UNIVERSITY OF GHANA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION IN UNIVERSITIES: A STUDY OF THREE UNIVERSITIES IN GHANA BY ELIZIER TAIBA AMEYAW-BURONYAH (ID NO: 10074125) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF PHD IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES DEGREE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION STUDIES JULY 2021 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh i DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is the outcome of research I conducted personally under supervision for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communication Studies at the University of Ghana; that it has not been previously presented to any university for any degree; and that all sources used or quoted have duly been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete referencing. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii ABSTRACT Scholars in the field of organisational communication acclaim integrated communication (IC) for its ability to unify all communication efforts, avoid fragmentation and ensure efficiency in managing communication in today’s organisations. Although integrated communication aids organizations to have consistency in their communication effort, create continuous stakeholder experience and build organizational confidence and loyalty, there is virtually little or no studies on the use of integrated communication in universities in the Ghanaian context. This study was therefore driven by the scanty literature on the use of integrated communication in higher educational institutions, particularly universities. With systems theory as its foundation, the study explored internal stakeholders’ perceptions about the use of integrated communication in three universities in Ghana, namely Central University, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) and University of Ghana using mixed methods. The multiple-case study mode of enquiry, which allows the combination of different methods for data collection and analysis, was employed. A total of five focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted in the three universities for academic staff and senior staff. In addition, Level 400 students were surveyed from the three universities for their views on integrated communication in their respective universities in order to draw comparisons between the focus group data and survey data. Additionally, a qualitative content analysis was carried out to examine consistency in the deployment of some institutional visual symbols, and the results were compared with the FGD and survey data. Using semi-structured interview guides, a total of six (6) in-depth interviews were also conducted for one representative each from top management and the public relations/public affairs units in the institutions to interrogate their perceptions about IC and how they contributed to its implementation to validate the data gathered from the FGDs and survey. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii These methods largely helped to triangulate the data garnered from the different sources to meet the overall objective of making recommendations for effective IC management in universities in Ghana. The study found that none of the three universities had a well-developed mechanism for the implementation of integrated communication. The institutions’ practice of some sort of IC was impaired by fragmentation at the level of communicating institutional policies and departmental collaboration. In spite of this, the top management and PR representatives of each institution seemed satisfied with their communication based on their perception that enough efforts were being made for a successful IC, though this did not reflect the perceptions of the internal stakeholders. Generally, the findings did not confirm the systems theory which advocates a holistic approach to communication for mutually beneficial outputs. The study recommends that universities should minimise one-way communication, manage internal communication to avoid conversation fragmentation and adopt vigorous communication programmes that engage management and other internal stakeholders for mutually beneficial relationships. Again, universities should designate PR directors as the champions of IC processes to control and manage all factors that make integrated communication effective. Top management should also be committed to IC and lend its full support for the success of the implementation process. Additionally, sufficient budget should be allocated for IC programmes and periodic evaluation should be adopted. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv DEDICATION I dedicate this work to all my loved ones, especially my dear husband, Emmanuel Ameyaw- Buronyah, my children, Danso (Abeam), Asantewaa (Krobea) and Kwarteng (Amaniampong) as well as my parents, Nana Ntiamoah Boateng II (late) and Madam Elizabeth Akyaa Osei and my late grandmother, Madam Comfort Egyirankwe. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To God be the glory for being my source of wisdom and strength throughout this PhD journey. My sincerest gratitude also goes to the members of my Thesis Supervisory Committee, Professor Margaret Ivy Amoakohene, Professor Kwasi Ansu-Kyeremeh and Professor Kwamena Kwansah- Aidoo. I very much appreciate your guidance, inputs, constructive criticisms and constant reminders which pushed me to work hard. I am also thankful to other faculty at the Department of Communication Studies, including Professor Audrey Gadzepko, Dr. Abena Yeboah-Banin and Dr. Gilbert Tietaah for offering me useful comments to shape this thesis. Many thanks to the administrative staff in the Department (especially Mr. W. Donkor, Mr. Osei Tutu and Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson) for being responsive at all times. I acknowledge my fellow students in the pioneer PhD class, Victoria and Martin, for the ideas, experiences, mutual understanding and challenges that we shared to encourage one another on this journey. I offer special thanks to all the loving people at my workplace: the University Management, Professor J. Fletcher (Acting Dean of the School of Education and Leadership), the faculty and staff in the School as well as the College Secretary and my colleague administrators at the College of Education for helping me to combine work with study. Finally, I thank my late father, Nana Ntiamoah Boateng II, for sowing the seed of higher education in me at a tender age; my mother, Madam Elizabeth Akyaa Osei, and my siblings for their tremendous support. To my wonderful husband, Ameyaw-Buronyah and my kids, Abeam, Krobea, Amaniampong and Amobea, I say: “Well done. I am sincerely grateful for your immense support and patience in accommodating my competing roles of wife, mother, student and public servant during this long journey.” God bless you all. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS .......................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background of Integrated Approach to Communication by Universities ................................ 2 1.2 The Evolutionary Definitions of Integrated Communication (IC) ........................................... 7 1.2.1 Working Definition of Integrated Communication.............................................................. 10 1.2.2 The Scope of Integrated Communication ............................................................................ 12 1.2.3 Dominant Themes and Constructs of IC .............................................................................. 13 1.3 Overview of Institutions Selected for the Study ..................................................................... 14 1.3.1 Central University ................................................................................................................ 15 1.3.2 Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) ............................... 16 1.3.3 University of Ghana ............................................................................................................. 17 1.4 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 19 1.5 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 22 1.6 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 23 1.7 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 24 1.8 Operational Definition of Key Terms ..................................................................................... 25 1.9 Organisation of the Study ....................................................................................................... 27 1.10 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 29 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 29 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 29 2.1 Origin of the General Systems Theory ................................................................................... 30 2.1.1 Definition of System ............................................................................................................ 31 2.1.2 System Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 32 2.1.2.1 The Emergent Properties and Synergy of a System.......................................................... 32 2.1.2.2 Open and Closed Systems ................................................................................................. 33 2.1.3 Tenets of the Open Systems Theory .................................................................................... 34 2.1.3.1 Hierarchical Ordering ....................................................................................................... 34 2.1.3.2 Permeability and Interdependence .................................................................................... 35 2.1.3.3 Holism ............................................................................................................................... 35 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 2.1.3.4 Feedback ........................................................................................................................... 36 2.1.3.5 Homeostasis ...................................................................................................................... 36 2.1.3.6 Self-regulation................................................................................................................... 37 2.1.3.7 Entropy and Requisite Variety .......................................................................................... 37 2.1.3.8 Equifinality and Common Finality ................................................................................... 38 2.1.4 Criticisms of Systems Theory .............................................................................................. 39 2.1.5 Relevance of the Systems Theory to Institutional Communication..................................... 40 2.1.6 Systems Theory and Integrated Communication ................................................................. 44 2.2 The Evolutionary Integrated Communications Model ........................................................... 46 2.2.1 Stages of the Integrated Communications Model ................................................................ 47 2.2.1.1 Awareness Integration Stage............................................................................................. 47 2.2.1.2 Image Integration Stage .................................................................................................... 48 2.2.1.3 Functional Integration Stage ............................................................................................. 48 2.2.1.4 Co-ordinated Integration Stage ......................................................................................... 49 2.2.1.5 Customer-based Integration Stage .................................................................................... 49 2.2.1.6 Stakeholder-based Integration Stage................................................................................. 49 2.2.1.7 Relationship Management Integration Stage .................................................................... 50 2.2.2 Criticism of the Evolutionary Communications Model ....................................................... 51 2.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 52 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 52 3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 52 3.1 Attributes of Integrated Communication ................................................................................ 52 3.1.1 Internal Communication Management ................................................................................ 53 3.1.2 Co-ordination of Internal Communication........................................................................... 56 3.1.3 Strategic Consistency in Communication ............................................................................ 59 3.1.3.1 Synergy in Communication .............................................................................................. 61 3.1.4 Image Management .............................................................................................................. 63 3.1.5 Stakeholder Integration and Relationship Management ...................................................... 69 3.1.5.1 Categorisation of Stakeholders ......................................................................................... 71 3.1.5.2 Identifying the Internal Stakeholders of Universities ....................................................... 72 3.1.5.3 Stakeholder Integration through Interactivity and Brand Contact Points ......................... 75 3.1.6 Cross-functional Collaboration ............................................................................................ 79 3.1.6.1 Open Communication and Knowledge Sharing ............................................................... 80 3.1.6.2 Nurturing a Team Spirit .................................................................................................... 82 3.1.6.3 Gradual Integration of New Ideas ..................................................................................... 82 3.1.6.4 The Role of Differentiation ............................................................................................... 83 3.1.7 Alignment of IC and the Strategic Focus of Institutions ..................................................... 84 3.1.7.1 The Nexus between IC and Institutional Vision, Mission and Strategic Plan .................. 85 3.1.7.2 Employee Involvement and Communication of Strategic Plan, Mission and Vision....... 87 3.2 Barriers to IC Implementation ................................................................................................ 89 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii 3.3 Distinct Factors for the Implementation of IC ........................................................................ 91 3.3.1 Technology .......................................................................................................................... 91 3.3.2 The Availability of a Communication Expert ...................................................................... 92 3.3.3 Availability of a Communication Strategy .......................................................................... 96 3.3.4 The Endorsement of Top Management ................................................................................ 98 3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 99 CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................... 101 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 101 4.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 101 4.1 Philosophical Underpinnings ................................................................................................ 101 4.2 Research Design.................................................................................................................... 104 4.2.1 Definition of Case Study .................................................................................................... 106 4.2.2 Selection of the Appropriate Case Study Design and Cases.............................................. 108 4.3 Phases of Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 109 4.3.1 The Field Work .................................................................................................................. 111 4.3.1.1 Profile of the Study Location .......................................................................................... 111 4.3.2 The Study Sites .................................................................................................................. 112 4.4 Methods Employed for the Collection of Data ..................................................................... 112 4.4.1 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ..................................................................................... 115 4.4.2 Individual In-depth Interviews ........................................................................................... 117 4.4.3 Content Analysis of Visual Symbols ................................................................................. 118 4.4.4 The Survey Approach ........................................................................................................ 119 4.5 Sampling Techniques and Instruments Used ........................................................................ 120 4.5.1 Respondents of the In-depth Interviews ............................................................................ 121 4.5.2 Participants of the Focus Group Discussions..................................................................... 122 4.5.3 Units of Analysis................................................................................................................ 124 4.5.4 Respondents of the Survey................................................................................................. 125 4.6 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 127 4.6.1 Analysis of Data from the In-depth Interviews.................................................................. 128 4.6.2 Analysis of Data from the Focus Group Discussions ........................................................ 128 4.6.3 Analysis of the Survey Data .............................................................................................. 129 4.6.4 Analysis of the Data from the Content Analysis ............................................................... 130 4.7 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 130 4.8 Challenges and Limitations of Study .................................................................................... 131 4.9 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 132 CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 133 PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................... 133 5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 133 5.1 Profile of Interviewees, Participants and Respondents ......................................................... 134 5.2 Co-ordination of Internal Communication............................................................................ 136 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix 5.2.1 Channels for Co-ordinating Internal Communication ....................................................... 138 5.2.1.1 Inconsistencies with Electronic Communication ............................................................ 141 5.2.2 Timely Release of Information .......................................................................................... 146 5.2.3 Consistency of Communication and Image Management ................................................. 149 5.3 Stakeholder Integration and Relationship Management ....................................................... 156 5.3.1 Interactivity with Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 157 5.3.2 Mediated feedback and Related Challenges ...................................................................... 161 5.3.3 Stakeholder Support ........................................................................................................... 164 5.4 Cross-functional Collaboration ............................................................................................. 166 5.4.1 Open Flow of Communication........................................................................................... 169 5.5 Institutional Strategic Plan .................................................................................................... 172 5.5.1 Development of the Institutional Strategic Plan ................................................................ 173 5.5.1.1 Input from Internal Stakeholders .................................................................................... 175 5.5.2 Communication of Strategic Plan ...................................................................................... 178 5.5.3 Mission and Vision Campaign ........................................................................................... 185 5.5.4 Achievement of Strategic Goals ........................................................................................ 191 5.6 The Implementation of IC ..................................................................................................... 197 5.6.1 Placement and Roles of the Communication Expert ......................................................... 197 5.6.2 Availability of Communication Strategy ........................................................................... 202 5.6.3 The Use of Technology ...................................................................................................... 203 5.6.4 Support from Senior Management ..................................................................................... 204 5.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 207 CHAPTER SIX ......................................................................................................................... 208 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 208 6.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 208 6.1 Internal Communication and Relationship Management for Stakeholder Output................ 209 6.1.1 Co-ordination of Internal Communication and Internal Stakeholders’ Output ................. 209 6.1.2 Integration of Internal Stakeholders and Relationship Management ................................. 213 6.2 Strategy Communication for the Achievement of Institutional Goals.................................. 218 6.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement in Strategy Development .......................................................... 218 6.2.2 Stakeholders’ Perceptions about Strategy Communication ............................................... 221 6.2.3 Stakeholders’ Contributions to the Achievement of Strategic Goals. ............................... 225 6.3 PR Influence on the Implementation of IC ........................................................................... 229 6.4 The Place of Social Media in the Implementation of IC ...................................................... 234 6.5 Management Support and Influence on the Implementation of IC ....................................... 235 6.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 238 CHAPTER SEVEN ................................................................................................................... 241 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 241 7.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 241 7.1 Key Research Findings ......................................................................................................... 242 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x 7.1.1 Perspectives about Internal Communication and Stakeholder Relationship ..................... 242 7.1.2 Perspectives on Cross-functional Collaboration ................................................................ 244 7.1.3 Perspectives on Strategy Development and Communication ............................................ 245 7.1.4 Perspectives on the Implementation of IC ......................................................................... 245 7.2 Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................... 247 7.3 Implications for Theory ........................................................................................................ 251 7.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 253 7.4.1 Recommendation for further Studies ................................................................................. 256 7.5 Contributions to Knowledge ................................................................................................. 256 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 257 APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SAMPLED EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIVERSITIES ........................................................................................................................ 303 APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SAMPLED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES ........................................................................................................................ 305 APPENDIX III: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SAMPLED MEMBERS AT THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSITIES 310 APPENDIX IV: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SAMPLED WORKERS AT THE PUBLIC RELATIONS ....................................................................... 312 APPENDIX V: CHECKLIST FOR GATHERING DATA ON THE USE OF UNIVERSITY SYMBOLS ....................................................................................................... 314 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS Figure 2.1: The Evolutionary Integrated Communications Model ................................................47 Figure 3.1: Massey’s Theoretical Paradigm of Organisational Image Management ....................65 Figure 3.2: Strategy Communication Pyramid ..............................................................................87 Figure 4.1: Data Collection Circle ...............................................................................................110 Figure 5.1: Level of Satisfaction with the Timely Communication of University Policies….. 149 Figure 5.2: Level of Satisfaction with information Flow in the University ................................172 Figure 5.3: Management’s Involvement of Students in Drawing up Strategic Plan ...................177 Figure 5.4: Awareness of the University’s Strategic Plan ...........................................................183 Figure 5.5: Accessibility of the Institutional Strategic Plan ........................................................184 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xii LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Profile of Focus Groups Sessions ...............................................................................123 Table 4.2: Samples Drawn from the Institutions .........................................................................126 Table 5.1: Response Rate of the Survey ………………………………………………………135 Table 5.2: Students’ Most Reliable Source of Information by Institution ..................................145 Table 5.3: Respondents’ Impression about Internal Communication .........................................146 Table 5.4: Summary of Findings on the Use of Visual Symbols ................................................150 Table 5.5: Views about the Consistency in Institutional Symbols and Colour Schemes ............155 Table 5.6: Consistency in the Use of Visual Symbols to Promote Institutional Image ...............156 Table 5.7: Level of Satisfaction with Feedback Loops and Management’s Responsiveness......164 Table 5.8: Frequency of Information Received on Strategic Plan ...............................................184 Table 5.9: Awareness about University’s Mission & Vision ......................................................191 Table 5.10: Student Understanding of Messages about Strategic Plan and Contribution to the Achievement of Strategic Goals ................................................................................................. 196 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction Universities in contemporary times operate in a rapidly changing environment and are increasingly recognising that fragmentation of the communication responsibility does not help them to progress in such a dynamic environment (Wilsea, 2018; Barker, 2013; Edmiston-Strausser, 2009). Though segmenting a complex task such as communication into fragments makes each piece more manageable, it denies institutions the benefits of integration (Gronstedt, 1996). Angelopulo and Schoonraad (2003), therefore, advocate an integrated approach to communication. Integrated communication (IC) is a management discipline that emphasises the holistic co-ordination of multiple communication functions around institutional needs (Endaltseva, 2015; Smith, 2012a). The IC concept has gained recognition as a paradigm that ensures order in a communication landscape which is characterised by the proliferation of media channels and fragmented stakeholders (Smith, 2012a; Kitchen & Burgman, 2010; Christensen, Firat & Cornelissen, 2009). It is believed that through its ability to unify institutional messages, symbols and procedures, IC enables the achievement of organisational strategic intent, creates a positive image and sustains long-term relationships between institutions and their publics (Barker, 2013; Christensen et al., 2009; Duncan, 2002). Over the years, IC has been viewed with different lenses by scholars including Tindall and Holtzhausen (2012), Niemann (2005), Massie and Anderson (2003) and Gronstedt (2000), and they all collectively consider it as a paradigm that is strategically aligned, consistent, comprehensively integrated and mission-driven to augment the impact of corporate University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 communication efforts. Since this paradigm adopts a holistic communication approach, scholars such as Niemann-Struweg (2014) and Schutte (2009) believe that IC adopts an all-inclusive approach to communicate organisational strategic policies in a manner that builds long-lasting relationships with both internal and external publics. The question, however, remains inadequately answered whether higher educational institutions such as universities engage in the communication activities associated with IC such as the effective co-ordination of communication, the management of institutional image and stakeholder relationship. It is pertinent to note that with the proliferation of media channels in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the integration and co-ordination of messages from different sources that aim at portraying a single image to all stakeholders have become simultaneously more important and difficult to achieve (Barker, 2013; Kitchen & Burgman, 2010). This suggests that, for IC to thrive in institutions such as universities, tenacious efforts are required. This study, therefore, focused on how Public Relations units and top university management contribute to the success of IC in three universities in Ghana; how the internal stakeholders, including students and staff perceive integrated communication efforts in these universities, and, how their perceptions drive their contribution to the achievement of institutional strategic objectives. 1.1 Background of Integrated Approach to Communication by Universities Literature indicates that the integrated approach to communication has been influenced by universities’ quest to project themselves to attract potential students (Melewar & Akel, 2005). According to them, education and training have become a global business pushing universities to develop standards that are similar to consumer goods marketing. Universities are part of the business sphere because they operate with almost the same prominence that marketing enjoys in University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 corporate organisations. Consequently, van Wyk (2005, as cited in Mulder, 2008) coined the terms “corporate universities” and “corporatisation” to describe the business landscape of university education (pp. 9-10). Based on the corporatisation of universities and other higher educational institutions, one college president stated that higher education has moved from the Golden Age to the Age of Survival (Sevier, 1997) which is characterised by keen competition. Universities are, therefore, developing a set of unique characteristics and implementing strategies to claim their share of the student market using various communication approaches such as integrated marketing and integrated marketing communication as the best integrated communication approaches that will ensure their survival in the competitive landscape (Schuller & Rasticova, 2011; Edmiston- Strauser, 2009). Schuller and Rasticova (2011) also affirm that marketing communication in universities has been the research interest of several scholars who emphasise strategic marketing, integrated marketing (IM), university marketing and IMC as the ideal paradigms for creating a successful university brand and enhancing communication between the universities and their stakeholders. As a result, using marketing tools to improve the identity, image, reputation and brand of universities is considered a key factor in attracting new students who are the main target group of the services offered by universities (Schuller & Rasticova, 2011). Among the integrated communication tools, IM and IMC seem to be the ones that are mostly used by universities. Literature points to the fact that IM (which basically ensures consistency in promotional messages and the strategic alignment of all marketing communication activities) was the component of integrated communication concept adopted by universities and other institutions of higher learning in the early years that communication integration was conceived. Within the higher education landscape, IM emerged around the late 1990s following University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 the publication of debates on the value of integrated marketing in the Currents Magazine in 1998 (Lauer, 1998) and discussions at regional meetings of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) in 1999 (Morris, 2003). Consequently, IM became an addition to the higher education lexicon in the late 1990s (Sevier, 1999). Morris (2003) reiterated that publications by academics honed the understanding of marketing techniques and how colleges and universities effectively applied these techniques to advance their institutions in the 21st century. The competitive environment then compelled many private universities to scramble for students using integrated marketing (Morris, 2003) premised on administrators’ belief that IM would help attract quality students and faculty, produce more satisfied alumni, build a stronger image and increase support from funding sources (Sevier & Johnson, 1999). Though scholarship identifies IM and IMC as the two most widely accepted integrated communication paradigms by universities, there appears to be no consensus among scholars regarding the use of these two concepts. Some scholars claim that IM is often confused with IMC, though the two are not the same (Servier, 2000; Schultz, 1998). They explain that IM adopts a more holistic approach to organisational communication because it deals with the strategic issues of product, price and place as well as the tactical issue of promotion. Alternatively, IMC, which is considered as a subset of IM, focuses on the co-ordination of marketing messages and channels to be able to deliver product and service attributes to the customer (Foroudi, Dinnie, Kitchen, Melewar & Foroudi, 2017; Morris, 2003; Schultz, Tannerbaum & Lauterbon, 1994). Advocates of IMC believe that the concept has gained increased acceptance over the past few decades (Abdullah & Mohamad, 2015; Edmiston-Strausser, 2009). Universities have adopted the components of IMC including brand identity and awareness, image and reputation management and positioning statements to increase effectiveness in their communication. However, it remains University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 unclear how the IMC paradigm is structured in the strategic management approaches of institutions of higher Education (IHEs) including universities (Edmiston-Strausser, 2009). In Edmiston-Strausser’s view, institutions, in their attempts to grow enrollment and academic programmes, have become increasingly fragmented internally. Consequently, functions have become compartmentalised as some departments operate without any knowledge of other parts of the institution and their core business. Additionally, professionals tend to compete for the limited institutional resources instead of pooling such resources and considering themselves as part of a comprehensive system working toward common objectives. In support of this claim, Abdullah and Mohamad (2015) point out that traditional structures in institutions emphasise independence based on professional expertise rather than interdepartmental co-operation which is essential for integrated communication. Abdullah and Mohamad (2015) further enumerate some of the barriers to the successful implementation of IMC in HEIs such as universities. In their view, many career educators perceive HEIs as educational service providers which should not be corrupted with business orientation such as IMC. In addition, the lack of knowledge and appropriate training in IMC together with the right attitude in adapting to marketing and institutional change augment the reasons for the unsuccessful implementation of IMC in institutions. Rigid institutional structures hardly leave any room for the effective practice of IMC in institutions as aptly captured by Rhodes (2006) who explains that: Structural reform remains elusive in the academic culture. The structural imbalance between goals, tasks and resources seems to have shown little improvement since 1966. The rigidity of departmental structures continues to limit the ability of college to adapt and respond to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 new circumstances. Any change tends to be laboriously incremental, with a significant time lag between the decision to make it and the ability of the institution to carry it out. (p.18) Alluding to this observation, Edmiston-Strausser (2009) condemns the conservative attitude which impinges on institutions’ implementation of the different paradigms of integrated communication. He indicates that, rather than establishing an integrated communication, it is more typical of institutions to develop separate offices to address admissions marketing, public relations, alumni relations, sports marketing, publications and internet services. Willsea (2018), in supporting this claim states that institutions are rarely wired for IMC. She identifies four major barriers to the implementation of IMC in universities as: 1. departmental silos, 2. the lack of alignment that allows internal buy-in to enable different departments to articulate the university brand, 3. the absence of proper systems for collecting and analysing data for effective communication and 4. the lack of understanding of the IMC concept. These observations indicate that though institutions have adopted the IM and IMC paradigms, these are not being well implemented at the global front. According to Pitman (2000), this is due to the fact that universities naturally remain focused on teaching and research with the administrative tasks existing mainly to facilitate these aims. The literature confirms that similar to the global university education landscape, universities in Ghana employ various marketing communication activities such as advertising, sales promotion and personal selling to promote their programmes. For instance, Dorkenoo, Nyarko, Agbemeva and Asimah (2015) contend that public tertiary institutions spend a lot of money on advertisements to disseminate information to their publics, including prospective students. Private universities also rely heavily on advertising, public relations, personal selling and other marketing communication tools to publicise the “institutions and their products in the form University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 of academic programmes and courses to the public, especially prospective students and/or their families” (Bamfo & Atara, 2013, p.269). Another issue identified is the lack of integration of the marketing communication tools employed by universities in Ghana (Bamfo & Atara, 2013; Adiko, 2020). Based on this observation, the authors recommend that “integrated marketing communications should effectively be institutionalised, while investing more in advertising” to publicise universities and their academic programmes (Bamfo & Atara, 2013, p.276). Some studies conducted in Ghana also tend to focus on the integration of information and communication technologies in the curricula of the different levels of education (Gyaase, Gyamfi & Kuranchie, 2019; Edumadzie, 2016). As a result, there is little or no emphasis on the central tenets of IC which are the co-ordination of internal communication, cross-functional collaboration, stakeholder integration and the communication of strategic plan. The current study explored how universities use IC to manage their internal communication and stakeholder relationships. The following section deals with some definitions of IC, its scope, constructs and the working definition adopted by this study. 1.2 The Evolutionary Definitions of Integrated Communication (IC) Though there are conflicting views regarding when IC was first developed and used, Niemann (2005) indicates that the concept has been in use since the 1990s but has gained more recognition since 2000. Since its development in the 1990s, the concept of IC has attracted various definitions in various fields as an educational movement (Hutton, 1996), a unifying business practice (Burnett & Moriarty, 1998) and a management philosophy (Cornelissen, 2000). Scholarship categorises the definitions of IC into five evolutionary eras spanning the early 1990s to 2018. The definitions of the early 1990’s considered IC as the co-ordination of various University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 communication tactics. According to the American Association of Advertising Agencies, integrated communication is “… a comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of a variety of communication disciplines … to provide clarity, consistency, and maximum communication impact” (Cited in Duncan, Caywood & Newsom, 1993, p.13). This definition emphasises co- operation among various communication disciplines to ensure that there is maximum impact and consistency of messages. As a result, other scholars of this period conceptualised IC as “the integration of various communication vehicles and tactics within a specific communication campaign” (Niemann, 2005, p.93). The description of IC in this era supports Duncan’s (1997) idea of synergy which he defines as the strategic co-ordination of corporate messages to yield a greater effect, compared to the independent operation of communication departments (such as advertising, public relations, marketing, et cetera) which sometimes results in conflicting messages. Another dimension of the definitions of the early 1990s focused on the strategic control of all messages for purposeful dialogue to influence the behaviour of stakeholders. According to Niemann (2005), “integrated communication is the strategic co-ordination of all messages (internally and externally) to create dialogue between the customer and the organisation, which will attitudinally and behaviourally move the customer towards brand loyalty” (p.95). The definition extends from the emphasis on external communication which was associated with the 1980s to include internal communication as key to the success of IC. The introduction of “dialogue” adds another aspect to the communication process. That is, an advocacy for two-way communication between the organisation and its stakeholders. The period, 1996 to 1998 saw definitions that emphasised cross-functional integrative processes and the management of healthy and beneficial relationships with stakeholders. Writing in this era, Duncan (1997) and Harris (1998, as cited in Niemann, 2005) conceived of integrated University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 communication as the process of strategically controlling all messages and encouraging cross- functional collaboration and purposeful dialogue to nourish relationships with stakeholders. Scholars of this era, thus, conceptualised integrated communication as a unified effort by various departments which interdepended on one another in their communication efforts to be able to manage mutually beneficial relationships between the organisation and its stakeholders. The period from 2000 to 2003 mentions strategic management as key in the IC process. Researchers such as Gronstedt (2000) and Shimp (2000) advocate for combined efforts at the managerial level and cascading through all levels of the organisation to nurture stakeholder relationships. Gronstedt (2000) defines IC as “the strategic management process of facilitating a desired meaning of the company and its brands by creating unity of effort at every point of contact with key customers and stakeholders for the purpose of building profitable relationships with them” (p.8). By this definition, Gronstedt (2000) offers an expansive approach to the IC process as it aligns with the systems thinking of merging efforts from all points of contact. Additionally, he challenges organisations to get well acquainted with their values and services as key to fostering long-term relationships with their stakeholders. Writing during this era, Duncan (2001) offered a definition that combined ideas from earlier definitions by different authors stating that integrated communication is “a cross-functional process for creating and nourishing profitable relationships with customers and other stakeholders by strategically controlling or influencing all messages sent to these groups and encouraging data-driven, purposeful dialogue with them” (p.8). From 2004 to 2010, scholars focused on organisational publics as the driving force of the IC process (Kliatchko, 2008; Gregory 2007; Schultz, 2007). Kliatchko (2008) defined IC as “an audience-driven business process of strategically managing stakeholders, content, channels, and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 results of brand communication programs” (p.140). The combination of stakeholders, content, channels and evaluative element in one definition indicates that audience research is necessary to determine the appropriate message and channels of communication. Scholarship, from 2011 to 2018, emphasised the addition of the organisational strategic intent to IC (van Baalen & Mulder, 2016; Niemann-Struweg, 2014; Barker, 2013; Kehinde, 2011). To Barker (2013), IC is: “The coordination of the functions, processes and actions of the organisation in support of the corporate brand, to ensure the organisation’s strategic intent is achieved, so as to maintain long-term sustainable relationships with stakeholders” (p.104). The strategic intent guides the purposeful use of communication and enjoins all stakeholders to direct their varied activities towards the achievement of organisational mission and vision (van Baalen & Mulder, 2016; Niemann-Struweg, 2014; Barker, 2013). Its inclusion in the definition confirms IC as a holistic framework that leads an organisation to its intended goal. Taken together, the above definitions mention key tenets that make integrated communication happen, such as the effective co-ordination of communication activities, stakeholder integration, cross-functional collaboration, promotion of institutional strategic intent and management support. To give true meaning to efforts at mainstreaming the key tenets of IC in universities, there is the need for an ecosystem that opens up the space for effective interactions among institutional stakeholders. 1.2.1 Working Definition of Integrated Communication Based on the definitions of IC above, the following statement serves as the working definition for this study: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 Integrated communication is the strategic management and co-ordination of communication activities at every contact point of an institution to create and nourish mutually beneficial relationships through purposeful dialogue, collaboration and unified efforts by management and all stakeholders for the achievement of institutional strategic intent. The above definition presents IC as a holistic framework for co-ordinating communication activities for the benefit of both the institution and its publics. The process requires the strategic use of multiple media to manage all forms of communication (including messages, symbols, images, procedures and all other communication points of the institution) through an integrated approach. True communication integration can be achieved when management and internal stakeholders interact effectively and work together toward the achievement of institutional desired goals. The definition, therefore, projects two-way communication with stakeholders as well as horizontal and vertical integration (that is, collaboration across departments and hierarchical units). Such extensive collaboration is required to avoid fragmented messages that can lead to misunderstanding on the part of internal publics. It also ensures that messages at all points of communication convey a consistent impression about the institutional image, mission and vision to sustain the publics’ loyalty and ensure long-term beneficial relationships. To achieve success in the integration process, internal communication is as relevant as external communication (Niemann, 2005; Nash & Nash, 2002). It is for this reason that the working definition emphasises horizontal and vertical integration for internal customer service, co-operation of the internal publics and teamwork among employees to make external communication consistent and effective. Whereas horizontal integration is important for interdependence across departments, vertical integration empowers employees to facilitate communication between management and the external publics. With the strategic objective of the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 institution as the driver of the IC process, the internal stakeholders must constantly be educated and oriented to work in sync with management decisions to project the institution as unified in its strategic intent. 1.2.2 The Scope of Integrated Communication Given the broad perspective of the concept, IC should be perceived as communication management using a multilevel approach namely micro, meso and macro levels that pertain to the organisation (Barker, 2013; Vos & Shoemaker, 2001). Integrated communication at the micro level is internal and occurs at the operational level employed to enhance the co-ordination of different communication materials issued by the organisation. An instance is ensuring synergy in the tones used in organisational publications and press releases (Schutte, 2009). According to Vos and Shoemaker (2001), integration at the operational level builds a consistent and clear image of the organisation. The micro/operational level is associated with the daily issues that affect the organisation through its publics (Grunig, 1990). Consequently, the organisation’s publics need to be identified and segmented at this level. The survival of this level, therefore, rests on proper planning, implementation and evaluation of communication campaigns and other public relations programmes (Barker, 2013; Classen & Vewey, 1998). Classen and Vewey (1998) indicate that the meso level, also known as the group level, refers to the management level of communication. Integrated communication at the meso level is, therefore, concerned with synchronising the different domains of communication policy in the organisation (Vos & Shoemaker, 2001). It involves a continuous interactive relationship between the departments involved in corporate communication which leads to a holistic integrated approach for the effective management of the organisation’s overall communication efforts (Schutte, 2009; University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 Kitchen & Schultz, 2001). The meso level requires the existence of a single subsystem which functions independently and bears the responsibility of integrating all communication activities in the organisation (Classen & Vewey, 1998). Integrated communication at the macro level transcends internal communication to encompass the external environment and, therefore, proposes communication management at the strategic level (Barker, 2013; Schutte, 2009). It involves environmental scanning to assess trends that can affect the organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders, and the alignment of communication with the organisation’s overall strategy to enhance its strategic positioning (Barker, 2013; Argenti, Howell & Beck, 2005; Vos & Shoemaker, 2001). Decisions at the macro level determine the organisation’s mode of communication with its publics as well as the management style and general direction of the organisation (Classen & Vewey, 1998). The above discussion highlights IC as a broad-based approach that unifies communication activities across different levels of the organisation to maximise communication impact on institutions. Given the multidimensional nature of integrated communication, the communication manager requires access to all relevant pieces of information needed to communicate feedback to the relevant subsystems. Operating from the management level ensures timely access to information, effective co-ordination as well as clarity and consistency of communication to all relevant areas of the institution. 1.2.3 Dominant Themes and Constructs of IC Based on the explanation of the IC concept, this section deals with the attributes of IC which form the basis of the dimensions investigated. Integrated communication, in this study, does not refer to marketing communication per se; it covers a wider scope than marketing communication. Drawing University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 from scholars including Smedescu and Elisabeta (2017), van Baalen and Mulder (2016), Gronstedt (2000) and Duncan and Caywood (1996), the IC concept is used mainly to refer to: • the co-ordination of internal communication activities by creating synergy in vertical and horizontal interactions for effective external communication; • consistency in the communication of messages and visual symbols to promote institutional image; • leveraging information communication technologies to facilitate the process of integrated communication; • cross-functional collaboration; • stakeholder integration and management of stakeholder relationships; • the effective communication of institutional strategic plan to drive institutional strategic goals; • active support of top/senior management and the empowerment of communication staff to lead the integration process. Each of these attributes is broadly discussed in Chapter Three to provide a better understanding of how it contributes to the IC concept. 1.3 Overview of Institutions Selected for the Study This research investigated three universities in Ghana namely, Central University (CU), Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) and University of Ghana (UG). The next section provides the background of each of these universities. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 1.3.1 Central University Established in 1988 as a pastoral training institute, Central University (CU) has undergone a lot of phenomenal expansion to become the largest private university in Ghana. The name Central University was derived from the name of the International Central Gospel Church (ICGC) which founded the University, and it is a reflection of the Christian Gospel to human life and spiritual transformation. In June 1991, it was renamed Central Bible College and in 1993, the name was changed again to Central Christian College. The College later upgraded its programmes to the baccalaureate level, and in line with national aspirations, expanded its programmes to include an integrated and practice-oriented business school, and named Central Business School. To reflect its new status as a liberal arts tertiary institution, the university was re-christened Central University College in 1998 and affiliated to the University of Cape Coast. The then National Accreditation Board accredited it as a tertiary institution. “In January 2016, the University College received its long-awaited Presidential Charter to become an autonomous and a fully-fledged university as Central University” (Central University, 2023). In terms of location, it has stretched from its initial Dansoman campus, in Accra Central which hosts the School of Theology and Missions, to three more campuses that house the different programmes run by the university. Currently, it has two main campuses located at Mataheko (in Accra Central) and Miotso (along the Tema-Aflao Road). The establishment of the Miotso Campus saw the relocation of a greater part of the university away from the central part of Accra. This campus, often referred to as the permanent campus, is about 58 kilometres away from Accra Central. It accommodates three schools and two faculties, the central administration, student hostels and other important facilities. In addition to the Mataheko and Miotso campuses are other satellite campuses including the Dansoman and Kumasi campuses. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 The University has also expanded its curriculum to cover diverse academic programmes organised under different schools and faculties. Currently, CU has more than six (6) schools/faculties, including the School of Theology and Missions (STM), Central Business School (CBS), the School of Applied Sciences (SAS), School of Pharmacy, School of Research & Graduate Studies (SRGS), Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) and Faculty of Law (FOL). Together, these schools/faculties run more than 23 undergraduate programmes and seven graduate programmes (Central University College, 2013) that cut across disciplines including Theological Studies, Law, Civil Engineering, Nursing, Pharmacy, Architecture, Accounting, Finance, Human Resource Management, Marketing, Communication Studies, Economics, English Language, French and many more. Against the backdrop of an increasingly competitive tertiary education environment, it became necessary for CU to develop a long-term strategic plan that would enable it to improve its competitive edge and ensure sustainable growth. Based on its strategic objectives, CU is committed to strengthening its operations to ensure that all staff members and other stakeholders are working towards the achievement of its goals. 1.3.2 Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) The Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) was founded in 1961 as a joint Ghana Government/United Nations Special Fund Project (www.gimpa.edu.gh). It was originally called the Institute of Public Administration (IPA), established as the key strategic institution to develop the public administrative systems and to train public servants with administrative and professional competence to plan and administer national, regional and local services. In 1999/2000, GIMPA was among a group of 200 public sector organisations in Ghana earmarked under the World Bank-funded Public Sector Reform Programme to be taken off University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 Government Subvention. GIMPA was subsequently selected under the National Institutional Reform Programme to be transformed, notably to be self-financing. Subsequently, GIMPA was taken off Government Subvention in 2001 (GIMPA, 2022). This, however, does not imply that the Institute is completely autonomous; it is accountable to the Government of Ghana in many respects, making it a quasi-public university. The Institute has four campuses located in Accra, Tema (both in the Greater Accra Region), Takoradi (in the Western Region) and Kumasi (in the Ashanti Region). Its main campus, popularly known as Greenhill, is about ten kilometres away from Central Accra and close to the main campus of the University of Ghana. Currently, GIMPA has not only become a fully-fledged public university, but also a highly acclaimed institute, recognised in Africa and around the world, offering master's and executive master's degree programmes in business administration, public administration, development management, governance and leadership in addition to undergraduate programmes. The academic programmes offered by GIMPA are run by four schools namely, Business School, School of Public Service and Governance, Faculty of Law and School of Technology. The Institute is committed to offering programmes in leadership, management, technology, public and business administration for persons employed in the public and private sectors, civil societies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to promote the use of information technology as an essential tool to increase competitive advantage and enhance output for national development. 1.3.3 University of Ghana The University of Ghana (UG) is the premier and largest public university in Ghana. It was founded as the University College of the Gold Coast by an ordinance on August 11, 1948 upon the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 recommendation of the Asquith Commission on higher education in the then British colonies. The University College, at its inception, had the primary purpose of providing and promoting university education, learning and research. For the first thirteen years of its establishment, the University College depended on two institutions in Great Britain, the Inter-universities Council and the University of London, for guidance on its broad policy and the approval and control of degree regulations. In the 1960-1961 academic year, the then College Council petitioned the Government of Ghana for legislation to constitute the University College into a fully-fledged university with the mandate to award its own degrees. Following this request, the Government appointed an International Commission to examine the issue at stake. Upon the recommendation of the Commission, the University of Ghana was established by an Act of Parliament (Act 79) on October 1, 1961 (University of Ghana Diary, 2015). The University has undergone significant changes since it invited a Visitation Panel in 2006 to review its processes in the pursuit of its core mission of producing world-class human resources. Based on the recommendations of the Visitation Panel, UG revised its mode of business and the mode of relationship with its different publics, especially students. Additionally, UG took steps to reform its structure with a view to becoming more effective and efficient in the delivery of its programmes and other activities (University of Ghana Strategic Plan, 2014). In the area of governance, UG has made considerable efforts in restructuring the university management based on recommendations by the Visitation Panel. In addition, the University adopted the collegiate system of governance in 2014 to ensure the decentralisation of its academic and administrative processes. Currently, UG runs on four colleges namely College of Basic and Applied Sciences, College of Education, College of Health Sciences and College of Humanities with more than 39 schools, institutes and centres organised under these colleges. In addition to these, about 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 colleges/institutes hold affiliation with the university for the purposes of enrolment, teaching and the award of degrees and diplomas (University of Ghana Diary, 2020). Again, six (out of the 46) Colleges of Education in Ghana received affiliation status with the University of Ghana in 2019, in line with comprehensive reforms within the teacher education sector, to run Bachelor of Education programmes (University of Ghana Diary, 2020). About ten years prior to the collegiate system in 2014, UG restructured its administrative section into administrative directorates and units. Currently, there are eleven (11) of such directorates and units in the University. Through its academic and administrative units, UG is committed to achieving its vision of becoming a world-class research-intensive university over the next decade in order to serve the growing needs of Ghana, the Sub-region and the global world. 1.4 Statement of the Problem Integrated communication has been acclaimed by scholars and communication practitioners such as Endaltseva (2015), Niemann-Struweg (2014), Barker (2013) and Kitchen and Burgman (2010) as an approach that can promote synergy, cohesion, co-ordination and consistency to avoid fragmentation in organisational communication. Angelopulo and Barker (2005) affirm that institutions that want to have a competitive edge must consider IC as an essential paradigm for achieving their strategic goals. The engagement of internal stakeholders in the IC process significantly enhances the implementation of the paradigm, according to scholars (Schuller & Rasticova, 2011). There is an exponential amount of literature on integrated communication practice in organisations to support these claims, though some scholars argue that the implementation of IC in organisations is saddled with rigid organisational structures, ego problems University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 and managerial challenges as well as unclear definition and measurement procedures (Kliatchko, 2009; Schultz & Schultz, 2003; De Pelsmacker, Geuens & Van den Bergh, 2001). In spite of its popular acclaim, IC has not been implemented successfully in higher educational institutions such as universities. This has become increasing concern for scholars in the field of institutional communication. For instance, the literature shows that scholars including Wilsea (2018) and Edmiston-Strasser (2009), who investigate integrated communication in higher educational institutions such as universities and colleges, have identified challenges to the implementation of IC. They argue that though IC has gained increased acceptance over the past few decades, the extent of its integration into the strategic management approach of higher educational institutions has not been well understood. For example, despite the fact that many American colleges teach integrated communication, the literature suggests that far fewer number of colleges actually practise what they teach (Schuller & Rasticova, 2011; Edmiston-Strasser, 2009). Though models have been developed to drive the integrated communication process, some scholars still decry the unsuccessful implementation of the concept in institutions (Niemann- Struweg, 2014; Edmiston-Strasser, 2009; Walt, 2006). It is, therefore, unclear how communication processes are structured in universities and whether institutions have advanced to the effective integration of communication processes (Edmiston-Strasser, 2009). What this suggests is that there is the need for a comprehensive agenda to drive the management of IC in institutions. As indicated earlier, studies conducted on integrated communication in higher educational institutions in Ghana have tended to focus mainly on the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) into teaching, learning and research at different levels of education (Gyaase, Gyamfi & Kuranchie, 2019; Edumadzie, 2016), though ICT is just an enabler of IC. In addition, the recent competition and crave for student enrolment that has characterised University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 the educational landscape have generated numerous studies on IMC in universities which lay much emphasis on the use of marketing communication tools by universities and the influence that IMC has on stakeholders’ satisfaction, and, its consequences on enrolment, corporate branding, corporate marketing and related disciplines. Apart from Adiko (2015) who investigates the effects of IMC strategies on brand performance in three private universities, hardly any literature can be sourced on integrated communication practice in universities in Ghana regarding the place of stakeholders in the IC process. Scholarship, however, projects the value of stakeholders (especially internal stakeholders) in the IC process (Slaba, 2015; Schuller & Rasticova, 2011), and niversities by their nature, have so many constituents including students, employees and other stakeholders. There is, therefore, a growing need for these institutions to adopt an effective way to communicate with their multifaceted stakeholders to avoid fragmentation. For instance, there is a general consensus in the literature that, internal stakeholders have to be integrated into the communication process and educated on the goals and aspirations of universities to ensure effective engagement with external stakeholders (Niemann-Struweg, 2014; Edmiston-Strausser, 2009). As indicated by Niemann- Struweg (2014), Schuller and Rasticova (2011) and Edmiston-Strausser (2009), universities have not done much to enhance synergy and consistency in their communication procedures to be able to turn their internal stakeholders into ambassadors. In view of this, the literature offers very little empirical direction on how universities should involve internal stakeholders in their integrated communication efforts. Similarly, a scanty part of the literature focuses on certain aspects of integrated communication in universities without referring to the different strands that ensure effective IC with internal stakeholders (Adiko, 2015; University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 Edmiston-Strausser, 2009). Addressing these shortfalls would give universities much-needed insights to help them identify the different strands that promote IC. Again, apart from the study by Adiko (2015) which examines brand performance in three universities in Ghana, existing literature mainly deals with individual higher educational institutions and the way they market themselves to enhance enrolment (Abdullah and Mohamad, 2015; Dorkenoo et. al., 2015; Bamfo & Atara, 2013; Schuller & Rasticova, 2011). Consequently, there is a gap in the literature on the practice of IC in universities and stakeholder engagement in the process. To fill this gap, this study investigated the practice of IC in three different universities in Ghana: private, quasi-public and public. Focusing on how the internal stakeholders of these universities perceived IC in their respective institutions and how their perceptions helped them to contribute to the achievement of institutional goals offers a more nuanced understanding of the IC process. The findings from these different universities would augment the body of literature on integrated communication. 1.5 Research Objectives As indicated earlier, contemporary universities need to co-ordinate and integrate their communication programmes in order to communicate effectively with their publics. In view of this, institutions need to evaluate their communication activities to ensure synergy in all their efforts to reach out to their various publics. An integrated approach to communication offers the opportunity for holistic communication, given its ability to align institutional symbols, messages and procedures with the institutional strategic vision/mission in a manner that is appealing to all institutional stakeholders. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 The primary objective of this study, therefore, was to investigate the opnions of internal stakeholders of the three selected universities to make recommendations on how to improve the management of integrated communication in universities in Ghana. To achieve this overarching objective, the study sought to: 1. examine internal publics’ perceptions about internal communication and its role in managing institutional relationship with stakeholders; 2. explore internal stakeholders’ opinions on the communication of institutional strategic plan and how this is linked with their contributions to the achievement of institutional strategic goals; 3. assess the roles of PR practitioners and how these informed the implementation of IC in their institutions; and 4. investigate how top management’s understanding of integrated communication is linked with its support for the implementation of IC in the institutions. 1.6 Research Questions In spite of the enduring efforts to implement the concept of IC, scholars are doubtful that communication practitioners have been successful in applying the concept in their institutions. In addition, the lack of internal stakeholder involvement in the IC process to push institutional agenda leaves a gap in the scholarly literature. This research was guided by the following questions in effort to provide answers that might meet the objectives set for this study and help to fill the gap in literature: 1. In what ways will internal communication and relationship management in the institutions be linked to the performance of internal stakeholders’ roles? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 2. What are the ways in which the communication of institutional strategic plan connect with internal publics’ contributions to the achievement of institutional strategic goals? 3. How do the roles of PR practitioners intersect with PR strategies for the implementation of integrated communication in their institutions? 4. How does top management’s understanding of integrated communication link with its support for the implementation of IC in an institution? Addressing the above questions offered insights to stakeholder engagement in the IC process as well as the different factors that facilitate the process. 1.7 Significance of the Study Gayeski and Woodward (1996) note that while most organisations’ communication systems and interventions are not yet integrated as defined, there are a number of examples that demonstrate that the integrated model of organisational communication can be applied in diverse settings. This claim is supported by Luck and Moffat (2009) who believe that integrated communication is suitable for diverse forms of organisations operating in different environments thereby suggesting that, integrated communication has a lot of relevance for institutions. Literature also indicates that there is a shift in management’s evaluation of both internal and external communication. Top management increasingly focuses on the measurement of return on communication investments, that is, the results of investments made in communication programmes (Niemann, 2005). Consequently, communication practitioners are obliged to determine and quantify what funded communication programmes have accomplished and the benefits they bring to an organisation (Smith 2012b; Yawstrow, 1999). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 It is for these reasons that research into integrated communication in universities becomes vital. In Ghana, as in other parts of the world, it is common to find universities with satellite campuses. The ability of a university to co-ordinate its communication efforts to meet diverse interests is both imperative and a competitive advantage. This study was designed to enable management obtain feedback on current communication in the respective institutions. The study provided a framework for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of internal communication and sensitise practitioners to improve their communication efforts. With the kind of synergy that IC advocates, the study shows how IC helps to align management and employee ideas for the achievement of the strategic intent of institutions. The recommendations made at the end of this study are useful to all universities and higher educational institutions. This research also makes contribution to scholarship in two-folds. First, it engages data derived from internal stakeholder experiences of integrated communication in the three institutions and, through the analysis of the data, enhances the body of literature in the area of integrated communication. Second, the study expands the theoretical assumptions of the systems theory and the evolutionary integrated communications model by adapting them to the study of integrated communication practices of three different types of universities. 1.8 Operational Definition of Key Terms This section deals with the operational definitions of some key terms in the study. Synergy ‘Synergy’ involves message integration through consistency, interactivity and mission communication (Moriarty, 1994). ‘Synergy’, thus, refers to co-ordinating various messages about University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 the institutional mission to ensure that one thread holds all communication components together to present a unified image about the institution. Communication Czar For the integration of communication to be effective, one of the main prerequisites is to appoint a person or a team to be specifically responsible for the process. The duty of this person/team is to co-ordinate communication actions and efforts; ensure clarity and accuracy, and relevance of information; align communication with the strategic focus of the organisation; ensure the free flow of information among stakeholders for maximum impact, and, ensure management support for the process of integration (Angelopulo & Barker, 2005). In this study, ‘Communication Czar’ is the term used to refer to the communication expert who is responsible for managing all the above duties with competence. Internal Stakeholders ‘Internal stakeholders’ in this research refers to the internal constituents or internal publics of the universities selected for this study with particular reference to academic staff, middle-level or senior staff, students, senior management (top management) and PR practitioners whose views were investigated to establish the procedure for integrated communication in the institutions. In this study, ‘stakeholders’ is usually interchanged with ‘publics’ which refers to the same group of people. Universities ‘Universities’ in this study basically refers to public, private and quasi-public universities which are accredited, for the purposes of awarding degrees, with specific reference to the Central University (CU), GIMPA and the University of Ghana (UG). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 1.9 Organisation of the Study Chapter One of this study is the introductory chapter which spells out the background of the study, the evolutionary definitions and the working definition of IC. The chapter also discusses the scope covered by the IC approach and explains the IC construct. In addition, Chapter One deals with the statement of the problem, research objectives, research questions, the significance of the study, and, operational definition of key terms. In Chapter Two, the theoretical assumptions of the study are discussed. The main theory that underpins the study as well as the model that supports discussions are explained and related to the institutional context. Chapter Three deals with the literature review. Studies relating to the IC concept are discussed in this chapter and key discussions on the obstacles to the implementation of IC are discussed as well. In Chapter Four, the methodology for this study is discussed, beginning with the philosophies that guided the choice of methods. In addition, the sampling procedures together with the different methods used for data collection and data analysis are explained. Also, key in this chapter is the description of the study areas. Chapter Five focuses on the presentation of findings. The data generated from this study are presented using descriptive statistics for the survey and narratives supported by quotes for the interviews and focus group discussions. The data are also triangulated to identify similarities and differences between the quantitative and qualitative findings in addition to drawing comparisons among the three universities. In Chapter Six, the research findings are discussed pointing out the ways in which the themes covered in the literature and the theoretical underpinnings are reflected in Ghanaian University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 universities. In-depth analyses of the qualitative data are done to identify meaningful patterns pertaining to the practice of IC in the institutions selected for this study. Chapter Seven of this study presents the conclusions drawn, the implications to theory and practice as well as recommendations for the implementation of the integrated communication paradigm in higher educational institutions. 1.10 Summary This chapter dealt with the introduction to the entire study. Key issues discussed included the background of the study, the definitions of integrated communication, its scope and constructs as well as an overview of the universities selected for this study. The chapter further presented the statement of the problem, research objectives, research questions, operational definitions, the significance of the study, and, the organisation of the study. The next chapter deals with the theory and model that underpinned the study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.0 Introduction This chapter explores the theoretical underpinnings of the study. Theory, according to Rubin and Babbie (2017) and Wimmer and Dominick (2014), presents a systematic view of phenomena using a set of interrelated statements to explain the relationships among concepts and aspects of social life. Reeves, Albert, Kuper and Hodges (2008) reveal the important roles that a theory plays in all stages of the research process including the composition of the research design, research questions, the selection of relevant data, the interpretation of data, and, the explanation of causes or influences. Flowing from the above, the present study was guided by the systems theory propounded by von Bertalanffy (1947). The systems theory is one perspective that has dominated theoretical discussions in the field of integrated communication. Van der Walt (2006) believes that systems theory provides the basis for the symbiotic relationship that exists between an organisation and its constituent units. Both the systems theory and integrated communication emphasise the need for unifying efforts by a system and its constituents for mutually beneficial outputs. The systems theory was, therefore, chosen as a relevant framework for this study to guide the investigation of the degree to which integrated communication creates a symbiotic relationship among the internal stakeholders of the institutions studied. The discussions in this chapter include the development of the systems thinking, its tenets, limitations as well as its application to the study of communication (in general) and integrated communication (in particular). In addition to the systems theory, the study was supported by Duncan and Caywood’s (1996) evolutionary integrated communications model. This model University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 explains the stages in the integrated communication process and could be used to evaluate an institution’s current stage of IC. 2.1 Origin of the General Systems Theory In response to the increasing fragmentation and duplication of scientific and technological research and decision-making during the nineteenth century, and the first half of the twentieth century, an Australian biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, propounded the general system theory (GST) (Laszlo & Krippner, 1998). Von Bertalanffy conceived the scientific world of that period as a world of chaos calling for efforts to shape it into an organised world upon which scientific thoughts would rest. According to him: There exist models, principles and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of the component elements, and the relations or “forces” between them. We postulate a new discipline called General System Theory. … In this way, the exact formulations of terms such as wholeness and sum, differentiation, progressive mechanization, centralization, hierarchical order, finality and equifinality, etc., become possible terms which occur in all sciences dealing with “systems” and imply their logical homology. (Von Bertalanffy, 1947, as cited in Klir, 1972, p.411) Von Bertalanffy considered the principles of organisation and co-ordination associated with the various levels of the natural systems in his first statements dating from 1925 to 1926 (Laszlo & Krippner, 1998). During this period, Alfred Whitehead and Paul Weiss were developing similar theories that focused on integration, coherence and consistency in the natural sciences. Led by von Bertalanffy, the three scientists developed a general theory of systems to explain how the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 different parts of living things work together to complete a particular task. The GST, thus, originated in the natural sciences (Biological Sciences) as the organismic phenomenon due to efforts to understand sets of objects, the relationship between those objects as well as the relationship between sets of objects and their environments (Laszlo & Krippner, 1998). These beliefs made the systems thinking widely accepted and by the 1960s, was recognised as a scientific basis for theory construction at the multidisciplinary level. 2.1.1 Definition of System A system has been defined in various ways. Miller (1995) for instance conceives of a system as “… a set of interacting units with relationships among them” (p.17). More specific definitions offered include Klir (1972) who defines the concept as “a set of elements standing in interaction among themselves and with the environment” (p.417). Mele, Pels and Polese (2010) also define the term as an assemblage of objects united by some form of regular interaction or interdependence. The key words in these definitions, “relationships”, “interrelations”, “interactions” and “interdependence” strongly emphasise that systems’ components must not be considered in isolation. For purposes of this study, Ackoff’s (1981) definition of system is adopted. According to him, a system is a set of two or more interrelated elements with the following properties: 1. Each element has an effect on the functioning of the whole; 2. Each element is affected by, at least, one other element in the system; 3. All sub-groups of the elements have the first two properties. A system, then, refers to a set of things that affect one another within an environment and forms a larger pattern that is different from any of the parts. Obviously, Ackoff’s (1981) definition supports University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 the notion that to derive a better understanding, elements of the social system need not be studied in isolation. Their interrelations with one another and their environment are equally worthy of investigation. The systems thinking, thus, advocates a holistic approach to understanding social phenomena in consonance with the Aristotelian dictum of the whole being more than the sum of its parts. 2.1.2 System Characteristics Scholars such as Laszlo and Krippner (1997) identify different characteristics of the systems theory. Two of these characteristics which are relevant to the study of IC in institutions are explained in the following sections. 2.1.2.1 The Emergent Properties and Synergy of a System As suggested by the Aristotelian definition, a system is a divisible whole structurally, but functionally, is an indivisible unity with emergent properties. An emergent property, according to Laszlo and Krippner (1997), is marked by the appearance of novel characteristics exhibited on the whole ensemble but not by the system components in isolation. By this explanation, the authors suggest that the emergent properties are lost when the system breaks down to its components. Again, when a component is detached from the whole, that component itself loses its emergent properties. The notion of emergent properties leads to the concept of synergy in that the behaviour of the system results from the attention on the synergistic and complex inter-relationship among its constituent parts. A detached component, thus, forfeits the synergistic relationship enjoyed by other constituent parts. This characteristic of systems theory forms the basis for measuring the universities’ attempts at adopting institutional policies and strategies in an integrated manner. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 2.1.2.2 Open and Closed Systems Depending on the degree of interaction with its environment, a system could be open or closed. A closed system hardly interacts with its environment because it does not accommodate adequate exchange of information or matter (Mele, et al., 2010). Since closed systems do not facilitate/encourage the exchange of information, they are prone to atrophy. At the very fundamental level, an open system, unlike the closed system, interacts with its environment. Von Bertalanffy maintains that closed systems thinking was inappropriate to the study of biological phenomena because biological systems interact with their environment, grow and survive (Ansari, 2004). Gregory (2000) uses three key terms to explain the closed and open perspectives. These are mechanistic system (sometimes called closed system), organismic and adaptive systems (which refer to open system). Mechanistic or closed system, according to her, advocates equilibrium and works to counteract any disturbances to restore the original state. Gregory (2000) indicates that in the organismic model, units work together to impact one another in a reciprocal manner making the system, as a whole, responsive to environmental changes. The objective of the organismic system is survival and to achieve this, the system adjusts to maintain balance internally and with its environment. The system receives input from the environment and exerts some impact on it; predicts and influences change in order to arrive at its desired goals or objectives. In addition, feedback received from its internal units causes adjustments in the systems structure and processes. Thus, unlike the mechanistic system, the focus under this model is not on equilibrium, but on change, though the main aim is to achieve an overall balance. According to Gregory (2000), the adaptive component of open system was propounded by Buckley (1967) as a progression from both the mechanistic and organismic systems. Buckley University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 (1967) particularly laid emphasis on adaptive feedback as the foundation for purposeful feedback indicating variety, tension and the desire to develop are very essential to the adaptive system. Under this paradigm, interaction between the system and the organisation is not mechanical. Rather, it is an ongoing cyclical process where the development of shared meaning and mutual understanding is vital to each participant in the system. The adaptive process could, therefore, be associated with networking and knowledge sharing among institutional internal stakeholders. Katz and Kahn (1978) applied the open system theory to organisation’s ability to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. They considered the organisation as a system which imports matter, energy and information from the external environment and transforms them into products and services. A system’s openness is, thus, measured by the amount of energy, matter and information it is able to exchange with the environment (Mele, et al., 2010). The following section places more emphasis on the discussion of the open systems theory which is relevant to this study as it investigated the integration of communication activities by institutions. 2.1.3 Tenets of the Open Systems Theory The literature shows that open systems operate in relation to suprasystems (or super systems) and subsystems which are arranged in a manner that contributes to the systems’ survival through unrestricted interactions (Mele et al., 2010). Such interactions are characterised by the main tenets of the open systems perspective which are expatiated in the following sections. 2.1.3.1 Hierarchical Ordering Hierarchical ordering signifies that an institution comprises a larger system and its individual