The University of Manchester Research

Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group Universities

Employing AI-driven NLP Method
DOI:
10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590

Document Version
Final published version

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):

Molavi, H. (2024). Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group Universities Employing AI-driven NLP Method.
Open Access Journal of Education & Language Studies, 2(3), Article 555590.
https://doi.org/10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590

Published in:
Open Access Journal of Education & Language Studies

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript
or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the
publisher's definitive version.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the
authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown
Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so
we can investigate your claim.

Download date:28. avr.. 2025

 Mini Review Open Access J Educ & Lang Stud
Volume 2 Issue 3 - October 2024
Copyright © All rights are reserved by Homa Molavi
DOI: 10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590

Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group

Universities Employing AI-driven NLP Method
Homa Molavi*
The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK
Submission: October 02, 2024; Published: October 18, 2024
*Corresponding author: Homa Molavi, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK

Abstract

This study explores how Russell Group universities can evaluate their policymaking and strategic decisions by employing AI-driven Natural
Language Processing (NLP) methods. Through a large-scale case study based on social media data during the COVID-19 pandemic, the research
assesses how university policies-particularly those related to governance, crisis management, and higher education-impact institutional
reputation and stakeholder engagement. By leveraging computational social science and machine learning algorithms to detect patterns in public
sentiment and stakeholder behavior, the study demonstrates how AI can enhance policy and decision-making within the higher education sector.
Additionally, the study sheds light on AI’s role in promoting transparency, accountability, and effective reputation management, positioning the
Russell Group as a key player in shaping the future of global academia.

Keywords: Russell Group; AI; NLP; policymaking; reputation management; stakeholder engagement; higher education; computational
social science; decision-making; crisis management

Introduction
Furthermore, the constraints posed by limited historical data can
In recent decades, there has been a significant transformation
result in a reliance on intuition-driven decisions when historical
in the organizational structures governing universities. The
context is lacking [12]. Such reliance on intuition introduces
traditional notion of the university as a republic of scholars
biases that may undermine the accuracy and reliability of the
has given a way to the emerging concept of the university as a
collected data. This underscores the critical need for the adoption
stakeholder organization [1]. Universities need to fulfill the roles
of more nuanced and unbiased approaches in both research
of teaching and research [2] as two inseparable components
methodologies and data sources.
in higher education (HE) [3] by satisfying their stakeholders’
expectations [4-8]. Furthermore, stakeholders exhibit diverse behaviors in
response to reputation-related stimuli during crises, resulting
The landscape of the education sector starkly reveals
in varied individual outcomes due to socio-cognitive processes
a disconnect between performance, reputation scores, and
[13]. This variability complicates the prediction of stakeholder
evaluations, and the real-time data tracking systems in place.
behaviors, particularly when dealing with terabytes of data
This misalignment presents considerable challenges, particularly
generated by social interactions during crises. Unlike traditional
as policies must remain agile to effectively respond to evolving
approaches relying on historical data, the absence of such
circumstances. The dynamic nature of policymaking necessitates
data significantly limits decision-making adaptability, as past
frequent adjustments to accommodate shifting dynamics. In
experiences cannot be extrapolated to the unprecedented
contemporary society, decision-making processes increasingly
circumstances [12]. Consequently, the missing aspect is
rely on big data rather than traditional empirical assessments and
understanding how stakeholders react to the actions and
surveys [9,10]. Researchers emphasize the limitations inherent
responses of organizations and how organizations should make
in traditional methods such as surveys or focus groups, citing
their policies and strategic plans considering stakeholders’
prevalent issues like recall bias and question framing bias [11].
reactions?

Open Access J Educ & Lang Stud 2(3): OAJELS.MS.ID.555590 (2024) 001
 Open Access Journal of Education & Language Studies

Case Study Utilizing social media dataset of Russell Group universities’

posts as a response to the pandemic, there are a total of 17,507
To provide some context for my notion, let’s examine how
posts for the whole group. Among these, 13,119 tweets received no
data-driven policy and decision-making present additional
comments or interactions, representing 74.10% of the total. This
challenges for the Russell Group and its stakeholders in light
percentage is detailed in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. These
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of the 24 elite members of
preliminary statistics inherently expose the behavioral patterns of
the Russell Group is to unite in order to better influence policy
stakeholders and their interactions with crisis response efforts at
decisions as a collective. At the local, national, and international
Russell Group universities. The findings suggest a neutral pattern
levels, Russell Group universities have a significant impact on
in stakeholder behavior, as indicated by the high percentage of
society, the economy, and culture. Together, they contribute more
tweets without any comments.
than two-thirds of the world-class research produced by UK
universities, advancing a variety of fields [14].

Table 1: The dataset corresponds to the Twitter social platform.

Number of Numbers of Number of tweets The percentage
University posts/ Number Twitter ID ac-
No Twitter follow- (Tweets and without any com- of tweets without
tweets of tweets count
ers comments) ments any comments
1 University of York 86.8k 1345 1645 1211 90.03% @UniOfYork
London School of Eco-
2 nomics and Political 133.5k 1247 1347 1120 89.81% @LSEnews
Science (LSE)
Queen Mary Universi-
3 75.1k 885 1092 793 89.60% @QMUL
ty of London
University of Man-
4 100.7k 853 1787 754 88.39% @OfficialUoM
chester
5 University of Belfast 61.5k 1062 1384 891 83.89% @QUBelfast
6 University of Sheffield 133.1k 624 769 511 81.89% @sheffielduni
7 Newcastle University 54.1k 496 654 391 78.83% @UniofNewcastle
University of Birming-
8 137.4k 865 1173 675 78.03% @unibirmingham
ham
9 University of Bristol 101.4k 592 967 458 77.36% @BristolUni
10 University Cardiff 92.3k 461 576 352 76.35% @cardiffuni
11 University of Warwick 94.9k 423 670 323 76.35% @uniofwarwick
University of Cam-
12 824.5k 718 1260 548 76.32% @Cambridge_Uni
bridge
University of South-
13 64.9k 345 417 263 76.23% @unisouthampton
ampton
University of Edin-
14 158.3k 626 843 476 76.03% @EdinburghUni
burgh
University College
15 134.2k 367 520 278 75.74% @ucl
London (UCL)
16 Durham University 62.7k 602 855 444 73.75% @durham_uni
17 University of Exeter 79.7k 589 847 434 73.68% @UniofExeter
18 King’s College London 149.4k 368 616 263 71.46% @KingsCollegeLon
University of Liver-
19 81.4k 554 807 386 69.67% @LivUni
pool
University of Notting- @UniofNotting-
20 98.8k 531 846 366 68.92%
ham ham
Imperial College
21 175.2k 1835 2449 1087 59.23% @imperialcollege
London
22 University of Glasgow 136.6k 1135 2382 665 58.59% @UofGlasgow
23 University of Oxford 980.2k 605 1903 256 42.31% @UniofOxford

How to cite this article: Homa M. Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group Universities Employing AI-driven NLP Method. Open Access J Educ &
002
Lang Stud. 2024; 2(3): 555590. DOI: 10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590
 Open Access Journal of Education & Language Studies

24 University of Leeds 123k 379 835 174 45.91% @UniversityLeeds

Total 17507 26644 13119 74.10%

Figure 1: Social Media Statistics [Dataset].

How to cite this article: Homa M. Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group Universities Employing AI-driven NLP Method. Open Access J Educ &
003
Lang Stud. 2024; 2(3): 555590. DOI: 10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590
 Open Access Journal of Education & Language Studies

Conclusion and artifact. J Acad Marketing Sci 20(1): 61-71.

12. Yu S, Qing Q, Zhang C, Shehzad A, Oatley G, et al. (2021) Data-driven
This study demonstrates the significant potential of AI-
decision-making in COVID-19 response: A survey. IEEE Transac
driven Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods to enhance Comput Soc Syst 8(4): 1016-1029.
policymaking within Russell Group universities. Our findings
13. West B, Hillenbrand C, Money K, Ghobadian A, Ireland RD (2016)
reveal a disconnect between the 17,507 social media posts Exploring the impact of social axioms on firm reputation: A stakeholder
analyzed and the low engagement levels, with 74.10% of tweets perspective. British J Manage 27(2): 249-270.
receiving no comments or interactions [15-20]. This indicates 14. Russell Group U (2024) Our universities. Russellgroup, UK.
a neutral stakeholder response, highlighting the need for
15. Abdullah HO, AL‐Abrrow H (2023) Predicting positive and negative
universities to refine their communications strategies to better behaviors at the workplace: Insights from multi‐faceted perceptions
align with stakeholder interests. The research underscores the and attitudes. Glob Business Organizational Excellence 42(4): 63-80.
importance of adopting data-driven approaches in policymaking, 16. Berry GR (2010) Improving organizational decision-making:
especially during crises where traditional methods may be Reframing social, moral and political stakeholder concerns. J Corporate
inadequate. By utilizing AI and machine learning, universities Citizenship 38: 33-48.
can identify patterns in public sentiment and stakeholder 17. Cattaneo M, Meoli M, Paleari S (2016) Why do universities
behavior, facilitating timely and informed policy responses [21- internationalize? Organizational reputation and legitimacy.
In University evolution, entrepreneurial activity and regional
30]. This not only promotes transparency and accountability but competitiveness. Springer pp. 327-346.
also positions Russell Group universities as proactive leaders in
18. Coombs WT (1999) Information and compassion in crisis responses: A
higher education. As universities navigate crisis management test of their effects. J Public Relations Res 11(2): 125-142.
and stakeholder engagement complexities, integrating AI
19. Coombs WT, Holladay SJ (2011) An exploration of the effects of victim
methodologies will be crucial for adaptive policymaking. By visuals on perceptions and reactions to crisis events. Public Relation
embracing these technologies, Russell Group universities can Rev 37(2): 115-120.
enhance their policy influence and resilience in an evolving
20. Ellul N, Capocchi L, Santucci JF (2015) Big data decision making based
academic landscape [31,32]. on predictive data analysis using DEVS simulations. Proceedings of
the 3rd ACM SIGSIM Conference on Principles of Advanced Discrete
References Simulation.
1. Bleiklie I, Kogan M (2007) Organization and governance of universities. 21. González‐Bailón S, Lelkes Y (2023) Do social media undermine social
Higher Education Policy 20: 477-493. cohesion? A critical review. Social Issues Policy Rev 17(1): 155-180.
2. Schlesinger W, Cervera A, Iniesta MÁ (2015) Key elements in building 22. Huang F, Crăciun D, de Wit H (2022) Internationalization of higher
relationships in the higher education services context. J Promotion education in a post‐pandemic world: Challenges and responses. Wiley
Manage 21(4): 475-491. Online Library 76: 203-212.
3. Chan Fong Yee F (2014) Reflections on teaching and research: Two 23. Imran S, Alam K, Beaumont N (2014) Environmental orientations
inseparable components in higher education. Teachers & Teaching and environmental behavior: Perceptions of protected area tourism
20(6): 755-763. stakeholders. Tourism Management 40: 290-299.
4. Agrey L, Lampadan N (2014) Determinant factors contributing to 24. Jin X, Wah BW, Cheng X, Wang Y (2015) Significance and challenges of
student choice in selecting a university. J Educ and Human Devel 3(2): big data research. Big Data Res 2(2): 59-64.
391-404.
25. Kwok L, Lee J, Han SH (2022) Crisis communication on social media:
5. Angulo-Ruiz F, Pergelova A, Cheben J (2016) The relevance of what types of COVID-19 messages get the attention? Cornell Hospitality
marketing activities for higher education institutions. In International Quarterly 63(4): 528-543.
marketing of higher education. Springer p. 13-45.
26. Liu K, Liu Y, Kou Y, Yang X, Hu G (2023) Formation mechanism for
6. Broekemier GM, Seshadri S (2000) Differences in college choice collaborative behavior among stakeholders in megaprojects based on
criteria between deciding students and their parents. J Marketing for the theory of planned behavior. Building Res Information 51(6): 667-
Higher Educ 9(3): 1-13. 681.
7. El Nemar S, Vrontis D, Thrassou A (2020) An innovative stakeholder 27. McNamara A (2021) Crisis management in higher education in the
framework for the student-choice decision making process. J Business time of covid-19: The case of actor training. Education Sci 11(3): 132.
Res 119: 339-353.
28. Oikonomou V, Van der Gaast W, Türk A, Fruhmann C, Sartorius C, et
8. Germeijs V, Luyckx KG, Notelaers L, Goossens, Verschueren K (2012) al. (2014) Understanding Policy Contexts and Stakeholder Behavior
Choosing a major in higher education: Profiles of students’ decision- for Consistent and Coherent Environmental Politics. Synthesis of the
making process. Contemp Educ Psychol 37(3): 229-239. results of the APRAISE project.
9. McAfee A, Brynjolfsson E, Davenport TH, Patil D, Barton D (2012) Big 29. Othman AF, Yusoff SZ (2020) Crisis communication management
data: the management revolution. Harvard Business Rev 90(10): 60- strategies in MH370 crisis with special references to situational crisis
68. communication theory. Int J Acad Res Business Soc Sci 10(4): 172-182.
10. Power DJ (2014) Using ‘Big Data’for analytics and decision support. J 30. Pucciarelli F, Kaplan A (2016) Competition and strategy in higher
Decision Syst 23(2): 222-228. education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons
59(3): 311-320.
11. Peterson RA, Wilson WR (1992) Measuring customer satisfaction: fact

How to cite this article: Homa M. Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group Universities Employing AI-driven NLP Method. Open Access J Educ &
004
Lang Stud. 2024; 2(3): 555590. DOI: 10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590
 Open Access Journal of Education & Language Studies

31. Tetenbaum T, Laurence H (2011) Leading in the chaos of the 21st 32. Wenzel R, Van Quaquebeke N (2018) The double-edged sword of
century. J Leadership Studies 4(4): 41-49. big data in organizational and management research: A review of
opportunities and risks. Org Res Method 21(3): 548-591.

This work is licensed under Creative

Commons Attribution 4.0 License Your next submission with Juniper Publishers
DOI: 10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590 will reach you the below assets
• Quality Editorial service
• Swift Peer Review
• Reprints availability
• E-prints Service
• Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding
• Global attainment for your research
• Manuscript accessibility in different formats
( Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio)
• Unceasing customer service

Track the below URL for one-step submission

https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.php

How to cite this article: Homa M. Evaluation of Policy Making in Russell Group Universities Employing AI-driven NLP Method. Open Access J Educ &
005
Lang Stud. 2024; 2(3): 555590. DOI: 10.19080/OAJELS.2024.02.555590