Reputation management by Chinese universities: Primary profile and comparative features

Abstract

In this study, we analyse data from 176 Chinese universities to examine the use of reputation symbols on official websites. We find that Chinese universities prefer professional and performative symbols more than moral symbols. Reputation symbols are mainly observed in teaching, research, history and strategy categories, whereas their use in internal operations and the external environment is limited. A comparison with samples from the United States and Nordic countries indicates that their universities differ in the use of reputation symbols, with relatively high emphasis on professional and moral symbols, respectively. This difference can be attributed to divergent national cultures, higher education regimes and globalization. Here, we discuss the implications of our findings on reputation management by universities in a globalized world.

The impact of corporate social responsibility on the reputation of universities within developing countries: Evidence from Jordan

“…As such, the institutions of higher education of today, such as both private and public universities, have to have awareness of the role played by reputation and the strategies required for goals to be achieved. Nowadays, institutions of higher education are socially embedded to a greater extent than ever before, that is, there has been an increase in the interactions they have with stakeholders within their external contexts (Christensen et al, 2020). Reputation is considered an intangible asset within universities and they can enable them to provide high quality services, improve upon capacities in response to students or customers in a sound manner, enhance the processes of decision‐making and reduce uncertainty and complexity (Del‐Castillo‐Feito et al, 2020).…”

Mecanismos de articulación de las universidades con el estado-regulador, los mercados y la sociedad civil para asegurar la calidad de la educación superior

“…¿Cuál es el costo institucional de la paz estudiantil? Los mecanismos que las universidades consideraban parte del estilo académico de construir reputación institucional, como lo son: reclutar nuevos alumnos, comunicar información, formas de hacer publicidad, participar en ranking académicos y comerciales, mecanismos de rendición de cuenta, apropiación social del conocimiento, emprendimiento e innovación, pierde valor cuando los conflictos estudiantiles se alargan y tienen cobertura mediática (Christensen et al, 2020).…”

The Reputational Dividends of Collaborating with a Highly Reputable Agency: The Case of the FDA and Its Domestic Partner Agencies

“…Recent findings have indeed related the ramifications of reputational concerns to the varying speed at which new drugs are approved (Carpenter 2002); the apportioning of funds to certain areas (Gilad 2012); the degree of an agency’s legal independence (Maor 2007); organizational task prioritization (Gilad 2015); endogenous construction of jurisdiction (Maor 2010); the extent to which regulatory errors are publicly observable (Maor 2011); the pace of regulatory enforcement (Maor and Sulitzeanu-Kenan 2013); a regulatory agency’s policy, regulatory, and scientific outputs (Krause and Douglas 2005; Maor and Sulitzeanu-Kenan 2016; Rimkuté 2018); cooperation outcomes (Busuioc 2016); regulatory enforcement (Etienne 2015; Gilad and Yogev 2012); democratic participation in an agency’s work (Moffitt 2010); accountability relations and behavior (Busuioc and Lodge 2016; 2017; Christensen and Lodge 2018); organizational politics (Blom-Hansen and Finke 2020), strategic communication (Anastasopoulos and Withford 2019; Baekkeskov 2017; Christensen and Lægreid 2015; Christensen et al 2020; Christensen and Lægreid 2020; Gilad, Maor and Bin-Nun Bloom 2015; Grøn and Salomonsen 2019; Maor 2016a; 2020; Maor, Gilad, and Ben-Nun Bloom 2013; Moschella and Pinto 2019; Müller and Braun 2021; Rimkute 2020); and the initiation of procedures against EU member states (Veer 2021).…”