Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 97–111 | Cite as

Institutional Uses of Twitter in U.S. Higher Education

  • Royce KimmonsEmail author
  • George Veletsianos
  • Scott Woodward


This study employed data mining and quantitative methods to collect and analyze the available histories of primary Twitter accounts of institutions of higher education in the U.S. (n = 2411). The study comprises a sample of 5.7 million tweets, representing 62 % of all tweets created by these accounts and the entire population of U.S. colleges and universities. With this large, generalizable dataset, researchers were able to determine that the preponderance of institutional tweets are 1) monologic, 2) disseminate information (vs. eliciting action), 3) link to a relatively limited and insular ecosystem of web resources, and 4) express neutral or positive sentiment. While prior research suggests that social media can serve as a vehicle for institutions to extend their reach and further demonstrate their value to society, this article provides empirical and generalizable evidence to suggest that such innovation, in the context of institutional social media use, is limited.


Social media Twitter Dialogic communication Data mining 



George Veletsianos acknowledges funding received from the Canada Research Chairs program.


  1. Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. M. (2013). College presidents out-blog and out-tweet corporate CEO’s. UMass Center for Marketing Research. Retrieved from
  2. Bélanger, C. H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2014). How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education and Management, 20, 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beverly, J. A. (2013). Public relations models and dialogic communication in the Twitterverse: An analysis of how colleges and universities are engaging their publics through twitter (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi. Retrieved from
  4. Borysenko, K. (2014). Commit, connect, engage: How college and university presidents are using Twitter. Eduventures. Retrieved from
  5. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  6. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2010). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Retrieved from
  7. Chapleo, C. (2005). Do universities have “successful” brands? International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, C., Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Canche, M. (2012). Social media in higher education: A literature review and research directions. The Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona and Claremont Graduate University. Retrieved from
  9. Gallaugher, J., & Ransbotham, S. (2010). Social media and customer dialog management at Starbucks. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9, 197–212.Google Scholar
  10. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hennessey, J. W. (2015). phpInsight – Sentiment analysis in PHP. Retrieved from
  12. Herrmann, M. (2010). Getting a take on Twitter usage. University Business, 13(1). Retrieved from
  13. Jacquemin, S. J., Smelser, L. K., & Bernot, M. J. (2014). Twitter in the higher education classroom: A student and faculty assessment of use and perception. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 22–27.Google Scholar
  14. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly, K. J. (2013). The effectiveness of Twitter as a communication tool in college recruitment (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University – Kingsville. Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (3566310)Google Scholar
  18. Kimmons, R. (2015a). Online system adoption and K-12 academic outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kimmons, R. (2015b). Open online system adoption in K-12 as a democratizing factor. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30, 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of Twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38, 636–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer, S. (2013). Characterisation of the use of Twitter by Australian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pasquini, L. A., Knott, J. E., & Fraiser, J. (2016). Social media for teaching and learning in higher education: A systematic analysis and synthesis of empirical research from 2010-2015. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  24. Perrin, A. (2015). Social networking usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  25. Szymańska, A. (2003). Public relations: The process of communication between a higher education institution and its environment: The case of the Wroclław University of Economics. Higher Education in Europe, 28, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Twitter API (n.d.). API overview. Twitter Developers. Retrieved from
  27. University of Texas at Austin (2015). U.S. universities. The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from
  28. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58, 766–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networking systems. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly digital and open world: How do education professors and students use Twitter? The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., & French, K. (2013). Instructor experiences with a social networking site in a higher education setting: Expectations, frustrations, appropriation, and compartmentalization. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Shaw, A. G., Pasquini, L., & Woodward, S. (2016). Twitter use in Canada’s public universities. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  33. Waters, R. D., Canfield, R. R., Foster, J. M., & Hardy, E. E. (2011). Applying the dialogic theory to social networking sites. Journal of Social Marketing, 1, 211–227. doi: 10.1108/20426761111170713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson, G. (2009). Coaches, colleges explore new frontier. ESPN College Sports. Retrieved from
  35. Welch, B. K., & Bonnan-White, J. (2012). Twittering to increase student engagement in the university classroom. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 4, 325–345.Google Scholar
  36. Yolcu, Ö. (2013). Twitter usage of universities in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12, 360–371.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Royce Kimmons
    • 1
    Email author
  • George Veletsianos
    • 2
  • Scott Woodward
    • 1
  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Innovative Learning and TechnologyRoyal Roads UniversityVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations