Treat mission statements as rhetorical interventions requiring concrete commitments and explicit rhetorical audiences, not vague excellence vocabulary¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 theoretical), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Drawing on Winstead and Hobson (1971), the article recommends treating mission statements as only "the first step in planning": without follow-through and substantive metrics linking ideals to practical realities, statements become no more meaningful. Institutions should clarify how knowledge is created, the labour it requires, and their responsibilities to stakeholders—especially students—in articulating values and policies, avoiding aspirational yet vague language that appeals to multiple audiences at the cost of logos.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Mission statements need explicit institutional goals, measurable objectives, and follow-through connecting stated ideals to operational practice

Constraints¶

• The authors caution that internal policies and course-level documents may reveal more explicit tensions but are unevenly accessible and context-dependent

Target Learners¶

• higher education students
• prospective students
• institutional stakeholders

Target Learning Goals¶

• transparent institutional purpose
• coherent communication of academic expectations

Affordances¶

• Rhetorical Framework University Mission Statements

Claims¶

• Mission statements across the U15, Russell Group, and Ivy League exhibit Booth's rhetorical corruptions, with polished rhetoric of excellence obscuring concrete commitments [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Lb