Marketing for Higher Education

7/31/2019 Marketing for Higher Education

1/28


2/28

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to

date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.


3/28

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18(2) 2008

Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1080/08841240802487353 145

WMHE0884-12411540-7144Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 2, October 2008: pp. 137Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

An Integrative Analysis of Reputation

and Relational Quality: A Studyof University-Student RelationshipsYang, Alessandri, and KinseyJournal of Marketing for Higher Education

Sung-Un Yang

Sue Westcott Alessandri

Dennis F. Kinsey

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this research is to explore the link between

reputation and relational quality in the context of student-university

relationships, based on a perceptual analysis of the participants subjec-

tive views (i.e., factor analysis with Q methodology). To this end, the

researchers selected a private university located in the Northeast region of

the United States as the research setting, with students of the university

serving as research participants. The researchers proposed three research

questions regarding the link between student-university relational quality

and university reputation. The findings of this research indicate that

the concepts of relational quality and reputation can be variantly inter-

twined on the basis of individual stakeholders subjective views of their

experience, interactions, and information, rather than intertwined in a

linear way.

Sung-Un Yang, PhD, Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse Schoolof Public Communications, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Sue Westcott Alessandri, PhD, Department of Communication and Journalism,Suffolk University, Boston, MA.

Dennis F. Kinsey, PhD, Department of Public Relations, S.I. NewhouseSchool of Public Communications, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Address correspondence to: Sue Westcott Alessandri, Department of Communi-cation and Journalism, Suffolk University, 41 Temple Street, Boston, MA 02114(E-mail: [email protected]).


4/28

146 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

KEYWORDS. University reputation, student-university relationships,

higher education, Q methodology

In todays increasingly competitive educational marketplace, colleges

and universities have begun to embrace the marketing mind-set of corpo-

rate America. As Litten (1980) writes, however, Marketing is more than

mere institutional presentation and the generation of information. It is

also the development and delivery of educational and auxiliary services

for which there is desire or need (p. 43). In an educational context, these

services attract students, who form a relationship with the university.

Over time, the hope is that these relationships will ensure a positive repu-

tation in the educational marketplace.An organizations reputation is built on the foundation of its identity,

but the more proximal beginning of a positive reputation is likely the

organizations image (Alessandri, 2001). An organizations image is gen-

erally agreed on in the literature as the perception of the organization

(Abratt, 1989; Gray & Balmer, 1998; Gregory & Wiechmann, 1999; Hawn,

1998). Treadwell and Harrison (1994) explore the image of a university

among its faculty, staff, and students, and the authors recognize that the

universitys image is likely to differ among groups, since images are

thought to be related to members and non-members affective and behav-

ioral responses to the organization (p. 64).

Yet while image is an important factor, the universitys reputation is

more enduring, since it represents repeated impressions of the organiza-

tions image, whether positive or negative (Gray & Balmer, 1997, 1998;

Markwick & Fill, 1997). Although the Carnegie Corporation wrote about

the invisible thread of a universitys reputation as early as 19661

(as cited in Cook & Zallocco, 1983), there is relatively little literature

exploring university reputation, and none that explores the construct ofreputation in the context of how students view both the reputation of

and their own relationship withthe university they attend.

In this study, we use Q methodology to explore students perceptions

of their relationship with the university and their perceptions of the repu-

tation of the university. We then use correlational analysis to further

explore the relationship between the two constructs of student-university

relationships and university reputation.

In the next section, we present the relevant literature on university rep-

utation and student-university relationships. In the following section, weelaborate on how different methods of analysis were used to explore the


5/28

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey 147

research question. In reporting our results, we focus on a summary of key

findings as well as the limitations and implications of the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

University Reputation

Defining University Reputation

While organizational reputation is typically studied from a management

or marketing perspectivewith the exception of Nguyen and LeBlanc

(2001) and Theus (1993)the body of literature focused on corporate

reputation can also be useful in conceptualizing university reputation.

Depending on the perspective, the concept of organizational reputation

has been defined, in general, as (a) assessments that multiple stakeholders

make about the companys ability to fulfill its expectations (Fombrun &

Van Riel, 2003), (b) a collective system of subjective beliefs among

members of a social group (Bromley, 1993, 2000, 2002), (c) collective

beliefs that exist in the organizational field about a firms identity and

prominence (Rao, 1994; Rindova & Kotha, 2001), (d) media visibility

and favorability gained by a firm (Deephouse, 2000), and (e) collectiverepresentations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organiza-

tion over time (J. Grunig & Hung, 2002; Yang & Grunig, 2005).

The intersection between such definitions is that the reputation of an orga-

nization refers to perceptions of the organization shared by its multiple

constituents over time.

On the basis of such an intersection of definitions of organizational and

corporate reputation, a universitys reputation can be defined as collective

representations that the universitys multiple constituentsvarious inter-

nal and external constituents, including the mediahold of the universityover time.

Different University Reputations for Different Types of Publics

Theus (1993) writes that a universitys reputation nearly always hinges

on quality, but that quality relates to a number of different characteristics

depending on the characteristics importance to a specific public. For

example, Kazoleas, Kim, and Moffitt (2001) found that there are seven

components of university image, three of which are quality of education,financial reasons, and sports programs. According to Theus (1993),


6/28


the importance of any one of these dimensions would depend on the

subject being studied. Additionally, Kealy and Rockel (1987) studied

Colgate University students perceptions of the schools quality on four

dimensionsacademic reputation, social atmosphere, location of campus,and athletic qualityand found that students displaying particular charac-

teristics were predisposed toward specific dimensions of quality; that is,

those with athletic ability were more likely to have a higher perception of

the quality of the universitys athletic program.

This idea that different publics have different expectations for reputa-

tion formation supports the notion of a multiplicity of images put forth

by Leitch and Motion (1999) that states that different publics will form

impressions of an organization that are consistent with their individual

expectations of the organization. The limited research on university repu-tation makes it increasingly clear that there is a rich myriad of factors that

influence a publics perception of reputation, but most important, Cook

and Zallocco (1983) validate the overall idea of a positive university

reputation. In a study of Ohio colleges among college freshmen,2 the

researchers found that an excellent reputation was the most important

characteristic of a university in predicting a students attitude toward a

university.

Based on the previous discussion, the researchers propose the followingresearch question regarding the perception held by students of university

reputation:

RQ1: How do college students perceive the reputation of their uni-

versity? What are some strong factors that segment college students

as a public in perceiving the universitys reputation?

Student-University Relationships

Defining a Public for an Organization-Public Relationship

The termpublic originated from the Latin phrase poplicus or populus,

meaning the people (Price, 1992; cited in Vasquez & Taylor, 2001,

p. 140). J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) defined a public as a group of people

who face a problem, are divided on its solution, and organize to discuss

it (p. 145). People become stakeholders because of interdependence with

an organization. Stakeholders organize intopublics because of problems

they have with an organization or problems they want an organization tosolve (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Publics often


7/28


engage in active communication behavior to solve such problems with an

organization (J. Grunig, 1997; J. Grunig & Repper, 1992).

Students as the Key Public of UniversitiesIn the context of higher education, students are members of the orga-

nizations key public. From the managerial perspective, students are unique

from the publics of ordinary, for-profit organizations since they perform

various roles. For example, students are internal constituents, consumers of

products and services (i.e., education), suppliers of economic resources

(i.e., through their tuition), and potential donors/support base as alumni.

Related to such diverse roles, college students also have various expec-

tations from universities. On the basis of the types and extent of theirrelational quality regarding their expectations, they can be activists

againstor loyal constituents foruniversities. Therefore, the researchers

consider that studying student-university relationships is critical for

quality management of universities; the literature focused on public-

organization relationships is helpful in exploring student-university

relational quality.

Defining an Organization-Public Relationship

OHair, Friedrich, Wiemann, & Wiemann (1995) defined a relation-

ship as the interdependence of two or more people (p. 10). Likewise,

J. Grunig and Hunt (1984), Hon and Grunig (1999), and J. Grunig

and Huang (2000) explained that because ofbehavioral consequences

an organization and its publics engage in and cultivate a relationship.

Therefore, adopting Yang and Grunigs (2005) definition, the

researchers define the student-university relationship as the interde-

pendence of students and the university and the consequences of such

interdependence.

Assessing Student-University Relationship Quality

Organization-public relationship measurement has focused on either the

processes of relationship formation or relationship outcomes. Based

on relational outcomes, Huang (2001) maintained that the four indica-

tors of relational outcomes (trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control

mutuality) occur consistently in the literature of relationships, and

that these four features represent the essence of public-organizationrelationships.


8/28


Hon and Grunig (1999) defined the four dimensions as follows:

1. Trust: the level of confidence that both parties have in each other

and their willingness to open themselves to the other party2. Satisfaction: the extent to which both parties feel favorably about

each other because positive expectations about the relationship are

reinforced

3. Commitment: the extent to which both parties believe and feel that

the relationship is worth spending energy on to maintain and promote

4. Control mutuality: the degree to which parties agree on who has the

rightful power to influence each other (p. 3)

Additionally, Hon and Grunig (1999) introduced two types of public-organization relationships (communal versus exchange relationship).

Initially, Clark and Mills (Clark, 1984; Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills &

Clark, 1982, 1994) distinguished communal and exchange relationships

based on the rules of norms that govern the giving and receiving of ben-

efits and defined each concept:

1. In exchange relationships, benefits are given with the expectation

of receiving a comparable benefit in return or as repayment for abenefit received previously

2. In communal relationships, benefits are given in response to needs

or to demonstrate a general concern for the other person (Clark &

Mills, 1993, p. 684)

The major distinction between communal and exchange3 relationships lies

in the fact that a communal relationship does not create a specific debt or

obligation to return a comparable benefit, as it does in an exchange relation-

ship (Clark & Mills, 1993, p. 684). About the importance of the distinctionof communal and exchange relationships, Mills and Clark (1994) write:

We believe that the distinction between a communal and exchange

relationship is a fundamental one, and that relationships in which

there is a concern for the welfare of the other are different in impor-

tant ways from relationships in which people benefit one another in

order to receive specific benefits in return. (p. 30)

Another distinct feature of a communal relationship4 is in its varying

strength, unlike exchange relationships (Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills &


9/28


Clark, 1994). According to Clark and Mills (1993), The greater the moti-

vation to be responsive to the other persons needs, the stronger the com-

munal relationship (p. 685). They cited examples of such varying strength

of communal relationships: The communal relationship with ones bestfriend is typically stronger than that with ones own friends. The communal

relationship with ones child is typically stronger than that with ones best

friend (p. 685).

From the public-organization relationship perspective, Hon and Grunig

(1999) redefined communal and exchange relationships: (a) in an exchange

relationship, one party gives benefits to the other only because the other

has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future, and

(b) in a communal relationships, both parties provide benefits to the

other because they are concerned for the welfare of the othereven whenthey get nothing in return (pp. 2021). Exchange is the essence of mar-

keting relationships between organizations and customers and the key

concept in marketing theory; however, theorists of relational marketing

also point out that profit organizations need communal relationships with

customers (Hon & Grunig, 1999).

Because publics expect communal relationships (e.g., organizations to

do things for the community for which organizations get little or nothing

in return), organizations can be effective by building communal rela-tionships with strategic publics (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002).

In particular, Hon and Grunig (1999) described the implications of com-

munal relationships for organizational effectiveness:

1. Communal relationships are important if organizations are to be

socially responsible and to add value to society as well as to client

organizations.

2. Communal relationships reduce the likelihood of negative behaviors

from stakeholders such as litigation, regulation, strikes, boycotts,negative publicity, and the like (p. 21).

However, as Clark and Mills (1993) explained, most relationships begin

as exchange relationships and then develop to communal relationships as

they mature. In this regard, L. Grunig and colleagues (2002) said that

while exchange relationships are not bad for organizations, communal

relationships are more strongly associated with organizational effective-

ness than exchange relationships. Likewise, L. Grunig and colleagues

(2002) explained the effects of communal relationships: Nevertheless, a

measure of the degree to which a public perceives that it has a communal


10/28


relationship with an organization is perhaps the purest indicator of the

success of the public relations management function (p. 553).

Based on the discussion, the researchers propose the following

research question regarding relational quality with a university as evalu-ated by college students:

RQ2: How do college students evaluate relational quality with a uni-

versity? What are strong factors that segment the public of college

students in evaluating relational quality with a university reputation?

Integrative Framework between Reputation

and Relationship Quality

The researchers consider that, as in any other organizational context, a

publics type and evaluation of experience and interactions (i.e., relational

quality) influence its perceptions of the organization (i.e., reputation).

Indeed, previous research has pointed out the effects of public-organizational

relational outcomes on organizational reputation. Management scholars

have emphasized the critical role of quality relationships between a cor-

poration and its strategic constituents in achieving a favorable corporate

reputation (e.g., Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Van Riel, 2003; Knox,

Maklan, & Thompson, 2000; Rindova & Kotha, 2001). For example,

Fombrun (1996) emphasized the role of organization-public relationships

as an important antecedent of corporate reputations: To acquire a reputa-

tion that is positive, enduring, and resilient requires managers to invest

heavily in building and maintaining good relationships with their com-

panys constituents (p. 57). For corporate reputation to be maintained

properly, Knox et al. (2000) and Schultz, Mouritsen, and Gabrielsen

(2001) suggested that corporations should manage good long-term rela-

tionships with their strategic constituents.Rindova and Kotha (2001) investigated how strategic actions of new

firms affect corporate reputation building. They found that relational actions

(corporate actions to establish stakeholder-corporation relationships)

influence corporate reputation positively over time. Most recently, Fombrun

and Van Riel (2003) explained that, in terms of corporate citizenship

(p. 118), socially responsible behavior in an organization is the primary

factor in forming a favorable organizational reputation.

In public relations research, L. Grunig and colleauges (2002) suggested:

(a) the quality of relationships affects reputation, (b) quality relationshipsand reputation result more from the behavior of organizations than from


11/28


messages disseminated, and (c) the value of relationships includes the

value of reputation. In terms of crisis management, Coombs (2000) and

Coombs and Holladay (2001) have studied the link between organization-

public relationships and organizational reputation. Coombs (2000) saidthat organizational reputation is damaged by crises, which often resulted

from negative stakeholder-organization relationships.

On the basis of the relevant literature, the researchers consider that

there exists a strong link between student-university relationships and

university reputation. However, because of reciprocal influences between

student and university, the researchers consider here that a correlational

analysis makes more sense than a linear causal effect of relational quality

on reputation.

Applying general principles of reputation formation (Bromley, 1993,2000; Caruana, 1997; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990;

J. Grunig & Hung, 2002), the researchers posit that a universitys reputa-

tion is also related to the perception of a students relationship with the

university, since a university has such a unique public in its students.

Based on the discussion, the researchers propose the following

research question regarding the link between university reputation and

relational quality between a university and its students:

RQ3: How and to what extent is university reputation as per-

ceived by college students related to the relational quality with

the university?

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Given the subjective nature of ones judgment about the reputation of a

university and about ones relationship with a university, we selected a

method appropriate for the study of subjectivity. Stephenson (1953) devel-

oped Q technique and its methodology as a way to investigate situations

steeped in subjectivity rather than facts, e.g., in aesthetic judgment . . .

perceptions of organizational roles . . . perspectives on life (Brown,

1996). Q methodology was the most appropriate research approach for this

study because it offered the best possibility of revealing the subjective

perceptions of participants by enabling them to construct models of theirbeliefs.


12/28


Fundamentally, Q methodology is a rank-ordering procedure. Participants

rank stimulus items (Q sample) to some condition of instructionfor

example, from most agree to most disagree. Once the participants

have sorted the items to reflect their own viewpoint, the data are corre-lated and factor analyzed. People who have sorted the items in a similar

fashion will cluster together on a factor. Each factor represents a point of

view or shared perception of those associated with the factor. For more on

Q methodology see Brown (1980, 1986) and McKeown and Thomas

(1988).

Research Instrument: Q Samples

Two Q samples were developed for this study: a reputation Q sampleand a relationship Q sample. Items for the Q samples were culled from the

reputation and relationship literature. First, to measure university reputa-

tion, the researchers adopted Fombrun and Gardbergs (2000) Reputation

Quotient measurement items. Also, the researchers modified and adopted

items from Arpan, Raney, and Zivnuska (2003) to assess athletic promi-

nence in university reputation. After a pretest, the researchers selected

23 items for the Q sample, representing dimensions of university reputa-

tion including emotional appeal, products and services, financial perfor-

mance, vision and leadership, workplace environment, social responsibility,and athletic prominence.

Second, to assess student-university relational quality, the researchers

adopted Hon and Grunigs (1999) organization-public relationship mea-

surement scale. This scale includes four dimensions of relational outcomes

(trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment) and two types of

relationships (communal and exchange relationships). After a pretest, the

researchers selected 28 items for the Q sample, modified for the context

of university reputation perceived by students.

Participants

The researchers selected a private university located in the Northeast

region of the United States as the research context, and students of the

university as the research participants. Sixty communication students

from four classes were selected to participate in this study. Eighty

percent of the research participants were female students (n = 48)

and 20% were male students (n = 12). Fifty two percent (n = 31) were

undergraduate students and 48% (n = 29) were graduate students. Themean age was 21.39.


13/28


Condition of Instruction

Participants were asked to sort the statements in each Q sample from

most disagree to most agree in the following distributions. One halfof the respondents sorted the reputation Q sample first while the other

sorted the relationship Q sample first to avoid any ordering bias.

Q Sort Distribution for University Reputation

Q Sort Distribution for University Relationship

All Q sorts were administered in person. The 60 Reputation Q sortswere correlated and factor analyzed. The 60 relationship Q sorts were

correlated and factor analyzed. Centroid extraction with varimax rota-

tion was performed through the PCQ3 software program.

RQ 1: Results of University Reputation

Two factors emerged from the correlation and subsequent factor analy-

sis of the 60 reputation Q sorts. One factor (Factor 1) highlighted the

academic aspects of the university studied, while the other (Factor 2)focused on the sports program.

Reputation Factor 1: High Quality Education

Participants associated with Factor 1 believe the university studied

offers high quality education and services and stands behind them (scores

for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):

Most Disagree Most Agree

Value 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3

Frequency 2 3 4 5 4 3 2

Most Disagree Most Agree

Value 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3

Frequency 3 4 4 6 4 4 3

+3 0 16. This university offers high quality education and services.+3 +2 2. This university stands behind its education and services.


14/28


Additionally, Factor 1 participants imply that the university studied is

well positioned for the future. They believe that the university is an inno-

vative university that recognizes and takes advantage of academic oppor-

tunities (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):

Factor 1 participants strong view of the academics at the university

studied does not translate into a belief that the university studied is finan-

cially well managed or is a low-risk investment for donors (scores for

Factors 1 and 2, respectively):

Additionally, Factor 1 respondents do not give the university studied

very good marks for being environmentally friendly or having a good

sports program (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):

Reputation Factor 2: Strong Sports Program

Unlike Factor 1, Factor 2 respondents believe the university studied

has a strong sports program. More than that, the university is defined by

its sports program. This factor believes that the university studied is com-

mitted to athletic excellence, has strong sports programs, and famous

coaches and athletes (scores for Factors 2 and 2, respectively):

Factor 2 respondents strongly reject the idea that the university studied

has excellent leadership or that the university offers education and services

+2 1 9. This university develops innovative education and services.

+2 1 18. This university recognizes and takes advantage of academic opportunities.

3 2 5. This university is well-managed.

3 2 23. This university tends to outperform its competitors financially.

2 0 10. This university looks like a low-risk investment for donors.

2 1 13. This university is an environmentally responsible organization.

2 +2 14. This university has strong sports programs.

1 +3 7. This university is committed to athletic excellence.

1 +3 21. This university has famous coaches and/or athletes.

2 +2 14. This university has strong sports programs.


15/28


that are a good value. Additionally, this factor does not trust the university

much (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):

Positive Consensus Items

Consensus items are statements that are scored the same across factors.

Two positive consensus items are worth mentioning. Respondents from

both factors indicated that they have a good feeling about the universitystudied and believe the university stands behind its education and services

(scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):

RQ 2: Results of Relationship Quality

Overview

Three factors emerged from the correlation and subsequent factor analysis

of the 60 relationship Q sorts. It is noteworthy that the participants sub-

jective views on the relational quality with the university were mostly

represented by the types of relationships (i.e., communal versus exchange

relationships) rather than by the relational outcomes. The first two factors

emerged regarding communal and exchange relational types respectively.

And the final factor was about relational outcome-oriented views such as

competency and power.

Relationship Factor A: Communal Relationship

The perceived relationship between the university studied and the par-

ticipants associated with Factor A is a strong one. The Clark and Mills

(1979, 1993) conception of a communal relationship fits well here. Factor

A participants are positive and happy with their relationship with the univer-

sity studied. Factor A respondents indicated that they are happy with the

university, believe that the university studied is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to them, and are pleased with the relationship the

03 4. This university has excellent leadership.

0 3 22. This university offers education and services that are a good value

for the tuition.

+1 2 15. I trust this university a great deal.

+2 +2 1. I have a good feeling about this university.

+3 +2 2. This university stands behind its education and services.


16/28


university has established with them (scores for Factors A, B, and C,

respectively):

Additionally, Factor A respondents feel that the university studied

treats them fairly and wants to maintain a relationship with them. These

students indicate that there is a long-lasting bond between them and the

university (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):

The negative end of Factor As Q sort (exchange relationship items)

reflects the same positive-relationship view. For example, Factor A rejects

the contention that the university studied succeeds by stepping on or tak-ing advantage of students (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):

Relationship Factor B: Exchange Relationships

Like Factor A respondents, factor B respondents indicate that they, too,are happy with the university studied (please see their scoring of statement

number 4 in the previous section). However, Factor B respondents views

of reciprocity were conditional based on mutual gains. For example,

they feel that they favor the university as long as they can gain from the

university and vice versa.

Such conditional reciprocity, therefore, also includes aspects of an

exchange relationship to some extent. For example, Factor B respondents

believe that the university studied is only interested in a relationship

because it will gain something. The university studied will only compro-mise with students when it knows it will gain something and takes care of

+3 +3 +1 4. I am happy with this university.+3 0 +1 3. I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to

students like me.

+3 0 1 22. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university

has established with students like me.

+2 0 0 2. This university treats students like me fairly and justly.

+2 +1 +2 9. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with students

like me.

+2 +1 1 15. There is a long-lasting bond between this university and students like me.

3 1 1 24. I think that this university succeeds by stepping on students.

3 1 1 18. I feel that this university takes advantage of students who are vulnerable.


17/28


only those students who are likely to reward the university (scores for

Factors A, B, and C, respectively):

Factor B respondents do not believe that the university studied listens

to them or takes student opinions into account when making decisions

(scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):

Relationship Factor C: Outcome-Oriented

Factor C respondents are not overly happy with the university studied anddo not believe other students are happy with the university. These students do

not feel that the university cares about their welfare (scores for Factors

A, B, and C, respectively):

Despite their belief that the university studied does not care about them,

Factor C students acknowledge that the university is competent and powerful

enough to achieve its desired outcomes. Based on such outcome-oriented

expectations from the university, these students also believe that they will

benefit from the relationship (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):

0 +3 +3 23. This university takes care of students who are likely to rewardthe university.

2 +3 +2 17. This university will compromise with students like me when it

knows that it will gain something.

2 +2 +2 5. Whenever this university gives or offers something to students

like me, it generally expects something in return.

0 3 0 19. This university really listens to what students like me have to say.

1 3 +1 20. I believe that this university takes the opinions of students like me

into account when making decisions.

1 3 0 25. The leadership of this university gives students like me enough

say in the decision-making process.

+3 +3 +1 4. I am happy with this university.

+1 0 3 16. Most students like me are happy in their interactions with this university.

+1 0 2 12. This university is very concerned about the welfare of students like me.

+1 +2 +3 28. This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.

+2 +1 +2 9. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship

with students like me.+2 +2 +3 10. Both this university and students like me benefit from the relationship.


18/28


RQ3: Link Between Reputation and Relationship Quality

The reputation Factor 1, High Quality Education, is significantly and

positively correlated with the relationship Factor A, the Communal Rela-tionship Factor (r= .38;p < .01). That is, respondents who view the repu-

tation of the university via the quality of education also perceive the

strongest relationship with the university.

The reputation Factor 2, Strong Sports Program, is significantly and pos-

itively correlated with the relationship Factor C, the Outcome-Oriented

Relationship Factor (r= .30;p < .05). Also, the correlation between the

reputation Factor 2, Strong Sports Program, and the relationship Factor B,

the Exchange Relationship Factor, just misses significance (r= .25;p = .051).

Taken together, those respondents who view the reputation of the univer-sity through the lens of its sports program perceive a different and weaker

relationship with the university than those who base the reputation of the

university on the quality of the education it provides.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research is to explore the link between reputationand relational quality in the context of student-university relationships,

based on a perceptual analysis of the participants subjective views. To this

end, the researchers selected a private university located in the Northeast

region of the United States as the research setting, and students of the

university as the research participants.

Before this research, many previous studies found that relational quality

between an organization and its publics influenced the reputation of the

organization. In other words, as J. Grunig and Hung (2002) pointed out,

favorable reputation is a by-product of quality organization-public rela-tionships. It is reasonable to posit that individual members of a public or

group of stakeholders decide their perceptions on the basis of the types

and the extent of their previous experience and interactions with an orga-

nization (i.e., the history of organization-public relational quality) as well

as on the information they have about the organization. However, despite

the research evidence on the effect of relational quality on reputation, the

researchers raised a question of such a linear link: the effect of relational

quality on reputation.

First, depending on various types and the extent of relationship history,individual members of a public or group of stakeholders can have different


19/28


perceptions of an organizations reputation. Especially, as college students

perform various roles in universities and retain different expectations of

universities, how relational quality affects university reputation might be

variant depending on their subjective views regarding such various rolesand expectations. This was why the researchers used Q methodology to

segment the research participants based on their subjective views on the

concepts of relationships and reputation.

Second, the way in which relational quality affects university reputa-

tion might be reciprocal; in other words, students can decide the quality

of their relationships with their universities based on the universitys

reputation as subjectively perceived by them. This is the reason the

researchers delimited statistical analysis to a correlational analysis

rather than a linear causal analysisto interpret the link between rela-tional quality on reputation from the participants perspectives. The find-

ings of this research are intriguing, and the researchers believe they will

be relevant not only for higher education institutions but also for corpo-

rate environments as well.

Interestingly, college students perception of the university reputation

was dominantly driven by two factors: quality of education and evaluations

of athletic/sports program performance. The researchers did not expect

that sports program would drive students perceptions of the university sodominantly as found in this current research. And this is one of the rea-

sons why the researchers consider that Q methodology will be a very

helpful method to explore organizational reputation perceived by multiple

stakeholders on the basis of their subjective perspectives.

Previous research, for example, Kazoleas and colleagues (2001), found

that the main components of university reputation/image were quality of

education, financial reasons, and sports programs. Although the dim-

ension of financial reasons was not found dominant in this current

research, there were stark similarities between this researchs findings andthe findings of Kazoleas and colleagues research. Additionally, Arpan

and colleagues (2003) also focused on athletic prominence in measuring

university reputation.

As for relational quality, the researchers found that the participants

subjective views on relational quality were mainly driven by three factors:

(a) communal relationship, (b) exchange relationship, and (c) outcome-

oriented relationship. Indeed, as Hon and Grunig (1999) pointed out,

relational quality can be assessed by relational outcomes and the types of

a relationship. And according to Clark and Mills (Clark, 1984; Clark &

Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982, 1994), a relationship can be categorized


20/28


by two dominant types (communal versus exchange relationship). There-

fore, the researchers consider that the three factors extracted in this

research are aligned well with the theoretical assumptions.

More interestingly, the researchers found that the way in which rela-tional quality is associated with reputation is different depending on the

participants subjective views. Some factors between relational quality

and reputation were positively correlated and others were negatively

correlated. This finding implies that, even in corporate environments, the

concepts of relational quality and reputation can be variantly intertwined

on the basis of individual stakeholders subjective views of their experi-

ence, interactions, and information.

More specifically, the participants who viewed relational quality as com-

munal were more likely to focus on academic quality in perceiving thereputation of the university. Second, the participants who viewed relational

quality as either exchange or outcome-oriented (such as the universitys

competence or power) were more likely to focus on performance of sport

programs in perceiving university reputation. Regarding practical applica-

tions, the findings of this study suggest that marketing in higher education

needs to recognize the different orientation of college students with

regard to their perceptions about the universitys reputation (as an internal

public) and student-university relationships.Some groups of students pay attention to the long-term mutual betterment

by student-university relationships; they are more resilient in variation of

the universitys environment. Thus, marketing in higher education should

highlight the substantial development of the university in order to ensure

the quality of education rather than focus on symbolic endeavors to publi-

cize peripheral aspects of the university. Also, this type of student might have

a long-lasting positive perception of the university; once the universitys

positive reputation is achieved, these students are more likely to be loyal

supporters of the university.Other groups of students, according to the findings of this study, have a

tendency to evaluate student-university relationships contingent on the

universitys achieving day-to-day tangible outcomes, especially with regard

to the athletic program, as Kazoleas and colleagues (2001) and Arpan and

colleagues (2003) also found. Therefore, the students are susceptible to

changes in the universitys attainment of outcomes and tend to form a

reputation of the university conditionally and on a short-term basis.

Marketing practitioners in higher education can utilize this finding by

implementing effective promotional activities strategically aligned with

the objectives of those relevant university units.


21/28


Although these are significant findings, the number of research partici-

pants could be deemed a limitation. However, the purpose of this research

was not external validity or generalization of its findings. Rather, the

researchers were interested in exploring the subjective views of the partici-pants regarding how they shared their perceptions about the universitys

reputation and relationships with them, and how those perceptions are

intertwined.

NOTES

1. In 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a classification

system for all U.S.based colleges and universities in an attempt to name and classify allof the various forms of higher education available. While the Carnegie Commission devel-

oped its system simply to further its own research and policy analysis, it advertently pitted

schools against one another by grouping schools according to academic offerings. As a

result, colleges and universities began to look at peer institutions, and schools around

the country became increasingly aware of the need to differentiate themselves from the

competitive pack in order to attract studentsand donors (Melewar & Akel, 2005).

2. The seven universities studied were the state-supported universities in Ohio:

University of Akron, Bowling Green State University, Kent State University, Miami of

Ohio, Ohio University, Cleveland State University, and Ohio State University.

3. Clark and Mills (1993) said that they used the term exchange in accord with the dic-tionary definition of exchange (i.e., giving or taking one thing in return for another); the

term exchange is broadly defined in social psychology as mutually rewarding interaction.

4. Clark and Mills (1993) suggested that there can be one-sided communal relation-

ships. On this point, Clark and Mills stated, At the beginning of our work on communal/

exchange distinction, our focus was on communal relationships that are mutual (Clark &

Mills, 1979). Later (Mills & Clark, 1988), we discussed one-sided communal relationships,

such as the relationship between a parent and an infant or young child (pp. 684685).

REFERENCES

Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process.Journal

of Marketing Management, 5(1), 6376.

Alessandri, S. W. (2001). Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication and theoreti-

cal explanation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 173182.

Arpan, L. M., Raney, A. A., & Zivnuska, A. (2003). A cognitive approach to under-

standing university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

8(2), 97113.

Bromley, D. B. (1993).Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester, UK:

John Wiley & Sons.


22/28


Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image, and reputation.

Corporate Reputation Review, 3(3), 240252.

Bromley, D. B. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League tables, quotients, bench-

marks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 3550.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political

science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Brown, S. R. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In W. D. Berry &

M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.),New tools for social scientists: Advances and applications in

research methods (pp. 5776). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,

6, 561567.

Caruana, A. (1997). Corporate reputation: Concept and measurement.Journal of Product &

Brand Management, 6(2), 109118.

Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 47, 549557.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal

relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1224.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange

relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,

684691.

Cook, R. W. & Zallocco, R. L. (1983). Predicting university preference and atten-

dance: Applied marketing in higher education administration.Research in Higher

Education, 19(2), 197211.

Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective.In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship manage-

ment: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 7394).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations:

A fusion of relational management and symbolic approaches.Journal of Public Relations

Research, 13, 321340.

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass

communication and resource-based theories.Journal of Management, 26, 10911112.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.Fombrun, C. J., & Gardberg, N. (2000). Whos tops in corporate reputation? Corporate

Reputation Review, 3, 1317.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). Whats in a name? Reputation building and corporate

strategy.Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233258.

Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2003). Fame & fortune: How successful companies

build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 2430.

Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: A vital component of strategy

(working paper). Glasgow: University of Strathclyde International Centre for Corpo-rate Identity Studies.


23/28


Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation.

Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695702.

Gregory, J. R., & Wiechmann, J. W. (1999).Marketing corporate image: The company as

your number one product. Chicago: NTC Business Books.

Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges,

and new research. In D. Moss, T. McManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations

research: International perspectives (pp. 547). London: International Thompson Business

Press.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship

indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship

outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (eds.), Public relations as relation-

ship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations

(pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hung, C. F. (2002, March). The effect of relationships on reputation and

reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented at the

PRSA Educators Academy 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Rela-

tions Research Conference, Miami, Florida.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In

J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management

(pp. 117158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002).Excellent public relations and effective

organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hawn, R. (1998, April/May). Image vs. identity. Trends, 14, 2227.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.

Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement

and Evaluation.

Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-

public relationships.Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 6190.

Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffitt, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 205216.

Kealy, M. J. & Rockel, M. L. (1987). Student perceptions of college quality: The influenceof college recruitment policies. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(6), 683703.

Knox, S., Maklan, S., & Thompson, K. E. (2000). Building the unique organization value

proposition. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organi-

zation: Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand(pp. 1151377). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Leitch, S., & Motion, J. (1999). Multiplicity in corporate identity strategy. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 193199.

Litten, L. H. (1980). Marketing higher education: Benefits and risks for the American

academic system. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 4059.

Markwick, N., & Fill, C. (1997). Towards a framework for managing corporate identity.European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 396409.


24/28


McKeown, B. F., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology (Quantitative Applications in the

Social Sciences Series, vol. 66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Melewar, T. C. & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education

sector: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1),

4157.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Communal and exchange relationships. Review of

Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 121144.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1988, July). Communal and exchange relationships: New research

and old controversies. Invited address at the biannual meeting of the International Society

for the Study of Personal Relationships, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies

and research. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal

relationships (pp. 2942). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in

students retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management,

15(6), 303311.

OHair, D., Friedrich, G. W., Wiemann, J. M., & Wiemann, M. O. (1995). Competent

communication. New York: St. Martins press.

Price, V. (1992). Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation,

and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 19851912.

Strategic Management Journal, 15, 2944.

Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001).Accumulating reputation through strategic action flows:

Lessons from Amazon.com and its competitors in Internet retailing. Unpublished manu-script, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: Analyzing a rank-

ing system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 2441.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Theus, K. T. (1993). Academic reputations: The process of formation and decay. Public

Relations Review, 19(3), 277291.

Treadwell, D. F. & Harrison, T. M. (1994, March). Conceptualizing and assessing organi-

zational image: Model images, commitment, and communication. Communication

Monographs, 61(1), 6385.Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on the public. In R. L. Heath

(Ed.),Handbook of public relations (pp. 139154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yang, S. U., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). The effects of organization-public relationships out-

comes on cognitive representations of organizations and overall evaluations of organi-

zational performance.Journal of Communication Management9(4), 305326.

RECEIVED: 01/16/2007

ACCEPTED: 03/26/2008


25/28


APPENDIX A: FACTOR SCORES OF RELATIONAL

QUALITY AND UNIVERSITY REPUTATION

Participant ID Relationship Factors Reputation Factors

A B C I II

1 73 2 31 66 32

2 81 6 15 4 7

3 78 3 5 42 28

4 73 1 18 51 30

5 43 44 15 64 22

6 30 17 42 31 65

7 50 1 61 38 358 85 2 5 75 12

9 44 4 0 65 4

10 47 33 32 56 39

11 81 12 7 64 29

12 65 23 40 69 19

13 71 6 4 63 12

14 80 25 1 57 11

15 41 47 2 51 13

16 4 52 63 16 50

17 4 14 63 6 36

18 7921 6 63 20

19 30 51 67 33 45

20 47 28 45 55 24

21 4 33 64 44 30

22 23 41 54 41 26

23 13 40 28 21 26

24 5 18 58 39 33

25 77 6 27 76 14

26 34 36 61 8 14

27 90 2 7 62 37

28 50 40 26 21 13

29 53 4 24 25 23

30 12 69 15 18 47

31 5 70 47 6 56

32 66 47 2 12 14

33 51 57 22 32 61

34 39 39 3 33 16

35 13 10 55 3 22

36 20 73 5 24 50

37 21 69 21 39 75

38 73 44 5 29 67

(Continued)


26/28


APPENDIX A: (Continued)

Participant ID Relationship Factors Reputation Factors

A B C I II

39 41 57 18 61 52

40 83 6 13 34 21

41 85 19 15 36 66

42 29 40 2 14 60

43 52 23 60 4 65

44 14 29 61 1 70

45 52 11 40 13 78

46 65 44 4 41 30

47 29 64 8 66 5

48 68 10 279 77

49 30 53 16 36 41

50 45 54 31 9 67

51 37 14 51 13 48

52 39 64 4 67 40

53 3 66 39 14 84

54 20 63 0 52 44

55 5 4 32 60 55

56 5 47 31 52 48

57 38 41 44 6 16

58 28 24 65 20 29

59 9 44 1 40 71

60 24 62 24 32 74

Eigenvalues 15 9.2 7.2 10.8 11.6

% variance 25 15 12 18 19

Note: Decimals to two places omitted within matrix.

Loadings exceeding 53 for Reputation and 48 for Relationship are significant ( p < .01).


27/28


APPENDIX B: Q SAMPLE AND FACTOR ARRAYS

FOR RELATIONSHIP QUALITY Q SORTS

Factor

Scores

A B C

0 1 0 1. This university and students like me are attentive to what one another says.

2 0 0 2. This university treats students like me fairly and justly.

3 0 1 3. I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment

to students like me.

3 3 1 4. I am happy with this university.

2 2 2 5. Whenever this university gives or offers something to students

like me, it generally expects something in return.

2 1 2 6. This university does not especially enjoy giving other organizations aid.

1 2 1 7. This university believes the opinions of students like me are legitimate.

1 2 2 8. Whenever this university makes an important decision, I know

it will be concerned about students like me.

2 1 2 9. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship

with students like me.

2 2 3 10. Both this university and students like me benefit from the relationship.

1 1 2 11. Students like me have had a relationship with this university for a long time,

1 0 2 12. This university is very concerned about the welfare of students like me.

2 2 0 13. In dealing with students like me, this university has a tendency

to throw its weight around.

0 0 0 14. This university can be relied on to keep its promises.

2 1 1 15. There is a long-lasting bond between this university and students like me.

1 0 3 16. Most students like me are happy in their interactions with this university.

2 3 2 17. This university will compromise with students like me when it knows that it

will gain something.

3 1 1 18. I feel that this university takes advantage of students who are vulnerable.

0 3 0 19. This university really listens to what students like me have to say.

1 3 1 20. I believe that this university takes the opinions of students like me into

account when making decisions.

3 1 3 21. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with

this university more.

3 0 1 22. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university

has established with students like me.

0 3 3 23. This university takes care of students who are likely to reward

the university.

3 1 1 24. I think that this university succeeds by stepping on students.

1 3 0 25. The leadership of this university gives students like me enough say

in the decision-making process.

0 2 2 26. Most students enjoy dealing with this university.

0

2

3 27. This university helps students like me without expecting anything in return.1 2 3 28. This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.


28/28


APPENDIX C: Q SAMPLE AND FACTOR ARRAYS

FOR REPUTATION Q SORTS

Factor Scores

A B

2 2 1. I have a good feeling about this university.

3 2 2. This university stands behind its education and services.

1 1 3. This university has a strong record of growth.

0 3 4. This university has excellent leadership.

3 2 5. This university is well-managed.

1 0 6. This university supports good causes.

1 3 7. This university is committed to athletic excellence.1 1 8. I admire and respect this university.

2 1 9. This university develops innovative education and services.

2 0 10. This university looks like a low-risk investment for donors.

0 1 11. This university has a clear vision for its future.

1 0 12. This university looks like a good university to work for.

2 1 13. This university is an environmentally responsible organization.

2 2 14. This university has strong sports programs.

1 2 15. I trust this university a great deal.

3 0 16. This university offers high quality education and services.

0 1 17. This university looks like a university with strong prospects

for future growth.2 1 18. This university recognizes and takes advantage of academic

opportunities.

1 0 19. This university looks like a university that would have good

employees.

0 1 20. This university maintains high standards in the way

it treats people.

1 3 21. This university has famous coaches and/or athletes.

0 3 22. This university offers education and services that are a good

value for the tuition.

3 2 23. This university tends to outperform its competitors financially.

Marketing for Higher Education

Documents

Transcript of Marketing for Higher Education