فایل ورد کامل مزیت رقابت آمیز، معنای واقعی آن در محیط موسسات آموزش عالی دولتی چیست؟

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل مزیت رقابت آمیز، معنای واقعی آن در محیط موسسات آموزش عالی دولتی چیست؟،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۲۵ صفحه

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسیعنوان انگلیسی:Competitive advantage, what does it really mean in the context of public higher education institutions~~en~~

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically investigate the discourse on “competitive advantage”, a concept that has been widely applied in the public higher education sector, but rarely defined and conceptualised.

Design/methodology/approach In order to get some insightful understanding about how “competitive advantage” is actually manifested in the life and activities of public higher education institutions (PHEIs), it is necessary to obtain data about the perceptions held by education practitioners in different sub-sectors and at various job function levels. In total, 73 interviews at 16 Dutch PHEIs were conducted in the period of 2009-2011.

Findings By studying the diversified meanings, 13 elements were identified in constructing the competitive advantages sought by PHEIs, and, more importantly the significance of each element is rated and ranked. Furthermore, this research discovered that the research universities and universities of applied sciences perceive this concept differently; also, the practitioners holding different job functions gave divergent meanings to this term. The clarification of this container concept “competitive advantage” leads to the conclusion that the business way of defining “competitive advantage” should be critically reviewed and verified in the context of the public higher education sector.

Research limitations/implications This study used just two parameters for the selection of individual respondents: their job function and the length of their working experience. Further studies that adopt different selection parameters are, therefore, encouraged as offering the potential to further enrich our knowledge about how competitive advantage is perceived and put into practice. It is hoped that the findings from this research offer some guidance in developing a framework for such further studies.

Practical implications The sectorial differences revealed by this study can help research universities and universities of applied sciences design their competitive strategies more suitable with their specific characteristics. The job function level differences shown by the research findings can help institutions to identify and close the gaps between the central level and faculty level in their strategic planning and implementation.

Originality/value The clarification of the container concept “competitive advantage” is unique in the current educational management literature, particularly in both qualitative and quantitative ways. The comparisons between two institutional types and two job function levels may help PHEIs to effectively design competitive strategies according to their specific institutional characteristics and by understanding the gaps between the central and faculty level.

۱ Introduction

Public higher education institutions (PHEIs) are increasingly characterised worldwide by the new dimension of commodification and marketisation (Eckel, 2007; Jiang, 2008; Martin and Lzaro, 2011; Erickson, 2012), and confronted with a big challenge in finding a balance between traditional academic operation and the new but increasingly dominant market-driven dimension of global competition (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007; Kim, 2009; Cheung and Chan, 2010). In this context, PHEIs are increasingly required to gain competitive advantage in both national and international markets in order to create or maintain a competitive position (Arambewela and Hall, 2006; Chan and Dimmock, 2008; Wilkins and Huisman, 2011).

The notion of “competitive advantage” and related competitive theories were developed originally in the private business sector, but are claimed to be applicable in the public sector (e.g. Porter, 1980; Barney and Arikan, 2001; Powell, 2001). This claim is based on the supposition that PHEIs and firms face the same kind of competition and have the same need to survive and prosper by achieving/realising a better “fit” with their environment (Drazin and van de Ven, 1985; Jenster, 1987; Johnson and Scholes, 2002; Bryson et al., 2007). Particularly when PHEIs are viewed as service providers in a marketplace, the business conceptualisation of “competitive advantage” has been taken as granted (Eckel, 2007; Marginson, 2007; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008). However, as Knight (2003) pointed out, many business concepts have been widely used in educational administration and management, but little attention has been paid to defining them and understanding their application and implication in the context of higher education. If there is a single lesson that holds true from the business and management literature of the past century, it is that context matters (Volberda and Elfring, 2002). Therefore, the contextual differences between the public higher education sector and the private business sector cannot be put aside by assuming that marketplace, competition and competitive advantage mean the same in both.

This study with both qualitative and quantitative characteristics aims to clarify three questions:

RQ1. What competitive advantages do PHEIs seek

RQ2. In what ranking do they perceive the importance of various competitive advantages

RQ3. How to verify the concept “competitive advantage” in the context of public higher education

In order to answer these questions this paper starts by briefly commenting upon the concept studied by the business and education sector. Second, a brief description of the Dutch higher education sector is provided where the study was conducted. Third, the research method and data analysis results are presented. This research took an empirical approach by interviewing a large number of practitioners (n ¼ ۷۳) in 16 Dutch universities chosen from the 43 PHEIs in the Netherlands. By comparing the interview data along two dimensions (sectorial and job function), the elements that construct the meaning of “competitive advantage” and their significance in the Dutch PHEIs context are presented. Finally, the findings from data analysis led to a discussion on how the business way of defining “competitive advantage” can be verified in the context of the public higher education sector.

$$en!!