MODERN METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO MANAGING EDUCATIONAL SERVICES MARKETING IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20390935Keywords:
higher education marketing, educational services, market orientation, digital marketing, competitiveness, branding, Uzbekistan, mixed methods, student recruitment, marketing effectiveness.Abstract
This article examines contemporary methodological approaches to managing the marketing of educational
services in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Uzbekistan. The study covers 18 universities across five regions
and was conducted between 2022 and 2024 using a mixed-methods design comprising a survey (n=1,540), in-depth
interviews (n=24), and document analysis. Findings reveal that only 28% of the surveyed HEIs have a dedicated
marketing department, while the average marketing budget accounts for approximately 1.7% of total expenditures
significantly below the international benchmark of 5–8%. Multiple regression analysis identified the key predictors of
marketing effectiveness. The study also found that local digital platforms, particularly Telegram, yield higher conversion
rates compared to conventional channels. Based on the empirical findings, practical recommendations are proposed for
improving the marketing systems of higher education institutions.
References
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2023). Global Flow of Tertiary Level Students. UIS Data Centre.UNESCO UIS
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий таълим, фан ва инновациялар вазирлиги. (2024). Олий таълим тизими
статистик маълумотлари. Тошкент.
Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33(1), 10–15.
Litten, L. H. (1980). Marketing higher education: Benefits and risks for the American academic system. The Journal of
Higher Education, 51(1), 40–59.
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hemsley Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the
literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316–338.
Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education. Teaching in Higher Education,
(3), 277–287.
Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi markets in education. Review of Research in Education, 22, 3–47.
Brown, R. (2011). Higher Education and the Market. Routledge.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh
perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 20–41.
Zervas, E., & Vergados, D. J. (2011). Quality management and student satisfaction in higher education. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1311–1320.
Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education. Open University Press.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing,
(4), 20–35.
Hemsley Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2010). Market orientation in universities: A comparative study. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 20(2), 165–182.
Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality
Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21.
Mouambi, R., & Swart, M. (2021). Service quality assessment in higher education using SERVQUAL. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 43(2), 112–128.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ECONOSCITECH INTEGRATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
