Assessing the Market Orientation of Higher Education Institutions in Ireland

There are various conceptualisations of MO (Lafferty and Hult, 1999; van Raaij and Stoelhorst, 2008), of which the behavioural and cultural perspectives can be argued as seminal (Crick, 2021). The behavioural approach was proposed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and is as mentioned seminal (Vaikunthavasan, Jebarajakirthy and Shankar, 2019). Kohli and Jaworski (1990) describe MO as a set of marketing activities or behaviours (Gray and Hooley, 2002; Lafferty and Hult, 1999), hence its description. Specifically, Kohli and Jaworski (1990: 6) outline that ‘Market orientation is the organization-wide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organization-wide responsiveness to it’. The three behavioural dimensions inherent in the definition were brought together by Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993) in the MARKOR measurement scale.

Researchers examining MO in a higher education context have utilised this behavioural approach to conceptualising MO more than any other (Dwyer, 2022). For example, Tran et al., (2015) in a paper examining the effects of market orientation on student satisfaction conceptualised MO as having three behavioural components, namely, intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination and responsiveness. Likewise, Flavián and Lozano (2006) in a study to identify factors that influence the level of market orientation adopted by HEI academic staff in their activities of teaching, research and cultural diffusion undertook a behavioural analysis of their generation, dissemination and response capacity.

The behavioural perspective to conceptualising MO is as mentioned significant in the HEI literature. Furthermore, this behavioural approach, has been adapted to the complexities and uniqueness of the HEI context. Thus, the papers look beyond just information gathering from a solely a student point of view to taking a wider environmental and stakeholder view that acknowledges the relevance of industry/employers, employees as well as society (Asaad, Melewar, Cohen and Balmer, 2013; Asaad et al., 2015; Caruana et al., 1998a, Caruana, Ramaseshan and Ewing, 1998b; Felgueira and Rodrigues, 2015; Flavián and Lozano, 2006; Kumar, 2016; Kűster and Avilés-Valenzuela, 2010; Nagy and Berács, 2012; Vaikunthavasan et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2018; Zakaria, Roslin and Daud, 2011).

No less seminal than the behavioural approach to conceptualising MO is the cultural approach (Vaikunthavasan, et al., 2019). Narver and Slater (1990) describe MO as a culture or philosophy (Gray and Hooley, 2002). Specifically, Narver and Slater (1990) outline ‘Market orientation is the organizational culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus, continues superior performance for the business’ (Narver and Slater, 1990: 21). Consequently, Narver and Slater (1990) measured the implementation of this cultural approach to MO via three behavioural components: customer orientation, competitor orientation and inter-functional coordination; and two decision criteria, long-term focus and profitability. This conceptualisation of MO was operationalised by Narver and Slater (1990) via the MKTOR measurement scale.

A number of papers in the HEI literature draw on the cultural perspective of MO. For example, Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2010) in a study focused on MO at a faculty level which adapted the three behavioural dimensions outlined by Narver and Slater (1990). Thus, student orientation assumes faculties understand the HEI’s target markets thoroughly and are capable of creating and providing superior value. Competitor orientation assumes the HEI and faculty managers aim to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of competing HEIs. Finally, inter-functional coordination assumes a core belief shared by all members of the HEI that creating superior value for target customers is significant for success in a competitive marketplace. Furthermore, this inter-functional coordination can only be achieved through the integration and coordination of the HEI’s resources.

In summary, similar to the behavioural approach, the cultural approach to assessing MO has been adapted to the specific HEI context taking account of the variety of stakeholders (Hammond and Webster, 2014; Hammond, Webster, and Harmon, 2006; Ross, Grace, and Shao, 2013; Wasmer and Bruner, 2000).

Not surprisingly MO can be considered as a ‘hybrid’ incorporating both cultural and behavioural aspects (Gainer and Padanyi, 2005: 854; Homburg and Pflesser, 1990). The conceptualisations of MO with regards HEIs have also drawn on this combination of the behavioural and cultural (Casidy, 2014; Tanrikulu and Gelibolu, 2015; Ahmed Zebal and Goodwin, 2012; Akonkwa, 2009; Voon, 2008, 2006). Two particular studies building on the cultural and behavioural MKTOR and MARKOR approaches are of note.

Abou-Warda (2014) proposed a sustainable market orientation (SMO) model. This SMO model incorporates a social marketing approach that takes into account the well-being of society inclusive of stakeholders (employees including faculty, students, the local community, competitors, recruiting firms and media), an environmental/ecological orientation, an innovation orientation and a sustainable value co-creation approach reflecting the role of HEIs in supporting student value creating processes. This SMO approach means striving for stakeholder value co-creation consistent with the ideal of economic, social and environmental sustainability. This SMO framework has value not only in providing a HEI adapted framework of MO but also reflecting the evolution in the marketing concept.

Also, HEI relevant and taking an integrationist perspective are Rivera-Camino and Molero Ayala (2009) who presented a university market orientation (UMO) model. The UMO model expands on the cultural MKTOR and behavioural MARKOR scales and has the following components: (1) student orientation, (2) employee/faculty orientation, (3) competitor orientation, (4) company-donor orientation, (5) environment orientation and (6) inter-functional coordination. As a note a company-donor orientation includes donors, government agencies, corporate clients, volunteers and companies that can hire students who have graduated.

These latter two studies cited are the most relevant of the behavioural and cultural frameworks in conceptualising MO for HEIs and thus thematically antecede the next section.

The cultural and behavioural conceptualisations of MO, which were developed for commercial organisations and have themselves been subject to significant critique, are argued as not appropriate for higher education (Alnawas, 2015; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2010). Higher education it is argued needs a bespoke conceptualisation of MO rather than adapted versions to address its uniqueness. Thus, alternatives albeit fewer in number than the behavioural and or cultural approaches have been proposed (Dwyer, 2022; Pavičić, Alfirević and Mihanović, 2009) albeit some are limited in their applicability (Rosi, Tuček, Potočan and Jurše, 2018; Kaklauskas, Daniūnas, Amaratunga, Urbonas, Lill, Gudauskas, D‘amato, Trinkūnas and Jackutė, 2012). For example, Rosi et al., (2018) outline a survey-based framework for business schools in HEIs in developing transition economy countries. Similarly limited in its applicability is Kaklauskas et al.’s (2012) ‘Life Cycle Process Model of a Market-Oriented and Student Centered Higher Education’. Nevertheless, there is literature that can serve as a guide for conceptualising MO in a higher education (HE) context.

Thus, Alnawas (2015) in a paper propose student orientation (SO). A SO approach advocates that decision making in HEIs should be based on the needs of students as well as academic faculty. A SO approach is about a collaboration between academic faculty and students in meeting their shared expectations. SO is operationalised as an index providing performance indicators to monitor the level of commitment of HEIs in serving the student market. Thus, the SO index evaluates: teaching and learning methods, programme development and management, effective personal tutoring system and coordinating student activities. Alnawas (2015) explains that a SO can build a more market-driven institution. The SO index is argued as “comprehensive, context-specific and tailored to reflect the specificity associated with and the nature of activities performed by HE institutions” when applying the construct of MO (Alnawas, 2015: 643-644). However, the SO approach can also be argued as too narrow a conceptualisation of MO with a limited focus on the external aspects of a HEI such as the market/competition and the broad set of stakeholders. Thus, this conceptualisation meets the criteria of being student oriented but debatably does not provide enough guidance for being a market-oriented HEI.

Similarly, Llonch et al., (2016) developed a multidimensional scale, stakeholder orientation, aiming to better reflect a HEI’s long-term benefit to society. Market and stakeholder orientation as concepts are argued by Llonch et al., (2016) as not mutually exclusive but overlapping, however a stakeholder orientation is distinguished as not prioritising any one stakeholder. Specifically, the construct has five components namely beneficiary orientation (focused on stakeholders), resource acquisition orientation (focused on funders and patrons), peer orientation (focused on understanding and collaboration with other HEI’s), environment orientation (focused on aligning the HEI with external communities), and inter-functional coordination (focused on the extent to which a HEIs activities are synergistically contributing to the institutional mission). This paper and the previous paper outlined arguably set the agenda for how MO should be conceptualised in a HE setting moving beyond existing MO perspectives to more HEI relevant conceptualisations.

Thus, from the literature reviewed, it is possible to propose a refined conceptualisation of MO relevant to the HE context: ‘a culture with resulting behaviours, across all departments of the institution, that seeks to understand and respond to students, collaborating/partner institutions, competitors, parents, employees, employers, funders, other stakeholders as well as wider society and the external environment in an innovative and sustainable way’. Table 1 provides more details of this conceptualisation of MO.

The conceptual framework presented in Table 1 is presented as a comprehensive reflection of the HEI MO literature with eleven component orientations (each with a more detailed description) with the cultural and behavioural roots of MO acknowledged, the key stakeholders of a HEI specifically identified (e.g. academic staff, collaborating HEIs, parents) as well as other additional stakeholders. Furthermore, the societal role of HEIs as well as their need to respond to the environment including in a higher education context is recognised. The conceptualisation also reflects the role of HEIs as regards innovation and the sustainability of their outputs. In summary, Table 1 presents a framework for assessing the MO of HEIs.

Based on the content analysis of the strategic plans of six Irish HEIs, the nature of the MO in the higher education system can be identified. There are eleven components in the conceptual framework (see Table 1) and the coding references to each of these shows the nature of the MO. The components of student orientation, employee orientation, stakeholder orientation and sustainable innovation/research orientation had the greatest data coded to them or number of coding references, see Table 4.

The table illustrates the components with the most coding references and the components with least coding references, thus highlighting the nature of the MO in the Irish HEIs. In summary, the data indicates the MO of the HEIs is ‘student, employee, stakeholder, innovation/research orientated’ and this was consistently demonstrated across the strategic plans of all six HEIs.

An analysis of the sub-components of student orientation, employee orientation, stakeholder orientation and sustainable innovation/research orientation can demonstrate an even more specific description of the MO in the HEIs, see Table 5.

Table 5 illustrates the sub-components with the most coding references and the sub-components with the least coding references in relation to the ‘student, employee, stakeholder, innovation/research orientated’ components. Thus, the MO of the HEIs seeks to understand and respond to: ‘the welfare of students and the co-creation of value in educational practise; employees who teach; regional stakeholders and potential students; emphasising research and innovation’.

A review of the components and sub-components that were coded to the least in the data analysis also illustrates additional insights into the nature of the MO in the HEIs and its limitations (see Table 4 and 5). For example, in the student component ‘International’ students although a theme in the data was less prominent than HEIs offering an ‘Internationalising’ experience for students. Also, in the student component the careers service/guidance for students had a somewhat limited emphasis in the strategic plans and specific references to research staff and non-academic staff were less frequent than references to academic teaching staff. In addition, no coding references were made to parents as stakeholders in higher education.

In summary, the MO exhibited by HEIs can be identified by the conceptual framework via the components and sub-components most and least coded to.

Many national higher education systems have different HEI types that co-exist, for example Portugal and the Netherlands (Eurydice, 2024). Thus, the MO of HEIs can be further understood by HEI type. In an Irish context Universities and IoTs had acknowledged differences that deem this comparison credible (Eurydice, 2024). Furthermore, the three universities examined in the sample were greater in size. Thus, a cross-case analysis of the MO of the two types of HEIs, Universities and IoTs, was undertaken.

The cross-case analysis of the components, sub-components and linked summaries indicates universities are more competitive with regards references to benchmarks, rankings, student numbers and other metrics. Universities are more ‘global’ and research focused in this competitiveness as well as placing a greater emphasis on collaboration with other HEIs. The universities have a strong employee orientation particularly employees who teach. Resources including non-governmental sources of funding are a focus in the university plans. Universities have a societal and stakeholder orientation (albeit IoTs are stronger on this aspect). The student orientation is evident (with a greater international and internationalising focus) as well as a research orientation which is more prominent in university plans. Again, for universities media and communications references tended to be more international and more research focused. Sustainability and the HE environment have a degree more emphasis in university plans however there is less emphasis on employers/industry. The inter-functional coordination aspect is also strong. Across both universities and IoT strategic plans there is a similar emphasis on their alumni (albeit universities reference more ‘global’ alumni networks) and cultural development (albeit universities have a stronger emphasis on the Irish language).

IoTs have a much stronger stakeholder orientation – this includes the media albeit it is more regional in nature. The IoTs also place more emphasis on potential students and regional stakeholders. A student orientation - with student welfare and the co-creation of value as well as a careers focus is also evident as well as an innovation and research orientation. IoT strategic plans were less resource focused. As an illustration of this cross-case analysis Table 6 presents the coding references to the components as a percentage of the strategic plans for each type of HEI. Sub-components have been omitted from the table for presentation purposes.

Table 6 provides the coding references to each of the components illustrating aspects of the cross-case analysis between HEI types. Thus, universities can be interpreted as being more competitor, resource and research orientated with a greater emphasis on the HE environment. IoTs placed a strong emphasis on stakeholders, the student orientation of IoT’s, similar to the universities, was strong as was their research orientation. In summary, an analysis of HEI by type utilising the conceptual framework indicated between type similarities and differences in the MO exhibited.

An analysis of the MO of an individual HEI can also be undertaken utilising the conceptual framework. An examination of HEI 1 can illustrate. HEI 1 when contrasted with all the other HEIs had the highest number of coding refences to its environment, employee and sustainable innovation/research components with limited to no coding references to the cultural, potential students and regional stakeholders sub-components. These coding references indicate the strengths and weaknesses of this particular HEI’s MO. However, this does not necessarily highlight good or bad practise as the particular strengths and weaknesses may be deliberately selected by HEI 1 management to achieve a particular type of MO linked to its organisational strategy. Table 7 illustrates the coding references to each component and sub-component as a percentage of the strategic plans for HEI 1 as well as for all HEIs as a comparison.

Table 7 illustrates the unique aspects of the MO of HEI 1. Any of the HEIs could be used as an illustration of the organisational specificness of a HEI’s MO that the conceptual framework can identify.

The type of MO exhibited by a HEI can be further illustrated utilising the framework by drawing a comparison between HEIs. Thus, the strategic plans of HEI 3 and HEI 5 were compared. The strategic plan of HEI 3, a university, is strong on competitiveness including collaboration. HEI 3 demonstrates inter-functional coordination, a societal orientation and a resource orientation with less emphasis on stakeholders and industry/employers. Whereas HEI 5, an IoT, is more employer/industry orientated and less resource orientated in its strategic plan. HEI 5 also has a very strong stakeholder orientation. HEI 5 places an emphasis on the co-creation of value with students and on their careers but is much less international and while not as strong as HEI 3 on research and innovation it is still a focus in its strategic plan. The examples illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the MO of each HEI and not necessarily good or bad practise on the part of the HEIs. Table 8 presents the coding references to the components and sub-components of the conceptual framework as a percentage of the strategic plans for HEI 3 and HEI 5.

Thus concludes the findings which were organised under three headings illustrating the use of the conceptual framework to identify the MO of HEIs at a system or national level, by type as well as by individual HEIs.