International Journal of Sustainability in Higher EducationGreening the campus: a theoretical extension of the dialogic communicationapproachSerena Carpenter Bruno Takahashi Alisa P. Lertpratchya Carie Cunningham

Article information:To cite this document:Serena Carpenter Bruno Takahashi Alisa P. Lertpratchya Carie Cunningham , (2016),"Greening thecampus: a theoretical extension of the dialogic communication approach", International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 520 - 539Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2015-0036

Downloaded on: 05 August 2016, At: 12:15 (PT)References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 56 times since 2016*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2016),"Recycling as a result of “cultural greening”?", International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 489-505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2015-0021(2016),"Guest editorial", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp.446-450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2015-0192(2016),"Collective action competence: an asset to campus sustainability", International Journalof Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 559-578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0073

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:191576 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

Greening the campus:a theoretical extension of the

dialogic communication approachSerena Carpenter

School of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Bruno TakahashiDepartment of Communication, School of Journalism,

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Alisa P. LertpratchyaDepartment of Advertising and Public Relations,

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA, and

Carie CunninghamSchool of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the strategic organization-public dialogiccommunication practices of universities in the USA. The authors used the dialogic model ofcommunication to explore the extent to which higher education sustainability leaders (SL) at the top 25USA sustainable engage in relational communication strategies.Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews withcampus sustainability and student group leaders from a mix of regional areas in the USA. The authorsexamined the transcripts for concepts argued to exist within the dialogic model of communication fromthe public relations field.Findings – Results reveal that SL rely on dialogic communication strategies to recruit activeparticipants, build stakeholder bridges across campus and empower individuals to have an impactwithin specific sustainability areas. Communicators most likely engaged in empathy, followed bypropinquity, mutuality, commitment and risk of the dialogic model.Research limitations/implications – The authors extended the dialogic model of communication byidentifying theoretical issues and scale items that can be used to measure each dimension of the model in futurework.Practical implications – The results reveal several ways that institutes of higher education couldsuccessfully use relational strategies to promote sustainability across multiple campus groups and departmentsby recruiting campus ambassadors, collectively defining sustainability and sharing public progress reports.Originality/value – Few studies of sustainability in higher education holistically examine therelationship building practices of organizations that promote sustainability, despite the fact thatcommunication is identified as a key factor in the successful implementation of sustainable actions.

Keywords Higher education, Sustainability, Strategic communication,Dialogic model of communication, Organization-public relationships

Paper type Research paper

This work was supported in part by Michigan State University’s Office of Sustainability.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

IJSHE17,4

520

Received 23 February 2015Revised 3 June 20155 August 2015Accepted 19 August 2015

International Journal ofSustainability in Higher EducationVol. 17 No. 4, 2016pp. 520-539© Emerald Group Publishing Limited1467-6370DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2015-0036

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

Institutions of higher education (IHE) play an important leadership role in the promotionof sustainable development (James and Card, 2012). IHE have many reasons to promoteand engage in sustainable practices, including the need to increase interest inenvironmental issues and sustainability, reduce physical costs and provide studentlearning laboratories (Rappaport, 2008). Many factors lead to the successfulimplementation of sustainability initiatives, such as green campus operation measures,organizational leadership and a strong and varied system of institutional support for thesustainability initiatives, among many others (James and Card, 2012; McNamara, 2010).

Communication also plays an integral and crosscutting role in launching andsustaining these initiatives (Djordjevic and Cotton, 2011). As a result, IHE leaders designand carry out sustainability campaigns and event messaging strategies (e.g., Earth Dayevents, sustainability fairs, etc.), which often include print materials, such as postersads, table tents and flyers, social media posts and, to a lesser extent, interpersonalcommunication (Kurland, 2011). Few scholars, however, have assessed how IHEemployees communicate sustainability to diverse campus communities or identifyconcepts that encompass such efforts besides some internal audits conducted by someuniversities (Vaughter et al., 2013). Some recent review papers (Ceulemans et al., 2015;James and Card, 2012; Vaughter et al., 2013) discuss that the majority of the researchexamining sustainability in higher education has been in the form of case studies withinindividual institutions. This study provides a holistic view of relational communicationpractices among IHE sustainability leaders (SL). We expanded this line of researchthrough a conceptual dissection of interviews with 29 campus sustainability officersand eight leaders of student organizations at top universities in the USA according toseveral sustainability rankings.

Specifically, we advanced this scholarly area by applying a unique theoretical lens,the dialogic model of communication, in sustainability research by examining thecommunication practices of SL. Specifically, we investigated the ways in whichuniversity sustainability officials responsible for interacting with various publics enactfive-dimensional lenses (i.e. mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk and commitment) ofthe dialogic model of communication. And second, the study includes studentsustainability groups. Many studies examine students as passive consumers ofinformation about sustainability, but fewer efforts examine their role as activestakeholders in creating sustainable campuses.

Communicating sustainability in institutions of higher educationCollege campuses can reduce their environmental impacts by verbally and nonverballysupporting pro-environmental activities among their students, faculty members andstaff. Despite the acknowledgement that communication is key in encouraging suchbehaviors, the extant evidence points toward a limited use of strategic communication infavor of intuition or past experiences. For example, Dade and Hassenzahl (2013)conducted a content analysis of more than 700 university websites in the USA and foundthat in 2009, only 21 per cent of IHE had an institutional-wide sustainability website.Their results showed a minimal understanding of strategic communication, littlereliance on scientific publications, and most operational decision-makers’ websites hadno mention of sustainability. Similarly, Djordjevic and Cotton (2011) reported thecommunication struggles that take place within a university setting, which includedifficulties in communicating complex messages, contested meanings of the term

521

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

sustainability, weak leadership of the message sender, information overload from othersources within the organization, the use of a top-down communication approach and alack of engagement. As noted, communication challenges also arise because of thediffering ways in which diverse stakeholders define sustainability. Kurland (2011,p. 417) said:

Key informants noted that people define sustainability differently or do not see how it appliesto their areas, experience a fractured vocabulary because they are organized arounddisciplines, or come up with ideas and expect other people will do the changing.

Brinkhurst et al. (2011) argued that more scholarly attention should be placed on facultyand staff members as change agents because most research focuses on universities’leadership and students. Many of the barriers faced by individuals in sustainabilityleadership positions are a function of the complexities of organizational structuresespecially within university settings. Hoover and Harder (2015) reported that visible andinvisible power struggles play an important role. These power struggles embedded inorganizational “histories” are a central obstacle. SL need to communicate the connectivestrands that unite people on or near campuses to ensure that diverse cultures and powerstruggles do not impede their efforts. In several studies of Canadian universitypresidents, facility managers and faculty members, Wright and colleagues discoveredseveral barriers to support for sustainability initiatives, including minimal awareness ofsustainability issues facing IHE, a resistance to change, financial constraints andminimal leadership support (Wright, 2010; Wright and Horst, 2013; Wright and Wilton,2012).

University officials also traditionally perceive students as the target audience forcommunication efforts partly because students and student groups can be importantagents for communicating sustainability messages to their peers. They represent notonly the largest group but also the most mobile group, which negatively influences theability of sustainability offices to educate and mobilize people around issues. Olson et al.(2011) applied a mental models approach to identify knowledge gaps concerningcampus recycling activities among faculty members and students at a large Midwestpublic university. The study reported low levels of knowledge about the logistics ofrecycling and waste reduction. Similarly, among engineering students, sustainability isconsidered important, but students said they required more guidance on how tointegrate it (Watson et al., 2013). In the present study, students representingenvironmental groups are also considered to be active stakeholders of communicationsystems that allow multi-way communication flow.

Dialogic model of communicationWe argue that knowledge of how to build organizational–public relationships throughcommunicative practices in sustainability may aid in overcoming many of thesebarriers. Sharp (2002), based on a review of 30 universities in Europe and the USA,suggested that dialogue, especially face-to-face, is the most effective way to achieveinstitutional and cultural changes within universities. Similarly, real time feedback ofenergy consumption was found to reduce energy use among students living a dorm(Petersen et al., 2007). Marcell et al. (2004) reported that two-way communicationstrategies were more effective than an educational approach in positively influencing

IJSHE17,4

522

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to electricity use andgreenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, most sustainability studies lack a theoretical approach that couldhelp explain descriptive results (Franz-Balsen and Heinrichs, 2007). There is, however,an important set of communication theories that can be useful in designing bothcommunication-based studies and communication campaigns. Yet research utilizingexisting communication theories, models or frameworks based on the concept ofdialogue is missing from the sustainability literature. We turn to the dialogic model ofcommunication to examine the communication practices of IHE SL on USA campusesbecause we suspect that it may prove useful for sustainability scholars and practitionersin understanding how to encourage sustainability practices across diverse campuspopulations. The public relations theoretical model posits that environmentalleaders should commit to engaging in dialogue by being open to and showing respect foropinions or ideas that are opposed to one’s own, which can be a challenging perspectiveto adopt (Bentley, 2012):

Dialogue rests on a willingness to “continue the conversation” – not for purposes of swayingthe other with the strength of one’s erudition, but as a means of understanding the other andreaching mutually satisfying position (Kent and Taylor, 2002, p. 30).

As a result, dialogue is not an easy outcome because it requires a collaborativeinvolvement from faculty members, staff, facility managers, administration, students,etc.

The concept of dialogue is rooted in philosophy and relational communicationtheory. Dialogic communication is a distinct form of communication in contrast withother forms such as “debate”, “discussion” or “monologue”. Thus, communication is animportant element that can hinder or promote support for sustainability (Djordjevic andCotton, 2011). IHE sustainability efforts targeting the campus community reflect a needto garner support for their initiatives. By engaging in dialogue with these stakeholders,IHE leaders can hypothetically increase the odds that they gain support from IHEstakeholders as well as resolve or prevent any opposition that may occur. As a result,dialogue is a desirable outcome in ongoing relationships between IHE leaders and theirstakeholders. The nature of organization-public communication has changeddramatically with the emergence of various social media platforms, such as Facebook in2004 and Twitter in 2006. And thus, people associated with IHE may increasinglyexpect relational forms of communication rather than top– down approaches throughstatic channels from SL.

The dialogic model provides a useful framework to assess whether thecommunication efforts by IHE leaders are moving toward dialogic outcomes. Thedialogic model of communication has been applied to various studies exploring howorganizations communicate and interact with the public (Esrock and Leichty, 1999; Parkand Reber, 2008; Reber and Kim, 2006; Seltzer and Mitrook, 2007; Taylor and Kent,2004). While the five principles proposed by Kent and Taylor (2002) provide normativeguidelines for organizations and institutions, including IHE, the dialogic model hasrarely been applied in the context of IHE to foster relationships with the public, with theexception of content analyses recording the presence of dialogic features on universities’websites (Gordon and Berhow, 2009; McAllister, 2012; McAllister-Spooner and Kent,2009). Most universities, however, do not visually encourage key stakeholders to post

523

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

information or photos to university websites and Facebook, despite a relationship foundbetween the use of dialogic features on websites and higher rates of student retentionand alumni giving (Gordon and Berhow, 2009; McAllister, 2012). Public engagementwith external stakeholders from a dialogic perspective can have a positive effect onpublic perceptions of the university as well (Bruning et al., 2006).

The explication of dialogic communication, however, is still relatively unexploredbecause boundaries of the concepts have yet to be fully conceptually and operationaldefined (Kent and Taylor, 2002). We explore the dialogic perspective by interviewing SLin hopes of understanding their communication practices from this perspective. We alsoseek to contribute to the theoretical development of these five dimensions. Kent andTaylor (2002) state that definitional overlap among concepts creates conceptual andoperational definition challenges. The researchers use the dialogic model as aconceptual lens, while keeping in mind its tentative boundaries. Kent and Taylor (2002)have attempted to begin the explication process by generally proposing five dimensionsto dialogic communication – mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk and commitment(Figure 1).

MutualityMutuality refers to the recognition by communicators that all involved parties areclosely tied together to achieve a mutual goal. Those who acknowledge that they gainmutual benefit through relational communication with other parties are more likely tosupport the outcome of the communication (Bruning et al., 2008). Strategies shouldacknowledge each party as a unique contributor and let other parties know that each iswilling to work together to achieve mutual benefit (Otulak, 2010). Each group may havetheir own positions on a particular issue or sustainability in general because of theirvarying responsibilities within a higher educational community. For example, studentsmight be more oriented toward individual behavioral changes, faculty members might

Dialogue

Mutuality

Collaboration Spirit of Mutual Equality

Propinquity

Immediacy of Presence

Temporal FlowEngagement

Empathy

Supportiveness

Communal OrientationConfirmation

Risk

Vulnerability

Unanticipated Consequences

Recognition of Strange

Otherness

Commitment

Genuineness

Commitment to Conversation

Commitment to Interpretation

Figure 1.Dialogic model ofcommunication

IJSHE17,4

524

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

be more concerned with educating people and the administration might be more inclinedtoward changing the infrastructure. This concept is especially relevant to situationswhere the success depends heavily on collaboration with different parties (Bentley,2012).

PropinquityPropinquity highlights an awareness of the temporality and spontaneity, resulting frominteraction with involved parties. Kent and Taylor (2002) proposed that propinquitycomprises three features – immediacy of presence, temporal flow and engagement.Immediacy of presence in dialogic propinquity suggests communicating about an issuein the present rather than communicating the result of a decision after it has been made.Temporal flow involves communication that recognizes that all groups share a futuretogether, and decisions should be considered acceptable for all affected parties. Lastly,engagement in dialogic propinquity refers to the willingness to commit to thecommunication to sustain the relationship. All people involved in dialogiccommunication must be willing to participate to express their opinions rather thanmaintaining an observer status.

EmpathyEmpathy refers to cultivating a trusting and supportive atmosphere because theconcept of dialogue is more akin to a conversation between people who seek tounderstand each other’s preferences. There are three features to dialogic empathy –supportiveness, communal orientation and confirmation or acknowledgement of others.Supportiveness refers to circumstances where leaders facilitate engagement inconversation with people representing varying perspectives. Communal orientationreflects institutions treating each other as partners and colleagues rather than outsiders.It is also argued that diverse opinions should be also acknowledged to confirm the valueof each party’s contribution to dialogue. Such acknowledgement hypothetically leads totrusting relationships.

RiskRisk refers to the willingness to engage in communication with the target audiences ontheir own terms. Dialogue also involves the revealing of information and opinions thatmay be counter to their stance, which makes each party vulnerable to manipulation andcriticism. While information disclosure may put parties at risk of being criticized,accepted solutions often emerge from a willingness to be open to feedback. Each partymay hold certain opinions, but SL should not use coercion to push people to align withtheir opinions. Communicators should be willing to disclose information, seek to learnfrom unique individuals and listen to people who may provide potentiallyuncomfortable responses.

CommitmentDialogic communication changes the nature of the institution–stakeholder relationshipby emphasizing the relationship rather than the outcome. To nurture such relationship,all parties must be committed to engaging in dialogue. Parties achieve dialogue bycommitting to conversation and being open to various interpretations of issues. Fromthis theoretical perspective, communication is held for the purpose of achieving mutual

525

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

benefits. Dialogic communication requires an appreciation for the values and opinionsof others:

Dialogue rests on a willingness to “continue the conversation” – not for purposes of swayingthe other with the strength of one’s erudition, but as a means of understanding the other andreaching mutually satisfying position (Kent and Taylor, 2002, p. 30).

Research questionsThe above discussion led to the development of two main research questions. Theresearch goals were to determine to what extent sustainability staff and studentorganizations enacted the five proposed forms of dialogic communication and we alsoqueried who were their targets of their communication efforts:

RQ1. What are the dialogic behaviors of IHE sustainability leaders?

RQ2. Who are the target publics of IHE sustainability leaders’ dialogic efforts?

MethodThe use of qualitative research allows for a more exploratory approach to examinedialogic sustainability communication practices in IHE. We conducted interviews withkey administrators in sustainability offices, as well as student representatives ofsustainability student groups. We chose the qualitative interview method because itproduces data that, when analyzed, provide deeper insight into participants’ perceptionsin comparison to the quantitative approach. Interviews were semi-structured, meaningthat a general interview protocol was used as a guide, but the interviewer could probedeeper into areas of interest (Schostak, 2005). We applied the dialogic model ofcommunication as our conceptual lens to determine the extent that IHE SL engage indialogue to serve the public and meet the organizational expectations of universities.

SampleWe interviewed 12 males and 25 females. These two groups varied in age: professionals-41.62 years old and students- 23.29 years old. These professionals and students wererecognized to be in leadership positions connected with their group/office’scommunications to community. Commonly, these leaders were directors orcommunication coordinators. IHE professional SL were fairly well-established with anaverage time in their current position of 6.22 years. Student groups were lessexperienced at 2.83 years. Both groups varied in majors: sustainability, government andnatural resources, biology, mechanical engineering, urban and regional planning, etc.Among the professional leaders (n � 15), highest degrees were wide-ranging: bachelors(n � 3), masters (n � 6), MBA (n � 3), JD (n � 1) and PhD (n � 2). In the student group,there were two leaders with a bachelor’s degree and one with a master’s degree[1].

Sampling procedureWe contacted 25 top schools in sustainability of which 21 responded to our request, andwe conducted 37 interviews with SL across the USA (i.e. ten west; four east; twoMidwest; one south). The sample included IHE sustainability (n � 29) and studentsustainability group leaders (n � 8) from a total of 21 universities (15 public schools andsix private schools). The top 25 schools were identified through a comparative analysisof six different ranking systems. According to an article “Higher ed sustainability

IJSHE17,4

526

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

ratings, rankings and reviews” (Greener, 2010), there are ten ranking systems amonguniversities that evaluate programs on various aspects, including, curriculum, campusand public engagement, air and climate, energy, grounds, purchasing, etc. From the tenranking systems, we looked at six systems (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment &Rating System (STARS); Princeton Review; Guide to 286 Green Schools; GreenopiaCollege and University Ranking; Best Business Programs in Sustainability and BeyondGrey Pinstripes) that are current. We then looked across the six different systems forschools that existed in at least two different ranking systems, which led to a compiledlist of 25 schools.

All of the schools were contacted by email or phone; 21 schools agreed to be a part ofthe study. We consulted the sustainability website to identify people qualified to speakon behalf of their communication strategies. We asked each individual to confirm thisexpertise or to identify a person more qualified to answer questions concerning theircommunication strategies. We relied on a semi-structured format, which included 23multi-part questions asking interviewees about their sustainability communicationbehaviors (e.g. “How do you communicate the goals of your office”); unit’scommunication successes and challenges (e.g. “What are some challenges you face whentrying to communicate with people?”; “What communication approaches work?”;engagement and relational communication strategies (e.g. “Can you tell me about howyou engage people?”); and target audiences (e.g. “Who is the primary audience forsustainability campaigns?”). We ended the three-month (November 2014 to January2015) interview process once data saturation was achieved.

CodingThe study used multiple thematic coding steps. Two coders were used to avoid commonissues in qualitative research dealing with validity, reliability and generalizability offindings (Silverman, 2006). First, the two coders read through the audio transcriptsmultiple times to identify themes and subthemes taking written notes (Sweeney et al.,2013). Second, we centered our efforts on exploring the transcripts through the lens ofthe dialogic model. We reviewed the transcripts at the same time to test our a prioricategories and establish basic agreement on open coding procedures with attention totraditional and social aspects of team-based coding (Sanders and Cuneo, 2010). Thisapproach followed Sanders and Cuneo’s (2010, p. 239) recommendations, which statethat: “Through team discussions, changes in coding help to overcome individualresearch suppositions, bring about a shared understanding of suppositions, and createincreased (social) reliability”. Lindlof and Taylor (2010) also refer to this team-basedapproach as a triangulation technique of validation. All passages were roughly dividedinto conceptual categories based on the hypothesized model. Third, we relied on thequalitative analysis software QDA Miner to identify additional patterns undetected byauthors. Specifically, we relied on the cluster retrieval tool at a medium level to detectclusters. QDA Miner extracts text clusters based on their similarity. The codersdetermined and labeled any relevant clusters based on whether patterns aligned withour conceptual analysis. Fourth, we adjusted, reduced and refined the initial categoriesto provide as accurate of a description as possible based on our understanding of thenormative framework of dialogic communication. This also allowed us to comparenotes, establish construct validity (Ryan, 1999) and enter final codes into the database.

527

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

And lastly, we drafted a narrative based on the analyses stemming from the transcripts(Burnard, 1996; Spiggle, 1994).

ResultsThe results of the qualitative analysis reflect interviews with key administrators insustainability offices, as well as student representatives of sustainability studentgroups. We analyzed the transcripts based on the five forms of dialogic communication(Kent and Taylor, 2002).

RQ1 queried the extent to which SL used five forms of dialogic communication. Theresults reveal that they were most likely to engage in empathy, followed by propinquity,mutuality, commitment and risk of the dialogic model (Table I).

EmpathySL enabled sustainable futures by developing relationships with groups and individualsto gauge what strategic and relationship efforts will be accepted or challenged.Organizers realize that dependence on a volunteer staff and community buy-in requiresconversational skills. This decentralized approach requires the ability to bring peopletogether to learn about their needs, which in return provides them with the informationon potential ideas for solutions. For example:

We’ll be bringing in different professors. You’re going to have people in agriculture; you’regoing to have people in engineering; you’re going to have people in business. The art ofnegotiating sustainability into a company could be a topic for a class (SL#21).

We created a sustainable food committee that helps with dining services together withacademic folks so that we can figure out what are sustainable innovations, where do we wantto go in terms of changing our purchasing, and how do we attain rigorous accountability(SL#6).

Empathy means that SL strive to create a trusting environment by seeking to learnabout the needs of people from varying perspectives. For example, one SL#33 stated the

Table I.Frequency of dialogiccommunicationpractices ofsustainability leaders

RespondentsDialogic model concepts n (%)

Empathy – Confirmation 28 75.7Empathy – Supportiveness 27 73.0Empathy – Communal Orientation 27 73.0Propinquity – Temporal Flow 24 64.9Propinquity – Engagement 15 40.5Propinquity – Immediacy of Presence 5 13.5Mutuality – Spirit of Mutual Equality 22 59.5Mutuality – Collaboration 12 32.4Commitment – Commitment to Conversation 14 37.8Commitment – Commitment to Interpretation 13 35.1Commitment – Genuineness 6 16.2Risk – Unanticipated Consequences 12 32.4Risk – Recognition of Strange Otherness 10 27.0Risk – Vulnerability 10 27.0

IJSHE17,4

528

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

importance of recognizing “the differences between students and activists alreadyengaged in environmental issues”. The analyses indicate that SL invite feedback frompeople involved in higher education by organizing activities in public spaces. This isillustrated in the following quotes:

We do have field trips, whether it is visiting a company or visiting a landfill with solar panelson it, to show people how energy systems are being implemented in real life (SL#27).

The climate action plan is guided by an environmental sustainability committee that is a groupof faculty members, administration members and students who guide what the university’sefforts are and implement climate action plan activities (SL#20).

The SL, however, did not appear to invite people to express their feelings, but theyinstead sought informational input focused on learning how they can improvesustainability on campus because once “you understand your culture then you see yourown opportunities and your own challenges (SL#1)”. And thus, it is critical to identifystories recognizing these people as SL#28 stated: “We can talk about the environmentalconsequences of the lack of water, but also the human component”. Based on theempathy norm, they should invite people to express their feelings on issues, createcontent that reflects people’s needs and feelings and schedule activities and events tolearn about how their needs influence their sustainability practices.

PropinquityThe results reveal that SL adhered to a “shared future” approach by identifyingcommittees consisting of IHE ambassadors. Sustainability practitioners recognize thattheir work involves an obligation to coordinate diverse teams. And within their roles,part of their communication efforts involve identifying and empowering individualsthat want and can create change for particular causes. These individuals are oftenreferred to as ambassadors. Ambassadors join guiding committees, advisory teams,green leader groups, etc., that act as collectives interested in reducing environmentallydamaging footprints:

We have a significant number of students who are monitoring sustainability, and so we look atthem as ambassadors of the kind of things that we are doing (SL#1).

I’ve seen several dozen Green Ambassadors get the word out. They inform us what they thinkworks best for their peers (SL#5).

We get a lot of college staff and students engaged in a concentrated effort, and then we hand offthe program to the college and leadership itself to keep it going for the long-term (SL#5).

Our students are trained on action planning. We train them on community visioning. We trainthem on involving leadership for sustainability transformation (SL#16).

As far as communicating in the present, these teams of ambassadors often “get together[…] and brainstorm what’s going on” because SL recognize that people interpretsustainability from different perspectives, which many SLs state influencesparticipation and identification with sustainability from a campus community:

529

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

I think the engagement of our partners, particularly on campus; you always have to haveexecutive support and buy-in to make things go well. We have to have what really makes ittake, which is an engaged student body and engaged experts across campus (SL#8).

[Our school] has worked with the city, and we really see it as part of our commitment that if allof [the city] doesn’t work together; it is not going to be possible to have the sustainable futurethat we seek (SL#6).

Once formed, these groups advise leadership on strategies and programs to address theidentified sustainability issues. They often empower people to act on specific initiatives,such as climate change, third-world hunger, energy and waste reduction, smoking, etc.,identified as relevant by the sustainability unit or advisory committee. As mentioned, anotable number of SL acknowledge that ambassadors must “buy-in” to particularcauses because most people volunteer their time. Thus, they stated a need to recognizethat support depends on appreciating how the campus community interpretssustainability rather than emphasizing issues SL themselves believe require necessaryaction. A common theme across the interviews was that respondents argued thatcommunication efforts should center on a specific issue recognized by its communitymembers since sustainability is an action-based approach.

Sustainability communicator’s primary role is learning relationship maintenancestrategies and holding sustainability partners accountable for their commitments:

I think it’s important when you are able to record the people make a difference as wellacknowledge and recognize those people who participated in it. And that makes a difference interms if they are coming back for another event, to know that they were acknowledged(SL#11).

Sustainability office leaders invest in their ambassadors through partnerships, funds,speakers, programs, events and classes. Several participants stated that in addition toconsulting ambassadors for input on how the campus can become more sustainable,they also rely on them to recruit people to adopt meaningful sustainable behaviors for aparticular IHE building:

By going to one building a time, you can pretty specific for that audience, and it just has to berelevant to them. And we have to figure out how to make it relevant (SL#3).

In summary, SL practiced propinquity by trying to collaboratively engage all involvedparties in a conversation to achieve decisions in the present with the future in the mind.They often emphasized they must work together to address sustainability, “I think it’sunity that we’re trying to foster here, saying we are all in this together, everyone can help(SL#12)”. They also need to reflect and respond in real time regarding their progresswith the public such as holding “leaders” meeting […] to talk about how well thingswent (SL#29). Example approaches to enacting propinquity include responding to thepublic in real time and communicating how an issue potentially affects various publics.In addition, their communication efforts involved empowering ambassadors toadvocate for particular causes.

MutualityMutuality reflects a collaborative approach in which people are treated as equals.

This use of communication behaviors emphasizing mutual dependence are needed tocoordinate individuals to work together to accomplish activities perceived to positively

IJSHE17,4

530

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

affect sustainability. And thus, the collaboration and mutual equality sub-dimensionswere used because SL have to rely on others to help them accomplish their goals, such asrelying “waste management to help us use your waste (#SL1)” and relying “a lot of helpfrom our student government and 15 departments on campus (#SL#6)”, to carry outevents. The key driver of this continued relationship building approach appears to bemotivated by their heavy dependence on a volunteer staff to accomplish sustainabilityinitiatives.

IHE SL recognize they should seek to become aware of the varying perspectives.They sought to understand the differing opinions, including considering how the otherconstituents reach their opinions, as described by some of these respondents:

We’re not deciding what all of these sub-groups do, it kind of bubbles from the bottom up. Soit’s more of a republic. We’re just tying all the things together (#SL4).

IHE SL recognized that a collaborative landscape is critical to accomplish sustainableinitiatives. Many of the leaders expressed that their job involved “connecting the dots”,which means that they use their relationship building skills to create bridges acrossdepartments with people of any background expressing an interest in sustainability:

You need a lot of support from student volunteers. And you need student leadership to step upand be responsible. And this is reaching out to campus stakeholders to get support acrosscampus. That’s key to success with lots of things (SL#19).

I would advise having campaigns for specific people and then inviting participation is equallyimportant. In fact, it often makes a big difference for a good turn out (SL#11).

Sustainability leaders, which is a volunteer staff education program, where people who areinterested in sustainability come together once a month for a luncheon that we host, and thenthey go back to their departments and they start green teams (SL#24).

CommitmentSL practice the commitment principle of dialogic communication by working toward acommon understanding concerning the various definitions of sustainability. The resultsshow that the IHE SL functions largely as relational managers. Their role is to fosterunity by organizing collaborations with individuals from many different cultures andperspectives to address sustainability. They indicated that they must encourageschools, departments and units to “talk to each other” to help them realize their commoninterests in order to efficiently take interdisciplinary action:

Our office really acts as a catalyst across the university bringing awareness to sustainabilityissues, and we try to get different players involved that fits their interests. We’re not going tobe experts in particular areas (SL#24).

We’re trying to put bright, passionate people together in the same room to come up withsolutions for real world problems and to help educate the students on campus (SL#21).

We just had a round table discussion with members of industry government andnon-government organizations about what would be a good quality sustainability minor(SL#20).

531

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

One challenge is that people vary widely in how they interpret sustainability. Many SLsfind that it is important to honor the various ways people want to support sustainabilitybecause sustainability requires their action. This requires listening, such as invitingpeople to share presentations about issues facing the campus or breaking into groups todiscuss ideas (SL#27). And many respondents attempted to get diverse groups to talk toeach other to help them identify how their interests diverge and unite.

The dialogic approach also encompasses SL providing opportunities for publics toexpress their viewpoints and ask questions. SL often shared information with the public,but they were not as likely to provide public platforms that were not choreographed tosome degree in comparison to student groups. They rarely held opportunities for peopleto publically speak out about issues not driven by a set agenda. Instead, they oftenrecruited ambassadors or leaders to identify those issues and to discuss those issueswith other stakeholders. Some did organize sessions to provide people an opportunity toconsider how they personally identify with sustainability. Two SLs argued that SL needto avoid acting as the “sustainability police or playing the blame game” (SL#12) orsaying “Oh, you should believe what I believe” (SL#29) because it is ineffective. SL#12stated that communicators should emphasize rather how individuals can “contribute toa healthy campus community in their own degree”.

Dialogue also requires commitment to interpretation, which refers to the willingnessto engage in communication to understand different positions and opinions. All partiesmust set aside their differences long enough to fully understand different opinionsbefore those positions can be evaluated:

We tailor the campaigns slightly differently for students to make to make it little bit morerelevant and actionable. And then staff and faculty, we follow a similar approach onconservation. We tailor our messaging (SL#15).

The results reveal that sustainability communicators could organize events andactivities to encourage parties to discuss their position on issues; recognize that they arenot experts in many subjects concerning the organization; express a genuine interest inlearning about other people’s perspectives and coordinate people of diversebackgrounds to engage in conversation.

RiskThe analysis shows that IHE SL take on risk in a few ways. Most communicators sharedtheir project plans and updates on their progress with various publics and inviting theirresponse, but they did not often mention events in which the agenda had not alreadybeen set. Primarily, student SL were often the catalysts of these types of open exchanges,which diminish their ability to control public dialogue around sustainability:

We use a lot of message bubbles around campus, and we get people to write statements on themessage bubbles (SL#5).

We have these energy chats. And they’re very informal. It started out where a group ofstudents would go to a local dive restaurant in the area. And we would just order a bunch oftreats and talk about what is going on in energy (SL#27).

We discussed more than delivered information. I think that is one of the bigger issues that wehave faced because people would rather talk about random subjects or other things than whatreally needs to be discussed (SL#32).

IJSHE17,4

532

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

I have been able to hire a fellow just to focus on developing monthly campaigns and getting outand talking to people finding out what are the avenues in general they are listening, how dothey want to see [sustainability]. I think that’s been helpful. We make material that isuser-friendly (SL#25).

Sustainability communication also depends on structural changes led by the universityleaders (Franz-Balsen and Heinrichs, 2007). Another way SLs engage this dialogic normis by building relationships with people placed in unique positions to assist them withspecific physical sustainability goals:

We have custodians who we’ve worked with to analyze all of the cleaning products we’re usingand to identify those that are unhealthy or are not friendly to the environment and buyingbetter products to replace them (SL#11).

We have a composting program, and we’re negotiating a deal with the [state] prison industries(SL#1).

We found that talking to the head plumber that we got the best research on what path weshould take to realistically to be able to change the restrooms on campus to be more waterconservative. So finding important people to talk to for whatever information you need is notto be underestimated (SL#25).

SL should be willing to take risks, such as offering open forums or seeking feedbackfrom unique individuals. Most of the campus community is not involved withsustainability, and they will need to brainstorm ways to reach them such as hosting afashion show featuring local sustainable clothing (SL#26). A few items resulting fromanalysis indicate that they disseminate updates on successes and failures on aconsistent basis, share information openly with the public and disseminate productivityreports explaining progress with public.

Target groupsRQ2 asked what groups were the focuses of their strategic communication efforts.Results show that respondents most often mentioned students (n � 22, 59.4 per cent) astheir focus, followed by staff (n � 14, 37.8 per cent), outside community (n � 13, 35.1 percent), faculty (n � 12, 32.4 per cent), IHE administration (n � 10, 27.0 per cent), mediaoutlets (n � 7, 18.9 per cent), alumni (n � 5, 13.5 per cent) and sustainability rankinggroups (n � 4, 10.8 per cent), such as STARS. Partnering tactics require openness toperspectives. Most respondents, however, indicated that they focused on a fewparticular campus groups. For example, SL#9 emphasized that their primary audiencewas “people who are in buildings, which tends to be who can affect change, who arewilling to do things, which tends to be staff”. And SL#24 stated, “Staff are really theones who keep the place going from year to year, and are in control of the processes andsystems that make the university function”. The transient nature of students createschallenges because it is difficult to maintain groups of students committed tosustainability. Some respondents said that students are not aware of the culture of thelocal community and sustainability offices, which means that they have to invest time incoordinating and educating students: “We would have turnovers, it’s hard to keepconsistency (SL#9)”.

Many respondents recognized that different approaches were necessary for eachgroup. SLs most often engaged faculty members by providing opportunities to teach

533

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

classes and conduct research. The respondents indicated that faculty research wasuseful in helping them choose sustainability paths. The SLs engaged the outsidecommunity by encouraging students to volunteer for local non-profits, such as growingfood for local businesses or providing tours showcasing campus successes or takingstudents to tour outside facilities. One IHE also hosts a festival in which local businessescan sell their sustainability-produced products. Another IHE invites the public to attendsustainability classes held on campus to increase the sustainability literacy of thebroader public. Some SLs rely on campus media to promote events or highlightachievements. A few schools reach out to alumni, but they are rarely strategized as atarget of their relationship efforts. People within administration or faculty members areoften encouraged to create a volunteer workforce to encourage the adoption ofsustainable behaviors and increase awareness in their buildings. However, a notableinvestment made toward administration consisted of annual reports measuring whethertheir efforts have had a physical impact. For some schools, sustainability leadershipappeared to be concerned with addressing expectations set by either university officialsor official programs. This expectation leads offices to invest a notable amount ofresources in order to be placed on ranking list: “We align a lot of our metrics with theSTARs system (SL#13)”.

The dialogic perspective encourages the tailoring of communication strategies torepresent multiple viewpoints (i.e. faculty, students, outside community members,administration, staff, alumni and departments) because relational needs fluctuatedepending upon a recipient’s perspective of sustainability. SL created conditions fordialogic relationships by creating committees and partnerships reflecting multipleperspectives to advise them on sustainability matters. Some practical ways to exercisedialogic norms could include running important issues through a board ofrepresentatives, such as students, faculty members and staff or conducting acampus-wide survey on those issues. Relationship practices, however, were not alwaysa priority because universities need to reduce energy, build infrastructure and performother campus-wide alterations, which enables their campus to obtain a spot on theSTARS and other ranking systems.

ConclusionWe identified highly ranked schools in sustainability to determine the factors andconditions that help make these programs successful. Future sustainability researchshould explore specific variables and strategies identified by this research, such asorganizational ambassadors, volunteer recruitment or negotiated communicationstrategies. Practical suggested communication approaches resulting from this researchinclude:

• Publically negotiating the definition of sustainability on campus by holdingevents for inviting public feedback and acknowledging their input in some visibleway, offering courses that involve outside community residents and studentsfrom multiple disciplines, communicating how people unite and diverge in theirdefinitions of campus sustainability; and assembling advisory groupsrepresenting multiple disciplines and stakeholder groups.

• Creating a collaborative environment by building relationships around specificsustainability issues; encouraging local involvement through tours, vendors and

IJSHE17,4

534

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

class offerings and recruiting people from diverse backgrounds to participate insustainability.

• Being accountable in these relationships by communicating successes andfailures in a timely and transparent manner.

The results show that the dialogic model of communication provides some uniqueinsight into how IHE are positively cultivating a culture of sustainability oncampuses by using communication to bring about mutually beneficial relationships.Public relations scholars argue that dialogic communication is an ethical anddesirable approach to engaging publics in comparison to one-directional forms ofcommunication (Stoker and Tusinski, 2006). The results show the field ofsustainability requires dialogic tactics to collectively define sustainability andsecure the participation of a mostly volunteer workforce. The results also reveal thatSL most likely engage in empathy, followed by propinquity, mutuality, commitmentand risk with students and staff as their main focus of their communication efforts.The study theoretically contributed to the model by identifying dialogic behaviorspracticed by SL. Such continued exploration enables future researchers to identifypotential items for measures that could be used in the refinement of the fivefunctions or a reconceptualization into more fine-grained categories. Focus groupresearch seeking further articulation of each dimension or factor analytic evidenceidentifying whether the theoretical dimensions hold together may assist scholarsinterested in this area.

Most research using the dialogic perspective examines websites’ potential fordialogue rather than querying how they build relationships. Generally, those resultsshow that organizations do not to a great extent use their websites to encouragerelationships with the public (Ingenhoff and Koelling, 2009; McAllister and Taylor,2007; Taylor et al., 2001). Interestingly, the participants in this study felt that face-to-facecommunication was more effective in fostering quality dialogue than onlinecommunication. And thus, this research demonstrates a unique role of IHE leaders byexamining what they do through the relational lens of the dialogic communicationapproach.

The limitations include small sample size and mutual exclusivity of the dimensions.First, the research reflects the reported behaviors and opinions of a small number of SL,which limits this study’s generalizability. Second, conceptual articulation is a criticalnext step in the development of this model. Many responses were placed under multipledialogic dimensions because of conceptual cloudiness surrounding the concepts. Forexample, commitment – commitment to conversation (i.e. work toward a commonunderstanding) and risk – unanticipated consequences (i.e. understanding variouspositions on issues), empathy – communal orientation (i.e. continual communitybuilding development) and propinquity – temporal flow (i.e. shared future) andmutuality – collaboration (seek to understand positions) and propinquity – engagement(respect disagreement) co-occurred together in sections of text. Thus, theoreticalspecification can help reduce the ambiguity surrounding these sub-dimensions.Additionally, some of the dimensions (i.e. mutuality, empathy, commitment) reflected adesire to respect and engage people with diverse perspectives. Further articulation isnecessary to avoid dimensional overlap.

535

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

Note1. Sustainability Leaders: Title: Energy Coordinator, Male, Highest Degree Level: MA,

Bachelor’s Degree: Philosophy & Sociology, three years of current experience; Title: Directorof Affairs Campus Sustainability Office, Male, Highest Degree Level: MA, Bachelor’s Degree:Environmental Education, eight years in current position; Title: Professor, Female, HighestDegree Level: PhD, Bachelor’s Degree: Anthropology, 68, 39 years in current position; Title:Assistant Vice President, Administration and Finance, Interim Director for SustainableManagement and Operations, Female, Highest Degree Level: MS, Bachelor’s Degree:Electrical Engineering, one year in current position; Title: Director of SustainabilityIntegration, Female, Highest Degree Level: MS, Bachelor’s Degree: Biology, 58, ten years incurrent position; Title: Assistant Director of Sustainability and Facilities and CampusServices, Female, Highest Degree Level: MBA, Bachelor’s Degree: Environmental Biology, 39,2.5 years in current position; Title: Sustainability Leadership and Outreach Coordinator,Female, Highest Degree Level: BA, Bachelor’s Degree: General Science, 30, six years in currentposition; Title: Director of The Office of Sustainability, Female, Highest Degree Level: MA,Mathematics, seven years in current position; Title: Director of The Sustainability Initiative,Female, Highest Degree Level: JD, Bachelor’s Degree: Human Biology, 42, two years in currentposition; Title: Financial Manager, Female, Highest Degree Level: MA, Bachelor’s Degree:Environmental Studies, 27, one year in current position; Title: Communication And PublicAffairs Coordinator, Male, Highest Degree Level: BS, Bachelor’s Degree: Journalism &Chemistry, 44, one year in current position; Title: Communications and MarketingCoordinator, Female, Highest Degree Level: BA, Bachelor’s Degree: Mass Communication, 25,1.5 years in current position; Title: Director of The Office of Sustainability and VisitingAssistant Professor, Male, Highest Degree Level: PhD, Bachelor’s Degree: Civil Engineering,45, three years in current position; Title: Director with The Environmental Stewardship inThe Sustainability Office, Female, Highest Degree Level: MA, Bachelor’s Degree: Politics, 43,six years in current position; Title: Sustainability Coordinator, Male, Highest Degree Level:MA, Bachelor’s Degree: History & Broad Field Social Science, 38, 1.5 years in current position;Title: Associate Vice President For Sustainability Operations Officer, Male; Title: ProgramCoordinator in the Office of Sustainability Initiatives, Female; Title: SustainabilityCommunication & Outreach Coordinator, Female; Title: Director of Office of Sustainability,The Department of Sustainability and Energy Management, Male; Title: SustainabilityCoordinator, Female; Title: Campus Sustainability Manager, Male; Title: Research andOutreach Manager, Female; Title: Assistant Director, Female; Title: Marketing and ProgramCoordinator, Female; Title: Education Manager, Female; Title: Energy Engineer, Female;STUDENT LEADERS; Female, High School, Government & Natural Resources, 20, one yearin current position; Male, MS, Mechanical Engineering, 26, two years in current position;Female, High School, Biology, 21, one year in current position; Female, Highest Degree Level:BA, Urban & Regional Planning, 21, one year in current position; Female, Highest DegreeLevel: High School, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 21, two years in current position;Female, Highest Degree Level: BA, Biology, 32, ten years in current position; Highest DegreeLevel: High School, Sustainability, 22, .five years in current position; Male; Female; Female.

ReferencesBentley, J.M. (2012), “Applying dialogic public relations theory to public relations education”,

Teaching Journalism & Mass Communication, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

IJSHE17,4

536

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G. and Ackerman, J.D. (2011), “Achieving campussustainability: top-down, bottom-up, or neither?”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 338-354.

Bruning, S.D., Dials, M. and Shirka, A. (2008), “Using dialogue to build organization-publicrelationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes”, PublicRelations Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 25-31.

Bruning, S.D., McGrew, S. and Cooper, M. (2006), “Town-gown relationships: exploringuniversity-community engagement from the perspective of community members”, PublicRelations Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 125-130.

Burnard, P. (1996), “Teaching the analysis of textual data: an experiential approach”, NurseEducation Today, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 278-281.

Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I. and Van Liedekerke, L. (2015) “Sustainability reporting in highereducation: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 127-143, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614009822

Dade, A. and Hassenzahl, D.M. (2013), “Communicating sustainability”, International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 254-263.

Djordjevic, A. and Cotton, D.R.E. (2011), “Communicating the sustainability message in highereducation institutions”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12No. 4, pp. 381-394.

Esrock, S.L. and Leichty, G.B. (1999), “Corporate world wide web pages: serving the news mediaand other publics”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 76 No. 3,pp. 456-467.

Franz-Balsen, A. and Heinrichs, H. (2007), “Managing sustainability communication on campus:experiences from Lüneburg”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 431-445.

Gordon, J. and Berhow, S. (2009), “University websites and dialogic features for buildingrelationships with potential students”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 2,pp. 150-152.

Greener, U. (2010), Higher Ed Sustainability Ratings, Rankings and Reviews, A GreenerU Guide.

Hoover, E. and Harder, M.K. (2015), “What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities oforganizational change for sustainability in higher education”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 106, pp. 175-188, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614001073

Ingenhoff, D. and Koelling, A.M. (2009), “The potential of web sites as a relationship building toolfor charitable fundraising NPOs”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 66-73.

James, M. and Card, K. (2012), “Factors contributing to institutions achieving environmentalsustainability”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 2,pp. 166-176.

Kent, M.L. and Taylor, M. (2002), “Toward a dialogic theory of public relations”, Public RelationsReview, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-37.

Kurland, N.B. (2011), “Evolution of a campus sustainability network: a case study inorganizational change”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12No. 4, pp. 395-429.

Lindlof, T.R. and Taylor, B.C. (2010), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

537

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

McAllister, S.M. (2012), “How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums formarginalized voices”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 319-327.

McAllister, S.M. and Taylor, M. (2007), “Community college web sites as tools for fosteringdialogue”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 230-232.

McAllister-Spooner, S.M. and Kent, M.L. (2009), “Dialogic public relations and resourcedependency: New Jersey community colleges as models for web site effectiveness”, AtlanticJournal of Communication, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 220-239.

McNamara, K.H. (2010), “Fostering sustainability in higher education: a mixed-methods study oftransformative leadership and change strategies”, Environmental Practice, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 48-58.

Marcell, K., Agyeman, J. and Rappaport, A. (2004), “Cooling the campus”, International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 169-189.

Olson, L., Arvai, J. and Thorp, L. (2011), “Mental models research to inform community outreachfor a campus recycling program”, International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 322-337.

Otulak, K. (2010), “How social media is changing public relation practices”, Journal of DigitalResearch & Publishing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-74.

Park, H. and Reber, B.H. (2008), “Relationship building and the use of web sites: how fortune 500corporations use their web sites to build relationships”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 34No. 4, pp. 409-411.

Petersen, J., Shunturov, V., Janda, K., Platt, G. and Weinberger, K. (2007), “Dormitory residentsreduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and incentives”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-33.

Rappaport, A. (2008), “Campus greening: behind the headlines”, Environment: Science and Policyfor Sustainable Development, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 6-17.

Reber, B.H. and Kim, J.K. (2006), “How activist groups use websites in media relations: evaluatingonline press rooms”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 313-333.

Ryan, G.W. (1999), “Measuring the typical of text: using multiple coders for more than justreliability and validity checks”, Human Organization, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 313-322.

Sanders, C.B. and Cuneo, C.J. (2010), “Social reliability in qualitative team research”. Sociology,Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 325-343.

Schostak, J. (2005), Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative Research, McGraw-HillInternational, Maidenhead.

Seltzer, T. and Mitrook, M.A. (2007), “The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building”,Public Relations Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 227-229.

Sharp, L. (2002), “Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 128-145.

Silverman, D. (2006), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text andInteraction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Spiggle, S. (1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 491-503.

Stoker, K.L. and Tusinski, K.A. (2006), “Reconsidering public relations’ infatuation with dialogue:why engagement and reconciliation can be more ethical than symmetry and reciprocity”,Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pp. 156-176.

IJSHE17,4

538

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

Sweeney, A., Greenwood, K.E., Williams, S., Wykes, T. and Rose, D.S. (2013), “Hearing the voicesof service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiplecoding”, Health Expectations, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. e89-e99.

Taylor, M. and Kent, M.L. (2004), “Congressional web sites and their potential for public dialogue”,Atlantic Journal of Communication, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 59-76.

Taylor, M., Kent, M.L. and White, W.J. (2001), “How activist organizations are using the internetto build relationships”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 263-284.

Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M. and Lidstone, L. (2013), “Greening the ivory tower: areview of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education”,Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 2252-2271.

Watson, M., Noyes, C. and Rodgers, M. (2013), “Student perceptions of sustainability education incivil and environmental engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology”, Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 139 No. 3, pp. 235-243.

Wright, T. (2010), “University presidents’ conceptualizations of sustainability in highereducation”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 1,pp. 61-73.

Wright, T. and Horst, N. (2013), “Exploring the ambiguity: what faculty leaders really think ofsustainability in higher education”, International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 209-227.

Wright, T. and Wilton, H. (2012), “Facilities management directors’ conceptualizations ofsustainability in higher education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 31, pp. 118-125,available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612001060

Corresponding authorSerena Carpenter can be contacted at: carp@msu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

539

Greening thecampus

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. ZintMichaela Michaela Zint Guest editor . 2016. Guest editorial. International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education 17:4, 446-450. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

At 1

2:15

05

Aug

ust 2

016

(PT

)