Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Alternative Approach to Measuring University Reputation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Corporate Reputation Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Competition among universities has existed for many decades, with universities now under intense scrutiny due to increased marketisation with perceptions of their reputation becoming ever more important to remain competitive. Current measures of university reputation, such as league table rankings, focus predominantly on student achievement and research success. However, these measures do not consider perceptions from these institutions’ diverse range of stakeholders. Measuring reputation from multiple stakeholders and multiple areas of organisations has previously been done in for-profit organisations using the RepTrak™ model. Nevertheless, the characteristics used in this model have not been tested for their applicability to measure University reputation within the United Kingdom, presenting an opportunity measure and understand university reputation from alternative globally accepted criteria. Data were collected through online questionnaires that received 594 responses, and analysed using Exploratory, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. This research confirms characteristics used in the RepTrak™ model are also applicable to measuring a university’s reputation, offering a clearer measure of university reputation from multiple stakeholder groups. Key findings identified differing perceptions of the importance of measured characteristics by internal and external stakeholders, with ‘performance’ and ‘products and services’ perceived as the most important, respectively. These findings provide clear evidence for the need to tailor marketing and PR communications to different audiences to maximise opportunities for improving perceptions of a university’s reputation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Adapted from Angliss (2017)

Fig. 3

Adapted from Chapleo and Simms (2010)

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alessandri, S.W. 2001. Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication and theoretical explanation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6 (4): 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alessandri, S.W., S.-U. Yang, and D.F. Kinsey. 2006. An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 9 (4): 258–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angliss, K. 2017. An evaluation of the impact of event attendance on perceptions of the host organisation’s reputation: a university case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Plymouth). https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/9822.

  • Arpan, L.M., A.A. Raney, and S. Zivnuska. 2003. A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 8 (2): 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avcı, Ö., E. Ring, and L. Mitchell. 2015. Stakeholders in US higher education: an analysis through two theories of stakeholders. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 10 (2).

  • Azham, N.A.A., and T.A.H.D.T. Ahmad. 2020. Brand reputation management and brand experience towards reputation of Malaysian polytechnics. Jurnal Intelek 15 (1): 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L.F. 2004. Statistical analyses for language assessment. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, J.M. 2001. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing-seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing 35 (3/4): 248–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M. 2001. A stakeholder approach to responsiveness and accountability in non-profit organisations. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 36–51.

  • Baruch, Y., and N. Ramalho. 2006. Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (1): 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M.N., and N.A. Bowman. 2010. US News & World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education 116 (2): 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berens, G., and C.B. Van Riel. 2004. Corporate associations in the academic literature: Three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review 7 (2): 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, R. 2000. Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education 6 (1): 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, N.A., and M.N. Bastedo. 2011. Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education 61 (4): 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D.B. 1993. Reputation, image and impression management. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T.A. 2015. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, C.E., and R. Olegario. 2019. Pathways to corporate accountability: Corporate reputation and its alternatives. Journal of Business Ethics 1–9.

  • Caruana, A., and S. Chircop. 2000. Measuring corporate reputation: A case example. Corporate Reputation Review 3 (1): 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, A., and M.T. Ewing. 2010. How corporate reputation, quality, and value influence online loyalty. Journal of Business Research 63 (9/10): 1103–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, T., L. Hafni, S. Chandra, A.A. Purwati, and J. Chandra. 2019. The influence of service quality, university image on student satisfaction and student loyalty. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 26 (5): 1533–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapleo, C., and C. Simms. 2010. Stakeholder analysis in higher education: A case study of the University of Portsmouth. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 14 (1): 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Å. Gornitzka, and F.O. Ramirez. 2019. Reputation management, social embeddedness, and rationalization of universities, Universities as agencies, 3–39. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, R. 2005. Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews 7 (2): 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubillo, J.M., J. Sánchez, and J. Cerviño. 2006. International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management 20 (2): 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., R. Chun, R.V. da Silva, and S. Roper. 2001. The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 4 (2): 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., R. Chun, R.V. Da Silva, and S. Roper. 2004. A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 7 (2): 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D.L., W. Newburry, and A. Soleimani. 2016. The effects of institutional development and national culture on cross-national differences in corporate reputation. Journal of World Business 51 (3): 463–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del-Castillo-Feito, C., A. Blanco-González, and E. González-Vázquez. 2019. The relationship between image and reputation in the Spanish public university. European Research on Management and Business Economics 25 (2): 87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G. 2001. Creating corporate reputations: Identity performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G. 2016. Defining and measuring corporate reputations. European Management Review 13 (3): 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, M. 2017. University scandal, reputation and governance. International Journal for Educational Integrity 13 (1): 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C.J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., L. Ponzi, and W. Newburry. 2015. Stakeholder tracking and analysis: The RepTrakTM® system for measuring corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 18 (1): 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., and M. Shanley. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33 (2): 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., and C. van Riel. 1997. The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review 1–16.

  • Fombrun, C.J., N.A. Gardberg, and J.M. Sever. 2000. The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management 7 (4): 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, B., F. Dfidanoski, K. Simeonovski, V. Mateska, and A. Zlantanoska. 2015. ’Strategic planning in entrepreneurial companies: International experiences. In Handbook of research on global competitive advantage through innovation and entrepreneurship, ed. R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, G. Jones, L. Farinha, J. Ferreira, H. Lawton-Smith, and S. Bagchi-Sen. Pennsylvania: IGI Hershey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotsi, M., and A.M. Wilson. 2001. Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6 (1): 24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., J.A. Dearden, and G.L. Llilien. 2008. The university rankings game. The American Statistician 62 (3): 232–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson, and R.L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE. 2012. About Higher Education in England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/about/intro/abouthighereducationinengland/. Accessed 0 Aug 2014.

  • Helm, S. 2005. Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 8 (2): 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsley-Brown, J., T.C. Melewar, B. Nguyen, and E.J. Wilson. 2016. Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education: A special section. Journal of Business Research 69 (8): 3019–3022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsley-Brown, J., and I. Oplatka. 2015. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivy, J. 2001. Higher education institution image: Acorrespondence analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management 15 (6): 276–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, N.Y., and Y.-K. Seock. 2016. The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and purchase intention. Fashion and Textiles 3 (1): 20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando, A., P. Zorrilla, and J. Forcada. 2018. A review of higher education image and reputation literature: Knowledge gaps and a research agenda. European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (1): 8–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, J., and S.L. Wartick. 2012. Corporate social performance profiling: Using multiple stakeholder perceptions to assess a corporate reputation. Journal of Public Affairs 12 (1): 12–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E.W., H. Alves, and M. Raposo. 2012. A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision 50 (10): 1861–1879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. 2014. University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education 49 (1): 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marić, I. 2013. Stakeholder analisys of higher education institutions. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 11 (2): 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melewar, T., and E. Jenkins. 2002. Defining the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review 5 (1): 76–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melewar, T.C., and A. Sibel. 2005. The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10 (1): 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, H., S. Magennis, and L. Carey. 1995. Performance indicators and league tables: A call for standards. Higher Education Quarterly 49 (2): 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S.J., and R.E. Goldsmith. 2001. The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research 52 (3): 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Padlee, S.F., A.R. Kamaruddin, and R. Baharun. 2010. International students’ choice behavior for higher education at Malaysian private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies 2 (2): 202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patlán Pérez, J., and E. Martínez Torres. 2017. Evaluation of the organizational image of a university in a higher education institution. Contaduría y Administración 62 (1): 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plewa, C., J. Ho, J. Conduit, and I.O. Karpen. 2016. Reputation in higher education: A fuzzy set analysis of resource configurations. Journal of Business Research 69 (8): 3087–3095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponzi, L.J., C.J. Fombrun, and N.A. Gardberg. 2011. RepTrakTM Pulse: Conceptualizing and validating a short-form measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 14 (1): 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pucciarelli, F., and A. Kaplan. 2016. Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons 59 (3): 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschnabel, P., N. Krey, B.J. Babin, and B.S. Ivens. 2016. Brand management in higher education: The University Brand Personality Scale. Journal of Business Research 69 (8): 3077–3086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reputation Institute. 2017. About RepTrak™: The gold standard for reputation measurement. https://www.reputationinstitute.com/RepTrak™-framework.aspx. Accessed 07 March 2017.

  • Sánchez-Torné, I., J.C. Morán-Álvarez, and J.A. Pérez-López. 2020. The importance of corporate social responsibility in achieving high corporate reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27 (6): 2692–2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J.C., and R.K. Toutkoushian. 2011. ’The past, present, and future of university rankings, 1–16. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suomi, K. 2015. Managing brand identity and reputation-A case study from Finnish higher education. Turku: Turku School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B.G., and L.S. Fidell. 2007. Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Times Higher Education. 2012. Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.

  • Times Higher Education. 2015. 7 key challenges for UK higher education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/7-key-challenges-uk-higher-education. Accessed 26 Feb 2017.

  • Times Higher Education. 2020. Young University Rankings 2018. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/young-university-rankings#!/page/0/length/25/name/plymouth/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats. Accessed 25 June 2020.

  • Treadwell, D.F., and T.M. Harrison. 1994. Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image: Model images, commitment, and communication. Communications Monographs 61 (1): 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Universities UK. 2016. Key issues for universities resulting from the vote to leave the EU. Available at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2016/uuk-parliamentary-briefing-4-July-2016.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2017.

  • University of Plymouth. 2020. University of Plymouth Facts and Figures. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/about-us/facts-and-figures. Accessed 25 June 2020.

  • Usher, A., and M. Savino, M. 2006. A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League Tables. Canadian Education Report Series. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499882.pdf. Accessed 07 July 2014.

  • Van Riel, C.B., and C.J. Fombrun. 2007. Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation management. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verčič, A.T., D. Verčič, and K. Žnidar. 2016. Exploring academic reputation–is it a multidimensional construct? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 21 (2): 160–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidaver-Cohen, D. 2007. Reputation beyond the rankings: A conceptual framework for business school research. Corporate Reputation Review 10 (4): 278–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. 2010. A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review 12 (4): 357–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. 2015. Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., M. Jegers, and L. Faulk. 2016. Organizational effectiveness reputation in the nonprofit sector. Public Performance & Management Review 39 (2): 454–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S.-U., S.W. Alessandri, and D.F. Kinsey. 2008. An integrative analysis of reputation and relational quality: A study of university-student relationships. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 18 (2): 145–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Nigel Jackson & Dr Steve Butts for their support during the research process, and also to Professor Richard Saundry for his guidance in composing the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Plymouth, 338 Cookworthy Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL46PU, UK

    Katie Angliss

Authors
  1. Katie Angliss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Angliss.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Sample overview: Stakeholder Groups

Appendix 1: Sample overview: Stakeholder Groups

  

Frequency

Stakeholder group

Student (undergraduate)

112

Student (postgraduate/research)

63

Prospective student

5

Staff (academic/research)

38

Staff (non-academic)

38

Staff (governor/trustee)

5

Local business

14

National business

27

University partner

24

Parent/guardian/relative/friend

126

Other university/college/school

6

Community member

40

Other (did not specify)

20

Alumni

57

Student body (unions—SU/NUS)

5

Government (local)

5

Government (national)

9

Total

594

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Angliss, K. An Alternative Approach to Measuring University Reputation. Corp Reputation Rev 25, 33–49 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-021-00110-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-021-00110-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation