This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 15 May 2015, At: 23:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tertiary Education and Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

Coping by Copying? Higher education

institutions’ student recruitment
strategies
a a a
Nicoline Fr⊘lich , Synn⊘ve Brandt , Elisabeth Hovdhaugen &
a
Per Olaf Aamodt
a
NIFU STEP Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation,
Research and Education , Oslo, Norway
Published online: 27 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Nicoline Fr⊘lich , Synn⊘ve Brandt , Elisabeth Hovdhaugen & Per Olaf Aamodt
(2009) Coping by Copying? Higher education institutions’ student recruitment strategies, Tertiary
Education and Management, 15:3, 227-240, DOI: 10.1080/13583880903072992

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583880903072992

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Tertiary Education and Management
Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2009, pp. 227–240

Coping by Copying? Higher education

institutions’ student recruitment
strategies
Nicoline Frølich*, Synnøve Brandt, Elisabeth Hovdhaugen and
Per Olaf Aamodt
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

NIFU STEP Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education,
Oslo, Norway
30Nicoline.Frolich@nifustep.no
15
Dr
00000September
NicolineFrolich
Taylor
Tertiary
10.1080/13583880903072992
RTEM_A_407472.sgm
1358-3883
Original
2009 European
and
Education
Article 2009
(print)/1573-1936
Francis
Higher
Management
Education
(online)
Society

Growing national and international competition for students puts pressure on higher education
institutions (HEIs) to develop marketing and student recruitment strategies; these are also driven
by financial stress caused by performance-based funding mechanisms. In this paper we explore
Norwegian HEIs’ student recruitment strategies. What type of student recruitment strategies do
HEIs develop? How are the strategies linked to the institutions’ student market position? We
combine qualitative research strategies including in-depth interviews and document analysis with
quantitative analyses of the student market positions of different types of institutions in Norway.

Introduction
In analyses of student recruitment attention has primarily been directed toward the
issue of equity and equal access to higher education (HE) (Breen & Jonsson, 2005;
Hansen, 1985, 1997; Shavit & Blossfeldt, 1993). Other studies have focused more
specifically on student recruitment in relation to branding, marketing, and advertising
in HE (Anderson, 1994; Olson, 1992). The linkage between institutional strategy,
marketing, recruitment, and diversity is less evident in these studies. Studies on how
higher education institutions (HEIs) develop their student recruitment strategies are
scarce, particularly in the European context.
Development of recruitment strategies is directly related to the marketing and
branding of HEIs. Recruitment strategies also involve the establishment of attrac-
tive educational programmes, which are embedded in the specific institutional

*Corresponding author. NIFU STEP Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and
Education, Wergelandsveien 7, NO-0167 Oslo, Norway. Email: nicoline.frolich@nifustep.no

ISSN 1358-3883 (print)/ISSN 1573-1936 (online)/09/030227–14

© 2009 European Higher Education Society
DOI 10.1080/13583880903072992
 228 N. Frølich et al.

competencies. These processes do not necessarily proceed smoothly. Organisational

dynamics specific to loosely coupled organisations such as HEIs may give rise to
organisational tensions between the recruitment strategy on the one hand and the
institutional competencies on the other.
Most countries have reformed public administration from detailed state coordina-
tion to market-like steering of increasingly autonomous HEIs (Geuna & Martin,
2003; Jongbloed & Vossensteyn, 2001; Strehl, Reisinger, & Kalatschan, 2007).
Performance-based funding and increased institutional autonomy, including free-
dom to establish new study programmes and to decide the number of study places,
may enhance competition for students among the HEIs. The Bologna Process, which
introduced a standardised degree system in Europe, is also a main driver of HE
reform. Norway has implemented one of the most comprehensive performance-
based funding systems in Europe, making the country a highly interesting case for
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

exploring recent governance reforms.

Public administration reforms are introduced in specific geopolitical contexts. Due
to the country’s scattered population and strong focus on regional development, HE
policy in Norway has been closely linked to regional policy since the 1960s. While the
universities have a predominantly national role, the university colleges (UCs) are
intended to contribute to regional development as well. The UCs offer a combination
of unique study programmes as well as study programmes found all over the country
(e.g. nursing and teacher training), thus operating both in a protected market and in
an open market. The geographic location of HEIs is important because of the local
profile of the students’ application patterns (even if access is not geographically
restricted) and there is a growing geographic imbalance in application patterns. The
institutions located in small remote towns are the potential losers and the institutions
in the largest cities the potential winners in the competition to recruit students.
Based on a discussion of markets in HE and strategy formulation in HEIs, we
explore how the individual HEI’s position in the student market influences its
recruitment strategy. We address several issues, including the linking of marketing to
development of attractive educational programmes, competition in several markets,
diversity in educational programmes, and diversity in student recruitment.

Analytical Framework
The HE market is clearly an essential aspect of the environments to which HEIs
relate and in which they formulate their strategies. HE in Norway is characterised by
a predominantly publicly-funded HE system, limited international competition for
students and weak for-profit institutional strategies. The concept of markets in
Norwegian HE needs to be explored.
HE is mainly funded by the state, and the debate about markets in HE is a relatively
recent phenomenon in Norway. In the European context, HE reforms and the trend
toward massification have been driven by political initiatives as a form of “social engi-
neering” rather than by market forces (Neave, 2004). This is also the case in Norway
(Aamodt & Kyvik, 2005). Nevertheless, in reality, a market has always existed in
 Higher Education Institutions’ Student Recruitment Strategies 229

Norway in terms of supply and demand for study places, typically in the form of an
undersupply of places relative to the number of applicants. Moreover, the introduction
of new public management during the past two decades has changed the traditional
role of government in steering HE, resulting in “quasi-markets” (Teixeira, Jongbloed,
Dill, & Amaral, 2004).
Viewed in a broader international context, the Norwegian HE market is restricted:
there is limited competition from abroad, as the number of domestic students study-
ing abroad exceeds the number of foreign students studying in Norway (Wiers-
Jenssen, 2008). Compared to the for-profit HE strategies of a number of Australian,
US, and UK HEIs, the international market dimension of Norway is modest
(Frølich, 2007).

Markets in Norwegian Higher Education?

Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

Jongbloed (2003) formulates eight market conditions (Table 1). We ask: to what
degree are these conditions met in Norwegian HE?
Condition no. 1 is not relevant in Norway, since the establishment of new public
HEIs is a parliamentary decision and private institutions must get accreditation.
Neither Conditions no. 4 and 8 nor the price aspect of Condition no. 7 are relevant,
as there are no tuition fees in Norway.
Recently the HEIs have been given greater freedom to offer new products. The
Quality Reform (QR), introduced in 2002, has given the HEIs more leeway to estab-
lish educational programmes. The universities have full freedom to offer
programmes at all levels, including the doctoral level, while the UCs are allowed to
establish Bachelor’s programmes. Based on advice from the Norwegian Agency for
Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), the government approves Master’s and
doctoral programmes. Historically there has been a division of labour between the
universities and the UCs, as the two types of institutions have offered different types
of studies. This is still true to a certain degree; for example, the universities do not
offer teacher and pre-school teacher training or nursing programmes.
HE providers have greater autonomy in budget allocation (i.e. freedom to use
available resources). Prior to the implementation of the QR, the number of study
places was set partly in relation to the number of applicants, as the government
increased the number of study places to some extent when the number of applicants
rose (Try & Aamodt, 2000). The freedom to select students as well as the right to
refuse educational applications are important aspects of institutional autonomy.

Table 1. Eight conditions for a market

“Four freedoms” for providers “Four freedoms” for consumers

1. Freedom of entry 5. Freedom to choose provider

2. Freedom to specify the product 6. Freedom to choose product
3. Freedom to use available resources 7. Adequate information on prices and quality
4. Freedom to determine prices 8. Direct and cost-covering prices paid
 230 N. Frølich et al.

Selective intake of students may enhance an HEI’s prestige. This is the case in the
USA, and it is becoming increasingly true for HEIs in Europe, not least due to grow-
ing focus on institutional rankings (Hazelkorn, 2008). Norway has national entrance
criteria and a centralised system for application and intake; within this system the
institutions are free to decide the number of students accepted. However, available
resources limit this freedom, and the government still possesses several instruments
to impose national policies via steering dialogues and contract-like agreements.
In Norway, students (the consumers) have the liberty to choose a provider (HEI).
No formal restrictions apply to applications for students with the required qualifica-
tions. Market failures exist in terms of a limited number of providers or limited
capacity relative to the number of applicants (especially in relation to particular
programmes).
Consumers in Norway are free to choose products or services, but providers are
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

often unable to meet all market demands. Educational programmes are standardised
to a certain extent; it is not possible to offer fully “tailor-made” courses. Several
programmes have restricted enrolment.
In order to make well-founded choices, consumers require adequate information
about the relative prices and quality of products and services. This condition is rarely
met in the context of HE in Norway. In general, students receive inadequate
information about the content and quality of the study programmes, and know even
less about how the programmes relate to their own interests and needs. HE is an
experiential product: its quality can only be judged during consumption. The intro-
duction of qualification frameworks as tools to help students to make better choices
is therefore justified to a certain extent.

Providers’ Strategies
HEIs formulate strategies to survive in the HE market. Strategy is the determination
of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an organisation, and the adoption of
courses of action and allocation of resources necessary for achieving these goals
(Chandler, 1962, p. 13). Ideally the strategy describes the choices organisations
make about which markets or clients to serve, the distinct way it seeks to provide its
outputs, the tactics it employs, and the output goals it sets for itself (Scott & Davis,
2007, p. 21). We discuss this entire range of strategy tasks, albeit with less emphasis
on output goals.
There is political pressure for HEIs to “collect themselves”, devise a strategy, and
fulfil it (Bleiklie, Ringkjøb, & Østergren, 2006; Larsen, 2007). There is the view that
establishing a student recruitment strategy is a matter of attracting the optimal amount
of students in order to balance educational costs with the benefits attached to
increased performance-based funding. This requires the linking of marketing to devel-
opment of attractive educational programmes, and, possibly, to competition in several
markets, diversity in educational programmes, and diversity in student recruitment.
But organisations with loosely coupled structures may also decouple the formal
structure (i.e. the strategies) from the actual behaviour of the organisation. While the
 Higher Education Institutions’ Student Recruitment Strategies 231

organisation may seemingly have adjusted to its strategies, in reality organisational

behaviour takes place in accordance with informal norms. HEIs are organisations
with a double structure, as they consist of two types of structures: “disciplines” and
“institutions”. Disciplines cut across the boundaries of the local enterprise, and
institutions pick up subgroups of the disciplines and aggregate them locally (Clark,
1983). This means that the academic disciplines develop according to their own
dynamics, and the disciplines are loosely tied to the individual HEI.

Expectations
Based on the discussion above, we expect the recruitment strategies to differ among
the institutions according to the institution’s position in the student market. Institu-
tions with a surplus of applicants are expected to implement two different (but not
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

mutually exclusive) strategies: they will either expand or become more selective
(accepting only the best-qualified students). Institutions that are less attractive in the
student market and risk contraction are expected to implement one of several
survival strategies, such as establishing new study programmes or attracting non-
traditional students.
Because the market situation may vary for the various study programmes offered
by a single institution and because HEIs are loosely coupled organisations, we
expect to find that the institutions’ ability to develop clear recruitment strategies is
relatively weak. More specifically, we expect strategy formulation to be a task
predominantly carried out by the leadership and the administration with little
involvement on the part of the academic staff.

Data and Methods

The analysis is based on a case study of seven HEIs and combines quantitative and
qualitative data.
Our aim is to investigate the relationship between the HEIs’ student market posi-
tion and recruitment strategies in general. Due to restrictions in time and resources,
we have examined only a sample of HEIs. An institution’s market position depends
on several attributes, such as the type of institution, size, geographic location, and
educational profile. These attributes have been taken into account when selecting
the institutions for this study, and the cases have been treated as examples.
The HEIs’ position in the student market has been explored quantitatively by
analysing the number of applicants. Based on statistics from the Norwegian Univer-
sities and Colleges Admission Service, NUCAS (“Samordna opptak”), the HEIs’
market position before and after the implementation of the QR has been analysed by
looking at the increase or decrease in applicants over time. Although this is a rela-
tively unorthodox measure of market position, it does give an indication of the
change in the number of applicants over time.
The HEIs’ strategies have been investigated using document analysis and in-depth
interviews with management personnel. An HEI’s information department or
 Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

Table 2. Overview of seven universities and university colleges according to selected characteristics

Number of Size according to Academic Part of

232 N. Frølich et al.

Higher education institution Type of institution students 2007 number of students characteristics country Location

University of Oslo (UiO) University 27,363 Large Variety and breadth South Urban region/capital
The Norwegian University University 19,398 Large Variety and breadth South Urban region
of Science and Technology
(NTNU)
University of Bergen (UiB) University 14,491 Large Variety and breadth South Urban region
University of Tromsø (UiT) University 5,288 Medium Variety and breadth North Urban in remote region
Finnmark UC University college 1,798 Small Predominantly North Remote region
professional studies
Hedmark UC University college 4,198 Medium Predominantly South Remote region, close to
professional studies urban area (Oslo)
Oslo UC University college 10,984 Large Predominantly South Urban region/capital
professional studies

Source: information about the numbers of students and employees; retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/dbhvev/ansatte/
tilsatte_rapport.cfm
 Higher Education Institutions’ Student Recruitment Strategies 233

student department normally has the overall responsibility for implementing the
institution’s student recruitment strategy. We conducted 10 semi-structured inter-
views lasting from half an hour to an hour in 2006, 2007, and 2008 with staff in
these departments who were responsible for strategy implementation. The inter-
views were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analysed. Strategy documents were
compiled and analysed according to the main themes of the interview guide: the
HEI’s efforts to recruit students; potential recruitment strategies; recent changes in
strategy; staff responsible for and involved in strategy work; and potential target
student groups. As we have treated the HEIs as examples, we have reported the
results in broad categories, placing weight on the general pattern and not on the
specific HEI per se.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

Empirical Observations
Student Market Position
Figure 1 shows the number of qualified applicants at the various HEIs over time,
and can be seen as an illustration of the changing demand for education at different
types of institutions. It also illustrates the competition for applicants among the
universities and the UCs. The vertical line indicates the implementation of the QR.
At the end of the 1990s there was a general decrease in applicants, which stabilised

Figure 1. Number of qualified applicants at the various institutions

 234 N. Frølich et al.

around the year 2000. The QR resulted in a rise in the number of applications to the
larger institutions, especially to the University of Oslo. Student recruitment at the
small and medium-sized UCs and the University of Tromsø has been relatively
stable over time. Like the other universities, the University of Tromsø has experi-
enced an increase in the number of applicants after the reform.
Before the implementation of the QR there were relatively few applicants (1–2) per
Figure 1. Number of qualified applicants at the various institutions

study place at most of the institutions. The only institution in the sample that had a
high number of applicants per study place was Oslo UC. After the reform the picture
has changed somewhat, and there is greater variation in the number of applicants.
Oslo UC still has a large number of applicants, 3.5 per study place. The University
of Oslo has around three applicants per study place, while the University of Bergen
and NTNU have around two applicants per study place. The number of applicants
at small UCs remains steady, with one applicant or less per study place, both before
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

and after the reform. It seems that the reform has resulted in a rise in the number of
applicants at the universities, but not at the smaller UCs.

Competition
The institutions face fierce competition in the student market and they have a clear
understanding of their own market position as measured by the number of appli-
cants. The three largest universities consider their recruitment situation satisfactory,
while the UCs and the smallest university are experiencing increasing competition in
what they characterise as a changing market. “Changing market” in this respect refers
to a stable or downward trend in the number of applicants. All the HEIs are
concerned with the number of applicants, except the largest university, the University
of Oslo, which has the highest number of applicants of all the universities in the
study, and this number has risen over time (see Figure 1).
Although all the HEIs note the increase in competition for students, their competitors
vary. The universities, particularly the two largest, state that they primarily compete
with other Norwegian universities and with international HEIs as well. The UCs report
that the universities are their main competitors. This is puzzling, as most UCs overlap
in their educational profile, and hence compete for at least some of the same students.
However, after the implementation of the QR, the division between the universities
and the UCs has become less clear-cut, as the two types of institutions increasingly
offer comparable study programmes. The programmes at UCs have become more
academic, while the universities have established a number of new professional study
programmes. In addition, two former UCs have been upgraded to universities.

Student Recruitment Strategy

All the HEIs aim to attract students and they have a certain degree of freedom to
decide how many students to accept. The HEIs differ in the number of applicants
per study place: the large-scale institutions in metropolitan areas have a larger pool
of applicants than the smaller institutions in more remote areas. The UCs’ strategy
 Higher Education Institutions’ Student Recruitment Strategies 235

is therefore to try to attract as many students as possible, both from within their
region and from other regions. The universities, on the other hand, are implement-
ing a strategy of selectiveness, carefully pinpointing the students they seek to attract.
All the HEIs except one are involved in an active effort to acquire market relevant
knowledge through surveys of applicants regarding educational plans, students’
impressions of study conditions and student satisfaction.
All the HEIs have developed a student recruitment strategy and are engaged in
marketing their institutions, although they employ different tactics. The large
universities market themselves as broad-based general education institutions. The
small and medium-sized UCs and the smallest university emphasise the uniqueness
of their institution. We believe that this is related to these institutions’ student
market position and their geographic location. It seems to be increasingly difficult
for institutions located in more remote parts of the country to attain a sufficient
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

number of applicants since the implementation of the QR.

Diversified Programmes
The QR expanded the HEIs’ freedom to establish educational programmes, which
led them to reformulate their recruitment strategies. The QR resulted in changes in
the number of programmes, which in turn affected the number of applicants.
According to the universities, the QR induced changes in the institutions’ recruit-
ment practices, making them more market oriented. The HEIs advertise their
educational offerings and choices in the curriculum. The HEIs are aware of how
they are perceived, and the main focus of their marketing is on academic quality.
The HEIs consider the number of applicants to be a measure of the popularity of
their educational programmes. If a discipline is struggling to recruit students, the
HEIs respond by taking remedial action or by closing down the programme. This is
primarily an issue affecting the UCs, which in general strive to attract an adequate
number of applicants, but there are also examples among the universities of study
programmes being terminated due to low popularity or of action being taken in
response to diminished recruitment to a discipline. However, increasing the number
of educational programmes also boosts the number of applicants, so if an institution
is struggling with recruitment to their current programmes, starting a new one might
actually improve their situation.

Diversified Student Groups

Students are a heterogeneous group; they have unequal needs, desires, and knowl-
edge that influence their choice of HEI. The challenge facing the HEIs is to attract
students’ attention. It is essential for the institutions to have knowledge of potential
students’ interests, attitudes, values and motives. HEIs use this valuable information
to design their recruitment measures.
All the HEIs seem to primarily focus on recruiting traditional full-time students
(young persons coming directly or nearly directly from upper secondary school).
 236 N. Frølich et al.

One of the largest universities concentrates on reaching potential students at an early

stage, visiting lower secondary and upper secondary schools to motivate pupils,
especially girls, to choose subjects in mathematics and science. In general only the
universities focus their efforts on recruitment to mathematics and science; this is
related to their educational profile. The UCs offer fewer courses in these subjects.
For institutions with a smaller pool of applicants, applicants with documented non-
formal learning represent an important group. The smallest UC offers preparatory
courses for these students, while the largest UC claims to have the greatest number
of documented non-formal learning applicants. The amount of effort an institution
invests in recruiting these students reveals their degree of importance to the institution.
Recruiting international students is another way of broadening the applicant pool.
This is an area of focus both for the metropolitan universities with good recruitment
and for the UCs and the university in more remote parts of the country. The smallest
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

university, which is located in Northern Norway, and the smallest UC, which is
located in an outlying district, are interested in attracting international students from
neighbouring countries, especially Russia. For these institutions taking on interna-
tional students is a way of expanding their recruitment region, while the other univer-
sities seek to attract international students in order to score high on international
rankings or in the national policy setting.
Certain institutions, primarily the metropolitan universities and Oslo UC, also
focus their recruitment efforts on minority students. Most minority students live in
urban areas and attend HEIs close to home. The focus on this group is possibly an
effect of regional student market characteristics.

Marketing Measures
The HEIs implement two main types of measures to attract students: meeting
potential students face to face and reaching them through the media (Internet, news-
papers, advertisements in cinemas, and billboards).
All the HEIs engage students to attract new applicants to their institution, believ-
ing that students are their best and most important ambassadors. The HEIs recruit,
train, and pay students to travel around and inform pupils in upper secondary schools
about their university or UC. The HEIs also participate in education expositions,
spreading information about their course offerings and talking with pupils. The
smallest university and the largest UC invite pupils to their campus to inform them
about their educational programmes.
The HEIs exploit the media in different ways in their recruitment efforts. The
universities primarily use articles, advertisements, advertisements in cinemas, and
billboards. Information about the amount they spend on marketing is not available
to the public. The UCs create new measures to attract students. Some measures
prove to be successful, others not. The smallest UC unsuccessfully tried using a
head hunter to attract students. Reaching potential applicants by phone proved to be
more effective. The largest UC employs search engines to increase its visibility. The
smallest university has set up its own Internet community targeting the youngest
 Higher Education Institutions’ Student Recruitment Strategies 237

applicants. The largest university and the largest UC have hired an art director with
strategy expertise to formulate a new strategy to improve student recruitment.

Organisation
The HEIs have revamped their recruitment efforts and centralised the responsibility
for student recruitment. Some have their own recruitment unit; others have a
department of student and academic affairs with an office for student administration
and information or a communications office. In general, the HEIs describe collabo-
ration between the administration and the academic staff as close and improving.
There seems to be mutual acceptance that the faculties possess professional exper-
tise while the centralised unit has marketing and strategy expertise. The involvement
of the departments in recruitment activities varies and is influenced by the size of the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

institutions. Recruitment efforts are highly formalised at the largest universities and
the largest UC. These institutions have considerable professional expertise and
several strategic plans, and the extent of involvement of academic staff varies. Mean-
while, academic staff at the smallest UC are expected to become involved and their
views are heard.

Discussion
Based on our discussion, it should be noted that the HE market in Norway meets few
of the market conditions formulated by Jongbloed. Despite this fact, the perception
of an HE market in Norway is an essential aspect of the environments to which Norwe-
gian HEIs relate. Moreover, the HEI’s strategies are affected by their position in the
student market. This stronger market consciousness among HEIs leads to an increased
demand for market-relevant information, such as survey data of applicants on their
educational plans, students’ impressions of study conditions, and student satisfaction.
The recruitment strategies of Norwegian HEIs include product development
(study programmes) as well as product marketing. The HEIs actively exploit the
freedom given them by the recent national educational reform (the Quality Reform)
and offer new study programmes within the Bachelor’s–Master’s degree system. The
universities are driven by the competition for students, as well as by the need to
adapt their programmes in accordance with the Bologna Process.
It is apparent that the institutions’ position in the student market results in differ-
ent strategies; nevertheless, there are striking similarities. Certain differences are
mainly due to varying educational profiles. The largest universities tend to sell them-
selves as offering broad-based, general studies, while the smaller institutions empha-
sise their uniqueness. A favourable market position allows an institution to be
selective and as well as to maintain a sufficient volume of students. We have not,
however, observed clearly elitist enrolment strategies (Frølich & Stensaker, 2008).
Marketing strategies are aimed at recruiting the “right” students rather than the
“best” students, mainly to avoid attrition. We therefore characterise these marketing
strategies as informative rather than persuasive.
 238 N. Frølich et al.

We expected institutions with a weak market position to adopt a strategy for

broadening their applicant pool by targeting a diverse body of consumers, but this
proved to be more of secondary strategy. It appears that all the institutions primarily
direct their marketing efforts toward traditional full-time (young) students rather
than non-traditional students. Certain institutions offer specially designed
programmes for adult students, sometimes in cooperation with employers. Such
arrangements may help these institutions to fill vacant places, but the institutions do
not profile themselves as being unique in this aspect. Another strategy they employ is
to attract foreign students. Several institutions in Northern Norway have a consider-
able enrolment of Russian students, thus expanding their regional market.
The recruitment strategies were more fully developed than we expected, keeping
in mind the specific characteristics of HEIs. The implementation of a strategy may
be seen as the implementation of organisational change, which may in turn be
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

viewed as the negotiation or renegotiation of shared meanings about what is to be

valued, believed in, and aimed for (Diefenbach, 2007, p. 127). Seemingly external
changes in terms of increased competition and reforms giving HEIs increased auton-
omy in designing their educational offerings to match their institutional identities,
histories, and dynamics (Olsen, 1997, p. 161). The HEIs must also legitimise them-
selves by fulfilling the expectations of their environments (Meyer & Rowan, 1977),
and they must adjust to environmental change.
The different recruitment strategies of the institutions studied reflect both their
different educational profiles as well as their position in the student market. Given
both the magnitude and the dimensions of these differences, we find the strategies
surprisingly similar. All the institutions tend to focus on the broad market of
traditional students in which they meet open competition rather than focusing on
the uniqueness of their institution and operating in a protected market. Copying
seems to be the main institutional coping strategy.

Acknowledgements
This paper was undertaken as part of the Strategic Institute Programme on Institu-
tional Strategies and Individual Choices 2006–2008, funded by the Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research. We presented an earlier version of the paper at
the 30th Annual EAIR Forum, August 24–27, 2008 in Copenhagen, Denmark. We
would like to thank our informants, without whose contribution this project could
not have been conducted. We would also like to thank TEAM’s reviewers for their
constructive comments.

References
Aamodt, P. O. & Kyvik, S. (2005). Access to higher education in the Nordic countries. In T.
Tapper & D. Palfreyman (Eds.), Understanding mass higher education. Comparative perspectives
on access (pp. 121–138). London/New York: Routledge Falmer.
Anderson, C. (1994). Dear prospective student—An analysis of admissions materials from four
universities. College and University, 70(1), 28–38.
 Higher Education Institutions’ Student Recruitment Strategies 239

Bleiklie, I., Ringkjøb, H.-E., & Østergren, K. (2006). Nytt regime i variert landskap. Ledelse og
styring av universiteter og høyskoler etter Kvalitetsreformen. Delrapport 9. Oslo: Norges Forskn-
ingsråd, Rokkansenteret and NIFU STEP.
Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective:
Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology,
31, 223–244.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial
enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national rperspective.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Diefenbach, T. (2007). The managerialist ideology of organisational change management. Journal
of Organizational Change, 20(1), 126–144.
Frølich, N. (2007). Et nytt utdanningsmarked. “For-profit” høyere utdanning internasjonalt. Oslo:
NIFU STEP report 10/2007.
Frølich, N., & Stensaker, B. (2008, September 11–13). Excellent, relevant or whatever? Strategising
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015

student recruitment in higher education. Paper presented at the 21st CHER Annual Conference,
Pavia, Italy.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international
comparison. Minerva, XLI(4), 277–304.
Hansen, M. N. (1985). Sosiale utdanningsforskjeller: Hvordan er de blitt forklart? Hvordan bør de
forklares? Oslo: University of Oslo.
Hansen, M. N. (1997). Social and economic inequality in the educational career: Do the effects of
social background characteristics decline? European Sociological Review, 13, 305–321.
Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institu-
tional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.
Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher rducation, Clark’s Triangle and the essential
ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.
Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up performances: An international survey of
performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 23(2), 127–145.
Larsen, I. M. (2007). Om styring og ledelse av universiteter og høyskoler. Mellom fagfelleskap, hierarki,
politikk og marked. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo,
Oslo.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structures as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Neave, G. (2004). Higher education policy as orthodoxy: Being one tale of doxological drift,
political intention and changing circumstances. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill & A.
Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education. Rhetoric or reality? Higher education dynamics
(Vol. 6, pp. 127–160). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
Olsen, J. P. (1997). European challenges to the nation state. In B. Steunenberg and F. van Vught
(Eds.), Political institutions and public policy (pp. 157–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Olson, C. (1992). Is your institution user-friendly—Essential elements of successful graduate
student recruitment. College and University, 67(3), 203–214.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing. Rational, natural and open system
perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Shavit, Y., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (Eds.). (1993). Persistent inequality. Changing educational attainment
in thirteen countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Strehl, F., Reisinger, S., & Kalatschan, M. (2007). Funding systems and their effects on higher education
systems (Working Paper no. 6). Paris: OECD Education.
Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D., & Amaral, A. (2004). Introduction. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed,
D. Dill & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education. Rhetoric or reality? Higher education
dynamics (Vol. 6, pp. 1–12). Dordrect/Boston/London: Kluwer.
 240 N. Frølich et al.

Try, S., & Aamodt, P.O. (2000). Veksten i høyere utdanning gjenom femti år. In S. Try (Ed.),
Utdanning og arbeidsmarked 2000 (pp. 11–31). Oslo: NIFU STEP.
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2008). Student mobility and the professional value of higher education from abroad
(Department of Sociology and Human Geography). Oslo: University of Oslo.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:27 15 May 2015