Doing good while performing well at Flemish universities: benchmarking higher education institutions in terms of social inclusion and market performance

Abstract

Universities, and higher education institutions in general, are ever more influenced by output-driven performance indicators and models that originally stem from the profit-organisational context. As a result, universities are increasingly considering management tools that support them in the (decision) process for attaining their strategic goals. The growth-share matrix is one of these tools that has proven its value in diverse business and competitive contexts in the past few decades. The present study's contribution is twofold. First, we apply and interpret the growth-share matrix as part of a strategic positioning analysis in a strategic university context. Second, we extend this tool by incorporating social inclusion as a third dimension in the analysis. In recent years, discussions on the rising social disparity among adolescents in higher education have increased and different types of actors have raised the motivation to create more equal opportunities for prospective students who rank among the group of socially disadvantaged adolescents. The findings of an empirical case of the proposed model for a particular Belgian academic programme show that increased social inclusion and higher performance parameters, such as growth in student enrolments and diplomas, can be reached simultaneously. ARTICLE HISTORY

Digital marketing for Saudi Arabian university student recruitment

“…A CMM was originally designed for software development improvement, but modifications have been implemented for use in different organisational contexts and business processes (Wang et al, 2016;Al-Ammary et al, 2016;Naser et al, 2016). Examples from HE include strategic operations (Duarte and Martins, 2013), evaluation of social inclusion mechanisms (Haezendonck et al, 2017), quality assurance (Silman et al, 2012), quality improvement of e-learning in HE (Tawsopar and Mekhabunchakij, 2009) and development of academic software quality programmes (Llamosa-Villalba and Aceros, 2010).…”

The determinants of university strategic positioning: a reappraisal of the organisation

“…Several studies focus on internal processes, instruments and approaches adopted by the institutional leadership (Finley et al 2001;Lowry and Owens 2001;Harrison-Walker 2009). These studies are based on the five forces model (Huisman and Pringle 2011;Mathooko and Ogutu 2015), the role of institutional research (Klemenčič 2016), the analysis of ranking indicators (Hou et al 2012), the development of organisational capabilities (Lynch and Baines 2004;Bobe and Kober 2015) specific analytical techniques and management tools such as strategic group analysis (Wilkins 2019), growth-share matrix (Haezendonck et al 2017) and operational models like that of the European Foundation for Quality Management (Mashhadi et al 2008) or the 'Model for Metropolitan Universities' (Brown et al 1993). Finally, in the marketing literature, research focuses on the impact of students' preferences (Bakewell and Gibson-Sweet 1998;Maringe 2006;Niculescu 2006;Mourad 2010;Dorozhkin et al 2016;Kayombo and Carter 2017).…”

Inclusion and equity: Experiences and dilemmas of disability resource centers at world-class universities

“…For example, the number of SWD at Oxford University increased from 7.8% in 2007 to 11.6% in 2021 (Oxford, 2019), while UC Berkeley reported that the number of SWD in 2021 reached 11% (Berkeley, 2020). Thus, to guarantee the rights of SWD to receive inclusive and equitable quality education, world-class universities established disability resource centers (DRCs) as the core of disability support services for SWD, and these DRCs effectively enabled SWD to benefit from high-quality education and enjoy full participation in the universities (Haezendonck et al, 2016).…”