first concept of my assignment

Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Design of University Websites

The topic of the research I will execute with is: „Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Design of University Websites“
I figured out following main points along which the researcher Ewa Callahan worked.
List of the participant universities – widespread in eight countries of the world
Empirical research questions
Advertising strategies in universities
Aspects of web design
Hofsted´s model of culture
Various pro-chioce and adverse scientific voices ( Marcus&Gould, Robins&Stylianou, etc.)
Research questions and hypotheses
Study description
Findings
Finally the conclusion

This research is theoretically based on „Hofsted´s model of culture“ in which I will go later on for a few stepps. Callahan explained a lot of Hefsted´s theorie but mentioned several adverse attitudes towards his comments.

Universities from eight countries – namely: Austria, USA, Ecuador, Japan, Sweden, Greece, Denmark and Malaysia - took part of this research. In her study descriptions Callahan revealed here selection criterions; e.g. country selection, website selection, etc..

Each chosen university homepage was surveyd to two criteria: first the demonstration of the organisation and secondly the graphical design.

Questions like e.g.: „How do different cultures represent themselves on the web?“, „Are the designs of websites in different cultures distinct or do they follow similar trends?“, „If cultural differences are found, what role do they play, and what are their practical consequences?“ were posed and later on Callahan tried to find answeres.

In one passage of this article „advertising strategies in Universities“ were mentioned and some background information were presented; like the use of posters, flyers and other promotional material.

The „aspects of web design“ were segmented in language, page design, color preferences, image modality and the tematic strukture. Some pages are color-coordinated with the colors of the national flags, like on government pages. The point „image modality“ deals with images with high quality, the solor saturation, the color contrast or the color coding.

As already noted Callahan worked on the theoretical base of Hofsted´s model of culture. Various terms, like powerdistance (PD), which deals with the question of hierarchie in a country – that would be a „high power distance“ country (he mentioned Malaysia, Guatemala and Mexico). If subordinates can involve themselves and their opinions in dsicions which are elsewhere chosen only by managers, Hofsted talks about a low power distance country, e.g. austria, Israel and New Zealand.
Furthermore I met the IC – individualism vs. Collectivism – also with adequate namings. The MAS index – femininity vs. Masculinity, UA – uncertainty avoidance and LTO – longterm, shortterm orientation completed Hofsted´s remarks to find cultural differences or similarities.

In Callahan´s article many scientists are quoted, e.g. Marcus&Gould (linguistic aspects), Dormann&Chisalita, who worked also with the MAS-index in 5 countries, and McSweetey, who is mentioned as a researcher with contra-choice statements.
As scientisticly representative who worked with UA and LTO Rajkumar was listed there.

„The question that guides this study is to what extent the design of websites differs across cultures, and whether the differences can be measured using Hofstede's cultural model.“ Callahan mentions her hypotheses and if they correlates with the research results.
I will not go into detail of the hypotheses and their issues, they can be found at page 11 ff.

Interessant for me was Callagans way to select the University websites. She always took two countries of both, high and low form coutries. She chose Malaysia for the high PD, Austria because of it´s low PD index. USA stands for her high IC example and Ecuador as low IC country. Japan with it´s high MAS index in opposite to Sweden, the low MAS representative, and so on.

Generally only websites of Universities with bachelor degrees and master degrees get a chance to be choosen. The universities pages of three countries , Austria, Japan and Ecuador, are linked on the ministerial sites. Out of these slelction terms Callahan worked with „RANDBETWEEN FUNCTION“ as analytical tool. She randomly selected 20 Universities pro country.

As next working Stepp Callahan mentioned the coding of pictures. Are there logos, persons, buildings, art, nature, artifacts or figuratives depicted. And in what countings comparative to all images on the page. The number of pictured persons, the gender, status, activity and the social distance followed. This social distance is one more devided in terms like: intimated pictured, which means only the head is on the foto, close person – with shoulder, far person is a term for a picture up from the waist, and more.

A detailed passage of her findings follows now where she tried to include the „study limitations“ of her research. This research only showed up 8 countries, only 20 sites pro country and it was only a graphical – and no linguistical research. Ist his a representative number of university websites?