فصلنامه علمی کارافن

فصلنامه علمی کارافن

توسعه مدل مفهومی برندسازی آموزش عالی لنکستر و کرت ریل (رویکردی مبتنی بر تحلیل محتوای کیفی قیاسی)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی (کاربردی)

نویسندگان
علی کشاورززاده 1
خلیل غلامی 2
نعمت اله عزیزی 3
1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی توسعه آموزش عالی، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران.
3 استاد، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران.
10.48301/kssa.2021.131157
چکیده
هدف پژوهش، توسعه مدل مفهومی برندسازی آموزش عالی لنکستر و کرت ریل است. رویکرد تحقیق، تحلیل محتوای کیفی قیاسی است. جامعه پژوهش، خبرگان دانشگاه صنعتی شریف است که با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، 32 تن به‌عنوان نمونه پژوهش انتخاب شدند. ابزار گرداوری داده، مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختارمند است. برای تحلیل داده‌ها از تکنیک کدگذاری داده‌ها استفاده شد. مدل برندسازی لنکستر و کرت ریل، دارای سه مفهوم هویت، هدف و پاسخ است که هر کدام شامل سه مقوله اصلی یا هسته، واقعی و ارزش‌افزوده می‌باشد. مفهوم هویت، شامل مجموعه علائم، نشانه‌ها و شعارهای برندسازی است. مفهوم هدف، شامل محصولات، خدمات و تولیدات، الزامات و بازاریابی دانشگاه است. مفهوم پاسخ به معنای، تفسیر عملکرد بازار محصولات و خدمات برند دانشگاه در بازار است. براساس یافته‌های تحقیق، مدل توسعه‌یافته برندسازی دانشگاه، دو مرحله برنامه‌ریزی خلق ارزش ویژه برند و سنجش ارزش ویژه برند دارد. مفاهیم هویت و هدف برای فرایند برنامه‌ریزی در نظر گرفته شده است. برنامه‌ریزی، شامل تمامی استراتژی‌هایی می‌باشد که باید در مراحل تهیه و اجرای فرایند برنامه‌ریزی برندسازی دانشگاه صنعتی شریف به‌کار گرفت. مرحله برنامه‌ریزی شامل متغیرهای نام‌گذاری، مکان‌یابی، لوگو، مأموریت‌های اصلی و پشتیان، کارکنان، استادان، محصولات و خدمات، دانشجویان، بازاریابی و فارغ‌التحصیلان می‌باشد. در ادامه، استراتژی‌های اصلی و محوری هر کدام از متغیرهای مذکور ارائه شده است. مفهوم پاسخ، برای سنجش عملکرد برند دانشگاه در نظر گرفته شده است. منظور از سنجش ارزش ویژه برند دانشگاه، مجموعه‌ای از تدابیری است که با ارائه ابعاد و متغیرهای ویژه، ارزش نهایی برند دانشگاه را در ابعاد درونی و بیرونی مورد سنجش قرار می‌دهد. مرحله سنجش ارزش ویژه برند دانشگاه شامل متغیرهای زیربنایی سنجش ارزش ویژه برند بیرونی و درونی است. اعتبار علمی، شهرت، احساس و عاطفه دانشجویان و وفاداری، استراتژی‌های زیربنایی بیرونی و توانمند و کارآمدسازی، فارغ‌التحصیلان، خدمات دانشجویی، زیرساخت و ابعاد مالی، استراتژی‌های زیربنایی درونی هستند. در نهایت، تعداد گویه‌های استخراجی سنجش ارزش ویژه برند دانشگاه ارائه داده شده است. 
کلیدواژه‌ها
توسعه
مدل مفهومی
برندسازی
آموزش عالی
لنکستر و کرت ریل
رویکرد
تحلیل محتوای کیفی قیاسی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Development of a Conceptual Model of Lancaster and Kurt Rail Higher Education Branding (An Approach Based on Deductive Qualitative Content Analysis)

نویسندگان English

Ali Keshavarz-zadeh 1
Khalil Gholami 2
Nematollah Azizi 3
1 PhD Student of Higher Education Development Planning, Department of Educational, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
3 Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
چکیده English

The aim of this research was to develop a conceptual model of Lancaster and Kurt Rail Higher Education Branding. The research approach was based on deductive qualitative content analysis. The research population included experts at Sharif University of Technology. Using purposive sampling method, 32 people were selected as the research sample. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview. Data coding technique was used to analyze the data. The Lancaster and Kurt Rail branding models have three concepts of identity, purpose and response, each of which includes three main categories or core, real and added value. The concept of identity includes a set of signs, symbols and branding slogans. The concept of purpose includes the products, services and products, requirements and marketing of the university. The concept of response means interpreting the market performance of university brand products and services in the market. Based on the research findings, the developed branding model of the university had two stages of brand equity creation planning and brand equity measurement. The concepts of identity and purpose were intended for the planning process. Planning included all the strategies used in the preparation and implementation of the branding planning process of Sharif University of Technology. The planning stage included the variables of naming, location, logo, main and supporting missions, staff, professors, products and services, students, marketing and graduates. In the following sections of this paper, the main and pivotal strategies of the mentioned variables are presented. The concept of response is intended to measure the performance of the university brand. Measuring the specific value of the university brand is a set of measures that provide the final value of the university brand in internal and external dimensions by providing special dimensions and variables. The stage of measuring the brand equity of the university included the basic variables of measuring the brand equity of external and internal dimensions. Scientific credibility, reputation, students' feelings and loyalty were considered external infrastructure strategies while empowerment and efficiency, graduates, student services, infrastructure and financial dimensions were considered internal infrastructure strategies. Finally, the number of extract points to measure the university's brand equity were presented.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Development
Conceptual modeling
Branding
Higher education
Lancaster and Kurt Rail
Approach
Deductive qualitative content analysis
Aaker, D. A. (2004). Leveraging the Corporate Brand. California management review, 46(3), 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/000812560404600301
Ali-Choudhury, R., Bennett, R., & Savani, S. (2008). University marketing directors’ views on the components of a university brand. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 6(1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-008-0021-6
Bennett, R., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective Students' Perceptions of University Brands: An Empirical Study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240902905445
Birch, D. L. (1979). The job generation process. In Small business: Critical perspectives on business and management. MIT Program on Neighborhood and regional Change. http://ideasarchive.org/www/Job%20Generation%20Process,%20The%20-%201979%20-%20David%20Birch.pdf
Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale? The marketisation of UK higher education. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Everything-for-Sale-The-Marke tisation-of-UK-Higher-Education/Brown-Carasso/p/book/9780415809801
Chapleo, C. (1990, January 1). Is branding maligned and misunderstood? THE World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2013/reput ation-ranking/analysis/chris-chapleo
Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/https://doi .org/10.1002/nvsm.271
Chapleo, C. (2015a). Brands in Higher Education. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1006014
Chapleo, C. (2015b). An exploration of branding approaches in UK universities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 20(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1513
De Chernatony, L. (2010). From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation (3rd ed.). Taylor & francis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781856177733/from-brand-vision-to-brand-evaluation#book-description
De Lencastre, P., & Corte-Real, A. (2013). Brand response analysis: A Peircean semiotic approach. Social Semiotics, 23(4), 489-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.201 3.799005
De Lencastre, P., & Côrte-Real, A. (2010). One, two, three: A practical brand anatomy. Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.1
Delmar, F. (1996). Entrepreneurial Behavior and Business Performance. EFI, Ekonomiska forskningsinstitutet vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/246075162_Entrepreneurial_Behavior_and_Business_Performance?enrichId=rgreq-277398b8d5601632e70b7491da048790-XXX&enrichSource=Y 292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NjA3NTE2MjtBUzoxMzE0MjM5NDQwNTY4MzRAMTQwODM0NTMxOTAzNA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
Erguvan, D. (2013). Perceptions of academics towards the impact of foundation universities on Turkish higher education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 153-160. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016671
Garipağaoğlu, B. Ç. (2016). Branding in higher education: A case study from Turkey. Higher Education Policy, 29(2), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2015.24
Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who Is an Entrepreneur?” Is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878801200401
Hankinson, P. (2004). The internal brand in leading UK charities. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(2), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420410529717
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2013). The dynamics of corporate brand charisma: Routinization and activation at Carlsberg IT. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(2), 147-162. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.03.005
Hemsley‐Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338. https://doi.or g/10.1108/09513550610669176
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90. https://doi.or g/10.1086/339922
Iman, M. T., & Noshadi, M. R. (2011). Qualitative content analysis. Journal of Research, 3(2), 15-44. http://pajohesh.nashriyat.ir/sites/pajohesh.nashriyat.ir/files/2_0.pdf
Iqbal, M. J., Rasli, A. B. M., & Ibn-e-Hassan Rasli, A. B. M. (2012). University branding: A myth or a reality. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 6(1), 168-184. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/188050/1/pjcss082.pdf
Ismail, H. (2016). Branding Higher Education Institutions: What It Takes to be Branded. In Fast forwarding Higher Education Institutions for Global Challenges, DOI. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-603-4_13
Javani, V. (2016). University branding: A conceptualizing model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(4), 227-232. https://doi.org /10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i4/2100
Jeanes, E. L. (2013). The construction and controlling effect of a moral brand. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.03.007
Judson, K. M., Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Gordon, G. L. (2008). Building a University Brand from Within: University Administrators' Perspectives of Internal Branding. Services Marketing Quarterly, 30(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960802 467722
Kayzouri, A. H., & Mohammadihosseini, S. A. (2017). Mental image of university academic credibility and its relationship with service improvement in higher education: a test of the mediating role of communication quality. Educational measurement and evaluation studies, 7(19), 115-139. https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=319595
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of marketing, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (2 ed.). Prentice Hall. https://books.google.com/books?id=_WvErQE ACAAJ
Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (4 ed.). Pearson Education India. http://thuvien.th anglong.edu.vn:8080/dspace/bitstream/TLU-123456789/27/2/TVS.000886-%20Keller% 20Strategic%20Brand%20Management-1.pdf
Knox, S., & Bickerton, D. (2003). The six conventions of corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 998-1016. https://doi.org/10.1108/0309056031047 7636
Langa, P. V., & Zavale, N. C. (2018). Branding and the search for competitive advantage in the field of Mozambican higher education through the use of websites. In Competition in higher education branding and marketing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58527-7_6
Mampaey, J. (2018). Brand Communication in Flemish Higher Education: a Comparison between Types of Institutions. In Competition in Higher Education Branding and Marketing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58527-7_4
Mampaey, J., & Huisman, J. (2016). Branding of UK higher education institutions. An integrated perspective on the content and style of welcome addresses. Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, 47(47-1), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa. 1636
Marginson, S. (2007). Global Position and Position Taking: The Case of Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153062875 30
Ngo, J., & Ismandoyo, D. A. (2018). Higher Education: The Impacts of Educational Brand on Students’ Decision to Enroll Through Advertising Brochures for Higher Education Institutions in Surabaya Indonesia. In Competition in Higher Education Branding and Marketing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58527-7_7
Papadimitriou, A. (2014). Branding in the Western Balkan Higher Education on the incorporation of internationalization, quality, and social media Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Association of the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Washington, USA.
Papadimitriou, A. (2018). Using a mixed methods approach to examine the (re) imaging of higher education institutions in the Western Balkans. In Competition in Higher Education Branding and Marketing (pp. 81-105). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007 /978-3-319-58527-7_5
Rahimian, A. (2016). University branding; New need for higher education (Case study; Payame Noor University, Karaj). Management and planning in educational systems, 11(1), 139-158. https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=466432
Rosen, D. (2012). Branding in higher education: What it is and why it matters. Eduniverse. http://eduniverse.org/branding-higher-education-what-it-and-why-it-matters
Şenses, F. (2007). Uluslararası Gelişmeler Işığında Türkiye Yükseköğretim Sistemi: Temel Eğilimler, Sorunlar, Çelişkiler ve Öneriler. Economic Research Center Working Papers in Economics, 7(5), 1-32. https://erc.metu.edu.tr/en/system/files/menu/serie s07/0705.pdf
Shekari, H. (2017). Structural Model of Influence of Brand Ambidexterity on Studentsʼ Commitment with Considering Mediating Role of Brand performance and Brand Image (Case: Brand of Payame Noor). Higher Education Letter, 10(38), 7-32. http://journal.sanjesh.org/article_26658_e5d74379f79349da4927a5cc9d9df0e7.pdf
Spake, D. F., Mullen, E. W., Joseph, M., & Wilde, S. J. (2010, September 29 - October 1). Higher education branding: importance of and differences between private and public university students’ views. Marketing Management Association 2010 Fall Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://researchportal.s cu.edu.au/esploro/outputs/conferenceProceeding/Higher-education-branding-impo rtance-of-and/991012820489002368
Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2014). Does brand identification transform alumni into university advocates? International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 11(3), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-014-0119-y
Stripling, J. (2010, October 19). Brand New Dilemma. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insid ehighered.com/news/2010/10/19/brand-new-dilemma
Suomi, K. (2014). Exploring the dimensions of brand reputation in higher education – a case study of a Finnish master’s degree programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 646-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014. 957893
Tabrizi, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis from the perspective of deductive and inductive. approach. Journal of Social Sciences, 21(64), 105-138. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjss.201 4.344
Tajri, M., & Sahebi, S. (2018). Explaining the position of university brand personality on students' preferences (case study of Mazandaran University). Higher Education Quarterly, New Volume, 10(39), 61-86. http://journal.sanjesh.org/article_28264_bc ff78a4719dbeab16ff0d828b0cbd90.pdf
Tas, A., & Ergin, E. (2012). Key Factors for Student Recruitment: The Issue of University Branding. International Business Research, 5(10), 146-153. https://doi.org/10.553 9/ibr.v5n10p146
Wæraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2008). Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher education branding. Higher Education, 57(4), 449-462. https://doi.org/10.1 007/s10734-008-9155-z
Watkins, B. A., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2013). Assessing university brand personality through logos: an analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(1), 15-33. https://doi.org /10.1080/08841241.2013.805709
Wu, T., & Naidoo, V. (2016). The role of international marketing in higher education. In International marketing of higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978 -1-137-54291-5_1
فصلنامه علمی کارافن
دوره 18، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 53
علوم انسانی
تابستان 1400
صفحه 271-295

  • تاریخ دریافت 04 دی 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری 30 فروردین 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش 08 خرداد 1400