Universities, Culture, and Social Media: Enhancing Engagement and Community Through Digital Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is relevant and methodologically sound, with  need for only some minor revisions. Suggestions for revision:

1. Clarify more explicitly how this case adds to or challenges existing literature on digital cultural promotion in higher education, and better integrate European Capital of Culture literature with the findings of this article.
2. The “Conclusions” section is labeled inconsistently (two different “Conclusion” headers with different content flows). Also, it might be better to include a “Limitations and Future Research” subsection in the discussion.
3. Tables or more precise summary statistics (e.g., average engagement rates, standard deviations) could enhance the quantitative analysis.
4. There should be more recent literature on Gen Z behavior, influencer culture, and short-form video use.
5. Figures are referenced, but some charts/images are not fully explained or interpreted in the article. The author(s) should also ensure all visuals are clearly labeled with consistent formatting (title, figure number, and caption).
6. Add an appendix or supplementary table listing key events and their metrics for transparency.

 

Author Response

1. Clarify more explicitly how this case adds to or challenges existing literature on digital cultural promotion in higher education and better integrate European Capital of Culture literature with the findings of this article.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we add some paragraphs in the introduction and in the conclusions to clarify this:

” This study builds on previous research on digital cultural engagement in higher education by demonstrating how student involvement in social media strategy not only enhances digital literacy (Selwyn, 2016) but also fosters cultural agency in a real-world institutional context. Unlike traditional digital learning models that emphasize passive consumption, our project aligns with constructivist pedagogy by involving students as active co-creators of cultural narratives (Kolb, 1984; Jenkins et al., 2009).” – line 77 – 82

” This study contributes to the growing literature on digital cultural promotion in higher education by showcasing a collaborative model in which students are not merely recipients of knowledge but active producers of cultural content. In contrast to conventional top-down promotional strategies, the approach adopted here aligns with calls for more participatory and reflexive cultural communication (Jenkins et al., 2009; Holdgaard & Klastrup, 2014). Additionally, by embedding this initiative within the framework of Hull’s tenure as UK City of Culture, the project challenges common critiques in the ECoC literature regarding the ephemerality and exclusivity of cultural legacies (Garcia & Cox, 2013; Palmer, 2004), suggesting that digital engagement through education can provide more inclusive and enduring cultural outcomes.” – lines 100 – 109

” This study contributes to the growing literature on digital cultural promotion in higher education by showcasing a collaborative model in which students are not merely recipients of knowledge but active producers of cultural content. In contrast to conventional top-down promotional strategies, the approach adopted here aligns with calls for more participatory and reflexive cultural communication (Jenkins et al., 2009; Holdgaard & Klastrup, 2014). Specifically, this case extends existing frameworks of digital engagement by integrating experiential learning and cultural co-production within the university setting. The communication plan developed by the West University of Timișoara demonstrates that university-led digital initiatives can successfully blend marketing, pedagogy, and cultural engagement, especially when student teams co-design and implement the strategies.

Moreover, this article contributes to the literature on the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) by offering a rare institutional perspective focused on higher education's role within the broader cultural programming of an ECoC year. While many ECoC analyses critique the tendency toward spectacle and transient cultural consumption (Richards & Palmer, 2010; Garcia & Cox, 2013), this case highlights how a university can facilitate lasting engagement through localized storytelling, targeted digital outreach, and youth-centered cultural participation. By leveraging existing digital platforms and youth engagement tactics, UVT's campaign provides an alternative model of sustainable legacy that complements traditional city-led initiatives. As such, the findings support broader arguments about embedding cultural legacy in community and educational structures, rather than relying solely on city branding or cultural tourism.

These contributions suggest that universities can play a pivotal role in ensuring that ECoC events leave behind meaningful digital and social legacies. Future studies might build on this work by comparing similar initiatives in other ECoC cities and further exploring the longitudinal effects of university participation in large-scale cultural campaigns. – lines 632 – 658

 

 

 

1. The “Conclusions” section is labeled inconsistently (two different “Conclusion” headers with different content flows). Also, it might be better to include a “Limitations and Future Research” subsection in the discussion.

We agree – we differentiate discussions from conclusions.

 

3. Tables or more precise summary statistics (e.g., average engagement rates, standard deviations) could enhance the quantitative analysis.

We agree, therefore we included some tables with explanations at lines 507 – 542

 

1. There should be more recent literature on Gen Z behavior, influencer culture, and short-form video use.

We included more literature at Literature review section.

 

1. Figures are referenced, but some charts/images are not fully explained or interpreted in the article. The author(s) should also ensure all visuals are clearly labeled with consistent formatting (title, figure number, and caption).

We added more explanations and also tables, as you write at comment 3.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction should conceptualize the major variables
2. The materials and methods only focused on explaining the material and did not explain the methods used in carrying out the research.
3. The rigor applied in the qualitative and quantitative approaches used in the study were not properly explained
4. The materials and methods section was basically presented as a discussion of findings instead of explanation of the research procedures.
5. The paper has no conclusion though author claims it is not compulsory.
6. Other comments can be seen in the attached reviewed paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The introduction should conceptualize the major variables

Thank you for pointing this out. We give a conceptual background of the core variables:

” This study centers on three interrelated variables: digital communication strategies, social media engagement, and student participation in university-led cultural events. Social media engagement refers to the interactive behaviors of users—likes, comments, shares, and follows—on platforms like Facebook and Instagram, which serve as proxies for interest, resonance, and reach. Digital communication strategies, in this context, encompass the design, content, tone, and format of social media messages disseminated by the university to promote its cultural campaigns. These strategies are increasingly tailored to appeal to Generation Z, a cohort known for its preference for visual, dynamic, and participatory online content. Lastly, student participation is conceptualized not only as physical attendance at events but also as digital involvement, including interaction with posts, sharing content, and co-creating media. Together, these variables shape the effectiveness of university communication efforts and reflect broader trends in how higher education institutions foster cultural engagement and a sense of community through digital platforms.” – lines 56 - 68

 

1. The materials and methods only focused on explaining the material and did not explain the methods used in carrying out the research.
2. The rigor applied in the qualitative and quantitative approaches used in the study were not properly explained
3. The materials and methods section was basically presented as a discussion of findings instead of explanation of the research procedures.

Thank you for your observations. To response at comments 2, 3 and 4 we added these specifications:

” To analyze the impact of UVT's social media communication strategies, we adopted a     mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative research techniques. The quantitative component involved systematically tracking engagement metrics—such as likes, comments, shares, reach, and impressions—on Facebook and Instagram posts related to the campaigns "At UVT, Culture is Capital," "Ideas that Change the World," and "Connect to the Future" from February to December 2023. These metrics were extracted directly from the platforms’ analytics tools, consistent with established practices in digital communication research (Moro et al., 2016; Molyneux, 2015). For the qualitative component, we conducted thematic content analysis on selected posts, comments, and visual materials to identify patterns in communication styles, audience interaction, and narrative framing (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This dual-layered methodology allowed us to triangulate findings and draw nuanced conclusions about digital engagement and cultural participation among university students, following best practices in mixed-methods research in media studies (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).” – lines 172 – 185

 

1. The paper has no conclusion though author claims it is not compulsory.

We inserted the Conclusions section

 

1. Other comments can be seen in the attached reviewed paper

We answered to your comments inside the text, you will see them coloured in red.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s,

I recommend that you indicate the university from which your study is conducted in the title of the study. The abstract of the study seemed complicated to me. Explain the abstract more simply. In particular, the method should be explained clearly. If possible, the method should be explained in more detail in the method section of your study. The conclusion section of the study should be revised. For example, information that should be in the introduction or method section of the study is written in the conclusion section. Write these where they should be. Avoid repeating information. I think you did not include the explanatory information you should have included in the conclusion section (at the very end of the conclusion section). It should be corrected.

Best regards.

Author Response

The abstract of the study seemed complicated to me. Explain the abstract more simply.

Thank you for your comment. We modify the abstract to be simpler.

In particular, the method should be explained clearly.

We explained the method, as you will see in the text.

The conclusion section of the study should be revised.

We modify the conclusions, thank you for recommending us this.

All the revisions we made are in the text.

Thank you very much for your observations!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf