Brand Communication in Flemish Higher Education: A Comparison Between Types of Institutions

  • Jelle Mampaey


This chapter investigates similarities and differences in brand communication between different types of higher education institutions (HEIs) in Flanders. Earlier research on HEIs branding have consistently focused on branding content, but this chapter provides a more holistic analysis by examining content-and style-related processes underlying brand communication. Theoretically, it approaches branding content by drawing from earlier research on communicated values in higher education. Branding style is conceptualized based on Searle’s Speech Act Theory. Empirically, it focuses on the mission statements of 20 Flemish HEIs. The study identifies similarities in branding content and style, as well as some subtle differences. Then it discusses its findings in light of recent debates in the higher education branding literature.


Brand communication Binary system Flemish higher education Convergence Subtle differentiation 


  1. Alvesson, M. (1990). Organization: from substance to image? Organization Studies, 11(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 23–32.Google Scholar
  5. Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 169–183.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, S. W., & Glaister, K. W. (1996). Spurs to higher things? Mission statements of UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 50(4), 261–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartley, M., & Morphew, C. C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end?: A content analysis of college viewbooks. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harwood, J. (2010). Understanding academic drift: On the institutional dynamics of higher technical and professional education. Minerva, 48(4), 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2016). The style it takes: How do UK universities communicate their identity through welcome addresses? Higher Education Research & Development, 35(3), 502–515.Google Scholar
  12. Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and difference: Analyzing institutional and organizational specificities of universities through mission statements. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Mampaey, J., & Huisman, J. (2016). Branding of UK higher education institutions: An integrated perspective on the content and style of welcome addresses. Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, 47(1), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mampaey, J., Huisman, J., & Seeber, M. (2015). Branding of Flemish higher education institutions: A strategic balance perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1178–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(4), 163–175.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. (Eds.). (2010). The marketisation of higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naidoo, R., Gosling, J., Bolden, R., O’Brien, A., & Hawkins, B. (2014). Leadership and branding in business schools: A Bourdieusian analysis. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pippert, T. D., Essenburg, L. J., & Matchett, E. J. (2013). We’ve got minorities, yes we do: Visual representations of racial and ethnic diversity in college recruitment materials. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(2), 258–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wæraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher education branding. Higher education, 57(4), 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis. International Review of Education, 49(3–4), 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oakes: Sage publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelle Mampaey
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.MST—Management, Science and TechnologyOpen UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CHEGG—Centre for Higher Education Governance GhentGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations