Student Evaluation of University Image Attractiveness and Its Impact on Student Attachment to International Branch Campuses

Abstract

In many countries and regions around the world international students now weigh up the potential advantages and disadvantages of undertaking their higher education at an international branch campus rather than at a home campus located in a traditional destination such as the United States or United Kingdom. The aim of the research is to identify the criteria used by prospective students to evaluate the images they hold of international branch campuses and to investigate the impact of these assessments on students’ attachment to institutions. The study involved 407 students studying at nine international schools in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It was found that information and opinions gained through personal relationships and the media explained over half of the variability in the attachment/membership intentions of prospective students. It was also discovered that students evaluate international branch campuses using information related to both the local branch and the home campus. The implications of the findings for international branch campuses are discussed.

Keywords

student choice decision making organizational image international branch campuses

Introduction

As the benefits of possessing a positive corporate image have become more widely recognized, marketing practitioners in all types of organizations have paid more attention to this construct. The term “corporate image” refers to a person’s overall impression of an organization. Research has found that organizations with a favorable corporate image are more likely to benefit from consumer-organization identification (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), positive product evaluations (Brown & Dacin, 1997), increased sales (Barich & Kotler, 1991), increased customer loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998), and increased customer extra-role behaviors, such as positive word of mouth (Hong & Yang, 2009).

Like any other type of organization, higher education institutions are now increasingly interested in developing and maintaining a positive image in order to influence potential students’ choice of institution. A favorable image can also help universities attract the best faculty and more resources, including research funding and alumni donations (Alves & Raposo, 2010; Treadwell & Harrison, 1994). Previous research has investigated the university image-formation process of students and the influence of university image on student behavior (e.g., Alves & Raposo, 2010; Arpan, Rany, & Zivnuska, 2003; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007; Kazoleas, Kim, & Moffitt, 2001; Palacio, Meneses, & Pérez, 2002; Pampaloni, 2010; Sung & Yang, 2008), but fewer researchers have specifically examined the criteria used by students to evaluate image attractiveness.

Corporate image is one of the major elements of the corporate marketing mix (Balmer & Greyser, 2006), but it is also to some extent the product of the elements in the mix. Program features and characteristics, entry requirements, level of tuition fees, and campus location can all influence the overall images constructed by stakeholders. In order to design a specific organizational identity, university managers need to know how their institutions are perceived by external stakeholders—or rather how the signs that represent their institutions are received and transformed into corporate images—and the criteria used to evaluate image attractiveness.

The student-choice literature is mature and many researchers have investigated the decision making of international students (e.g., Abubakar, Shanka, & Muuka, 2010; Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003; Bodycott, 2009; Gatfield & Chen, 2006; Li & Bray, 2007; Maringe & Carter, 2007; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; McMahon, 1992; Pampaloni, 2010; Pimpa, 2005; Shanka, Quintal, & Taylor, 2005; Wilkins & Huisman, 2011). There is consensus in the literature that international students are often motivated by institutional rankings and their perceptions of academic quality and prestige when choosing the institutions to which they will apply.

Recently, Wilkins, Balakrishnan, and Huisman (2012) investigated student motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus. They proposed a push–pull model that posits that two distinct sets of motivating push and pull factors exist: one that applies to the students who prefer to study at the home campuses of Western universities in the traditional destinations for international students—for example, Australia, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and United States (U.S.)—and one that applies to students who prefer to study at an international branch campus, which is usually located in their home country or in a country relatively close to their home country.

Wilkins, Balakrishnan, and Huisman (2012) found that students who chose to study at international branch campuses were typically motivated by a range of convenience factors (e.g., avoiding the time and hassle of taking international flights, being able to continue in their job and study part-time, being able to continue living with family, not having to find new friends abroad, avoiding language difficulties). Students also took into account a range of attractions specific to the host country, which was the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in this research (e.g., safer country in which to live, pleasant country in which to live/study, more familiar/comfortable culture/lifestyle, easier to find job in UAE/Arab Gulf States after I graduate).

The aim of this research is to identify the criteria used by prospective international students to evaluate the images they hold of international branch campuses and to investigate the impact of these assessments on students’ attachment to institutions. We wanted to discover the extent to which favorable evaluations of university images are associated with respondents wanting to be a member (student) at those institutions and the extent to which specific determinants of image explain a student’s choice of institution.

In the following section, we present a literature review on corporate image, before considering university image in particular. Then, we present our method, which is followed by the results. Finally, we provide a summary of the key findings and discuss the implications for higher education institutions, particularly those that own and operate international branch campuses.

Corporate Image

Corporate image is only one of several concepts associated with stakeholder perceptions of organizations; others include corporate associations (Brown & Dacin, 1997), corporate identity (Balmer, 2001), and corporate reputation (Van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). Researchers in the organizational studies field originally conceptualized image as the organizational members’ perceptions of their organization’s identity (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Brown, Dacin, Pratt, and Whetton (2006) distinguish between what members within an organization believe external stakeholders think about the organization (construed associations/image) and what the stakeholders actually think (corporate associations/reputation).

Researchers in the marketing field generally use the term “image” to refer to the actual perceptions of external stakeholders to an organization (Brown et al., 2006), and this is also the perspective we take in this article. Karaosmanoglu and Melewar (2006), define corporate image as, “the set of meanings by which an object is known and through which people describe, remember, and relate to it. That is, it is the net result of the interaction of a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings, and impressions about an organization at a particular moment in time” (p. 198). The impressions and perceptions (images) formed by external stakeholders often build upon communications constructed by organizations themselves (Christensen & Askgaard, 2001). Corporate reputation is the result of image development and stakeholder perceptions over time (Stuart, 1999), and an organization’s reputation is created when stakeholders hold consistent images and have consistent experiences over time.

To further differentiate image and reputation, Barich and Kotler (1991) state that image refers to a stakeholder’s personal impression of an organization, which is formed immediately on the basis of their knowledge, experiences, emotions, feelings, and beliefs—which is the approach we follow—whereas reputation is based on the aggregated multiple images that are held by its stakeholders over time, usually over several years (Fombrun, 1996). As individuals can be influenced by organizational reputations when constructing organizational images, it is clear that reputation can be both an antecedent and consequence of image formation. Furthermore, reputation is often assessed by stakeholders on the basis of an organization’s ability to meet predetermined criteria (Bick, Jacobson, & Abratt, 2003).

The images of organizations can be measured and interpreted in many different ways (Sung & Yang, 2008). Kennedy (1977) claims that corporate image comprises functional and emotional components. The functional component is related to tangible characteristics, which are easily measured (e.g., product features), while the emotional component is concerned with psychological aspects, such as an individual’s feelings and attitudes toward the organization. The feelings and attitudes result from personal experiences and the processing of multiple sources of information. Corporate image, therefore, is the result of an aggregate process by which an individual compares and contrasts various attributes of an organization (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001). The construction of corporate images is, however, influenced by personal and social factors as well as organizational factors (Williams & Moffitt, 1997). At any one time, individuals, and groups of stakeholders, can hold different images of an organization, since they will each have different experiences, they will focus on different attributes of the organization and will refer to different sources of information. Also, an individual can hold multiple images simultaneously and different images over time, as new information is gained and processed or new experiences encountered.

When consumers purchase services, expensive products or those that will have a longer-term impact on their lives, they are more likely to pay greater attention to corporate image evaluation. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) argue that as consumers aim to satisfy their fundamental needs for self-continuity, self-distinctiveness, and self-enhancement, their evaluation of an organization’s image will depend on the extent to which they perceive the organization’s identity to be similar to their own, the extent to which the organization is distinctive in ways that they value, and the extent to which the organization is regarded as prestigious among stakeholders whose opinions they value. The more attractive an individual perceives an organization’s image, the stronger the person’s identification with the organization will be (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Perhaps, more importantly to organizations, the more attractive an individual perceives an organization’s image, the more likely the individual will engage in supportive behaviors for the organization, such as becoming a customer, remaining loyal to the organization and recommending the organization to others (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

University Image

Until recently, researchers have largely ignored university image as a topic for investigation (Arpan et al., 2003). However, during the last few years, several studies have been conducted that examined various aspects of university image, such as how institutional image is received and negotiated by audiences (Kazoleas et al., 2001); how institutions use marketing for image building and promotion (Çetin, 2003) and to differentiate their images in the market (Ivy, 2001); how institutional image influences college selection (Cubillo, Sánchez, & Cerviño, 2006; Pampaloni, 2010); and the impact of institutional image on student satisfaction (Alves & Raposo, 2010; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007; Palacio et al., 2002), loyalty (Alves & Raposo, 2010; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001), and supportive behaviors more generally (Sung & Yang, 2008).

A number of the issues that affect the images formed of universities are quite distinct from those affecting other types of organizations. For example, the fact that in the past universities were generally perceived as existing for the public good and now they are increasingly seen as profit-driven organizations has led many people to view contemporary institutional objectives and strategies negatively. To some people, the international branch campus is a product of the commodification of higher education, where organizational growth and income generation are put before achieving teaching quality and customer satisfaction (for a discussion, see Wilkins, 2010).

Kazoleas et al. (2001) claim that common perceptions of universities are that they cost too much to run, that they are inefficient, that with rising tuition fees they no longer offer customers value for money, that they do not offer their customers a quality product, and that they poorly serve and interact with local communities. However, there is often a weak relationship between quality and institutional image/reputation, and when choosing an institution, most students would select a prestigious university above a lower ranked institution known for high quality teaching and high customer satisfaction (Marginson, 2006). This fact emphasizes the importance of university image and reputation in the higher education market.

A university cannot easily be conceptualized in a single image because each department, each college, each collection of professors possess their own images. Stakeholders can also hold different and multiple images simultaneously because each stakeholder uses different criteria when assessing an institution (Arpan et al., 2003). To respond to the dynamic environments in which universities find themselves, institutions must improve their communications with all external stakeholders to communicate their desired images as part of a coordinated public relations campaign. A customer focus is required throughout the organization in order to achieve customer satisfaction, for without customer satisfaction the institution cannot benefit from positive word of mouth and might even have its reputation damaged from negative word of mouth. The nature of higher education requires universities to achieve complex goals; for example, students typically expect a “good” university to offer programs that are demanding, challenging, and stimulating but at the same time achievable (Arpan et al., 2003).

In a study conducted by Sung and Yang (2008), university image attractiveness was measured through three variables: university personality (friendly, stable, practical, warm); external prestige (looked upon as a prestigious school in society overall, acquaintances think highly, high rankings, positive media coverage); and university reputation (student care top priority, strong prospects for future growth, well managed, socially responsible, financially sound). Kazoleas et al. (2001) operationalized image from a variety of perspectives including personal (e.g., socioeconomic background), environmental (relative quality, location, financial reasons, entry requirements) and organizational factors (buildings, landscaping, sports facilities, campus size, academic programs, libraries, and technical facilities). They found that each opinion, each attribute, and each piece of knowledge about the institution could be used to construct a separate image of the university, for example, relating to academic programs, quality of education, environmental factors, and sports programs. The subimages related to organizational factors that had the greatest influence on overall institutional image were images of academic programs, campus landscaping, and size of campus. In a survey of current university students, academic factors, athletic factors, and the extent of news coverage of the university were found to be the key predictors of university image (Arpan et al., 2003).

The corporate image management process involves institutions internally agreeing their desired identities, implementing strategies that communicate those identities and then reviewing stakeholders’ perceived images. To achieve image improvement, it is necessary for institution managers to first identify the current gap between desired and perceived images among stakeholders. In order to truly understand its image, a university should survey current students, alumni, employers, and the local community (Alves & Raposo, 2010). To better understand how students construct their perceived images, we need to have insight in the criteria that prospective students use to evaluate institutional images.

Method

The research involved a self-completed questionnaire administered to year 12/13 high school students (corresponding to years 11/12 in the U.S. and Indian education systems) at international schools in the UAE. With 37 international branch campuses at the start of 2012, the UAE hosts more international branch campuses than any other country (Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012), making it the ideal location in which to conduct this research. A pilot study was used to aid item development and to ensure content validity. It was felt that existing scales in the literature could not be adopted without considerable modification because we wanted a scale that was specifically designed to relate to international branch campuses, that is, to the overseas subsidiaries of multinational higher education institutions.

During one week in January 2012, 23 students were interviewed at four international schools in the UAE. Each interview lasted about 20 to 30 min and was audio recorded. The interviewees also completed a draft questionnaire, which had been designed by the authors after a thorough search and analysis of the literature on corporate image, university image and international student choice/decision making (e.g., Arpanet al., 2003; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Chen, 2008; Cubillo et al., 2006; Kazoleas et al., 2001; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Pampaloni, 2010; Sung & Yang, 2008; Vrontis, Thrassou, & Melanthiou, 2007; Williams & Moffitt, 1997). The pilot study did not generate any new items but the interviewees provided some useful feedback for improving several questions that could have been more clearly phrased or which could be made more suitable for the UAE context.

The final questionnaire had 38 questions. Eight items collected basic background data about the students, such as gender, nationality, parent’s occupation (main income earner in family) and subject to be studied at university; 25 items were related to factors that respondents might use to assess the attractiveness of international branch campus images; and five items were related to attachment/membership intentions. Examples of items relating to the evaluation of an institution’s image include: my friends would be impressed if I went here; this is a top university in its home country; this university has a unique campus; this university achieves high positions in rankings; this university gets mainly positive coverage in the media; this university appeals to a specific sort of person; and employers like to recruit this university’s graduates. The five items relating to attachment/membership intentions were: people like me want to attend this university; this university is/will be on my shortlist to attend; I am determined to gain a place at this university; people like me do not go to this university (reverse coded); and I will not apply to this university (reverse coded). Internal reliability of the scale for attachment/membership (the dependent variable) was assessed using Cronbach’s α and the score of .95, far higher than the cutoff point of .70, indicates strong consistency among the items in the scale.

The questions relating to image evaluation and attachment/membership intentions were answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree, for a UAE-based international branch campus of the student’s choice. The questions that provided data for this research were part of a larger questionnaire that was also collecting data for another (related) study. Respondents gave their answers on hard copies of the questionnaire. The respondents were students at international schools in the UAE who were in their final or penultimate year of secondary education. Some of these students will take their undergraduate degree at a university outside the UAE while others will remain in the UAE for their higher education. It is assumed that even students who would prefer to take their undergraduate degree at a university outside the UAE will at least to some extent also consider the international branch campuses in the UAE as part of their decision-making process.

A convenience approach was used to find schools that were willing to participate in the research. Five international schools agreed to distribute our questionnaire to their students during an 8-week period, which started in the second half of March 2012 and ended in the first half of May 2012. None of the schools had participated in the pilot study, so there was no possibility of an individual respondent completing the questionnaire twice. The schools received 796 questionnaires for distribution (including two schools that printed the questionnaires themselves); 466 completed questionnaires were returned, and 384 were deemed usable, resulting in a usable response rate of 48.2%. Most of the unusable questionnaires either had whole sections with no answers or the respondent had clearly not completed the questionnaire conscientiously or with reasonable care.

Results

The nationalities of the respondents were broadly representative of the expatriate population in the UAE: 53.9% were South Asian (mainly Indian and Pakistani); 14.3% European; 13.8% Middle Eastern; 7.3% African; 5.2% North American (United States and Canada); and 5.5% “other.” The sample comprised of 46.9% males and 53.1% females; 51.0% were in their penultimate year of secondary education, 49.0% were in their final year; 39.8%were following the CBSE Indian curriculum, 32.0% were taking the International Baccalaureate, 11.8% were following a U.K. curriculum (mainly A-levels), and 16.4% were following a U.S. curriculum; 82.0% had not yet submitted any higher education applications and 18% had. Of the 70 students that had already applied to specific universities, 25.7% intended to stay in the UAE, while 74.3% hoped to gain places at universities outside the UAE. The most popular destination countries for those planning to leave the UAE were the United Kingdom (34.3% of the students), India (15.7%), the United States (11.4%), and Canada (7.0%).

Exploratory factor analysis using principal components with Varimax rotation was conducted (using SPSS version 19) to determine the underlying components of 25 potential criteria used by prospective students to evaluate the images of international branch campuses. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test produced a value of .895, far higher than the cutoff point of .70, thus indicating that the sample size of 384 was adequate. The Bartlett test of sphericity (p < .001) indicates that the data has a high enough degree of correlation between numerous variables, making it suitable for exploratory factor analysis. Three factors were extracted, which accounted for 70.5% of total variance (Table 1). The smallest factor loading was .49, which is good for a sample size of 384, and the lowest eigenvalue was .93. Jolliffe (1986) claims that eigenvalues as low as .70 can be acceptable. For both the university image attractiveness and attachment/membership intentions variables, items that loaded significantly (above .45) on multiple components were dropped (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010), for example, “Programs have international accreditation” had a loading of .469 in the “Relevant others” component and .484 in the “Prestige” component.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings for Criteria Used by Prospective Students to Evaluate University Images.

	Relevant others	Prestige	Distinctiveness
Relevant others
My teachers recommended the university	.836	—	—
My parents would be proud if I went here	.817	—	—
Students in my school think highly of the university	.746	—	—
My friends would be impressed if I went here	.727	—	—
The university gets mainly positive coverage in the media	.660	—	—
Prestige
The university is a top university in its home country	—	.898	—
The university achieves high positions in rankings	—	.782	—
Employers like to recruit this university’s graduates	—	.486	—
Distinctiveness
The university appeals to a specific sort of person	—	—	.875
The university’s campus has a distinctive atmosphere	—	—	.743
Eigenvalue	5.11	1.01	0.93
Variance (%)	51.12	10.07	9.33
Cumulative variance (%)	51.12	61.19	70.52
Cronbach’s α	.88	.77	.68

The three factors are named “Relevant others,” which is concerned with personal relationships, “Prestige” (based on both home and branch campus features) and “Distinctiveness.” Cronbach’s α was used to test the internal reliability of the factors and the scores ranged from .68 to .88, indicating adequate consistency within each factor. Janssens, Wijnen, De Pelsmacker, and Van Kenhove (2008) claim that values above .60 can be considered a good result, particularly in exploratory research, and because Cronbach’s α is very sensitive to the number of items in a factor they recommend a minimum of three items in a scale. In the case of factors with only two items (like our Distinctiveness factor), α values above .60 are generally acceptable (Iacobucci & Duhachek, 2003).

Explaining 51.1% of total variance, the opinions of relevant others were found to have the strongest influence on student evaluations of institutional images. In the pilot study, students explained their reliance on interpersonal sources, particularly on parents and relatives, first, as a social norm in their cultures (53.9% of respondents were nationals of countries in South Asia and 13.8% of Middle Eastern countries), and, second, due to the absence of reliable and independent data on international branch campuses, that is, data not provided by the institutions themselves. Aspects of the institution’s image related to prestige (such as high positions in rankings and the perceived preferences of employers to recruit the institution’s graduates) were the second greatest influence on students’ evaluations, explaining 10.1% of variance.

Some 39.3% of respondents agreed (by giving scores 5-7) that factors related to prestige influenced their perceptions of an institution (mean score = 4.66, SD = 1.28); 33.1% agreed that they were influenced by information and opinions gained through personal relationships and the media (mean score = 4.19, SD = 1.49); and 29.7% agreed that they were influenced by the distinctiveness of an institution (mean score = 4.52, SD = 1.28). One of the items in the “Distinctiveness” factor was, “the university appeals to a specific sort of person.” The response to this item could have either a positive or negative affect on the attachment/membership intentions of an individual student according to whether or not he/she believed that the “specific sort of person” they perceived was similar to themselves. According to social identity theory, individuals define themselves as members of social groups and categorizations, examples being gender, nationality, religion, socioeconomic background and academic ability. Social identification occurs when an individual perceives him/herself as being similar to others in a group. At organizational level, organizational identification occurs when an individual perceives a sense of belonging and oneness with an organization, its activities and members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Therefore, the more similar a prospective student perceives him/herself to the students of a particular university, the more likely he/she will want to enroll at that university (Dutton et al., 1994).

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the extent to which the model consisting of the relevant others, prestige and distinctiveness factors (Model 1) was able to predict attachment/membership intentions among prospective students and to identify the contribution of each factor in the model. The assumptions associated with conducting multiple regression analysis were confirmed, for example, a linear relationship between the outcome and predictor variables; no multicollinearity (VIF scores ranged from 1.35 to 1.93); no heteroscedasticity among the predictor variables (the graph of *ZRESID [the standardised residuals] and *ZPRED [the standardised predicted values] had an even and random distribution around zero); residuals that are normally distributed and independent (Durbin–Watson = 1.95); and few outliers (14 cases had standardized residuals less than −2 or greater than +2 standard deviations). With a sample size of 384, it would have been reasonable to expect 19 cases (5%) to have standardized residuals outside ±2 standard deviations. ANOVA was used to test whether the model is significantly better at predicting the outcome than using the mean as “best guess.” The F-ratio represents the ratio of improvement in prediction that results from fitting the model relative to the inaccuracy that still exists in the model. The F-ratio of 159.82 (p < .001) indicates that the results are very unlikely to have happened by chance.

Model 1, with relevant others, prestige and distinctiveness as independent variables was able to explain 55.8% of the variability in the attachment/membership intentions of prospective students (R² = .558, p < .001). However, “prestige” and “distinctiveness” were not significant (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analyses.

		B	SE B	β	t	p	R ²
Model 1	Constant	.282	.263	—	1.074	.284	.558
	Relevant others	.897	.057	.752	15.872	.000	—
	Prestige	.055	.064	.040	.860	.390	—
	Distinctiveness	−.097	.055	−.070	−1.755	.080	—
Model 2	Constant	.138	.181	—	.761	.447	.554
	Relevant others	.888	.041	.744	21.780	.000	—

Prestige and distinctiveness were removed from the regression model and a simple regression model with “relevant others” as the only predictor variable was tested (Model 2). This model was able to predict 55.4% of the variability in the attachment/membership intentions of prospective students (R² = .554, p < .001). Model 2 is the more parsimonious model and is therefore preferred over Model 1.

Discussion and Conclusion

Many researchers have examined the role of interpersonal sources on students’ higher education decision making and choices. Some researchers have found that interpersonal sources have less impact on students’ decision making than alternative sources of influence (e.g., Chen, 2008; Maringe, 2006; Moogan, Baron, & Harris, 1999; Pampaloni, 2010; Soutar & Turner, 2002) while others have found that interpersonal sources are very influential (Gatfield & Chen, 2006; Kazoleas et al., 2001; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Shanka et al., 2005; Simões & Soares, 2010; Wilkins & Epps, 2011; Wilkins & Huisman, 2011). Our study is one of the first to examine in a higher education context the criteria used by prospective customers to evaluate the images of overseas subsidiaries of multinational organizations. Given that one third of the respondents in our study said they were influenced by information and opinions gained through personal relationships and the media, and that the influence of “relevant others” explained 55.4% of the variability in the attachment/membership intentions of prospective students, we conclude that it is of paramount importance for international branch campuses to devise and implement strategies to ensure positive perceptions and opinions among all stakeholders (such as parents, employers, and the media) as any of these stakeholders might heavily influence the decision making and choices of prospective students.

Obtaining and analyzing feedback from students on their programs and overall student experiences, in addition to market research that not only assesses the branch campuses’ potential new services but which also monitors the institutional images formed by potential students, are vital components of institutional marketing strategies. An interesting approach is chosen by the University of Wollongong in Dubai, which rewards positive word of mouth by offering its students discounts on their tuition fees if they recommend the institution to others who then enroll on a program at the campus.

Obviously, any higher education institution should pay attention to ensure positive perceptions, but the situation for international branch campuses is arguably more complex and vulnerable than for a “traditional” higher education institution. Three elements of this complexity and vulnerability stand out. First, the international branch campus is a relatively recent phenomenon and as such, these institutions may suffer from the liability of newness and from not having been able to build up favorable reputations, given limited customer experiences over time (Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). As such—admitting that reputations can easily be damaged—not having an established reputation (yet) may work against international branch campuses and make their activities (more) vulnerable to customer criticism and complaints.

Second, constructions of branch campus images may be blurred by students’ perceptions of home campus reputations. The total product offerings of international branch campuses rarely come close to the products of home campuses in terms of breadth of curriculum, quality of academic staff, physical environment, learning resources, and social facilities (Altbach, 2010). It means that branch campuses have to perform the complex task of managing multiple interrelated images simultaneously (see also, Shams & Huisman, 2012). It was found in the pilot study that the reputation and prestige of a university in its home country contributes considerably to the formation of a positive image of the institution’s international branch campus, which benefits well-known institutions such as New York University Abu Dhabi and Paris–Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi. While the reputation and prestige of the home campus can be an important lever, at the same time the downside is obvious: a branch campus not able to live up to the expectations of students (based on the reputation of the home campus) may be under considerable pressure.

Third, students’ heavy reliance on interpersonal sources means that branch campuses cannot yet utilize and benefit fully from all elements of the marketing mix. In many countries with developed higher education systems, government agencies publish reports of institutional quality audits and in many cases also league tables. Surveys such as the National Student Survey in the United Kingdom and the Australian Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) might be considered by prospective students when constructing institutional images. Increasingly, governments are forcing institutions to make publicly available a greater amount of data that is relevant to prospective students and other stakeholders. In the United States, since July 2010, universities have been required to publish information on a government web site about the success of their graduates in finding employment, student completion rates, the average net price of a degree as well as historic data that reveals the annual increases in tuition fees. All of this data has the potential to contribute to the overall images of institutions constructed by prospective students. However, in many of the countries that host international branch campuses, government agencies put into the public domain relatively little data on university quality and performance. If they were to do so, students would be able to rely on a broader set of sources to make their choices and branch campuses themselves would be less dependent on interpersonal sources and on the accuracy of the images constructed by the “relevant others” who influence potential students.

This research is not without limitations; it relied on a relatively small sample obtained using the convenience sampling strategy in a single country. Also, because of the justified focus on a largely under-researched topic (image evaluation and its impact on student choice), the research is not able to identify or explain the full range of factors affecting prospective students’ attachment/membership intentions that are not related to the institution’s corporate image, although the pilot study did identify a number of these factors. For example, several students perceived New York University Abu Dhabi as having a very positive image but these students gave varied reasons for not applying for a place at this university, which included: they did not want to study a liberal arts curriculum; they would not be able to afford the very high tuition fees; or they did not think they would be able to meet the very high entry requirements. Further research on student choice should build models that consider a broader set of factors affecting students in addition to institutional image construction and evaluation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/H01 5337/1).

Author Biographies

Stephen Wilkins is a lecturer in international management learning at Plymouth University, United Kingdom, where he is responsible for co-ordinating the academic support provided for international students in the Business School. He has authored/co-authored many articles on international higher education and was winner of the EAIE Tony Adams Award for Excellence in Research 2011.

Jeroen Huisman is a professor of higher education management and director of the International Centre for Higher Education Management (ICHEM), University of Bath, United Kingdom. He is editor of Higher Education Policy and coeditor of the SRHE Higher Education book series. His research interests are internationalization and Europeanization, governance in higher education, and organizational diversity in higher education.

References

Abubakar

Shanka

Muuka

G. N.

(2010). Tertiary education: An investigation of location selection criteria and preferences by international students—The case of two Australian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20, 49-68.

Altbach

P. G.

(2010). Why branch campuses may be unsustainable. International Higher Education, 58, 2-3.

Alves

Raposo

(2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management, 24, 73-85.

Andreassen

T. W.

Lindestad

(1998). Customer loyalty and complex services: The impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9, 7-23.

Arpan

L. M.

Rany

A. A.

Zivnuska

(2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8, 97-113.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Balmer

J. M. T.

(2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 248-291.

Balmer

J. M. T.

Greyser

S. A.

(2006). Commentary: Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40, 730-741.

Barich

Kotler

(1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32, 94-104.

10.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88.

11.

Bick

Jacobson

M. C.

Abratt

(2003). The corporate identity management process revisited. Journal of Marketing Management, 19, 835-855.

12.

Binsardi

Ekwulugo

(2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21, 318-327.

13.

Bodycott

(2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination. Journal of Research in International Education, 8, 349-373.

14.

Brown

T. J.

Dacin

P. A.

(1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68-84.

15.

Brown

T. J.

Dacin

P. A.

Pratt

M. G.

Whetton

D. A.

(2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 99-106.

16.

Çetin

(2003). Planning and implementing institutional image and promoting academic programs in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 13, 57-75.

17.

Chen

L. H.

(2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18, 1-33.

18.

Christensen

L. T.

Askegaard

(2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited: A semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 292-315.

19.

Cubillo

J. M.

Sánchez

Cerviño

(2006). International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 101-115.

20.

Dutton

J. E.

Dukerich

J. M.

Harquail

C. V.

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

21.

Fombrun

C. J.

(1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

22.

Gatfield

Chen

(2006). Measuring student choice criteria using the theory of planned behaviour: The case of Taiwan, Australia, UK and USA. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 16, 77-95.

23.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E

. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

24.

Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

(1997). Relations between organisational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 356-365.

25.

Helgesen

Nesset

(2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian university college. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 38-59.

26.

Hong

S. Y.

Yang

(2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customer-company identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 381-403.

27.

Iacobucci

Duhachek

(2003). Advancing alpha: Measuring reliability with confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 478-487.

28.

Ivy

(2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 276-282.

29.

Janssens

Wijnen

De Pelsmacker

Van Kenhove

(2008). Marketing research with SPSS. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

30.

Jolliffe

I. T.

(1986). Principal component analysis. New York, NY: Springer.

31.

Karaosmanoglu

Melewar

T. C.

(2006). Corporate communications, identity, and image: A research agenda. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 196-206.

32.

Kazoleas

Kim

Moffitt

M. A.

(2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communications, 6, 205-216.

33.

Kennedy

S. H.

(1977). Nurturing corporate images: Total communication or ego trip? European Journal of Marketing, 11, 120-164.

34.

Lawton

Katsomitros

(2012). International branch campuses: Data and developments. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

35.

Bray

(2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push-pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53, 791-818.

36.

Marginson

(2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52, 1-39.

37.

Maringe

(2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 466-479.

38.

Maringe

Carter

(2007). International students’ motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 459-475.

39.

Mazzarol

Soutar

G. N.

(2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82-90.

40.

McMahon

M. E.

(1992). Higher education in a world market: An historical look at the global context of international study. Higher Education, 24, 465-482.

41.

Moogan

Baron

Harris

(1999). Decision-making behaviour of potential higher education students. Higher Education Quarterly, 53, 211-228.

42.

Nguyen

LeBlanc

(2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 303-311.

43.

Palacio

A. B.

Meneses

G. D.

Pérez

P. J. P.

(2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 486-505.

44.

Pampaloni

A. M.

(2010). The influence of organizational image on college selection: What students seek in institutions of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20, 19-48.

45.

Pimpa

(2005). Marketing Australian universities to Thai students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 137-146.

46.

Shams

Huisman

(2012). Managing offshore branch campuses: An analytical framework for institutional strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 106-127.

47.

Shanka

Quintal

Taylor

(2005). Factors influencing international students’ choice of an education destination—A correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15, 31-46.

48.

Simões

Soares

A. M.

(2010). Applying to higher education: Information sources and choice factors. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 371-389.

49.

Soutar

G. N.

Turner

J. P.

(2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 40-45.

50.

Stuart

(1999). Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4, 200-207.

51.

Sung

Yang

(2008). Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20, 357-376.

52.

Treadwell

D. F.

Harrison

T. M.

(1994). Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image: Model images, commitment and communication. Communication Monographs, 61, 63-85.

53.

Van Riel

C. B. M.

Fombrun

C. J

. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation management. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

54.

Vrontis

Thrassou

Melanthiou

(2007). A contemporary higher education student-choice model for developed countries. Journal of Business Research, 60, 979-989.

55.

Wilkins

(2010). Higher education in the United Arab Emirates: An analysis of the outcomes of significant increases in supply and competition. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 389-400.

56.

Wilkins

Epps

(2011). Student evaluation web sites as potential sources of consumer information in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 410-422.

57.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2011). Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they compete in the global market? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 299-316.

58.

Wilkins

Balakrishnan

M. S.

Huisman

(2012). Student choice in higher education: Motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 413-433.

59.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64, 627-645.

60.

Williams

S. L.

Moffitt

M. A.

(1997). Corporate image as an impression formation process: Prioritizing personal, organizational, and environmental audience factors. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 237-258.