Coopetition in education: Collaboratingin a competitive environment

Daniel Muijs • Nataliya Rumyantseva

Published online: 8 September 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract While educational theory has often seen collaboration and competition

as incompatible, there is increasing evidence that collaboration persists in educa-

tional markets characterized by competition. In this paper, we use the theoretical

lens of ‘coopetition’, a relationship between organizations involving competition in

some segments and cooperation in others, to study this phenomenon and look at the

applicability of this concept to education. A case study approach was used to study

collaboration and competition in a network of eleven 6th-form colleges, which teach

16–18-year-old students in England. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken

with managers in each college. Documentary evidence was collected such as

websites, brochures, and publicity materials. Results show that the collaborative

network was perceived positively. The concept of coopetition was clearly applicable

to this network, with collaboration and competition equally informing college

strategies and policies, and many aspects of coopetition theory applying to the

network. However, challenges to future collaboration were identified.

Keywords Networking � Collaboration � Competition � Coopetition

Introduction

One of the main developments in education over recent years has been the growth

and official encouragement of a range of collaborations and networks between

education providers such as schools and colleges, which has seen the emergence of

both government-sponsored initiatives such as school networks in the Netherlands

and Flanders and Federations of schools in England (Muijs et al. 2010) and bottom-

D. Muijs (&) � N. Rumyantseva

Southampton Education School, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus,

Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

e-mail: d.muijs@soton.ac.uk

123

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

DOI 10.1007/s10833-013-9223-8

up initiatives with schools and colleges forming their own networks in a range of

contexts and countries [e.g., the USA (Kahne et al. 2001; Damore et al. 2011),

Germany (Berkemeyer et al. 2008), and the UK (Ainscow et al. 2006)]. A range of

advantages have been put forward for collaboration between educational organi-

zations in recent years, and there is a growing though still limited body of evidence

that collaborative arrangements and networks can have a positive impact on

organizational functioning, and even on student outcomes. Chapman et al. (2010,

2012) used quasi-experimental methods to look at the impact of Federations of

schools and found that pupil performance improved in schools 1–2 years following

Federation and remained higher than in matched comparator schools. A systematic

review by CUREE (2005) reported some evidence of better attainment and positive

impacts on teacher professional development, while a range of qualitative studies

report similarly positive findings (Muijs et al. 2011). Some of the benefits of

collaboration include greater professional learning as partner schools broaden their

horizons and discover practices and policies that may be transferable, a greater

capacity to fill structural gaps in organizational capacity, and greater resilience to

external change (Muijs et al. 2011).

Collaboration is, however, not always successful. Research has shown that a

number of factors have to be in place for it to work, such as trust between

collaborators, benefits for each partner as well as for the network, and a shared

vision (Muijs et al. 2011). A number of factors are typically cited as being inimical

to collaboration. One such is considered to be competition, usually seen as

oppositional to or at least as a major obstacle to collaboration between educational

institutions (Hargreaves 1996). Chapman and Allen (2005), for example, state that

lack of competition between schools is a facilitator of effective networking between

schools. If competition is strong, then the trust that is a key to effective networking

will not be present. This perception has meant that many schools choose to network

with partners from outside their own catchment area which are not competing with

them for students, notwithstanding the practical difficulties this may entail. The

issue of trust comes to the fore here again, in that where trust between local schools

is strong, it has been found possible to develop local partnerships and links. This

also appears easier where networking is voluntary, as preexisting relations of trust

tend to be stronger (Muijs et al. 2011).

If this is the case, then this would be particularly problematic as alongside

collaboration increasing competition, often through mechanisms of parental

choice, has been a mainstay of educational policy in many countries such as the

USA with the introduction of charter schools and voucher programs (Chakrabarti

2011); England, where the introduction of free schools and the expansion of the

academies program are only the latest examples of longstanding government

commitment to expanding choice (Ball 1994); Sweden, where free schools and

vouchers were introduced in the 1990s (Erixon Arreman and Holm 2011); and

Hong Kong which recently introduced vouchers for Kindergarten. As for

collaboration, a range of reasons are given as to why competition could improve

educational quality and effectiveness. Economic theory states that competition

leads to more effective allocation of resources, which in educational terms implies

that the fact that parents can choose the best school for their child will lead to a

2 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

better match between child and school, which in turn will lead to an improvement

in overall outcomes. The second key argument for competition revolves around the

issue of market discipline, which will ensure that competing schools will have to

raise standards and improve in order to continue to attract parents and therefore

guarantee their own survival. For this to work, school finances must be closely

linked to parental choice, which typically results in a system of per-pupil funding

(Gibbons et al. 2008).

Evidence on the impact of competition is mixed. Sandstrom and Bergstrom

(2005) used a quasi-experimental econometric model to assess the impact of school

vouchers and private sector competition on public sector schools in Sweden, finding

that school results in public schools improved as a result of competition. Clark

(2005), in a quasi-experimental study of schools ‘opted out’ of local government

control in a reform by a previous Conservative government in England, found that

while school autonomy was strongly related to improved student outcomes, the

impact of greater competition between schools in a location was limited (though

positive overall). Dronkers and Robert (2008), using a comparison of European

schools from the PISA dataset, found that, controlling for pupil intake character-

istics, private government-dependent schools outperformed public schools, while

public schools in turn outperformed private independent schools. Of course,

increased competition in education has been controversial and been criticized on the

basis of both effectiveness and equity criteria (e.g. Ball 1994). There is clear

evidence that educational actors respond to competition. A study of the establish-

ment of a voluntary inter-district choice program in Michigan showed that districts

were significantly influenced by the behaviors of neighboring districts, with districts

across the project becoming more willing to enroll out-of-district students (Rincke

2005). Similarly, Ghosh (2009) found that an initiative fostering school choice in

Massachusetts led school district officials to strategically respond to the input

choices of nearby districts, by adjusting expenditure, for example. Evidence on the

impact of competition on increasing inequity is inconclusive, with some studies

showing limited impacts (Clark 2005), while others suggest that competition favors

middle-class parents (Ball 2003) and that competition in high stakes accountability

systems leads to game playing with negative equity consequences, such as

reclassifying students into special education categories that exempt them from

national tests (Chakrabarti 2011). Overall, evidence, though mixed, appears to

suggest that competition between educational organizations leads to modest

improvements in pupil attainment, but also to modest increases in socioeconomic

and ethnic segregation (Wiborg 2010).

What is in any case clear is that many governments have brought into the

arguments in favor of competition and acted accordingly, while in some cases,

simultaneously promoting forms of collaboration, notwithstanding the widely held

views that the two are inherently contradictory (see, for example, the simultaneous

support for Academies and Federations in UK education policy, Chapman et al.

2012). And it is clear that many networks and collaborative arrangements exist and

are maintained even in a competitive environment (Ainscow et al. 2006).

An explanation for this phenomenon may be found by looking at research done

outside of education which points to the coexistence of competition and

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 3

123

collaboration and where competing organizations have been found to forge effective

networks. This phenomenon has been termed coopetition, defined as a relationship

between two companies involving competition in some segments and cooperation in

others (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996). Networks of this type appear to be most

common in environments with high levels of demand uncertainty, but reasonably

stable supplies of staffing (Jones et al. 1997). These coopetitive networks tend to be

relatively short term and focused around specific projects, but similar networks may

exist in the education sector, as, perceptions notwithstanding, a lot of collaboration

in education does take place in competitive environments, as the network studied in

this paper will demonstrate.

Coopetition

The coopetition concept emerged as a result of growing doubts about the sole

emphasis on competition as the driver of innovation in firms. Brandenburger and

Nalebuff (1996) used game theoretic concepts to challenge this view and found that

firms could in fact develop significant competitive advantage and foster innovation

through a strategy that combined competition and collaboration. The term

coopetition was first coined by Ray Noorda, CEO of Novell, describing it as

‘cooperation in creating value, competition in dividing it up’ (Bruno 1993). While

traditional competition for the market share is still present, cooperation with

suppliers, customers, and firms producing complementary or related products can in

this view lead to expansion of the market and the formation of new business

relationships and innovation. Coopetition is widespread across business sectors, but

is particularly prevalent in the IT sector, where strategic alliances to develop new

products and markets are common (Dagnino and Padula 2002). Key elements of

coopetition are as follows:

1. Firms cooperate to grow the market and compete to divide the spoils. These

activities do not necessary occur in chronological order, but may instead

operate simultaneously, as growing markets for the product or service will

remain a continuing concern, as will the division of the rewards of the market

(Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996).

2. Firms have a range of relationships with one another and with other

organizations. These can be described as customers, suppliers, competitors,

and complementors. The role of complementors is of particular importance in

coopetition theory. These are organizations that can help grow markets for the

firm by appearing to customers and suppliers to complement its offering.

Examples are the relationship between hardware and software manufacturers in

IT (more powerful hardware allows more sophisticated software to be

developed which in turn makes the hardware more attractive to consumers),

but complementors can also be firms providing the same product, in that, for

example, the existence of multiple buyers may make suppliers more willing to

invest in new products or may make the market more attractive to customers

(Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996).

4 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

3. The proximity of an activity to its customer appears to bear relevance for the

form of interaction among suppliers. When the activity is far from the customer,

for example, research and development, competitors tend to cooperate, and

when it is close to the customer, for example, marketing, they adopt a

competitive stance. (Bengtsson and Kock 2000).

4. Bengtsson and Kock’s (2000) research also shows that the division between

competition and cooperation can be separated between different business units,

even when the activity is close to the customer. Competitors cooperate in some

markets or product areas, whereas they compete in others. For example, when a

dairy company that firmly holds a certain market share does not produce a full

range of dairy products (yogurt and juice), it stocks and sells the products of its

competitor in order to ensure that their customers have access to the full range

of products. It strengthens the company’s relationship with its customers and its

counterpart gains access to the otherwise inaccessible share of the market.

Game theory states that markets have five key elements such as

• Players (actors in the game, for example, competitors),

• Added value (what the player can bring to the game, for example, the factors

that make a product stand out over competitors in the consumer market),

• Rules (the rules that guide the game, for example, the framework of negotiation

between buyers and sellers),

• Tactics (how the perceptions of other actors are shaped) and

• Scope (the relationship between different games, for example, different markets

in which organizations operate or different services they offer).

Collaboration can, in this view, be used to create a competitive advantage in the

market, through intervention in each of these areas, for example, by bringing in new

players as collaborators, by increasing added value through bringing in comple-

mentors making products more attractive to the market, by collaborating on

developing new rules in the market, or through creating a perception of strong

alliances that may scare off potential new entrants (Lecocq and Yami 2002;

Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996).

Reasons for cooperation include sharing risks and costs, as well as fostering

innovation, defined as the generation and exploitation of new products or services.

Coopetition is said to foster synergistic effects through sharing research and

development costs and pooling complementary skills and can help companies to

plug structural gaps in their knowledge (Pittaway et al. 2004). The importance of

knowledge flows between different firms and organizations for innovation has been

demonstrated in a number of studies, and collaborating as well as competing with

others is likely to increase this flow of information and help firms to access

complementary knowledge and skills. Pooling of resources and economies of scale

can themselves help firms to innovate and survive (Mention 2010).

There is a growing body of research on coopetition in the business world

generally favorable to its effectiveness (Dagnino and Padula 2002). A recent

systematic review concluded that networking between firms and suppliers and

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 5

123

customers and intermediaries such as professional and trade associations led to more

innovation and greater productivity across sectors and for both established firms and

entrepreneurs (Pittaway et al. 2004). However, in a study of financial firms, Mention

(2010) found that collaboration and networking with competitors led to imitation

rather than innovation, though this in itself may benefit firms as they learn from

others’ best practice. Networking can at times have negative consequences, in that

existing networks may be an impediment to innovation and market renewal. In

many cases, cooperative strategies in competitive environments in business are

encouraged through initiatives by local or national governments, seen as necessary

in some cases to overcome a lack of willingness to cooperate with competitors. The

results of these initiatives are disputed, however, as there are extant examples of

both success and failure of such initiatives. Where successful, they appear to lead

enhanced competitiveness and turnover (Rosenfeld 1996).

Studies of coopetition in education are very limited in number and generally

confined to Higher Education. Bennett and Kottasz (2011) found that university

business schools that compete fiercely for students nevertheless cooperate, especially

in overseas and international markets where they may engage in through joint

marketing efforts, access assets owned by the others like libraries, and learn about new

approaches and innovations. Typically, when engaged in collaboration, they will

attempt to differentiate themselves from collaborators through specialization in

specific areas. Universities also engage in coopetitive behavior through competing in

some markets and collaborating in others (van der Wende 2007). This limited research

base in education is likely linked to differences in the nature and extent of competition

in the education sector. Traditionally, while schools have always aimed to improve

their reputation and performance in part comparatively to others in their region, this

competition has generally not been existential in nature. However, in education

systems which have, through policy, become marketized, underpinned elements such

school choice, per-pupil funding, the encouragement of the setting up of new

providers, and published performance data to aid choice, this competition has become

far more existential to schools which thus have to compete in ways more similar to

businesses than was the case in these education systems previously.

Unsurprisingly in view of the inherent tensions in the model, research points to a

number of conditions that need to be in place for coopetition to be effective. The

first condition is reciprocity. Each partner must see clear and tangible benefits from

collaboration in order for it to be sustained. If uncertainty exists regarding the

benefits of networking, networks tend to be weak and unproductive. As in all

collaborative arrangements, but especially in competitive environments, trust

between partners needs to be established through the careful development of

relationships between key actors, though conversely working collaboratively can

itself build up trust between partners. The latter is facilitated if competition is seen

as less likely to increase in the future (Lacomba et al. 2011). There is also a need for

clear goals and agreements between partners and leadership skilled at managing

tensions, which can be facilitated by external brokerage (Brandenburger and

Nalebuff 1996; Rosenfeld 1996). All these conditions can be hard to achieve in

competitive situations, and interfirm conflict arising due to disputes over-compet-

itive actions are the main reason for the failure of networking (Pittaway et al. 2004).

6 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

Bengtsson and Kock (2000) point out the difficulties of reconciling the two

competing logics of cooperation and competition at the individual level. Compet-

itive and cooperative areas of activity often involve or should involve different

individuals, who work in only one of the modes of interaction. This allows

participants to avoid internal conflict at the individual level, although some

individuals are still required to incorporate both logics in their actions. This is

particularly critical at the managerial level, where competition-related conflict does

not need to be perceived as a threat, but as an issue for managerial consideration

within the organization. The extent to which firms are able to form networks in the

first place is dependent upon their internal capacity and the extent to which they can

build on existing relationships and networks, and knowledge on how to collaborate

within competitive contexts develops and grows over time (Pittaway et al. 2004).

Network management and governance matter to their success and both over- and

under-formalizations have been found to have negative consequences in terms of

network stability (Nooteboom 2004). External factors, such as government policies,

have also been found to influence the effectiveness and success of networks and

coopetitive relationships and have also been shown in educational contexts

(Chapman et al. 2012).

In light of the evidence of the existence of successful networks in competitive

educational environments, it is worth exploring whether coopetition can provide a

framework that explains their existence and sustainability, and what factors can

influence the success of networking in competitive contexts. In this paper, we will

therefore aim to address the following questions:

• What is the nature of the network and to what extent are competition and

cooperation present in inter-organizational interactions?

• What factors motivate colleges to form and sustain a collaborative network in a

context of inter-organizational competition?

• To what extent can the principles of coopetition explain network sustainability

and decision making within this context? How are cooperative and competitive

actions divided in this network?

• What factors appear to help and hinder the effectiveness of networking in a

competitive environment?

Methods

A case study approach was used to study collaboration and competition in a network

of eleven 6th-form colleges, which prepare 16–18-year-old students in England for

A-level exams, required for university entrance. In England, students follow

compulsory schooling up to the age of 16. Following completion of compulsory

education and the national General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)

exams, students can either leave education, do a vocational course, or (dependent on

their GCSE exam results) follow A-level courses. These run for 2 years and

culminate in Advanced A-level exams, which determine university entrance.

A-level education is provided in a number of different settings. Schools will often

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 7

123

have their own A-level center, which will offer a relatively limited range of courses

to students mostly coming from the 11–16 section of the school. General further

education colleges typically offer a mix of vocational courses, adult education, and

A-level courses, known as 6th-form provision. Finally, specialized 6th-form

colleges offer mostly or exclusively A-level courses. They are typically a lot larger

than school 6th-forms, with up to 3,000 students being common, while being

smaller in overall size than general further education colleges. In this study, we

looked at a network of 6th-form colleges operating in a distinct geographical area in

England. The area is socio-demographically highly varied, with areas of high

affluence and post-industrial poverty coexisting. While being part of a network,

these colleges are also engaged in intense competition for students. Sixth-form

colleges became autonomous institutions following incorporation in 1993, which

released them from local authority control. Full free student choice operates within

the system, and funding is directly dependent on student numbers, which means that

colleges have to compete with one another for students in order to survive.

Competitive pressures are increasing as budgetary problems in the UK have led to

significant per-student funding cuts being implemented by the government.

Alongside these competitive pressures, colleges are subject to strict accountability

regimes, with high stakes inspections by the national school inspection agency

(Ofsted). The network is a formally constituted structure, with an appointed network

coordinator, and was first formed in 1997. It has not only survived, but significantly

expanded its activities over the 15 years of its existence, notwithstanding the fact

that all the constituent colleges compete with one another for students. The aim of

the network is ‘to provide value for money and best serve the needs of young people

in their communities’, through the following:

• Collaborating for quality assurance and good practice;

• Managing staff networks;

• Sharing good practice;

• Negotiating with service providers;

• Providing local training opportunities; and

• Influencing national educational developments.

Network activities now include quality assurance, professional development, joint

procurement, and lobbying among others. Links exist at all levels of the colleges,

from senior management to teachers and administrative staff, and all these groups

are engaged in joint network activities. The college principals form the steering

group for the network.

A case study approach was used to allow us to study the functioning of the

network within this competitive environment in some depth and gain the views of

colleges located in different communities, from wealthy rural areas to deprived

inner city wards. The case was defined as the network itself, with all 11 colleges in

the network providing data. In each college, semi-structured interviews were

undertaken with the principal and with 1–4 other senior managers involved in

partnership working in the network. They included finance managers and leaders in

areas such as professional development and quality assurance (actual post-

definitions vary between colleges). Documentary evidence was collected in the

8 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

form of websites, brochures, and publicity materials. Data from the case studies

consisted of 39 interviews and 32 pieces of documentary evidence. Interviews were

conducted between 23 and 68 min in length. Data were analyzed in two phases:

1. College-level analysis: The evidence for each college was analyzed in order to

determine possible links between contextual factors and perceptions of

collaboration and competition, using a coding system corresponding to

emerging themes (Miles and Huberman 1994). An audit trail was created in

order that claims about the relationship between practices and outcomes can be

subjected to scrutiny (Schwandt and Halpern 1988).

2. Network level analysis: We then carried out a cross-site analysis of the accounts

of practice in relation to the overall research questions. A central strategy here

was the use of ‘group interpretive processes’ as a means of analyzing and

interpreting evidence. These involved an engagement with the different

perspectives of team members in ways that are intended to encourage critical

reflection, collaborative learning, and mutual critique (Wasser and Bresler

1996). In this way, conclusions were reached that are both valid and relevant. In

addition, interviewees from the participating colleges were invited to comment

on the final report before submission.

Results

Muijs et al. (2011) identified four main theoretical positions advocating inter-

organizational collaboration and networking: constructivist organizational theory,

the theory of social capital, ‘new social movement’ theory, and Durkheimian

network theory. According to constructivist theory, organizations are sense-making

systems creating shared perceptions and interpretations of reality. This means that

each organization will to a certain extent have its own unique perception of reality,

albeit one that is anchored in its context. This sense-making function is essential for

organizations to function effectively, but runs the risk of becoming myopic, in that,

this shared perception of reality may be closed to external influences. It is this

myopia that can be addressed through networking with other organizations or other

external partners that can provide access to a complementary cognition. Social

capital theory takes a more instrumental view, stressing the ways networking allows

organizations to harness resources held by other actors, and increases the flow of

information in a network. New social movement is a term coined to describe the

novel forms of social action (such as the environmental movement) that developed

from the 1960s onwards. These are seen as far more fluid than traditional social

movements (such as trade unions) and are characterized not so much by single

insurrections as by a series of events and by organizations/people linked together in

various more or less formal and transient patterns. Hadfield et al. (2005) claims that

networks of schools can be seen as such, displaying as they do a number of these

characteristics, such as transience, complexity, and the need to build up new

identities for the network that are distinct from those of the individual schools

(which may, for some schools, be a key motivator to become part of a network). The

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 9

123

dominant role of activist leaders can likewise be seen in many school networks. This

perspective seems most appropriate for networks that have developed bottom-up

through autonomous school action. Durkheimian theory sees networking as key to

combatting anomie which can result from a lack of strong ties and a disconnect

between actor’s ideologies and the behaviors they are forced to engage in, often a

problem for schools facing challenging circumstances. All of these perspectives,

then, suggest that collaboration and networking should benefit schools as they

would other organizations. In this network, as suggested, both by the goals of the

network mentioned above and by the interview data suggest that collaboration

within the network is largely seen as beneficial for its individual members. This

instrumental orientation, more than any other, dominated the perceptions on the

value of the network, suggesting an orientation close to social capital theory, and

linked to coopetitive views on collaboration and networking. However, as we will

discuss below, elements of all three other theoretical perspectives were present as

well.

There is clear evidence that although they are competitors, the colleges act as

complementors to one another. This is evident in their relationship to suppliers,

where the network essentially acts as a buying coalition, in which each individual

college can be seen to have strengthened its position with respect to suppliers by

bringing in new players in the form of the other colleges in the network. As such,

the collaborative is seen as having led to a number of cost savings, in particular

relating to joint procurement of services such as insurance. The exact size of the cost

savings differs for each college, but is estimated by some interviewees as being up

to £250.000: ‘In our college, we believe that we have saved well over 200 K by

being part of the network, and this is really one of the key aims for us. It is across a

range of activities, insurance, ICT, procurement, CPD, so really that has been very

beneficial to us’ (Senior Manager).

The network also allows colleges to plug structural gaps and draw on comple-

mentary strengths by allowing them to engage in shared professional development

activities, such as organizing common inset days. These are seen as particularly

helpful in providing high quality professional development as well as in allowing

visits to other colleges to, for example, ‘look at how they use technology, what we can

learn from them’ (curriculum leader). A major part in this is played by the curriculum

support groups, which meet regularly, and which allow teachers in similar subject

areas to share good practice. These are seen a particularly helpful for the smaller

colleges, where a teacher may be the only one in her/his school to teach a less popular

subject, and would otherwise be lacking in opportunities for professional dialog with

peers: ‘We discuss various aspects, curriculum, teaching pastoral care, and that

sharing of expertise is really important’ (curriculum leader). Training happens in a

number of areas, and this can take the form of external partners, such as exam boards

(the private companies licensed to set the A-level exams under the English system)

coming into train subject groups. Working as a group is an advantage here ‘they are

interested in us as a market place, so we can get them in more easily’ (principal),

another example of the colleges acting as complementors in the face of suppliers.

Training can also come from colleagues from other colleges, while specific courses

10 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

for newly qualified teachers (NQT’s) allow them to share their experiences across

colleges.

Another form of this joint professional development is leadership development

which exists both in terms of formal leadership development programs provided by

the group and in leader networks that exist in the group. Both are very positively

perceived within the network. One Vice principal, for example, commented that

‘being part of the Vice principals curriculum group has been really useful and

allows us to share good practice. A piece of work we have been doing recently was

on how we use exam boards and how we coordinate exam board training. We are

coordinating approaches to obtaining training from exam boards, seeing who uses

which exam board for what subject, and how we can coordinate that’. Adminis-

trators also belong to a number of network groups, such as the finance group, and it

is this breadth of networking across levels of staff in the colleges that is said to make

the network particularly useful: ‘Our IT department, for example, have been to

college X, to see what they are doing there’. (Vice principal).

The complementarity of the colleges also expresses itself in relation to

organizing in the face of external threats. The network has put in place a joint

quality assurance system to prepare them for inspections by the national inspection

agency, Ofsted. This system, whereby the colleges work on quality assurance

through visits from trained staff of other colleges who look at particular areas using

Ofsted criteria, is seen as very helpful: ‘It gives us an impartial, external view of the

college’ (principal), and as one of the reasons for the generally excellent inspection

results colleges receive. Outside of the formal quality assurance process staff,

including senior managers, also visit and provide feedback on various occasions,

especially when a college is perceived to have difficulties: ‘There is really an ethos

of being happy to help, and it is like a free consultancy’ (principal).

Colleges are also complementors in the sense of being able to hold greater

political influence as a result of collaboration. By being part of a network, and one

that encompasses a high proportion of A-level provision in the area, the colleges are

able to exert a collective influence that would not be feasible for any single college.

This is evident in relations with exam boards, where the network is able to invite

and have a dialog with key staff, and with politics, where the network allows access

to Ministers and local politicians that may not otherwise be forthcoming. The

network can therefore be seen as possessing elements of a new social movement,

both in its bottom-up approach to network formation, which was an initiative of the

colleges for which no incentives or support was provided, and which exists in part to

obtain greater influence on local and national policy.

There is therefore evidence that the colleges are using collaboration to strengthen

each of them individually, by engaging in activities around professional develop-

ment and procurement that would be hard to achieve otherwise. They draw on each

other’s strengths to fill ‘structural gaps’ in their own organization, such as

weaknesses in particular curriculum areas, and draw on the group as a collective to

strengthen their hand in negotiations with suppliers and in developing more

powerful forms of professional development.

There is also evidence that they engage in coopetition in another way, in that they

collaborate to strengthen their collective market position in light of competition

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 11

123

from other forms of 6th-form provision, such as from schools and general FE

college 6th-forms. This is evident in the commitment to the network ‘brand’, as

expressed by one interviewee: For us, it is also good to be seen to be a part of the

group, which is considered a kind of mark of quality’ (principal). There was further

evidence of this commitment to grow and protect the 6th-form college market in the

fact of competition from other sector in the fact that colleges had recently

formalized a concordat, part of which was a written commitment to protect 6th-form

provision across the area covered by the consortium, and in particular to support any

of the colleges that became endangered. There was also evidence of a strong

commitment to the national sector of 6th-form colleges, including active member-

ship of national organizations and a desire to promote the sector. It is clear that at

least part of the rationale for the group is to ‘grow the pie’ for 6th-form colleges

when compared with competing forms of A-level provision in schools and general

FE colleges. Collaboration here is therefore in part used as a tactic to shape external

perspectives of 6th-form provision as a whole through demonstrating a shared

commitment to this type of provision, and also by attaching a collective quality

brand to their activities.

The perceived usefulness of collaboration is demonstrated by the setting up of an

additional collaborative network located in the urban part of the county. These

colleges perceive themselves as having specific similarities, interests, and circum-

stances that mean they would benefit from closer collaboration as a group. Member

colleges, however, stress that they see this collaboration as complementary to their

existing collaboration in the larger network, which they perceived as both inherently

valuable and useful and as having a strong ‘brand’ in the region. However,

notwithstanding these stated motivations, from the lens of coopetition theory, it is

likely that the setting up of the new network is also related to the added value that

colleges bring to the original network and the power differentials that result. The

most successful colleges in the network are seen as among the highest performing

providers nationally, and their presence in the network brings very significant added

value in terms of the reputation of the network. This is much less the case for some

of the colleges serving the urban areas, which at times struggle to attract sufficient

numbers of students and are financially weaker as well as showing lower levels of

performance in the A-level exams. This makes their value to the network lower than

that of the highly successful colleges, leads to possible power differentials in the

network (which is chaired by the principal of one of the high performing colleges),

and provides a motivation for the urban colleges to form their own network in which

value added and therefore power will be more equal. Here, one can see elements of

Durkheimian perspectives on networking, in the way in which these colleges feel a

sense of alienation from competitive processes they have to engage in and from the

more powerful colleges within the network, which has led them to collaborate with

one another. However, the urban colleges are all aware of the danger of splitting

from the larger network and potential unfettered competition that may result; hence,

great care is taken to stress allegiance to the larger network.

What was clear was the extent to which as well as collaborating the colleges were

competing with one another. Free enrollment of pupils, with funding dependent on

pupil numbers, meant that colleges pursued active marketing strategies to attempt to

12 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

increase their numbers within a context of a presently stable age cohort. This was

evident in a range of ways, from radio advertising, through to prospectuses,

organized school visits and bussing in of students from an often very broad

surrounding area. Therefore, while colleges collaborate to grow their collective

share of A-level provision in terms of student numbers, they are also competing

with each other within their segment. Most studies on coopetition show that gains

accrue differently to collaborating organizations at this stage (e.g. Brandenburger

and Nalebuff 1996), and this is clearly the case in this student market, as evidenced

by very different levels of turnover, student numbers, and student attainment (the

largest colleges have over four times the turnover and student numbers of the

smallest colleges).

The fact that the ‘spoils’ are accruing to competitors to different degrees is

reflected in the different views expressed on competition by the colleges, which to a

large extent mirror differences in success and market power. In those colleges seen

as most desirable and high performing by students and parents, which tended to be

located outside of the largest urban area in the locality, competition was often seen

as a positive: ‘Competition keeps you sharp, it forces you to raise and maintain

standards’ (principal) was a typical quote, and competition was generally seen as a

motivator for improvement. The greater freedom that came with the introduction of

competition was also seen as a benefit: ‘The autonomy that we now have, to shape

policies and practice, has, in my view, strongly improved standards in this college’

(Vice principal). However, in those colleges that were seen as less desirable, in

general, those colleges situated in large urban centers, views were more negative:

‘What are the benefits of competition? There are none’. (principal). In these

colleges, the impact of competition was seen to lie mainly in causing students in

their catchment areas to go elsewhere, leaving them with a smaller and

academically weaker student body then would otherwise be the case. There was

also a perception that competition could work against institutions collaborating for

the benefit of all students in the region, though a strong moral commitment to the

broader student body and the benefits it receives through collaboration was evident

nonetheless.

Whatever the views on competition, it was considered to be a given within the

present system, and one that colleges would have to work within. The network

was seen as playing a key role here, in that it was seen as almost a regulator of

competition in the region. Issues related to competition were frequently discussed

in network meetings, especially those between college principals: ‘Discussions

can become quite heated sometimes’ (principal) and could go into a variety of

issues from marketing to the distance from the college which college buses were

allowed to travel to pick up students. The network had reached a number of

agreements to temper competition, for example, by precluding negative comments

about competing colleges in marketing. In this way, the network had led to what

one principal referred to as ‘civilized competition’. In terms of coopetition theory,

this can be seen as the setting of rules that serve to advance the goal of

strengthening the competitive position of the 6th-form colleges, as a collective, in

the face of competition from other types of providers, as the reputation and

market position in the region of the sector as a whole could be damaged by

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 13

123

competition that led to ultimate failure of one of the colleges. And it was

precisely such a failure that was one of the main impetuses to forming the

network in the first place. In the early days of competition, when the colleges

were first ‘incorporated’ and released from local authority control, competition

had been far fiercer and collaboration limited. It was partly due to some of the

perceived problems with this approach, not least the bankruptcy and closure of a

college, that the group was founded and collaboration strengthened. However,

competition was not necessarily seen as antithetical to collaboration. Several

interviewees commented that the competitive environment had in some senses led

to more genuine collaboration than existed within the local authority controlled

framework, where much was left to the authority, and genuine collaboration

between individual colleges was limited.

A number of factors had helped the network be sustainable and successful over

this 15-year period. As is clear from the discussion above, mutual benefits were seen

as very clearly present, with the colleges acting as complementors to one another.

Building up trust over time had allowed colleges to sustain the network in the face

of competitive pressures. This had been facilitated through personal relationships,

with many of the principals having worked in several of the network colleges before

attaining principalship. A major factor in making the network effective was the role

of the network coordinator. As has been shown in previous research (e.g., Muijs

et al. 2010), the presence of a coordinator who is not one of the principals of the

participating organizations and therefore can act as a neutral mediator as well as

providing essential organizational support and momentum is key to effective

networking. The network clearly has such an arrangement in place, and the

effectiveness of the coordinator was frequently remarked upon. Notably, the group

of colleges are collectively high-performing, with both good overall results and

positive value-added. Colleges in the network are rated as good or outstanding by

the national inspectorate. This is attributed to both collaboration and the benefits of

networking mentioned above, and the autonomy and competitive environment

which have led colleges to improve.

However, threats exist to the sustainability of the network. Increased financial

pressures had recently necessitated the signing of a concordat to formalize

collaborative work and regulate competition, as funding cuts meant that, within the

context of a stable population, the only way for colleges to maintain current staffing

levels would be to grow student numbers, either from competing 6th-form colleges

or other providers in the region. The concordat can be seen as aimed at encouraging

the latter at the expense of the former.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have looked at the relationship between collaboration and

competition in an educational marketplace. What we have found is that, notwith-

standing widely held views about the oppositional nature of competition and

collaboration (e.g. Hargreaves 1996), the two can coexist in ways that may be

beneficial to the effectiveness of the organizations involved.

14 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

Collaboration was seen as having a range of benefits, which made even

competing organizations want to engage in it. Improvement for all institutions could

come about through network activities such as professional development and mutual

support, while a key element of collaboration was to temper competition, by

providing frameworks within which this could occur. The commitment to

guaranteeing the continued existence of the other 6th-form colleges in the group

meant both that support would be provided to any college in difficulties, but also

that competition would never be ‘to the death’. Competition, though differentially

viewed by actors in the region, did appear to be motivating to some, and had,

according to some interviewees, strengthened genuine collaboration between the

colleges. The latter is an interesting finding, in that it suggests that in some cases, it

can be competitive pressures along with institutional autonomy themselves that may

create conditions under which collaboration is seen as desirable. In this case, it

appears that the existential threat resulting from competition was the spur that

allowed collaboration to grow.

Of course, there is no guarantee of this happening, and networks in competitive

environments will be under continuous pressure. The possibility of implosion is

ever-present, in that any over-competitive behavior may lead institutions to leave

the network leading to network fragmentation, or the setting up of competing

networks. Growing financial austerity increases these pressures. Lacomba et al.

(2011) finding that collaboration is more likely if future competition is seen as less

likely points to problems for the network, in that financial constraints are likely to

increase rather than decrease competitive pressures. On the other hand, the reduced

economic conditions under which the colleges have to labor may make the network

and collaboration in general even more important, due to the cost savings inherent in

joint procurement and provision of CPD, and in defending the sector against the

existential challenges inherent in lower funding through the support they provide

one another and their commitment to this support. Key is that networks, if they are

to be successful, are seen as being too beneficial to leave, this both in terms of the

material benefits they bring in terms of support and collaborative programs as in

terms of less tangible benefits such as emotional support (Muijs and Rumyantseva

2012). For some institutions, one of the key benefits may be the tempering of

competition. For the more powerful institutions, the benefits on the other hand need

to outweigh those that could accrue from unfettered competition in terms of

generating student numbers. Here, mutual support, shared services and programs,

and a moral commitment to students and the sector come to the fore. It is also clear

that implosion is less likely where relationships are strong and established, not least

at a personal level, and the development of trust therefore has to be a central goal of

the network as well as a means toward other network ends.

Theoretically, this paper has shown that coopetition theory may provide a useful

lens with which to study organizational behavior in education. Simultaneous

competition and collaboration exist and can coexist for a long period as in this

example. The colleges in this study seemed to be acting in a coopetitive way. They

exhibited a largely instrumental approach to networking, stressing tangible benefits,

where other colleges played the role of complementors, strengthening each in

negotiation with suppliers and other stakeholders, as well as with regard to possible

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 15

123

external threats. Colleges also appeared to act in a classically coopetitive fashion by

collaborating to grow and promote 6th-form colleges as the key A-level provider in

the region in the face of competition from schools and general FE colleges, and

simultaneously competed to divide up their share of the overall A-level student

market. Colleges could be seen to be acting in strategic ways predicted by game

theory, such as by bringing in new players (colleges) to support them and change the

parameters of the game, by creating rules, such as the ones to temper inter-

organizational competition, and engaging in a variety of tactics to strengthen their

sector compared to competitors. What this paper therefore demonstrates is both that

the concept of coopetition is one that may usefully be employed to understand and

describe educational contexts and that a number of the conditions under which firms

engage in coopetition exist in the education sector in England and likely in other

countries where policies have encouraged the creation of education markets. This is,

however, a small case study investigation, and further study is needed to confirm the

utility of the concept of coopetition to educational organizations.

Of course, coopetition theory only described cooperative processes to a certain

degree and cannot present a full picture of motivations and reasons for networking

and collaboration. The rational model that underpins the theory has its limitations

and does not account sufficiently for feelings of solidarity or moral purpose, and

genuine beliefs in the value of this type of A-level provision as parts of the glue that

binds the network. Nevertheless, actors themselves provided in majority rational-

istic and instrumental justifications for engaging in network activity, suggesting that

these do play a significant part in decision-making processes in this case.

Furthermore, the extent to which the concept of coopetition is relevant will depend

on the extent to which educational policy in a given country or state has encouraged

the development of a competitive market in education. As demonstrated in Rincke

(2005) and Ghosh (2009), competitive behavior is strongly influenced by policy

decisions, and coopetition as a concept in education is therefore only likely to be

relevant to those contexts in which educational markets are most developed and

most closely resemble markets in the business sector. This means that coopetitive

forms of collaboration are most likely to exist in countries where policies have most

strongly encouraged market formation, within as well as across districts, such as in

Chile, England, and Sweden, and where restrictions on competitive behaviors are

most limited (for example, with regard to the ability to vary salaries and conditions

of work between schools). It is therefore not a concept that will universally describe

collaboration and networking, but is one that is gaining in importance as many

jurisdictions move toward greater marketization of their education systems, as is, for

example, the case in several US states. In light of the benefits of collaboration, it

would seem that districts and local authorities could play an important role as

brokers of networks in their localities.

This study also has obvious methodological limitations. The case study

methodology means that we need to be cautious in terms of generalizing findings.

Interview data were collected primarily from senior managers, which limits the

perspectives sought, while documentary evidence came either from external official

sources (such as Ofsted) or the colleges themselves (such as network contracts).

Further study needs to be undertaken to develop our understanding of coopetitive

16 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123

processes, both in terms of building the body of case knowledge and in adding

quantitative studies in this area. Nevertheless, this study does shed some light on the

intersection between collaboration and competition in education and can hopefully

make a contribution to developing a more nuanced understanding of the relationship

between the two.

References

Ainscow, M., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in

challenging circumstances. Improving Schools, 9(3), 1–11.

Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Ball, S. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage.

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bennett, R. A., & Kottasz, R. (2011). Strategic, competitive and cooperative approaches to

internationalisation in European business schools. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11–12),

1087–1116.

Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks—to cooperate and compete

simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 49 (3), 411–426.

Berkemeyer, N., Bos, W., Manitius, V., & Muthing, H. (2008). Unterrichtsentwicklung in Netzwerken-

Konzeptionen, Befunde, Perspektiven. Muster: Waxmann.

Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, J. (1996). Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition

and cooperation: The game theory strategy that’s changing the game of business. New York: Profile

Books.

Bruno, C. (1993). Big red keeps rolling. Novell’s next move. Network World, 10(40), 52–54.

Chakrabarti, R. (2011). Vouchers, responses and the test-taking population. Regression-discontinuity

evidence from Florida. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports no 486.

Chapman, C., & Allen, T. (2005). Partnerships for improvement: The specialist schools achievement

programme. London: The Specialist Schools Trust.

Chapman, C., Muijs, D. & MacAllister, J. (2012). Collaborative school turnaround: A study of the impact

of federation on student outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association. Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.

Chapman, C., Muijs, D. & Sammons, P. (2010). Federations and student outcomes: A study of the impact

of school-to-school collaboration on school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO, April 2010.

Clark, D. (2005). Politics, markets and schools: Quasi-experimental evidence on the impact of autonomy

and competition from a truly revolutionary UK reform. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

CUREE. (2005). Systematic research review: The impact of networks on pupils, practitioners,

organisations and the committees they serve. Nottingham: NCSL.

Dagnino, P. & Padula, P. (2002). Coopetition strategy. A new form of interfirm dynamics for value

creation. Paper presented at the European Academy of Management Second Annual Conference—

‘‘Innovative Research in Management’’ Stockholm, 9–11 May 2002.

Damore, S. J., Kapustka, K. M., & McDevitt, P. (2011). The urban professional development schools

network: Assessing the partnership’s impact on initial teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 46(3),

182–207.

Dronkers, J., & Robert, P. (2008). School choice in the light of the effectiveness differences of various

types of public and private schools in 19 OECD countries. Journal of School Choice, 2(3), 260–300.

Erixon Arreman, I., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). School as ‘‘Edu-business’’: Four ‘‘serious players’’ in the

Swedish upper secondary school market. Education Inquiry, 2(4), 637–657.

Ghosh, S. (2009). Strategic interaction among public school districts: Evidence on spatial interdepen-

dence in school inputs. Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 440–450.

Gibbons, S., Machin, S., & Silva, O. (2008). Choice, competition and pupil achievement. Journal of the

European Economic Association, 6(4), 912–947.

Hadfield, M., Jopling, M., Noden, C., & O’Leary, D. (2005). The existing knowledge base around the

impact of networking and collaboration. Nottingham: NCSL Networked Learning Group.

J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18 17

123

Hargreaves, L. (1996). Collaboration: A condition for survival for small rural schools? In D. Bridges & C.

Husbands (Eds.), Consorting and collaborating in the education marketplace (pp. 21–38). London:

Falmer Press.

Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A General theory of network governance: Exchange

conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945.

Kahne, J., O’Brien, J., Brown, A., & Quinn, T. (2001). Leveraging social capital and school

improvement: The case of a school network and a comprehensive community initiative in Chicago.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 429–461.

Lacomba, J. A., Lagos, F., & Neugebauer, T. (2011). Who makes the pie bigger? An experimental study

on co-opetition. New Zealand Economic Papers, 45(1–2), 59–68.

Lecocq, X., & Yami, S. (2002). From value chain to value networks: Towards a new strategic model. In

S. Lundan (Ed.), Network Knowledge in international business. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Mention, A.-L. (2010). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector:

Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44–53.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muijs, D., Chapman, C., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (2011). Networking and collaboration in education.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Muijs, D. & Rumyantseva, N. (2012). Coopetition in education? A case study of collaboration in a

competitive environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association. Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.

Muijs, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking and

collaboration between schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 5–27.

Nooteboom, B. (2004). Inter-firm collaboration, networks and strategy : An integrated approach (1st

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denier, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A

systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3 and 4),

137–168.

Rincke, J. (2005). Competition in the public school sector: Evidence on strategic interaction among US

school districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 59(3), 352–369.

Rosenfeld, S. A. (1996). Does cooperation enhance competitiveness? Assessing the impacts of inert-firm

collaboration. Research Policy, 25(3), 247–263.

Sandstrom, F. M., & Bergstrom, F. (2005). School vouchers in practise: Competition will not hurt you.

Journal of Public Economics, 89(4), 351–380.

Schwandt, Thomas A., & Halpern, Edward S. (1988). Linking auditing and metaevaluation: Enhancing

quality in applied research. London: Sage.

Van der Wende, M. (2007). Internationalisation of higher education in the OECD countries: Challenges

and opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4),

274–289.

Wasser, J. D., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in a collaborative zone: Conceptualising collaboration in

qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15.

Wiborg, S. (2010) Swedish free schools: Do they work? Published by the centre for learning and life

chances in knowledge economies and societies at: http://www.llakes.org.

18 J Educ Change (2014) 15:1–18

123