TY - JOUR
T1 - Stratified University Strategies
T2 - The Shaping of Institutional Legitimacy in a Global Perspective
AU - Stensaker, Bjørn
AU - Lee, Jenny J.
AU - Rhoades, Gary
AU - Ghosh, Sowmya
AU - Castiello-Gutiérrez, Santiago
AU - Vance, Hillary
AU - Çalıkoğlu, Alper
AU - Kramer, Vannessa
AU - Liu, Shuiyun
AU - Marei, Mahmoud Sayed
AU - O’Toole, Leslie
AU - Pavlyutkin, Ivan
AU - Peel, Cassandra
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, © 2019 The Ohio State University.
PY - 2019/7/4
Y1 - 2019/7/4
N2 - Globalizing forces have both transformed the higher education sector and made it increasingly homogenous. Growing similarities among universities have been attributed to isomorphic pressures to ensure and/or enhance legitimacy by imitating higher education institutions that are perceived as successful internationally, particularly universities that are highly ranked globally (Cantwell & Kauppinen, 2014; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In this study, we compared the strategic plans of 78 high-ranked, low-ranked, and unranked universities in 33 countries in 9 regions of the world. In analyzing the plans of these 78 universities, the study explored patterns of similarity and difference in universities’ strategic positioning according to Suchman’s (1995) 3 types of legitimacy: cognitive, pragmatic, and moral. We found evidence of stratified university strategies in a global higher education landscape that varied by institutional status. In offering a corrective to neoinstitutional theory, we suggest that patterns of globalization are mediated by status-based differences in aspirational behavior (Riesman, 1958) and “old institutional” forces (Stinchcombe, 1997) that contribute to differently situated universities pursuing new paths in seeking to build external legitimacy.
AB - Globalizing forces have both transformed the higher education sector and made it increasingly homogenous. Growing similarities among universities have been attributed to isomorphic pressures to ensure and/or enhance legitimacy by imitating higher education institutions that are perceived as successful internationally, particularly universities that are highly ranked globally (Cantwell & Kauppinen, 2014; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In this study, we compared the strategic plans of 78 high-ranked, low-ranked, and unranked universities in 33 countries in 9 regions of the world. In analyzing the plans of these 78 universities, the study explored patterns of similarity and difference in universities’ strategic positioning according to Suchman’s (1995) 3 types of legitimacy: cognitive, pragmatic, and moral. We found evidence of stratified university strategies in a global higher education landscape that varied by institutional status. In offering a corrective to neoinstitutional theory, we suggest that patterns of globalization are mediated by status-based differences in aspirational behavior (Riesman, 1958) and “old institutional” forces (Stinchcombe, 1997) that contribute to differently situated universities pursuing new paths in seeking to build external legitimacy.
KW - Strategic plans
KW - global rankings
KW - institutional theory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053477516&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053477516&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00221546.2018.1513306
DO - 10.1080/00221546.2018.1513306
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85053477516
SN - 0022-1546
VL - 90
SP - 539
EP - 562
JO - Journal of Higher Education
JF - Journal of Higher Education
IS - 4
ER -