Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ

Year 2018, Issue: 55, 17 - 36, 23.02.2018

Abstract

Günümüz üniversiteleri sundukları hizmetlerin
çeşitlenmesi ve sayılarının hızla artması sebebiyle rekabet ortamında öne
çıkabilmek ve sürdürülebilirliklerini korumak için kurumsal imaj çalışmalarına
ağırlık vermeye başlamışlardır. Diğer tüm kurumlarda olduğu gibi, üniversiteler
de kurumsal imaj yönetimi sürecini sağlıklı yürütebilmek ve doğru bir strateji
belirleyebilmek için öncelikle içerde ve dışarda kurum imajının nasıl
değerlendirildiğini bilmelidirler. Bunun için ise uygun ve etkin bir kurumsal
imaj ölçüm aracına ihtiyaç duymaktadırlar. Bu ihtiyaçtan yola çıkarak bu
çalışma kapsamında, üniversiteler için kurumsal imaj belirlemeye yönelik iç
paydaşlar için ayrı dış paydaşlar için ayrı iki imaj ölçeği önerilmiştir.
Ölçeklerin kapsamı oluşturulurken, öncelikle özellikle üniversitelerin kurumsal
imajlarını belirleyen etkenlerin tespit edilmesine özen gösterilmiştir. Bu
aşamada hem soyut hem somut unsurların ölçekte yer bulması amaçlanmıştır.
Gerçekleştirilen analizler sonucunda ortaya iç paydaşlar kurumsal imaj ölçeği
için 6 faktörlü 39 maddelik bir yapı ve dış paydaşlar kurumsal imaj ölçeği için
6 faktörlü 35 maddelik bir yapı çıkmıştır. Her iki ölçek te 5’li derecelendirme
ölçeği olarak tasarlanmıştır. 

References

  • Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63-76.
  • Abratt, R. & Mofokeng, T. N. (2001). Development and management of corporate ımage in South Africa. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3-4), 368-378.
  • AAker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356.
  • Altıntaş, E. (2005). Kurumsal itibar ve Anadolu Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Arpan, M. L., Raney, A. A., Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97-113.
  • Azoury, N., Daou, L., Khoury, C. (2014). University image and its relationship to student satisfaction – case of the Middle Eastern private business schools. International Strategic Management Review, 2(1), 1-8.
  • Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurnship. Journal of General Management, 21(1), 24-46.
  • Barich, H. & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94-104.
  • Berens, G. & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Corporate associations in academic literature: three main streams of thought in reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161-178.
  • Cankurtaran, T. ve Özbek, O. (2015). Öğrenci algılarına göre beden eğitimi ve spor yüksek okullarının kurumsal imajı. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12 (1), 1-14.
  • Cornelissen, J. (2008). Corporate communication: a guide to theory and practice. Sage: London.
  • Çetin, R. (2004). Planning and implementing institituonal image and promoting academic programs in higher education. Journal of Marketing Higher Education, 13(1), 57-75.
  • Çillioğlu, A. (2010). İç ve dış paydaşların değerlendirmelerine göre Anadolu Üniversitesi’nin kurumsal itibarı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Davies, G., Chun, R. & Da Silva, R. V. (2003). The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(2), 113-127.
  • Davies, G. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. Routledge: London.
  • Dowling, G. (1993). Devoloping your company image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning, 26, 21-103.
  • Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal component analysis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series (vol. 69). Sage: California.
  • Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage: London.
  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: realizing value from the corporate ımage. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: a multi-stakeholder measureof corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 241-255.
  • Gardberg, N. A. & Fombrum, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient: first steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4 (4), 303-307.
  • Gioia, D., Schultz, M. & Corley, K. (2000). Managing corporate image. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81.
  • Gotsi, M., Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate definition: seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (1), 24-30.
  • Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31, 695-702.
  • Groshal, S. & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91-112.
  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
  • Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55-68.
  • Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. Sage: London.
  • İcil, A. (2008). Akademik örgütlerde kurumsal itibar ve iletişim ilişkisi Akdeniz Üniversitesi üzerine bir araştırma. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antalya.
  • Jacobson, B. G.& Abratt, M. C. (2003). The corporate identity process revisited. Journal of Marketing Management. 19, 835-855.
  • Karasar, Niyazi (2004). Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Karatepe, S. (2008). İtibar yönetimi: Halkla ilişkilerde güven yaratma, Eloktronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 7(23), 77-97.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
  • Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., Moffit, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (24), 205-216.
  • Köybaşı, F., Uğurlu, C.T., Ceylan, N. (2016). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Görüşlerine Göre Üniversitenin Örgütsel İmajının Değerlendirilmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (3), 885-896.
  • Landrum, R. E., Turrisi, C. H., Harless, C. (1998). University image: The benefits of assesment and modeling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1), 53-66.
  • Levy, S. (1999). Brands, consumers, symbols and research. Sage: London.
  • Melewar, T. C. & Saunders, J. (1998). Global corporate visual ıdentity systems: using an extended marketing mix. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 538-550.
  • Melewar, T. C. (2003). Determinants of corporate identity construct: a review of the literature, Journal of Marketing Communications, 9, 195-220.
  • Minyung, S. & Sung-un, Y. (2008). Toward the model of university ımage: the influence of brand personality. Allacademic inc. http://allacademic.com/, erişim tarihi 20.05.2010.
  • Okay, A. (2008). Kurum Kimliği (6. Baskı). MediaCat: İstnabul.
  • Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlarla istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan Kitabevi: Eskişehir.
  • Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., Perez, P. J. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.
  • Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival manual. Open University Press: Maidenhead.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1988). A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64 (1),12-40.
  • Polat, S. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerine göre Kocaeli Üniversitesi’nin örgütsel imajı. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (160), 105-119.
  • Polat, S. ve Arslan, Y. (2015). Örgütsel Yaşamda İmaj: İmaj Geliştirme ve Yönetimi. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Porter, M. E. (1991). Toward a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117.
  • Regenthal, G. (1992). Identität und image: Corporate identity. Gabler: Köln.
  • Roberts, R. P. & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained financial performance. Strategic Management Journal. 23, 1077-1093.
  • Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation – an empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71.
  • Silsüpür, Ö. (2015). Üniversite öğrencilerinin gözünde İstanbul Üniversitesi’nin imaji. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 3(1), 263-287.
  • Six Dimensions of Reputation (t.y.). 18.04.2011 tarihinde şu siteden erişildi: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/HI_REP_SHEETWFORM_RQ2011
  • Smith, P. R. (1993). Marketing communications: An integrated approach. Kogan Page. London.
  • Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. ve Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images. Marketing Theory, 1 (2), 201-224.
  • Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2. Baskı). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Theus, K.T. (1993). Academic reputations: the process of formation and decay. Public Relations Review, 19 (3), 277-291.
  • Treadwell, D. F. & Harrison, T. M. (1994). Conceptualizing and assesing organizational image: model images, commitment and communication. Communication Monographs, 61, 63-85.
  • Van Rekom, J. (1997). Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5), 410-422.
  • VanRiel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. Prentice Hall: London.
  • VanRiel, C.B.M. & Fombrun, C.J.(2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for efffective reputation management. Routledge: NewYork.
  • Wry, T. & Deephouse, G. (2006). Substantive and evaluative media reputations among and within cognitive strategic groups. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(4), 225-242.

MEASUREMENT OF CORPORATE IMAGE AT UNIVERSITIES

Year 2018, Issue: 55, 17 - 36, 23.02.2018

Abstract

Today’s universities have started to give more importance
to corporate image management to be able to rival and protect their
sustainability. Similar to all other corporations, universities also have to
know how their image is evaluated both by the internal and external
stakeholders in order to conduct an efficient corporate image management and
develop a proper strategy. To do so, a reliable corporate image measurement
instrument is crucial. Hence, the purpose of the current study is propose a
university corporate image measurement instrument both for internal stakeholder
groups and for external stakeholder groups While the instrument was being
developed, identifying specifically university corporate image elements was the
main concern. At this point, both abstract and concrete elements were included
to the scale. Moreoever, different layers of relation types and different
levels of influence strength of internal and external stakeholder groups were
considered. After analyzing the data set,
the proposed instrument consists of 6 factors with 39 items for internal
stakeholders, and 6 factors 35 items for external stakeholdres. It was designed
as a five-level likert scale.  

References

  • Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63-76.
  • Abratt, R. & Mofokeng, T. N. (2001). Development and management of corporate ımage in South Africa. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3-4), 368-378.
  • AAker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356.
  • Altıntaş, E. (2005). Kurumsal itibar ve Anadolu Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Arpan, M. L., Raney, A. A., Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97-113.
  • Azoury, N., Daou, L., Khoury, C. (2014). University image and its relationship to student satisfaction – case of the Middle Eastern private business schools. International Strategic Management Review, 2(1), 1-8.
  • Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurnship. Journal of General Management, 21(1), 24-46.
  • Barich, H. & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94-104.
  • Berens, G. & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Corporate associations in academic literature: three main streams of thought in reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161-178.
  • Cankurtaran, T. ve Özbek, O. (2015). Öğrenci algılarına göre beden eğitimi ve spor yüksek okullarının kurumsal imajı. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12 (1), 1-14.
  • Cornelissen, J. (2008). Corporate communication: a guide to theory and practice. Sage: London.
  • Çetin, R. (2004). Planning and implementing institituonal image and promoting academic programs in higher education. Journal of Marketing Higher Education, 13(1), 57-75.
  • Çillioğlu, A. (2010). İç ve dış paydaşların değerlendirmelerine göre Anadolu Üniversitesi’nin kurumsal itibarı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Davies, G., Chun, R. & Da Silva, R. V. (2003). The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(2), 113-127.
  • Davies, G. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. Routledge: London.
  • Dowling, G. (1993). Devoloping your company image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning, 26, 21-103.
  • Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal component analysis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series (vol. 69). Sage: California.
  • Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage: London.
  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: realizing value from the corporate ımage. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: a multi-stakeholder measureof corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 241-255.
  • Gardberg, N. A. & Fombrum, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient: first steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4 (4), 303-307.
  • Gioia, D., Schultz, M. & Corley, K. (2000). Managing corporate image. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81.
  • Gotsi, M., Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate definition: seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (1), 24-30.
  • Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31, 695-702.
  • Groshal, S. & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91-112.
  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
  • Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55-68.
  • Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. Sage: London.
  • İcil, A. (2008). Akademik örgütlerde kurumsal itibar ve iletişim ilişkisi Akdeniz Üniversitesi üzerine bir araştırma. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antalya.
  • Jacobson, B. G.& Abratt, M. C. (2003). The corporate identity process revisited. Journal of Marketing Management. 19, 835-855.
  • Karasar, Niyazi (2004). Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Karatepe, S. (2008). İtibar yönetimi: Halkla ilişkilerde güven yaratma, Eloktronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 7(23), 77-97.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
  • Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., Moffit, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (24), 205-216.
  • Köybaşı, F., Uğurlu, C.T., Ceylan, N. (2016). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Görüşlerine Göre Üniversitenin Örgütsel İmajının Değerlendirilmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (3), 885-896.
  • Landrum, R. E., Turrisi, C. H., Harless, C. (1998). University image: The benefits of assesment and modeling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1), 53-66.
  • Levy, S. (1999). Brands, consumers, symbols and research. Sage: London.
  • Melewar, T. C. & Saunders, J. (1998). Global corporate visual ıdentity systems: using an extended marketing mix. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 538-550.
  • Melewar, T. C. (2003). Determinants of corporate identity construct: a review of the literature, Journal of Marketing Communications, 9, 195-220.
  • Minyung, S. & Sung-un, Y. (2008). Toward the model of university ımage: the influence of brand personality. Allacademic inc. http://allacademic.com/, erişim tarihi 20.05.2010.
  • Okay, A. (2008). Kurum Kimliği (6. Baskı). MediaCat: İstnabul.
  • Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlarla istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan Kitabevi: Eskişehir.
  • Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., Perez, P. J. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.
  • Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival manual. Open University Press: Maidenhead.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1988). A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64 (1),12-40.
  • Polat, S. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerine göre Kocaeli Üniversitesi’nin örgütsel imajı. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (160), 105-119.
  • Polat, S. ve Arslan, Y. (2015). Örgütsel Yaşamda İmaj: İmaj Geliştirme ve Yönetimi. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Porter, M. E. (1991). Toward a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117.
  • Regenthal, G. (1992). Identität und image: Corporate identity. Gabler: Köln.
  • Roberts, R. P. & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained financial performance. Strategic Management Journal. 23, 1077-1093.
  • Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation – an empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71.
  • Silsüpür, Ö. (2015). Üniversite öğrencilerinin gözünde İstanbul Üniversitesi’nin imaji. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 3(1), 263-287.
  • Six Dimensions of Reputation (t.y.). 18.04.2011 tarihinde şu siteden erişildi: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/HI_REP_SHEETWFORM_RQ2011
  • Smith, P. R. (1993). Marketing communications: An integrated approach. Kogan Page. London.
  • Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. ve Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images. Marketing Theory, 1 (2), 201-224.
  • Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2. Baskı). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Theus, K.T. (1993). Academic reputations: the process of formation and decay. Public Relations Review, 19 (3), 277-291.
  • Treadwell, D. F. & Harrison, T. M. (1994). Conceptualizing and assesing organizational image: model images, commitment and communication. Communication Monographs, 61, 63-85.
  • Van Rekom, J. (1997). Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5), 410-422.
  • VanRiel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. Prentice Hall: London.
  • VanRiel, C.B.M. & Fombrun, C.J.(2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for efffective reputation management. Routledge: NewYork.
  • Wry, T. & Deephouse, G. (2006). Substantive and evaluative media reputations among and within cognitive strategic groups. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(4), 225-242.
There are 62 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Dilek Melike Uluçay

Publication Date February 23, 2018
Submission Date October 21, 2068
Acceptance Date January 7, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Issue: 55

Cite

APA Uluçay, D. M. (2018). ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(55), 17-36.
AMA Uluçay DM. ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. February 2018;(55):17-36.
Chicago Uluçay, Dilek Melike. “ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 55 (February 2018): 17-36.
EndNote Uluçay DM (February 1, 2018) ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 55 17–36.
IEEE D. M. Uluçay, “ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 55, pp. 17–36, February 2018.
ISNAD Uluçay, Dilek Melike. “ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 55 (February 2018), 17-36.
JAMA Uluçay DM. ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2018;:17–36.
MLA Uluçay, Dilek Melike. “ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 55, 2018, pp. 17-36.
Vancouver Uluçay DM. ÜNİVERSİTELERDE KURUMSAL İMAJ ÖLÇÜMÜ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2018(55):17-36.

Dergimiz EBSCOhost, ULAKBİM/Sosyal Bilimler Veri Tabanında, SOBİAD ve Türk Eğitim İndeksi'nde yer alan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir.