a systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing

A Systematic and Updated Review of the Literature on Higher Education Marketing 2005–2019

• First Online: 10 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Izhar Oplatka 5 &
• Jane Hemsley-Brown 6  

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 309))

1158 Accesses

6 Citations

The purpose of this review is to identify key research themes in the field of higher education (HE) supply-side marketing through a systematic search of journal article databases of papers published between 2005 and 2019, to report on current issues and themes, and ascertain research gaps in the literature for exploitation in future research. Based on an analysis of 105 papers from the field of HE marketing, five major themes characterizing the research on HE marketing are presented in the paper: the marketization of HE; marketing communications; branding, image, and reputation; marketing strategy; and recruitment, alumni and gift-giving. Some thoughts about the nature of the knowledgebase in this field and recommended topics for research conclude the paper. Note, 46 papers were based on quantitative methodologies (constitutes 43.8% of the reviewed papers).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abu Bakar, A. R., & Abdu Talib, A. N. (2013). A Case Study of an Internationalization Process of a Private Higher Education Institution in Malaysia. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 15 (3), 211–230.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, J., & Eveland, V. (2007). Marketing Online Degree Programs: How Do Traditional-Residential Programs Compete? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17 (1), 67–90.

Alhakimi, W., & Qasem, A. A. (2014). Toward an understanding of Marketing Strategies in Higher Education Institutions. Euro Asia Journal of Management, 24 (1/2), 23–35.

Google Scholar  

Alnawas, I., & Phillips, C. (2014). Prospective student orientation in higher education: Development of the construct. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 13 (2), 135–163.

Alnawas, I., & Phillips, C. (2015). Alumni Orientation: Development of the Construct. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27 (2), 183–215.

Angulo-Ruiz, L. F., & Pergelova, A. (2013). The Student Retention Puzzle Revisited: The Role of Institutional Image. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25 (4), 334–353.

Artur, K. (2015). The Internet as an element of Marketing Strategies of Polish Universities During Recent Years. Economic Processes Management, 4 , 80–91.

Asaad, Y., Melewar, T. C., & Cohen, G. (2015). Export market orientation behavior of universities: the British scenario. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25 (1), 127–154.

Aula, H. M., & Tienari, J. (2015). The University Branding Game. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45 (2), 164–179.

Baber, R., & Upadhyay, Y. (2015). Examining the Role of Competition Intensity as Moderator on Market Orientation and Performance Relationship in Private Universities. South Asian Journal of Management, 22 (1), 97–113.

Bachouche, H., & Sabri, O. (2019). Empowerment in marketing: synthesis, critical review, and agenda for future research. AMS Review, 1 , 1–20.

Baker, S. M., Faircloth, J. B., & Simental, V. (2005). Perceptions of University—Corporate partnership influences on a brand. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 13 (2), 32–46.

Baldwin, G., & James, R. (2000). The Market in Australian Higher Education and the Concept of Student as Informed Consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22 (2), 139–148.

Barrett, L. R. (1996). On Students as customers—some warning from America. Higher Education Review, 28 (3), 70–71.

Bélanger, C. H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2014). How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education & Management, 20 (1), 14–29.

Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International Marketing of British Education: research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21 (5), 318–327.

Bonnema, J., & Van der Waldt, D. L. R. (2008). Information and Source Preferences of a Student Market in Higher Education. International Journal of Educational Management, 22 (4), 314–327.

Booth, A. (2001). Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? Paper presentation the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference. In “Taking a Critical Stance” (Ed.), ( University of Coventry.

Bornholt, L., Gientzotis, J., & Cooney, G. (2004). Understanding Choice Behaviours: Pathways from School to University with Changing Aspirations and Opportunities. Social Psychology of Education, 7 (2), 211–228.

Bowl, M. (2018). Differentiation, distinction and equality—or diversity? The language of the marketised university: an England, New Zealand comparison. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (4), 671–688.

Brech, F. M., Messer, U., Vander Schee, B. A., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ivens, B. S. (2017). Engaging Fans and the Community in Social Media: Interaction with Institutions of Higher Education on Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27 (1), 112–130.

Brendzel-Skowera, K., & Lukasik, K. (2016). Polish Universities in Social Media. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, 7 (4), 29–36.

Brookes, M. (2003). Higher Education: marketing in a quasi-commercial service industry. International Journal of Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8 (2), 1465–1520.

Brown, R. (2008). Higher education and the market. Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 12 (3), 78–83.

Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58 (1), 81–95.

Camelia, G., & Marius, P. (2013). Incorporating Market Orientation in Higher Education Institutions. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 22 (1), 1743–1752.

Cardoso, S., Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. A. (2011). From students to consumers: reflections on the marketisation of Portuguese higher education. European Journal of Education, 46 (2), 271–284.

Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities? International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12 (1), 23–32.

Chapleo, C. (2011). Exploring rationales for branding a university: Should we be seeking to measure branding in UK universities? Journal of Brand Management, 18 (6), 411–422.

Chapleo, C. (2015a). An exploration of branding approaches in UK universities. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 20 (1), 1–11.

Chapleo, C. (2015b). Brands in Higher Education. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45 (2), 150–163.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65 (2), 81–93.

Chen, L. H. (2008). Internationalization or International Marketing? Two Frameworks for Understanding International Students’ Choice of Canadian Universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18 (1), 1–33.

Chen, C. T. (2016). The Investigation on Brand Image of University Education and Students’ Word-of-Mouth Behavior. Higher Education Studies, 6 (4), 23–33.

Chen, T., Drennan, J., Andrews, L., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2018). User experience sharing. European Journal of Marketing, 52 (5/6), 1154–1184.

Chouthoy, S., & Kazi, R. (2016). En route to a Theory—Building Consumer Brand Commitment through CSR Reputation. Global Business & Management Research, 8 (3), 67–82.

Clark, M., Fine, M. B., & Scheuer, C. L. (2017). Relationship Quality in Higher Education Marketing: The Role of Social Media Engagement. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27 (1), 40–58.

Clarke, M. (2007). The Impact of Higher Education Rankings on Student Access, Choice, and Opportunity. Higher Education in Europe, 32 (1), 59–70.

Clayton, M. J., Cavanagh, K. V., & Hettche, M. (2012). Institutional Branding: A Content Analysis of Public Service Announcements from American Universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22 (2), 182–205.

Conway, T., Mackay, S., & Yorke, D. (1994). Strategic Planning in Higher Education: who are the customers? The International Journal of Educational Management, 8 (6), 29–36.

Craven, A., & Anne, C. (2012). Social justice and higher education. Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 16 (1), 23–28.

Delmestri, G., Oberg, A., & Drori, G. S. (2015). The Unbearable Lightness of University Branding. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45 (2), 121–136.

Drori, G. S., Delmestri, G., & Oberg, A. (2016). The Iconography of Universities as Institutional Narratives. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 71 (2), 163–180.

Durkin, M., Filbey, L., & McCartan-Quinn, D. (2014). Marketing to the mature learner: exploring the role of web communications. Service Industries Journal, 34 (1), 56–70.

Edmiston-Strasser, D. M. (2009). An Examination of Integrated Marketing Communication in U.S. Public Institutions of Higher Education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19 (2), 142–165.

Enache, I. C. (2011). Marketing Higher Education Using the 7Ps Framework. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov . Series V: Economic Sciences, 4 (1), 23–30.

Favaloro, C. (2015). Marketing in the Australian Higher Education Sector. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37 (5), 490–506.

Fay, D. L., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2016). Branding and Isomorphism: The Case of Higher Education. Public Administration Review, 76 (5), 805–815.

Finch, D., McDonald, S., & Staple, J. (2013). Reputational interdependence: an examination of category reputation in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23 (1), 34–61.

Frølich, N., Brandt, S., Høvdhaugen, E., & Aamodt, P. O. (2009). Coping by copying? Higher education institutions’ student recruitment strategies. Tertiary Education & Management, 15 (3), 227–240.

Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2019). The strategic co-creation of content and student experiences in social media. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 22 (1), 50–69.

Furey, S., Springer, P., & Parsons, C. (2014). Positioning University as a Brand: Distinctions between the Brand Promise of Russell Group, 1994 Group, University Alliance, and Million+ Universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24 (1), 99–121.

Ghosh, A. K., Javalgi, R., & Whipple, T. W. (2008). Service Strategies for Higher Educational Institutions Based on Student Segmentation. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17 (2), 238–255.

Gibbs, P. (2001). Higher Education as a Market: a problem or a solution? Studies in Higher Education, 26 (1), 85–94.

Gibbs, P. (2002). From the Invisible Hand to the Invisible Hand-Shake: marketing higher education. Research in Post Compulsory Education, 7 (3), 325–338.

Gibbs, P. (2007a). Does advertising pervert higher education? is there a case for resistence? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17 (1), 3–11.

Gibbs, P. (2007b). Does Advertising Pervert Higher Education? Is There a Case for Resistance? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17 (1), 3–11.

Gibbs, P. (2018). Higher education marketing—does inducing anxiety facilitate critical thinking or more consumerism? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28 (1), 1–11.

Gibbs, P., & Knapp, M. (2012). Marketing higher and further education: An educator’s guide to promoting courses, departments and institutions . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Google Scholar. (2019). Citations for “University in a competitive global marketplace: a systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing”. https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=JaFl1IoAAAAJ&hl=en [On-line].

Gribanova, A. (2016). Mobile Communication Technologies as an Integrated Marketing Communcations Instrument in Promoting Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Business Management, 11 , 114–125.

Grisaffe, D. B., & Nguyen, H. P. (2011). Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Business Research, 64 (10), 1052–1059.

Grönroos, C. (1997). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Management Decision, 35 (4), 322–329.

de Heer, F., & Tandoh-Offin, P. (2015). Exploring the Benefits of Branding Universities: A Developing Country Perspective. IUP Journal of Brand Management, 12 (4), 58–71.

Hemsley-Brown, J. (2011). Market heal thyself: the challenges of a free market in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21 (2), 115–132.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand Harmonization in the International Higher Education Market. Journal of Business Research, 60 (9), 942–948.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: a systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19 (4), 316–338.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015a). Higher Education Consumer Choice . (e-book: http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137497185 ed.) London: Palgrave.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015b). University choice: what do we know, what don’t we know and what do we still need to find out? International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (3), 254–274.

Holmberg, I., & Stannegård, L. (2015). Students’ Self-Branding in a Swedish Business School. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45 (2), 180–192.

Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2018). Use your imagination: what UK universities want you to think of them. Oxford Review of Education, 44 (4), 425–440.

Hulme, M., Thomson, A., Hulme, R., & Doughty, G. (2014). Trading places: The role of agents in international student recruitment from Africa. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38 (5), 674–689.

Idris, M. Z., & Whitfield, T. W. A. (2014). Swayed by the Logo and Name: Does University Branding Work? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24 (1), 41–58.

Iskhakova, L., Hoffmann, S., & Hilbert, A. (2017). Alumni Loyalty: Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29 (3), 274–316.

Ivy, J. (2001). Higher Education institution image: a correspondence analysis approach. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15 (6), 276–282.

Jan, M. T., & Ammari, D. (2016). Advertising Online by Educational Institutions and Students’ Reaction: A Study of Malaysian Universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26 (2), 168–180.

Judson, K. M., Gorchels, L., & Aurand, T. W. (2006). Building a University Brand from within: A Comparison of Coaches’ Perspectives of Internal Branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 16 (1), 97–114.

Judson, K., Aurand, T., Gorchels, L., & Gordon, G. (2009). Building a University Brand from Within: University Administrators’ Perspectives of Internal Branding. Services Marketing Quarterly, 30 (1), 54–68.

Kim, T., Chang, K., & Jae Ko, Y. (2010). Determinants of organisational identification and supportive intentions. Journal of Marketing Management, 26 (5-6), 413–427.

Klassen, M. (2002). Relationship Marketing on the Internet: the case of top-and lower-ranked universities and colleges. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9 , 81–85.

Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and Difference. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45 (2), 137–149.

Kotler, P., & Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations . Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2003). Principles of Marketing . Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1985). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions . Prentice-Hall.

Lee, C. K., & Chen, H. C. (2018). Configuring School Image Assets of Colleges in Taiwan. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6 (1), 195–200.

Lee, M., Kang, S., & Hua Jin, A. (2017). Antecedents of Education Brand Satisfaction: A Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions. Journal of Marketing Thought, 4 (1), 45–51.

Leslie, D. (2003). Using success to measure quality in British higher education: which subjects attract the best-qualified students? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 166 (3), 329–347.

Levitan, L. C. (2018). Social Constraint and Self-Doubt: Mechanisms of Social Network influence on Resistance to Persuasion. Political Psychology, 39 (4), 957–975.

Linvill, D. L., Rowlett, J. T., & Kolind, M. M. (2015). Academic Pinstitution: Higher Education’s Use of Pinterest for Relationship Marketing. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 14 (4), 287–300.

Lombart, C., & Louis, D. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand). Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19 (2), 114–130.

Lomer, S., Papatsiba, V., & Naidoo, R. (2018). Constructing a national higher education brand for the UK: positional competition and promised capitals. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (1), 134–153.

Lowrie, A., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2011). This thing called marketisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (11-12), 1081–1086.

de Macedo Bergamo, F. V., Giuliani, A. C., de Camargo, S. H. C. R. V., Zambaldi, F., & Ponchio, M. C. (2012). Student loyalty based on relationship quality: an analysis on higher education institutions. Brazilian Business Review (English Edition), 9 (2), 26–46.

Maringe, F. (2010). The Meanings of Globalization and Internationalisation in HE: findings from a world survey. In F. Maringe & N. H. Foskett (Eds.), Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education (pp. 17–34). Continuum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Maringe, F., & Foskett, N. H. (2002). Marketing university education: the South African experience. Higher Education Review, 34 (3), 35–51.

Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2008). Marketing higher education: Theory and practice . McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Mause, K. (2009). Too Much Competition in Higher Education? Some Conceptual Remarks on the Excessive-Signaling Hypothesis. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 68 (5), 1107–1133.

Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 12 (4), 163–175.

Mazzarol, T. W., & Soutar, G. N. (2008). Strategy matters: strategic positioning and performance in the education services sector. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13 (2), 141–151.

McAlexander, J. H., Koenig, H. F., & DuFault, B. (2016). Millennials and Boomers: increasing alumni affinity and intent to give by target market segmentation. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21 (2), 82–95.

Miller, B., & Brian, M. (2010). Skills for sale: what is being commodified in higher education? Journal of Further & Higher Education, 34 (2), 199–206.

Mogaji, E. (2016). Marketing Strategies of United Kingdom Universities during Clearing and Adjustment. International Journal of Educational Management, 30 (4), 493–504.

Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (3), 277–287.

Moogan, Y. J. (2011). Can a Higher Education Institution’s Marketing Strategy Improve the Student-Institution Match? International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (6), 570–589.

Mortimer, K. (1997). Recruiting overseas undergraduate students: are their information requirements being satisfied? Higher Education Quarterly, 51 (3), 225–238.

Munjal, P., Mishra, M. S., & Shanker, R. (2019). The Drivers and Outcomes of Customer Engagement in Brand Communities: Review and Future Research. Journal of Management Research (09725814), 19 (1), 56–76.

Naidoo, V., & Wu, T. (2011). Marketing strategy implementation in higher education: A mixed approach for model development and testing. Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (11-12), 1117–1141.

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54 , 20–35.

Natale, S., & Doran, C. (2012). Marketization of Education: An Ethical Dilemma. Journal of Business Ethics, 105 (2), 187–196.

Newman, S., & Jahdi, K. (2009). Marketisation of education: marketing, rhetoric and reality. Journal of Further & Higher Education, 33 (1), 1–11.

Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15 (6), 303–311.

Nguyen, B., Melewar, T. C., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2019). Strategic Brand Management in Higher Education . Routledge.

Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., & Sims, D. (1995). Marketing Higher Education: the MBA experience. The International Journal of Educational Management, 9 (2), 31–38.

Nkala, D., Mugwati, M., Mudzurandende, F., Mazhindu, K., & Mhere, F. (2014). Marketing: A New Strategy for State Universities in Zimbabwe. Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 8 (2), 14–25.

Onk, V. B., & Joseph, M. (2017). International Student Recruitment Techniques: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 13 (1), 25–34.

Ordenes, F. V., Grewal, D., Ludwig, S., Ruyter, K. D., Mahr, D., & Wetzels, M. (2019). Cutting through Content Clutter: How Speech and Image Acts Drive Consumer Sharing of Social Media Brand Messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (5), 988–1012.

Palmer, S. (2013). Characterisation of the use of Twitter by Australian Universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 35 (4), 333–344.

Papadimitriou, A., & Ramírez, G. B. (2015). Exploring Advertising in Higher Education: An Empirical Analysis in North America, Europe, and Japan. Tertiary Education and Management, 21 (2), 99–110.

Park, C. W. (2016). Brand Attachment: Theory and Practice. Advances in Consumer Research, 44 , 3–6.

Pavičić, J., Alfirević, N., & Mihanović, Z. (2009). Market orientation in managing relationships with multiple constituencies of Croatian higher education. Higher Education, 57 (2), 191–207.

Pedro, I. M., Pereira, L. N., & Carrasqueira, H. l. B. (2018). Determinants for the Commitment Relationship Maintenance between the Alumni and the Alma Mater. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28 (1), 128–152.

Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2017). Social Media in Higher Education: Understanding How Colleges and Universities Use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27 (1), 131–143.

Pippert, T. D., Essenburg, L. J., & Matchett, E. J. (2013). We’ve got minorities, yes we do: visual representations of racial and ethnic diversity in college recruitment materials. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23 (2), 258–282.

Pizarro Milian, R., & Davidson, C. (2018). Symbolic resources and marketing strategies in Ontario higher education: a comparative analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42 (2), 143–157.

Plungpongpan, J., Tiangsoongnern, L., & Speece, M. (2016). University Social Responsibility and Brand Image of Private Universities in Bangkok. International Journal of Educational Management, 30 (4), 571–591.

Popović, A. (2015). Marketing Communications of Higher Education Institutions in the Republic of Serbia. Marketing (0354-3471), 46 (3), 166–178.

Purgailis, M., & Zaksa, K. n. (2012). The Impact of Perceived Service Quality on Student Loyalty in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Business Management, 6 , 138–152.

Roma, P., & Aloini, D. (2019). How does brand-related user-generated content differ across social media? Evidence reloaded. Journal of Business Research, 96 , 322–339.

Rooksby, J. H., & Collins, C. S. (2016). Trademark Trends and Brand Activity in Higher Education. Review of Higher Education, 40 (1), 33–61.

Rose, M., Rose, G. M., & Merchant, A. (2017). Is Old Gold? How Heritage “Sells” The University to Prospective Students: The Impact of a Measure of Brand Heritage On Attitudes toward the University. Journal of Advertising Research, 57 (3), 335–351.

Ross, M., Grace, D., Shao, W., & Mitchell Ross, D. G. a. W. S. (2013). Come on higher ed … get with the programme! A study of market orientation in international student recruitment. Educational Review, 65 (2), 219–240.

Royo-Vela, M. (2016). Effects of Inbound Marketing Communications on HEIs’ Brand Equity: The Mediating Role of the Student’s Decision-Making Process. An Exploratory Research. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26 (2), 143–167.

Rutter, R., Lettice, F., & Nadeau, J. (2017). Brand Personality in Higher Education: Anthropomorphized University Marketing Communications. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27 (1), 19–39.

Saleem, S. S., Moosa, K., Imam, A., & Khan, R. A. (2017). Service Quality and Student Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of University Culture, Reputation and Price in Education Sector of Pakistan. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 10 (1), 237–258.

Sataøen, H. L. (2015). Higher education as object for corporate and nation branding: between equality and flagships. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 37 (6), 702–717.

Schlesinger, W., Cervera, A., & Pérez-Cabañero, C. (2017). Sticking with your university: the importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (12), 2178–2194.

Schofield, C., Cotton, D., Gresty, K., Kneale, P., & Winter, J. (2013). Higher Education Provision in a Crowded Marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35 (2), 193–205.

Schüller, D., & Chalupský, V. (2011). Internal Marketing Communication of Higher Education Institutions. Economics & Management, 16 , 1316–1322.

Shuv-Ami, A. (2012). Brand commitment: A new four-dimensional (4 Es) conceptualisation and scale. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 11 (3), 281–305.

Steiner, L., Sundström, A. C., & Sammalisto, K. (2013). An analytical model for university identity and reputation strategy work. Higher Education, 65 (4), 401–415.

Stephenson, A. L., & Bell, N. (2014). Motivation for alumni donations: a social identity perspective on the role of branding in higher education. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19 (3), 176–186.

Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2015). The Role of Satisfaction in Alumni Perceptions and Supportive Behaviors. Services Marketing Quarterly, 36 (4), 299–316.

Susanti, D., & Dewi, S. (2011). Privatisation and marketisation of higher education in Indonesia: the challenge for equal access and academic values. Higher Education, 61 (2), 209–218.

Symes, C., & Drew, C. (2017). Education on the Rails: A Textual Ethnography of University Advertising in Mobile Contexts. Critical Studies in Education, 58 (2), 205–223.

Tayar, M., & Jack, R. (2013). Prestige-oriented market entry strategy: the case of Australian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 35 (2), 153–166.

Temple, P. (2006). Branding Higher Education: Illusion or Reality? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 10 (1), 15–19.

Tolbert, D. (2014). An Exploration of the Use of Branding to Shape Institutional Image in the Marketing Activities of Faith-Based Higher Education Institutions. Christian Higher Education, 13 (4), 233–249.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-based management by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 , 207–222.

Veloutsou, C., Paton, A., & Lewis, J. (2005). Consultation and reliability of information sources pertaining to university selection: Some questions answered? International Journal of Educational Management, 19 (4), 279–291.

Vuori, J. (2015). Excellent Prospects for Beautiful Minds: Marketing International Education. International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (5), 582–595.

Weymans, W., & Wim, W. (2010). Democracy, knowledge and critique: rethinking European universities beyond tradition and the market. London Review of Education, 8 (2), 117–126.

Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). International student destination choice: the influence of home campus experience on the decision to consider branch campuses. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21 (1), 61–83.

Winter, E., & Thompson-Whiteside, H. (2017). Location, Location, Location: Does Place Provide the Opportunity for Differentiation for Universities? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27 (2), 233–250.

Wolverton, M. (2006). Three Georgias in Atlanta: Lessons from Business Schools about Finding Your Identity. International Journal of Educational Management, 20 (7), 507–519.

Zailskaite-Jakste, L., & Kuvykaite, R. (2012). Implementation of Communication in Social Media by Promoting Studies at Higher Education Institutions. Engineering Economics, 23 (2), 174–188.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Izhar Oplatka

Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Jane Hemsley-Brown

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izhar Oplatka .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of IEM, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Zilla Sinuany-Stern

Appendix 1 Summary of articles on marketization for the literature review

Appendix 2 summary of articles on marketing communications, advertising, and social media marketing for the literature review, appendix 3 summary of articles on branding, image, and reputation for the literature review, appendix 4 summary of articles on marketing strategy, market orientation, segmentation, targeting and positioning, marketing mix and relationship marketing for the literature review, appendix 5 summary of articles on recruitment, alumni, and gift-giving for the literature review, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Oplatka, I., Hemsley-Brown, J. (2021). A Systematic and Updated Review of the Literature on Higher Education Marketing 2005–2019. In: Sinuany-Stern, Z. (eds) Handbook of Operations Research and Management Science in Higher Education. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 309. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74051-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74051-1_2

Published : 10 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-74049-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-74051-1

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, universities in a competitive global marketplace: a systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing.

International Journal of Public Sector Management

ISSN : 0951-3558

Article publication date: 1 June 2006

The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the nature of the marketing of higher education (HE) and universities in an international context. The objectives of the review were to: systematically collect, document, scrutinise and critically analyse the current research literature on supply‐side higher education marketing; establish the scope of higher education marketing; identify gaps in the research literature; and make recommendations for further research in this field.

Design/methodology/approach

The approach for this study entailed extensive searches of relevant business management and education databases. The intention was to ensure that, as far as possible, all literature in the field was identified – while keeping the focus on literature of greatest pertinence to the research questions .

The paper finds that potential benefits of applying marketing theories and concepts that have been effective in the business world are gradually being recognised by researchers in the field of HE marketing. However, the literature on HE marketing is incoherent, even inchoate, and lacks theoretical models that reflect upon the particular context of HE and the nature of their services.

Research limitations/implications

The research field of HE marketing is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much research still to be carried out both from a problem identification and strategic perspective.

Originality/value

Despite the substantial literature on the marketisation of HE and consumer behaviour, scholarship to provide evidence of the marketing strategies that have been implemented by HE institutions on the supply‐side remains limited, and this is relatively uncharted territory. This paper reviews the literature in the field, focusing on marketing strategies in the rapidly developing HE international market.

• Higher education
• International marketing
• Universities

Hemsley‐Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2006), "Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing", International Journal of Public Sector Management , Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 316-338. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610669176

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2006, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing

2006, International Journal of Public …

Related Papers

International Journal of Educational Management

Jonathan Ivy , Pete Naudé

Universities in the UK are facing huge changes to their environ- ment, in terms of both supply of funding and level of demand for their courses. One of the most dramatic recent changes has been the alteration in status of the former polytechnics to fully fledged universities. In order to find out how both old and new universities are responding to this rapidly changing environment, we sent questionnaires to a number of senior staff. Based on 131 re- sponses (81 from old universities, 50 from new), we have been able to paint a picture of how market- ing is undertaken in these two segments. We report on how these institutions perceive their market- ing task, and also the extent to which these two traditionally dif- ferent sectors agree on the role marketing plays in their sector. Our research clearly indicates these two groups of institutions have fundamentally different ap- proaches to operationalising their marketing strategies.

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Chris Chapleo

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

Neacsu Andreea

Where the East kisses the West: Marketing Convergence and Divergence in the New Europe

Ana Popovic

In order to survive on highly competitive market, higher education institutions need to embrace new business models and approaches, including marketing. In mainstream marketing theory it was established that level of application of marketing significantly differs in business organizations in developed and developing countries. The purpose of this research is to test whether the same applies to higher education context. The level of marketing was assessed by research of management approaches of institutions in developed and developing countries. It is discovered that there is a difference and that marketing concept, that implies the highest level of marketing, is more used in developed countries. Elements of this business orientation are also noticed in developing countries, but they need to be further reinforced and integrated.

eDiversity PH

The article reveals the essence of the formation of the university's marketing strategy allows us to adapt to the requirements of the market. Also in the article shows the results of the analysis of motives in choosing profession and the university. Also allow conclusions to strengthen the power of the brand of the university for prospective students

Cuadernos de Gestión

pilar zorrilla

The environment in which university institutions develop their activities has become more competitive over recent decades and market elements have been introduced into the sector. Accordingly, universities have shown a growing interest in developing and maintaining a favourable and distinctive image among their stakeholders. To this end, many of them have focused their efforts on the improvement and renewal of training programs. However, such efforts have not always been matched in the transmission of a more favourable perception among their stakeholders. This context calls for university management with a marketing orientation. However, university marketing is in its early stages in many parts of the world and the incorporation of marketing principles and practices in the field of higher education encounters much reluctance from citizens and academics. This contribution sets out the reasons for this resistance, which may be grounded in a misconception about the discipline, and a wo...

Frontiers in Psychology

Edna Rabenu

The aim of this article was to open a hatch to the consumer psychology research through the eyes of Facet Theory. The Facet Theory enables to delve into a concept or an issue under investigation and define it formally, systematically, and comprehensively, but still parsimoniously. In order to better explain its philosophical basis and the principles of this theory, we apply and demonstrate it on the domain of marketing of higher education to students. There are four distinct facets identified in this regard, namely, (A) Achieving Personal Goals, (B) Institution’s Marketing Orientation, (C) Secondary Decision Criteria, and (D) Level of Education. Based on those facets and their related respective elements, a suggested definitional directive for the marketing of higher education to students is construed.

Vicky Lewis

This paper provides recommendations for embedding a market and marketing-informed approach within the development process for a new international campus. It includes a brief outline of the current global profile of international campuses (as one form of transnational education) before highlighting the role of marketing at key stages of campus development from initial business case through to full operation. Recommendations for integrating marketing into campus development are derived from a series of structured interviews with eight senior staff at three UK universities, all with campuses in Malaysia. Some participants were UK-based, others Malaysia-based; all had responsibility for marketing the international campus at some level. The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence-informed marketing guidance and good practice that is relevant to institutions considering establishment of an international campus.

Academia: A publication of the Higher Education Policy Network

Mark Camilleri

The higher educational institutions (HEIs), including universities and colleges are increasingly seeking new resources, competences and capabilities to improve their corporate reputation. Therefore, this paper has relied on a generic approach to critically analyze the marketing environment of HEIs. A SWOT analysis was used to examine the micro and the macro environmental factors that can have an effect on their delivery of student-centered education and on their capacity to produce high-impact and influential research publications that will ultimately add value to society. The findings of this research suggest that several HEIs are diversifying their portfolios as they are increasingly recruiting domestic and international students. Hence, this contribution deliberates on traditional and contemporary marketing communications that are being used in different contexts to attract students and prolific faculty employees to HEIs. Moreover, it explains that successful HEIs are capable of forging fruitful and collaborative relationships with different stakeholders, including business, industry, as well as with research institutions in order to improve their academic branding. These issues imply that tomorrow's HEIs ought to leverage themselves through effective marketing communications amid intensifying competition.

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology

RELATED PAPERS

Deepak Tuli

Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems

Intereconomics

julien hanoteau

Katrien Oorts

R. Brack-werner

Elli Georgiadou

Working Papers

mohammad farhad

Stephan Schmidt-Wulffen

Elang Karet

Petria Noble

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

ChemBioChem

Josef Voglmeir

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

Helena Temkin-greener

rodrigo santos rodrigues

IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking

Ness Shroff

Ivane Pairaud

Gordana Tomovic

Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology

Academic Medicine

donald molony

Dania Siregar

Nereida Lopez Vidales

Discourse Analyzer AI Toolkit

hairil akbar

European Journal of Biochemistry

John Shannon

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Update Request & User Guide (TAU staff only)

Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing

• University of Surrey
• Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Purpose - The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the nature of the marketing of higher education (HE) and universities in an international context. The objectives of the review were to: systematically collect, document, scrutinise and critically analyse the current research literature on supply-side higher education marketing; establish the scope of higher education marketing; identify gaps in the research literature; and make recommendations for further research in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The approach for this study entailed extensive searches of relevant business management and education databases. The intention was to ensure that, as far as possible, all literature in the field was identified - while keeping the focus on literature of greatest pertinence to the research questions. Findings - The paper finds that potential benefits of applying marketing theories and concepts that have been effective in the business world are gradually being recognised by researchers in the field of HE marketing. However, the literature on HE marketing is incoherent, even inchoate, and lacks theoretical models that reflect upon the particular context of HE and the nature of their services. Research limitations/implications - The research field of HE marketing is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much research still to be carried out both from a problem identification and strategic erspective. Originality/value - Despite the substantial literature on the marketisation of HE and consumer behaviour, scholarship to provide evidence of the marketing strategies that have been implemented by HE institutions on the supply-side remains limited, and this is relatively uncharted territory. This paper reviews the literature in the field, focusing on marketing strategies in the rapidly developing HE international market.

• Higher education
• International marketing
• Universities

Access to Document

• 10.1108/09513550610669176

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• higher education Earth & Environmental Sciences 100%
• marketing Earth & Environmental Sciences 79%
• literature Social Sciences 31%
• education Social Sciences 23%
• education behavior Social Sciences 12%
• marketing theory Social Sciences 12%
• business management Social Sciences 10%
• consumption behavior Earth & Environmental Sciences 10%

T1 - Universities in a competitive global marketplace

T2 - A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing

AU - Hemsley-Brown, Jane

AU - Oplatka, Izhar

N2 - Purpose - The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the nature of the marketing of higher education (HE) and universities in an international context. The objectives of the review were to: systematically collect, document, scrutinise and critically analyse the current research literature on supply-side higher education marketing; establish the scope of higher education marketing; identify gaps in the research literature; and make recommendations for further research in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The approach for this study entailed extensive searches of relevant business management and education databases. The intention was to ensure that, as far as possible, all literature in the field was identified - while keeping the focus on literature of greatest pertinence to the research questions. Findings - The paper finds that potential benefits of applying marketing theories and concepts that have been effective in the business world are gradually being recognised by researchers in the field of HE marketing. However, the literature on HE marketing is incoherent, even inchoate, and lacks theoretical models that reflect upon the particular context of HE and the nature of their services. Research limitations/implications - The research field of HE marketing is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much research still to be carried out both from a problem identification and strategic erspective. Originality/value - Despite the substantial literature on the marketisation of HE and consumer behaviour, scholarship to provide evidence of the marketing strategies that have been implemented by HE institutions on the supply-side remains limited, and this is relatively uncharted territory. This paper reviews the literature in the field, focusing on marketing strategies in the rapidly developing HE international market.

AB - Purpose - The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the nature of the marketing of higher education (HE) and universities in an international context. The objectives of the review were to: systematically collect, document, scrutinise and critically analyse the current research literature on supply-side higher education marketing; establish the scope of higher education marketing; identify gaps in the research literature; and make recommendations for further research in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The approach for this study entailed extensive searches of relevant business management and education databases. The intention was to ensure that, as far as possible, all literature in the field was identified - while keeping the focus on literature of greatest pertinence to the research questions. Findings - The paper finds that potential benefits of applying marketing theories and concepts that have been effective in the business world are gradually being recognised by researchers in the field of HE marketing. However, the literature on HE marketing is incoherent, even inchoate, and lacks theoretical models that reflect upon the particular context of HE and the nature of their services. Research limitations/implications - The research field of HE marketing is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much research still to be carried out both from a problem identification and strategic erspective. Originality/value - Despite the substantial literature on the marketisation of HE and consumer behaviour, scholarship to provide evidence of the marketing strategies that have been implemented by HE institutions on the supply-side remains limited, and this is relatively uncharted territory. This paper reviews the literature in the field, focusing on marketing strategies in the rapidly developing HE international market.

KW - Higher education

KW - International marketing

KW - Universities

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745446429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/09513550610669176

DO - 10.1108/09513550610669176

M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???

AN - SCOPUS:33745446429

SN - 0951-3558

JO - International Journal of Public Sector Management

JF - International Journal of Public Sector Management

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

A Systematic and Updated Review of the Literature on Higher Education Marketing 2005–2019

In: handbook of operations research and management science in higher education.

• Author & abstract
• Related works & more

Corrections

(Tel Aviv University)

(University of Surrey)

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

Key Success Factor of Marketing Intelligence in Higher Education: Systematic Literature Review

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Systematic review article, reputation in higher education: a systematic review.

• Business School, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia

Published research on corporate reputation has increased in the last 10 years in various sectors. The higher education sector is no stranger to this growth; however, theoretical developments and empirical research have been conducted across various disciplines of knowledge and theoretical approaches, which has made it difficult to theorize about it. In addition to this, the dimensionality of the construct, its dependence on the perception of public interest, and the difficulty of its measurement have made it a challenge for universities. This article develops a systematic review of reputation in higher education institutions. While there is evidence of contributions in the development of the theory and its conceptualization, these have occurred in other sectors such as banking, service industries, retailing, tourism and hospitality, and are not specifically focused on the higher education sector. As such, we seek to identify and characterize how reputation has been studied in this sector, highlighting conceptual and theoretical approaches that have supported the studies, which will help to overcome the fragmentation of the same from an integral definition applied to the education service.

Introduction

The concept of corporate reputation dates back to the 1970s when the relevance of the different assessments made by stakeholders of the company's reputation began to be identified ( Spence, 1973 ) and the importance of public reputational signals for company performance and competitiveness became evident ( Caves and Porter, 1977 ). Reputation is beginning to be understood as a group of attributes and characteristics of an organization that are the result of its past actions ( Weigelt and Camerer, 1988 ), of the evaluation of the organization's performance ( Rao, 1994 ; De Quevedo et al., 2005 ) and the perceptions that stakeholders have of them ( Fombrun, 1996 , p. 72), through a process of legitimization ( Miotto et al., 2020 ).

Thus, a positive reputation can impact financial performance, customer behavior ( Jung and Seock, 2016 ), competitiveness ( Fombrun, 1996 ), stakeholder decision-making ( Hemsley-Brown, 2012 ), corporate survival and success ( Christensen and Gornitzka, 2017 ) as well as the integration of general management functions ( Goldring, 2015 ). As such, it is important to know how to manage reputation and better invest resources to improve stakeholder perceptions ( Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando et al., 2018 ).

Within the university context, reputation is defined as the sum of the impressions received by stakeholders from the communication and interaction they have with the university ( Rindova et al., 2005 ), therefore it is evaluative, reflects consensus judgments ( Roberts and Dowling, 2002 ), is related to a “strong tradition” ( Chevalier and Conlon, 2003 ) and, like organizational reputation, it takes time to consolidate a positive reputation in its stakeholders and therefore requires an institutional commitment to excellence in educational processes and results, as well as in research results ( Roberts and Dowling, 2002 ; Arambewela and Hall, 2009 ; Delgado-Márquez et al., 2013 ). Although reputation is linked to research productivity, this indicator is widely criticized because of its limitation, in addition, as expressed by Nicholas et al. (2015) , reputation is evaluated with only one activity, which is research, the product of which are articles and the product of these articles, citations.

Reputation is built through the student's experience with the university ( Chen and Esangbedo, 2018 ), and influences student attraction ( Plewa et al., 2016 ), student selection of the university ( Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando et al., 2018 ), faculty attraction ( Christensen and Gornitzka, 2017 ), the knowledge held by stakeholders ( Vogler, 2020a ) both internally and externally ( Verčič et al., 2016 ), as well as the valuation and rating of universities ( Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019 ). In addition, previous studies have found that reputation requires management and has an important impact on the internal processes carried out by the university, including university reforms ( Steiner et al., 2013 ), which have a significant effect on the quality of the university's educational service. Within such management, the media play an important role, because they provide the channel and space where stakeholders know, identify, give their opinion and discuss the reputation of an institution ( Deephouse, 2000 ). This is why more and more universities faced with a competitive context, turn to marketing to improve the perception of their image and reputation, in order not only to attract students, but also teachers and financial resources ( Wilkins and Huisman, 2014 ).

From this perspective, as stated by Reznik and Yudina (2018) , reputation is a public evaluation, product of the opinion that stakeholders have of the university, and that can be divided into internal and external, the internal referring to the faculty, administrative staff and students, and external referring to representatives of the external environment. Therefore, reputation management implies an important knowledge of how it is built, and how the different stakeholders (both internal and external) perceive and evaluate it ( Ressler and Abratt, 2009 ). In short, it is essential to know how to respond and meet the expectations and needs of each stakeholder and make it a strategic priority for university managers.

However, inconsistencies have been evidenced in the conceptualization of reputation in the higher education sector given the rules of operation in the education sector are different to those in the other corporate sectors ( Verčič et al., 2016 ) and the absence of a consensus in the literature ( Plewa et al., 2016 ; Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019 ) in management research ( Ali et al., 2015 ; Veh et al., 2019 ), as well as its proximity to other terms such as identity and image ( Alessandri et al., 2006 ; Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando et al., 2018 ) which are different but interconnected constructs. The identity is a multidimensional construct composed of communication and visual identity, behavior, culture, and market conditions ( Melewar and Akel, 2005 ), and image is also a higher order multidimensional concept that can be managed to influence other variables such as student satisfaction and loyalty ( Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando et al., 2018 ). Additionally, other factors that make its definition difficult are intangibility ( Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001a ), given the reputation of the university is the result of the provision of the education service that is essentially intangible and difficult to evaluate in advance. The multidimensionality ( Verčič et al., 2016 ) since the reputation is composed of multiple dimensions such as performance, product, service, leadership, governance, workplace, citizenship, and innovation ( Vidaver-Cohen, 2007 ), especially with regard to origins of corporate reputation research ( Veh et al., 2019 ), and the assessments of the different stakeholders ( Plewa et al., 2016 ) that respond to their different expectations ( Vidaver-Cohen, 2007 ).

Although the contributions found in the systematic review conducted by Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando et al. (2018) who have sought to differentiate the concepts of image and reputation in higher education institutions (HEIs), the analyses carried out allowed them to conclude that the stakeholders of a university's academic offerings, such as teaching and research resources, graduate education, and affective image have a positive and significant influence on the image of the university, and that this assessment varies to the extent that the various perspectives of the stakeholders are adopted, and even more so when citizens of other countries are included. The contributions of Rashid and Mustafa (2021) who have studied the background of corporate reputation of higher education institutions by recognizing it as an intangible asset in all types of organizations, including HEIs, from the employees' perspective, and Prakash (2021) who conducted a literature review on the concept of service quality in higher education institutions where he inquired among several things on the methodologies to measure quality, and found that in some of them, reputation is an important dimension to measure to operationalize it. However, it is necessary to continue investigating its conceptual development, characteristics, tools and relationships with other variables within the context of higher education.

Given the above factors, and the diversity and fragmentation of this concept specifically in the context of higher education, where the contributions are still insufficient ( Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013 ; Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019 ), it is necessary to conduct a systematic review on reputation in universities (HEIs) with three objectives. First, to understand how empirical reputation research [these studies might be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies ( Creswell, 2014 )] in these institutions has been characterized. This will be conducted through a bibliometric analysis using the SciVal tool of Elsevier; second, to identify the variables and/or constructs related to reputation. This will be performed through an analysis using the VOSviewer tool and a direct review of the documents; third, to determine how reputation has been conceptualized in HEIs. This will also be approached through a direct review of documents using the four-eyes principle to avoid bias. These objectives will provide an overview of the construct, and a comprehensive picture to improve the understanding of the university's reputation.

This article begins with a description of the methodology used, then presents the characterization of the articles reviewed, followed by an analysis of the relationships found concerning reputation. This is followed by a compilation of the definitions of corporate reputation—specifically those applied to higher education—and its benefits and weaknesses. Finally, the conclusions, limitations of the research, and the agenda for future research are presented.

This paper will use a systematic literature review based on previous studies, as a method of analysis of empirical research conducted on reputation in HEIs. This allows a broad and continuous review of the literature, providing a frame of reference to compare the results of this study with previous ones ( Creswell, 2014 , p. 60). Such a study is also used to find relevant information in the selected context ( Aveyard, 2014 ) and is fundamental in academic works ( Lunde et al., 2019 ), and scientific activities ( Mulrow, 1994 ) in management. Among the benefits of conducting a systematic literature review is understanding the theoretical relationship between the problem to be investigated, the objectives and, the discussion ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ). It also facilitates the identification, evaluation, and summary of findings of relevant studies on the topic, providing a strong foundation for the research, which will result in better development of the different investigations and their relationship with the conclusions ( Centre for Reviews Dissemination, 2008 ).

Petticrew and Roberts (2006) propose a methodology for developing systematic reviews, consisting of the following steps: (1) define the question driving the review, (2) determine the types of studies that need to be addressed to answer the questions, (3) conduct a comprehensive literature search, (4) examine results with inclusion and exclusion criteria, (5) develop a critical appraisal of the studies included to ensure that key aspects of the study are addressed, (6) synthesize the studies and assess the heterogeneity of the findings, and (7) disseminate the conclusions of the review.

Question Formulation

Step 1. define the question that directs the review.

For the development of the first step, the questions posed that will direct the review are: How have empirical studies of reputation in higher education institutions been characterized? Based on this characterization, with which variables and/or constructs has it been related? How has reputation in higher education services been conceptualized? The results will contribute to the identification of a comprehensive overview in order to improve the academic and administrative community's understanding of the implications of reputation management. Figure 1 presents a summary of the methodological steps, the questions guiding the work, and the results of the analysis that respond to the questions posed.

Figure 1 . Research design.

Article Selection

Step 2. determine the types of studies to be addressed.

To comply with the second step, the types of studies included in this review are empirical research articles and systematic reviews applied to the higher education sector and published in journals categorized in quartiles 1 and 2, which represent a higher impact factor and quality ( Marín and Arriojas, 2021 ). Critical analyses, editorials, or essays are omitted.

Step 3. Conduct an Exhaustive Literature Search

In this step, a search is performed in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) over a period of 10 years (2010–July 2020), as it is considered sufficiently extensive for the review and is consistent with the indicator of obsolescence of the scientific literature ( Price, 1965 ). Also, these years show the highest number of publications on the subject as will be seen below. The language selected for the review of the articles is English because it is the most recurrent language in the documents of the selected databases considering as keywords: reputation, higher education, university(ies).

In the WoS database, two searches were performed, the first with reputation and higher education, the second with reputation and university; for the Scopus database, reputation, higher education, or universities or university 1 was used. Subsequently, we proceeded to search and download the documents in the WoS and Scopus databases, of which only five could not be accessed.

Step 4. Examine the Results With Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For the development of the fourth step, Figure 2 shows the result of the screening and consolidation of the two searches and the selection process of the articles, indicating the inclusion and exclusion criteria that were taken into account following the PRISMA methodology.

Figure 2 . Search results in Scopus and Web of Science.

Step 5. Develop a Critical Appraisal of the Studies Included

Once the selection process is completed a critical and taxonomic assessment of the 62 selected articles is carried out. This provides relevant information to answer the research questions posed, evolved from the review of the definitions on which the studies are based; the variables with which they are related; the theories on which the studies are based; the measurement methods identified; as well as the benefits and weaknesses found in reputation management. To present the characterization of the 62 articles found from the process described above, this research performs a bibliometric analysis through Elsevier's SciVal tool, used to analyze the behavior of research in a particular field, make comparisons, associations, identify trends and create reports ( Elsevier, 2022 ). We also use the VOSviewer, which is a program created to build and visualize bibliometric networks ( VOSviewer, 2022 ). In addition, we perform an analysis of texts collected by a reviewer and verified by another researcher, using the four-eyes principle, to reduce the risk of bias ( Hiebl, 2015 ).

How Have the Empirical Studies of Reputation in Higher Education Institutions Been Characterized?

Using Elsevier's SciVal tool, in March 2022, we analyzed the publications per year within the time range addressed in the study (2010–July 2020), the citation behavior, the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), which is the impact of citations obtained compared to the average number of citations expected in the subject field ( Elsevier, 2020 ), citation behavior data by year, publications by journal quartile, and an analysis of the institutions, their type, country of publication and journals.

The number of articles on reputation in higher education institutions has been increasing in the last 10 years, as shown in Table 1 , where it is evident that the year with the highest number of articles is 2018 with 13 publications, followed by 2019 with 12 publications, and 11 publications as of July 2020.

Table 1 . Citations, FWCI, and international collaboration, by year of publication.

It is observed that the years with the highest number of citations were 2011 (219 citations) and 2016 (191 citations), as shown in the table. This trend had an impact on the weighted citations per field, which are 3.88 in 2011, and 3.89 in 2016, the highest evidenced in the period studied. This shows the importance of reputation in the field of study, which may be due to the international collaborations that occurred in those years, as can also be seen in Table 1 .

In turn, a review of the impact of the quartiles in the publications analyzed within the period studied was carried out, showing that 90.3% of the articles on their date of publication were in journals categorized within the Q1 and Q2 quartiles 2 (37 and 19 articles, respectively). It should be clarified that on the date the quartiles of the publications were searched, some of them had improved their performance, placing them in the first two quartiles. Since 2018 there is a growth in the number of articles published on this subject, and in 2016 all published articles are in the Q1 category, as evidenced in the results presented in Figure 3 .

Figure 3 . Publications in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 Journal quartile by SJR vs. publication year.

In contrast, the institutions with the highest academic production, citations, and authors researching and writing on the subject of reputation were reviewed, and it was found that the University of Turku in Finland, the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in the United States had the highest academic production with three articles each. However, the articles from the University of Michigan are the most cited of the three universities. It also had the highest number of citations among the institutions analyzed, followed by the University of Notre Dame with 227 citations, and Rice University and the University of Georgia with 116 citations each, as shown in Figure 4 . In terms of the number of authors per institution publishing the most on reputation are Florida State University with five authors, and Mount Royal University, University of Salerno, Indonesia University of Education and, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University with four authors each.

Figure 4 . Institutions, scholarly output, and citations. C, Total citations; SO, Scholarly output.

Within this same analysis, a review was made of the publications by each country, their academic production, and the Field-Wide Citation Impact (FWCI). Figure 5 shows 26 countries where research has been done on reputation in higher education institutions, with the most representative in terms of academic production being the United States (32), United Kingdom (17), Spain (8), and China (6). The two countries with the highest impact factor are Iran (7.15) and the United Arab Emirates (3.47), which may be related to academic production or its quality, followed by Finland (2.60), Ireland (3.56), and Australia (2.52). It is worth mentioning that of the 98 institutions that participated in the publication of the articles analyzed, 94 correspond to higher education institutions, three to governmental entities and, one to independent corporate research entity.

Figure 5 . Academic production and FWCI by country.

Finally, a review of the journals with the highest number of articles on reputation in higher education was carried out, and it was found that Studies in Higher Education (Q1), Corporate Reputation Review (Q2), Higher Education (Q1), International Journal of Educational Management (Q2), Journal of Business Research (Q1) are the journals that have published the highest number of articles. The four most representative journals that have published at least three articles on the subject of reputation are Corporate Reputation Review, Higher Education, International Journal of Educational Management, and Journal of Business Research.

Synthesis of the Articles Reviewed

Step 6. synthesize the studies and assess the heterogeneity of the findings.

To synthesize the content of the articles found, ( Table 2 ) below summarizes their structural characteristics in terms of the methods used to approach the research, the types of variables or the way of analyzing reputation, the units of study used in the articles, the theories that underpinned the research and the collection tools.

Table 2 . Characteristics of the articles reviewed.

With Which Variables and/or Constructs Has It Been Related?

To evaluate the heterogeneity of the findings, a descriptive analysis of the concept of reputation is carried out. First, to understand the main relationships and co-occurrence of the terms found in the articles, the co-occurrence map of the VOSviewer tool was used, where the titles and abstracts of the 62 articles were reviewed. The program helped visualize four different but interrelated clusters. Each of the terms found is represented by a node and its size corresponds to its relevance. Each node has a color; in this case, the red node will be called cluster 1, the green node cluster 2, the blue node cluster 3, and the yellow node cluster 4. The intensity of the color will reflect the relevance of the relationship ( Cantos-Mateos et al., 2013 ). Based on this score, 65% of the most relevant terms were selected (5% more than suggested by the system to increase the number of items), with a total of 18 terms grouped as follows: cluster 1, higher education institution, image, legitimacy, relationship, reputation, stakeholder. Cluster 2, academic reputation, college, impact, institution, ranking. Cluster 3, effect, information, news medium, university, university reputation. Cluster 4, reputation management, use. Figure 6 shows the co-occurrence map.

Figure 6 . Co-occurrence map.

From a detailed analysis of the composition of each of the clusters based on the thematic focus of the articles, it can be inferred that the articles in cluster 1 (red) focus on highlighting the importance of the relationship with stakeholders, the projected image and legitimacy; the articles in cluster 2 (green) analyze the impact of rankings on institutions and academic reputation; those in cluster 3 (blue) study the effect of information and the media on university reputation; and cluster 4 (yellow) includes the management and use of reputation. The following is a proposal that groups the articles reviewed in each of the four clusters found.

Cluster 1: Relationship With Stakeholders, Projected Image, and Legitimacy

In this cluster, we find studies such as the relationship of proximity, stakeholders, and reputation ( Finch et al., 2015 ); the multidimensionality of reputation through stakeholders ( Verčič et al., 2016 ); the use of social networks, reputation, and stakeholders ( Carrillo-Durán and García, 2020 ); the influence of university identity, image on reputation ( Steiner et al., 2013 ); identity and image management on reputation ( Maduro et al., 2018 ); the relationship between image, legitimacy, and reputation ( Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019 , 2020 ); co-creation of value, image and reputation ( Foroudi et al., 2019 , 2020 ); reputation and image ( Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando et al., 2018 ).

Cluster 2: The Impact of Academic Rankings and Reputation on Institutions

In this cluster is the influence of rankings on reputation ( Bastedo and Bowman, 2010 ; Bowman and Bastedo, 2011 ); the Google Ngram viewer and reputation ( Stergiou and Tsikliras, 2013 ); athletic rankings and reputation ( Bouchet et al., 2017 ); the average h-index as a predictor of reputation as measured via the U. S. News & World Report ( Smith et al., 2018 ); reputation as a result of citation networks via PageRank ( Massucci and Docampo, 2019 ); the influence of ranking, credibility signals and reputation on student selection ( Haas and Unkel, 2017 ); the impact of reputation and rankings on teaching income ( Wolf and Jenkins, 2018 ).

Cluster 3: The Effect of Information and Media on University Reputation

The following papers are part of cluster 3: university resources, public relations and news content ( Lee et al., 2015 ); communication strategy and reputation ( Sataøen and Wæraas, 2016 ); the importance of media on reputation and stakeholders ( Vogler, 2020a ); university mergers influence reputation ( Aula and Tienari, 2011 ); research-related activities and reputation ( Jamali et al., 2016 ); reputation as a source of information influences managers' ( Martin et al., 2018 ) and students' ( Brewer and Zhao, 2010 ; Priporas and Kamenidou, 2011 ; Munisamy et al., 2014 ; Lee et al., 2018 ) decisions; reputation, tribalism, use of Facebook in relationship building ( Liu et al., 2017 ); effects of reputation in the media on third-party funding ( Vogler, 2020b ).

Cluster 4: The Management and Use of Reputation

Finally, this cluster is formed by reputation and risk management ( Reznik and Yudina, 2018 ); the identification and management of reputation risks ( Suomi and Järvinen, 2013 ); university performance, reputation and professional staff ( Baltaru, 2020 ); university resource management - multidimensionality of reputation ( Suomi, 2014 ; Plewa et al., 2016 ; Chen and Esangbedo, 2018 ; Esangbedo and Bai, 2019 ); performative, moral and professional symbols as categories of reputation management ( Christensen and Gornitzka, 2017 ).

Relationships Found in the Review of the Articles

To deepen the relationships found in the papers reviewed, an analysis of the typology of the variable reputation or the direction of influence attributed to reputation was performed. In addition, the variables commonly studied together with university reputation were grouped by similar themes. Figure 7 shows the variables that influence reputation and Figure 8 shows the variables on which reputation has some type of influence.

Figure 7 . Variables influencing reputation.

Figure 8 . Variables are influenced by reputation.

The following are the variables on which reputation has an influence or impact:

The papers also found other variables to which reputation was related: career prospects ( Munisamy et al., 2014 ); entry standards ( Drydakis, 2015 ); motivation to study abroad ( Lee et al., 2018 ); tribalism ( Liu et al., 2017 ); voice-to-voice ( Harahap et al., 2018 ); quality of life ( Alter and Reback, 2014 ); personality and brand attachment ( Kaushal and Ali, 2019 ); co-creation ( Foroudi et al., 2019 , 2020 ); proximity and strategic character ( Finch et al., 2015 ).

How Has Reputation Been Conceptualized in Higher Education Services?

In each of the 62 articles, the concept of reputation and the authors with the highest number of citations were reviewed; and Fombrun was found to be the most cited author in the literature. Fombrun (1996) has nine direct citations and at least 16 others with various authors: Fombrun and Shanley (1990) —six citations, Fombrun et al. (2000) —four citations, Fombrun and Van Riel (1997 , 2003 , 2004) ; Van Riel and Fombrun (2007) —eight citations. They are followed by Rindova et al. (2005) who have at least 14 direct citations not counting those with other authors in 2010. Next is Suomi (Järvinen and Suomi, 2011 ; Suomi and Järvinen, 2013 ; Suomi, 2014 ; Suomi et al., 2014 ), with nine citations in total. Then there is Alessandri et al. (2006) who presents eight citations.

Most of these authors, define reputation at the organizational level. As such, it is common to find that their “corporate” definition applies to different sectors of the economy. This behavior was observed in a large part of the articles reviewed since some researchers chose to take up the organizational definition to support their research works that were applied to the higher education sector. In this sense, it is important to mention that globalization and the intensification of competition have caused universities to lose their social and formative focus, and become producers of competitive services by adopting more market-oriented approaches ( Maringe and Gibbs, 2009 , p. 4). Therefore, a summary of the definitions found was made, which is listed in Table 3 (the complete list can be found in the Supplementary Material ).

Table 3 . Definitions of reputation.

Although it is common to find the aforementioned definitions in research works, some authors have adapted the definition of reputation and applied it to the higher education service, since they understand the characteristics and particularities that differentiate it from other services. The definitions found in the review focus on showing the importance of the interaction of stakeholders with the university ( Rindova et al., 2005 ; Chen and Esangbedo, 2018 ) over time ( Alessandri et al., 2006 , p. 261) and the incidence of opinions of third-party experts ( Roberts, 2009 ). They also focus on showing the social and economic capital it generates ( Federkeil, 2009 , p. 32), taking into account that it is a valuable asset that influences differentiation and competitive advantage ( Luque-Martínez and Del Barrio-García, 2009 ). Further, it also serves as a proxy for assessing university quality. Therefore, it influences university selection and evaluation ( Hemsley-Brown, 2012 ; Munisamy et al., 2014 ) and the trustworthiness of its image ( Van Vught, 2008 , p. 169), attracting and retaining students ( Munisamy et al., 2014 ). From a student's perspective, public relations, marketing communication, crisis and/or risk management, and corporate branding perspectives are key ( Maringe and Gibbs, 2009 ). A summary of the definitions of university or higher education reputation is shown in Table 4 (see Supplementary Material ).

Table 4 . Definitions of reputation in universities or higher education.

Benefits and Weaknesses of Reputation

Reputation generates a huge impact both for universities and companies in other sectors. As such, we analyzed its benefits and weaknesses, considering the importance of examining both sides of the coin and identifying where the most important challenges in the conceptualization and management of reputation lie. Table 5 shows a summary of the main benefits attributed to reputation, and the authors cited.

Table 5 . Benefits of reputation.

As regards the weaknesses of reputation referred to in the articles, the authors mention that Reputation Cannot be Improved Quickly ( de Chernatony, 1999 ; Chun, 2005 ), and Lacks a Common definition regarding which no consensus has been reached yet ( Miotto et al., 2020 ). Further, it presents a lack of clarity regarding its management and remains a challenge for universities ( Šontait and Bakanauskas, 2011 ). It shows a degree of complexity within which the following aspects can be highlighted: heterogeneity in terms of stakeholders and, as a consequence, differences in their expectations ( Vidaver-Cohen, 2007 ; Suomi and Järvinen, 2013 ). When reputation is not successfully managed in the organization it is exposed to numerous risks ( Suomi and Järvinen, 2013 ). In universities specifically, where it is understood as the quality of education, reputation is difficult to evaluate before being experienced ( Suomi et al., 2014 ).

Summary of Findings

Taking into account the above findings, an outline is made with the most relevant points in the definition of university reputation. This is done with the understanding that it is the result of assessments made by both internal and external stakeholders of the performance and results obtained in the management of its substantive functions, namely, teaching, research, and extension during a given period. Internal stakeholders include students, graduates, teachers, researchers, administrative and managerial staff, with the student being the main beneficiary of the educational service ( Maringe and Gibbs, 2009 , p. 29). External stakeholders include students' families and friends, research centers, private and public business sectors, the state, rankings, and suppliers, among others. Figure 9 shows the results graphically.

Figure 9 . Elements of university reputation.

Conclusions

The methodology developed for the literature search on reputation in higher education resulted in 231 articles. Not all of them were included taking into account the exclusion criteria within the screening process. However, it did allow for observing the growing interest in this topic given the impact it has on organizations, in this case, in the higher education sector.

In addition, and as expected, definitions of organizational reputation were adopted and applied to the processes of university reputation management. However, some authors chose to make adaptations of these definitions to the context of higher education institutions, emphasizing the importance of identification and relationship with stakeholders ( Finch et al., 2015 ; Verčič et al., 2016 ; Zavyalova et al., 2016 ; Martin et al., 2018 ; Carrillo-Durán and García, 2020 ), understanding the differences between the needs and knowledge that each one has of the organization, as well as underscoring the concern over the time it takes to develop a solid reputation in the market ( Brewer and Zhao, 2010 ; Loureiro et al., 2017 ), which is different and generates value and competitive advantage ( Burke, 2011 ; Feldman et al., 2014 ; Munisamy et al., 2014 ; Marginson, 2016 ). As regards reputation built over time, universities must compete to gain a position ( Chapleo, 2007 ) in the local, national and international markets, which are becoming more complex, given the impact that rankings—which have become a benchmark of the quality of universities—have on the valuation of stakeholders ( Bowman and Bastedo, 2011 ; Drydakis, 2016 ; Wolf and Jenkins, 2018 ).

Therefore, it was found that reputation is decisive in the student's shopping experience ( Handayani, 2019 ; Pitan and Muller, 2019 ), which includes university selection, influencing, their lived experience in the training process ( Sajtos et al., 2015 ), placement or job attainment rates ( Smith et al., 2008 ; Laker and Powell, 2011 ; Finch et al., 2013 ), and development of entrepreneurship ( Parente et al., 2015 ). From the institutional point of view and within the framework of the purchasing experience, reputation management also helps in areas such as retention of students ( Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019 ), relationships with the business sector, agreements with other educational institutions, advancement of research ( Morphew et al., 2016 ), exchanges at the national and international level ( Plewa et al., 2016 ), and relations with the media ( Deephouse, 2000 ), etc.

To capitalize on each of these findings, Figure 9 shows a compendium of the points considered most relevant in the search, on the variables that influence reputation, the variables that are influenced by reputation, its benefits, and main stakeholders categorized as internal and external, following Verčič et al. (2016 , p. 165). In the evaluations made by external stakeholders, a critical point is the knowledge they have about the university given its proximity which influences their opinions that may be biased but have an impact on the reputation and quality of work of a university ( Steiner et al., 2013 ). For its part, reputation management among internal stakeholders, mainly students, have a positive impact on their attitudes ( Foroudi et al., 2019 ) and is a key element for the success and survival of universities ( Christensen and Gornitzka, 2017 ), which currently operate in a complex and competitive environment, in which they must compete with other HEIs for access to different resources and meet the expectations of all their stakeholders.

Discussion and Agenda for Future Research

The challenges of reputation management in educational institutions are evident in the literature review addressed. Issues such as the increase in academic offerings in terms of scope and variety of programs ( Maringe and Gibbs, 2009 ), changes in funding structures ( Steiner et al., 2013 ), internationalization of education ( Plewa et al., 2016 ), globalization and mobility of students and faculty ( O'Loughlin et al., 2013 ), as well as the focus on achieving high quality certifications as a strategy to show university differentiation and influence the images received by the various stakeholders, especially the student as the main user of the service, are crucial issues for university competitiveness. In fact, it is important to clarify that reputation and quality are related, but not necessarily identical ( Van Vught, 2008 ). In addition, authors such as Roberts (2009) point out that, in order to achieve the main objective of the university, in terms of offering a high quality service that responds to the needs of society, it is necessary and indispensable to work together and articulate between employees and departments with mechanisms that support management to achieve a positive reputation.

This management implies that universities adapt to these new models and systems of evaluation and measurement to show indicators of academic quality ( Steiner et al., 2013 ), which is why managers also focus their attention on improving their performance in the different rankings ( O'Loughlin et al., 2013 ). Among the prominent rankings to measure the reputation of the most prestigious universities in the world, are the Academic Ranking of World University ARWU (also known as the Shanghai ranking), the British ranking Times Higher Education -THE, and the Quaquerelli Symonds–QS. Each of them has different indicators and weights in their measurement. The ARWU for example, takes into account graduates and teachers with Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, the most cited researchers, the amount of indexed articles and their respective citations. However, these rankings have been criticized for their focus on the research capacity of universities and the way in which the individual indicators used to obtain the synthetic indicator are weighted ( Parellada and Álvarez, 2017 ). And indeed they have had an impact on the “publish or perish” message received by university faculty and professors, further evidencing the value of research ( Linton et al., 2011 ). Despite the negative biases of this type of measurement, rankings remain an important variable that influences reputation and, in fact, is consolidated in cluster 2, found in this study.

Subsequent research work can focus on further developing and understanding the multidimensionality of the concept of university reputation, in the light of a theoretical corpus that continues to evolve based on the characteristics and particularities of higher education and the challenges posed by the social, economic, political, and environmental contexts in which it develops its substantive functions. They will also be able to validate the relationships between the variables found, as well as to propose new variables that have not been contemplated and that may have an important and predictive impact on the performance of the construct.

Limitations

This review focused on a 10-year period, by analyzing two databases, WoS and Scopus. As such, other databases that might contain articles on university reputation were not considered. Similarly, we did not include languages other than English, given that the number of documents found in the searches was sufficiently extensive only in that language. Besides, as mentioned earlier, most of the literature is in English. Further, articles indexed in journals located in quartiles 3 and 4 were not taken into account. As such, articles that may have contributions or theoretical perspectives different from those found could have been omitted. Furthermore, it is understood that a sample of 62 articles is only a part of all the literature found on reputation in universities and that a broader more inclusive review could generate different conclusions. However, this systematic review was carried out exhaustively, analyzing each of the documents found to generate the results presented here.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

FJ contributed to design of the study and supervised both the development of the research and the manuscript. MA completed the majority of the literature review and wrote the first draft. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The publication of this article was supported by the Research Department, School of Business, Universidad del Rosario.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.925117/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ Boolean code used in Web of Science: TITLE: (reputation) AND SUBJECT: (higher education) and the second TITLE: (reputation) AND SUBJECT: (university). In the Scopus database, the following Boolean code was used: [TITLE (reputation) AND TITLE (higher AND education) OR TITLE (universities) OR TITLE (university)] AND DOCTYPE (ar OR re) AND PUBYEAR > 2009.

2. ^ Taking into account the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), which weights the value of a citation based on the subject field, quality and reputation of the source ( Elsevier, 2020 ).

Alessandri, S., Yang, S., and Kinsey, D. (2006). An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation. Corp. Reputation Rev. 9, 258–270. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550033

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ali, R., Lynch, R., Melewar, T. C., and Jin, Z. (2015). The moderating influences on the relationship of corporate reputation with its antecedents and consequences: a meta-analytic review. J. Bus. Res. 68, 1105–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.013

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world. Tert. Educ. Manage. 10, 3–25. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2004.9967114

Alter, M., and Reback, R. (2014). True for your school? How changing reputations alter demand for selective U.S. colleges. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 36, 346–370. doi: 10.3102/0162373713517934

Alves, H., and Raposo, M. (2007). Student satisfaction index in portuguese public higher education. Serv. Indust. J. 27, 795–808. doi: 10.1080/02642060701453288

CrossRef Full Text

Arambewela, R., and Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Log. 21, 555–569. doi: 10.1108/13555850910997599

Aula, H. M., and Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming world-class? Reputation-building in a university merger. Crit. Perspect. Int. Bus. 7, 7–29. doi: 10.1108/17422041111103813

Aveyard, H. (2014). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care A Practical Guide, Vol. 18, 3rd Edn . England: McGraw Hill Education.

Google Scholar

Baden-Fuller, C., and Ang, S. H. (2001). Building reputations: the role of alliances in the european business school scene. Long Range Plann. 34, 741–755. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00088-7

Baltaru, R. D. (2020). The rise of agentic inclusion in the UK universities: maintaining reputation through (formal) diversification. Stud. High. Educ. 47, 229–242. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1739015

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manage. 17, 99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bartikowski, B., Walsh, G., and Beatty, S. (2011). Culture and age as moderators in the corporate reputation and loyalty relationship. J. Bus. Res. 64, 966–972. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.019

Bastedo, M. N., and Bowman, N. A. (2010). U.S. News and world report college rankings: modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. Am. J. Educ. 116, 163–183. doi: 10.1086/649437

Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I., and Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tour. Manage. 22, 607–616. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00035-8

Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., and Ockenfels, A. (2004). How effective are electronic reputation mechanisms? An experimental investigation. Manage. Sci. 50, 1587–1602. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1030.0199

Bouchet, A., Laird, M. D., Troilo, M., Hutchinson, M., and Ferris, G. (2017). Effects of increased commitment on reputation and status: evidence from NCAA Division I universities. Sport Manage. Rev. 20, 395–407. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2016.11.002

Bourke, A. (2000). A model of the determinants of international trade in higher education. Serv. Indust. J. 20, 110–138. doi: 10.1080/02642060000000007

Bowman, N. A., and Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. news and world report on student decisions. Res. High. Educ. 50, 415–436. doi: 10.1007/s11162-009-9129-8

Bowman, N. A., and Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores. High. Educ. 61, 431–444. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1

Brewer, A., and Zhao, J. (2010). The impact of a pathway college on reputation and brand awareness for its affiliated university in Sydney. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 24, 34–47. doi: 10.1108/09513541011013033

Brewer, D., Gates, S., and Goldman, C. (2001). In Pursuit of Prestige: Strategy and Competition in U.S. Higher Education. Somerset, NJ: Technical Papers.

Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Stud. High. Educ. 31, 705–722. doi: 10.1080/03075070601004333

Bromley, D. (1993). Reputation, Image, and Impression Management, 1st Edn . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Bromley, D. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image and reputation. Corp. Reputation Rev. 3, 240–252. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540117

Bromley, D. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: league tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corp. Reputation Rev. 5, 35–50. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540163

Brown, M., and Whysall, P. (2010). Performance, reputation, and social responsibility in the UK's financial services: a post-credit crunch interpretation. Serv. Indust. J. 30, 1991–2006. doi: 10.1080/02642060903220931

Burke, R. J. (2011). “Corporate reputations: development, maintenance, change and repair,” in Corporate Reputation: Managing Opportunities and Threats, 1 Edn , eds J. R. Burke, G. Martin, and C. L. Cooper. London: Gower, 1–43.

Cantos-Mateos, G., Vargas-Quesada, B., Zulueta García, M. A., and Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2013). Estudio Comparativo Sobre la Visualización de Redes de Co-words a Través de los Descriptores Del Science Citation Index y de Medline. Oporto: Universidade do Porto, 173–189.

Carrillo-Durán, M. V., and García, M. (2020). Exploring the need for stakeholders' engagement through social networking sites to build the reputation of higher education organisations. High. Educ. Q. 74, 442–457. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12256

Caruana, A., and Ewing, M. T. (2010). How corporate reputation, quality, and value influence online loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 63, 1103–1110. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.030

Caves, R., and Porter, M. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition. Q. J. Econ. 91, 241–261. doi: 10.2307/1885416

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2008). Systematic Reviews . York: University of New York; New York Publishing Services Ltd.

Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to Brand Building in UK Universities? Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 12:23–32. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.271

Chen, C., and Esangbedo, M. O. (2018). Evaluating university reputation based on integral linear programming with grey possibility. Math. Prob. Eng. 2018, 5484326. doi: 10.1155/2018/5484326

Chevalier, A., and Conlon, G. (2003). Does It Pay to Attend a Prestigious University?. Institute of Labor Economics . Available online at: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:iza:izadps:dp848

Christensen, T., Gavrila, S. G., Ma, L., and Ramirez, F. O. (2020). Reputation management by Chinese universities: primary profile and comparative features. Public Adm. 98, 1027–1043. doi: 10.1111/padm.12679

Christensen, T., and Gornitzka. (2017). Reputation management in complex environments - a comparative study of university organizations. High. Educ. Policy 30, 123–140. doi: 10.1057/s41307-016-0010-z

Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: meaning and measurement. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 7, 91–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00109.x

Cole, M. S., and Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: does organizational hierarchy matter? J. Organ. Behav. 27, 585–605. doi: 10.1002/job.378

Conard, M., and Conard, M. (2000). An analysis of academic reputation as perceived by consumers of higher education. J. Mark. High. Educ. 9, 69–80. doi: 10.1300/J050v09n04_05

Coombs, T. W., and Holladay, S. J. (2006). Unpacking the halo effect: reputation and crisis management. J. Commun. Manage. 10, 123–137. doi: 10.1108/13632540610664698

Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th Edn. . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csiszar, E., and Heidrich, G. W. (2006). The question of reputational risk: perspectives from an industry. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. 31, 382–394. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510096

Curtis, T., Abratt, R., and Minor, W. (2009). Corporate brand management in higher education: the case of ERAU. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 18, 404–413. doi: 10.1108/10610420910989721

Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., and Roper, S. (2002). Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness . London: Routledge.

Dawar, N., and Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: consumers' use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. J. Mark. 58, 81–95. doi: 10.1177/002224299405800207

de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. J. Mark. Manage. 15, 157–179. doi: 10.1362/026725799784870432

De Quevedo, E., De la Fuente, J. M., and Delgado, J. B. (2005). Reputación corporativa y creación de valor. marco teórico de una relación circular. Invest. Euro. Direc. Econ. Empresa 11, 81–97. Available online at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es.ez.urosario.edu.co/servlet/oaiart?codigo=1357926

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. J. Manage. 26, 1091–1112. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600602

Deephouse, D. L., and Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. J. Manage. Stud. 42, 329–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x

Del-Castillo-Feito, C., Blanco-González, A., and Delgado-Alemany, R. (2020). The relationship between image, legitimacy, and reputation as a sustainable strategy: students' versus professors' perceptions in the higher education sector. Sustainability 12, 1189. doi: 10.3390/su12031189

Del-Castillo-Feito, C., Blanco-González, A., and González-Vázquez, E. (2019). The relationship between image and reputation in the Spanish public university. Euro. Res. Manage. Bus. Econ. 25, 87–92. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.01.001

Delgado-Márquez, B. L., Escudero-Torres, M. A., and Hurtado-Torres, N. E. (2013). Being highly internationalised strengthens your reputation: an empirical investigation of top higher education institutions. High. Educ. 66, 619–633. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9626-8

Dierickx, I., and Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Manage. Sci. 35, 1504–1511. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 28, 307–319. doi: 10.1177/002224379102800305

Dowling, G. (1994). Corporate Reputation . New York, NY: Longman Publishing.

Drydakis, N. (2015). Economics applicants in the uk labour market: university reputation and employment outcomes. Int. J. Manpow. 36, 296–333. doi: 10.1108/IJM-02-2014-0061

Drydakis, N. (2016). The effect of university attended on graduates labour market prospects: a field study of Great Britain. Econ. Educ. Rev. 52:192–208. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.001

Elsevier (2020). What is Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI)? Scopus: Access and Use Support Center.

Elsevier (2022). SciVal. Navigate the World of Research With a Ready-to-Use Solution. Elsevier Solutions.

Esangbedo, M. O., and Bai, S. (2019). Grey regulatory focus theory weighting method for the multi-criteria decision-making problem in evaluating university reputation. Symmetry 11, 230. doi: 10.3390/sym11020230

Federkeil, G. (2009). Reputation Indicators in Rankings of Higher Education Institutions . Sense Publishers. doi: 10.1163/9789087908164_003

Feldman, P. M., Bahamonde, R. A., and Bellido, I. V. (2014). A new approach for measuring corporate reputation. Rev. Admin. Empres. 54, 53–66. doi: 10.1590/S0034-759020140102

Finch, D., Hillenbrand, C., and Rubin, H. (2015). Proximity, strategic groups and reputation: an exploratory study of reputation in higher education. Corp. Reputation Rev. 18, 174–194. doi: 10.1057/crr.2015.8

Finch, D., McDonald, S., and Staple, J. (2013). Reputational interdependence: an examination of category reputation in higher education. J. Mark. High. Educ. 23, 34–61. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2013.810184

Fine, G. A., and Wohl, H. (2018). Reading and reputation: sense, sensibility, and status in graduate education. Qualit. Res. 18, 554–564. doi: 10.1177/1468794118778613

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value From the Corporate Image . Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., and Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation QuotientSM: a multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. J. Brand Manage. 7, 241–255. doi: 10.1057/bm.2000.10

Fombrun, C. J., and Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? reputation building and corporate strategy. Acad. Manage. J. 33, 233–258. doi: 10.5465/256324

Fombrun, C. J., and Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corp. Reputation Rev. 1, 5–13. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540008

Fombrun, C. J., and Van Riel, C. (2003). Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations (Upper Saddle River, NJ), 1st Edn. Prentice Hall.

Fombrun, C. J., and Van Riel, C. (2004). Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Foroudi, P., Nazarian, A., Ziyadin, S., Kitchen, P., Hafeez, K., Priporas, C., et al. (2020). Co-creating brand image and reputation through stakeholder's social network. J. Bus. Res. 114:42–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.035

Foroudi, P., Yu, Q., Gupta, S., and Foroudi, M. M. (2019). Enhancing university brand image and reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 138, 218–227. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.006

Fowles, J., Frederickson, G., and Koppell, J. (2016). University rankings: evidence and a conceptual framework. Public Adm. Rev. 76, 790–803. doi: 10.1111/puar.12610

Fumasoli, T., and Huisman, J. (2013). Strategic agency and system diversity: conceptualizing institutional positioning in higher education. Minerva 51, 155–169. doi: 10.1007/s11024-013-9225-y

Gardberg, N., and Fombrun, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: first steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corp. Reputation Rev. 4:303–307. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540151

Gaultier-Gaillard, S., and Louisot, J. P. (2006). Risks to reputation: a global approach. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. 31, 425–445. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510090

Goldring, D. (2015). Reputation orientation: improving marketing performance through corporate reputation building. Mark. Intell. Plann. 33, 784–803. doi: 10.1108/MIP-11-2013-0183

Haas, A., and Unkel, J. (2017). Ranking versus reputation: perception and effects of search result credibility. Behav. Inform. Technol. 36, 1285–1298. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2017.1381166

Handayani, R. (2019). Building university reputation through experiential marketing in the industry revolution ERA 4.0 (survey of several private universities in the city of Bandung). Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 6, 208–2018.

Harahap, D. A., Hurriyati, R., Gaffar, V., and Amanah, D. (2018). The impact of word of mouth and university reputation on student decision to study at university. Manage. Sci. Lett. 8, 649–658. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.4.027

Heffernan, T., Wilkins, S., and Butt, M. (2018). Transnational higher education: the importance of institutional reputation, trust and student-university identification in international partnerships. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 32, 227–240. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-05-2017-0122

Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). The best education in the world: reality, repetition or cliché? International students' reasons for choosing an English university. Stud. High. Educ. 37, 1005–1022. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.562286

Hiebl, M. R. W. (2015). Applying the four-eyes principle to management decisions in the manufacturing sector: are large family firms one-eye blind? Manage. Res. Rev. 38, 264–282. doi: 10.1108/MRR-11-2013-0254

Ho, S., and Peng, M. (2016). Managing resources and relations in higher education institutions: a framework for understanding performance improvement. Educ. Sci. Theo. Prac. 16, 279–300. doi: 10.12738/estp.2016.1.0185

Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., and Herman, E. (2016). Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Res. Eval. 25, 37–49. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv032

Järvinen, R., and Suomi, K. (2011). Reputation attributes in retailing services: managerial perspective. Man. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 21, 410–423. doi: 10.1108/09604521111146270

Jin, B., Yong Park, J., and Kim, J. (2008). Crosscultural examination of the relationships among firm reputation, esatisfaction, etrust, and eloyalty. Int. Mark. Rev. 25, 324–337. doi: 10.1108/02651330810877243

Jung, N., and Seock, Y. (2016). The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and purchase intention. Fash. Text. 3, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s40691-016-0072-y

Kaushal, V., and Ali, N. (2019). University reputation, brand attachment and brand personality as antecedents of student loyalty: a study in higher education context. Corp. Reputation Rev. 23, 254–266. doi: 10.1057/s41299-019-00084-y

Kitchen, P., and Laurence, A. (2003). Corporate reputation: an eight-country analysis. Corp. Reputation Rev. 6, 103–117. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540193

Koufaris, M., and Hampton-Sosa, W. (2004). The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Inform. Manage. 41, 377–397. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2003.08.004

Lafuente-Ruiz-de Sabando, A., Zorrilla, P., and Forcada, J. (2018). A review of higher education image and reputation literature: knowledge gaps and a research agenda. Euro. Res. Manage. Bus. Econ. 24, 8–16. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.005

Laker, D. R., and Powell, J. L. (2011). The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative impact on training transfer. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 22, 111–122. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20063

Lange, D., Lee, P., and Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: a review. J. Manage. 37, 153–184. doi: 10.1177/0149206310390963

Lee, J., and Stuen, E. (2016). University reputation and technology commercialization: evidence from nanoscale science. J. Technol. Transfer 41, 586–609. doi: 10.1007/s10961-015-9430-y

Lee, S., Nguyen, H. N., Lee, K. S., Chua, B. L., and Han, H. (2018). Price, people, location, culture and reputation: determinants of Malaysia as study destination by international hospitality and tourism undergraduates. J. Tour. Cult. Change 16, 335–347. doi: 10.1080/14766825.2017.1336242

Lee, Y., Wanta, W., and Lee, H. (2015). Resource-based public relations efforts for university reputation from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Corp. Reputation Rev. 18, 195–209. doi: 10.1057/crr.2015.6

Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A., and Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image and company employment image in explaining application intentions. J. Econ. Psychol. 24, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00151-4

Linton, J. D., Tierney, R., and Walsh, S. T. (2011). Publish or perish: how are research and reputation related? Ser. Rev. 37, 244–257. doi: 10.1080/00987913.2011.10765398

Liu, J. H., North, M., and Li, C. (2017). Relationship building through reputation and tribalism on companies facebook pages: a uses and gratifications approach. Internet Res. 27, 1149–1169. doi: 10.1108/IntR-03-2016-0078

Loureiro, S. M. C., and Kastenholz, E. (2011). Corporate reputation, satisfaction, delight, and loyalty towards rural lodging units in Portugal. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 30, 575–583. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.10.007

Loureiro, S. M. C., Sarmento, E. M., and Le Bellego, G. (2017). The effect of corporate brand reputation on brand attachment and brand loyalty: automobile sector. Cogent Bus. Manage. 4, 1360031. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2017.1360031

Love, E. G., and Kraatz, M. (2009). Character, conformity, or the bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate reputation. Acad. Manage. J. 52, 314–335. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.37308247

Lunde, T., Sjusdal, A. P., and Pappas, I. O. (2019). “Organizational culture challenges of adopting big data: a systematic literature review,” in Digital Transformation for a Sustainable Society in the 21st Century , eds I. O. Pappas, P. Mikalef, Y. K. Dwivedi L. Jaccheri, J. Krogstie, and M. Mntymki (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 164–176. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-29374-1_14

Luque-Martínez, T., and Del Barrio-García, S. (2009). Modelling university image: The teaching staff viewpoint. Public Relat. Rev. 35, 325–327. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.004

Maduro, S., Fernandes, P. O., and Alves, A. (2018). Management design as a strategic lever to add value to corporate reputation competitiveness in higher education institutions. Competi. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 28, 75–97. doi: 10.1108/CR-04-2017-0029

Marginson, S. (2016). Global Stratification in Higher Education . Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21512-9_2

Marín, T., and Arriojas, D. D. J. (2021). Ubicación de revistas cientficas en cuartiles según SJR: predicción a partir de estadística multivariante. Anal. Document. 24, 455951. doi: 10.6018/analesdoc.455951

Maringe, F., and Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing Higher Education: Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Martin, G., Siebert, S., and Robson, I. (2018). Conformist innovation: an institutional logics perspective on how HR executives construct business school reputations. Int. J. Hum. Resourc. Manage. 29, 2027–2053. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1239118

Massucci, F. A., and Docampo, D. (2019). Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank. J. Informetr. 13, 185–201. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.001

Melewar, T. (2003). Determinants of the corporate identity construct: a review of the literature. J. Mark. Commun. 9, 195–220. doi: 10.1080/1352726032000119161

Melewar, T. C., and Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 10, 41–57. doi: 10.1108/13563280510578196

Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., and Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: key factors for Higher Education Institutions sustained competitive advantage. J. Bus. Res. 112, 342–353. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.076

Morley, L., and Aynsley, S. (2007). Employers, quality and standards in higher education: shared values and vocabularies or elitism and inequalities? High. Educ. Q. 61, 229–249. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00353.x

Morphew, C. C., Fumasoli, T., and Stensaker, B. (2016). Changing missions? How the strategic plans of research-intensive universities in Northern Europe and North America balance competing identities. Stud. High. Educ. 43, 1074–1088. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1214697

Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309, 597–599. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597

Munisamy, S., Mohd Jaafar, N. I., and Nagaraj, S. (2014). Does Reputation Matter? Case study of undergraduate choice at a premier university. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 23, 451–462. doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y

Nguyen, N., and Leblanc, G. (2001a). Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers' retention decisions in services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 8, 227–236. doi: 10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00029-1

Nguyen, N., and LeBlanc, G. (2001b). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students retention decisions. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 15, 303–311. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005909

Nicholas, D., Herman, E., and Jamali, H. R. (2015). Emerging Reputation Mechanisms for Scholars . Seville: European Union; European commission; Joint Research Centre Edition.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

O'Loughlin, D., MacPhail, A., and Msetfi, R. (2013). The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: fur coat and no knickers. Stud. High. Educ. 40, 806–820. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842224

Palacio, M. -A., Meneses, G., and Pacrez, P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. J. Educ. Admin. 40, 486–505. doi: 10.1108/09578230210440311

Parellada, M., and Álvarez, M. (2017). Reputaciòn y “rankings”. Debats 131, 15–26. doi: 10.28939/iam.debats.131-2.2

Parente, R., Feola, R., Cucino, V., and Catolino, G. (2015). Visibility and reputation of new entrepreneurial projects from academia: the role of start-up competitions. J. Knowl. Econ. 6, 551–567. doi: 10.1007/s13132-015-0255-6

Park, E. (2009). Analysis of Korean students' international mobility by 2-D model: driving force factor and directional factor. High. Educ. 57, 741–755. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9173-x

Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Blackwell Publishing. doi: 10.1002/9780470754887

Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., and Rindova, V. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: the effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 1131–1152. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.54533222

Pitan, O. S., and Muller, C. (2019). University reputation and undergraduates self-perceived employability: mediating influence of experiential learning activities. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 38, 1269–1284. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1634678

Plewa, C., Ho, J., Conduit, J., and Karpen, I. O. (2016). Reputation in higher education: a fuzzy set analysis of resource configurations. J. Bus. Res. 69, 3087–3095. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.024

Prakash, G. (2021). QoS in higher education institutions: the concept, a literature review and future directions. TQM J. 33, 1245–1262. doi: 10.1108/TQM-09-2020-0211

Price, D. (1965). Network of scientific papers: the pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science 149, 510–515. doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510

Priporas, C. V., and Kamenidou, I. (2011). Perceptions of potential postgraduate Greek business students towards UK universities, brand and brand reputation. J. Brand Manage. 18:264–273. doi: 10.1057/bm.2010.40

Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strat. Manage. J. 15, 29–44. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250150904

Rashid, S., and Mustafa, H. (2021). Antecedents of corporate reputation with employees in higher education institutions: a systematic review. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 35, 297–309. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-06-2020-0310

Rayner, J. (2003). Managing Reputational Risk: Curbing Threats, Leveraging Opportunities, 1st Edn. Chichester: Wiley.

Rayner, J. (2005). Managing Reputational Risks: Curbing Threats, Leveraging Opportunities . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Ressler, J., and Abratt, R. (2009). Assessing the impact of university reputation on stakeholder intentions. J. Gen. Manage. 35, 35–45. doi: 10.1177/030630700903500104

Reznik, S. D., and Yudina, T. A. (2018). Key milestones in the development of reputation management in Russian universities. Euro. J. Contemp. Educ. 7, 379–391. doi: 10.13187/ejced.2018.2.379

Rindova, V., Williamson, I., and Petkova, A. (2005). Being good or being known: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Acad. Manage. J. 48, 1033–1049. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.19573108

Roberts, D. (2009). Reputation Management for Education: A Review of the Academic and Professional Literature. The Knowledge Partnership.

Roberts, P. W., and Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strat. Manage. J. 23, 1077–1093. doi: 10.1002/smj.274

Rocco, T. S., and Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: terms, functions, and distinctions. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 8, 120–130. doi: 10.1177/1534484309332617

Sajtos, L., Kreis, H., and Brodie, R. (2015). Image, brand relationships and customer value. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 25, 51–74. doi: 10.1108/JSTP-11-2013-0261

Sataøen, H. L., and Wæraas, A. (2016). Building a sector reputation: the strategic communication of national higher education. Int. J. Strat. Commun. 10, 165–176. doi: 10.1080/1553118X.2016.1176567

Sauder, M., and Lancaster, R. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effects of U.S. news & world report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law Soc. Rev. 40, 105–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00261.x

Schnietz, K. E., and Epstein, M. J. (2005). Exploring the financial value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility during a crisis. Corp. Reputation Rev. 7, 327–345. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540230

Shapiro, C. (1982). Consumer information, product quality, and seller reputation. Bell J. Econ. 13, 20–35. doi: 10.2307/3003427

Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Q. J. Econ. 98, 659–679. doi: 10.2307/1881782

Smith, H., Smarkusky, D., and Corrigall, E. (2008). Defining projects to integrate evolving team fundamentals and project management skills. J. Inform. Syst. Educ. 19, 99–110. Available online at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jise/vol19/iss1/10

Smith, T. E., Carter, T. E., Osteen, P. J., and Panisch, L. S. (2018). Comparing reputation vs h-index rankings of doctoral programs. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 10, 87–99. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-08-2017-0096

Šontait, M., and Bakanauskas, A. P. (2011). Measurement Model of Corporate Reputation at Higher Education Institutions: Customers Perspective . Kaunas: Vytauto Didiojo universiteto leidykla.

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 87, 355–374. doi: 10.2307/1882010

Steiner, L., Sundstrm, A. C., and Sammalisto, K. (2013). An analytical model for university identity and reputation strategy work. High. Educ. 65, 401–415. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9552-1

Stergiou, K. I., and Tsikliras, A. C. (2013). Global university reputation and rankings: Insights from culturomics. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 13, 193–202. doi: 10.3354/esep00140

Sung, M., and Yang, S. U. (2008). Toward the model of university image: the influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. J. Public Relat. Res. 20, 357–376. doi: 10.1080/10627260802153207

Sung, M., and Yang, S. U. (2009). Student-university relationships and reputation: a study of the links between key factors fostering students supportive behavioral intentions towards their university. High. Educ. 57:787–811. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9176-7

Suomi, K. (2014). Exploring the dimensions of brand reputation in higher education a case study of a Finnish masters degree programme. J. High. Educ. Policy Manage. 36, 646–660. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2014.957893

Suomi, K., and Järvinen, R. (2013). Tracing reputation risks in retailing and higher-education services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20, 207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.003

Suomi, K., Kuoppakangas, P., Hytti, U., Hampden-Turner, C., and Kangaslahti, J. (2014). Focusing on dilemmas challenging reputation management in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 28, 461–478. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0046

Van Riel, C., and Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of Corporate Communication: Implementing Practices for Effective Reputation Management. Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.4324/9780203390931

Van Vught, F. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. High. Educ. Policy 21, 151–174. doi: 10.1057/hep.2008.5

Veh, A., Gbel, M., and Vogel, R. (2019). Corporate reputation in management research: a review of the literature and assessment of the concept. Bus. Res. 12, 315–353. doi: 10.1007/s40685-018-0080-4

Veloutsou, C., and Moutinho, L. (2009). Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism. J. Bus. Res. 62, 314–322. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.010

Verčič, A. T., Verčič, D., and nidar, K. (2016). Exploring academic reputation is it a multidimensional construct? Corp. Commun. 21, 160–176. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-01-2015-0003

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007). Reputation beyond the rankings: a conceptual framework for business school research. Corp. Reputation Rev. 10, 278–304. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550055

Vogler, D. (2020a). Analyzing reputation of Swiss universities on twitter: the role of stakeholders, content and sources. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 25, 429–445. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2019-0043

Vogler, D. (2020b). The effects of media reputation on third-party funding of Swiss universities. J. Commun. Manage. 24, 285–298. doi: 10.1108/JCOM-04-2019-0059

VOSviewer (2022). VOSviewer—Visualizing Scientific Landscapes . VOSviewer.

Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition, measurement, and theory. Corp. Reputation Rev. 12, 357–387. doi: 10.1057/crr.2009.26

Watkins, B., and Gonzenbach, W. (2013). Assessing university brand personality through logos: an analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding. J. Market. High. Educ. 23, 15–33. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2013.805709

Weigelt, K., and Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of recent theory and applications. Strat. Manage. J. 9, 443–454. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250090505

Wilkins, S., and Huisman, J. (2014). Factors affecting university image formation among prospective higher education students: the case of international branch campuses. Stud. High. Educ. 40, 1256–1272. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.881347

Wolf, A., and Jenkins, A. (2018). What's in a name? The impact of reputation and rankings on the teaching income of English universities. High. Educ. Q. 72, 286–303. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12162

Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., and Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders' organizational identification affects the role of reputation following a negative event. Acad. Manage. J. 59, 253–276. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0611

Keywords: reputation, higher education, systematic review, reputation management, reputation theory, university reputation

Citation: Amado Mateus M and Juarez Acosta F (2022) Reputation in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Front. Educ. 7:925117. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.925117

Received: 21 April 2022; Accepted: 01 June 2022; Published: 29 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Amado Mateus and Juarez Acosta. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Marelby Amado Mateus, marelby.amado@urosario.edu.co

This article is part of the Research Topic

Education and Innovative Perspectives in Higher Education