https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1379-3938
![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The climate surrounding the 2020 US elections was tumultuous – from the hyperpartisan elections themselves, to a pandemic, to a national reckoning on race. Within this turmoil, many college students were casting their first vote. With the health of the nation on the line, figuratively and literally, what guidance did universities offer students in the run up to the election? This study addresses this question with a quantitative content analysis of university e-mails sent to students leading up to the election. Results revealed that, with regard to existing scholarship, universities succeeded and failed at using effective messaging, and messaging varied across social environmental factors. Universities play an influential role in students’ civic engagement, yet this study showed universities still have much to learn.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability
The underlying dataset is not currently publicly available but can be uploaded to an online repository upon journal request.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/27671127.2023.2179518
Notes
1. Drutman, “How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics.”
2. Taylor, “George Floyd Protests.”
3. Bennion and Laughlin, “Best Practices in Civic Education”; Bennion and Nickerson, “I Will Register and Vote, If You Teach Me How”; Bennion and Nickerson, “The Cost of Convenience”; Bennion and Nickerson, “Decreasing Hurdles and Increasing Registration Rates for College Students”; Bennion and Nickerson, “What We Know about Mobilizing College Students to Vote”; Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters; Kumler and Whittaker, “Using Campus Presidential Debate Watch Events to Nudge”; Teresi and Michelson, “Wired to Mobilize”; Ulbig and Waggener, “Getting Registered and Getting to the Polls.”
4. Barnhardt, Sheets, and Pasquesi, “You Expect What?”; Shulman and Levine, “Exploring Social Norms as a Group-Level Phenomenon.”
5. Santucci, “Trump Asks Treasury Department to Review Universities’ Tax Exemption over ‘Radical Left Indoctrination’”.
6. Repucci and Slipowitz, “Democracy under Siege.”
7. Langton, “Peer Group and School and the Political Socialization Process*.”
8. Wiseman et al., “Making Citizens of the World.”
9. Hansen, “Has Mass Education Changed US Politics?: A Look at Voter Turnout in the 50 States”; Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters.
10. Ibid.
11. Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters, 123.
12. Barnhardt, Sheets, and Pasquesi, “You Expect What?”.
13. New, “Colleges Placing Increasing Importance on Programs Promoting Civic Engagement,” para. 5.
14. “Freedom in the World 2021 Policy Recommendations.”
15. New, “Colleges Placing Increasing Importance on Programs Promoting Civic Engagement,” para. 4.
16. See note above 12.
17. Barnhardt, Sheets, and Pasquesi.
18. Ibid.
19. Shulman and Levine, “Exploring Social Norms as a Group-Level Phenomenon.”
20. Latane and Darley, The Unresponsive Bystander.
21. See note above 19.
22. Shulman and Levine.
23. See Bennion and Nickerson, “What We Know;” Despres, “Voting at UMaine: An Empirical Study of Student Turnout Trends and Motivations.”
24. US Census Bureau, “2020 Presidential Election Voting & Registration Tables Now Available.”
25. Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters.
26. Holbein and Hillygus; Lundberg, Kiesa, and Medina, “The 2020 Election Is Over, But Young People Believe in Continued Engagement.”
27. Brennan Center, “Talking to Young People about Voting.”
28. Lundberg, Kiesa, and Medina, “The 2020 Election Is Over, But Young People Believe in Continued Engagement.”Lundberg, Kiesa, and Medina.
29. Lundberg, Kiesa, and Medina, “The 2020 Election Is Over, But Young People Believe in Continued Engagement.”
30. Bennion and Nickerson, “What We Know”; Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters.
31. “AACRAO Voter Registration.”
32. Ulbig and Waggener, “Getting Registered and Getting to the Polls.”
33. See note above 31.
34. Bennion and Nickerson, “The Cost of Convenience.”
35. See Ulbig and Waggener, “Getting Registered and Getting to the Polls.”
36. Thomas et al., “Ten Recommendations to Increase College Student Voting and Improve Political Learning and Engagement in Democracy.”
37. See note above 25.
38. Highton, “Residential Mobility, Community Mobility, and Electoral Participation.”
39. Campbell, “Voting Hurdles Often Keep College Students Away From the Ballot Box.”
40. Dennon, “What Caused the Student Voter Turnout Surge?”.
41. See note above 25.
42. Bennion and Nickerson, “What We Know about Mobilizing College Students to Vote.”
43. See note above 36.
44. Barnhardt, Sheets, and Pasquesi, “You Expect What?”; Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters.
45. See note above 36.
46. See note above 12.
47. Thomas and Brimhall-Vargas, “Facilitating Political Discussions.”
48. See note above 36.
49. Despres, “Voting at UMaine.”
50. “What Do Young Adults Know about Politics? Evidence from a National Survey Conducted After the 2012 Election”; Delli Carpini and Keeter, What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters; Wattenberg, Is Voting for Young People?
51. Jarvis, Montoya, and Mulvoy, “The Political Participation of College Students, Working Students and Working Youth.”
52. McNaughtan and Brown, “Fostering Democratic Participation at Community Colleges.”
53. Thomas et al., “Ten Recommendations to Increase College Student Voting and Improve Political Learning and Engagement in Democracy,” 6.
54. See note above 34.
55. Collins and Block, “Fired Up, Ready to Go.”
56. See McNaughtan and Brown, “Fostering Democratic Participation at Community Colleges.”
57. Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters; Despres, “Voting at UMaine: An Empirical Study of Student Turnout Trends and Motivations.”
58. See note above 25.
59. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
60. See note above 34.
61. See note above 59.
62. It is important to note that this e-mail, and all others in the sample, were sent before the January 6, 2021 insurrection of the US Capitol.
63. A condensed Carnegie classification system was used to ease interpretation. State citizen ideology using Gallup data (Jones Citation2019) was assessed as an additional factor, but institutions in more/less conservative states did not provide consistently distinct messaging. Further, there were no significant differences between public and private institutions.
64. McCormick and Zhao, “Rethinking and Reframing The Carnegie Classification.”
65. See note above 25.
66. See note above 4.
67. Barnhardt, Sheets, and Pasquesi, “You Expect What?”; Holbein and Hillygus, Making Young Voters; Thomas et al., “Ten Recommendations to Increase College Student Voting and Improve Political Learning and Engagement in Democracy.”
68. Relman, “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs a law punishing student ‘indoctrination’ at public universities and threatens budget cuts.”
69. See note above 64.
70. See note above 52.
71. Starcke et al., “Effects of Acute Laboratory Stress on Executive Functions.”
72. Eva, “How Colleges Today Are Supporting Student Mental Health.”
73. Bennion and Nickerson, “What We Know about Mobilizing College Students to Vote,” 25.
74. See note above 25.