In 2014/2015 we revisited our resources and structures research that we originally conducted in 2008 to see how things had developed.This time our surveys were complemented by video interviews with four senior directors and a series of case studies from additional qualitative interviews, including
How has the passage of time along with innovations in approaches to international relations, the rise of social media, and the development of global rankings affected top tier universities’ approaches to prioritising and resourcing reputation management? Our executive summary provides a glimpse of the findings from our surveys of 47 directors of communications and marketing and 22 international directors in world-class global universities spanning 18 countries.
Want to continue reading?
The rest of this content, and much more, is only available to our members. Consider becoming a member today…
If you are already a member please login to view this content.
Reputation Management 2014/15: Priorities, structures and resources in world-class universities - Full Report - Survey of Directors of Communications & Marketing
Reputation Management 2014/15: Priorities, structures and resources in world-class universities - Full Report - Survey of Directors of International
Reputation Management 2014/15: Priorities, structures and resources in world-class universities - Case Studies
We first visited this topic in the early days of the World 100 Reputation Network, back in 2008, sending out surveys to the most senior people in communications and marketing, and those managing international offices. Back in 2008, there wasn’t really any social media, ‘internet of things’, blogs or citizen journalism, and rankings were pretty new. Have all these innovations and technologies affected the size, style or seniority of teams, and made reputation management more strategic, or better funded?
The Sample:
After the exclusion of incomplete or non-qualifying replies, a total of 47 responses to the survey were included in the analysis. We were only inviting the most senior member from a university, so any additional responses were excluded. Four sets of responses were excluded on the basis of the universities being outside of the World 200 rank criteria for Network membership, the criterion for the study sample.
Responses were received from universities in 16 countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.