Market orientation in universities: A comparative study of two national higher education systems

Abstract

Purpose

The paper's purpose is to test: whether there are significant differences between England and Israel, in terms of perceptions of market orientation (MO) in higher education (HE); which MO dimensions (student, competition, intra‐functional) indicate more positive attitudes and whether the differences are significant; and the reliability of the instrument for using a larger sample of respondents internationally.

Design/methodology/approach

A comparative (online) survey of 68 academics in England and Israel was conducted during the academic year 2007. The MO questionnaire used comprises 32 factor items rated on a six‐point scale, categorised using three headings: market (student‐customer) orientation; competitor orientation; and inter‐functional coordination.

Findings

Overall, academics in both countries indicated that their HE institution is oriented towards meeting students' needs and desires, and cares for students' well‐being, teaching and learning. In addition, the respondents alluded to their contribution to internal marketing, i.e. to the promotion of their university through their own work tasks and performance.

Research limitations/implications

The study was restricted to a comparison of only two universities, one in Israel and one in England, and the sample size is small.

Practical implications

The meeting of student needs, and a student centred approach can be an institutional mission, as well as a government driven initiative imposed on universities through the introduction of a market.

Originality/value

As MO frequently underpins the development and implementation of successful organisation‐environment relationships, the current paper is a first attempt to trace the contextual determinants of this orientation by comparing its frequencies and elements in two different HE systems.

Citation

Hemsley‐Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2010), "Market orientation in universities: A comparative study of two national higher education systems", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011031565