Stratified University Strategies: The Shaping of Institutional Legitimacy in a Global Perspective

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.18 month embargo; published online: 13 Sep 2018This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Global rankings at a local cost? The strategic pursuit of status and the third mission

This study examined how hierarchical positions within the global field of higher education influence the selection of strategic priorities by universities in different parts of the world. The study particularly focused on universities' commitment to third missions as reflected in their strategic plans and compared to their global rankings. The findings demonstrate that top globally ranked institutions are generally less explicit about their commitment to the third mission relating to their geographic setting compared to mid/low and unranked institutions. Meanwhile, unranked institutions most consistently exhibit strategies in contributing to the local economy, recognising their local challenges and environment, and working for the benefit of their local community. This study informs debates on the intention and extent of the public good and missions of universities in light of the increasing dependence on ranking schemes.18 month embargo; published online: 30 March 2020This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]