Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y
REGULAR ARTICLE
students. The marketing of educational services is important, both to create a favourable image and as well to
successfully recruit the best students.
Keywords University choice Higher education
Student recruitment Competition University reputation
123
452
123
S. Munisamy et al.
Literature Review
A systematic review of the literature on higher education
marketing is provided by Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006)
and later by Stachowski (2011). Marketing plays a significant
role in student recruitment (Taylor and Darling 1991; Canterbury 1999; Nichols et al. 1995; Coates 1998; Biggin 2000
and Foskett et al. 2003 as quoted by Briggs 2006; Judson et al.
2004). According to Ivy (2008), with the wide variety of
qualifications and degree offerings available and the increased
level of competition, the need for institutions to differentiate
themselves and stand out has become self-evident, resulting in
the increased importance of the role of marketing in student
recruitment. Kotler and Fox (1985) provided a definition of
education marketing as early as 1985, describing marketing in
the context of education as: the analysis, planning, implementation and control of carefully formulated programs
453
123
454
S. Munisamy et al.
Country
Bangladesh
Student politics
USA
Family background
Parental investments
Social background
Parental education
Fernandez (2010)
Malaysia
Availability of programmes
Good reputation
Adequate facilities
James et al. (1999)
Australia
USA
Career opportunities
Graduate satisfaction
Reputation
Quality of teaching
Facilities
Selectivity
Cost
Personal interaction
Kusumawati et al. (2010)
Indonesia
Cost
Job prospect
Reputation
Influence of parents
Proximity to home
Yusof et al. (2008)
Malaysia
Finance
Industry expectation
Location
Malaysia
Korea
Malaysia
Parental education
School size
Financial aid
University image
Accommodation
Academic reputation
Raposo and Alves (2007)
Sidin et al. (2003)
Portugal
Malaysia
Personal factors
Academic quality
Influence of others
Income
Facilities
Campus surroundings
Entry requirements
Personal characteristics
Soutar and Turner (2002)
Veloutsou et al. (2004)
Australia
England, Scotland
and Northern Ireland
Course suitability
Job prospects
Academic reputation
Teaching quality
Local infrastructure
Business contacts
Universitys reputation
Career prospects
Course studied
Universitys infrastructure
Campus
Malaysia
Cost of education
Value of education
Institutional information
123
According to Gatfield et al. (1999), the prestige or reputation for quality of an institution is often more important
than its actual quality, because it represents the perceived
excellence of the institution which guides the decisions of
prospective students to enrol with the institution. Maringe
and Gibbs (2009) conceptualised reputation of an institution
Methodology
Sample and Instrument
This study was conducted in the UM and involved a survey
of 880 1st-year students comprising all 1st-year students
enrolled at the Faculty of Economics and Administration,
and their randomly selected 1st-year friends from other
faculties. In view of the effect of subject choice, it was
important to select students from across faculties on campus. The respondents were both from arts-based and science-based faculties and majored in the fields of
economics, business, education, linguistic, engineering,
medical, computer science, sciences, etc. The questionnaires were distributed by students of a project in the
course Statistic I over a 3-week period. Based on the literature, respondents were asked to rate the importance of a
list of nine reasons for furthering study at an institution of
higher learning (listed in Table 2) and 13 reasons for
choosing UM (listed in Table 3) using a five-point Likert
scale. Social demographic and economic background of
respondent and their parents were also included in the
questionnaire.
455
Statistical Analysis
The main statistical analyses deployed in this study are
coherence analysis and logistic regression. The coherence
analysis is conducted to study the patterns of relationship
among many factors in order to group and to infer latent
factors which are more generalized. In other words, it
summarizes information about latent factors affecting
choice. The coherence analysis is done for reasons for
furthering study and reasons for choosing UM. Past
studies have used factor analysis (Al Jamil et al. 2012;
Baharun et al. 2011; Samsinar et al. 2003; Veloutsou et al.
2004) and Structural Equation Modelling (Raposo and
Alves 2007) while some just use descriptive statistics
(Fernandez 2010; Norbahiah Misran et al. 2012), t test for
independent sample (Norbahiah Misran et al. 2012) and
analysis of variance (Baharun et al. 2011; Yusof et al.
2008). Unlike these studies, we use an index first proposed
to measure the inter-business relatedness (Teece et al.
1994)1 or better known as coherence analysis. Previously,
it has been used to measure the relatedness between firms
diversification strategy (Valcano and Vannoni 2003;
Karthik and Basant 2004) and the obstacles to innovation
faced by manufacturing firms (Lim and Nagaraj 2007). The
principle of the coherence analysis is to find the relationship between two categorical variables, by generating a
value, to show the relatedness of any two tested categorical
variables. In the analysis, it focuses on a reason being cited
as extremely important. By comparing the observed number with the number of links that would emerge from
random grouping, the coherence score between reason
i and j indicates the propensity for reason i and reason j to
be jointly cited as being extremely important. The average
coherence score for reason i reflects the average propensity
for this reason to be jointly cited as extremely important
with all other reasons. The score is considered to be high if
the absolute value exceeds 1.96.2
Next, a logistic regression is carried out to identify
factors affecting the perceived views on reputation, using
the latent factors discovered in the earlier analysis. The
logistic regression equation is given by
px
1 px
b 0 b 1 x 1 b 2 x 2 b 3 x 3 . . . bn x n
logitpx log
where p = probability of Y = 1, 0 B p B 1,
123
456
S. Munisamy et al.
Reason
Cited not
important
at all (%)
Cited most
important (%)
0.3
59.6
6.97
0.1
55.7
7.27
0.2
0.6
49.3
41.4
6.98
5.92
To broaden my experience
0.7
40.3
8.09
Parental expectations
5.0
22.0
7.24
Teachers expectations
8.4
12.8
7.46
18.3
10.0
4.91
16.2
8.7
2.48
Cited not
important
at all (%)
Cited most
important (%)
1.0
44.5
7.9
80.4
Good reputation of UM
1.0
39.3
8.6
74.5
1.1
37.5
7.8
72.2
0.8
33.0
8.3
56.1
2.0
29.4
8.3
52.5
12.4
27.7
4.6
27.5
4.0
24.8
7.8
41.4
4.7
21.4
7.3
33.9
Teachers recommendation
5.2
13.2
8.2
37.6
Close to home
39.5
12.9
2.7
9.0
12.7
8.2
10.0
10.0
7.6
7.3
27.7
24.7
28.1
7.0
4.0
8.6
expb0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 . . . bn xn
1 expb0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 . . . bn xn
123
457
Results
Motivation to Pursue Higher Education and the Choice
of University of Malaya
The analyses of reasons for choosing to pursue higher
education and for choosing UM are based on the (i) percentage that cited the reason as not important at all, (ii)
percentage that cited the reason as extremely important,
and (iii) average coherence with other reasons to be cited as
most important. The first measure tells us how unimportant
a reason is and the second how important it is. The third
measure summarizes a latent construct of interrelated
groups of factors affecting choice.
Table 2 provides information related to the reasons for
furthering study at an institution of higher learning. Five
reasons stand out for being rated extremely important.
These are to get a good job (59.6 %), the next step in the
career path (55.7 %), to gain more knowledge (49.3 %),
personal interest in the field of study (41.4 %) and to
broaden experience (40.3 %). Very few students considered these reasons unimportant (less than 1 %). Other
reasons for furthering their studies were parental expectation (22 %), teachers expectation (12.8 %), influence of
friends who are going to university (10.0 %) and to have a
good time (8.7 %). These reasons also saw greater percentages of students citing them as unimportant, the lowest
being for parental expectation (5 %) and the highest being
for friends going to university (18.3 %). It is interesting to
note that unlike studies elsewhere (Baharun et al., 2011;
Samsinar et al. 2003) the role of parents is greater than that
of peers, which is consistent with Fernandez (2010). For all
the reasons, the average coherence for reasons to be jointly
cited as extremely important is more than what would be
predicted by random grouping. Based on these average
scores and the scores in Appendix Table 7, the following
interrelated groups of extremely important reasons for
furthering studies are broadly identified: (1) Career prospects: combines get a good job with next step in career
Table 4 Variables based on extremely important reasons entering the univariate regression analyses
Variable name
Results of significance
tests with reputation
Reputation
NA
Relative cost
v2 = 16.5, p = 0.00
Personal development
v2 = 112.6, p = 0.00
Career Prospect
v2 = 34.6, p = 0.00
Significant others
v2 = 36.1, p = 0.00
123
458
123
S. Munisamy et al.
Table 5 Other student characteristic variables entering the univariate
regression analyses
Variable Name Description
Summary information
Male
=1 if gender is male
v2 = 6.4, p = 0.01
Rural
=1 if secondary school
was in a rural area
v2 = 0.1, p = 0.76
EducF
=1 if fathers highest
educational level
[ Form Five
v2 = 4.0, p = 0.05
CGPA
Age
Age of respondent
F = 1.42, p = 0.23
However, Rural, CGPA and Age are not significantly different across the two values of Reputation. The proportion
of those who viewed Reputation as extremely important and
those who did not were significantly different among those
who stated that the Relative Cost, Personal Development,
Career Prospect or Significant Others is an extremely
important reason for furthering studies at a higher education
institution. The same was observed among males or those
that had a father who was educated.
On the other hand, the finding show no significant difference between the proportion of those who viewed reputation as extremely important and those who did not
among students based on the criteria of location of secondary school, academic performance or age.
The results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses are reported in Table 6. Personal Development, Significant Others and Male are all highly significant at the
5 % level, while Relative Costs, Career Prospect and
CGPA are significant at the 10 % level. EducF, Rural and
Age are no longer significant. Relative Cost and CGPA are
the only regressor variables that are correlated but the
exclusion of either do not lead to substantial changes in
their coefficients. The results show that the odds ratio that
reputation is 1 is 4.5 times greater when Personal Development is 1 than when Personal Development is 0. That is,
the student who is pursuing a higher level educational
programme because he or she believes personal development to be extremely important is 4.5 times more likely to
choose UM for its reputation than a student who does not
believe personal development to be extremely important. A
similar interpretation applies for the other significant
variables. Significant Others has as strong effect as Personal development. Relative cost, career prospect, being
male and CGPA have strong effects with the odds ratio
exceeding 1.5. That is, those who said the University was
cheaper than private universities, those who said career
prospects were extremely important for pursuing higher
education, those who were better students academically
and those who were males had a greater likelihood of
459
Discussion
Having established that reputation does matter, the question arises whether the lower fees and reputation of a
premier university is adequate to attract the best students.
Does a premier university like UM, in a sector that has
rivals, need to market itself among school leavers or can it
bank on its lower public fee structure and long-established
reputation to do the needful? UM is the oldest University
and for a very long time was the only university in the
country. The expansion in the tertiary education sector has
been remarkable only from the late 1990s, and reputations
of younger universities will take time to be built. The
reputation of the University should be matched against the
cost of its undergraduate education. With the governments
education loan which covers fees and cost of living in a
public university but covers only partially the fees in a
Table 6 Estimates of log odds ratios for reputation deploying multivariate regression analyses
Variable name
Standard error
P value
Relative Cost
1.420
0.311
0.109
Personal Development
4.529
1.009
0.000
Career Prospect
1.521
0.337
0.059
Significant Others
4.107
1.725
0.001
Male
1.643
0.357
0.022
Rural
1.002
0.213
0.991
EducF
1.394
0.320
0.149
CGPA
1.504
0.339
0.070
Age
1.128
0.132
0.304
123
460
S. Munisamy et al.
separately and jointly impact on the university decisionmaking process by considering reputation. Specifically, this
study shows how educational background, socio-economic
class, secondary school attended, age, gender, desire for
personal development and significant family and friends
interact to create a complex university choice nexus. For
future research, other physiological factors such as culture,
social class and life aspirations could be included in the
analysis.
also play a role in directing the student to consider reputation. It is to be noted that these factors relate to the UM.
Therefore, not all of them will necessarily apply to other
universities in the country and there may be other relevant
factors not taken into account which affect the decisionmaking process of university students.
The findings of this study have important implications
for strategic marketing to stakeholders by HEIs. In a
market that has become competitive, HEIs must build a
successful image both among prospective students and
among employers to maintain an advantageous position in
the market. This is especially important because HEIs
provide a service that is intangible and a positive reputation
reduces the risk of stakeholders such as potential employers and prospective students in the choice of candidates and
a higher education institution, respectively. To this end, the
best reputation management practise has to be exercised.
Hence, the marketing of educational services becomes
vital. The marketing approach should orientate towards
customer needs to create a brand image that guarantees the
institutions sustainability in a market-orientated system.
Further, Kotler (2004) suggests that competition in the
future will have a strong network orientation. According to
him a marketing network consists of a company and its
supporting stakeholders (parties), with whom it has built
mutually profitable business relationships. Increasingly,
competition is not between companies, but marketing
networks. Applying this theory in the context of student
recruitment, institutions should build an extended marketing network to attain future success. To achieve this, HEIs
should build relationships with alumni, key feeder schools
and colleges, other institutions nearby that may provide
referrals and even employers in order to build brand image
and connect with the target market.
Another contribution of this paper is the focus on the
intersection of multiple factors in the university choice
process. The study describes how institutional characteristics and parts of complex human characteristics
Appendix
See Tables 7 and 8.
Table 7 Coherence scores for 36 pairs of reasons for furthering studies at an Institution of Higher Learning
Reason
17.39
9.86
9.55
9.51
8.32
7.14
13.59
10.20
8.34
0.74
2.92
0.94
4.88
8.86
7.48
14.96
9.17
2.11
Parental expectations
5.58
3.75
6.54
6.75
2.19
5.89
Teachers expectations
Friends are going to university too
6.62
2.63
4.45
1.94
5.62
3.88
7.79
4.00
1.84
4.19
6.44
3.22
To broaden my experience
123
461
Table 8 Coherence scores for 91 pairs of reasons for choosing to study at the University of Malaya
Reason
10
11
12
Good reputation of UM
Good reputation of programme
13.59
11.27
13.09
7.45
7.62
7.41
8.54
6.02
7.29
3.41
6.49
6.29
6.96
1.64
Close to home
1.95
0.94
1.35
3.92
3.89
1.88
9.15
8.19
6.31
6.30
7.90
7.64
5.58
11.62
8.44
10.04
4.92
6.87
7.01
2.13
10.96
0.39
10.62
9.35
7.75
5.94
6.96
7.17
1.91
10.59
15.84
8.76
7.34
4.99
6.36
5.40
6.87
2.94
8.46
10.94
14.55
3.13
3.76
2.10
2.55
3.05
4.28
8.26
3.55
1.95
3.97
5.06
4.85
3.38
3.70
3.50
3.83
3.72
3.32
7.14
4.33
4.88
6.48
6.38
References
Al Jamil, M. A., Sarker, M. M., & Abdullah, M. (2012). Students
choice criteria to select a private university for their higher
education in Bangladesh. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4(17), 177185.
An, B. P. (2009). The association between race and college
destinations. Social Science Research, 39, 310323.
Ancheh, K. S. B., Krishnan, A., & Nurtjahja, O. (2007). Evaluative
criteria for selection of private universities and colleges in Malaysia.
Journal of International Management Studies, 2(1), 111.
Baharun, R., Awang, Z., & Padlee, S. F. (2011). International students
choice criteria for selection of higher learning in Malaysian
private universities. African Journal of Business Management,
5(12), 47044714.
Biggin, A. (2000). Marketing education: The good, the bad and the
unthanked. Education Marketing, 20, 1315.
Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing
undergraduate student choice: The case of higher education in
Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 705722.
Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester: Wiley.
Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity,
image, and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3,
240252.
Bromley, D. B. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League
tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate
Reputation Review, 5, 3550.
Canterbury, R. (1999). Higher education marketing: A challenge.
Journal of College Admission, 165, 2230.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Organization Studies, 26,
443464.
Coates, D. (1998). Marketing of further and higher education: An
equal opportunities perspective. Journal of Higher Education,
22(2), 135142.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An
integration of mass communication and resource-based theories.
Journal of Management, 26, 10911112.
Fernandez, J. L. (2010). An exploratory study of factors influencing
the decision of students to study at Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Kajian Malaysia, 28(2), 107136.
Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2003). Fame and fortune: How
successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Foskett, N., Dyke, M. & Maringe, F. (2003, 11th September). The
influence of the school on the decision to participate in learning
post-16. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British
Educational Research Association. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt
University.
Gatfield, T., Barker, M., & Graham, P. (1999). Measuring communication impact for university advertising materials. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 4(2), 7379.
Grunig, J.E., & Hung, C F. (2002). The effect of relationships on
reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented at the Public Relations Society of
America (PRSA) Educators Academy 5th Annual International,
Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami,
Florida.
Haji Hassan, F., & Mohamad Sheriff, N. (2006). Students need
recognition for higher education at private colleges in Malaysia:
An exploratory perspective. Sunway Academic Journal, 3,
6171.
Hemsley-Brown, J. V., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a
competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the
literature on higher education marketing. International Journal
of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316338.
Hesketh, A. J., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Postgraduates choice of
programme: Helping universities to market and postgraduates to
choose. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 151163.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college
choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207221.
Ivy, J. (2008). A new higher education marketing mix: The 7Ps for
MBA marketing. International Journal of Management Education, 22(4), 288299.
James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which university? The
factors influencing the choices of prospective undergraduates.
Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Joseph, M., Mullen, E. W., & Spake, D. (2012). University branding:
Understanding students choice of an educational institution.
Journal of Brand Management, 20(1), 112.
Judson, K. M., James, J. D., & Aurand, T. W. (2004). Marketing the
university to student athletes: Understanding university selection
123
462
criteria. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1),
2340.
Karthik, D. & Basant, R. (2004). Empirical Assessment of Coherence
in Information Technology firms. Retrieved from http://www.
druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/dw2005-1637.pdf.
Kaur, S., & Chapman, K. (2008). UM leads in rankings. The Star
Online. Retrieved from http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file
=/2008/5/17/nation/21283255&sec=nation.
Koe, W. L., & Saring, Siti Noraisah. (2012). Factors influencing the
foreign undergraduates intention to study at Graduate School of
a Public University. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 19, 5768.
Kotler, P. (2004). Marketing management (11th edn.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1985). Strategic marketing for
educational Institutions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V. K. & Perera, N. (2010).
Exploring student choice criteria for selecting an Indonesian
Public University: A preliminary finding. ANZMAC 2010
Doctoral Colloquium (pp. 127). Christchurch: ANZMAC.
Lau, S. H. (2009). Higher education marketing concern: Factors
influencing Malaysian students intention to study at higher
educational institutions. Unpublished masters thesis. Kuala
Lumpur: University of Malaya.
Lim, E. S. & Nagaraj, S. (2007). Obstacles to innovation: Evidence
from Malaysian manufacturing firms. MPRA Paper No. 18077.
Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18077/.
Looker, D. & Lowe, G. S. (2001). Post secondary access and student
financial aid in Canada: Current knowledge and research gaps.
doi:www.millenumscholarship.ca/en/foundation/publications/
pareport/cprn-bkgnd.pdf.
Malaysia. (2006). The Ninth Malaysia Plan 20062010. Federal
Territory of Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia. (2010). SETARA09.
Retrieved from http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/red/en/ratings_
setara09.cfm.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia. (2012). SETARA11.
Retrieved from http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/red/en/
ratings_setara11.cfm.
Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing higher education: Theory
and practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2011). Malaysian higher
education statistics 2011. Federal Territory of Putrajaya.
Misran, N., Sahuri, S. N. S., Arsad, N., Hussain, H., Zaki, W. M. D.
W., & Abd Aziz, N. (2012). The influence of socio-economic
status among matriculation students in selecting university and
undergraduate program. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 134140.
Nichols, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clark, K., & Sims, D. (1995).
Marketing in higher education: The MBA experience. International Journal of Management Education, 9(2), 3138.
Padlee, S. F., Kamaruddin, A. R., & Baharun, R. (2010). International
students choice behavior for higher education at Malaysian
private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies,
2, 202211.
Paik, S. & Shim, W. (2012).Tracking and college major choices in
academic high schools in South Korea. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher: doi:10.1007/s40299-012-0035-z.
Paramewaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. (1995). University image: An
information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 6(2), 4156.
123
S. Munisamy et al.
Poo, B. T., Ismail, R., Sulaiman, N., & Othman, N. (2012).
Globalization and the factors influencing households demand
for Higher Education in Malaysia. International Journal of
Education and Information Technologies, 3(6), 269278.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification
contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the
American automobile industry: 19851912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 2944.
Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2007). A model of university choice: An
exploratory approach. Munich personal RePec archive.
Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/5523/1/MPRA_
paper_5523.pdf.
Samsinar Md. S., Siti Rahayu H., & Tan, H. S. (2003). An exploratory
study of factors influencing the college choice decision of
undergraduate students in Malaysia Asia Pacific. Management
Review, 8(3), 259280.
Soutar, G., & Turner, J. (2002). Students preferences for university:
A conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 16(1), 4045.
Stachowski, C. A. (2011). Educational marketing: A review and
implications for supporting practice in tertiary education.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership,
39(2), 186204.
Sung, M., & Yang, S.-U. (2008). Toward the model of university
image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and
reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357376.
Taylor, R., & Darling, J. (1991). Perceptions towards marketing
higher education: Do academic disciplines make a difference? In
T. Hayes (Ed.), New strategies in higher education marketing.
New York: Haworth Press.
Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 23, 130.
Valcano, S., & Vannoni, D. (2003). Diversification strategies and
corporate coherence evidence from Italian leading firms. Review
of Industrial Organization, 23, 2541.
Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W., & Paton, R. A. (2004). University
selection: Information requirements and importance. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(3), 160171.
Wagner, K. & Fard, P.Y. (2009). Factors influencing Malaysian
students Intention to study at a higher educational institution.
Kuala Lumpur: E-Leader.
Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student
Choice in Higher Education: Motivations for choosing to study
at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 16(5), 413433.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they compete in the global market?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 299316.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public
relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91121.
Yang, S., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organizational
reputation: The effects of organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication
Management, 9, 305326.
Yusof, M., Ahmad, S. N. B., Tajudin, M. M., & Ravindra, R. (2008).
A study of factors influencing the selection of a higher education
institution. UNITAR E-Journal, 4(2), 2740.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.