (Official Statistics of Finland, 2018a).

As the use of social media as a part of institutional communication grows, so does the need for understanding the role that social media plays in institutional communication. For example, University of Eastern Finland utilizes social media to spread awareness about their activities and events and to create a positive image of the university (Pitkänen, 2014). Institutions can also encourage their employees to be active on social media, as the University of Helsinki does to “promote a worldview based on science” (University of Helsinki, 2021).

Multilingual communication can be defined as “the use of several languages for the common purpose of participants”(House & Rehbein, 2004: 1). Multilingual communication has been studied to some extent from different perspectives, such as internal communication in a multilingual workplace (Karppinen, 2012) and multilingualism in marketing web communication of a business (Pajunen, 2012). Moilanen (2015), on the other hand, explored the language choices and translation needs in institutions’ use of social media. There are also studies which focus on the role of social media in institutional communication (see e.g., Huisman, 2011; Tauriainen, 2017; Oja-Leikas, 2017). The studies by Tauriainen (2017) and Oja-Leikas (2017) focus on the social media communication of Finnish universities through their Twitter and Instagram channels, respectively.

One form of multilingual communication is codeswitching, which can be defined as the act of “switching between different languages or dialects” (Kelly-Holmes, 2005: 10). According to Androutsopoulos (2013:

(7)

2

673), codeswitching in online communication has been studied to some extent, mainly in the setting of traditional online communication, such as email, with few studies on web-based modes, such as discussion forums, and there is hardly any research on media sharing sites and profile pages.

Androutsopoulos (2013: 688) suggests that codeswitching in online communication should be studied from the viewpoint of the use of codeswitching as a resource of online communication.

When looking at Finnish universities, there seems to be an obvious need for multilingual communication due to several factors. The number of foreign students in Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences has increased steadily from 2001 to 2016, until in 2017 the implementation of annual tuition fees for foreign students from outside EU and EEA caused the numbers to decrease (Maxenius, 2020: 4).

In 2017 nearly seven percent of university degrees were attained by foreign students, and in 2018 the amount was up to eight percent, and it remained the same in 2019 (Official Statistics of Finland, 2017b, 2018b, 2019a). In addition, the number of new students from foreign countries in Finnish universities has increased: in 2018 the number increased by nearly a fifth, and of all new university students, students from foreign countries comprised 10 %, and it remained approximately the same in 2019 keeping the number at approximately 2 600 (Official Statistics of Finland, 2018b, 2019a). In 2019, there were 10 544 foreign students in Finnish universities, while in 2009 the number was just 6 984 (Official Statistics of Finland, 2019b; Statistics Finland, n.d.).

Institutes of higher education are encouraged to establish education programs in English to attract international students (Solin & Pienimäki, 2020). In addition to the portion of foreign students increasing in the Finnish higher education, the Finnish university world is becoming more international also due the increase in the portion of international staff (ibid.). Because the Finnish academic world is becoming more international, the need for multilingual communication is emphasized, which can be seen in the increase of multilingual online communication (ibid.).

The topic of this research is multilingual communication in institutional use of social media, or, more specifically, how it is visible in the social media accounts of the University of Eastern Finland. As presented, there are some studies on the topics of social media and multilingual communication as a part of an institutions’ communication, and on codeswitching in online communication. However, there are, to my knowledge, very few studies which focus on the multilingual aspect of the use of social media in institutional communication. This thesis aims to provide more information on this aspect as multilingual communication on social media seems to be becoming more common.

(8)

3

The data for this study consists of social media posts published by the University of Eastern Finland on their official Facebook (Itä-Suomen yliopisto - University of Eastern Finland (UEF)), Instagram (@uniuef), and Twitter (@UniEastFinland) accounts in 2019. The data was collected from three different social media accounts from three different platforms to provide more extensive information on the use of languages. As the research material is collected from the Internet, research ethics of this type of research material collection need to be considered, which will be discussed in more detail in the section 4.1.

This study is conducted by using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative methods are used to provide numeral data on the use of different languages and how common they are, and to determine how common different multilingual contents are. Qualitative methods are used to decipher the differences in multilingual content and to describe the role of multilingual communication.

Thus, the aim of this thesis is to answer to the following research questions:

1. Which languages are used on the social media accounts of the University of Eastern Finland and what are the most common languages?

2. What is the role and extent of multilingual communication?

3. How are languages used in multilingual content and what differences there are in multilingual content?

This thesis is structured as follows. The theoretical background related to this research is introduced in two sections. First, different concepts of communication, including multilingual communication, are discussed in section 2, and section 3 introduces different aspects of social media and the use of social media in institutional communication. Section 4 focuses on the ethics related to Internet research and introduces the research material and methods used for this research. Section 5 focuses on the analysis of the material, first by introducing the different social media accounts of the University of Eastern Finland and their content, and then by focusing on the multilingual content of the accounts. After the analysis, results of the research are presented in section 6. The final chapter contains the conclusion of this thesis with possibilities for future research.

(9)

4

2. Communication

This chapter will give a general introduction to the term communication and introduce the concepts of multilingual communication, codeswitching, institutional communication, and science communication.

2.1. Definitions of communication

Communication can be defined simply as sharing (Carey 1994; in Karvonen 2014: 56). Communication is based on interaction regardless of the media or era of interaction, and in nature it is social and diverse (Östman et al 2013: 17). Rayudu (2010: 3–4) notes that the nature of communication is in interaction and exchange of messages, and it is a two-way process since it consists of both transmission and reception of information. Rayudu (ibid.: 2) describes communication as a process, in which individuals or institutions exchange facts, ideas, and opinions to “share meaning and understanding with one other.”

The communication process involves “the sorting, selecting and sending of symbols”, such as words, actions, or pictures, in a way that helps “the listener perceive and recreate” the meaning the communicator wants to convey (ibid.: 2–3). In other words, communication is a way to transfer information and it “involves the creation of meaning in the listener” (ibid.: 2). As “the purpose of communication is to make others understand” messages and act accordingly, communication is effective when the communicator and listener have a shared understanding of the content of the message (ibid.: 4). Furthermore, there is no communication if the meaning of the message is not understood when it is conveyed from the communicator to the listener, however communication still takes place even if the listener does not agree with or accept the information.

Communication utilizes both verbal and written media to transmit messages (Rayudu, 2010: 3). Verbal media consists of, for example, face-to-face conversations, lectures, interviews, and telephone, while written media can consist of instructions, letters, reports, or publications (ibid.: 3–4). Communication can take place, for example, on newspaper message boards or through radio or television (Östman et al.

2013: 17).

2.2. Multilingual communication

Multilingual communication has become a universal phenomenon due to the increase in international migration processes and the fast development of technologies in international communication, which leads to the increase of “interrelations between individuals, groups, institutions and societies who use

(10)

5

different languages” (House & Rehbein, 2004: 1). House and Rehbein (2004: 1) give general characteristics to the term multilingual communication, which are:

o The use of several languages for the common purpose of participants.

o Multilingual individuals who use language(s) to realize these purposes.

o The different language systems which interact for these purposes.

o Multilingual communication structures, whose purposes make individuals use several languages.

Multilingual communication includes both written and spoken communication in several languages. House and Rehbein (2004: 2) argue that “[m]ultilingual communication is dependent on the interaction of the languages involved, participants’ multilingual skills, and the mode in which language is being used.” Kelly-Holmes (2005: 25) defines multilingual communication as “the appearance of a number of different languages or voices” in a certain kind of discourse situation, such as text, and the appearance can vary from minimal to extensive by consisting of only one word or of an entire block of text. Lee (2016: 119) defines multilingualism as “the co-existence of two or more languages […] in any communicative context.” The definitions by Kelly-Holmes (2005) and Lee (2016) are similar to the first generalization of multilingual communication by House and Rehbein (2004) in that they refer to multilingual communication as the presence of several languages in one communicative situation.

In this thesis, multilingual communication refers to the act of using several languages to distribute information, and the use of several languages can be visible on different levels from minimal to extensive. In other words, multilingual communication consists of the use of several languages either in overlap with each other, or separately by sharing different messages in different languages.

According to House and Rehbein (2004: 1), in multilingual communication it is common to “[promote]

the adoption of a lingua franca”. In the academic world, the lingua franca is generally the English language (see e.g., Bennett, 2013; Mauranen, Hynninen & Ranta, 2016). According to Lee (2016: 120), English can also be perceived as the lingua franca in online communication of multilinguals. Danet and Herring (2007: 3–4) note that the spread of English can be viewed as a natural extension of globalization and Internet can be seen as a new arena for the spread of world English, as over 50 per cent of webpages in 2002 were in English even though in 2003 (CyberAtlas, 2003: in ibid.: 4) it was determined that only roughly one-third of Internet users were native speakers of English. This indicates that English can be viewed to have a dominant position in Internet communication. Danet and Herring (2007: 20) bring forward that the “languages used online form global and regional hierarchies, with English at the top, followed by important regional languages, and finally […] user’s local languages.” In the Finnish

(11)

6

context, the important regional languages could be considered to be Finnish and Swedish, as they are Finland’s official languages. English is used online as a tool for broader communication as Internet has

“facilitated interaction among participants in multilingual nations, regions” and worldwide, which

“further strengthens the global position of English” both online and offline (ibid.: 22).

Multilingualism on the Internet is visible in the practices of multilingual Internet users and in the ways they utilize the resources of several languages in their online communication (Leppänen & Peuronen, 2012: 385). Lee (2016: 126) presents, that the multilingual Internet has provided web users possibilities to participate in multiple conversations in several languages. Leppänen and Peuronen (2012: 388) note, that while English is often seen as the major language of Internet, most Internet users “are non-native speakers of English”, and they use English as a resource for different purposes and together with other languages. The reasons for multilingual communication on the Internet derive from different factors, such as not having a shared language, “official or group-specific language polic[ies]”, or semiotic strategies, in which the aim is to distinguish oneself, create a stylistic or cultural effect, or transmit identities (ibid.: 389—390). Internet can be described as “a translocal affinity space” where Internet users of different backgrounds and language proficiencies can come together, creating “a linguistic contact zone in which multilingual resources and repertoires” can be crucial for successful communication (ibid.: 389). The technologies of Web 2.0 and social media have further encouraged and strengthened multilingualism in online encounters through their self-generated contents (Lee, 2016:

119).

2.2.1. Codeswitching

A broad definition of codeswitching is the ability of bilinguals to switch fluently between two languages (Bullock & Toribio, 2009: 1). Codeswitching can also refer to the act of “switching between different languages or dialects” (Kelly-Holmes, 2005: 10). Gardner-Chloros (2009: 4) introduces a similar definition of codeswitching as “the use of several languages or dialects in the same conversation or sentence by bilingual people.” Jake and Myers-Scotton (2009: 207) define codeswitching as “language use that consists of material from [at least two languages] at any level from the discourse to the clause.” Bullock and Toribio (2009: 2) have gathered a list of some of the characteristics of codeswitching:

o [The linguistic manifestation of codeswitching] may extend from the insertion of single words to the alternation of languages for larger segments of discourse.

(12)

7

o [Codeswitching] is produced by bilinguals of differing degrees of proficiency who reside in various types of language contact settings, and as a consequence their [codeswitching] patterns may not be uniform.

o [Codeswitching] may be deployed for a number of reasons: filling linguistic gaps, expressing ethnic identity, and achieving particular discursive aims, among others.

For this thesis, codeswitching is defined as the act of using at least two languages in one discourse situation, i.e., in one published textual content. This definition is derived from the definitions presented by Gardner-Chloros (2009) and Jake and Myers-Scotton (2009), as well as from the characteristics of codeswitching presented by Bullock and Toribio (2009). Codeswitching in this study does not, however, include multilingual contents, which have the same textual content available in at least two languages.

In other words, codeswitching occurs when the published textual content comprises of at least two languages, but none of the textual content is available in both languages. Examples of codeswitches featured in this study are presented below (codeswitches in bold):

o So, let’s see what will happen this week. Kiitos.

o I learned this word in Portuguese: saudade. It has no direct translation in English language.

o Maistuisiko sen kunniaksi šipainiekku tai riissupyöröi vai sittenkin ehkä rastavantiähti?

While codeswitching has been mainly studied in speech, it does also occur in writing (Lin & Li, 2012:

470). Codeswitching can be found in online communication as it is a linguistic practice commonly used among multilingual people (Androutsopoulos, 2013: 667). According to Callahan (2004: 94; in ibid.: 667), written codeswitching in non-fiction is most apparent in advertising and journalistic writing. The nature of online communication has challenged the view of spoken communication as essential site of codeswitching, because in online communication there is a lack of visual channels as well as a temporal gap between inputs (Androutsopoulos, 2013: 667). In other words, online communication does not generally provide visual clues to the speaker’s intentions, and it takes more time for the communicators to provide their input to the ongoing conversation than in face-to-face communication. This leads to the alteration and restriction of “dimensions of the interactional co-construction of meaning” (ibid.: 670). To manage these limitations, users have established the use of “turn-taking signals and linguistic innovations such as emoticons and laughter acronyms” (ibid.: 670).

Codeswitching affects essentially everyone in contact with at least two languages, at least to some degree (Gardner-Chloros, 2009: 4). According to Gumberz (1996: in Kelly Holmes, 2005: 10),

(13)

8

codeswitching takes place in one event, and it can occur for multiple reasons. Codeswitching can occur, for example, to include speakers of different languages, greet them, or “mark, assert or adopt an ethnic or regional identity” (Kelly-Holmes, 2005: 10–11). Codeswitching can also occur in situations, where there is no word-for-word translation for certain concepts, or languages are mixed to express “the exact semantic message the speaker wishes to convey” (Altarriba & Basnight-Brown, 2009: 4). Codeswitching in online communications can be found in, for example, emails and forum discussions (Androutsopoulos, 2013: 667). It can be either conversational (several people contribute their input), or non-conversational (the input is published and edited by a single author) (ibid.: 671). Lee (2016: 123–126) presents that codeswitching in online communications is used for “self-presentation and identity performance” and for “impression and relationship management.” Androutsopoulos (2013: 680–681) has listed discourse functions of codeswitching in computer-mediated communication, which include, for example:

o [S]witching for formulaic discourse purposes, including greetings, farewells, and good wishes.

o [S]witching in order to perform culturally-specific genres such as poetry or joketelling [sic].

o [S]witching to convey reported speech (as opposed to the writer’s own speech).

o [S]witching with repetition of an utterance for emphatic purposes.

2.3. Institutional communication

Institutions include different types of corporations and organizations such as banks and universities (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Institutional communication can be divided into internal and external communication (Rayudu, 2010: 3). Internal communication can be formal or informal and its direction in an institution can differ from vertical to horizontal, and diagonal to across (ibid.: 3). External communication, on the other hand, consists of the “transmission of messages outside the [institution]”

with, for example, customers, the general public, or investors (ibid.: 3). The aim of internal communication is to perform managerial functions, such as planning and direction, while the aim of external communication is to promote goodwill with the public (ibid.: 3).

ProCom – The Finnish Association of Communication Professionals (2017) has listed the tasks of institutional communication:

o Giving meaning and making visible

o Affirmation of communality and development of culture o Target-oriented and interactive strategy work

o Sounding, interpretation and reacting

o Contents, structure, and networks of communication

(14)

9

The aim of institutional communication is to bring visibility through interaction and networking.

Karvonen (2014: 73) reports that institutional communication focuses on building reality by considering the effects of communication. Institutions do not wish to publish information which could harm their reputation or brand and the building of brands requires the execution of the shared basic message of the institution in unison (ibid.).

2.3.1. Multilingual communication in institutions

Multilingual communication of institutions can be compared to, at least on some level, to the language use and choices of advertising. Institutions use multilingual communication to reach the different target groups, and in advertising language choices are done with the same goal in mind. Language choices in both institutional communication and advertising are in some sense commercially driven discourses, and in these discourses the use of certain language(s) is rarely random and done with some goal in mind (Kelly-Holmes 2005: 8). While this commercial nature is evidently more apparent in advertising, it can be said that also institutions, like universities, aim to use multilingual communication to promote their activities and to reach prospective funders.

House and Rehbein (2004: 5) discuss the concept of multilingual communication in institutions, which include, for example, schools and universities. They claim that monolingual communication is rare in institutional communication due to “the nature of institutions and the fact that numerous people participate in institutional communication worldwide” (ibid.). In addition, the existing linguistic variations of the clientele “increasingly demand that institutional representatives act in multilingual fashion” (ibid.). According to House and Rehbein (ibid.), the communication in institutions is structured

“by determining the sequences of more comprehensive communicative units.” They also divide the actors inside institutions “into representatives, agents, and users or clients of the institution” (ibid.). For example, universities may decide to use multilingual communication when the actors in the universities (administrators, teachers, professors, and students) use several languages and linguistic variations. Due to the diversity of actors in the university, multilingual communication is needed to reach the different (language) groups.

In the context of Finnish universities, the issue of multilingualism has been considered previously from the aspect of the supply of education in both Finnish and Swedish languages, but in the 21^st century the focus shifted to the role of English as the language of research and higher education (Solin & Pienimäki, 2020). The most common working languages of Finnish universities are Finnish, Swedish, and English,

(15)

10

and the language strategies of Finnish universities highlight multilingualism and internationality of education and research (Pyykkö, 2017: 57–58). Institutes of higher education are encouraged to establish education programs in English to attract international students, while also the portion of international staff is on the increase (Solin & Pienimäki, 2020). Because the Finnish university world is becoming more international, the need for multilingual communication is emphasized, which can be seen in the increase of multilingual online communication (ibid.).

2.4. Academic communication

Academic communication is an umbrella term which consists of scholarly communication and public communication (Karvonen, 2014: 77). Scholarly communication covers academic communication between researchers, while public communication covers the popular communication aimed to a larger audience (ibid.). Similar view is presented by The Committee for Public Information in Finland (TJNK) (2013: 2), which defines research communication as internal and external communication of information and research results received through research. According to Karvonen (2014: 67), the division of science communication into internal and external communication is problematic because it does not take into consideration the different academic audiences, which move from the intraspecific to the popular level.

TJNK (2013: 2) describes academic communication as a general concept which encompasses the concepts of internal communication of a discipline, communication between disciplines and experts, communication in teaching and continuous education, and popularized communication. Karvonen (2014: 54) presents academic communication similarly as a continuum, which starts from internal science communication, proceeds to interdisciplinary and educational communication, and ends at popular communication. Karvonen (ibid.: 76) describes this continuum of academic communication through its audiences. The audience can consist of experts in the same discipline (intraspecific communication), experts in other disciplines (interspecific communication), students (pedagogical communication), or a larger audience (popular science communication) (ibid.). This is illustrated below in Figure 1:

(16)

11

Academic communication can take place in multiple channels and forms and reach different audiences (TJNK, 2013: 2). Karvonen (2014: 54) highlights that suitably popularized academic communication, which takes into consideration the audiences’ need for information and level of knowledge, shares knowledge to help different audiences to solve problems, fix flaws, and succeed in their activities. The different forms of academic communication (intraspecific, interspecific, pedagogical, popular) can be viewed as levels, which filter scientific information to the next level (ibid.: 76–77). This is also demonstrated in Figure 1. Traditionally, scientific information surfaces first on the intraspecific level from which the most relevant results are conveyed to the interspecific level (ibid.: 77) When the information has gained sufficient support, it can be included in textbooks at the pedagogical level, from where it can gain enough interest to be presented in media at the popular level (ibid.). This model does not, however, happen in linear order, as, for example, a researcher can speak directly to media or to a larger audience (ibid.). In addition, the communication is multidirectional interaction between different levels (ibid.).

In the Finnish Universities Act (Yliopistolaki 558/2009 2 §), the mission of universities is defined as:

1. The mission of the universities is to promote independent academic research as well as academic and artistic education, to provide research-based higher education and to educate students to serve their country and humanity at large. In carrying out their mission, the universities shall promote lifelong learning, interact with the surrounding society and promote the social impact of university research findings and artistic activities.

2. The universities shall arrange their activities so as to ensure a high international standard in research, artistic activities, education and tuition in conformity with research integrity.

Intraspecific level

Interspecific level

Pedagogical level

Popular level

Figure 1. Continuum model of academic communication (Original form by Bucchi (1998, 2008; in Karvonen, 2014: 77))

(17)

12

Because universities must interact with the surrounding society, communication is an important aspect of the implementation of this task. Universities use academic communication to create a public image and to add credibility to science and research (Heinonen & Raevaara, 2012: 3). Universities often have their own communication services or units, which are responsible for the advancement and planning of communication, marketing communication, social media, and academic communication (Tauriainen, 2017: 23). However, also individual researchers can use academic communication to bring forward the main points of their research and to help popularize their research to carry out the third task of Finnish universities: interaction with the surrounding society and advancement of the impact of research results (Heinonen & Raevaara, 2012: 5,7).

As introduced, the third task of Finnish universities, along with research and teaching, is to interact with and impact the surrounding society (Karvonen, 2014: 53). This means that universities do not only describe reality, but they also produce it by helping different sectors to develop and produce better reality (ibid.). This third task can also include dialogic academic communication with the surrounding society (ibid.: 54). Karvonen (ibid.) points out that communication with different sectors of society directly or through media represents performing this third task in its purest form.

Universities can be seen to be guided by performance-based management of institutions, which means that they are observed through their profitability and effectiveness (Karvonen, 2014: 67). This has led to the increase of effectiveness and internationality (ibid.). Kaukonen (2004: 69) states that universities are bound to materialistic and mental terms of trade with the surrounding society, in which universities produce examinations, research information, and education and research services to the society in exchange for resources, institutional status, respect, and certain freedoms. Karvonen (2014: 68) presents that value of universities is based on their marketing value, which means that the most essential factor is their competitiveness and whether they can be better than other universities. This can be linked to academic reputation or brand which can be utilized in attracting new students and researchers (ibid.).

(18)

13

3. Social media

In this chapter, the concept of social media is introduced through its various definitions and characteristics along with the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Lastly, there will be an overview of the use of social media in institutional communication.

3.1. Definitions of social media

The term social media can refer to various phenomena (Pönkä, 2014: 11). The term originated in 2007 from the development of Web 2.0 and its online services, such as Facebook and Twitter, which are based on interaction and networking (ibid.: 9). As a temporal stage of development of Internet, the term refers to the global phenomenon between years 2004 and 2007, when several social media services were established and their use quickly gained popularity (ibid.: 11). The term social media can be used to refer to the change taking place online: the use of Internet shifted from the browsing of different websites to become more social by centering around contents which are shared between users, making users take a more active role as conveyers and participators (ibid.: 9).

Lietsala and Sirkkunen (2008: 17) propose that social media is used as an umbrella term as it “does not have a strictly defined meaning.” Östman et al. (2013: 15) note that social media is a general concept referring to nearly any type of online service which enables users to share content or interact with each other. According to Pönkä (2014: 11), social media can refer to all Internet services, which include some aspect of ‘social’. The term social media can also refer to digital and multimodal communication (Östman et al., 2013: 17).

Kortesuo (2018: 15) introduces a definition that presents social media as consisting of a triangle which brings together technology, communities, and contents, but she also deems that this is an outdated definition. Thus, Kortesuo (ibid.: 16) produced her own definition of social media as communication which takes place in a data network and is based on a commonly available application or program on which any sender can publish their messages to anyone in the same network and the receiver can share or comment these contents. The definition of Kortesuo (ibid.) contains the notion of technology in the aspect of data networks which transport social media contents, and in the aspect of the application or program that is meant for public use. Kortesuo (ibid.: 17) also includes the notions of community and content in her definition by outlining the essentiality of a wall or page provided by social media platforms on which different contents and messages are gathered (e.g., Facebook wall, Twitter profile),

(19)

14

and by highlighting the aspect of sharing and commenting contents, which is what makes social media social. Isotalus et al. (2018: 13–14) present a similar but more concise definition as they define social media as data networks which highlight the activity of users.

Even though the term social media is used often, its meaning can vary depending on the context (Östman et al., 2013: 13). In addition, different types of social media practices continue to develop rapidly, and many social media sites overlap, which complicates defining what exactly is social media (Lietsala & Sirkkunen, 2008: 162). As Östman et al. (2013: 15) present, instead of compiling a strict definition, it could be more useful to inspect social media through its characteristics and platforms. In general, the term social media emphasizes the reciprocal interaction of users, sense of community, content creation and sharing, along with continuous development (ibid.: 135, 290).

3.2. Characteristics of social media

Social media can be described by different characteristics, which separate it from other forms of media.

The characteristics often attached to social media include the production and sharing of content through different online platforms, participation and interaction, social networks, and continuous development.

Firstly, a characteristic of social media is producing content (Landert, 2017: 31). This is also referenced by Kortesuo (2010: 12), who states that characteristics of social media include communication and co- creation. This is also evident in Isotalus et al. (2018: 14), as they note that social media users become active content creators, which leads to the terminological change from audience to users. This is referenced also by Pönkä (2014: 29), as he states that one of the major changes social media has brought is that it made Internet users active content creators.

Secondly, sharing content through online platforms is another characteristic, which according to Lietsala and Sirkkunen (2008: 19) is an important part of social media. Östman et al. (2013: 13) also emphasize the content sharing aspect of social media as the use of the term social media often refers to the active role of the Internet user.

The users of different platforms can generate (user-generated content, UGC) or create (user-created content, UCC) content themselves or convey someone else’s content (user-driven content, UDC) and share it to different audiences (Östman et al., 2013: 19–20). The shared content can be public or private depending on the platform and privacy settings. As Lietsala and Sirkkunen (2008: 20) present, the

(20)

15

content can be public to anyone who can access the social media platform (e.g., Wikipedia) or only to the social network of people that have been invited to see the content (e.g., private Instagram accounts).

Thirdly, characteristics of social media include participation and interaction. Landert (2017: 31) notes that through social media there is “potential for users to participate in interaction.” Kortesuo (2010: 12) also presents a similar notion that the core of social media is in interactivity. There is a significant difference in the direction of communication when social media is compared to traditional mass media, because in traditional mass media “communication is typically unidirectional from a professional text producer to a large anonymous mass audience” but social media enables multidirectional communication between any number of other social media users (ibid.). Isotalus et al. (2018: 14) also highlight that one of the characteristics of social media is that communication is dispersed and non- regulated, in contrast to the regulations of traditional media. The view of multidirectional communication is also apparent in Lietsala and Sirkkunen (2008: 17), as they describe the core of social media to be “more or less in ‘one to few’ or ‘one to many’ types of communication practices.”

Fourthly, social networks are a characteristic of social media. They refer to the online connections people make, and which are visible on the social media platforms (Lietsala & Sirkkunen, 2008: 20). These social networks can be visible on the platforms in different ways, such as by linking profiles together (e.g., friends on Facebook, following accounts) or by taking part in an online conversation (e.g., Facebook groups, online chats, blogs) (ibid.). The importance of social networks has been immense in interaction and the sharing of website links between users, and they are an example on the forms of sociality found on the Internet (Pönkä, 2014: 11). The notion of networks and interactivity is also apparent in Isotalus et al. (2018: 14), since they note that the basis of social media is the interactivity between users.

Finally, continuous development is seen as a characteristic of social media as the applications and services are not designed to be completed at once (Östman et al., 2013: 290). Instead, the services change over time, when users, investors, and developers interact with each other about their different perceptions (ibid.). The development process can be seen as an evolution or metamorphosis, since even established services change continuously by altering the services they offer (ibid.). This is done by attempting to utilize the best features of competitors by adapting them onto their own services (ibid.).

This can be seen, for example, in the adaptation of the stories feature to different social media

(21)

16

platforms. The stories feature enables users to easily create and share full-screen visual narratives which can be viewed for 24 hours (Sumner, n.d.). The feature was originally introduced in Snapchat in 2013, from which it was adapted to Instagram in 2016, and to WhatsApp and Facebook in 2017 (Sumner, n.d.).

3.3. Social media platforms

Social media can be divided into different types of platforms. These platforms include, for example, virtual worlds, message boards, blogs, microblogs, content sharing or creation sites, and social network sites. The relevant platforms for this thesis are social network site Facebook, content sharing site Instagram, and microblog Twitter.

Lietsala and Sirkkunen (2008: 24) have compiled five main characteristics of social media platforms:

1. There is a space to share content.

2. Participants in this space create, share or evaluate all or most of the content themselves.

3. It is based on social interaction.

4. All content has an URL to link it to the external networks.

5. All actively participating members of the site have their own profile page to link to other people, to the content, to the platform itself and to the possible applications.

Typical characteristics of social network sites include public or semi-public user profiles and the visibility of the users’ social networks (Lietsala & Sirkkunen, 2008: 47). Social media users have their own accounts, which enable them to share content and interact with other users of the social media platform (ibid.: 22). The users can also categorize their content with, for example, hashtags (#-sign) which are used as keywords to ease the search of the content from the same category (ibid.). Social media users can also link different platforms together. For example, users can use the image hosting service Flickr to store their pictures, but they might not utilize the service’s social networking opportunities, and instead they might share the stored content to another social networking site, such as Facebook, to build their social networks (ibid.: 162). As presented, different platforms are not mutually exclusive but same users can use several platforms, for example, both Facebook and Flickr (Östman et al., 2013: 276).

3.3.1. Facebook

Facebook is the most popular social media service in the world (Pönkä, 2014: 84; Mohsin, 2021; Iqbal, 2021). It was established in 2005 (Pönkä, 2014: 84), and in Finland the use of Facebook became more common in 2007 (Östman et al., 2013: 128). In 2020, Facebook was the most used social media service in Finland (Official Statistics of Finland, 2020).

(22)

17

Facebook is based on user created content and the sharing of pictures, videos and weblinks, and users can view the content created by their friends (Pönkä, 2014: 84). Facebook can also be used by institutions, since in 2007 Facebook established the ability to create sites, which allows institutions to interact with their clients (ibid.: 91). On Facebook, users can create groups for different purposes and invite their friends to join them (ibid.: 94). The groups have different privacy setting options: public (everyone can see the group, its members, and contents), closed (everyone can find the group and see its members, but only members can see its contents), and secret (only members can find the group and see its contents) (ibid.: 96).

The main characteristics of Facebook include the users’ profile pages and the ability to follow the content published by the users’ contacts (Pönkä, 2014: 84). Originally, Facebook allowed only reciprocal friend contacts, which were based on friend requests made by users and their acceptation, but since 2011 Facebook has made public profiles available, which lead to the ability to follow the content of these profiles without reciprocal friend contacts (ibid.).

The social networks are visible on the Facebook feed or wall of the user, because on there it is visible what other users have done on the site or posted to the user’s own wall (Lietsala & Sirkkunen, 2008: 49).

The feed is the front page of the site and on there the news flow of the contents of their friends or other people they follow is displayed (Pönkä, 2014: 84). The wall is the user’s profile page, and it shows their own status updates (ibid.). Since 2011, the wall has been referred to as timeline, on which users can add different life events and where user’s friends can publish their messages (ibid.: 87). The difference between the feed and the wall or timeline is that the feed shows what everyone on the user’s social network have done, for example published a video (Lietsala &Sirkkunen, 2008: 49). The timeline in turn shows what the user has published and what others have published directly to the user (ibid.). Users can comment and like different contents, which may lead to the content being shown also to the friends of the user (Pönkä, 2014: 84). Users can choose different options of who can view the content they publish (ibid.: 87). The content can be public (everyone can see it), for friends (only friends of the user and mentioned users can see it), for only the user (only the user can see it), or for customized audience (selected friends can see it) (ibid.).

3.3.2. Instagram

Instagram is an image service established in 2010 which was bought by Facebook in 2012 (Östman et al., 2013: 250). Instagram is an application and social media service designed for smart phones and it

(23)

18

enables users to edit and share pictures (ibid.). Users can take pictures directly on the Instagram application, add visual effects on them, and publish them to the user’s own profile (Pönkä, 2014: 121).

The users can choose the privacy of their profile from public or private (ibid.). If the user’s profile is public, everyone can see the published pictures and videos, but if the profile is private, only the users who have been accepted to follow the account can see them (ibid.).

The characteristics of Instagram include the ability to follow other users and comment on pictures (Kortesuo, 2014: 51). These characteristics, along with the ability to like pictures and send direct messages, demonstrate why Instagram is also a social networking site (Pönkä, 2014: 121). Users can send direct messages either to a single user or to multiple users at the same time (ibid.).

Originally, the main feature of Instagram included square-shaped pictures and filters, which made the pictures look like Polaroid pictures (Östman et al., 2013: 250–251). However, in 2015 the service allowed users to also share landscape and portrait pictures and videos (Constine, 2015). In 2013, Instagram introduced a tagging function “that allows users to tag people, places and brands in their” pictures, and a new section on which users can find pictures in which they are tagged (O’Reilly, 2013). Users can also add hashtags to their pictures to identify different contents (Kortesuo, 2014: 51). In 2013, Instagram allowed users to post videos with the maximum length of 15 seconds (Pönkä, 2014: 121). In 2016, Instagram introduced a new feature called Instagram Stories, which allows users to share pictures and videos in a slideshow format that disappear after 24 hours (Constine, 2016).

3.3.3. Twitter

Twitter is a communication service established in 2006 and it can be used both via a website (O’Reilly &

Milstein, 2009: 5–7) and an application. Twitter is a microblog and a social networking service which enables its users to send short messages, or tweets, to their followers (Kortesuo, 2010: 43; Kortesuo, 2018: 88; Isotalus et al., 2018: 9). Formerly the character limit of one tweet was 140, but in 2017 Twitter doubled the limit by allowing users to send out tweets with the maximum of 280 characters (Larson, 2017; Isotalus et al., 2018: 10). The shortness of tweets can be seen to assist fast spread of information to a large audience because messages need to be condensed to include only the main message, but on the other hand condensing a message may cause information loss if the space runs out (Isotalus et al., 2018: 10).

(24)

19

Tweets do not have to contain just text, but users can add links to provide background information for their tweet, tweets can be retweeted or reposted, and users can add hashtags to identify different contents (Kortesuo, 2010: 43). Retweeting refers to the reposting of a tweet to the user’s own followers as it is or by adding their own message of up to 280 characters on it (Isotalus et al., 2018: 11). Before 2011, users could add pictures to their tweets only by sharing a link to a picture uploaded to another site (O’Reilly & Milstein, 2009: 151). In 2011, Twitter made it available for the users to add a picture directly to their tweet, and in 2014 the feature was expanded to allow the addition of up to four pictures per tweet with the possibility to tag up to 10 users in a picture (Parr, 2011; Aamoth, 2014). On Twitter, it is possible to find different topics through the system’s search feature by typing a phrase or hashtag into it and the system brings up results related to that topic (O’Reilly & Milstein, 2009: 61). The search feature also keeps track of the ten most popular topics being tweeted about at any moment and displays them on its trending topics -list, and the list is refreshed regularly to stay up to date (ibid.: 63).

Another characteristic of Twitter is that users can mention people in their tweets by adding an @- symbol and an account name, which creates a link to that account and makes it easier to network and start public conversations (O’Reilly & Milstein, 2009: 45). These links are known as @messages,

@mentions, and @replies (ibid.). It is, however, also possible to start private conversations between users via direct messages, but private conversations can only take place between users who both follow each other, and users can also receive messages from people who they follow but cannot send messages to them if the following is not reciprocal (ibid.: 49). On Twitter, the following is not compulsory to be reciprocal so the users may have different people they follow and who follow them (Kortesuo, 2010: 43).

On Twitter, accounts can be private or public, meaning that users can decide who gets to see their tweets: private accounts allow the tweets to be viewed only by the users’ followers and public accounts allow anyone to view their tweets (Still, 2019). Users can also like tweets, which is an action that indicates that they enjoy the tweets content (Isotalus et al., 2018: 11). While it is possible for everyone to view tweets published on a public account, only registered users can participate in conversations or reply to tweets. In 2020, Twitter announced a new feature which gives users more control over who can reply to their tweets by selecting from three options: everyone, people you follow, or people you mention (Xie, 2020).

(25)

20

In Finland, the use of Twitter has not gained as much popularity as in the United States (Östman et al., 2013: 191). In 2020, only 13 % of Finnish population between the ages of 16—89 used Twitter (Suomen virallinen tilasto, 2020). According to Östman et al. (2013: 192), the most active users of Twitter are people in marketing and business, celebrities, and pioneer users, who aim to be the first users of new technologies and services before the masses begin to use them. While Twitter is more popular in English-speaking countries, it is still used in Finland especially by reporters, politicians, it-professionals, and people in the media industry (Kortesuo, 2018: 88). One reason as to why Twitter is used in Finland mainly by different professionals could be the long words of Finnish: if you want to say something efficiently in one tweet, you need expertise in summing up the message (ibid.: 91). Another reason for the unpopularity of Twitter in Finland could be that the contents in Twitter are often in English as the users are mainly from English-speaking countries (ibid.). In Finland, the use of Twitter can be seen to be monopolized by the elite because its use requires speed, verbal talent, and ability to sum up messages, and due to this position of Twitter, it has become less interesting for ordinary people (ibid.).

3.4. Social media in institutional communication

Social media has several positive prospects, which is why it has been utilized for different purposes and institutions can utilize it in various ways, such as for marketing, teaching, and announcing messages (Pönkä, 2014: 9). The utilization of social media in institutional communication differs from traditional institutional communication due to the nature of social media and its basis in interaction (Kortesuo, 2014:15–16). While traditional institutional communication is considered as one-way information, social media communication produces conversation and requires a different way of communication (ibid.: 15).

Texts shared on social media are mainly read from a screen and meant for rapid consumption, which is why these texts should be easily skimmed through, concise, short, and easy to read, and they should also be interactive to create conversation (ibid.: 15–16).

Institutional communication can be seen to include client communication, which traditionally has been seen to comprise of inbound and outbound communication, but somebound (social media bound) communication has wedged its way between the two (Kortesuo, 2014: 58–59). While inbound communication refers to the communication from clients to the institution and outbound communication to the communication from the institution to the clients, somebound communication takes place in social media and its initiator is not as clear, because there are constantly several messages relayed between the institution and the clients in different social media platforms and questions can be answered without even having to ask a direct question (ibid.). If executed well, somebound

(26)

21

communication is an inexpensive way to reach clients and promote the institution because one comment or post can reach multiple clients at once (ibid.: 60).

The utilization of social media has changed customer service by adding a new dimension to it (Kortesuo, 2014: 61). The traditional development of customer service has included the areas of passive, reactive, active, and proactive customer service, but social media has brought out the area of meta-active customer service (ibid.: 61–62). The new areas are presented below in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Areas of customer service

(Original figure by Kortesuo, 2014: 62; translated by author)

Kortesuo (2014: 63) introduces the concept of meta-active customer service, which includes not only the activity of the institution but also enables active operations to its clients. This leads to a new dimension of activity, as activity is not measured based on only the institution’s operations but also on clients’

activity and commitment (ibid.). An example of meta-active customer service is permitting clients to leave comments on the institution’s social media sites to create discussions and interactivity (ibid.) The use of social media enables the institution to gather more feedback in terms of both quantity and quality (Kortesuo, 2014: 69). Institutions can gather feedback quantitatively by looking at the clicks the posts collect, for example likes or shares, and qualitatively by looking at the content of comments (ibid.:

Meta-active Participation of clients and utilizarisation of open mode of

operation Proactive

Anticipatory communication and quality assessment

Active

Regular communication according to a plan

Reactive Answer when asked

Passive Statutory information

is communicated

(27)

22

69–71). Social media can be a great tool for content marketing because its main message is to allow the client to consume different contents and to decide for themselves what they think about the institution (ibid.: 94). An institution can communicate their expertise through different social media channels by publishing content related to their work, participating in conversations related to their field, or by highlighting future events, interviews, or publications (ibid.: 94–95).

The University of Eastern Finland (UEF) has published its own recommendations for the use of social media. UEF uses social media for communication and marketing purposes to spread awareness about their activities and events and to create a positive image of the university (Pitkänen, 2014). At UEF, the use of social media is guided by the strategy and communication policy of the university (ibid.). The aim of communication is to keep the internal and external stakeholders informed about the mission, goals, activities, performance, and significance of the university, along with the aspiration to enhance sense of community and support the activities aimed at stakeholders and alumni (ibid.). In addition, communication supports the marketing efforts of the university to promote UEF as an attractive place to study and work and as a reliable partner (ibid.). The role of social media in these aims and activities is significant, and social media brings added value to communication through its transparency, real-time nature, user-orientation, interactivity, and sense of community (ibid.).

(28)

23

4. Methods and material

In this section, the research methods relevant to this research will be introduced first, after which the research material is presented. Section 4.3. focuses on how this thesis was conducted. Finally Internet research and its ethics are considered in Section 4.4.

4.1. Research methods

This research is an empirical case study, which will utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Empirical research means that the research results are obtained through concrete observations about the studied phenomenon and by analyzing and measuring it (Lähdesmäki et al, 2009). In empirical research, the concrete and collected research material is at the center and the basis of research (ibid.).

The results of this research are based on observations and calculations about the object of study, which is the multilingual communication of UEF in social media, and at the center and the basis of the study is the collected research material obtained from the selected UEF social media accounts.

4.1.1. Quantitative and qualitative methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods are hard to distinguish clearly from one other as they are the two ends of the same continuum, and the two methods complement each other when used together in research (Hirsjärvi, 2009: 135–136). Quantitative methods are used to describe phenomena with statistics and numbers through classifications, causalities, and comparisons, while qualitative methods aim to provide information on the context and background of the studied phenomena and on its meaning (Lähdesmäki et al., 2009). Quantitative research aims to provide conclusions of the material through statistical analysis, while qualitative research relies more on complex and detailed study of material and on the researcher’s observations (Hirsjärvi, 2009: 140, 164). It is important in quantitative research that the material and its variables are compiled into a table format to be studied statistically (ibid.: 140). In qualitative research, material is collected in natural and real situations through, for example, group interviews and discourse analysis of different texts, and it is comprehensive in its nature of information gathering (ibid.: 164).

The quantitative method is used in this research to analyze the categorized material and to calculate the occurrences in each category to provide accurate information on the most used languages and the amount of multilingual communication. The qualitative method is used when deciphering the differences in multilingual content and what is the role of multilingual communication. The quantitative