View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Paths to Status among Public Research Universities in the United States, 2010-2021

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Paths to Status among Public Research Universities in the United States, 2010-2021
Language: English
Authors: Barrett J. Taylor (ORCID 0000-0003-4332-7874), Brendan Cantwell (ORCID 0000-0003-3882-4200)
Source: Higher Education Quarterly. 2025 79(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Research Universities, Status, Institutional Characteristics, Differences, Reputation, Financial Support, Selective Admission, Research, Institutional Mission
DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12569
ISSN: 0951-5224
1468-2273
Abstract: Although universities are often characterised as 'elite', institutions can attain status in multiple dimensions--reputation, research, money and selectivity. We studied 21st century public universities in the United States, using latent profile analysis to identify which universities followed each path to status. Most universities pursued none, and very few pursued all four. Membership in the four groups was stable over time, indicating limited mobility.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1459553
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHPUkR5t6ChbvFugQ1sJ4oPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE6d9UPCN0ijJHacUwIBEICBm_0YauzdDcp1RMxbHBgfKxiNKrfFw8vPVvBlkq9RvpHo_m4SL7tlqHH2W-t_2TUv9qsBBH7IxuRz00hZ66w2059tS43x8dzEVzO1teO1dG8u81GsMOJUbbootSc8qxeetx9nzK5WadELIAjWy2zOZqu5moHeznTaX6ixa-aCd0QkZHXhUl8s57P8BKFD_kJtF1pDDDpYV2enzXOm
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183952944;d8501jan.25;2025Mar25.08:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183952944-1">Paths to status among public research universities in the United States, 2010–2021 </title> <p>Although universities are often characterised as 'elite', institutions can attain status in multiple dimensions—reputation, research, money and selectivity. We studied 21st century public universities in the United States, using latent profile analysis to identify which universities followed each path to status. Most universities pursued none, and very few pursued all four. Membership in the four groups was stable over time, indicating limited mobility.</p> <p>Keywords: latent profile analysis; research universities; status‐seeking; United States</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Universities occupy differential status positions, and the basis of their status is dependent, at least in part, on nationally specific dynamics (Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref1">51</reflink>]). In the United States, universities, especially public research universities, are expected to accomplish numerous goals (Brint, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]; Crow & Dabars, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]; Kerr, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref4">43</reflink>]). Cast as multi‐product organisations (Leslie et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref5">48</reflink>]), these institutions must not only engage in teaching and research but are also expected to generate an array of public and private goods and services. Among other things, public research universities are expected to generate social mobility (Chetty et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]), engage in community outreach (Lounsbury & Pollack, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]), manage semi‐professional football teams (Clotfelter, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]), supply students with an array of enriching social and educational experiences (Mayhew et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]) and consumption amenities such as gymnasiums, dining options and entertainment (Jacob et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]), contribute to economic development and innovation (Owen‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref11">60</reflink>]), provide health care and operate hospitals (Epstein, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>]) and act as sites for negotiating thorny political issues (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]). Optimistic analyses see the capacity of US universities to absorb new demands while maintaining existing activities as among their greatest strengths (Brint, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]). However, the more sprawling the mission of US universities becomes, the more difficult it is to define and pursue that mission.</p> <p>While mission‐driven, universities are also corporate social entities with self‐interests. It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure directly the extent to which a public university fulfils its many missions. Accordingly, status is linked not to mission fulfilment, but to the social position of a university relative to its peers (Cantwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). Universities therefore engage in an endless set of status games. High‐status incumbents seek to refine their positions and create ever more paths to distinction (Brankovic, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]). University leaders stake their careers on the prospect of making their institutions higher status (Tuchman, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref17">77</reflink>]). These status games occur primarily, although not exclusively, on semi‐independent tracks from the other expectations loaded onto universities. For example, a university's position in the research status game is largely distinct from its athletics pursuits (Hutchinson et al., 2016).</p> <p>Scholars, policymakers and public commentators use terms like <emph>elite</emph> and <emph>flagship</emph> to distinguish higher education institutions that fare well in one or more status games. However, the meaning of these terms is rarely clarified (Byrd et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]). Because universities espouse multiple missions (Leslie et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref19">48</reflink>]), they compete for status along multiple axes (Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]). Reputation—an intersubjective belief that specific institutions are better than others—anchors status hierarchies among universities (Bastedo & Bowman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]). Global rankings (e.g. Shanghai, Leiden) prioritise research output (Hazelkorn, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref22">36</reflink>]), while national reputation tends to reflect perceived educational quality (Brankovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>]). Because practically all public universities engage in research and teaching, campus leaders may seek status by emphasising reputation in one or both areas.</p> <p>Amassing material resources provides a third path to status. Funds drawn from sources other than tuition are especially desirable because they insulate an institution from enrolment fluctuations. A few, mostly private, institutions enjoy enormous endowment wealth (Meyer & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref24">57</reflink>]) or other non‐tuition income (Stephan, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref25">68</reflink>]; Szelényi, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref26">70</reflink>]; Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref27">74</reflink>]), making their financial and status positions practically unassailable. By contrast, most public universities' budgets ebb and flow with variations in state funding and tuition income (Laderman & Kunkle, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]). Volatility limits the strategic decisions that campus leaders make (Doyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]; Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref30">73</reflink>]; Whatley & Castiello‐Gutiérrez, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref31">84</reflink>]). Robust income that minimises revenue variation is therefore highly desirable.</p> <p>The benefits of enrolment stability suggest a fourth path to status—selective admissions. <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> rankings arrange colleges based on their reputations and resources that seem to shape student choice (Bowman & Bastedo, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]; Chu, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]), indicating that a college or university has a distinctive organisational identity (Furuta, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]). Selectivity also tends to coincide with prosperity. Only the few universities with a surplus of dollars and applicants can afford to turn away students (Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref35">74</reflink>]; Winston, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref36">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>This analysis explores patterns in how public universities in the United States are positioned with respect to multiple measures of status—reputational rankings, research extensiveness, money and admissions selectivity. To do this, we studied a group of already‐successful organisations to discover fine distinctions among them, 2010–2021. Status is no guarantee of educational quality (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]), and we explicitly note that we do not intend to reify universities' status‐seeking pursuits. We disavow any claims to identify objective differences in quality and make no normative assessments about which universities are better than others. Instead, we seek a deepened understanding of university behaviour and strategy.</p> <p>Three research questions guided our inquiry.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What paths to status were evident among public colleges and universities?</item> <p></p> <item> Did the share of institutions following each path change over time?</item> <p></p> <item> What organisational and environmental conditions were associated with each path to status?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183952944-3">FOUR PATHS TO STATUS</hd> <p>In high participation systems of higher education like the United States, it matters not only whether a student enrols but also where that student attends (Cantwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref38">13</reflink>]; Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>]). Among public universities in the United States, much hierarchy is by design. State systems of higher education, often tacitly influenced by California's example (Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref40">53</reflink>]), typically featured a small number of research universities alongside multiple broad‐access institutions and community colleges. Such a system was designed to manage high costs at research universities. Over time, however, many of the US states drifted from these arrangements. In place of the public funding and mission discipline that characterised previous decades, policymakers encouraged public universities to compete with one another (Eckel & Morphew, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]; Slaughter & Leslie, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref42">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>The roots of such competition dated back decades (Labaree, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]). Until the middle of the 19th century, US higher education institutions tended to focus on local and/or provincial concerns. The formalisation of higher education's research mission, which occurred alongside the professionalisation of the faculty, expanded this mission. Newly formed academic departments began to seek doctorally prepared scholars distinguished by their expert knowledge rather than their ties to local or church officials (Reuben, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref44">63</reflink>]). Campus officials hired distinguished scholars away from other institutions, hoping to buttress their own university's research eminence while diminishing their rivals (Thelin, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref45">76</reflink>]). A narrative of reform and improvement, sustained by philanthropists, state officials and university leaders, coalesced at the centre of US higher education (Ris, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref46">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a result of these changes, most universities came to embrace the research mission by the early 20th century. Faculty mobility, coupled with an infusion of funds from the federal government, created market‐like competition that propelled research ambition (Urquiola, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref47">78</reflink>]). However, universities differed notably in their level of research intensiveness (Geiger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref48">32</reflink>]). In 1900, 14 of the most research‐intensive universities in the United States established the Association of American Universities ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]). Membership in this exclusive organisation served as an early marker of the field hierarchy among research universities. These divisions widened throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, with a handful of high‐status private universities setting nearly unattainable standards for their public counterparts (Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref50">71</reflink>]; Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref51">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>One reason for these differences in research intensiveness was the wide variation in state funding for higher education (Geiger, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]). In the United States, various resource providers have shared higher education costs for centuries (Johnstone, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>]). Over time, however, higher education became much costlier (Archibald & Feldman, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]). Funding from the states constituted a smaller share of rising higher education costs, and tuition income rose in importance (Laderman & Kunkle, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref55">47</reflink>]). Public universities also derive income from research (Stephan, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref56">68</reflink>]; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref57">71</reflink>]), donations (Weisbrod et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref58">83</reflink>]) and endowments and savings (Meyer & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref59">57</reflink>]). In these cases, there are wide gaps between the universities that collect the most income and those that collect less. These gaps—which have characterised the field for decades—indicate that money is a second way that public universities are distinguished from one another.</p> <p>A third path to status involves selective admissions (Winston, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref60">86</reflink>]). Excluding prospective students indicates that a university has enough applicants to choose among them and enough money to turn away some of those would‐be tuition payers. Although selectivity has long been a means of reproducing race and class privilege (Karabel, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>]), until the massification of US higher education only a handful of institutions excluded many applicants at all (Axtell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]). Selective admissions spread in a limited way over time. As growing numbers of people proved willing to search nationally for an enrolment destination, competition for admission to a few high‐status universities intensified (Hoxby, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref64">37</reflink>]). Indeed, by the early 21st century, students, families and schools invested considerable effort in preparing candidates for admission (Furuta, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]; Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref66">69</reflink>]; Weis et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref67">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the difficulty of securing admission to a selective university garners considerable public attention, few public universities meet these criteria. Most public universities offer admission to a considerable majority of applicants. Enrolment at these universities is limited by student demand, not by selective admissions (Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref68">74</reflink>]). Selective admissions thereby constitute a third path to status for public universities.</p> <p>College and university rankings are among the 20th‐century technologies that helped to expand students' choice sets and, by extension, widen gaps in university selectivity. These devices constructed differences between universities based on perceived quality (Wilbers & Brankovic, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref69">85</reflink>]), creating comparability and hierarchy where before there had been heterogeneity (Pusser & Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref70">61</reflink>]). As a result, reputational rankings like those produced by <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> allowed students to compare—albeit arbitrarily—universities to one another. It is therefore unsurprising that rankings shape both students' college choices (Bowman & Bastedo, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]) and organisations' efforts to maintain and improve their status (Bastedo & Bowman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>]; Espeland & Sauder, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]). Reputational position therefore offered a fourth path to status that university officials could pursue.</p> <p>The four paths to status that we identified are summarised in Table 1. These paths could be interrelated. For example, robust revenues could facilitate increased institutional spending on research, a fast‐growing support category for academic R&D (National Science Board, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref74">59</reflink>]). Similarly, admissions selectivity and reputational rankings tend to be tightly linked, and in some years, admissions selectivity is a component of rankings calculations (Ehrenberg, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]). Campus leadership therefore faces complex decisions about which path(s) to follow.</p> <p>1 TABLE Avenues for acquiring status.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Financial resources</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Research intensity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Selective admissions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prestigious reputation</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183952944-4">CONCEPTUALISING PATHS TO STATUS</hd> <p>The four paths to status we identified in Table 1 were transformed in the closing decades of the 20th century and the early decades of the 21st. During those years, total US spending on higher education soared, more universities sought to emphasise research, a handful of institutions became more selective and reputational rankings became ubiquitous. In response to these changes, Clark ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref76">18</reflink>]) encouraged universities to develop stronger administrative cores and more flexible workforces. This more corporatised structure appeared to take root in universities that sought to improve their status (Slaughter & Leslie, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref77">66</reflink>]; Slaughter & Rhoades, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref78">67</reflink>]; Tuchman, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref79">77</reflink>]). Research production could be channelled into quantifiable outputs (Gonzales & Nuñez, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref80">34</reflink>]), aligning with the research and rankings paths to status (Cantwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]). However, this approach could also lead to rising costs, suggesting that only a few public universities could pursue all four paths simultaneously (McClure & Titus, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref82">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these material limitations, however, university leaders typically seek a path to greater status for the institutions they lead. Campus leaders act strategically to navigate the field (Fligstein & McAdam, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref83">30</reflink>]; Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref84">74</reflink>]) and respond creatively to field conditions (Colyvas & Powell, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref85">21</reflink>]; Zietsma & Lawrence, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref86">88</reflink>]). As a result, striving is widespread even when university missions conflict with these status‐seeking behaviours (Gonzales & Nuñez, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref87">34</reflink>]; Warshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref88">81</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref89">80</reflink>]; Zerquera, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref90">87</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because public universities in the US pursue multiple activities simultaneously, it was not always clear what shape this status‐seeking behaviour would take. Organisational distinctiveness, meaning the selection of one or two paths to status, offers some advantages to campus leaders. Distinctive organisations limit their scope of operations and, therefore, their costs. A distinctive focus thereby can allow a college or university to strengthen its position relative to its peers (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref91">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref92">19</reflink>]). Dominant ways of understanding higher education that emphasises economic frames also would expect universities to specialise—identifying 'niches'—in response to market‐like competition (Berman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref93">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Instead of framing higher education competitions as encouraging specialisation, neo‐institutional theorists expect similarities. In this account, universities lack technical standards for fulfilling their missions. Accordingly, people who work in institutionalised fields tend to converge on a narrow suite of practices that indicate what a legitimate member of the field—in this case, a public university in the United States—'ought' to do (Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref94">58</reflink>]). Successful, established universities establish field standards that other organisations emulate (Kimball & Iler, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref95">44</reflink>]), and third‐party organisations such as university rankings legitimate these practices (Brankovic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref96">9</reflink>]). These accounts often stress stability because new practices tend to reify existing status hierarchies among universities (Schofer & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref97">65</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref98">72</reflink>]; Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref99">73</reflink>]; Wilbers & Brankovic, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref100">85</reflink>]).</p> <p>Drawing insight from both frameworks that emphasise distinctiveness and those that emphasise similarity, we understand higher education as a social field characterised by taken‐for‐granted rules and resource hierarchies (Fligstein & McAdam, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref101">30</reflink>]). Because higher education is a social field, status is not driven by economic efficiency. Instead, status indicates the extent to which a university leverages field conditions to improve its organisational position. Our literature review identified four such leverage points, which we term <emph>paths to status</emph> (Table 1). A 40‐year content analysis found that scholars cited these paths more often than any other features to describe elite and flagship campuses (Byrd et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref102">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fields are characterised by hierarchies as well as strategic actions (Fligstein & McAdam, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref103">30</reflink>]). Hierarchy means that not all responses are available to every institution (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref104">72</reflink>]). For example, while the most prestigious private universities set the standard for status‐seeking, no public universities can match the resources available to these Super Elite institutions (Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref105">74</reflink>]). This is in part because the highest‐status privates secured their status and resource flows long ago, allowing these benefits to compound over time (Labaree, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>]). Further, campus leaders must reconcile conflicting environmental imperatives with their culture and mission while managing finite resources (Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref107">45</reflink>]). In US states such as Texas, for example, elected officials may send conflicting signals, demanding that universities maintain access and expand research production simultaneously (Fernandez et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref108">29</reflink>]). This conflict is endemic to many broad access universities' missions (Warshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref109">80</reflink>]). As a result of these complications, not every university can pursue each path to status.</p> <p>Our understanding of higher education as a social field prompts us to anticipate two major characteristics of public universities' status games. First, because most field members compete for status under the existing rules, we expect most universities in our sample to engage in status games. While we expect a few incumbents to prosper and most challengers to struggle, we do not anticipate that any universities will completely withdraw from status games (e.g. by practicing open admissions). As mentioned previously, the mission and scope of US universities tend to expand rather than narrow into niches.</p> <p>Second, we expect some paths to status to be more widely employed than others. For example, what Hamilton and Nielsen ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref110">35</reflink>]) call new universities—public institutions that are often minority‐serving institutions and that use tuition income to support research—may fare well on metrics emphasising total revenues and research intensity. However, this status is secured by enrolling large numbers of students, which may reduce an institution's admissions selectivity and position in reputational rankings. Identifying the paths to status and the number of universities following each path at a given time helps to understand how different universities strategically navigated changing field conditions in the early 21st century.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-5">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183952944-6">Sample and data</hd> <p>To explore the different paths to status employed by public universities in the United States, we accessed data on the 169 institutions identified as public research universities (very high activity, high activity, doctoral) in the Carnegie Classifications of 2010. Using the classifications from the beginning of our study window ensured that our sample was fixed. Institutions that became research universities during the study period might pursue different paths than did institutions classified as research universities for all years of the study.</p> <p>We used existing data for every year from 2010 to 2021, the most recent year for which data were available, to describe the members of our sample. Finance and enrolment data were drawn from the US Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. We followed guidance from Jaquette and Parra ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref111">40</reflink>]) to manage parent–child reporting concerns. We used Reiter's ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref112">62</reflink>]) historical compilation of <emph>USNWR</emph> data to measure reputational rankings. State‐level data were drawn from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey. We adjusted all finance figures for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-7">Methods</hd> <p>We understand our sample as consisting of multiple distinct subsamples because our literature review identified four different paths to status. Accordingly, we expected latent, meaning unmeasurable and groups of universities within our sample. We used observed data to identify these groups so that we could describe the different paths to status that universities pursued.</p> <p>Finite mixture modelling techniques are case‐centric methods better suited to identify distinct subsamples than are variable‐centric approaches such as cluster analysis (Masyn, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref113">54</reflink>]). We employed latent profile analysis (LPA), which identifies unmeasurable groupings using continuous measurable variables (Vermunt & Magidson, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref114">79</reflink>]). We fit our LPA using four observed variables, one for each path to status we identified. Data were transformed as described to ensure that all four variables were scaled similarly. This reduced the model's dependence upon any single variable for its explanatory power.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Total spending</emph>. We allocated total expenditures per full‐time equivalent (FTE) student. To scale this variable, we calculated an average for all universities in a particular year and then expressed the observed value of a given university as a share of that annual average. As a result, a university that spent the sample average each year would have a value of 1.00, while a university that spent 10% more than the average would have a value of 1.10.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Research intensiveness</emph>. We measured research intensiveness as the share of total expenditures allocated to research. We scaled this variable using the same procedure employed for total spending.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Admissions selectivity</emph>. We calculated admissions selectivity as the proportion of applicants admitted. We scaled this measure using the same procedure employed for research intensiveness. Because being selective is prestigious, however, the interpretation of this variable is the opposite—smaller values denote higher status (i.e. a lower share of applicants admitted).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Reputational rankings</emph>. Given the importance of being on 'the front page' (Bowman & Bastedo, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref115">7</reflink>]), we calculated a university's distance from the 25th spot in the <emph>USNWR</emph> rankings. Each spot above #26 in the <emph>USNWR</emph> hierarchy was worth four points, while each spot from 26 and below was worth zero points. As a result, the variable ran from a minimum of zero (not on the front page) to a potential maximum of 100 (atop the front page). We divided this number by 100 so that our measure of reputational rankings spanned a similar range to other measures.</item> </ulist> <p>Because our model included multiple observations of the same universities over time, we clustered errors in model estimation by the university.</p> <p>Identifying the number of cases is a persistent challenge of LPA (Croon, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref116">22</reflink>]). Table 2 presents measures of model fit for two‐, three‐ and four‐category models. AIC and BIC indicate improved model fit as they become more negative. However, because these numbers are not indexed to a known statistical distribution, they are not persuasive on their own. We therefore paired these fit indicators with descriptive data on the share of cases classified with a high level of confidence. The percentage of cases above 70%, 90% and 95% exceed common thresholds in all three models (Masyn, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref117">54</reflink>]). Based on our review of the figures presented in Table 2, we preferred the four‐category model. This set of results nominally improved upon the AIC and BIC of the three‐category model while also classifying cases with the highest level of confidence.</p> <p>2 TABLE Measures of fit guiding model selection.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Number of categories</th><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(3)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Akaike's information criterion</th><th align="left">Bayesian information criterion</th><th align="left">Percentage of cases classified with 75% confidence</th><th align="left">Percentage of cases classified with 90% confidence</th><th align="left">Percentage of cases classified with 95% confidence</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Two categories</td><td align="char" char=".">−3653.638</td><td align="char" char=".">−3579.645</td><td align="char" char=".">99.4%</td><td align="char" char=".">98.5%</td><td align="char" char=".">95.2%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Three categories</td><td align="char" char=".">−3955.741</td><td align="char" char=".">−3860.290</td><td align="char" char=".">76.7%</td><td align="char" char=".">60.4%</td><td align="char" char=".">49.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Four categories</td><td align="char" char=".">−7960.799</td><td align="char" char=".">−7859.73</td><td align="char" char=".">77.4%</td><td align="char" char=".">61.2%</td><td align="char" char=".">50.3%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Results from the four‐category model answered RQ1. This model held categories constant over time, allowing universities to move from one profile to another. Describing movement among categories answered RQ2.</p> <p>To answer RQ3, we conducted a multinomial logistic regression to identify organisational and environmental characteristics associated with pursuing a particular path to status. A multinomial logistic regression was appropriate because our dependent variable (path to status) was categorical and unordered (Long, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref118">49</reflink>]); some paths to status may be more favoured but they are not more valuable (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref119">12</reflink>]). Because maximum likelihood‐based regressions are highly sensitive to small sample size (Long, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref120">49</reflink>]), we estimated a parsimonious model. One set of independent variables in our analysis included other measures of organisational position (e.g. tuition dependence, enrolment size and Carnegie classification) to account for the established hierarchy of the field (Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref121">74</reflink>]). Another independent variable (population density) accounted for the close relationship between public universities and the US states.</p> <p>We fit our regression to our data in several ways. First, we conducted a 'random effects' analysis because the inclusion of fixed university‐level effects would limit our sample to the handful of universities that changed category membership during the study window (see Figure 1). Second, we addressed historical time through the inclusion of a log‐linear time trend, a control that was not conceptually interesting but was more parsimonious than the use of fixed time effects. Finally, we note that our regression covered a slightly shorter period (2012–2021) than did our LPA. This ensured that all independent variables were available in every year.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jan25/hequ12569-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ12569-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Change over time in category membership, 2010–2021." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183952944-9">FINDINGS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183952944-10">Latent profile analysis</hd> <p>Table 3 summarises the four paths to status that public universities pursued from 2010 to 2021. These results answered RQ1. As is conventional, we developed a descriptive label for each profile.</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptions of four latent profiles, 2010–2021.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(4)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Maintaining</th><th align="left">Research only</th><th align="left">Selective spenders</th><th align="left">All of the above</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">USNW ranking</td><td align="left">0.00 (0.00)</td><td align="left">0.00 (0.00)</td><td align="left">0.00 (0.02)</td><td align="left">0.19 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Research intensiveness</td><td align="left">0.67 (0.37)</td><td align="left">1.67 (0.45)</td><td align="left">0.85 (0.32)</td><td align="left">1.34 (0.45)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total spending</td><td align="left">0.67 (0.22)</td><td align="left">1.00 (0.27)</td><td align="left">2.63 (0.57)</td><td align="left">2.36 (1.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Admissions selectivity</td><td align="left">1.04 (0.24)</td><td align="left">1.00 (0.25)</td><td align="left">0.83 (0.32)</td><td align="left">0.27 (0.08)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Example members</td><td align="left">University of ArkansasUniversity of Wyoming</td><td align="left">RutgersTexas A&M</td><td align="left">University of MichiganUNC‐Chapel Hill</td><td align="left">UCLAUC‐Berkeley</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of cases</td><td align="left">1198</td><td align="left">595</td><td align="left">214</td><td align="left">21</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Percent of cases</td><td align="left">59.1%</td><td align="left">29.3%</td><td align="left">10.6%</td><td align="left">1.0%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Our model classified the majority of cases (59%) as following the <emph>maintaining</emph> path. Maintaining universities did not spend as much as their counterparts, and they allocated a smaller share of that already small total spending to research. On average, maintaining universities also admitted an above‐average share of applicants, indicating they did not have the luxury of choosing their students as freely as some of their counterparts. These enrolment dynamics may be correlated with the absence of any of these universities from the <emph>USNWR</emph> 'front page' (Bowman & Bastedo, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref122">7</reflink>]). In short, maintaining universities pursued none of the four paths to status.</p> <p>The second profile of universities, which we named the r<emph>esearch only</emph> group, was the second‐largest group with just under 30% of cases. Like their maintaining counterparts, none of these universities made the <emph>USNWR</emph> front page, and they were approximately average on total spending and admissions selectivity. As their name implies, universities in this profile pursued one path to status, research intensity. Relative to the sample average, universities in this profile were the most research‐intensive of any of the four groups.</p> <p>Members of the s<emph>elective spenders</emph> group also pursued only some paths to status. In contrast to members of the first two profiles, these universities practiced selective admissions. Selective spenders also had higher than average levels of overall expenditures. However, because overall spending was so high, research comprised a below‐average share of that total. In absolute terms, these universities spent more on research per FTE than did their research only counterparts, as might be expected given the number of high‐status research universities in this profile (Table 3).</p> <p>High total spending opened many paths to status. A few selective spenders even made the <emph>USNWR</emph> 'front page'. As this implies, selective spenders pursued multiple paths to status simultaneously. Few universities had enough resources to pull off such a feat, making the Selective Spenders the second‐smallest group we identified (10.6%).</p> <p>The final profile, <emph>all of the above</emph>, was smaller still. Only one institution—the University of California‐Berkeley—belonged to this category in all years of the study. The members of this exclusive group set a standard that, by definition, few of their peers could meet. In contrast to the other profiles, all of the above universities placed well in <emph>USNWR</emph> rankings. They also practised by far the most selective admissions of any group. Further, these universities maintained both high total spending and allocated a large share of those expenditures to research. In other words, the handful of universities in this profile pursued all four paths to status simultaneously.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-11">Change over time</hd> <p>In response to RQ2, Figure 1 illustrates change over time in category membership. Few universities moved from one path to another. The all the above category was exclusive and, therefore, stable. UCLA joined this group in 2014, and the University of Virginia appeared for 2 years. Both universities had previously been in the selective spender profile. This limited mobility suggests that it was very difficult for even high‐status public universities to pursue all four paths simultaneously.</p> <p>For most sampled universities, even these modest levels of mobility seemed unattainable. There was little movement out of the maintaining group, as indicated by the almost flat line in Figure 1. The field hierarchy was stable, with only a few universities changing paths.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-12">Regression analysis</hd> <p>Results of our multinomial logistic regression analysis are presented in Table 4 as exponentiated coefficients known as 'relative risk ratios'. These coefficients have a multiplicative interpretation on the risk of belonging to the specified category relative to the omitted group. A value <1.0 indicates a negative association while a value >1.0 suggests a positive association. Due to the large number of universities in the maintaining category, we selected that group as the referent for the dependent variable. We used the 'very high research activity' Carnegie classification as the referent for the same reason.</p> <p>4 TABLE Output from multinominal regression identifying associations between institutional and state characteristics and latent profiles (maintaining profile is referent category).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Research only</th><th align="left">Selective spenders</th><th align="left">All of the above</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Percent of total revenue from net tuition and fees</td><td align="left">0.90 (0.06)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.34** (0.04)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.70* (0.11)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Full‐time equivalent enrolment (natural logarithm)</td><td align="left">0.02* (0.01)</td><td align="char" char="(">9.99 (1.00)</td><td align="char" char="(">83.29 (315.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Carnegie classification: High research activity</td><td align="left">0.00** (0.00)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.00** (0.00)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.00 (0.00)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Carnegie classification: doctoral university</td><td align="left">0.00 (0.00)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.00 (0.00)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.00 (0.00)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Population per square mile</td><td align="left">1.00 (0.00)</td><td align="char" char="(">1.00 (0.01)</td><td align="char" char="(">1.00 (0.01)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Log‐linear time trend</td><td align="left">1.02 (0.20)</td><td align="char" char="(">0.56 (0.53)</td><td align="char" char="(">1.33 (1.28)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of observations</td><td align="left">1608</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Log‐likelihood</td><td align="left">−335.88707</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</p> <p>Public universities following one of the three paths to status differed from maintaining universities in several ways. Selective spenders and all of the above universities were significantly less tuition dependent than were maintaining universities. Research only universities, by contrast, had significantly smaller total FTE enrolments than did maintaining universities. Research only and selective spending universities were also much less likely to belong to the 'high research activity' Carnegie group than the referent category of the 'very high research activity' classification.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-13">DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>Prestige is not necessarily associated with better organisational performance in higher education (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref123">12</reflink>]). Status, in other words, is not a means to the end of organisational improvement; it is an end in itself. Higher education is fundamentally a social enterprise, and status allows observers to make a relational distinction between what might otherwise seem to be indistinct organisations (Brankovic, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref124">8</reflink>]). Because public universities draw revenues from multiple sources and use these resources to pursue multiple missions simultaneously (Leslie et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref125">48</reflink>]), we assumed that public universities would seek status along multiple axes. Identifying these paths and the characteristics of universities that pursued them suggests the contours of the field.</p> <p>Our findings indicate that status is asymmetrically distributed. In a sense, this is not surprising. Axiomatically, half of a sample will be 'below average'. Classifying almost 60% of universities as maintaining is therefore expected even if in the broader scope of the US higher education system, every university included in this study is 'successful'. The point is that these successful universities seek fine‐grained distinctions among one another. Our findings therefore underline a core facet of status games in US higher education. The paths we identified were exclusive, and most public universities had almost no opportunity to take them.</p> <p>Research intensiveness was the most common of the paths we identified. There are many interpretations of this finding. First, the research mission is deeply embedded within the history of the public university as an organisational form (Geiger, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref126">33</reflink>]). Second, many contemporary public universities' expanding scale and scope enable these organisations to provide cross‐subsidies for research. Institutional contributions to R&D spending have risen rapidly in recent decades (National Science Board, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref127">59</reflink>]). Campus leaders, in other words, enjoy considerable authority in shaping the research‐intensive path. By contrast, university officials must convince other actors—prospective students in the case of admissions selectivity, the many components of reputational rankings in the case of <emph>USNWR</emph>—to behave in a particular way for an institution to pursue those paths.</p> <p>The status hierarchy that we identified seemed as rigid as it was steep. The upper reaches of the field hierarchy were accessible only to the handful of universities that could practice selective admissions. In some years, only a single university was classified as pursuing all of the above paths. Even broadening our understanding of high‐status universities encompasses only a small corner of the field. Combined, the selective spender and all of the above profiles included less than half of the observations found in the research only profile and only about one‐fifth of the observations found in the maintaining group. In other words, most public universities had limited (research only) or practically no (maintaining) path to status. These stark status distinctions proved sticky, with few universities changing paths during our study period (Figure 1).</p> <p>Accordingly, the status hierarchy we described is remarkably stable. Institutions, including business firms and nation‐states, are understood by neo‐intuitional theorists as stable and stabilising (Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref128">58</reflink>]). Our analysis partly supports such an account. The neo‐institutional account's emphasis on stability therefore provided greater explanatory power than the focus on specialisation/niches that characterise neoclassical economic (Berman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref129">6</reflink>]) or functionalist sociological (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref130">19</reflink>]) accounts.</p> <p>However, our findings also indicate the limits of the neo‐intuitional account. Regression results indicate that the primary differences between public research universities in the United States are material. The source of university revenues—a key indicator both of total revenues and of relative independence from any single resource provider—was associated with membership in two of the higher status paths. Enrolment was correlated with membership in the third group. Opportunities to generate resources while satisfying at least one other dimension of organisation status—such as the ability to generate tuition revenue without decreasing admission selectivity—are unequally available based on geography, accumulated (dis)advantage and/or other factors (Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref131">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, then, our findings indicate both the value of a neo‐institutionalist approach to fields and the importance of complementing this account with attention to material conditions. Institutional frames might suggest both prioritising research spending and practicing selective admissions. Yet it is practically impossible for most US universities to simultaneously do these two things (Cantwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref132">14</reflink>]). Members of the maintaining and research only groups can grow their enrolment enough to cross‐subsidise research activities but do so at the expense of selective admissions. Selective spenders can be more exclusive than their peers but feature lower than average research intensity, perhaps because admission selectivity requires spending on other areas, such as consumption amenities (Jacob et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref133">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given these realities, we encourage more realistic conversations about what public universities in the United States can—and should—do. Narratives emphasising a university's ability to drive a regional economy or raise overall educational attainment in a state may seem appealing. Indeed, university leaders often reiterate such claims in the face of political headwinds (Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref134">75</reflink>]). Yet such narratives may further complicate matters for public higher education because they implicitly make unrealistic promises, thereby making it even more difficult for the 60% of public universities that follow no path to status to continue maintaining.</p> <p>This is not to say that leaders should be overly modest about what their universities can and should do. We believe universities are essential parts of society and should boldly tout their contributions (Cantwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref135">13</reflink>]). We also believe, however, that these contributions may be best made by focusing on institutions' educational missions rather than following paths to status that—for most public universities—lead nowhere.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-14">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-15">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available in NA at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionByName.aspx?goToReportId=0&sid=d2816cac‐81c8‐46d2‐a769‐3c3e7f5547c4&rtid=0. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain:—IPEDS, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionByName.aspx?goToReportId=0&sid=d2816cac‐81c8‐46d2‐a769‐3c3e7f5547c4&rtid=0—Dr Andrew Reiter, https://andyreiter.com/—US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/programs‐surveys/acs">www.census.gov/programs‐surveys/acs</ulink>.</p> <hd id="AN0183952944-16">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data for this analysis were accessed via publicly available sources.</p> <ref id="AN0183952944-17"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, D. (2020). Education and equality. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref54" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much? Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref49" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Association of American Universities. (2023). AAU history. AAU.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref63" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Axtell, J. (2016). Wisdom's workshop: The rise of the modern university. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52, 3 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref93" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berman, E. P. (2022). Thinking like an economist: How efficiency replaced equality in U.S. public policy. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref32" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. news and world report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50, 415 – 436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brankovic, J. (2018). The status games they play: Unpacking the dynamics of organisational status competition in higher education. Higher Education, 75 (4), 695 – 709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref23" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brankovic, J., Hamann, J., & Ringel, L. (2023). The institutionalization of rankings in higher education. Continuities, interdependencies, engagement. Higher Education, 84, 719 – 731.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brint, S. (2020). Two cheers for higher education: Why American universities are stronger than ever—And how to meet the challenges they face (Vol. 124). Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrd, W. C., Cantwell, B., & Baizhanov, S. (2022). The few, the proud, the elite [paper presentation]. Association for the Study of higher education (ASHE) 47th annual conference.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, C. M., Jimenez, M., & Arrozal, C. A. N. (2019). Prestige or education: College teaching and rigor of courses in prestigious and non‐prestigious institutions in the U.S. Higher Education, 77, 717 – 738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cantwell, B., Marginson, S., & Smolentsiva, A. (2018). Propositions about high participation systems of higher education. In B. Cantwell, S. Marginson, & A. Smolentsiva (Eds.), High participation systems of higher education (pp. xxi – xxii). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cantwell, B., Taylor, B. J., & Johnson, N. (2020). Ordering the global field of academic science: Money, mission, and position. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (1), 18 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chu, J. (2021). Cameras of merit or engines of inequality? College ranking systems and the enrollment of disadvantaged students. American Journal of Sociology, 126 (6), 1307 – 1346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (2), 178 – 184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Emerald Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, B. R. (2001). The distinctive college. Transaction Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C. T. (2019). Big‐time sports in American universities. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Croon, M. (2009). Ordering the classes. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 137 – 162). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2020). The fifth wave: The evolution of American higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle, W. R., Dziesinski, A. B., & Delaney, J. A. (2021). Modeling volatility in public funding for higher education: An analysis using propensity forests. Journal of Education Finance, 46 (4), 563 – 591.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eckel, P. D., & Morphew, C. C. (2009). The organizational dynamics of privatization in public higher education. In C. C. Morphew & P. D. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 88 – 108). The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The U.S. news and world report rankings and competition. The Review of Higher Education, 26 (2), 145 – 162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epstein, A. M. (1995). US teaching hospitals in the evolving health care system. JAMA, 273 (15), 1203 – 1207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety. The Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez, F., Fu, Y. C., Hu, X., & Vásquez, J. J. M. (2024). Examining the influence of Texas' strategic plan for increasing university research: Loose coupling and research production at regional public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 95 (3), 373 – 398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furuta, J. (2017). Rationalization and student/school personhood in US college admissions: The rise of test‐optional policies, 1987 to 2015. Sociology of Education, 90 (3), 236 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geiger, R. L. (1986). To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900–1940. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since world war II. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzales, L. D., & Nuñez, A. M. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (31), 1 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, L. T., & Nielsen, K. (2021). Broke: The racial consequences of underfunding public universities. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. Palgrave‐Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoxby, C. M. (2009). The changing selectivity of American colleges. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (4), 95 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacob, B., McCall, B., & Stange, K. M. (2013). College as country club: Do colleges cater to students' preferences for consumption? (No. w18745). National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23 (4), 403 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O. & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications.In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 467‐533). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabel, J. (1984). Status‐group struggle, organizational interests, and the limits of institutional autonomy: The transformation of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1918‐1940. Theory and Society, 13 (1), 1 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Houghton‐Mifflin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimball, B. A., & Iler, S. M. (2023). Wealth, cost and price: A brief history. The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, A. (2023). The origins and evolution of academic drift at the California State University, 1960‐2005. Higher Education, 85 (2), 265 – 281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labaree, D. F. (2017). A perfect mess. The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laderman, S., & Kunkle, K. (2022). State higher education finance 2021. State Higher Education Executive Officers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53 (6), 614 – 639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lounsbury, M., & Pollack, S. (2001). Institutionalizing civic engagement: Shifting logics and the cultural repackaging of service‐learning in US higher education. Organization, 8 (2), 319 – 339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52, 1 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. (2016a). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education systems: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72 (4), 413 – 434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. (2016b). The dream is over. The University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods (pp. 551 – 611). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClure, K. R., & Titus, M. A. (2018). Spending up the ranks? The relationship between striving for prestige and administrative expenditures at U.S. research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 89 (6), 961 – 987.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, H. D., & Zhou, K. (2017). Autonomy or oligarchy? The changing effects of university endowments in winner‐take‐all markets. Higher Education, 73, 833 – 851.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, J. W. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (1), 55 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Board. (2023). Academic research and development. The National Science Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen‐Smith, J. (2018). Research universities and the public good: Discovery for an uncertain future. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 84 (4), 544 – 568.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter, A. G. (2023). U.S. news & world report historical liberal arts college and university rankings.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reuben, J. R. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ris, E. W. (2023). Other people's colleges. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the 20th century. American Sociological Review, 70 (6), 898 – 920.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism. The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. R. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, M. L. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Szelényi, K. (2013). The meaning of money in the socialization of science and engineering doctoral students: Nurturing the next generation of academic capitalists? The Journal of Higher Education, 84 (2), 266 – 294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J. (2016). The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000‐2008. In S. Slaughter & B. J. Taylor (Eds.), Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada (pp. 59 – 79). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J., Barringer, S. N., & Warshaw, J. B. (2018). Affiliated nonprofit organizations: Strategic action and research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 89 (4), 422 – 452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2015). Global competition, US research universities, and international doctoral education: Growth and consolidation of an organizational field. Research in Higher Education, 56, 411 – 441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2019). Unequal higher education: Wealth, status, and student opportunity. Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J. (2022). Wrecked: Deinstitutionalization and partial defenses in state higher education policy. Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thelin, J. R. (2019). A history of American higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuchman, G. (2009). Wannabe U: Inside the corporate university. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urquiola, M. (2020). Markets, minds, and money: Why America leads the world in university research. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2003). Latent class models for classification. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (Vol. 41, pp. 89 – 106). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., DeMonbrun, M., & McNaughton, J. (2024). Suppressing racing diversity for prestige? The conflicting imperatives of public master's institutions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17 (2), 118 – 128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., McNaughton, J., & DeMonbrun, M. (2021). Between two fields: U.S. public master's institutions—Striving for prestige or equity? Higher Education Policy, 34 (2), 344 – 369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weis, L., Cipollone, K., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Class warfare. The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whatley, M., & Castiello‐Gutiérrez, S. (2022). Balancing finances, politics and public health: International student enrollment and reopening plans at U.S. higher education institutions amid the COVID‐19 pandemic. Higher Education, 84, 299 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilbers, S., & Brankovic, J. (2021). The emergence of university rankings: A historical‐sociological account. Higher Education, 86 (4), 733 – 750.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winston, G. C. (2004). Differentiation among U.S. colleges and universities. Review of Industrial Organization, 24 (4), 331 – 354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zerquera, D. (2023). Still striving, and for what? Centering equity in the study of prestige‐seeking in higher education. In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 38, pp. 265 – 324). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (2), 189 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Barrett J. Taylor and Brendan Cantwell</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref134"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1459553
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Paths to Status among Public Research Universities in the United States, 2010-2021
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barrett+J%2E+Taylor%22">Barrett J. Taylor</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4332-7874">0000-0003-4332-7874</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brendan+Cantwell%22">Brendan Cantwell</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3882-4200">0000-0003-3882-4200</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education+Quarterly%22"><i>Higher Education Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 79(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Status%22">Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Differences%22">Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reputation%22">Reputation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Support%22">Financial Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Selective+Admission%22">Selective Admission</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Mission%22">Institutional Mission</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/hequ.12569
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0951-5224<br />1468-2273
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Although universities are often characterised as 'elite', institutions can attain status in multiple dimensions--reputation, research, money and selectivity. We studied 21st century public universities in the United States, using latent profile analysis to identify which universities followed each path to status. Most universities pursued none, and very few pursued all four. Membership in the four groups was stable over time, indicating limited mobility.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1459553
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1459553
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/hequ.12569
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reputation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Selective Admission
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Mission
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Paths to Status among Public Research Universities in the United States, 2010-2021
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barrett J. Taylor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brendan Cantwell
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0951-5224
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1468-2273
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 79
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1