Introduction

While the promotional marketing of education is researched comprehensively, its intersection with media, policy debates and public perceptions of higher education receives less attention. Much contemporary research about media and public debates about education focuses on schools and literacy although the mediatisation of higher education in Australia has been addressed marginally (Symes 1996; Lingard and Rawolle 2004). This paper examines the content of mainstream media messages about higher education and the influence such messages may have on public perception and student choice of educational institution, especially by students from non-traditional and disadvantaged backgrounds. To do so, it assesses print media content about post-secondary vocational education and university as options for study in Australia. The media articles were published following the proposal for, and subsequent introduction of a national policy designed to increase participation in Australian higher education in all sectors (Bradley 2008). It examines how messages about access and participation produced by higher education institutions, their key public officers and the mainstream news media, influence public perception of higher education. It identifies discursive patterns in this content and considers how the framing of university and vocational institutions in institutional and media discourses may influence student choice. We contend that persistent structural inequality (Schuetze and Slowey 2002; Harris 2011; Chesters and Watson 2013) and policy failure in relation to educational participation in Australia (Marginson 2011) are in part attributable to the mediatisation of mixed messages, and their eventual influence on student choice.

The policy context

Changes to higher education systems in response to globalization and increasing economic competition have been assessed as radical and profound (Eggins 2003; Marginson 2006) bringing reforms in policy, curricula, funding models, access and participation targets and in many countries increased privatization. There is a clear consensus that these changes have resulted in the massification (Altbach et al. 2009; Gale and Tranter 2011) and marketisation (Jongbloed 2003; Marginson 2004; Lynch 2006; Teixeira and Dill 2011) of higher education. The vocational role of higher education has also emerged as a critical issue, particularly about where and how specific skills and fields of inquiry should be taught (Symes 2000; Bleiklie 2005; Usher 2009). Consequently, analyzing the role of higher education, its form, funding and purpose has become a discipline in itself with a substantial body of research and literature (Tight 2012).

In Australia, policy has been used as an instrument of social and economic intervention (Ball 2012) in higher education, including linking government policy and funding to student enrollment to increase participation. Yet policy alone has been unable to overcome entrenched cultural values and opinions about higher education in Australia (Marginson 2011; Chesters and Watson 2013). Failure of some policy initiatives may be attributable more to the behavioral responses of targeted population cohorts than to flawed policy. Arguing for greater consideration of human behavior analysis in relation to policy, Shafir observes that “it is remarkable how small a role the attempt to understand human behavior has played in policy circles, as well as in the social sciences more generally” (2014, p. 2), while Ball argues that global higher education policy research and analysis lacks the “tools and perspectives of a more cosmopolitan sociology” (2012, p. xii). Shafir’s incorporation of analysis of behavior to understand responses to policy emphasizes the effects of context and construal. In regard to context, examination of the specific situation of an individual is considered necessary, with minor contextual factors able to exert significant influence over individual intention and conviction. Additionally, Shafir proposes that the construal of policies by a targeted group influences responses to policy because “behavior is determined not simply by what is available, but by what people know, perceive, understand, attend to, and want” (2014, p. 3). The marketing and mediatisation of higher education contribute significantly to decision-making about higher education participation (Molesworth et al. 2011). However, marketing rhetoric that speaks to policy initiatives about accessibility, inclusion and “real world” relevance is frequently countered by a counter rhetoric that reinforces existing concepts of elitism (Gale 2011). The resulting dissonance between the policy environment and the media environment in Australia produces mixed messages about higher education. One set of messages promotes open access and social inclusiveness leading to individual and societal benefit, but these are frequently contradicted and neutralized by counter messages that propagate entrenched positions about class, individual ability and suitability and the stratification of higher education by quality.

Following the election of a new Federal Government in Australia in 2007 national higher education policies were reviewed. The Australian Labor Party had achieved a convincing victory, replacing the Liberal-National Party coalition that governed Australia from 1996. Education, and specifically higher education, was a prominent election issue, in keeping with the observation by Olssen and Peters “that higher education has become the new star ship in the policy fleet for governments around the world” (2005, p. 313). In the Australian higher education sector and the community, generally, there was a sense that significant reform would ensue (Marginson 2013a) and the government promised an “education revolution” (Kayrooz and Parker 2010, p. 161). Subsequently, one of the first policy initiatives of the new government was the commissioning of a Review of Australian Higher Education by Julia Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. The management of these key portfolios at the most senior level of government seemed to confirm the priority placed on the relationship between education, employment and equity. The final report of what became known as the “Bradley Review” (2008) recommended increased participation targets on the basis that population increase by itself was not sufficient to provide a skilled and educated workforce for the future and that previous policies had not managed to substantially increase participation rates of non-traditional student entrants. To meet these targets, Bradley (2008) proposed increasing both student participation and retention, which would be brought about by substantial sectoral reform, including linking student enrollment directly to institutional funding.

While the Bradley Review proposed a range of reforms to Australia’s tertiary education sector to achieve this significant demographic shift, it was not clear how potential students, and their families, would be informed and persuaded to make a sudden cultural change. The Bradley reforms required a dramatic change in student enrollment practices, but also in patterns of student choice and participation. Yet previous changes in policy had not managed to achieve this goal (Gale and Tranter 2011; Putnam and Gill 2011). The tertiary education funding model in Australia requires students to pay the government for tuition on enrollment or post-graduation via the taxation system, and therefore, it is a substantial financial commitment. For potential students, the decision to progress to tertiary education via vocational education or university is often based on contextual factors such as affordability, physical and temporal accessibility and the potential for a successful vocational outcome (DFEEST 2007; Callender and Jackson 2008; Wierenga et al. 2013). We contend that in a more complex decision-making environment about educational choice mediated messages flow through public discourses to influence potential students. A lack of consistency and clarity in the information that reaches people from non-traditional backgrounds contributes to a preference for low risk options that help to sustain status quo attitudes about education more broadly.

Methodology

It has long been argued that the influence of mediated communication on public perception can be determined through the application of a range of theory frames including agenda setting, which focuses on the targeted selection of issues reported (McCombs and Shaw 1972); and the third person effect (Gunther 1998; Mutz and Soss 1997), by which sustained media coverage causes a topic to become an issue for the wider community, even though they may have had no prior interest in or concern about it.

When applied to tertiary education-related media articles, the theoretical approaches of agenda setting and the third person effect indicate that student enrollment decisions are influenced by public communication messages, whether media-produced or institutional; and the perceptions of family, peers and potential employers, which are also influenced by mediated messages (Symes 1996; Gunther 1998; Mutz and Soss 1997; Mutz 1998; Soutar and Turner 2002; McCombs and Guo 2014). Print media continue to be a relevant source of information formation and high salience due to the reporting of policy debates and the communication of promotional material about higher education institutions. Additionally, the formation and framing of issues in the public sphere (Habermas 1984) remains a significant role of mainstream media. While many potential students may not access print media, public discourses and public opinion in Australia continue to be influenced by print media agenda setting and framing (McCombs and Guo 2014).

Content analysis (Bertrand and Hughes 2005) is used to assess messages in mainstream print news media and in controlled (institutionally produced) communication materials related to post-secondary vocational education and university education. Krippendorff summarizes contemporary content analysis as a “systematic reading of a body of texts, images and symbolic matter” (2004, p. 3) that “is fundamentally empirically grounded, exploratory in process,and predictive or inferential in intent” (2004, p. 36). Content analysis is valuable for identifying significant or recurring themes. It is also useful where the messages under construction are subject to continual change (Fairclough 1995) as they are in the higher education policy environment (Marginson 2013b).

Content analysis of local (South Australian) and Australian national press representations of university and TAFE-based education and training was undertaken in two periods. The first analysis covered the period from January to April 2009, immediately following the December 2008 release of the Bradley Review and incorporating the Australian Government’s formal response, which was released in March 2009. During this period, responses to the Bradley Review generated substantial public debate, focused on its social, economic and political motivation and the consequences of its recommendations. The content analysis conducted in this first period also captured and considered global financial crisis (GFC)-related media coverage from April 2009 and workforce participation reporting. From the content analysis, it became apparent that in the drastically changed global economic circumstances, the Australian news media agenda and the associated discursive emphasis had turned rapidly from reporting of mining booms, economic growth and skill shortages, to economic adjustment, job cuts and tightening employment markets. Additionally, the discussion of funding pressures in the higher education sector as determined by the May 2009 Federal Budget also increased (DEEWR 2010).

The second period of content analysis was undertaken 12 months later, from March to June 2010. It assessed messages about post-secondary education in Australia as reported in the post-GFC economic climate and a turbulent political environment in which the Australian Government lost substantial support (Stuart 2010). This period encompassed the 2010 Australian Federal Budget and reporting of tertiary education policies. The analysis undertaken identified the primary media frames as funding pressures in the tertiary education and training sector, and projected skills shortages in Australia (Skills Australia 2010). During this second period, there was extensive media coverage of the Bradley Review recommendation that every Australian student should be entitled to a publicly subsidized higher education place, including students undertaking qualifications in vocational training (2008, p. xiii).

To assess changes in the framing of media messages about vocational education and training (VET), controlled or “in house,” communications content analysis was undertaken in May 2010 to compare institutional sources of communication with messages communicated in mainstream media. To gain both geographical representation and a range of positioning and target publics, “Group of Eight” member the University of Western Australia, “industry aligned” dual sector university Swinburne University of Technology, “research focused” national institution the Australian National University and TAFE SA, representing vocational education and training, were selected. Each of these four institutions represents a recognized sector of Australia’s stratified higher education system (Marginson 2006).

Communication and perception

The relationship between media reporting and the public perception of tertiary education is central to this research. Application of classic foundation theories relevant to communication and perception (Fields and Schuman 1976; Noelle-Neumann 1974; Merton 1968) in the analysis considered the relationship between media reporting and political behavior. Additionally, the analysis considered how the framing of social norms leads to patterns of behavior and decision-making due to the influence of media coverage on public perception (McCombs and Shaw 1972; Mutz and Soss 1997; Gunther 1998; Hallahan 1999; Druckman 2011). The work of Mutz (1998), Meirick (2006) and Oates (2008) is applied to analysis of the relationship between the media positioning of media messages about tertiary education choice and the influence of those messages on public perceptions.

The analysis also considers Grube’s argument that the electoral cycle and changing political positions influence media coverage of policy (2011). Grube undertook content analysis of the speeches of Australian political party leaders and the memoirs of Ministerial advisors to examine the relationship between electoral cycles, political communication and the media. He concludes that the speech cycle of senior politicians “represents a pattern of rhetorical flows” (2011, p. 36) that is primarily influenced by the parliamentary term. As the Australian Government has a three-year term, a critical connection is made here between the political process, electoral cycle and the relatively rapid change in policy focus subsequent to the change of Federal Government and then to the GFC-related economic downturn in 2009. From December 2007 to March 2010, a clearly defined shift in the content of media messages about higher education was observed. At the start of this period, the dominant message evident in print media content we summarize as, “Go to university if you want to get a job,” but by 2010 the dominant message was summarized as “Trades are in demand and pay well.”

In Australia, a standard, full-time undergraduate degree takes 3 years to complete, while a standard trade qualification takes 4 years. Our analysis shows that the Australian public was exposed to different messages about the value of tertiary education in a shorter time frame than it takes to complete either qualification. Those selecting their higher education pathway to employment in 2007/2008 did so in an environment in which positions about the supposed value of different forms of tertiary education almost reversed by the time they graduated. At the same time, changes in government policy direction, partly in response to GFC pressures on economic planning, and partly due to the electoral cycle, also influenced media reporting (Parenti 1993; Grube 2011).

Controlled communications

The effectiveness of an institution’s communication strategy in positioning both image and reputation is critical in creating its public identity (Dichter 1985; Symes 1996; Andreassen and Lindestead 1998; Domke et al. 1998; Nguyen and LeBlanc 2001). Institutional communication is also crucial to understanding how public perception is formed as it is projected via practices of public relations, advertising and marketing and through news and information media reporting. Analysis of mediated institutional messages determined that there were few discrepancies between the messages in the controlled communication material reviewed and the messages identified in related print media articles.

Analysis determined that universities and technical and further education (TAFE) institutions continued to project different positioning messages and images of their curricula, services and values. Vocational education (TAFE) continued to foreground practical, competency-based, group-orientated training, advocating a “hands on” “look/do” model leading to entry-level skilled technical and vocational employment options. Alternatively, universities continued to represent education as theoretical, intellectual, with a “read/discuss” style of learning, leading indirectly, but inevitably, to professional employment outcomes and careers rather than jobs. The difference in the two positions is summarized by distinctions in the discursive frames of job versus career; technical versus analytical; applied versus theoretical; trade versus profession. Significantly, these were preexisting frames and were not changed by, or in response to, the recommendations of the Bradley Review. Rather, these messages were a propagation of the traditional sector division between the elitist, selective positioning of universities and the more open access of the vocational education sector.

Print news media content analysis

Analysis of the reporting in the print media articles reveals four recurrent frames:

  1. 1.

    Socio-economic factors distinguish student cohorts (e.g., family background and income levels);

  2. 2.

    Earning potential and employment outcomes (e.g., industry demand for graduates);

  3. 3.

    Institutional positioning and the reinforcement of preexisting views on the status of various educational sectors (e.g., low academic achievers go to TAFE);

  4. 4.

    Pathways between vocational and higher education (e.g., student movement between tertiary education organisations).

Analysis of the content within the four dominant frames indicates the evolution of a “problem-resolution” progression in the media reporting, in which the volume and repetition of the first three frames overshadows the fourth to position higher education choice as one in which an unquestioned or “mutual” set of pre-dispositions divides school leavers on grounds of academic merit. The logical and dominant message of each frame, which is amplified and propagated through mainstream media reporting, is as follows:

  • In the socio-economic frame: Students from low income families don’t value or attend university, but go to TAFE in order to get a job.

  • In the earning potential and employment outcomes frame: University study leads to good jobs and better pay.

  • In the institutional positioning frame: TAFE is the second (inferior) option to university, TAFE is for low academic achievers.

  • In the pathways between sectors frame: Pathways between vocational and higher education must be improved.

Socio-economic frame

The following direct quotes with a socio-economic frame from people in positions of power in the higher education sector, demonstrate the emphasis given to the notion of increased participation in tertiary education. However, it is apparent that even experts who support the policy for increased participation in higher education from non-traditional entrants reproduce the familiar message about vocational education-university disparity.

Author of the Bradley Review of Higher Education, Denise Bradley, commenting on disadvantage and education: “It’s very obvious that you should wish to have the right parents, she says. It’s very, very difficult if you are born into families that don’t read , where there is no history of reading…” (Lebihan 2009a).

Former University of Canberra vice-chancellor Don Aitkin (2009), writing on students from lower socio-economic groups attending university “… I think the problem is cultural as much, or perhaps even more than, financial.”

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard cited on students disadvantaged by income and background:

Ms Gillard acknowledges the challenge in changing attitudes towards higher education, particularly among low - income families . She highlighted South Korea, where 87 per cent of 15 year olds in the poorest quarter of the population aspire to tertiary study. In Australia the figure is just 52 percent (Lebihan 2009a).

An opinion piece by Geoff Maslen (2009): “Students who have been to the top private schools and whose fathers hold degrees are five times more likely to win a place at university than those from working class backgrounds .”

Professor Kenneth Wiltshire (2009), University of Queensland, on the importance of vocational education: “Indeed for many thousands of Australians, studying at a TAFE or private training college is the only hope they have had of achieving further education.”

A news report on university retention (Healy and Trounson 2009): “… 18.5 per cent of all students, or 30,000, dropped out after first year in 2006. But the waste of talent grew to 20.4 per cent of students classified as low socioeconomic status, 20.7 per cent of regional students, 25.4 per cent of remote students and 31.4 per cent of indigenous students.”

Twenty-nine percent of the print articles reviewed related access and success directly to socio-economic factors, while twelve percent contain themes relating to the frame “Students from low-income families don’t value or attend university, but go to TAFE instead to get a job.” In their public statements, each powerful commentator impressively credentialed and located in the political elite class of Australia asserts the existence of entrenched social attitudes and values. Furthermore, it is these statements that the media choose to report, and thus amplify in the public sphere discourse about post-secondary education. Consequently, the dominant message which policy seeks to transform is reinforced, positioning socio-economic background as an almost insurmountable obstacle to success. While accurately reflecting the sector’s continuing failure to successfully attract non-traditional students to university and retain them, this discursive trope of entrenched and intractable disadvantage perpetuates the perception that the problem lies with the equity groups themselves rather than broader forces of social disadvantage. Any failure to access university is attributed to potential students, their families of origin, their disadvantaged schools and functional barriers to access, rather than the university sector. When the description of the problem is repeated and amplified in media, reporting it reinforces the view that social status is a consequence of educational ability rather than a cause of educational disadvantage. This discursive frame is then reproduced in a continual cycle that helps to entrench status quo positions and reinforce elitism.

The persistence of this figurative language in educational discourses is so powerful that we propose that it is construed (Shafir 2014, p. 2) as a risk warning to potential students from non-traditional backgrounds, effectively directing them toward either trades training in vocational education, or the unskilled workforce. The key premise of the dominant messages is that a person from a low socio-economic background is likely to fail at university. The message strongly asserts that a successful employment outcome is best achieved by following a path corresponding to socio-economic status. Given contextual considerations that also influence choice such as travel cost or time, social and peer pressure or employment opportunity, the rational choice is to choose a low risk, cheaper option that is more likely to lead to employment.

The public discourse of university access continually speaks of “history,” being “born into” circumstances, a “culture” of low aspiration, positioning individuals from non-traditional backgrounds as captive to external forces, and yet creating and subjecting themselves to “a culture” of “low hope” and “dropping out.” Somewhat ironically, much of this rhetoric has emerged from research that aims to understand educational disadvantage from the seminal work of Willis (1977) to contemporary accounts (Lareau 2011; Apple 2014). However, the well-intentioned discourse of disadvantage becomes distorted by repetition and through mediatisation. Consequently, potential students from “working class” or “low socio-economic” backgrounds’ whose fathers do not “hold degrees” are informed that the odds against their success at university are high. Despite each of the expert commentators attempting to contest this disadvantage, once reproduced inside one of the four dominant media frames, their rhetoric works instead to “naturalize” it. Rather than being an explanation for disadvantage, and a revelation about the social conditions which produce disadvantage, the message of the relationship between poor educational outcomes and social positioning is solidified, a hard fact rather than a fallacy.

Earning potential and employment outcomes

Similar techniques of discursive control are evident in the second category of reporting, the earning potential and employment outcomes theme, where the dominant message was interpreted as: University study leads to good jobs and better pay. The following quotes demonstrate a strong message about employment and earning opportunities that positions university graduates as superior to graduates of vocational education:

Andrew Trounson (2009) summarizing an Australian Council for Educational Research survey: “Getting a bachelor degree will increase your pay by 31 percent; an apprenticeship by 23 per cent and a TAFE diploma by 14 per cent.”

Lauren Novak (2009a) discussing the Australian Council for Educational Research survey: “Completing a bachelor degree can increase a graduate’s earnings by more than a third but a TAFE certificate has minimal impact.”

A report on the cost of education and the value of post-graduate qualifications (Mather 2009) “… along with improving job and salary prospects, master’s-level qualification s are required for entry to some professions.”

Sixteen percent of the print articles reviewed contained a message relating to earning potential and/or employment outcomes. Eight percent of all print articles contained themes directly relating to the dominant message that University study leads to good jobs and better pay.

Once again, the articles selectively quote key higher education personnel or research, in each case further solidifying the hierarchy of value which positions universities as superior to vocational education. There is however a second contradictory theme in this frame, which includes:

  • University degrees do not guarantee a job: Diminished prospects for fresh graduates mean that you have to look harder (Cullen 2009).

  • Study while you work is attractive in tough economic times: “GDS [Graduate Destination Survey] figures show that, across all levels of qualification, those who had studied on a part-time basis had better employment figures than those who studied full-time, due to many part-time students being in full-time employment during their study (Guthrie 2010).”

  • Graduates with industry experience are more attractive to employers: Gaining industry experience while studying can help your resume stand out from the crowd (Stirling 2010).

Therefore, what is produced is a dual form of assertion. “Expert” comments validate established or widely held views on a topic, in this case appealing to those who argue that a university education produces socio-economic advantage. At the same time a second set of assertions appeals to those who may consider that they are “destined” for or more likely to succeed by pursuing vocational education. Here, the pragmatism of an appeal to “get a job,” “work” and “industry experience” is not, as before, held to be a barrier to higher education, but a logical goal in its own right.

As the de-stabilization of messages about higher education accumulates in the public sphere, the discursive processing changes to accommodate different forms of language, which is illustrated in the third category of content theming: positioning discourse.

Positioning discourse

A positioning message or statement, widely used in marketing and advertising, is “the key idea that encapsulates what a brand is intended to stand for in its target market’s mind” (Chitty et al. 2008, p. 404). Positioning messages often integrate features and benefits—or lack of benefits—with emotional language, appealing directly to motivating factors in people’s experience. In the positioning statements identified and analyzed in this study, the dominant message that emerges is: TAFE is the second option to university; TAFE is for low academic achievers. The following statements, demonstrate how TAFE is positioned as an easier, “second” option to university study, involving practical rather than intellectual tasks.

Tertiary education consultant Gregor Ramsey commenting on regional tertiary education (Lane 2009) “Remove the acronym TAFE and so avoid the historical second - class connotations of its name .”

Lauren Novak (2009b), reporting on a vocational education student, who: “… was in danger of dropping out of school in Year 10 but the idea of more hands - on study lured her back to education.”

Vocational education student explaining rationale for choice (cited in “The Future Is In Your Hands” 2009): “The course at TAFE SA I’m doing is great because it’s short, simple … ”

Associate Professor Stephen Lamb (cited in Milburn 2009): “In Australia, if a student only does VET subjects (vocational education and training) they’re not qualified to go to university—so it’s been viewed by middle - class families as second - class and something to be avoided.”

Jackie Macreadie, Director of Curriculum at St Joseph’s College, Melbourne (cited in Roberts 2009): “While TAFE can give you great practical skills, which are recognized across Australia, when you’re going overseas, it means nothing .”

Forty-five percent of the print articles reviewed contain positioning messages related to vocational and/or higher education, with thirteen percent directly relating to the dominant message that TAFE is a second, inferior option to university or that TAFE is for low academic achievers.

Pathway themes

In the fourth and final category, pathway themes, the confused discourse strengthens as economic change and workforce requirements suggest the need for change in the university/TAFE interface.

Research into vocational education and training argues that pathways are likely to be an important bridge for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, providing they progress to post-secondary education, allowing movement between vocational education and university studies as they succeed (City and Guilds 2008; Adams 2012; Hosken et al. 2013; Parker et al. 2013). Such pathways are considered to be an interim phase to persuade suitable non-traditional participants into universities.

In the pathways theme, the dominant message that emerges is: Pathways between vocational and higher education must be improved. However, it is clear that this pathway is one-directional i.e., from TAFE to university. Here again, the persistence of the rhetoric that positions universities as superior to vocational institutions is asserted and reinforced, even where the intention is to promote participation in higher education.

The following quotes from significant sector representatives demonstrate a consensus view of the importance of tertiary education pathways from the vocational sector to university:

Professor of adult and vocational education Roger Harris, (cited in “Vocational Education: Too Many Objectives” 2009): “Australia will fail to encourage students to move between university and vocational education and training unless VET is made more attractive.”

Trevor Gale, University of South Australia and Fred Hilmer, University of New South Wales, as reported by Lebihan (2009b): “…part of the solution is to open up student pathways between the vocational education and training (VET) sector and universities.”

Chair of the Australian Qualifications Framework Council, John Dawkins (Gilmore 2009): “Students are looking for ready access to qualifications, including the ability to navigate pathways between qualifications.”

Ten percent of the print articles reviewed contain a message relating to the need for pathways and the improvement of transition between vocational and higher education.

The intensification of the central features or techniques of a discourse, according to Fairclough (1995), is common when a given discourse formation suddenly changes. Here, in the direct assertion of the need for new policies and practices in relation to TAFE to university pathways, the “plain speaking” address of everyday speech is licensed even for the expert interviewees. The direct address or life-experience repertoire identified in category three, reporting from the perspective of TAFE students, now appears in the direct-reported speech of “influencer” academics and politicians. However, this practice also allows the higher education commentators to convey a message to their own sector that the pathway policy is one that they are responding to from external forces, students, employers, government policy, rather than being driven enthusiastically by the higher education sector, or even individual institutions.

The quote from Harris above, also suggests that the task is to make TAFE more attractive, and for successful students to progress to university. This approach again suggests that the student is responsible for opening access to university. In addition to its important work of providing skilled training, the VET sector must also ensure viable and acceptable pathways to students who are considered educationally and socially disadvantaged. The dissonance between the two tasks seems to be lost on many policy makers, if not on the intended students.

Conclusion

Public communication has a powerful role in tertiary education choice in Australia by influencing perception of the two higher education sectors and student choice. The ability of the university sector to broaden its potential student cohort to enroll more students from disadvantaged or “non-academic” backgrounds is related to the construction of the messages about access to the sector and the likelihood of success.

The content analysis as described above identified that a consistent, but mixed set of messages was conveyed in each sector through a range of positioning statements. Such messages are expected to “connect” with the low socio-economic cohorts of potential students, their peers and families and influence decision-making about educational pathways and choices. However, we contend that they are countered by mixed messages in the public sphere, which lead to confusion, particularly when considered in the context of the increased marketisation of student enrollment. The marketing efforts of institutions have escalated in recent years and are now considered essential to secure student enrollment. However, the plethora of advertising, open days, Internet marketing and other mediated promotional material creates a crowded and confusing media environment. For non-traditional audiences, contradictory messages emanating from public discourse on education add further to confusion, leading to construal of unknown or less familiar educational options as high risk and intimidating. The least the target audience for this material could expect is a clear, consistent message about the fundamental differences and relationships between the two sectors of higher education.

The indirect discourse that continues to position universities as both professional and élite is typified in a report on investment banking employment (Murdoch 2010): “Hiring the best students – who mostly come from universities in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth – has become very competitive, with each of the banks keen to snare top talent.” In contrast, the discourse connecting TAFE with industry and job readiness is exemplified in a report on future workforce requirements (Cleary 2010), The TAFE colleges and private providers that make up the vocational education and training sector are geared towards producing people who are job - ready. These statements represent a consistent pattern of public mediated discourse about universities and VET institutions in Australia, which position universities as predisposing graduates for self-directed, financially rewarding careers, while the VET sector produce workers who are trained to slot seamlessly into specific “trade” jobs.

Such discursive messages validate traditional aspirational pathways for universities as a viable choice for the best students, and reinforce the existing role of the VET sector as a safer, pragmatic, but inferior option for students with lower academic success at secondary level. As a result, they act in direct opposition to the policy goal of broadening access to university, especially to students from non-traditional backgrounds. If the current communication practices in the wider tertiary education system persist and student choice continues to be influenced by mixed messages, Australian universities will continue to struggle to increase participation rates. The Australian electoral cycle again resulted in a change of government in 2013 and a new Liberal-National Party Government committed to policies requiring increases fees for higher education (Norton 2014). Therefore, making an appropriate choice becomes more imperative for school leavers, but also more risky. Further research is required to analyze how participation choices are influenced via different media channels and platforms of communication. The longer term issue of providing educational opportunities for people who do not continue their education beyond the secondary level, and those who do not complete secondary education, we suggest, is related closely to how higher education is framed and understood more broadly through mediatised discourses that commence with the most powerful and authoritative voices.