Más allá de Erasmus. Comunicación de las alianzas de Universidades Europeas en redes sociales

Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 1 Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media Mar García-Gordillo; Marina Ramos-Serrano; Rubén Rivas-de-Roca Recommended citation: García-Gordillo, Mar; Ramos-Serrano, Marina; Rivas-de-Roca, Rubén (2023). “Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media”. Profesional de la información, v. 32, n. 4, e320404. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.jul.04 Manuscript received on 20th December 2022 Accepted on 29th March 2023 Mar García-Gordillo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9367-0366 Universidad de Sevilla Facultad de Comunicación Departamento de Periodismo II Avda. Américo Vespucio, s/n 41092 Sevilla, Spain [email protected] Abstract The European Union has suffered several problems in recent years, which triggers a proactive action by its institutions to generate a united citizenry and awareness of the importance of the EU. In the field of higher education, the European Strategy for Universities born in 2019 aims to strengthen and developed a common university system. The Erasmus program has traditionally been identified as the main driver of integration, but the emergence of European universities may mark a new phase in the shaping of the European Public Sphere (EPS). In this sense, social media are the key communication tool for higher education centers. The objective of this work is to examine the activity on social media of the 40 consortia of European Universities belonging to the first and second calls. First, the presence on the different social networks of these entities is analyzed to establish a map of the alliances, based on the number of social networks used, the volume of followers, the coordinating university and the year of the call. After identifying Twitter as the most used network, a content analysis is carried out on 12 variables of all the messages published by these consortia since their creation, with the aim of determining whether the content published on their Twitter accounts is professional in tone. The results reveal scant interactivity that does not take advantage of the potential of social networks. However, there is a certain influence of the national cultures in terms of use of digital platforms in the different countries that head each consortium, with Spain and France being rather remarkable in this aspect. Likewise, the advantage acquired by first-ge- neration consortia boosts their greater impact. This leads to a reflection upon the true transnational dimension of the communication implemented by these universities. Keywords European Universities; European alliances; Institutional communication; Branding; Social media; Social networks; Twitter; Content analysis; European Commission; European public sphere; Erasmus Plus; European Union. Nota: Este artículo se puede leer en español en: https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/87219 Marina Ramos-Serrano https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6871-9239 Universidad de Sevilla Facultad de Comunicación Depto. de Com. Audiovisual y Publicidad Avda. Américo Vespucio, s/n 41092 Sevilla, Spain [email protected] Rubén Rivas-de-Roca * https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5842-4533 Universidad Rey Juan Carlos Facultad de Ciencias de la Comunicación Depto. de Comunicación y Sociología Camino del Molino, 5 28942 Fuenlabrada (Madrid), Spain [email protected] Mar García-Gordillo; Marina Ramos-Serrano; Rubén Rivas-de-Roca e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 2 Funding This research is part of the European Chair funded by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (Eacea), belonging to the European Commission-Jean Monnet (Erasmus+), “Future of Europe Communication in times of Pandemic Disinformation” (Futeudispan) Ref.: 101083334-JMO-2022-Chair), located between 2022 and 2025 at Carlos III University of Madrid (Spain). Accountability The content of this article is the sole responsibility of the authors, and the Eacea is not responsible for the use that may be made of the information disclosed herein. 1. Introduction European Universities are a recent commitment of the European Commission within the Erasmus Plus programme to coordinate a new higher education area. According to the European Strategy for Universities (European Commission, 2019), the aim is to create a strong university network that promotes citizen participation, social cohesion and a sense of belonging to the Union. In a context of ongoing crises and the rise of cultural Euroscepticism (Treib, 2021), which questions supranational integration processes on identity-based grounds, the document positions the university system as a vital agent for the interests of the EU. Specifically, the initiative aims to support a total of 60 European Universities comprising more than 500 institutions by mid-2024. European Universities operate as consortia of higher education institutions spread across the countries that are part of the Erasmus area, and are therefore mainly funded by Erasmus, but also by Horizon Europe or the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism. They also respond to a request from European leaders at the Gothenburg Summit in Sweden in November 2017, which called for initiatives to strengthen strategic alliances in higher education. The development of alliances is evidence of the proactive and pro-European policy implemented by EU institutions, with strong implications in the field of communication. This is visible in the massive use of social networks at an institutional level (Vesnic-Alujevic, 2016), as well as in the fact that the officials of these bodies recognise that they prioritise segmented communication campaigns aimed at young people (Rivas-de-Roca; García-Gordillo, 2022a), who constitute the population group most present in universities. After Brexit, the EU seems to want to move beyond the so-called “permissive consensus”, which consisted of a tacit acceptance of the European project (Bee; Bozzini, 2010), replacing it with a more robust support based on the generations that will play responsible roles in the future. Following the resolution of the three calls (2019, 2020 and 2022), there are 44 European Universities comprising approximately 240 higher education institutions, both from capital cities and remote regions in 31 countries, including all EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway, Serbia and Turkey. These university consortia collaborate with over 1,300 partners ranging from NGOs to businesses to local and regional authorities. The potential synergies generated link with the four formal goals set by the European University Strategy: 1) to strengthen the dimension of the higher education system and its research; 2) to support universities as beacons of the European way of life; 3) to empower universities as players in the green challenge and the digital transition; and 4) to reinforce these institutions as drivers of the EU’s global and leadership role. On the European continent, universities have undergone a profound transformation in the last 20 years, characterised by greater internationalisation and reputational competitiveness due to the proliferation of rankings (De-Aguilera-Moya- no; Farias-Batlle; Baraybar-Fernández, 2010; Bustos-González, 2019). Similarly, the growing concern for transparency in public spending has led universities to improve their communication policies in order to fulfil their third mission (Montesinos et al., 2008), that is, their commitment to society. This need makes it necessary to professionalise communication tasks, similar to what is happening at EU institutions. University policy, but also the use of social networks by countries (Newman et al., 2022) or the degree of involvement in a potential European public discussion (Hänska; Bauchowitz, 2019), are determined by national and even local factors. Faced with this, initiatives such as the European Universities can spur a new type of integration, beyond the mere exchange of the Erasmus programme. In this context, this research seeks to explore these university spaces as autonomous institutions beyond their constituent entities, analysing their communication and capacity to influence public opinion. This is a pioneering approach to the communicative dimension of a recent transnational phenomenon, contributing to the state of the art. The aim is to shed light on the value of institutional communication in these publicly funded consortia. Universities have undergone a profound transformation in the last 20 years, characterised by greater internationalisation and reputational competitiveness Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 3 2. Background 2.1. The mediatisation of the European Public Sphere (EPS) At European level, the EU institutions have had a direct impact on the lives of European Union (EU) citizens for decades, which has led to a large number of discussions on the existence of a possible shared space for deliberation (Baisnée, 2007; Rivas-de-Roca; García-Gordillo, 2022b), known as the European Public Sphere (EPS). Despite this, the literature coincides in highlighting the persistence of a communicative and democratic deficit surrounding the EU, which is perceived as a distant and bureaucratic entity (Koopmans; Statham, 2010; Frangonikolopoulos; Papapadopoulou, 2021). Traditionally, academia has focused on the role that the media might play in the EPS (Gripsrud; Weibull, 2010; Grill; Boomgaarden, 2017), illustrating the persistence of a predominantly national approach that continues to this day (Berry et al., 2021). However, the consolidation of digital platforms as political spaces (Casero-Ripollés, 2018), together with the personalisation and mediatisation of democratic processes (Amado, 2016), lead to a certain optimism that digital technologies will make it possible to achieve the EPS. Authors such as Scharkow and Vogelgesang (2010) pointed out that information was not only key to promoting better knowledge of the EU, but that education should also play an important role. These academics referred to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), which they argued would have a greater impact on countries with a longer history as member states. This approach did not prevent the European Parliament elections from remaining in the collective imagination as second-rank elections (Schneider, 2018), which saw a slight increase in turnout in 2019. In a digitalised context, social networks have been the subject of profound debates and Europeanised phenomena, especially in the wake of the Eurozone crisis (Hänska; Bauchowitz, 2019; Císař; Weisskircher, 2021). These discussions have moved beyond the institutional arena, bringing the question of Europe into everyday affairs. However, the increased volume of mentions of the EU, both in the media and among the audience, does not necessarily imply a Europeanisation of public debates (Silva; Kartalis; Costa-Lobo, 2022). In fact, the literature still sometimes speaks of national spheres that can be oriented in a European way in their media-discursive plot (Von-Nordheim et al., 2021). The findings are ambivalent, as other researchers point to the benefits of politicisation (De-Wilde; Leupold; Schmidtke, 2016), in the sense that political dissent and conflict are key to generating a sense of belonging to the EU. In any case, what is clear is that social media and digital platforms have reshaped the field of action of European Communication, which is occurring alongside increasing politicisation (Van-der-Brug; Gattermann; De-Vreese, 2022). This explains why EU institutions are working towards a Europeanisation of civil society, with a special focus on young people. Institutional action now appeals directly to citizens, bypassing the filter of the press, although it is still very relevant in the articulation of public opinion (Nielsen; Ganter, 2018). In this sense, social networks enjoy interaction mechanisms that are linked to the notion of deliberative democracy that the EPS entails (Häussler, 2018). Faced with the secular absence of information on the EU in the national media (Goldberg; Brosius; De-Vreese, 2022), the EU is committed to Europeanising citizens, given that all inhabitants of the member states are potential members of this ideal space for debate. 2.2. Transnational European communication The different crises experienced by the European project have led the EU to implement a new type of public communication, based on reconfiguring the idea of Europe (Papagianneas, 2017). Therefore, EU institutions are optimistic about the possibilities that digital public discussion can have for the European project. Citizen use of digital platforms would thus encourage the creation of the EPS, given that tools such as Twitter are an effective way of solving the problem of geographical distance from the EU (Tuñón Navarro; Carral, 2019). This conviction motivates the communication policy to occupy a privileged position in the EU organisational chart, with a special interest in social networks (Olsson; Hammargård, 2016). In today’s pan-European communication, both traditional and digital media play a prominent role in the development of true accountability in European governance (Caiani; Guerra, 2017). The digital transformation has led to the emergence of new European transnational players, which have a certain capacity to set the media agenda (Bouza; Tuñón, 2018). This contrasts with the usual absence of a common communication strategy by European institutions (Tuñón; Bouza; Carral, 2019). Authors like Fazekas et al. (2021) report that most political players in Europe do not refer to EU issues to connect with their audiences, reflecting how the EU continues to play a secondary role in European politics. In addition to the above issues, there are structural problems such as the lack of interest in the EU or the tendency for political activity on social media to be negative (Kim et al., 2021). All of these operate as conditioning factors that determine inclusivity and a true discursivity around the Union. Despite this, pan-European communication in the digital era also benefits from new low-cost instruments that make it possible to overcome the well-known communication deficit (Fazekas et al., 2021). Moreover, institutions seem to be increasingly focusing on citizens (Oleart, 2023), which is a contrast to their previous actions. It is therefore of particular interest to address the analysis of institutional communication in this digital environment. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has a greater impact on countries with a longer history as member states Mar García-Gordillo; Marina Ramos-Serrano; Rubén Rivas-de-Roca e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 4 2.3. Social networks as an institutional communicative element shaping public opinion The aforementioned digitisation is one of the most significant challenges facing corporate and institutional communication as a whole (Almansa-Martínez; Fernández-Souto, 2020; Zerfass et al., 2021). According to the European Communication Monitor, digitisation is the main reason for the rapid transformation of communication departments, consultancies and agencies. Specifically, the phenomenon of social media has profoundly changed the way institutions communicate with their audiences (Roth-Cohen; Avidar, 2022). There is consensus on the interactive potential of these communication channels (Allagui; Breslow, 2016), which also contribute to strengthening engagement with audiences (Moreno; Fuentes-Lara; Khalil, 2018). At the same time, these technologies have allowed organisations, such as European institutions or universities, to communicate directly with their audiences without intermediaries (Sallot et al., 2003; Wright; Hinson, 2017), although this communicative independence coexists with an empowerment of audiences (Navarro-Beltrá; García-Me- dina; Miquel-Segarra, 2020). However, other research has shown that institutions are not taking advantage of the interactive possibilities of social networks (Kent, 2013) and that their use is more tactical than strategic (Moreno et al., 2015). This coincides with professional reports that detect that professionals not only do not feel prepared, but also consider that their organisations are not committed to the paradigm shift (Zerfass et al., 2021). In this sense, social networks have become one of the main communication tools for universities to connect with internal and external audiences (Pringle; Fritz, 2019). In 2014, over 97% of Spanish universities had a Twitter account (Gómez-Calderón; Paniagua-Rojano, 2014). In fact, during the Covid-19 health crisis, universities mainly used Twitter to communicate with their audiences (Ferrer-Serrano; Latorre-Martínez; Lozano-Blasco, 2020). In this regard, it is important to select the right social networks based on their own interests and align them with their communication strategy to connect with their audiences (Peruta; Shields, 2017), with a growing use of Instagram being noticeable (Alcolea-Parra; Rodríguez-Barba; Núñez-Fernández, 2020). Social networks are effective tools for achieving this connection and emotional engagement (Clark; Algoe; Green, 2018). For example, following social networks is generally related to a greater perception of the quality of the university by students, and, therefore, greater connection (Mostafa, 2015). Consequently, the correct planning of the institutional strategy of universities is essential to connect with different audiences, which is directly related to the importance that university governing bodies give to digital communication (García-García, 2018). Together with the strategic planning of communication, the quality of the content published is key to achieving better interaction and, therefore, more followers on social networks (Lund, 2019). According to a recent study conducted in various geographical contexts, university publications on social networks are aimed at improving their institutional positioning and reputation (Capriotti; Losada-Díaz; Martínez-Gras, 2023), an instrumental sense also observed in more qualitative research with the communication managers of these institutions (Simancas-González; García-López, 2022). In a changing context, European Universities are a new communicative phenomenon, with a plural and diverse audience, given that these consortia are made up of universities from different countries. Therefore, it is relevant to explore whether they are as institutionally active on social networks as their national counterparts. In view of the lack of studies on the subject that would allow us to draw hypotheses based on the literature, the following research questions are proposed: RQ1. On which social networks are European Universities present? RQ2. What is the volume of followers, as well as the information available on the profiles of these universities? RQ3. How professional are their profiles on the preferred platform, in terms of original posts and regular updates? 3. Methodology The main objective of this research is to make a first approximation to the social media presence of the 40 European Universities belonging to the first and second calls (see Appendix 1 with the full data), understood as consortia of conventional universities. This is the entire sample universe of these initiatives, excluding the four new universities approved in the resolution of the third call (27 July 2022), given that they have only just started and do not have a significant presence on the Internet. Moreover, and due to the exploratory nature of this research, two different stages have been established to achieve the secondary objectives. In the first stage, the presence of the 40 European Universities on the different social networks has been analysed with the aim (RQ1) of drawing up a map of these alliances. This is a descriptive analysis taking into account the number of social networks used, the volume of followers, the coordinating university and the year of the call. From this first analysis, Twitter has been identified as the social network most used by the majority of European consortia. Of the 40 European universities, 37 have a presence on Twitter. The second stage of the research focused on analysing the use of Twitter by the 37 university alliances, downloading all their messages through Twitonomy up to 9 October 2022. On the one hand, (RQ2) to analyse their presence on Twitter Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 5 based on the information of their profiles, the number of followers, the year the account was created. On the other hand, (RQ3) to find out whether European Universities use their Twitter accounts professionally, which has to do with the number of original messages, but also with the frequency. Both elements denote that social media activity is provided in a professional manner. To answer the research questions, a quantitative methodology was used, applying the technique of content analysis to all tweets published by the 37 European consortia from the time of their creation up to 9 October 2022. Each of these universities start their activity on different dates, although they belong to the same call for European funds, which has led us to collect all messages in order to determine the sample universe of tweets. The collection and coding of the data was carried out between 18 September and 23 November 2022, using a content analysis form designed ad hoc based on Medina-Aguerrebere, Medina and González-Pacanowski (2022). Although the actual content of all the tweets was not analysed, 12 items that overlap with the nature of the messages were examined, grouped into three categories. - The first part comprises a technical sheet composed of (1) the year the account was created and (2) the number of followers. - Secondly, the presence of the different European consortia has been analysed based on the information contained in their Twitter profiles, namely (3) presence of the corporate logo, (4) use of hashtags, (5) link to the corporate pages, (6) full description of the consortium (for this point it has been taken into account whether the mission of the alliance is described), mention of the partners and the location, and finally (7) link to Erasmus Plus. - The third part of the sheet corresponds to the tweets published during the period analysed. In this section, we have analysed (8) the total number of tweets from each of the European universities, (9) the number of tweets per day, (10) the percentage of original tweets, (11) the percentage of replies and (12) the percentage of retweets. The type of tweet provides insight into the degree of involvement in the production of original content and its response capacity. All these data are compared across alliances to provide an overview of their use of social networks. Finally, as an exploratory qualitative analysis, the open artificial intelligence tool Abbrevia.me, which uses ChatGPT technology, has been used to analyse the image projected by a Twitter account to its users based on its content. This analysis has been conducted with the ten European University accounts with the highest number of followers. This approach to content was completed using the Nvivo Release 1.7.1 program to generate word clouds with the most used terms in their publications (including mentions and hashtags) on each of the accounts, in order to determine the main topics and degree of interaction of the consortia. 4. Results 4.1. Presence of European Universities on social networks Social media seems to be a common communication tool for European Universities. All the consortia that emerged from the Commission’s first and second calls have social networks to address their communities, although the map they draw is uneven in different aspects (Table 1). The predominant social networks are Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube. Only one (Arqus Alliance) has Spotify and in almost all cases the social media profiles are linked on the homepage of their websites, with the exception of AllianceYufe. From this first approximation, it can be deduced that the new European universities have considered social networks to be an essential space for publicising their activities and establishing a dialogue with their communities, at least in a formal way. Of these, Twitter stands out as the most used network, followed by Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn (which coincide in the number of accounts) and, finally, YouTube. The above platforms are the most popular among the general population, but it is worth noting that Twitter is a social network that stands out in terms of information. Furthermore, the data suggest that the frequency of social network use seems to vary between countries, with Instagram and TikTok being the most common among university-age young people (Newman et al., 2022). However, during the period under study, none of the European universities had TikTok. If we analyse the number of networks that each consortium has according to the call to which they belong, we find the following data (Table 2). European Universities are a new communicative phenomenon, with a plural and diverse audience, given that these consortia are made up of universities from different countries Table 1. Distribution of social media use by consortia generation Social network First generation Second generation Total 15 (all) 21 (except 3) 37/40 10 (except 5) 18 (except 6) 28 11 (except 4) 17 (except 7) 28 10 (except 5) 21 (except 3) 31 7 (except 8) 16 (except 8) 23 Mar García-Gordillo; Marina Ramos-Serrano; Rubén Rivas-de-Roca e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 6 According to the information available, the second-genera- tion consortia were committed from the outset to having a presence on social networks. The behaviour of the first-gene- ration entities was more cautious, perhaps because in 2019 the European Universities initiative was at an early stage and there was still uncertainty as to how these new entities would materialise. In any case, most of them had profiles on three or more social networks, suggesting that they saw these platforms as a window of communication to their communities. Following the ranking of the most used social networks, available in Table 1, presented below are the leading European Universities by number of followers on each of the platforms, following the localised order and incorporating descriptive information on their type of use. The coordinating university is of great interest, as its state affiliation may explain the social media activity of the alliances. In the case of Twitter (Table 3), the fact that it is the network with the largest number of consortia means that a content analysis is subsequently directed towards it, complementing the data presented here. Table 3. Main European Universities on Twitter Acronym Generation Coordinating university Country N. of networks Twitter N. of followers UNA.Universitas 1XX 4 @Una_Europa 3,322 Civica 1Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris France 2 @CIVICA_EU 2,713 Civis 1XX 4 @civis_eu 2,246 ECIU 1University of Twente Netherlands 3 @ECIUniversities 1,983 AllianceYufe 1Maastricht University Netherlands 1 @AllianceYufe 1,856 Eutopia More 1Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 5 @EutopiaUni 1,792 Circle U. 2University of Oslo Norway 3 @CircleU_eu 1,773 1Core 1Sorbonne University France 4 @4EUPlusAlliance 1,525 Charm-Eight 1Universitat Barcelona Spain 4 @charm_eu 1,514 Arqus 1Universidad de Granada Spain 5 @ArqusAlliance 1,248 Firstly, it is striking that two of the leading European universities on Twitter (Una.Universitas and Civis) do not state on their websites which institution is the coordinating institution, which denotes a certain lack of transparency, given that EU calls require this figure. Of the eight consortia with available information, three have Spanish coordinating universities, two French, two from the Netherlands and one from Norway. This shows some repetition in the countries that manage these profiles with the greatest impact. Beyond the differences in the number of followers, which will be referred to in the following section, the data reveal that only two of the 10 alliances highlighted on Twitter have accounts on the five networks analysed. Four are present on four of these platforms, two on three, one on two and only one is exclusively dedicated to Twitter, from which it can be deduced that this network is not usually used solely, but rather accompanied by a presence on other channels. In this sense, the second most important space for the audience is Facebook. Table 4. Main European Universities on Facebook Acronym Generation Coordinator Country No. of networks Facebook Likes Arqus 1Universidad de Granada Spain 5 Arqus Alliance 6,728 Civis 1XX 4 @Civis EuropeanUniversity 2,877 1Core 1Sorbonne University France 4 4EU+Alliance 1,400 ECIU 1University of Twente Netherlands 3 @eciuorg 1,360 EU-Conexus Plus 1Rochelle Université France 5 @eu.conexus 1,293 Eugloh 2.0 1Université Paris-Saclay France 4 Eugloh - European University Alliance for Global Health 1,228 Eutopia More 1Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 5 @eutopiaalliance 801 SEA-EU 2.0 1 Universidad de Cádiz Spain 2 European University of the Seas SEA-EU 783 Eureca-PRO 2XX 5 Eureca-Pro 719 RUN-EU 2Politécnico de Leiria Portugal 5 RUN - European University 693 Table 2. Number of social networks used by first- and secondgeneration consortia No. of social networks First generation (2019) Second generation (2020) Total 5 3 15 18 4 6 3 9 3 3 5 8 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 7 In the case of Facebook (Table 4), there is a repeated lead for consortia created in the first call and which account for the majority of the list, in a finding that was also observed for Twitter. Specifically, only two European Universities from the second call rank in the top ten for Facebook, and they do so in the last two positions. The year of difference between alliances thus seems to determine the impact in terms of number of followers. Another relevant fact is that half of the top ten European Universities have accounts on the five main social networks, while three have accounts on four platforms, one on three and one on two of them. Therefore, the use of Facebook is more often complemented by other social networks, with Facebook occupying a central position. For their part, the countries of origin of the coordinating universities are very similar to Twitter. Table 4 shows how Spain stands out with three, France with two, and the Netherlands and Portugal with one respectively. This predominance of Spain and France is even greater on LinkedIn. Table 5. Main European Universities on LinkedIn Acronym Generation Coordinator Country N. of networks LinkedIn N. of followers Una.Universitas 1 XX 4 Una Europa 3,032 Ulysseus 2 Universidad de Sevilla Spain 5 Ulysseus European University 1,922 ECIU 1 University of Twente Netherlands 3 ECIU 1,883 Eutopia More 1 Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 5 Eutopia European University 1,768 Eelisa 2 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Spain 3 Eelisa European University 1,544 1Core 1 Sorbonne University France 4 4EU+Alliance 1,470 EU-Conexus Plus 1Rochelle Université France 5 EU-Conexus 1,402 Arqus 1 Universidad de Granada Spain 5 Arqus 1,314 Epicur-Shape-IT 1 University of Strasbourg France 2 Epicur University Alliance 1,241 EUniWell 2 XX 5 EUniWell - European University for Well-Being 1,190 According to the data available on LinkedIn (Table 5), first-generation universities still have a seven-to-three lead. However, the fact that some second-generation universities (Ulysseus and Eelisa) occupy leading positions in terms of volume of contacts is new. The cost of learning to position oneself on these networks is lower, at least for two alliances led by Spanish institutions. It should be noted that five of the 10 have accounts on all the social networks analysed, again reflecting their complementary use. Moreover, as mentioned above, Spain (four), France (three) and the Netherlands (one) stand out by country, the latter through ECIU, which had a notable presence on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Table 6. Main European Universities on Instagram Acronym Generation Coordinator Country No. of networks Instagram No. of followers Civis 1XX 4 Civis - A European Civic University 2,952 1Core 1Sorbonne University France 4 4EUplus_alliance 1,844 Forthem 1Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Germany 4 Forthem Alliance 1,830 Una.Universitas 1XX 4 Una Europa 1,703 Arqus 1Universidad de Granada Spain 5 arqusalliance 1,281 Eutopia More 1Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 5 Eutopia - European University 1,151 EU-Conexus Plus 1Rochelle Université France 5 EU Conexus 1,065 Eugloh 2.0 1Université Paris-Saclay France 4 Eugloh 1,033 Unita 2Università di Torino Italy 5 Universitasmontium 1,028 Charm-Eight 1Universitat de Barcelona Spain 4 Charm.eu 900 As opposed to the lesser difficulty of consolidation on LinkedIn of the second call universities, the figures for Instagram (Table 6) show a great predominance of the oldest entities on this social network. In fact, only one European University is among the top 10 in 2020. Despite the dynamism that characterises this platform, the number of followers is very much determined by the trajectory of the account, that is, by the time elapsed since its creation. On the other hand, five consortia have accounts on the five social networks and four have accounts on six of them, which may be related to the fact that it is considered a complementary network to the other networks for improving interaction with young people, but not a platform for informing the entire community. The usual reference countries (Spain and France, with three consortia) are joined by Germany and Portugal, with one respectively. Mar García-Gordillo; Marina Ramos-Serrano; Rubén Rivas-de-Roca e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 8 Table 7. Main European Universities on YouTube Acronym Generation Coordinator Country N. of networks YouTube N. of followers Arqus 1Universidad de Granada Spain 5 Arqus Alliance 593 Eureca-PRO 2XX 5 Eureca-PRO 307 Eutopia More 1Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 5 Eutopia European University 267 RUN-EU 2Politécnico de Leiria Portugal 5 RUN – European University 267 Una.Universitas 1XX 4 Una Europa 209 NeurotechEU 2Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands 5 NeurotechEU 172 EU-Conexus Plus 1Rochelle Université France 5 EU-Conexus European University 142 Ulysseus 2Universidad de Sevilla Spain 5 Ulysseus European University 141 Filmeu 2Universidade Lusófona Portugal 5 Filmeu - European University - Film and Media Arts 131 Civica 1Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris France 2 Civica, The European University of Social Sciences 126 Finally, with regard to YouTube (Table 7), the fact that the universities in the first and second calls for applications share the top ten positions equally is striking. In terms of the number of networks, eight of the ten have accounts on all of them, one has four and only one has two. This would confirm that, like Instagram, it is considered a complementary network to the rest of them, even more than it. In terms of countries, Spain stands out with three European University consortia, Portugal with two and France and the Netherlands with one. The results show that there are several first-generation European Universities that once again occupy a privileged position on most social networks. Spain and France, two highly populated Member States with a long history of relevance to the EU, emerge as the home territories of the institutions with the highest impact on social networks. By platforms, LinkedIn and YouTube operate as spaces with a more permeable entry barrier, allowing the audience to be reached in less time, which may be of interest to universities joining in future calls. 4.2. Twitter as the preferred platform for dissemination The value placed on Twitter by the vast majority of European Universities leads to a focus on this social network, in a context where EU institutions promote this type of direct digital communication. In fact, the funding granted for this initiative has a mandatory work package dedicated to communication. This sub-section is therefore structured as follows. Firstly, a description of the main elements used by the accounts is provided, as well as their impact on the number of followers. Next, an assessment is made of whether a professionalised action is performed on the basis of a content analysis, which compiles the data to provide calculations on the volume of daily tweets, percentages of own tweets, retweets and replies. All European Universities have a corporate logo as their Twitter profile image, to which a link to the corporate pages of each consortium is added. The only exception is EU-Conexus, which does not have such a link. In contrast, there are several universities that do not provide a corporate description in their profile, in the sense of informing about the centres that make up the project and the mission of the project. Ten European universities, that is, a quarter of the sample, do not provide this information: 4EUPlusAlliance, Arqus Alliance, Civis, EDUC, Eutopia, Engage, EUniWell, EurecaPro, FilmEU and NeurotechEU. For their part, the use of Twitter’s hypertextuality tools is limited, to the extent that only three of them connect to the accounts of the consortium members. This makes direct access to these universities impossible. Furthermore, only Enhance, EUniWell, FilmEU and Universeh have hashtags in their descriptions, while the link to other social networks can only be found in Eudres, which uses the Linktree tool to present its profiles on different platforms. It is also striking that two European Universities (Civica and ECIU) refer to Erasmus Plus in their profile, which is the programme that funds this initiative, and another one (Charm Eight) refers to the European Commission, which is the institution behind the proposal. First generation gdgdftgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdgdfgdfgdfgdfSecond generation 4EUPlusAlliance Arqus Alliance Charm Eight Civica Civis ECIU EDUC Epicur EU-Conexus Eugloh Eutopia Forthem SeaEU Una Europa Unitech AllianceYufe Athena Aurora Circle U. Eudres ECDU Eelisa Engage Enhance Enlight Eunice EUniWell EurecaPro FilmEU Invest NeurotechEU RUN-EU Ulysseus UNIC Unita Universeh 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Figure 1. Number of followers of each consortia, distributed across generations. Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 9 With regard to the location of the account in their Twitter descriptions, 20 of the 37 do not indicate any location, 12 are generically located in Europe, two indicate countries but no city, and three are located in specific countries (Belgium, France and Germany), where their coordinating universities are from. The number of followers again shows huge differences between first- and second-generation European Universities (Figure 1). Most of the latter do not reach 1,000 followers, the main exception being Circle U., coordinated for the Norwegian University of Oslo. In contrast, there are several first-generation alliances with well over 1,000 followers. Una.Europa, Charm Eight and Civica are the highest volume cases in this area, with over 2,000 followers. With regard to the production of messages, there is a very disparate volume between the different alliances, although a lower number of tweets published per day can be seen in the second-generation alliances (Table 8). Likewise, most of the universities that produce the most tweets correspond to those with a higher volume of followers. This is the case for Civica (1.66 tweets per day), Civis (1.2), Eutopia (1.09) and Una.Europa (1.05). However, the high number of tweets issued by second-generation universities with a low number of followers, such as Ulysseus (1.76), ECDU (1.13) and Enhance (1.12), is worth noting. A high volume of production can be linked to the existence of a dedicated communication team. In this respect, another factor to consider is the volume of own tweets or replies, which imply a higher degree of work than merely retweeting. To this end, Table 9 shows the type of messages that prevail in each of the European universities, together with their percentage. Most universities concentrate their efforts on their own tweets, but it is not negligible that 10 of them do not reach 60% of their own tweets and that another 11 of them prioritise retweets. According to the data collected, the alliances that stand out for a higher production of original tweets are Eugloh (93.1%), EurecaPro (91%), Arqus Alliance (88.7%) and Film EU (73.4%). On the contrary, the content of the ECDU (76.7%), EDUC (68.5%) and ECIU (60.7%) consortia is based on retweeting content from other accounts. Meanwhile, the alliances with the highest proportion of responses are Eudres (45.2%) and Ulysseus (41.1%). It should be noted that the average response rate of all consortia is 9.8%, a fact that demonstrates the unidirectional nature of the accounts. In fact, the profiles of Eugloh, FilmEU and Invest do not have any response tweets. Table 8. Distribution of Twitter variables according to alliances Creation date Number of tweets Average tweets per day 4EUPlusAlliance Feb-19 928 0.69 Arqus Alliance Jun-19 971 0.79 Charm Eight May-19 1,003 0.80 Civica Nov-19 1,789 1.66 Civis Oct-19 1,326 1.20 ECIU Mar-15* 2,139 0.77 EDUC Feb-19 235 0.17 Epicur Jun-19 668 0.54 EU-Conexus Jan-20 339 0.33 Eugloh Apr-20 793 0.86 Eutopia Dec-18 1,531 1.09 Forthem May-21 511 0.97 SeaEU Mar-20 625 0.65 Una Europa Jul-18 1,648 1.05 Unitech Oct-19 1,275 0.87 AllianceYufe Feb-19 595 0.44 Athena (second generation) Apr-21 143 0.26 Aurora Sep-16* 765 0.34 Circle U. Jul-19 752 0.63 Eudres Mar-22 73 0.33 ECDU Feb-19 1,529 1.13 Eelisa Oct-20 611 0.83 Engage Jun-20 218 0.25 Enhance Oct-20 826 1.12 Enlight Apr-20 229 0.25 Eunice Jan-21 258 0.40 EUniWell Apr-20 588 0.64 EurecaPro Jul-20 111 0.13 FilmEU Jul-20 273 0.32 Invest Jun-21 102 0.20 NeurotechEU Jul-20 119 0.14 RUN-EU Aug-20 181 0.22 Ulysseus Dec-20 1,192 1.76 UNIC Apr-20 427 0.46 Unita Nov-20 193 0.27 Universeh Oct-20 166 0.22 The figures in bold refer to those accounts posting more than one tweet per day on average. * Twitter accounts created prior to the European Universities call. Table 9. Distribution of the type of tweets by consortium (%) European Universities Predominance of own tweets Eugloh (93.1), EurecaPro (91.0), Arqus Alliance (88.8), FilmEU (85.3), NeurotechEU (74.8), EU-Conexus (73.4), Eunice (72.5), SeaEU (70.9), Eelisa (67.9), Engage (66.5), Unita (61.6), EUniWell (60.7), Epicur (60.1), Athena (59.4), Civis (59.2), Una Europa (59.2), Enlight (58.9), Aurora (52.8), Forthem (51.6), Civica (51.6), Charm Eight (51.0), AllianceYufe (44.0), Enhance (40.4) Predominance of responses Eudres (45.2), Ulysseus (41.1) Predominance of retweets ECDU (76.7), EDUC (68.5), ECIU (60.7), Eutopia (58.7), Circle U. (58.3), UNIC (58.1), Unitech (56.0), Invest (55.8), RUN-EU (53.0), Universeh (52.4), 4EUPlusAlliance (50.0) Mar García-Gordillo; Marina Ramos-Serrano; Rubén Rivas-de-Roca e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 16 Tuñón, Jorge; Carral, Uxía (2019). “Twitter como solución a la comunicación europea. Análisis comparado en Alemania, Reino Unido y España”. Revista latina de comunicación social, v. 74, n. 63, pp. 1219-1234. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2019-1380 Van-der-Brug, Wouter; Gattermann, Katjana; De-Vreese, Claes H. (2022). “Electoral responses to the increased contestation over European integration. The European elections of 2019 and beyond”. European Union politics, v. 23, n. 1, pp. 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165211036263 Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia (2016). “European elections and Facebook: Political advertising and deliberation?”. In: Deželan, Tomaž; Vobič, Igor (eds.). (R)evolutionizing political communication through social media. Hershey, PA: Information science reference/IGI global, pp. 191-209. ISBN: 978 1 466698796 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9879-6.ch010 Von-Nordheim, Gerret; Bettels-Schwabbauer, Tina; Di Salvo, Philip; Kennedy, Paula; Kiss, Kornélia R.; Kús, Michal; Pinto Martinho, Ana; Stefanikova, Sandra; Telo, Décio (2021). “The state of Europeanisation: between clash and convergence. A comparison of the media coverage of the 2019 European elections in seven countries”. Revista mediterránea de comunicación, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 95-113. https://www.doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM000021 Wright, Donald K.; Hinson, Michelle-Drifka (2014). “An updated examination of social and emerging media use in public relations practice: A longitudinal analysis between 2006 and 2014”. The public relations journal, v. 8, n. 2. https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014WrightHinson-1.pdf Wright, Donald K.; Hinson, Michelle Drifka (2017). “Tracking how social and other digital media are being used in public relations practice: A twelve-year study”. The public relations journal, v. 11, n. 1. https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/PRJ-2017-Wright-Hinson-2-1.pdf Zerfass, Ansgar; Buhmann, Alexander; Tench, Ralph; Verčič, Dejan; Moreno, Ángeles (2021). European Communication Monitor 2021. CommTech and digital infrastructure, video-conferencing, and future roles for communication professionals. Brussels: Euprera/EACD. Berlin: Quadriga Media. https://www.communicationmonitor.eu/2021/05/21/ecm-european-communication-monitor-2021 7. Annex. First and second generation European Universities Acronym Name of the European University Gener. Coordinator Country URL 4EUPlusAlliance 4EU+European University Alliance 1Sorbonne University France https://4euplus.eu/4EU-1.html Arqus Alliance Arqus European University 1Universidad de Granada Spain https://www.arqus-alliance.eu Charm Eight Challenge-Driven, Accessible, Research-based and Mobile European University 1Universitat de Barcelona Spain https://www.charm-eu.eu Civica The European University of Social Sciences 1Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris France https://www.civica.eu Civis CIVIS- a European Civic University 1X* Xhttps://civis.eu/es ECIU ECIU University 1University of Twente Netherlands https://www.eciu.org EDUC European Digital UniverCity 1University of Potsdam Germany https://educalliance.eu Epicur European Partnership for an Innovative Campus Unifying Regions 1University of Strasbourg France https://epicur.education EU-Conexus European University for Smart Urban Coastal Sustainability 1Rochelle Université France https://www.eu-conexus.eu/en Eugloh European University Alliance for Global Health 1Université Paris-Saclay France https://www.eugloh.eu Eutopia European Universities Transforming to an Open Inclusive Academy 1Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain https://eutopia-university.eu Forthem Fostering Outreach within European Regions, Transnational Higher Education and Mobility 1Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Germany https://www.forthem-alliance.eu SeaEU The European University of the Seas Alliance 1Universidad de Cádiz Spain https://sea-eu.org/seaeu2 Una Europa Una Europa 1XXhttps://www.una-europa.eu Unitech Unite! University Network for Innovation, Technology and Engineering 1Technical University of Darmstadt Germany https://www.unite-university.eu Beyond Erasmus. Communication of European Universities alliances on social media e320404 Profesional de la información, 2023, v. 32, n. 4. e-ISSN: 1699-2407 17 Acronym Name of the European University Gener. Coordinator Country URL AllianceYufe Young Universities for the future of Europe Alliance 1Maastricht University The Netherlands https://yufe.eu Athena Advanced Technology Higher Education Network Alliance 2Politécnico do Porto Portugal https://athenauni.eu Aurora Aurora Alliance 2University of Iceland Iceland https://alliance.aurora-network.global Circle U. Circle U. European University 2University of Oslo Norway https://www.circle-u.eu Eudres Engaged and Entrepreneurial European University as Driver for European Smart and Sustainable Regions 2ST. Pölten University Austria https://eudres.eu ECDU European Campus o City-Univer- sities 2University of Poitiers France https://ec2u.eu Eelisa European Engineering Learning Innovation and Science Alliance 2Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Spain https://eelisa.eu Engage The European University engaged in societal change 2University of Mannheim Germany https://www.engageuniversity.eu Enhance European Universities of Technology Alliance 2Technische Universität Berlin Germany https://enhanceuniversity.eu/es Enlight European University Network to promote Equitable Quality of Live, Sustainability, and Global Engagement through Higher Education Transformation 2University of Ghent & University of Bordeaux The Netherlands and France https://enlight-eu.org ERUA European Reforming University Alliance 2Universität Konstanz Germany https://erua-eui.eu Eunice European University for Customised Education 2Poznań University of Technology Poland https://eunice-university.eu EUniWell European University for Well-Being 2XXhttps://www.euniwell.eu EurecaPro The European University Alliance on responsible Consumption and Production 2XXhttps://www.eurecapro.eu EuroTeq EuroTeQ Engineering University Technische Universität München Germany https://euroteq.eurotech-universities. eu FilmEU The European Universities Alliance for Film and Media Arts 2Universidade Lusófona Portugal https://www.filmeu.eu Invest INnoVations of Regional Sustainability: European UniversiTy Alliance 2XXhttps://www.invest-alliance.eu NeurotechEU European University of Brain and Technology 2Radboud University Nijmegen The Netherlands https://theneurotech.eu RUN-EU Regional University Network European University 2Politécnico de Leiria Portugal https://run-eu.eu T4E Transform4Europe: The European University for Knowledge Entrepreneurs 2Universität des Saarlandes Germany http://www.transform4europe.eu Ulysseus European University for the citizens of the future 2Universidad de Sevilla Spain https://ulysseus.eu UNIC The European University of Post-In- dustrial Cities 2Erasmus University Rotterdam The Netherlands https://www.unic.eu/en Unita Universitas Montium 2Università di Torino Italy https://univ-unita.eu/Sites/unita/en Universeh European Space University of Earth and Humanity 2University of Toulouse France https://universeh.eu EU4Art** Alliance for Common Fine Arts Curriculum 1XXhttps://eu4art.eu/# *Universities marked with an X do not specify their coordinating institution. **Officially recognized European University only between 2019 and 2022, as its EU funding has not been renewed.