SpringerLink
Log in

Pathways to exploration in higher education: status and institutional logic in public and private higher education institutions

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the mechanisms through which higher education institutions (HEIs) explore, focusing on organizational status and institutional logic. We hypothesize that the exploration mechanisms differ depending on the public and private sectors. Revisiting middle-status conformity, we assert that the U-shaped relationship is stronger for private HEIs than public HEIs, as private HEIs are more concerned about status. We also argue that the congruence of institutional logics between HEIs and their funding partners foster exploration based on the sense of security. In contrast, when HEIs receive funding from partners with incongruent logics, they explore less because of their tendency to avoid additional uncertainty. We empirically test our hypotheses using data on US HEIs between 2014 and 2020. Our results demonstrate that a U-shaped relationship between status and exploration is stronger for private HEIs. Moreover, non-market funding providers, whose institutional logic congruent with public HEIs yet incongruent with private HEIs, increase the exploration of public HEIs and decrease the exploration of private HEIs. By integrating theories on organizational learning, status, and institutional theory, our study contributes to a nuanced understanding of the differences between public and private HEIs with respect to exploration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data related to the current study will be available upon request from the corresponding author.

Notes

  1. Unlike firms that typically engage in exploration through R&D for new products or services (Lavie et al., 2010), HEIs primarily pursue exploration via fundamental or basic research (March et al., 2000; Peris-Ortiz et al., 2023). Although the nature of exploration varies between the two contexts, we posit that both HEIs and firms must balance exploitation and exploration for their survival and success.

  2. While higher-status ones may possess better exploration capabilities, they might hesitate to engage in explorative behaviors to preserve structural benefits, fearing changes to the system (Kim & Rhee, 2017; Podolny, 2005). Consequently, we do not assume that higher-status HEIs necessarily engage in exploration more than their lower-status counterparts.

  3. We do not argue that private HEIs are solely characterized by the market logic or that public HEIs are solely characterized by the science logic. Instead, our focus is on the relative importance of these two logics in private and public HEIs.

References

  • Askin, N., & Bothner, M. S. (2016). Status-aspirational pricing: The “Chivas Regal” strategy in U.S. higher education, 2006–2012. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 217–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballinger, G. A. (2004). Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartik, T. J. (2004). Economic development. In R. J. Aronson & E. Schwartz (Eds.), Management policies in local finance (pp. 355–390). International City/County Management Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckner, E., & Zapp, M. (2021). Institutional logics in the global higher education landscape: Differences in organizational characteristics by sector and founding era. Minerva, 59, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., & Mehari, Y. (2015). The use of institutional theory in higher education research. In J. Huisman, & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220150000001001

  • Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Esposito, E. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Yang, P. Y., Martin, B. R., Chi, H., & Tsai-Lin, T. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation, 54, 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterton, P., & Goddard, J. (2000). The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. European Journal of Education, 35(4), 475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J. J., & Riggs, S. O. (2021). Psychology, market pressures, and pricing decisions in higher education: The case of the US private sector. Higher Education, 81, 757–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, A. R., & Taylor, B. (2019). Alignment between universities and their affiliated professional schools: Organizational segmentation and institutional logics in the USA. Higher Education, 78, 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The third mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correia, F., Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). Public and private higher education in Portugal: Unintended effects of deregulation. European Journal of Education, 37(4), 457–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 624–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2021). Are organizational and economic proximity driving factors of scientific collaboration? Evidence from Spanish universities, 2001–2010. Scientometrics, 126, 579–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, T., & Shepherd, D. (2018). Emerging structures for social enterprises within nonprofits: An institutional logics perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 474–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., & Lissoni, F. (2010). University research and public-private interaction. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 275–314). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2007). University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory and Society, 36(4), 287–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 692–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (1988). Public and private sectors in higher education: A comparison of international patterns. Higher Education, 17, 699–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, E. (1968). Universities as organizations: A research approach. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 518–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Voldberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. (2006). Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 97–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., Kim, B., & Kim, H. (2011). The importance of status in markets: A market identity perspective. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in management and organizations (pp. 87–113). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B. (2020). Normative uncertainty and middle-status innovation in the US daily newspaper industry. Strategic Organization, 18(3), 377–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., & Rhee, K. (2017). Structural and behavioral antecedents of change: Status, distinctiveness, and relative performance. Journal of Management, 43(3), 716–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. C. (2018). Global private higher education: An empirical profile of its size and geographical shape. Higher Education, 76, 701–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, K., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., Schulz, M., & Zhou, X. (2000). The dynamics of rules: Change written in organizational codes. Stanford University Press.

  • Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53, 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marino, A., Aversa, P., Mesquita, L., & Anand, J. (2015). Driving performance via exploration in changing environments: Evidence from formula one racing. Organization Science, 26(4), 1079–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Who takes you to the dance? How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4), 596–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peris-Ortiz, M., García-Hurtado, D., & Román, A. P. (2023). Measuring knowledge exploration and exploitation in universities and the relationship with global ranking indicators. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 29(2), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2006). Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 759–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.

  • Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietilä, M., & Pinheiro, R. (2021). Reaching for different ends through tenure track–institutional logics in university career systems. Higher Education, 81, 1197–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J.M. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton University Press.

  • Posen, H. E., & Levinthal, D. A. (2012). Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Science, 58(3), 587–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothblatt, S., & Wittrock, B. (1993). The European and American university since 1800. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sam, C., & van der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68, 891–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M., & Lancaster, R. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effects of U.S. News & World Report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law and Society Review, 40(1), 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saz-Carranza, A., & Longo, F. (2012). Managing competing institutional logics in public-private joint ventures. Public Management Review, 14(3), 331–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, T. (2016). The perilous leap between exploration and exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1688–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, P., Rocha, V., Biscaia, R., & Cardoso, M. F. (2012). Myths, beliefs and realities: Public-private competition and program diversification in higher education. Journal of Economic Issues, 46(3), 683–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). SAGE Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vest, C. M. (2007). The American research university from World War II to World Wide Web: Governments, the private sector, and the emerging meta-university. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., & Yussof, I. (2005). Public and private provision of higher education in Malaysia: A comparative analysis. Higher Education, 50, 361–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, E., Feng, S., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Unemployed graduate to the next Jack Ma? A counter-narrative to the entrepreneurship movement in higher education. Higher Education, 83, 863–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **a, J., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, J. C., & Fan, D. (2023). Reconciling multiple institutional logics for ambidexterity: Human resource management reforms in Chinese public universities. Advanced online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, X. (2014). Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yonsei School of Business, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea

    Cuehyon Kim, Yeaji Kim, Mooweon Rhee & Bo Kyung Kim

Authors
  1. Cuehyon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yeaji Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mooweon Rhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bo Kyung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Kyung Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, C., Kim, Y., Rhee, M. et al. Pathways to exploration in higher education: status and institutional logic in public and private higher education institutions. High Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01135-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01135-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation