Towards an Understanding of an Institution: The Perceived Legitimacy of Online Business Degree Programs Roy H. Keller, Murray State University Jacob A. Voegel, Coastal Carolina University Matthew R. Peters, Lander University

Towards an Understanding of an Institution: The Perceived Legitimacy of Online Business Degree Programs

Roy H. Keller Murray State University

Jacob A. Voegel Coastal Carolina University

Matthew R. Peters Lander University

Abstract

Organizational forms can become institutionalized in the sense that their existence and application is taken-for-granted and perceived as legitimate by stakeholders. In this study, we examine online business degree programs (OBDP) as an emerging institutionalized form in relation to its perceived legitimacy from the perspectives of four key stakeholder groups. Findings offer strategic guidance to business schools either currently offering ODBPs, or those planning to develop an online version of an existing program.

Keywords: Online business degree program, legitimacy, institutional theory

Introduction

The growth and popularity of online education has been well documented (Allen & Seaman, 2008, 2010, 2014; Kumar, Kumar, Palvia, & Verma, 2019). In this vein, our study argues that the creation of a new institutional form is taking place in the context of higher education with regards to online academic degree programs. Institutional theory posits that in order to gain legitimacy and increase the likelihood of survival, organizations are motivated to conform to society’s commonly accepted rules for and belief systems about organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As such, institutional theory is the

theoretical foundation of this study and is utilized to assess the degree of legitimacy that online business degree programs possess. This assessment focuses on the perspective of four key stakeholder groups (students, academic faculty, academic administrators, and business practitioners) and four identifies variables (accreditation, reputation, placement of graduates after graduation, and linkages to other more legitimate entities) that are believed to have a direct and positive influence on the institutionalization and subsequent legitimation of these programs as a taken-for-granted, appropriate institutional form. From this perspective, traditional business degree programs are an existing or established institutional form and online business degree programs are considered as a new or emerging institutional form. Specifically, this study addresses the following research question: How do varying levels of accreditation, reputation, placement of graduates after graduation, and physical linkages impact the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs? Traditional higher education is typically resistant to change. As a result, the existing institutional form of higher education has experienced very little challenge to the traditional model of providing education at the post-secondary level. Over time, traditional higher education has become so institutionalized that colleges and universities are often referred to as “institutions” of higher education. Given the popularity of online education will likely continue to grow, it is pertinent that online degree programs earn the same level of legitimacy by becoming “institutionalized.” From this perspective, an interesting empirical test of institutional theory is offered in this study.

Literature Review

In their paper on the institutionalization of organizations, Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that many organizations mold their formal structures to “dramatically reflect the myths of their institutional environments instead of the demands of work activities” (p.341). When something becomes “institutionalized,” it becomes legitimate and achieves the unquestioned, myth-like status that Meyer and Rowan describe. Aldrich and Fiol (1994) present legitimacy as socio-

political which refers to the extent to which it “conforms to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” (p.646).

Legitimacy in Higher Education

The pursuit of legitimacy is perhaps the most coveted measure of success. As Morphew (2009) indicates, “institutional theorists would argue that an organization’s survival is inexorably tied to perceptions of its legitimacy” (p.245). Armstrong (2001) notes, “higher education collectively values highly their stability and the ability to survive for long periods of time without revolutionary change” (p.3). Other authors have referred to change in higher education as having to be measured in years, or even decades (Folkers, 2005). The common theme of change in the higher education literature is presented and operationalized in various contexts, such as higher education expansion (Naylor, Smith, & Telhaj, 2015; Ou & Hou, 2019), and the use of institutional theory in studies of legitimacy in higher education research is also relatively prevalent (Cai & Mehari, 2015; He & Wilkins, 2018).

Legitimacy and Online Academic Degree Programs

One major source of change in higher education is the increasing demand for online academic degree programs. Evidence that online degree programs are rapidly increasing can be found in a survey conducted by Seaman, Allen, and Seaman (2018) that found that 6.4 million students were taking at least one online course in 2016, which is 31.6% of all higher education enrollments. This equates to a 5.6% increase over the number reported the previous year and 17.2% increase over the last four years. Based on these examples, the legitimacy of online academic degree programs seems to be increasing, at least in terms of density. Although online enrollments and offerings continue to grow, online academic degree programs are not without its detractors. Faculty often categorize online delivery as being inferior in quality to more traditional methods (Grossman & Johnson, 2015; Tanner, Noser, & Totaro, 2009; Willett, Brown, & Danzy-Bussell, 2019). One study found that instructors rated traditional, face-to-face methods more favorable in terms of “(a) comfort and ability to interact with students; (b) students’ opportunity to interact and participate in class discussions; and (c) instruction accommodating different learning styles” (Lee & Busch, 2005, p. 109). Other

authors have suggested that employers often distrust online degrees (Richards et al, 2019) and have a negative perception of graduates whose degrees were completed solely online (Thomas, 2018).

Stakeholder Perceptions of Legitimacy

Related to, but separate from the taken for grantedness aspect of the legitimacy of online academic degree programs is the extent that key stakeholders consider the institutional form of online education to be an appropriate and desirable form for colleges and universities to adopt.

Students. As already documented, students are increasingly demanding and participating in online education. Based on this, one could conclude that students view online education as an appropriate and desirable means of earning an education. Dobbs, Waid, and Carmen (2009) compared the perceptions of two student groups: 1) students that had participated in online education; and 2) students that had not. Not surprisingly, the study found that students that had participated in online courses had a more favorable impression of online education. Research on student perceptions of online courses has been done in various contexts. For example, Chew (2013) investigated differences in students’ perceptions based off their nationality; Kuo and Belland (2016) measured the impact of a student’s minority status; and Bowne et al. (2018) gauged the impact of an Online Instructor Certification Program. Although this body of this type of work continues to grow, this study is unique in that it takes a more macro view and considers perceptions of overall legitimacy.

Academic administrators. Academic administrators’ impressions of online academic degree programs are less obvious and a bit more difficult to predict. There is evidence to suggest that when academic administrators are faced with faculty hiring decisions, they are inclined to view faculty candidates that earned a doctoral degree online as lower quality (Adams, 2008). Academic administrators also note that an online education often results in weaker leadership skills (Rutledge, 2017). Kelly and Rebman Jr. (2014) demonstrated most administrators perceive online education to be inferior, when compared to face-to-face delivery in six different areas: (1) quality; (2) rigor; (3) engagement; (4) retention; (5) discussion; and (6) critical thinking.

According to administrators, online education is not without its advantages. Increased enrollment is one advantage that administrators often mention (Hanson, 2019).

Academic faculty. The academic faculty and business practitioner stakeholder groups are inclined to be more skeptical of the appropriateness of online academic degree programs. Seasoned and experienced faculty that have been trained and have managed their careers in the context of the long-established institutional form of traditional, face-to-face education naturally resist any new institutional form that creates uncertainty and potentially threatens their role and identity as a faculty member (Tagg, 2012). Seaman, Allen, and Seaman (2018) demonstrates that academic faculty do not view online education as appropriate. Negative feelings faculty have toward teaching online stem from online communication not being as effective, student engagement suffering, and active learning opportunities being fewer (Walters, Grover, Turner, & Alexander, 2017; Hoffman, 2018). Like administrators, the advantages of online education do not go unnoticed by faculty. Many faculty reference the ability to reach more students from much wider backgrounds, demographics, and locations in an online format (Lampley & Reynolds, 2017).

Business practitioners. Although their opinions are typically not as strong as academic faculty, business practitioners have historically expressed a general distrust and reluctance to hire applicants with online degrees (Carnevale, 2007). Findings from Erden’s and Tekarslan’s (2014) indicated that employers prefer applicants with traditional degrees for several reasons: (1) education quality; (2) gain of competencies; (3) development of communication skills; (4) personal growth; and (5) the importance of student-instructor interaction. When specifically looking at the accounting field, Mauldin et al. (2019) found that CPAs are more likely to hirer graduates who earned a degree in a face-to-face setting. This is due to CPAs’ perceptions of better rigor, academic integrity, and a higher level of career preparation in a face-to-face setting. One could argue that as the number of graduates from online academic degree programs increases and enters the workforce, business practitioner perceptions will evolve and become more accepting of job applicants that earned their degrees online.

Legitimacy of Online Business Degree Programs

The following sections focus on four specific variables that are thought to influence the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs as a taken-for-granted and appropriate institutionalized form.

Accreditation. The first factor thought to influence the perceived legitimacy of online business programs is accreditation. Armstrong (2001) suggested that accreditation is important in higher education, as it provides external evidence of a program or school’s quality. In the context of business schools, Romero (2008) suggested that due to an increasing number of schools offering business programs, the AACSB accreditation credential is “more important than ever” (p.245). When possible and appropriate, schools attempt to leverage their traditional accreditation credentials towards the promotion and marketing of their online offerings. Gambescia and Paolucci (2009) studied the ways that schools with online offerings communicated and marketed their online programs and found that when accredited schools and/or programs were able to incorporate their online offerings into their traditional accreditation credential, the schools overwhelmingly highlighted the fact in their promotions. Clinefelter and Aslanian (2015) found that sixty-seven percent of students in their study viewed accreditation as an important factor in selecting an online program, which lead them to recommend that professional accreditations should be “overtly” promoted. Based on this, it seems logical that online academic degree programs that have earned and promoted a recognized accreditation credential will be perceived as more legitimate than non-accredited online academic degree programs by all stakeholder groups. Therefore, the following relationship is predicted: H1: Accredited online business degree programs are perceived by key stakeholders as more legitimate than non-accredited programs.

Reputation. The second factor thought to influence the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs is the established reputation of the school or university providing online education. The importance of an organization’s reputation, in any context or industry, is well established in the literature. Jensen and Roy (2008) define reputation as “the prestige

accorded firms on the basis of how they have performed in the past” (p. 497) and point out that a firm’s reputation creates expectations about future performance based on past performance. Although reputation and legitimacy are closely related, the relationship between reputation and legitimacy can be described by indicating that reputation is an emotional perceptual estimation of a firm; whereas, legitimacy is a broader concept that focuses on adherence to social norms (Czinkota, Kaufmann, & Basile, 2014). From this perspective, reputation and legitimacy are clearly related, but distinct with reputation being an influential factor in the overall perception of a firm’s legitimacy. Reputation is especially important in higher education. It has been well documented that colleges and universities aspire to receive high rankings from national entities like U.S. News and World Report in order to increase and exploit reputational standing (Sauder & Fine, 2008). Evidence of this can be seen in Clinefelter and Alsanian’s (2015) findings that reputation is the factor that most influences student impressions of online programs, more important than convenience and tuition. Rindova, Martins, Srinivas, & Chandler (2018) explain how rankings can seem attractive to consumers because they help simplify often complex choices. From this perspective, the reputation that an online business degree program develops over time, in terms of rankings and past performance will have a positive effect on the perceived legitimacy of the program. Therefore, the following relationship is predicted: H2: Online business degree programs that are perceived by key stakeholders to have good reputations are more legitimate than those programs with poor reputations.

Placement after Graduation. The third factor thought to influence the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs is the program’s ability to assist its graduates in securing employment opportunities. Research conducted by The Higher Education Research Institute found that 55% of college freshmen indicated that “graduates get good jobs” was a very important factor in college choice (Eagan et al., 2014). Thouin, Hefley, and Raghunathan (2018) corroborated these findings when they found job placement to be one of the top program selections factors of graduate students. High placement rates would also serve as a signal of legitimacy to business practitioners when considering online degreed candidates for positions. To the extent that business

practitioners are aware that other organizations they perceive to be legitimate are hiring a program’s graduates, business practitioners would be more likely to respond to mimetic isomorphic pressures and be inclined to view the program and its graduates as legitimate. Clinefelter and Aslanian’s (2015) found that individuals who completed an online academic degree program improved their employment standings by obtaining a first job, a first full-time job, or new job. Therefore, the following relationship is predicted: H3: Online business degree programs that are perceived by key stakeholders to have high levels of placement after graduation are more legitimate than programs with low levels of placement after graduation.

Linkages. The fourth factor thought to influence the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs is the online program’s linkages to other entities that are perceived as legitimate. When an online program is linked to an established, traditionally legitimate school, the online program’s perceived legitimacy increases as a result of the connection. Gambescia and Paolucci (2009) note the importance of these types of linkages when describing common ways that universities promote and communicate their online offerings. They report that traditional schools attempting to transfer legitimacy to their online offerings often use language such as “the same curriculum” or “the same faculty” to highlight the linkage to the school’s traditional programs. To the extent that traditional programs are perceived as legitimate, online academic degree programs will benefit, in terms of perceived legitimacy, as a result of the linkage. Examining this linkage, Mauldin et al. (2019) found that graduates who earned a degree online from a university with a traditional campus are more likely to be pursued by employers than graduates who earned a degree online from a university without a traditional campus. Following the logic of the stated research, the following relationship is predicted: H4: Online business degree programs that are linked with a more legitimate entity are perceived by key stakeholders as more legitimate than programs that are not.

Methodology

This research is designed to examine the degree to which four factors (accreditation, reputation, placement after graduation, linkages) influence the perceived legitimacy of online

business degree programs of four key stakeholder groups (students, faculty, academic administrators, and business practitioners).

Subsample Definitions

Definitions of each of the subsamples were devised relative to the survey and experimental task presented to each group. First, the student subsample is defined as individuals currently enrolled in some level of post-secondary coursework at a post-secondary provider of education that offers an AACSB accredited business curriculum. Second, the faculty subsample is identified as individuals that currently hold instructional positions at a post-secondary provider of education that offers AACSB accredited business curriculum. Third, the academic administrator subsample is defined as individuals currently in decision making positions at the level of department chair or above at a post-secondary provider of education that offers AACSB accredited curriculum. Fourth, the business practitioner subsample is defined as individuals currently in professional positions outside of academia.

Recruitment of Participants

All subsamples were recruited via email and were asked to participate in the research by following a link provided in the email to the online instruments designed for this project. Recruitment of participants for the faculty, student, and academic administrator groups was based on a random sample of the 478 institutions of higher education that offer AACSB accredited business programs. Faculty and academic administrator emails were obtained from the specific schools’ websites. For faculty, two each from the traditional AACSB disciplines (accounting, finance, management, marketing, information systems) were targeted. For administrators, individuals identified on the specific schools’ websites as having administrative duties were contacted. Student participants were recruited by asking faculty participants to make the study available and encourage their students to participate. Business practitioners were recruited through a statewide small business development network, as well as member organizations of a local chamber of commerce. Contacts within these two groups were asked to participate in the research, as well as forward the research request to other potential participants in their professional networks.

Procedure

The research instrument was divided into three parts. Part one asked participants to provide basic demographic information. Part two used the conjoint analysis method to measure the effect that varying levels and combinations of four online business degree program attributes (accreditation, reputation, placement after graduation, and physical linkage) have on the overall legitimacy perceptions of participants in each of the four subsamples (H1-H4). Each participant was provided a short description of the conjoint task, basic instructions, and assumptions relevant to the conjoint task. Specifically, participants were instructed to assume they were acting in today’s economic environment; furthermore, it was acknowledged that not all variables important to the decision were included, and participants were urged to consider any other influential factors, not included in the research, as constant and “satisfactory” across all profiles (Norwood & Henneberry, 2006; Patzelt & Sheperd, 2009). Participants were also presented information relative to the definitions and descriptions of the levels of each variable.

Conjoint Analysis

Conjoint analysis is an experimental technique that forces respondents to make decisions based on different factors identified as being influential to the decision being made. In a metric conjoint experiment, respondents are provided a hypothetical decision situation composed of various levels of attributes that have been identified as key factors in making the decision (Monsen, Patzelt & Saxton, 2010). In the context of this study, respondents were asked to make a series of judgments or tradeoffs relative to their perceptions of online business degree programs based on various combinations of the factors described previously. These individual decisions or judgments were analyzed to determine the importance or strength of each of the four factors in the context of the decision being made in the experiment. Additionally, conjoint analysis provides the ability to measure the relative strength of each individual attribute. The ability to analyze part-worth preferences of individuals within group as well as the overall, aggregate preferences of the group is especially well suited for this study. As with most experimental research, the internal validity of conjoint experiments is generally high, due to the researcher(s) being able to fully control the presentation of the stimuli,

which increases the likelihood that the observed relationships are an actual product of the factors being studied rather than being influenced by unaccounted for extraneous factors (Zikmund, 2003).

DV: Perception of Online Business Degree Programs

The dependent variable in this study is the participant’s perception of the overall legitimacy of online business degree programs. The conjoint experiment consisted of sixteen hypothetical profiles that were made up of four, two level attributes (independent variables) and a scale in which participants from all four subsamples indicated their perception of the overall legitimacy of online business programs relative to the various levels and combinations of attributes. As recommended by Louviere and Hout (1988), an 11-category rating scale was used with not very legitimate and very legitimate serving as the end points.

IVs: Accreditation, Reputation, Placement After Graduation, Linkage

In the conjoint experiment, the hypothetical profiles presented to participants consisted of four attributes or independent variables. Accreditation refers to whether or not (yes/no) the online business degree program is accredited by an appropriate external entity. Reputation is also a two-level variable (strong/weak), and refers to whether or not the online business degree program is thought to be prestigious based on past performance. Placement after graduation refers to the degree (high/low) that an online business degree program places its graduates in employment upon program completion. Linkage refers to whether or not (yes/no) the online business degree program has a formal connection to more a legitimate entity such as a traditional university or corporation.

Results/Findings

We will discuss the findings of our study in the following sections. We will start by taking a closer look at our sample characteristics and then further investigating the conjoint analysis of this study.

Sample Characteristics

This study had 494 individual participants. Of the 494 participants, 290 were students, 86 were academic faculty, 64 were academic administrators, and 54 were business practitioners (see Table 1).

Conjoint Analysis

When utilizing conjoint analysis, there are a few key steps to follow. First, measure reliability of the technique. Second, investigate relationships between variables with a correlation analysis. Third, determine the amount of variance explained through a regression analysis. In the following sections, we discuss these steps within our study and share our findings.

Reliability. Conjoint analysis is a repeated measures technique where issues related to reliability are addressed through replication of profiles and test-retest checks (Monsen, Patzelt, Saxton, 2010). To test the reliability of the conjoint task, four of the scenarios that participants were exposed to were repeated so that test-retest reliability could be conducted. Correlation analysis, as well as an internal reliability analysis, was conducted on each of the repeated items. Each of the repeated pairs was significantly and positively correlated, and was found to have a high degree (α > .84) of internal reliability.

Correlations. Correlation analyses performed on each subsample separately revealed a number of significant relationships between program variables and perceived legitimacy (see Table 2). Specifically, the presence of accreditation, a strong reputation, high placement after graduation, and being linked to a more legitimate entity all yielded positive, significant results with accreditation being the strongest relationship and linkage to a more legitimate entity being the weakest.

Regression analyses. To determine the amount of variance explained in the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs by the four program related characteristics over and above the amount of variance explained by demographic control variables alone,

demographic variables were entered into Model 1 before the program characteristics were entered in Model 2. The significant predictors and R2 values from each regression model are shown in Table 3. After the control variables were entered in model 1, the four program characteristic variables were entered in model 2 to determine the amount of variance explained by program characteristics over and above what was explained by demographics alone. The R2’ s of four models including the program characteristic variables was found to be significant, and each of the program characteristics were found to be significant predictors in all models tested. Relative to the predictive strength of the specific program characteristic variables, the accreditation variable was found to be the strongest predictor across all four of the sample groupings, placement after graduation was second strongest, reputation third strongest, and linkage to a more legitimate entity was found to be the weakest predictor. Specifically, accreditation was ranked as the strongest predictor in each individual group and linkage to more legitimate entity was ranked lowest in each group, except for the business practitioner group where it was the second strongest predictor. Another interesting finding relative to the specific program characteristic variables is that placement after graduation was found to be a notably stronger predictor of perceived legitimacy with the student subsample than with the other sample

groups. Each of the hypotheses stated that each of the program characteristic variables, when in their positive state, would be significant predictors of the perceived legitimacy of online business degree programs, and based on the findings of the regression analyses presented in this section, each of the four hypotheses are supported.

Discussion

In the following paragraphs, the program-related and demographic factors that influence perceptions of legitimacy, the theoretical and practical implications of our findings, and the limitations and future research directions of our study are discussed. Lastly, we offer a few concluding thoughts.

Program-Related Factors Influencing Legitimacy Perceptions

As predicted, each of the four program-related factors were found to positively influence the legitimacy perceptions of online business degree programs across all groups. Most notably, the program-related factor of accreditation was found to have the strongest influence on legitimacy perceptions across all of the groups. Placement after graduation was identified second to accreditation as the most influential factor for the student and faculty groups. One of the main, if not the main, priority of students is securing employment after graduation, so it is expected that student legitimacy perceptions would be heavily influenced by the placement after graduation factor. The reputation variable was viewed as the third most influential variable in each of the groups, except for academic administrators. This is not surprising, due to the external and nonacademic perspectives that administrative positions require. The linkage factor had the least influence on legitimacy of the four factors, except with the business practitioner group. Business practitioners perceived the linkage factor as the second most legitimacy influencing factor behind accreditation. In terms of legitimacy, it is likely that business practitioners’ perceptions are increased when an online business program is linked to an established educational institution.

Demographic Factors Influencing Legitimacy Perceptions

Of the demographic factors, age, marital status, and having taken an online course were all found to be the most significant. There was some discrepancy across the groups, in terms of the influence of age. In the faculty group, age was a negative predictor indicating that younger faculty perceive online business degree programs as more legitimate; however, with the academic administrator and business practitioner groups, age was a positive predictor. These findings are consistent with the results discussed previously related to rank in the faculty and academic administrator. Marital status and having taken an online course were also found to be positive predictors in the faculty and academic administrator groups. As previously mentioned, married individuals may be attracted to the autonomy that online courses provided. It is interesting that having taken an online course was not found to be a significant predictor with the student and business practitioner groups.

Theoretical Implications

By not focusing on any one individual group, the generalizability of the findings across the groups is increased. By not limiting the sample to faculty or academic administrators from one type of school or discipline the representativeness of the respective populations is notable, thus further strengthening the generalizability of the results. Second, the use of conjoint analysis to measure perceptions of legitimacy in institutional research is novel. Conjoint analysis has long been used in marketing related research to measure perceptions of product attributes, but the use of the method in institutional or higher education research is virtually non-existent. Third, this study contributes to the institutional theory literature by providing an empirical test of institutional theory in higher education, specifically relative to the emergence of online programs in higher education.

Practical Implications

The practical implications of this research are primarily based on the unique perspectives of each of the four groups studied. The results provided here indicate that different stakeholder groups are influenced by different factors when it comes to the legitimacy-based perceptions of online business degree programs. This type of insight can be used by academic administrators in the development and implementation of online business degree programs. Accreditation was indicated as being the most important variable influencing legitimacy perceptions across the groups studied. Schools interested in developing an online business degree program that is perceived as legitimate must pursue accreditation.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study does have limitations that should be considered and addressed in future research. The first limitation is related to the lack of randomness in the business practitioner sample. The second limitation is related to the ordering of factors in the conjoint task. The factors in each of the scenarios of the conjoint task were presented in the same order throughout the experiment. This could potentially cause an ordering effect that influenced the results in that the ranking of the factors might follow the order of presentation.

The third and perhaps most notable limitation is related to the factor combinations that composed each of the scenarios in the conjoint experiment. Some of the combinations were likely perceived as unrealistic to some participants, specifically relative to the accreditation variable. For example, some participants may have found it difficult to imagine a situation where an online business degree program had a weak reputation, low placement after graduation, was not linked to any other entity, but was accredited by the AACSB; or conversely, had a strong reputation, high placement after graduation, was linked to another entity, but was not accredited. The final limitations are related to possible common method and self-selection biases. The potential for common method bias is related to the fact that independent variable data and dependent variable data were both collected from the same source.

Conclusion

Within this study, we have provided an empirical test of institutional theory in the context of higher education, specifically online business degree programs. An understanding of the legitimacy-based perceptions of four key stakeholder groups (students, faculty, academic administrators, and business practitioners) has been gained. Additionally, the legitimacy influencing effect of four program-related variables (accreditation, reputation, placement after graduation, linkage) have been examined and each were found to be positive influencers of legitimacy.

Author Biographies

Dr. Keller is an Associate Professor of Management and Chair of the Department of Management, Marketing, and Business Administration at Murray State University. Dr. Keller earned his Bachelor of Science in Marketing and his Master of Business Administration at Murray State and his Ph.D. in Business Administration with major areas in organizational theory/strategy and management information systems from Southern Illinois University. His primary research interests are institutional legitimacy and resource dependence in the context of higher education.

Dr. Voegel is an Assistant Professor of Management at Coastal Carolina University. Dr. Voegel possesses a Bachelor of Science in Finance and Economics from the University of Southern

Indiana, a Master of Business Administration from the University of Central Arkansas, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration with major areas of study in management and organizational studies from Southern Illinois University. His research interests are in the areas of entrepreneurship, leadership, ethics, religiosity, and pedagogy.

Dr. Peters is an Assistant Professor of Management at Lander University. Dr. Peters earned a Bachelor of Liberal Studies in Psychology and Communications from Mercer University, a Master of Business Administration from the University of West Georgia, and a PhD in Business Administration from Southern Illinois University. His research interests include emotional intelligence, organizational citizenship behavior, bias, improving online business education delivery, and improving online group collaboration.

References

Adams, J. (2008). Understanding the factors limiting the acceptability of online courses and degrees. International Journal on e-learning, 7(4), 573-587. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course. Online education in the United States, 2008. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningon demand.pdf. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf. Armstrong, L. (2001). A new game in town: Competitive higher education. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 479-506.

Bowne, M., Wuellner, M., Madsen, L., Meendering, J. R., & Howard, J. (2018). The relative influence of instructor training on student perceptions of online courses and instruction. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 2(2), 7. Cai, Y., & Mehari, Y. (2015). The use of institutional theory in higher education research. In Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 1-25). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Carnevale, D. (2007). Employers often distrust online degrees. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18). Chew, R. S. Y. (2013). Perceptions of online learning in an Australian university: an international students’ (Asian region) perspective–quality of learning. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(2). Clinefelter, D. L., & Aslanian, C. B. (2015). Online college students 2015: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. The Learning House, 8. Czinkota, M., Kaufmann, H. R., & Basile, G. (2014). The relationship between legitimacy, reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 91-101. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 147-160. Dobbs, R. R., Waid, C. A., & Carmen, A. D. (2009). Students' perceptions of online courses: The effect of online course experience. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 9-26.

Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American freshman: National norms fall 2014. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Erden, N. S., & Tekarslan, E. (2014). How do managers regard job applicants with online degrees? Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(1), 35-38. Folkers, D. A. (2005). Competing in the marketspace: Incorporating online education in higher education - An organizational perspective. Information Resources Management Journal, 18(1), 61-77.

Gambescia, S. F., & Paolucci, R. (2009). Academic fidelity and integrity as attributes of university online degree program offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1). Grossman, A. M., & Johnson, L. R. (2015). Faculty perceptions of online accounting coursework. American Journal of Business Education, 8(2), 95-106. Hanson, E. J. (2019).Administrative perceptions of participation in the California virtual campus-online education initiative and its effects on enrollment management. (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne). He, L., & Wilkins, S. (2018). Achieving legitimacy in cross-border higher education: Institutional influences on Chinese international branch campuses in South East Asia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(3), 179-197. Hoffman, M. S. (2018). Faculty participation in online higher education: What factors motivate or inhibit their participation?. In Teacher Training and Professional Development: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 2000-2013). IGI Global. Jensen, M., & Roy, A. (2008). Staging exchange partner choices: When do status and reputation matter? Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 495-516. Kelly, D., & Rebman Jr, C. M. (2014). Perception and acceptance of online education: Do online courses pass the muster?. Issues in Information Systems, 15(2). Kumar, P., Kumar, A., Palvia, S., & Verma, S. (2019). Online business education research: Systematic analysis and a conceptual model. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 26-35. Kuo, Y. C., & Belland, B. R. (2016). An exploratory study of adult learners’ perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 661-680. Lampley, J., & Reynolds, S. (2017). Faculty perceptions and practices in online education. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Academic Business World International Conference & International Conference on Learning and Administration in Higher Education (p. 82). Lee, J. A., & Busch, P. E. (2005). Factors related to instructors' willingness to participate in distance education. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 109-115.

Louviere, J. J., & Hout, M. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis (No. 67). Sage. Mauldin, S., Braun, R. L., Viosca, C., & Boldt, M. N. (2019). CPAs' evaluations of accounting graduates: An empirical investigation of face-to-face and online degrees. The Accounting Educators' Journal, 28. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Monsen, E., Patzelt, H., & Saxton, T. (2010). Beyond simple utility: Incentive design and tradeoffs for corporate employee-entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 83-103.

Morphew, C. C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 243-269. Naylor, R., Smith, J., & Telhaj, S. (2015). Graduate returns, degree class premia and higher education expansion in the UK. Oxford Economic Papers, 68(2), 525-545. Norwood, F. B., & Henneberry, S. R. (2006). Show me the money! The value of college graduate attributes as expressed by employers and perceived by students. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(2), 484-498. Ou, D., & Hou, Y. (2019). Bigger pie, bigger slice? The impact of higher education expansion on educational opportunity in China. Research in Higher Education, 60(3), 358-391. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: Academic entrepreneurs' assessment of policy programs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 319-340. Rindova, V. P., Martins, L. L., Srinivas, S. B., & Chandler, D. (2018). The good, the bad, and the ugly of organizational rankings: A multidisciplinary review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2175-2208. Romero, E. J. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7(2), 245-255. Rutledge, D. (2017). Superintendents' perceptions of online education for principals. Arkansas State University.

Sauder, M., & Fine, G. A. (2008). Arbiters, entrepreneurs, and the shaping of business school reputations. Sociological Forum, 23(4), 699-723. Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 6-15. Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Totaro, M. W. (2009). Business faculty and undergraduate students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(1), 29-40. Thomas, D. (2018). Perception of the online degree by accounting hiring gatekeepers of mid-size firms in the northwestern US.

Thouin, M. F., Hefley, W. E., & Raghunathan, S. (2018). Student attitudes toward information systems graduate program design and delivery. Journal of Information Systems Education, 29(1), 25. Walters, S., Grover, K. S., Turner, R. C., & Alexander, J. C. (2017). Faculty perceptions related to teaching online: A starting point for designing faculty development initiatives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 4-19. Willett, J., Brown, C., & Danzy-Bussell, L. A. (2019). An exploratory study: Faculty perceptions of online learning in undergraduate sport management programs. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 25, 100206. Zikmund, W. (2003). Business Research Methods (7th ed.). South-Western.

TABLE 1

Subsample Characteristics as a Percentage of the Sample

Characteristic

All Subsamples Gender: Male Female Age (yrs.) Ethnicity: Caucasian African- American Asian Hispanic Marital status: Single Married Education completed: High School Some College Associate’s Bachelor’s Graduate Doctoral Online experience: Yes No Student only Class: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Faculty only Rank: Lecturer Assist. Prof. Assoc. Prof. Full Prof.

Student (n = 290) Faculty (n = 86) Academic Administrator (n = 64) Business Practitioner (n = 54)

55.2 44.8 M = 23.7

85.2 5.5

5.5 1.4

90.7 9.3

9.7 57.9 15.5 15.9 1.0 ----

71.7 28.3

0.3 1.4 21.7 67.6 9.0 68.6 31.4 M = 50.2

86.0 2.3

10.5 1.2

20.9 79.1

---- ---- ---- ---- 11.6 88.4

24.4 75.6 10.5 24.4 19.8 45.3 75.0 25.0 M = 55.23

93.8 ----

4.7 ----

10.9 89.1

---- ---- ---- ---- 10.9 89.1

28.1

71.9 68.5 31.5 M = 40.48

98.1 1.9

14.8 85.2

---- 7.4 1.9 50.0 40.7 ----

35.2 64.8

Characteristic Student Faculty Academic (n = 290) (n = 86) Administrator (n = 64)

Online teach experience: Yes 40.7 No 59.3 Academic administrator only Position: Dept. Chair 51.6 Assist./Assoc. Dean 32.8 Dean 10.9 ---- Assist./Assoc.V.P./Provost 3.1 V.P./Provost 1.6 President Online teach experience: Yes 43.8 No 56.3 Business practitioner only Org. size (no. of employees): < 25 26-50 51-100 >100 Work experience (yrs.): Management experience (yrs.):

Business Practitioner (n = 54)

35.2 7.4 9.3 48.1

M = 18.13

M = 10.3

TABLE 2

Correlations between Program Variables and Legitimacy Perception

Program Variable Legitimacy Perception Student Faculty Academic Business Administrator Practitioner

Accreditation - no -.42** -.41** -.46** -.47** Accreditation - yes .42** .41** .46** .47** Reputation - weak -.32** -.30** -.34** -.35** Reputation - strong .32** .30** .34** .35** Placement after graduation - -.36** -.29** -.27** -.29** low Placement after graduation - .36** .29** .27** .29** high Linkage - no -.17** -.14** -.16** -.29** Linkage - yes .17** .14** .16** .29**

TABLE 3

Summary of R2 Model Values and Significant Predictors from Regression Analyses

Subsample Model Predictor Beta Model R2 Change in R2

Student 1

2

Faculty 1

2

Academic Administrator 1

2

Business Practitioner 1

2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. Gender Age Marital status Accreditation Reputation Placement of Graduates Linkage

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. Age Marital status Online exp.a Accreditation Reputation Placement of Graduates Linkage

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. Age Marital status Online exp.a Accreditation Reputation Placement of Graduates Linkage

1. Gender 2. Age 3. Accreditation 4. Reputation 5. Placement of

Graduates .17*** 0.03*** -0.46*** 2.50*** 1.70*** 2.09***

1.23*** -.01** 1.33*** .83*** 2.52*** 1.65*** 1.80***

1.12*** .04*** .62*** .32* 2.94*** 1.95*** 1.70***

1.21*** 6. Linkage

-.39** .03*** 2.74*** 1.71*** 1.69***

1.82***

* p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01 a. Online exp. = previously taking an online course. .004**

.461***

.05***

.42***

.03***

.47***

.01**

.54*** .457***

.37***

.44***

.53***