In the Shadow of the Ruins: Globalization and the Rise of Corporate Universities

Abstract

The term ‘corporate university’, which has come into wide use in the last decade, is applied to three kinds of organizations: (1) established, mainstream, non-profit universities adapting to economic and technological pressures by adopting managerial practices of modern for-profit corporations; (2) newly established, highly innovative universities that operate as for-profit corporations, but satisfy the political and legal requirements for university status, and meet the standards of accrediting bodies (e.g. the University of Phoenix); and (3) new educational organizations operating within, and providing education and training services for, for-profit corporate firms (e.g. Marriott University). Organizations of types (2) and (3) provide a different ‘product’ than traditional universities, but nonetheless are subverting traditional academic practices in areas of recruitment and retention, academic standards, pricing, and managerial culture, thus making mainstream institutions corporate universities of type (1). This article offers a framework for understanding corporate universities as ‘shadow institutions’, an analogy with shadow cabinets, or shadow governments-in-exile. The framework draws on three connotations of the word ‘shadow’: corporate universities exist in the shadow of, or are obscured by, mainstream universities; they reflect, or form a shadow image of, these mainstream universities in certain formal respects; and they foreshadow or pre-figure mainstream universities of the future.

References

Allen

(Ed.) (2002) The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, managing and growing a successful program. New York: Amacom.

Aronowitz

(2000) The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the corporate university and creating true higher learning. Boston: Beacon Press.

Authers

(1998) A World of Opportunities: Corporate universities are the newest currency but they may well pose a threat to smaller business schools, Financial Times, 5 October, p. 7.

Authers

(1999) Keeping Company with the Campus: Recent mergers have enhanced the role of corporate universities, Financial Times, 26 April, p. 15.

Barley

(2002) Corporate University Structures that Reflect Organizational Structures, in Allen

(Ed.) The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, managing and growing a successful program. New York: Amacom.

Blumenstyk

(2003) Sylvan Will Shed Its Tutoring Business to Focus on Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 March, p. 31.

Clark

(1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

Cottee

(2003) University Challenged, The Guardian, 20 October, p. 4.

Cuban

(1992) Curriculum Stability and Change, in Jackson

(Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum, ch. 8, pp. 216–247. New York @ Macmillan.

10.

Currie

DeAngeles

de Boer

Huisman

& Lacotte

(2003) Globalizing Practices and University Responses: European and American differences. Westport: Praeger.

11.

Dickson

(2002) Corporate Universities in Australia and Southeast Asia, in Allen

(Ed.) The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, managing and growing a successful program, pp. 231–250. New York: Amacom.

12.

Eisenstadt

(1972) Social Institutions: The concept, in Sills

(Ed.) The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 7, pp. 409–421. New York: Macmillan.

13.

Ellison

(2001) The Navy Has Its Own Corporate University, Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, 127(9), pp. 74–75.

14.

Fenn

(1999) Corporate Universities for Small Companies, Inc., February, p. 95.

15.

Greco

(1997) Corporate Home Schooling, Journal of Business Strategy, 18(3), pp. 48–52.

16.

Hamilton

(1932) Social Institutions, in Seligman

(Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, vol. 8, pp. 84–89. New York: Macmillan.

17.

Hopkins

(2004) Sylvan Revenue Jumps 43%, Operating Income Triples in 4Q; Firm that Quit Tutoring ‘Thriving Beyond Belief’, Baltimore Sun, 20 February, p. 1D.

18.

Keller

(2001) Foreword, in Higher

Ruch R.

Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

19.

Kottke

(1999) Review of J. Meister's Corporate Universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force, Personnel Psychology, 52(2), pp. 530–533.

20.

Lester

(1998) The in-House Campus, The Times, 26 November.

21.

Meister

J.C.

(1998) Corporate Universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force (revised). New York: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Moore

(2002) Running a Corporate University like a Business: A financial model, in Allen

(Ed.) The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, managing and growing a successful program. New York: Amacom.

23.

Morrison

(2002) Creating a Corporate University: Diary of a launch, in Allen

(Ed.) The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, managing and growing a successful program. New York: Amacom.

24.

Mottl

J.N.

(1999) Corporate Universities Grow, Internetweek, 15 March, Special Issue, p. 756.

25.

Nurden

(1999) Corporate Universities Threaten the Old Guard, Independent, 18 April, p. 3.

26.

Prestoungrange

(2000) Customer Orientation and Motivation, in Prestoungrange

Sandelands

& Teare

(Eds) The Virtual Learning Organization: Learning at the workplace campus. London: Continuum.

27.

Prestoungrange

(2003) Back and Forth. East Lothian: Prestoungrange University Press.

28.

Prestoungrange

& Oliver

(2000) International Management Centres as a Learning Organization, in Prestoungrange

Sandelands

& Teare

(Eds) The Virtual Learning Organization: Learning at the workplace campus. London: Continuum.

29.

Readings

(1996) The University in Ruins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

30.

Reid

(1999) Curriculum as Institution and Practice: Essays in the deliberative tradition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Renauld-Coulon

(2002) Corporate Universities in Europe, in Allen

(Ed.) The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, managing and growing a successful program, ch. 11, pp. 231–250. New York: AMACOM.

32.

Ruch

(2001) Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

33.

Sanders

(2002) NHSU Chief Outlines Future Vision, Times Higher Education Supplement, 1523, 1 February, p. 3.

34.

Slaughter

& Leslie

L.L.

(1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

35.

Sperling

(2000) Rebel with a Cause: The entrepreneur who created the University of Phoenix and the for-profit revolution in higher education. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Targett

(1999) Degree of Discomfort in the Corporate University Challenge: Traditional institutions are alarmed by the rise of private academies providing company-specific courses and research, Financial Times, 20 January, p. 10.

37.

Turner

(1997) The Institutional Order. New York: Longman.

38.

Watson

(2000) Assessing the Value of Information Resources: Implications for virtual universities, in Prestoungrange

Sandelands

& Teare

(Eds) The Virtual Learning Organization: Learning at the workplace campus, ch. 4, pp. 39–52. London: Continuum.