Skip to main content

Coopetition in education: Collaborating in a competitive environment

Abstract

While educational theory has often seen collaboration and competition as incompatible, there is increasing evidence that collaboration persists in educational markets characterized by competition. In this paper, we use the theoretical lens of ‘coopetition’, a relationship between organizations involving competition in some segments and cooperation in others, to study this phenomenon and look at the applicability of this concept to education. A case study approach was used to study collaboration and competition in a network of eleven 6th-form colleges, which teach 16–18-year-old students in England. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with managers in each college. Documentary evidence was collected such as websites, brochures, and publicity materials. Results show that the collaborative network was perceived positively. The concept of coopetition was clearly applicable to this network, with collaboration and competition equally informing college strategies and policies, and many aspects of coopetition theory applying to the network. However, challenges to future collaboration were identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Ainscow, M., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools, 9(3), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. A., & Kottasz, R. (2011). Strategic, competitive and cooperative approaches to internationalisation in European business schools. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11–12), 1087–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 49 (3), 411–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkemeyer, N., Bos, W., Manitius, V., & Müthing, H. (2008). Unterrichtsentwicklung in NetzwerkenKonzeptionen, Befunde, Perspektiven. Muster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, J. (1996). Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation: The game theory strategy that’s changing the game of business. New York: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, C. (1993). Big red keeps rolling. Novell’s next move. Network World, 10(40), 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, R. (2011). Vouchers, responses and the test-taking population. Regression-discontinuity evidence from Florida. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports no 486.

  • Chapman, C., & Allen, T. (2005). Partnerships for improvement: The specialist schools achievement programme. London: The Specialist Schools Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C., Muijs, D. & MacAllister, J. (2012). Collaborative school turnaround: A study of the impact of federation on student outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.

  • Chapman, C., Muijs, D. & Sammons, P. (2010). Federations and student outcomes: A study of the impact of school-to-school collaboration on school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO, April 2010.

  • Clark, D. (2005). Politics, markets and schools: Quasi-experimental evidence on the impact of autonomy and competition from a truly revolutionary UK reform. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • CUREE. (2005). Systematic research review: The impact of networks on pupils, practitioners, organisations and the committees they serve. Nottingham: NCSL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, P. & Padula, P. (2002). Coopetition strategy. A new form of interfirm dynamics for value creation. Paper presented at the European Academy of Management Second Annual Conference—“Innovative Research in Management” Stockholm, 9–11 May 2002.

  • Damore, S. J., Kapustka, K. M., & McDevitt, P. (2011). The urban professional development schools network: Assessing the partnership’s impact on initial teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 46(3), 182–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dronkers, J., & Robert, P. (2008). School choice in the light of the effectiveness differences of various types of public and private schools in 19 OECD countries. Journal of School Choice, 2(3), 260–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erixon Arreman, I., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school market. Education Inquiry, 2(4), 637–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, S. (2009). Strategic interaction among public school districts: Evidence on spatial interdependence in school inputs. Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 440–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, S., Machin, S., & Silva, O. (2008). Choice, competition and pupil achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(4), 912–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, M., Jopling, M., Noden, C., & O’Leary, D. (2005). The existing knowledge base around the impact of networking and collaboration. Nottingham: NCSL Networked Learning Group.

  • Hargreaves, L. (1996). Collaboration: A condition for survival for small rural schools? In D. Bridges & C. Husbands (Eds.), Consorting and collaborating in the education marketplace (pp. 21–38). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A General theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahne, J., O’Brien, J., Brown, A., & Quinn, T. (2001). Leveraging social capital and school improvement: The case of a school network and a comprehensive community initiative in Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 429–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacomba, J. A., Lagos, F., & Neugebauer, T. (2011). Who makes the pie bigger? An experimental study on co-opetition. New Zealand Economic Papers, 45(1–2), 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecocq, X., & Yami, S. (2002). From value chain to value networks: Towards a new strategic model. In S. Lundan (Ed.), Network Knowledge in international business. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mention, A.-L. (2010). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., Chapman, C., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (2011). Networking and collaboration in education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D. & Rumyantseva, N. (2012). Coopetition in education? A case study of collaboration in a competitive environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.

  • Muijs, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking and collaboration between schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2004). Inter-firm collaboration, networks and strategy : An integrated approach (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denier, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3 and 4), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rincke, J. (2005). Competition in the public school sector: Evidence on strategic interaction among US school districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 59(3), 352–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, S. A. (1996). Does cooperation enhance competitiveness? Assessing the impacts of inert-firm collaboration. Research Policy, 25(3), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, F. M., & Bergstrom, F. (2005). School vouchers in practise: Competition will not hurt you. Journal of Public Economics, 89(4), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, Thomas A., & Halpern, Edward S. (1988). Linking auditing and metaevaluation: Enhancing quality in applied research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wende, M. (2007). Internationalisation of higher education in the OECD countries: Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasser, J. D., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in a collaborative zone: Conceptualising collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiborg, S. (2010) Swedish free schools: Do they work? Published by the centre for learning and life chances in knowledge economies and societies at: http://www.llakes.org.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Muijs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muijs, D., Rumyantseva, N. Coopetition in education: Collaborating in a competitive environment. J Educ Change 15, 1–18 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9223-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9223-8

Keywords

  • Networking
  • Collaboration
  • Competition
  • Coopetition