Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What We Stand For: Reputation Platforms in Scandinavian Higher Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Universities as Agencies

Part of the book series: Public Sector Organizations ((PSO))

Abstract

This chapter examines the prevalence and contents of core value statements used by Scandinavian higher education institutions as a platform for their reputation management initiatives. The findings suggest that core value statements are not a universal phenomenon, although their presence suggests some degree of institutionalization. Analyzing the core value statements of 36 universities and university colleges, the study finds that these institutions seek to be known for unique, but quite generic and abstract values. Overall, Scandinavian universities and university colleges rely only modestly on traditional higher education values. The contents of their values predominantly implicate technical/professional and moral reputations, with some variation associated with country of origin, international ranking score, and whether the institution is a university, university college, or professional college.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All analyzed values are translated into English by the authors.

  2. 2.

    According to the 2018 Times Higher Education World University Rankings , Lund University is ranked 86th in the world, the University of Oslo is ranked 146th, and Copenhagen University is ranked 109th.

  3. 3.

    The relationship is not statistically significant. Cramer’s V = 0.25 (p > 0.05).

  4. 4.

    Cramer’s V = 0.23 (p > 0.05).

  5. 5.

    The sixth category, highly ranked professional colleges and university colleges, is not included in the plot because the two institutions (Karolinska Institute and KTH Royal Institute of Technology) in this category do not have a core value statement.

References

  • Aberbach, J., & Christensen, T. (2007). Putting Customers First. The Challenges of Modernizing Tax Administration. Public Policy and Administration, 22(2), 155–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational Identity. In Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antorini, Y. M., & Schultz, M. (2005). Corporate Branding and the Conformity Trap. In M. Schultz, Y. M. Antorini, & F. F. Csaba (Eds.), Corporate Branding. Purpose/People/Processes (pp. 57–78). København: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argenti, P. A., & Forman, J. (2002). The Power of Corporate Communication (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aula, H.-M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming “World-Class”? Reputation-Building in a University Merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate Marketing. Seeing Through the Fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M., & Kogan, M. (2006). Higher Education Policies: Historical Overview. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming Higher Education: A Comparative Study. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleikie, I., Høstaker, R., & Vabø, A. (2000). Policy and Practice in Higher Education. Reforming Norwegian Universities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Lægreid, P., & Wik, M. H. (2003). Changing Government Control in Norway: High Civil Service, Universities and Prisons (Working Paper 2-2003). Bergen: Stein Rokkan, Centre for Social Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomgren, M., Hedmo, T., & Waks, C. (2016). Being Special in an Ordinary Way: Swedish Hospitals’ Strategic Web Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. (2009). Getting on the Front Page: Organizational Reputation, Status Signals, and the Impact of U.S. News and World Report on Student Decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational Identity Orientation, Forging a Link Between Organizational Identity and Organizations’ Relations with Stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Gornitzka, Å. (2017). Reputation Management in Complex Environments—A Comparative Study of University Organizations. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate Communications. Convention, Complexity, and Critique. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To Be Different, Or to Be the Same? It’s a Question (and Theory) of Strategic Balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy—Social Values and Organizational Behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (2006). Introduction. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ek, A.-C., Ideland, M., Jönsson, S., & Malmberg, C. (2013). The Tension Between Marketisation and Academisation in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1305–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., & Weyer, E. (2013). Regulatory Autonomy and Performance: The Reform of Higher Education Re-Visited. Higher Education, 65(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzosi, R. (Ed.). (2008). Content Analysis: Objective, Systematic, and Qualitative Description of Content. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence Analysis in Practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, A. (2010). “Through the Looking Glass”: The Promotional University 2.0. In M. Aronczyk & D. Powers (Eds.), Blowing Up the Brand: Critical Perspectives on Promotional Culture. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, D. (2007). Emotionomics. Winning Hearts and Minds. Edina, MN: Adams Business & Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, M. (2009). Mapping the Terrain of Public Service Quality Improvement: Twenty-Five Years of Trends and Practices in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(3), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. (2002). Heartstorm. Viby: JPBøger/Jyllands-Postens Erhvervsbogklub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term (4th ed.). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1999). Brand Mantras: Rationale, Criteria and Examples. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the Relationship Between Reputation and Legitimacy: A Social Actor Conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3), 192–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmützky, A. (2012). Between Mission and Market Position: Empirical Findings on Mission Statements of German Higher Education Institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and Organization—World Society and Organizational Change (pp. 258–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2010). Organizational Reputation: A Review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lencioni, P. M. (2002). Make Your Values Mean Something. Harvard Business Review, 80(7), 113–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G., & Hetrick, S. (2006). Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management: A Strategic Approach to HR. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission Statements: A Thematic Analysis of Rhetoric Across Institutional Type. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (2007). The Institutional Dynamics of the European University. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecth: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg, L. E., & Perry, J. L. (2007). Values Management. Aligning Employee Values and Organization Goals. American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Peters, G. (2011). Tradition and Public Administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamment, J. (2011). The Limits of the New Public Diplomacy: Strategic Communication and Evaluation at the U.S. State Department. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, British Council, Swedish Foreign Ministry and Swedish Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., & Thoenig, J.-C. (2013). Academic Institutions in Search of Quality: Local Orders and Global Standards. Organization Studies, 34(2), 189–2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations-II. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-Status Conformity: Theoretical Restatement and Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, R. (2004). Humboldtian Values in a Changing World: Staff and Students in German Universities. Oxford Review of Education, 30(45), 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, F. O., & Christensen, T. (2013). The Formalization of the University: Rules, Roots, and Routes. Higher Education, 65(6), 695–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sataøen, H. L. (2015). Higher Education as Object for Corporate and Nation Branding: Between Equality and Flagships. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 702–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riel, C. B. M. (2000). Corporate Communication Orchestrated by a Sustainable Corporate Story. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), The Expressive Organization. Linking Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. (2007). Essentials of Corporate Communication. Implementing Practices for Effective Reputation Management. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wæraas, A. (2010). Endowing Organizations with a Charismatic Personality. The Strategy of Charismatic Legitimation. In M. Eisenegger & S. Wehmeier (Eds.), Personalisierung der Organisationskommunikation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæraas, A. (2014). Beauty from Within? What Bureaucracies Stand For. American Review of Public Administration, 44(6), 675–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wæraas, A. (2018). Putting on the Velvet Glove. The Paradox of ‘Soft’ Core Values in ‘Hard’ Organizations. Administration & Society, 50(1), 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wæraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2009). Defining the Essence of a University: Lessons from Higher Education Branding. Higher Education, 57(4), 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wæraas, A., & Sataøen, H. L. (2015). Being All Things to All Customers: Building Reputation in an Institutionalized Field. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 310–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2d ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economic and Business, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway

    Arild Wæraas

  2. School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Hogne Lerøy Sataøen

Authors
  1. Arild Wæraas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hogne Lerøy Sataøen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arild Wæraas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tom Christensen

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Åse Gornitzka

  3. Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford, California, USA

    Francisco O. Ramirez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wæraas, A., Sataøen, H.L. (2019). What We Stand For: Reputation Platforms in Scandinavian Higher Education. In: Christensen, T., Gornitzka, Å., Ramirez, F. (eds) Universities as Agencies. Public Sector Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92713-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation