Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction. The author examines the current stage in the development of Russian higher education within the context of the need to resolve the contradiction between the marketisation of higher education, which has been pursued for many years, and the imperative to protect Russia’s cultural sovereignty – an objective fundamentally at odds with the principles of marketisation. The issue of creating a positive image of Russian universities is brought to the fore: on the one hand, they must become one of the “instruments” for shaping and safeguarding the country’s cultural sovereignty; on the other, they should serve as a form of “soft power,” acting as a “conduit” for that sovereignty. Aim. The present study aims to investigate the phenomenon of the university’s image and to develop a method for its quantitative assessment. Methodology and research methods. The systemic approach served as the fundamental methodological framework. Theoretical research methods were employed, including the analysis of sources related to the research problem, materials available on eLibrary.ru and Google Scholar for the period 1956–2025, regulatory documents from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education concerning the assessment of the effectiveness of higher education institutions, and the results of VCIOM surveys on student satisfaction with their university studies. Additionally, comparison, induction, and synthesis were utilised. The assessment of the significance of the indicators of the university’s brand image was conducted by two groups of experts: students (128 individuals divided into several subgroups) and teaching staff (23 lecturers acting as individual experts). Results and scientific novelty. Based on the definitions of the concepts of “image” and “brand image”, it is concluded that effective image formation is determined by achieving a synergistic effect arising from the combination of the rational and emotional components of the image. Following an analysis of the literature, regulatory documents, and VCIOM surveys, a list of indicators for assessing a university’s brand image was developed across seven dimensions: (a) quality of education; (b) quality of research; (c) effectiveness of external communications and the values conveyed; (d) stakeholder involvement in various areas of the university’s activities; (e) infrastructure; (f) entry barriers; and (g) the university’s financial position. The results of ranking these indicators “through the eyes of students” and “through the eyes of teaching staff”, along with the determination of their weighting coefficients, are presented. The “brand image measurement map” can be supplemented based on surveys of students and their parents, both in terms of the indicators and the assessment of their significance (ranking and weighting). This map can be used in surveys measuring student satisfaction with their studies at the university. The data obtained provide a basis for adjusting the university’s branding strategy. Practical significance . The research findings can be utilised to develop a branding strategy for Russian universities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Evgeny V. Romanov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: