SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION
description
Transcript of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA
HIGHER EDUCATION
James M. Owston
American Association University Administrators 2008 Assembly
Rebrandings 1996-2005 By percentage
Rank State Percentage Rebranded
1 West Virginia 56.25%
2 Kentucky 49.15%
3 Georgia 42.86%
4 Minnesota 39.29%
5 New Hampshire 32.00%
6 Connecticut 31.71%
7 Montana 28.57%
8 Missouri 28.21%
9 Oregon 25.58%
10 Maryland 25.45%
College-to-University 1996-2005By percentage
Rank State
Percentage of University Rebranded
Schools
1 West Virginia 25.00%
2 Georgia 20.78%
3 Idaho 20.00%
4 Missouri 16.67%
5 Oklahoma 12.82%
6 New Jersey 10.64%
7 Kentucky 10.17%
8 Oregon 9.30%
9 New Hampshire 8.00%
10 Ohio 7.34%
Populations of the study
11 West Virginia Institutions 51 Institutions in and surrounding Appalachia 103 Institutions nationwide (1996-2001) 6 Institutions using a similar brand name -
Allegheny
Method
Mixed method approach Quantitative Qualitative
Historical Naturalistic observation Interviews
Postmodern theoretical perspective Atypical dissertation model
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 1: What factors precipitated the “college-to-university” change?
Reflect current status Define future mission Institutional prestige
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 2: What was the administration’s justification for the university designation?
The offering of graduate degrees The university model of structure The international implications of “College”
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 3: What was the institution’s strategy for the rebranding process?
Strategic planning Instituting a university structure The choice of name
Minor-simple 53% Minor-complex 34% Major 13%
Time commitment – average 22 months
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 4: What procedures did administration use to implement the change?
Kaikati & Kaikati (2003) – 6 strategies Institutional colors and mascots Funding
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 5: What influence did regulatory bodies have upon the change?
Accrediting bodies had little influence Legislature –
Influenced public institutions Compared to other states – limited in scope
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 6: What were reactions of stakeholders to the change?
Numerous stakeholder groups Alumni most vocal stakeholder group Combined stakeholder efforts
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 7: How did senior administrators perceive the success of the change?
139 Points
90Points
72 Points
35 Points32
Points
17Points
Basis of the Success of Change
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Areas
Points
Clarified Identity
Enhanced Reputation
Enrollment & Recruiting
New Programs
International Issues
All others
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 7: How did senior administrators perceive the success of the change?
Koku (1997) found no significance in enrollment trends with strategic name changes
103 “College-to-University” changed institutions – significance, but a negative correlation.
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 8: Did the change produce any indicators of increased prestige?
Carnegie Classification Increase in graduate programs Undergraduate selectivity Tuition – “Chivas Regal” effect
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 9: What suggestions did administrators provide upon revisiting the change?
Have a good reason to change 147 points Have a defendable name that relates to the
institutional mission 141 points Address stakeholder issues 81 points
Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 10: What methods can institutions use to retain ownership of a brand?
Longevity of brand use Excellent academic reputation Succinct mission Identify fallacious arguments from
contenders Protect your brand at all costs
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA
HIGHER EDUCATION
James M. Owston
www.newriver.net