OAS vs. Hunger Project: Online Hunger Discourse Compared
This paper compares the online communication strategies of two organizations addressing hunger and poverty: the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Hunger Project. Using a combined qualitative and quantitative analytical framework, the study examines each organization's website through five key questions — what, how, where, who, and why — to assess differences in content structure, targeted audience, cultural framing, language, and imagery. The analysis finds that the OAS adopts a principle-based, politically oriented approach reflecting its intergovernmental nature, while the Hunger Project favors a pragmatic, grassroots-focused communication style aimed at communities in developing countries. These differences in online presentation ultimately reflect each organization's distinct mandate, geographic scope, and philosophy toward solving hunger.
- Introduction: Research context, methodology, and analytical framework
- Content Structure and Approach: How OAS and Hunger Project organize web content
- Audience and the 'Where' Question: Targeted publics and cultural audiences of each site
- Authors, Voices, and the 'Who' Question: Communicative roles and organizational voice online
- Cultural Framing and Imagery: Visual and cultural differences in online presentation
- Conclusion: Synthesis of key comparative findings
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Applies a clear five-question analytical scaffold (what, how, where, who, why) that systematically guides the comparison without losing sight of the central argument.
- Balances qualitative observations (language, imagery, cultural tone) with quantitative framing, giving the analysis methodological grounding.
- Uses specific textual and visual examples from each website — such as the Microfinance Program photo and the OAS Permanent Council schedule — to ground abstract claims in concrete evidence.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative discourse analysis applied to web content. Rather than treating either website in isolation, it consistently juxtaposes the two to reveal structural and ideological contrasts. This technique is especially effective because the comparisons are tied back to each organization's mandate and audience, showing that differences in presentation are not arbitrary but reflect deeper institutional purposes.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with context and methodology, then works through its five analytical questions in sequence, each illuminating a different dimension of the comparison. A separate section addresses cultural framing and imagery before the conclusion synthesizes the findings. This progressive, question-driven structure keeps the argument organized and easy to follow across a multi-faceted topic.
Introduction
Many parts of the world are experiencing some of the most severe problems in their history, including hunger and poverty. In the attempt to find solutions to these issues, organizations and NGOs take different approaches — both in the way they construct their policies and the way they promote them. A relevant comparison can be made on the issue of hunger as seen through the lens of the Organization of American States (OAS) as opposed to the perspective of the Hunger Project.
The world of the internet and the World Wide Web has become perhaps the most important environment for the dissemination of information. This is why the way in which information is presented online is crucial to the actual messages sent to the online audience. The critical comparison between the two organizations therefore focuses on the online presentation of their missions, activities, and aims.
The methods used for this comparison include a qualitative and quantitative process of data gathering and analysis. This comprehensive approach is important for the way in which the analysis is executed: on one hand, it offers a complex set of data through quantitative methods; on the other hand, the qualitative method of analysis allows precise focus on defining elements that reveal the similarities and differences between the two websites (Seidel, 1998).
There are several aspects to be taken into account. First, given the nature of the research, the two websites will be analyzed — from a content perspective — through answers to the questions: what?, how?, where?, who?, and why? Second, attention shifts to the qualitative results of the research, which include examining how the online discourses are structured, with attention paid to the language used, the imagery, and the cultural approach taken by each organization.
Bibliography
Ghadessy, Mohsen. Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Hunger Project. 2010. Accessed 28 May 2010 from http://www.thp.org/
Hunger Project. "Learning the True Meaning of 'Comfort' with THP-Ghana." N.d. Accessed 28 May 2010 from
Hunger Project. "Microfinance Program in Africa." 2010. Accessed 28 May 2010 from
Organization of American States. "Who We Are." Accessed 28 May 2010 from http://www.oas.org/en/about/who_we_are.asp
Seidel, V. Qualitative Data Analysis. 1998. Accessed 28 May 2010 from ftp://ftp.qualisresearch.com/pub/qda.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.