Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
European higher education fundraising: a Spanish field study
(USC Thesis Other)
European higher education fundraising: a Spanish field study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
European Higher Education Fundraising: A Spanish Field Study
by
Carolyn P. Woolf
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2024
© Copyright by Carolyn P. Woolf 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Carolyn Woolf certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Doug Lynch
Eric Canny
Monique Datta, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
Higher education institutions in Spain, facing decreasing state support and an increasingly
globalized knowledge economy, must diversify their revenue streams to compete. This
qualitative field study examined the factors influencing the development and success of higher
education fundraising at Spanish universities. Applying Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT)
as a theoretical lens, the research investigated the role of personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors that shape fundraising professionals’ knowledge and motivation. Additionally, the study
analyzed the broader institutional, cultural, and environmental contexts that support or hinder
existing fundraising initiatives. Participants included fundraising professionals, university
leadership, third-party consultants, and service providers. Findings showed that successful
fundraising is driven by the fundraising cycle, a strong sense of belonging and trust, an
increasing international demographic, and a compelling case for support. Conversely,
institutional, cultural, economic, and political factors hinder fundraising efforts, such as a lack of
institutional buy-in and investment, limited professional development resources, a nascent
culture of giving, and differences in perceived value between public, private, and religiously
affiliated institutions. The study offers two recommendations for Spanish universities to start or
grow their fundraising capacity: fostering a philanthropic environment and strengthening
institutional fundraising capacity.
Keywords: higher education, fundraising, philanthropy, social cognitive theory, Spain
v
Dedication
To my husband and two daughters, for your love and support. It is a joy to share my life with
you.
vi
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to my family, friends, and colleagues for supporting me. Your
unwavering patience, understanding, and love have meant the world to me. I look forward to
repaying and paying forward the many kindnesses I have received.
I am especially indebted to my dissertation committee, Doug Lynch and Eric Canny, and
chair, Monique Datta, who skillfully guided me through this process. It has been an honor to
work with you. Your insights and achievements are a source of inspiration.
This study could not have been completed without the many Spanish higher education
fundraisers who shared their experiences and networks with me. I am grateful for your
dedication, curiosity, and willingness to open doors. I hope this work contributes to your efforts
and advances the field.
For more information on this topic or to contact me directly, please contact me at
carolynpwoolf@gmail.com.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 1
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study.......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions.................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Globalized Higher Education............................................................................................ 10
Higher Education Philanthropy......................................................................................... 23
The Higher Education Fundraising Profession, Challenges, and Trends ......................... 40
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework........................................................................... 48
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 53
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 55
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 56
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 56
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 57
viii
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 59
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 61
Participants........................................................................................................................ 61
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 62
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 63
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 64
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 66
Ethics ................................................................................................................................ 67
Chapter Four: Results or Findings................................................................................................ 69
Participants........................................................................................................................ 69
Findings Research Question One...................................................................................... 71
Findings Research Question Two ..................................................................................... 86
Summary......................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 105
Discussion Research Question One ................................................................................ 105
Discussion Research Question Two................................................................................ 110
Recommendations........................................................................................................... 115
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................ 132
Recommendations for Future Research.......................................................................... 133
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 135
References................................................................................................................................... 138
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 168
Appendix B: Ingredient Cost Analysis....................................................................................... 173
ix
The Ingredient Method Part 1: Profile of a Typical Spanish University ........................ 173
The Ingredient Method Part 2: Analyzing and Reporting Costs..................................... 174
The Ingredient Method Part 3: Applying NPV to Recommendations............................ 179
The Ingredient Method Part 4: Summarize Total Costs ................................................. 183
List of Tables
Table 1 Global Higher Education Ranking 2023: Continental Europe......................................... 17
Table 2 Government and Private Expenditures on Higher Education Institutions....................... 19
Table 3 Expenditures per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Student................................................... 20
Table 4 The Four Fundraising Models for European Universities................................................ 47
Table 5 Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 57
Table 6 The Fundraising Cycle as Described by Spanish Higher Education Fundraisers............ 74
Table 7 Knowledge & Motivation Factors.................................................................................... 85
Table 8 Environmental Factors................................................................................................... 103
Table 9 Summary of Fundraising Investment in the United States: Average per Institution...... 123
Table 10 Higher Education Fundraising Investment in Europe: Average per Region ................ 124
Table 11 Engaged Alumni per Alumni Relations Staff by Region: United States and Europe .. 126
Table 12 Average Engaged Alumni by Cohort in a Study of 120 United States Universities.... 126
Table 13 Net Fundraiser Value for Advancement Alumni Professional at Spanish Universities 128
Table 14 CASE Europe Salary Report........................................................................................ 131
List of Figures
Figure 1 The Funding Environment of Higher Education Institutions in Europe ........................ 16
Figure 2 Bandura’s Model of Triadic Reciprocal Determinism (TRD)........................................ 51
Figure 3 TRD Model of Spanish Higher Education Fundraisers.................................................. 53
Figure 4 Participants’ Educational Background ........................................................................... 70
Figure 5 Participants’ Fundraising Training and Experience........................................................ 71
Figure 6 Participants’ Titles [Sample] and Institution Type ......................................................... 71
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The lack of philanthropic revenue supporting Spanish universities poses a significant
hurdle to their competitiveness in the globalized higher education market. Driven by the rise of
international rankings, degree standardization, and globalization (Meyer, 2017; Shin & Kehm,
2013), higher education institutions around the world are under immense pressure to measure up
against industry leaders, irrespective of their local conditions or resources (Drezner, 2019; HerasPedrosa et al., 2017; Krücken & Meier, 2006). Additionally, policies such as the Bologna
Process, which established the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) to promote crossborder academic cooperation, degree standardization, and increased mobility within Europe,
intensify pressure on European universities to compete for students, faculty, and status (Drezner,
2019; European Commission, 2011; Marginson, 2006). While the EHEA has commendably
brought European higher education into the international market, the benefits vary significantly
according to each country's financial capacity and commitment to implement the goals set out in
the declaration (Brouker et al., 2019; Pereyra, 2006).
Amidst these challenges, Spanish universities struggle to keep pace due to dwindling
public funding (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017). To compete successfully in this new global market,
Spanish universities must consider new ways to supplement revenue and expand their offerings
to attract and retain top talent (Pérez-Esparrells & Torre, 2012). Fundraising for philanthropic
donations from alumni and other key constituents offers Spanish universities an alternative
revenue source to drive programmatic improvement, market differentiation, and ranking prestige
(Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017). This qualitative study examines the factors influencing fundraising
at Spanish higher education institutions from the practitioner’s perspective. It aims to offer
practical, research-informed recommendations on increasing philanthropic revenue for Spanish
universities, thereby enhancing the quality and accessibility of higher education in Spain.
2
Context and Background of the Problem
Higher education institutions operate within a highly globalized and competitive context
(Drezner, 2019; Madeo, 2021). However, many universities cannot cover the growing costs of
competition through tuition or government support alone (Drezner, 2019; El Gibari et al., 2021).
Governments and policymakers worldwide realize that relying on tax revenues is insufficient to
sustain public higher education institutions while maintaining accessibility for their populations
(Johnstone, 2005). Consequently, there is a growing emphasis on exploring alternative revenue
streams, such as philanthropy, as evident in the financial reform agendas of most Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (Drezner, 2019; Johnstone,
2005; Madeo, 2021). In Europe, the reduction in public support for higher education is
particularly pronounced, adding financial strain for institutions participating in the EHEA
(Drezner, 2019). These institutions struggle to meet reform costs while recruiting high-quality
faculty, expanding research and student services, and maintaining, let alone developing, their
campuses (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017). European Commission publications, such as Engaging
Philanthropy for University Research (2008), Fundraising from Philanthropy in European
Universities (2011), Funding of Education in Europe (2013), and European Philanthropy: An
Untapped Potential (2019), in conjunction with reports such as Financially Sustainable
Universities II (Pruvot & Estermann, 2012) highlight the urgency for European universities to
seek new ways to diversify their financing.
Over the past 4 decades, the Spanish higher education system has undergone rapid
modernization efforts to enhance its global recognition, rankings, and overall performance (de la
Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019). However, these initiatives have been hampered by a dual
governance system, complex and sometimes contradictory higher education legislation, and
insufficient accountability measures (El Gibari et al., 2021; de la Torre & Pérez-Esparrells,
3
2019). Despite the introduction of various policies, such as the Ley Organica de Reforma
Universitaria (LRU) enacted in 1983, Ley de Universidades (LOU) in 2001, and Estrategia
Universidad 2015 (EU2015), Spanish public universities are generally perceived as mid-to-low
in quality and homogenous (El Gibari et al., 2021). One notable exception is the University of
Barcelona (UB), which has found a path into global higher education rankings, ranking among
the top 200 in The Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings and within the best
201-300 universities globally according to the Shanghai Global Rankings (University of
Barcelona, 2023). However, for most Spanish universities, cultural and financial obstacles hinder
their efforts to modernize and achieve international recognition (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017; de la
Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019).
Compared to their counterparts in the United Kingdom and North America, Spanish
higher education institutions are reluctant to pursue philanthropy as a revenue and ranking
solution. While leaders in both private and public Spanish higher education institutions show
interest in fundraising (Instituto de Empresa [IE] Foundation, 2023; University of Barcelona
[UB], 2019), they face structural and cultural barriers in establishing effective fundraising
programs (Pérez-Esparrells & Torre, 2012). Structural obstacles include limited tax incentives
for philanthropic contributions, a shortage of trained fundraisers, insufficient resources and
networks, and underinvestment in alumni engagement programs (Ferrá & Pérez-Esparrells,
2013). Cultural barriers included low affinity and identity amongst Spanish alumni, limited
institutional trust, and a nascent fundraising culture (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017; Pérez-Esparrells
& Torre, 2012). Despite these challenges, researchers (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017; PérezEsparrells & Torre, 2012; de la Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019; de la Torre et al., 2018) and
policymakers (EHEA, 2015; Estermann & Pruvot, 2011; European Commission, 2011, 2013,
4
2019) agree that Spanish universities must diversify, enhance research collaboration, and explore
alternative revenue streams.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This field-based study explores the fundraising practices in Spanish public and private
universities that have actively introduced fundraising initiatives among their students and alumni
despite facing significant cultural and structural challenges. These isolated efforts are crucial to
understanding how philanthropy can provide Spanish universities with a sustainable revenue
source, drive programmatic differentiation, and improve their global rankings. The study aims to
enhance understanding of the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that either hinder
or support fundraising professionals in Spanish higher education institutions. Through qualitative
interviews with fundraising practitioners, this research seeks to answer the following research
questions:
1. What are the perceived knowledge and motivation of fundraising professionals
working within higher education institutions in Spain?
2. What perceived environmental factors support or hinder the success of higher
education fundraising in Spain?
Importance of the Study
Higher education institutions are under pressure to adapt to the rapidly evolving global
market or risk jeopardizing their mission. Factors such as heightened competition, reduced
funding, and the increasing influence of international rankings are compelling universities to
seek supplementary revenue to survive (Council for Advancement and Support of Education
[CASE], 2023; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Drezner, 2019). In contrast, the philanthropic
traditions and robust fundraising practices of colleges and universities in the United States grant
an unparalleled advantage to its institutions in the global higher education market (Heras-Pedrosa
5
et al., 2017; Skinner, 2019). According to CASE Insights on Voluntary Support of Education
(2023), revenue from higher education philanthropy in the United States reached 59.5 billion
dollars in 2022, enabling universities to compete for talent, expand access to new markets, offer
competitive aid packages, and sustain financial stability amidst economic uncertainties (Drezner,
2019). This advantage is not going unnoticed. The “American Fundraising Model” has been
successfully adopted by elite colleges in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, China, the
United Kingdom, France, and Germany (CASE, 2023; Drezner, 2019; Squire, 2014). However,
Spanish universities have shown reluctance to embrace fundraising as a strategic approach. Even
within the recommendations from the European Commission's Eurydice Report on Spanish
Higher Education Funding (2023), which identified the need for Spanish universities to increase
stakeholder management and partnerships, the report failed to explicitly endorse philanthropy or
provide guidance on establishing fundraising programs. This hesitancy is notable, especially
compared to the proactive measures and incentives other European countries offer to encourage
philanthropic giving to higher education, as seen in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway
(European Commission, 2008, 2011, 2023; Geuna, 2001).
The findings of this study address a significant gap in the literature concerning higher
education fundraising within the Spanish context. By focusing on the practitioner’s perspective,
this field-based study enhances our understanding of successful Spanish fundraising institutions'
strategies, resources, and competencies while uncovering the complexities and challenges of this
promising but underdeveloped revenue stream. As higher education institutions worldwide seek
to adapt to the rapidly evolving global higher education landscape, this study highlights the
importance of understanding the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors supporting or
hindering philanthropy as a long-term, sustainable strategy for Spanish universities to enhance
and fulfill their mission.
6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study uses Bandura’s (1977, 1986, 1997, 2001) social cognitive theory (SCT) as a
framework to understand the psychosocial behavior of Spanish higher education fundraising
professionals. Building on earlier theoretical frameworks that focused on singular, unidirectional
behavioral influences, such as environments or internal dispositions, Bandura advanced the
concept of human behavior as the result of triadic reciprocity between personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors (Bandura, 1986; Schunk & Usher, 2019). This research examines critical
aspects of Spanish fundraising professionals, including their subject knowledge, self-efficacy,
motivation, outcome expectancy, resilience, and role models. Furthermore, the study investigates
the broader structural, cultural, and social contexts shaping higher education fundraising
environments. Bandura suggested that humans are both the producers and products of their
environments (Wood & Bandura, 1989), making SCT an effective lens to analyze the personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors that support or hinder the success of higher education
fundraising professionals in Spain.
The study’s research paradigm adopts a combined approach of constructivist and critical
realism. Constructivism focuses on understanding through inquiry into the how and why of
phenomena (Creswell, 2014), while critical realism acknowledges the limitations of human
perception (Saunders, 2019). By integrating these two philosophical perspectives, this study aims
to gain insight into the lived experiences of Spanish higher education fundraisers and to identify
and analyze the underlying factors influencing or hindering their success. Furthermore, this
inquiry paradigm embraces epistemological relativism, recognizing that facts and experiences
are shaped by social and historical contexts and the researcher’s social conditioning (Reed,
2005). Lastly, my positionality as a non-native Spanish speaker, Canadian-born higher education
7
fundraiser, and foreigner to the Spanish culture are considered and weighed throughout the
research process. With sensitivity and reflexivity, I acknowledge the influence of cultural norms
and social constructs on myself, and the subjects being studied. I aim to safeguard the data
collection and interpretation process from undue bias.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions provide clarity for their use throughout this study.
Annual Giving
The yearly campaign that seeks funds on an annual or recurring basis for the same
institution. Funds are typically unrestricted (CFRE, 2009).
Campaign
An organized, public effort to raise money for a nonprofit institution (CFRE, 2009).
Case for Support
The rationale for why the nonprofit institution is equipped and worthy of philanthropic
support (CFRE, 2009).
Certified Fundraising Executive (CFRE)
A globally recognized certification that reflects a minimum of five years of direct
experience in fundraising and a knowledge assessment (CFRE, 2024).
Cultivation
Engaging current donors and adding new donor prospects to the lists of individuals being
informed and motivated to make or repeat gifts (CFRE, 2009).
Development
The process by which a nonprofit organization raises tax-deductible funds through annual
giving, major gifts, campaigns, and planned giving programs (CFRE, 2009).
8
Donor
The individual, organization, or institution that makes a gift (Adolph, 2023).
Engagement (as in donor engagement)
The process and activities that encourage donors, or prospective donors, to interact with
your organization (Adolph, 2023)
Fundraiser
An employee charged with soliciting funds for a nonprofit organization (CFRE, 2009).
Major Gift
A contribution considered significant to the nonprofit organization (CFRE, 2009).
Philanthropy
Voluntary action for the public good, including voluntary service, voluntary association,
and voluntary giving (Payton & Moody, 2008).
Recognition (as in donor recognition)
The acknowledgment of contributions to a nonprofit organization (CFRE, 2009).
Solicitation
Asking a donor for a philanthropic gift (CFRE, 2009).
Stewardship
The method of communication provided to a donor regarding a gift and engagement
actions taken following a donation (Adolph, 2023).
Third Sector
Also known as the independent sector. Refers to all nonprofit organizations compared to
government or for-profit institutions (CFRE, 2009).
9
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One introduces the
research problem, contextualizes the study, and introduces the theoretical framework of this
investigation. Chapter Two highlights the relevant literature in three parts: first, it addresses
global competition and economic factors influencing higher education in Europe and Spain;
second, it examines the role of philanthropy in higher education funding; and third, it discusses
the professionalization of fundraising in higher education. Additionally, Chapter Two concludes
with the study's theoretical and conceptual framework based on Bandura’s social cognitive
theory (SCT) and the triadic reciprocal determinism model (TRD). Chapter Three outlines the
research questions, provides an overview of the research methodology, and ends with an analysis
of the study’s limitations and delimitations as defined by the methods and participants. Chapter
Four provides the findings of the qualitative field study. The study concludes in Chapter Five
with a discussion of the findings and two recommendations for supporting the growth of Spanish
higher education fundraising.
10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature review for this study is shaped by Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1977,
1986, 1997, 2001). It is organized to examine the existing research and contextual data on the
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors of higher education fundraisers in Spain. The
literature review is broken into three sections. The first explores the factors and strategies driving
increased competition within the global knowledge economy, specifically emphasizing the
political and economic factors shaping higher education institutions in Europe and Spain. The
second considers the rise of philanthropy as a funding strategy for higher education institutions
in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe and provides a brief historical overview of
Spain’s philanthropic sector. The third section summarizes the higher education fundraising
profession, discusses best practices and trends in fundraising, and discusses the emergence of
Spanish higher education best practices and research. Chapter two concludes by discussing the
theoretical and conceptual framework for this study developed using Bandura’s (1978) triadic
reciprocal determinism (TRD) model.
Globalized Higher Education
This section examines the key factors shaping the global knowledge economy and
explores how higher education institutions are adapting to rapidly shifting economic and political
environments. It focuses on strategies to enhance and sustain competitive higher education in
European universities and, lastly, explores the funding environment of higher education
institutions in Spain.
Factors Driving Increased Competition in the Global Knowledge Economy
Higher education drives the knowledge economy; however, governments vary in their
approach to financing and regulating the sector. On a global scale, governments and higher
11
education institutions around the world are grappling with resource constraints that threaten their
ability to meet the demand for high-quality, accessible, and sustainable higher education
(Altbach & Peterson, 1998; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Duderstadt & Weber, 2008; van der
Zwaan, 2017). The challenges include reduced public funding, rising tuition costs, privatization,
rapid technological advances, and internationalization (De Wit & Altbach, 2021; Knight, 2020).
While few argue the benefits of a globalized knowledge economy, including enhanced access to
postsecondary education in emerging economies, increased scientific collaboration amongst
researchers and institutions, and a focus on fostering intercultural understanding and global
competencies, the benefits disproportionately flow to the wealthy and most powerful nations
(Altbach, 1998; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Castells, 2000; De Wit & Altbach, 2021; Knight,
2020).
Developed countries face the dilemma of expanding access to higher education to ensure
a competitive workforce, a strategy known as massification, while addressing the spending
constraints caused by their aging populations (Duderstadt & Weber, 2008; van der Zwaan, 2017).
In contrast, emerging economies face different pressures. Developing nations must balance the
pursuit of quality education, combating brain drain, and expanding higher education access to
growing segments of their populations (Duderstadt & Weber, 2008). Countries like China, India,
and Brazil are working to increase higher education participation rates, currently serving 10% or
less of their populations while simultaneously building world-class universities to compete on a
global stage (Duderstadt & Weber, 2008). Meanwhile, smaller nations such as Singapore and
South Korea have achieved high participation rates (70% and 80%, respectively) but must look
beyond their limited economies to form international partnerships and build competitive
universities and research capabilities (Duderstadt & Weber, 2008).
12
With limited resources, governments must decide whether to concentrate funding on elite
or promising institutions or spread resources evenly across all higher education institutions.
These approaches are known as the breadth strategy, which focuses on gradually improving
teaching and research quality across the system, or the depth strategy, which targets a select few
institutions to elevate them to world-class status (Marginson et al., 2011; Salmi & Froumin,
2013; Satsyk, 2018). Western European countries typically favor the breadth strategy, while East
Asian nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, have
successfully implemented the depth strategy (Satysk, 2018). For developing countries, the
challenge is even greater as they seek massification and improved quality simultaneously, often
combining both breadth and depth strategies at the university level (Satysk, 2018). In these cases,
governments may fund excellence initiatives to develop select competitive universities while
instituting national programs for broad access to higher education (Salmi & Froumin, 2013).
While the strategies pursued by developed and developing nations diverge, the fundamental
challenge persists in reconciling constrained resources with escalating demand.
Globalized Higher Education: Strategies for Enhanced Competition
Universities operate in an increasingly competitive environment where knowledge and
innovation drive economic growth and societal development. The pursuit of international
competitiveness in higher education is based on the belief that enhanced research capabilities
strengthen the national position in the global knowledge economy (Lee, 2021; Marginson, 2006).
However, a significant divide exists between world-class and mid-tier universities. Most
breakthrough research remains concentrated in a few world-class universities benefiting from
historical prominence and cumulative investment. In contrast, mid-tier institutions must choose
the most cost-efficient strategy to achieve prominence within their region (Satsyk, 2018). The
13
shift towards market-orientated practices in higher education, though effective for some, has
raised concerns about the conflict between market logic (Gibbs & Murphy, 2009) and the
traditional view of education as a public good (Council of the European Union, 2014; Pucciarelli
& Kaplan, 2016). Despite decreasing public funding, governments continue to regulate and
allocate limited resources (Altbach et al., 2009; Kaplan, 2014), leaving institutions to balance
global competition (Friga et al., 2003) and societal mission (Healey, 2008).
The growing market orientation of higher education has led to an increased focus on the
measurable outputs of higher education and national achievement. Shifts in research toward
outputs and outcomes underscore the market lens that now measures higher education success in
graduate employability (Crossman & Clarke, 2010), student consumer satisfaction (Ryan, 2011),
and international participation (Doyle et al., 2010; Stroud, 2010). Researchers examining
internationalization, globalization, the opening of more market-like governance approaches, and
the competition between countries (Altbach et al., 2010; Marginson et al., 2011) offer strategies
for how universities can excel in this environment (Middlehurst, 2002; Pucciarelli & Kaplan,
2016; Satysk, 2018; Taylor, 2004; Vaira, 2004). Within this quasi-market setting, institutions are
adopting different ways to diversify funding sources through increased tuition (Escardibul et al.,
2017; Johnstone & Schroff-Mehta, 2003), expansion into international markets via branch
campuses or transnational education (Kosmutzky & Putty, 2016; Stacey, 2020; Vukasovic &
Stensaker, 2018; Wilkins & Huisman, 2011) and building and enhancing their global brand
(Christensen et al., 2019; Rhoades et al., 2019). Among the recommendations for mid-tier
universities, three are highly relevant to this study: (a) fortify market share in a specific global
education market segment, (b) adopt an entrepreneurial mindset with corresponding management
practices (Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016; Satysk, 2018), and lastly, (c) reduce reliance on public
14
funding by expanding stakeholder engagement and philanthropy (Drezner, 2019; European
Commission, 2008, 2011; Mora & Nugent, 1998; Proper, 2009; Pruvot & Estermann, 2012;
Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016).
Despite its potential, research on fundraising in higher education remains limited.
Johnstone (2005) contended that philanthropy presents an “enormously attractive political
solution precisely because it is not taxed, and it is not tuition fees” (p.257). While philanthropic
giving to higher education has the potential to decrease the reliance on student fees, increase
scholarships and student access, and fund world-class research (Drezner, 2011, 2019: Thelin &
Trollinger, 2014), few studies examine how higher education philanthropy performs over time
and across institutions (Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Proper & Caboni, 2014). Pulling from studies
on international higher education philanthropy (Altbach & Salmi, 2011; Drezner, 2019; Proper,
2009; Salmi, 2009, 2011; Squire, 2014) and comparative global philanthropic studies, such as
Bekkers (2020), The 2022 Global Philanthropy Environment Index (IU, 2022), and the European
Fundraising Association (2017) Fundraising in Europe Report, the following assumptions can be
made: (a) the political and economic environments supporting philanthropy are growing around
the world (Bekkers, 2020; Schuyt, 2010), (b) higher education philanthropy provides a
meaningful revenue source to enhance competition in many developed nations (Drezner, 2019;
Johnstone, 2005; Skinner, 2019), (c) higher education philanthropy has successfully been
implemented across cultures and philanthropic traditions (Madeo, 2021; Proper, 2009; Squire,
2014).
The Funding Environment of European Higher Education Institutions
Across Europe, state contributions dominate higher education funding despite growing
calls for revenue diversification. The shift toward “academic capitalism” (Slaughter & Rhoades,
15
2004) and the marketization of higher education (Lepori & Jongbloed, 2018) occurred later in
Europe than in the United States, emerging alongside New Public Management reforms in the
1980s and 1990s (Barzelay, 2000; Ferlie et al., 2008). Although, the extent of these reforms has
varied significantly between countries. The typical funding structure for European universities is
presented in Figure 1. European higher education funding is divided by source (public vs.
private) and destination (core budget vs. institutional units). Public financing is further delineated
between subsidies to students, basic state installments, and funding for research organizations,
which are considered third-party public funding (Lepori & Jongbloed, 2018). Private funding
includes student fees, private companies and charities, and contracts with international
organizations. In most European countries, the state contribution represents the most significant
part of the budget. These yearly allocations from the state (national and regional) support the
day-to-day operations, including salaries, infrastructure, and maintenance of higher education
institutions (ETER, 2019). Figure 1 identifies the funding streams with sources and illustrates the
levels of decision-making related to the distribution of resources (Jongbloed & Lepori, 2015).
16
Figure 1 The Funding Environment of Higher Education Institutions in Europe
The Funding Environment of Higher Education Institutions in Europe
Note: Reproduced from National Resource Allocation Decisions in Higher Education:
Objectives and Dilemmas, by B. Lepori & B. Jongbloed, 2018, in Handbook on the Politics of
Higher Education (pp. 211-228), Edward Elgar Publishing.
The European higher education sector’s continued dependence on state financing and
public funding alone has proven insufficient to compete with universities in other regions like the
United States, where institutions have diversified their revenue streams, including philanthropy.
Public funding for European universities has fallen behind global competitors, preventing
European universities from achieving global competition despite strong academic traditions.
Across the four leading higher education global rankings, the Times Higher Education: World
University Rankings, the QS World University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World
Universities (ARWU), also known as the “Shanghai Rankings,” and the U.S. News & World
17
Report: Best Global Universities Rankings European universities rarely place within the Top 10
or Top 30. Table 1 highlights the representation of European universities in these rankings,
showing that while Northern and Western European institutions occasionally place within the
Top 10 or Top 30, universities from Southern Europe struggle even to secure places within the
Top 100. This pattern reflects both the regional disparities within Europe and the broader global
competition in higher education that European institutions face due to limited financial resources
and state dependency.
Table 1 Global Higher Education Ranking 2023: Continental Europe
Global Higher Education Ranking 2023: Continental Europe
Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe
Global Higher Education
Rankings Top
10
Top
30
Top
100
Top
10
Top
30
Top
100
Top
10
T
Top
30
Top
100
Times Higher Education 0 0 1 0 2 17 0 0 4
QS Top Universities 0 0 2 1 2 14 0 0 0
Shanghai Ranking 0 1 7 0 0 16 0 1 1
US News & World Report 0 0 4 0 1 16 0 0 4
Note: Data from Times Higher Education, World University Rankings 2024
(https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2024/world-ranking); QS
Top Universities, QS World University Rankings 2024 (https://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversity-rankings); Shanghai Ranking, 2022 Academic Ranking of World Universities
(https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2022); and U.S. News & World Report, 2022-
2023 Best Global Universities Rankings (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-globaluniversities/rankings).
18
According to the European Commission report, Rates of Return and Funding Models in
Europe (2007), European universities face a funding gap that has diminished access for local
populations, limited attractiveness for third-country students, and reduced excellence in
education. Contrary to many assumptions, the “free” or “low-cost” system prevalent in Europe
does not guarantee broad access. According to the summary of the European Commission (2006)
report, Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems, the steady growth in
students attending European universities and the increased pressure placed on institutions
without increased funding has resulted in a growing disparity between socioeconomic classes
and higher education achievement. Due to inequities existing in primary and secondary
education, students from disadvantaged backgrounds often fail to meet the level of qualifications
necessary to enter higher education. The report stated:
Free access to higher education does not necessarily guarantee equity. To strengthen both
efficiency and equity Member States should create appropriate conditions and incentives
to generate higher investment from public and private sources, including, where
appropriate, through tuition fees combined with accompanying financial measures for the
disadvantaged (Summary of European Commission, 2006).
Despite multiple calls for increased public (European Commission, 2006, 2008, 2013)
and private funding (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017; Mora & Nugent, 1998; Pérez-Esparrells &
Torre, 2012; Ruiz Mora et al., 2017) in European universities, the funding gap remains more
pronounced than ever. European policymakers and researchers recognize that the solution must
be multifaceted and involve a diversified income stream (Estermann & Pruvot, 2011). However,
little has changed over the past 2 decades. Total public spending on higher education as a
percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in the EU 25 countries was 1.2% compared to 2.6%
19
in the United States (European Commission, 2007). In 2019, the NCES reported a decrease in the
share of higher education funding as a percentage of GDP, both in Europe and the United States
(2019). However, Europe continued to lag behind its global competitors, such as Japan,
Australia, and the United States, which rely on private resources. Table 2 shows the change in
government and private expenditures on higher education as a percentage of GDP from 2005 to
2019. (NCES, 2019). The primary funding deficit in European higher education is in the
comparatively low private revenue in addition to, not as a substitute for, public funding.
Table 2 Government and Private Expenditures on Higher Education Institutions
Government and Private Expenditures on Higher Education Institutions as a Percentage of
GDP: Selected countries and selected years, 2005 through 2019
Government Expenditures All Expenditures 2019
Country 2005 2010 2015 2018 Govt Private Total
OECD Average 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.5
Spain 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.3
United Kingdom … … 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.4 2.0
Korea … … 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.5
Japan 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.4
Australia 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.9
Canada 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 2.2
United States 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6 2.5
Note: Data adapted from the National Center for Education Statistics (2022). Table 605.20.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_605.20.asp.
Another way to consider government expenditure per university student is the average
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country expenditure per
student. In 2019, the average OECD country expenditure per student was $18,400, compared to
20
the United States, which spends $37,400 per full-time equivalent student at the postsecondary
level (OECD, 2023). Table 3 shows the per-student expenditure. Of the five OECD countries
with comparable data, Spain stands out as the single country with a reduction in inflationadjusted government expenditure, decreasing by 14% between 2010 and 2019 (OECD, 2023).
Table 3 Expenditures per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Student
Expenditures per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Student for Post-Secondary Education, by
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Country: 2005 through 2019
Post-Secondary Expenditures per FTE Student [In constant 2021 U.S. dollars]
Country 2010 2019
Spain $16,700 $14,400
United Kingdom – $31,600
Korea – …
Japan $19,400 $19,900
Australia $21,100 $23,000
Canada – $24,300
United States $31,800 $37,400
OECD Average $16,400 $18,400
Note: Data adapted from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Education
Expenditures by Country. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/educationexpenditures-by-country
Funding Challenges in Spanish Higher Education
Spanish higher education has undergone rapid massification and reform. In 1960, only
89,000 students were enrolled in higher education, representing only 2.85% of the 18–24-yearold population (Calero, 2004). In 2021, 62% of 18–24-year-olds were enrolled at upper
secondary or tertiary levels (OECD, 2022). During this same period, the number of institutions
21
went from 12 to 50 public institutions and 34 private universities (Calero, 2004). Underlying
much of this growth was the development of the new legal framework, the University Reform
Act. This Act ushered in a decentralization process and a shift from central to regional funding
(Calero, 2004). Following this reform period (1984-1992), Spanish higher education benefited
from a growing stream of public support. During this time, students could choose to attend
universities in other regions, new universities sprung up, and established universities underwent
massive infrastructure renewal (Calero, 2004). Private higher education emerged after the 1990s
as enrollment and interest grew in specialized, high-demand fields of study.
The second period expanded upon the curricular and political changes spurred on by the
national adaptation to the Bologna Process. The Bologna Declaration 1999 sought to create a
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) of participating European countries to promote
student mobility, cross-border cooperation, and mutual recognition of degree qualification
(EHEA, 1999). Before the Bologna Process, undergraduate studies in Spain consisted of a 5-year
degree (Licenciatura) and 3-year course (Diplomatura), with some fields of study, including
medicine, engineering, and architecture, requiring 6 years (Escardibul et al., 2017). Following
the decentralization of the first reform period, the Spanish government set a 2010 deadline for
universities to adapt to the EHEA requirements (de la Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019). Due to
the government’s new reliance on regional authorities for implementation, the results were
mixed. Many Spanish universities have not fully adjusted and are excluded from benefiting from
the shared resources and collaboration of participating in the EHEA.
The second reform period introduced significant legal changes that modernized Spanish
universities. Before 2001, the faculty were classified as either permanent (civil servants) or
fixed-term (non-civil servants) under the Ley Organica de Reforma Universitaria (LRU, 1983).
22
In 2001, the Ley de Universidades (LOU) granted universities greater autonomy to restructure
how academic faculty were evaluated and hired (Lafuente & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2017). In 2007,
the Spanish government issued an amendment, the Ley Organica por la que se modifica la LOU,
or LOMLOU, to further modernize HE in line with the European Modernization Agenda for
Universities (European Commission, 2006). Among the reforms, the LOMLOU established the
National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA) to set standards for
institutional evaluation and accreditation (Berbegal-Mirabent, 2018). The LOMLOU developed
the legal modifications necessary to implement the EHEA, although much of the progress slowed
due to the financial crisis.
Faced with economic constraints, the Spanish government introduced the Strategy
University 2015 (EU2015) to enhance financial efficiency and encourage specialization through
the Campus de Excelecia Internacional (CEI) (Casani et al., 2014; de la Torre et al., 2018). The
initiative, initially funded at 687.7 billion euros, was released in three calls in 2009, 2010, and
2011 (de la Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019). However, due to the extended economic crisis and
changes to the Spanish central government, only 15% of the funds were distributed as grants,
with the rest as loans with rising interest rates (Casani et al., 2014). Moreover, EU2015 fell short
due to underestimated EHEA implementation costs, inadequate loan and program monitoring,
and a widespread rejection of the perceived elitist goal of supporting top universities exclusively
(European Commission, 2016). Despite these challenges, the Bologna Process has led to several
positive adaptations, including updated teaching methodology (Margelef & Pareja, 2008), a shift
toward a student-centered education model (Padilla & Gil, 2008), and an alignment of Spanish
teaching and assessment methodologies within European standards (Pallisera et al., 2010)
23
Spanish universities continue to struggle with enrollment and funding challenges. Low
international student mobility, at just 2.7% compared to 8.4% across the European Union
(Education at a Glance, 2018), reflects Spain's limited international visibility and the small
number of English-language programs. Furthermore, Spanish universities have turned to costsharing measures, such as tuition hikes (Escardibul & Pérez-Esparrells, 2013) to address funding
gaps that threaten student access and equity (Escardibul et al., 2017; Johnstone & Shroff-Mehta,
2003). Unlike other European countries, like Germany and the Nordic nations, which maintain
little to no tuition, Spain has embraced a market model similar to the United Kingdom, Australia,
New Zealand, United States, Canada, and the Netherlands, which set higher tuition while
offering more significant aid (Escardibul et al., 2017). Although this model of high tuition and
high scholarship has been shown to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged students in
other countries without decreasing overall enrollment (Dearden et al., 2014; Dynarski & ScottClayton, 2013), Spain lacks the policy framework or financial aid necessary to support students
unable to afford rising costs (Escardibul et al., 2017; OECD, 2013). Furthermore, the Spanish
government has responded to increased aid requests by tightening the academic requirements for
grants, disproportionately impacting the most disadvantaged regions (Escardibul et al., 2017). By
failing to ensure broad access to postsecondary education, Spain risks exasperating inequality
and limiting economic growth.
Higher Education Philanthropy
Higher education philanthropy originated in ancient Greek and Roman traditions, where
wealthy citizens endowed cultural, educational, and social projects. Over time, universities grew
increasingly reliant on philanthropy, especially during and after the Renaissance, as they
transitioned from religious-based funding to benefactors. This section provides a brief historical
24
overview of the emergence of higher education philanthropy, specifically considering
fundraising in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Lastly, it discusses the
cultural, political, and historical factors shaping the philanthropic landscape in Spain.
Historical Overview of Philanthropy in Higher Education
Philanthropy is first described as an act of mercy and kindness to humankind. In the
2,500-year-old Greek myth, Prometheus Bound, Prometheus offers two gifts from his
‘philanthrôpos tropos,’ or human-loving character, the gift of fire, symbolizing knowledge, skill,
technology, arts, and science, and the gift of hope (Aeschylus, 479 BC). For these gifts,
Prometheus is doomed by Zeus to be chained to a rock and to suffer his liver eaten daily by an
eagle. According to the myth, Zeus’ fury was due to the fear that the gift of knowledge and hope
would make humans too much like gods. Despite the passage of two and a half millennia, this
ancient myth foretells the role of modern philanthropy in promoting knowledge, culture, and
hope.
Philanthropy in the Ancient World to Modern Era
The ancient world defined philanthropy as both a concept and an act. The Platonic
Academy defined ‘philanthrôpia’ as a state of being driven by the love of humankind and a series
of good works for societal benefit ([pseudo-]Plato, Definitions, 412). In ancient Greece, affluent
citizens would compete to fund various public endeavors, such as festivals, temples, and
educational institutions (Sulek, 2009). Among these first philanthropists, Plato and Cimon
famously endowed the Academy in Athens through a land grant in 387 BC (Lasher & Cook,
1996; Haseeb, 2018). In Rome, philanthropy took on a more formal structure as wealthy citizens
established legal frameworks to govern charitable endowments and developed legally sanctioned
mutual aid and patronage relationships (Sulek, 2009). For these early Greeks and Romans,
25
philanthropy was bound up in citizenship and the relationship between the individual and society
(Vallely, 2020). While this concept did not entirely disappear during the Middle Ages, the
Christian concept of almsgiving during the Middle Ages and, later, the Catholic Church’s
ecclesiastical levy (Vallely, 2020) reimagined philanthropy as a mediation between man and
God. It was not until the writings of Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica [ca. 1260] that
the ancient concept of philanthropy as a social responsibility was revitalized.
During the medieval period, European universities emerged as intermediaries between the
Church and the newly empowered urban cities. Despite being deeply rooted in and primarily
financed by the Catholic Church, European universities grew in power and influence as brokers
between the Church and the emergent European cities (Välimaa, 2019). Successful universities,
such as the University of Bologna and the University of Paris, collaborated with the cities to
control the pricing of students’ and teachers’ lodging and took legislative control over cases
involving their constituencies (Rashdall, 1936). This growing power attracted the engagement
and wealth of entrepreneurial merchants, benefactors, and nobles (Rashdall, 1936). As early as
the 12th century, university founders and presidents [i.e., rectors, principals, masters, etc.] began
soliciting merchants and landlords for contributions of books, living quarters, and faculty
allowances. Transformative donations, such as those that established endowments for the
universities of Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge, elevated the role and interest in philanthropy as
revenue solutions outside of the Catholic Church (Välimaa, 2019). By the 13th century,
philanthropic gifts had become a key source of funding for universities, marking the beginning
of a long tradition of philanthropy in higher education.
Following the Renaissance, philanthropy, and fundraising in support of higher education
took on many of our modern characteristics. First, philanthropic donations moved away from
26
being an exclusive activity for the rich to one that was accessible to all. In his epistemological
writings (1612), Francis Bacon defined philanthropy as simply the habit of doing good. Second,
the concept of philanthropy expanded to include the idea of giving time or money (Webster,
1828). Third, organized philanthropy in support of higher education developed the
methodologies that have yet to see much change in the last two centuries: major giving,
fundraising campaigns, cases for support, and alumni engagement (Haseeb, 2018). Examples
from these early university fundraising campaigns demonstrate the striking similarities of
fundraising strategies throughout the early to late modern eras. Among the most famous
philanthropists was John Harvard, a young clergyman from the United States, who donated half
of his estate and library to found Harvard College in 1641. Harvard’s legacy extended beyond his
gift to funding a delegation to England with the first case for support, New England’s First
Fruits, to secure additional financial support for the young college (Breeze, 2017; Haseeb, 2018).
Alumni engagement also grew in popularity during this period, as demonstrated by the red-brick
universities of the United Kingdom and the older Scottish institutions, which routinely solicited
successful alumni (Owen, 1964). While fundraising for higher education has evolved over the
centuries, the fundamental strategies developed during this period remain central to modern
fundraising practices today.
Higher Education Philanthropy in the United States
The success of higher education fundraising in the United States reflects the economic
and political conditions of the past century. Private colleges, which make up two-thirds of the
sector, have held a distinctive position within the educational landscape (Proper, 2009). This was
solidified by the landmark 1819 Supreme Court case, Dartmouth v. Woodward, which affirmed
the independence of private education (Curti & Nash, 1965; Johnson, 1983). This decision paved
27
the way for a dual system in the United States, where government-funded institutions coexisted
with privately funded, self-governed colleges (Proper, 2009). Throughout the 20th century,
private colleges and universities in the United States relied on funding from tuition, fees, and
donations and grew increasingly sophisticated in their fundraising techniques. While public
colleges initially received very little philanthropic support, following the boom of higher
education after World War II, even public colleges embraced the fundraising model of private
universities to compete and expand their programming (Proper, 2009). By the end of the century,
declining public funding for higher education prompted both public and private institutions to
professionalize their fundraising efforts further and increasingly rely on private support (Drezner,
2019; Thelin, 2011).
The United States leads higher education philanthropy at a scale unmatched around the
globe. Culturally, private philanthropy is championed as the democratic way of safeguarding the
academic freedom of universities. Sparks (1959, p.11) characterizes this philosophy as “the
American way,” wherein “diversified and generous support from the maximum number of
individuals and organizations by methods of their own selection to institutions of their own
choice” is encouraged. He concluded, “The more we wisely invest [philanthropically] in
education, the more rapidly we advance as a nation.” Sparks’ sentiment continues today. The rise
of professional fundraising associations, such as the Association of Fundraising Professionals
(AFP) and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), alongside numerous
certifications and degree programs, has cemented higher education fundraising as a highly
professionalized field supported by government policy and tradition. In recent years, higher
education fundraising has grown considerably, with campaigns raising billions of dollars.
According to CASE’s Insights on Voluntary Support of Higher Education, support for higher
28
education totaled 59.9 billion dollars in 2022, marking the most significant increase in giving to
higher education in over 2 decades (2023). The rapid rise in higher education fundraising jobs
further exemplifies the exponential growth. Over the past century, higher education fundraisers
grew from approximately 40 to over 90,000 active CASE members in 2024 (Skinner, 2019;
CASE, 2024). As a result, the United States sets the standard for higher education philanthropy,
often serving as the primary source of expertise and talent for countries seeking to emulate their
philanthropic revenue model.
Higher Education Philanthropy in the United Kingdom
Despite its deep roots, higher education philanthropy in the United Kingdom followed a
different path. Unlike the dual system developed in the United States between private and
publicly funded universities, universities in the United Kingdom took a united front in
demanding state funding (Proper, 2009). As the number of colleges and universities increased
throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries, the request for government funding grew urgent, and
the United Kingdom’s government responded affirmatively (Proper, 2009). In 1919, the
University Grants Commission was established, and the government formally accepted the role
of financing Britain’s universities and colleges (Vernon, 2001). The result was twofold. First,
there continue to be few private higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Second,
voluntary support for higher education was considered unnecessary (Proper, 2009). However,
despite the boon of increased public support in 1919, the public-only funding model did not last.
In the 1960s, because of the Robbins Report, which welcomed the older polytechnics into the
national system and enabled the funding of the new “plate glass” universities, student enrollment
skyrocketed, and government spending could not keep pace (Graham, 2002; Proper, 2009). By
1985, per-student funding had plummeted (Halsey & Leslie, 2003). In response, the government
29
passed the Acts of 1988 and 1992, heightening the criteria for government grants, which created
a highly competitive climate for universities seeking government support and financial hardship
for many (Graham, 2002).
In the face of reduced government funding, universities in the United Kingdom faced two
options: increase tuition fees or revitalize philanthropy, both of which carried political and
cultural repercussions. By 2004, universities and colleges began reintroducing modest tuition
fees (Proper, 2009). Still, the United Kingdom’s political commitment to mass education and
control over price increases made it unlikely that tuition could backfill the reduction in public
funding. Colleges and universities turned to philanthropy. In 1997, 64% of universities in the
United Kingdom had started fundraising (Pollack, 1999). In 1998, the United Kingdom
established the Compact, a seminal agreement between the government and the voluntary sector
to promote a culture of partnership (Schuyt, 2010). The Compact and subsequent founding of the
Voluntary and Charitable Giving Unit (VCGU) in 2005 officially granted philanthropy a place at
the table (Schuyt, 2010), resulting in the rapid adoption of higher education philanthropy.
Driven by the growing cultural and political support for philanthropy and the successful
model of higher education institutions in the United States, established universities such as
Oxford and Cambridge made strategic investments in philanthropic programs. In 1988, Oxford
launched its first fundraising campaign inspired by the “American Fundraising Model” (Hall,
2008; Squire, 2014). In 2005, Cambridge followed suit and announced the most extensive
fundraising campaign ever attempted by a British university, with an initial target of £1 billion
(Labi, 2005). Both institutions hired fundraising talent from North America, hiring former
development directors from Harvard University and the University of Toronto (Crampton, 2005;
Labi, 2005). These investments soon yielded significant results. By 2007, universities in the
30
United Kingdom had collectively spent £55 million on fundraising efforts and raised a total of
£682 million in return (Ross-CASE, 2010). Over the past 2 decades, higher education
philanthropic support for higher education in the United Kingdom has grown dramatically, as
evidenced by the increase in fundraising professionals, from 851 in 2007 to 2,256 in 2020, and
the increase in total dollars raised, which reached a record-breaking £1.09 billion in 2020 (RossCASE, 2010, 2020).
Higher Education Philanthropy in Europe
Throughout the 20th century, philanthropic support for higher education declined across
continental Europe. In response to the social and political instability triggered by
industrialization, European governments assumed significant responsibility for poverty, social
security, health care, and education (Schuyt, 2010). Unlike the United Kingdom and the United
States, European countries fostered a unique partnership between the state and religiously
affiliated nonprofit service providers, primarily influenced by the Catholic Church (Salamon &
Sokolowski, 2003). This partnership resulted in the government and the Church being the
primary providers of education, poverty relief, and health services, leaving minimal space for
voluntary support. Philanthropic donations, apart from gifts to the Church, focused on areas
considered outside of the core purview of the government, including human rights, international
relief, culture, sports, and recreation (Carnie, 2017). Education, poverty assistance, and health
were considered the exclusive realms of the church or state and, therefore, not considered
strategically important by European donors.
Continental European countries experienced similar growth in student enrollment and
increased strain on government funding. Between 1960 and 1990, student enrollment across
continental Europe increased from one million to nine million, increasing gross enrollment ratios
31
from 10% to 30% of the population (Geuna, 2001). Simultaneously, government spending on
higher education declined across the continent (Geuna, 2001). This financial strain was further
exacerbated by deficit-reduction policies mandated by the Maastricht Treaty and compounded by
the economic recessions of the 1970s and 2000s (Haseeb, 2018; Mora & Nugent, 1998). By the
early 2000s, many European universities began exploring alternative revenue streams, though
relatively few, in contrast to their counterparts in the United Kingdom, pursued philanthropy
(Estermann & Pruvot, 2011; European Commission, 2011).
The limited presence of fundraising activities in European universities can largely be
attributed to their historical dependence on public funding and cultural norms that position the
State as the primary actor in addressing societal challenges. Researchers Mora and Nugent
(1998) observed the structural and cultural issues impeding fundraising in European higher
education, identifying eight primary hurdles: lack of tax incentives, weak philanthropic culture,
limited differentiation among universities, minimal identity and pride fostered among students,
scarce alumni programming, inadequate professional fundraising staff, low trust in business or
industry involvement in academia, and lack of organized sport. In 2008, the European
Commission echoed many of these findings and recommended that universities seek to address
the gaps by offering 10 recommendations to facilitate fundraising, including (a) integrating
philanthropy into the university’s long-term strategy, (b) building internal fundraising
competencies, (c) requiring university leadership to cultivate fundraising skills and
responsibilities, (d) reviewing fundraising management and accounting practices, (e) taking
advantage of increased university autonomy, (f) exploring the creation of university foundations,
(g) introducing a system of ‘matching funds’ by government for donations raised from private
32
donors, (h) reviewing fiscal rules to incentivize university research fundraising, (i) claiming the
“right of philanthropic transfer” within the EU, and (j) promoting a culture of giving.
Despite these policy recommendations, philanthropy has been slow to emerge as a viable
source of revenue for higher education in Europe. In contrast, philanthropic support for causes
outside of education has grown. The European Fundraising Association (EFA) 2017 Fundraising
in Europe report highlighted diversification in donor interests and an overall increase in total
philanthropic dollars raised. While the report indicated a broadening of philanthropic causes,
education remained among the least supported sectors. Alongside the modest growth, the report
highlighted numerous concerns, including a lack of increase in the total number of donors, public
concerns over fundraising costs, challenges related to data protection regulations, and the
fragility of public trust (EFA, 2017). In a joint report from the Philanthropy Europe Association
(PHILEA) and Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, The Philanthropy
Environment in Europe Report 2022, Southern European countries lag behind their Northern and
Western counterparts in philanthropic development (IU, 2022). Recommendations from the
report emphasized the need for a stronger legal framework, enhanced infrastructure for
philanthropy, better training for fundraising professionals, and greater transparency and data
accessibility in Southern European countries.
European philanthropists have been slow to support higher education in Europe, and
European universities have been equally slow to develop the internal capacities necessary to
engage in effective fundraising. According to the European Commission (2011), only a few
institutions had begun raising significant donations, and even fewer were securing philanthropic
funding for research or research-related activities. The report Fundraising from Philanthropy in
European Universities highlighted the increasing need for revenue diversification. However,
33
based on their survey, the implementation of fundraising remained notably low. Only 51% of
institutions reported having a policy on fundraising; 32% lacked systems to measure or report
fundraising activities; only 51% utilized a database to manage donor interactions, and just 56%
provided feedback to donors on the impact of their donation. The report concluded that to expand
philanthropic support of higher education, universities must increase investment in the quality
and quantity of their fundraising staff and encourage government initiatives to incentivize
donations (European Commission, 2011). Six years later, in 2017, a CASE Europe survey of 35
institutions across 11 countries revealed modest progress, with corporate donations comprising
47% of philanthropic income, trusts and foundations contributing 28%, and individual donors
representing only 23% of all donations (CASE, 2017). While the two surveys revealed a modest
increase in fundraising activities, support for higher education in Europe remains inconsistent.
Exceptions in Northern and Western Europe provide insight into potential paths forward.
Since CASE opened its office in London in 1994, it has developed more than 50 conferences,
workshops, and training for members in the United Kingdom and Europe (CASE, 2024). In
addition, governments have started to incentivize donors to support higher education and
universities in establishing a fundraising strategy. In Germany, gifted and high-achieving
students can be supported by the Deutschlandstipendium program (Eurydice, 2024). The
program, founded in 2011, incentivizes donors by matching private donations with public funds
to support more than 29,000 students (Eurydice, 2024). Following a similar model, the Finnish
Government pledged to match donations to universities from 2020 to 2022 up to 67 million euros
(University of Helsinki, 2022). Despite these initiatives, however, the overall landscape of higher
education philanthropy in continental Europe remains underdeveloped.
34
Historical Overview of the Spanish Philanthropic Sector
The Catholic Church’s long-standing influence on Spain’s philanthropic culture and
nonprofit organizations (NPOs) is evident well into the 20th century. Throughout Spain’s history,
the Catholic Church promoted philanthropy and charity as a religious imperative and was both
the benefactor and provider of public services (Robbins, 2006; Smith & Borgman, 2001). During
the welfare period of Franco’s dictatorship (1939 to 1975), the Catholic Church developed a
mutual-benefit arrangement with the state and was responsible for mediating most social benefit
activities in Spain (Rey-Garcia et al., 2013). These special arrangements evolved into corporatist
agreements with five charities that have retained their special status in Spain’s democracy: the
Spanish Red Cross (CRE), the National Organization for the Blind (ONCE), the Confederation
of Catholic Church Charities for Social Assistance (CE), the Spanish Cancer Campaign (AECC),
and the Catholic Church’s NGO for International Cooperation (MU) (Rey-Garcia et al., 2013).
Even as the influence of the Catholic Church has waned in the 21st century, the model of statesponsored nonprofit organizations has remained an important factor influencing the Spanish third
sector.
The most significant transformation in Spain’s philanthropic sector occurred during the
country’s transition to democracy and entry into the European Common Market in the 1980s.
This period marked the emergence of a modern nonprofit framework shaped by cultural and
political secularization and new legal and tax reforms. The passage of the 2002 Tax Law for
Nonprofit Organizations and the Foundation Law enabled NPOs to compete directly for private
and public funding (Rey-Garcia & Alvarez-Gonzalez, 2011; Rey-Garcia & Puig-Raposo, 2013).
As a result, Spain’s third sector developed along two primary paths: state-sponsored nonprofits
focused on social and public benefit and a newer set of organizations focusing primarily on
35
health, poverty alleviation, and international aid. A flood of new NPOs, such as Amnistía
Internacional, Ayuda en Acción, Médicos Sin Fronteras, Fundación Vicente Ferrer, and
Fundación CODESPA, benefited from the new individual and corporate tax incentives (ReyGarcia et al., 2013). Additionally, a new generation of philanthropic, entrepreneurial families
established foundations oriented toward international cooperation, regional development, the
environment, policy, and research (Rey-Garcia, 2018). Over the last two decades, Spain’s
nonprofit sector has experienced significant growth, particularly in areas of international
assistance and humanitarian aid.
Current State of the Research on Spanish Philanthropy
Research on Spanish philanthropy is relatively recent and fragmented. The rapid growth
of the economy and decentralization following Spain’s entrance into democracy led to a complex
web of state and regional civil and fiscal laws, variably regulated across nine states and 49
regional public protectorates and registers (Rey-Garcia & Puig-Raposo, 2013). Unlike many
European and North American countries, the Spanish National Statistics Agency (INE) does not
provide a satellite account for NPO data collection (INE, 2024), limiting macroeconomic
research. Furthermore, the conceptualization of private in Spain is geographically diverse and
inconsistent (Felgueiras & Rey-Garcia, 2017). For example, the word “foundation” does not
evoke the same grant-giving public benefit concept in Spain as it does in the United States or the
United Kingdom. According to Spanish law, foundations are non-member, nonprofit
organizations that account for approximately half of the tax-exempt NPOs in Spain. Still, only a
handful are devoted to philanthropic giving. Instead, foundations are often formed as taxfavorable vehicles that fund organizations’ operational expenses (Felgueiras & Rey-Garcia,
2017). This lack of conceptual and methodological consistency limits national and international
36
comparison and restricts studies exploring philanthropic subsectors, such as education, which are
not disclosed by general tax deduction data.
Despite these challenges, individual scholars and organizations are advancing
philanthropic research in Spain. Most research focuses on the Social Action Third Sector
(SATS), NPOs working primarily in social services and healthcare, such as Spain’s special
charter NPOs, the Spanish Red Cross (CRE), ONCE, and Spanish Caritas, or on Spanish
foundations (Felgueiras & Rey-Garcia, 2017). Existing studies can be divided into three
categories: first, contributions to GDP and employment (Felgueiras & Rey-Garcia, 2017);
second, research on the social economy, including savings banks, labor societies, and religious
institutions (Delgado, 2010; Rey-Garcia & Alvarez-Gonzalez, 2011); and third, comprehensive
studies of the third sector inspired by Salamon and Anheier’s (1996) work on nonprofit sectors
globally (Olabuenaga, 2005). This latter category explores the boundaries of Spain’s third sector,
ambiguities related to philanthropic institutions and concepts, and issues related to management
and talent development.
Spanish philanthropic research is disseminated through both academic journals and
applied research reports by philanthropic associations and global institutions. Academic
publications like Revista Española del Tercer Sector (inactive since 2018), CIRIECEspaña; Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, which published an article on
nonprofit accountability as recently as 2022 (Brusca et al.), and, to a far lesser
extent, Información Comercial Española, ICE: Revista de Economía provide some insight,
thought their coverage is limited. Nonacademic reports, such as those produced by the Spanish
Caritas (the Confederation of Catholic Church Charities for Social Assistance), which focuses on
SATS-related topics, and the Spanish Association of Fundraising (EFA), which tracks household
37
giving and other donor-related topics offer additional data. Recently, the Spanish Association of
Foundations’ (AEF) Institute for the Strategy Analysis of Foundations (INAEF) has produced
one of the few longitudinal studies on taxpayer and corporate donations in Spain, The Analysis of
the Economic and Social Contribution of Spanish Foundations (2024). Lastly, global
philanthropic reports, such as Indiana University, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy’s Global
Philanthropy Tracker, Global Philanthropy Environment Index, and comparative research
(Bekkers, 2016, 2020; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007, 2011; De Wit & Bekkers, 2017; Wiepking,
2021; Wiepking & Handy, 2015) provide insight into Spain’s philanthropic sector. While
Spanish philanthropy is emerging as an academic and professional practice, regulatory
fragmentation, conceptual inconsistencies, and lack of longitudinal data hinder a comprehensive
understanding of the Spanish philanthropic sector.
Emerging Revenue Diversification Strategy: Spanish Higher Education Fundraising
Little research exists on philanthropic giving to institutions of higher education in Spain.
In contrast to the extensive data collection and publications such as Giving USA, which has
reported the sources and uses of charitable giving in the United States for over 60 years, and
CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey in the United Kingdom and Ireland, first published in
2002 (CASE, 2024), higher education fundraising in Spain is relatively unresearched.
Practitioners and academics interested in examining this topic must pull from broader analyses
and imperfectly apply the limited data to the context of higher education philanthropy or rely on
case studies.
Pulling from the body of comparative global research on philanthropy, Southern Europe’s
philanthropic sector is limited due to a lack of philanthropic tradition, issues of public trust, and
burdensome reporting and data restrictions. According to The 2022 Global Philanthropy
38
Environment Index (Index), Spain ranks slightly above the global average but well below the
United States, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Singapore, and the
countries of Northern and Central Europe across all five key philanthropic areas: (a) ease of
operations, (b) tax incentives, (c) political environment, (d) economic environment, and (e)
socio-cultural environment (IU, 2022). Notably, the Index ranked the Southern European region,
including Spain, second to last for socio-cultural environmental factors supporting a
philanthropic culture of giving (IU, 2022). As highlighted by Alter et al. (2022), cultural factors,
such as tradition and trust, play a significant role in developing the third sector. Furthermore, the
2021 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals widespread distrust among Spain’s general population
toward Spanish institutions, with the informed public feeling neutral.
Furthermore, complications on the political and operational side of nonprofit
management and fundraising activities can slow nonprofit growth and efficiency. According to
the European Fundraising Association (2017) Fundraising in Europe Report, most European
countries have been unprepared for the European Union’s general data protection regulation laws
(GDPR). This aggressive data protection policy limits personal data storage and use, severely
impacting alumni and donor information collection. In addition, Spanish foundations are treated
with stricter regulations and reporting requirements because of anti-money laundering and antiterrorism legislation in Spain (IU, 2022). While the Indiana University and the EFA reports do
not address philanthropic subsectors, such as higher education, they offer insight into the
political, operational, and regulatory hurdles, alongside environmental and cultural barriers, that
pose significant challenges to the growth and effectiveness of higher education fundraising
endeavors in Spain.
39
Three studies stand out among the limited research on Spanish higher education
fundraising. Pérez-Esparrells and Torre (2012), in The Challenge of Fundraising in Universities
in Europe, attribute the lack of fundraising amongst Spanish universities to a range of factors,
including limited knowledge or experience with philanthropy as a funding strategy, the absence
of professional fundraising staff or dedicated development office, and the scarcity of peerlearning opportunities due to insufficient data and resources. In their comparative study between
a private religious Spanish university and a well-established fundraising university in the United
Kingdom, Pérez-Esparrells and Torre identified best practices for successful fundraising in
Spain: fostering a strong philanthropic culture, professionalizing fundraising departments,
leading large-scale fundraising campaigns, ensuring clear connections between the campaign,
alumni participants, and impact, emphasizing transparency and accountability, investing in donor
stewardship, involving institutional leaders in the fundraising activities, strengthening alumni
identity, and processing donations through a university foundation.
Similarly, Heras-Pedrosa et al. (2017), in Fundraising Strategies in Spanish Universities.
An Approach from Stakeholders’ Relations present a similar conclusion. The research
underscored the advantage of philanthropic funding as a strategy for Spanish universities
grappling with reduced government support and EHEA adaptation requirements. The study
concluded that the low levels of belonging and trust among students and alumni at public
Spanish universities hinder the growth of fundraising programs. However, the study identified
signs of growth, particularly among private institutions, where increased efforts have been made
to build relationships with key stakeholders through fundraising events and campaigns. Both
studies conclude with a call for more robust alumni engagement, improved public policies to
promote and incentivize individual giving, and the promotion of a culture of giving.
40
In the most comprehensive survey of Spanish higher education fundraising to date,
Villanueva and Sardinero’s (2022) report, The Great Challenges of University Fundraising, only
16 of 84 Spanish universities have dedicated fundraising programs, with only 14 having an
official fundraising department. According to the survey, private business schools, such as IESE,
ESADE, IE University, and other business schools, like EADA Business School, are at the
forefront of higher education fundraising efforts in Spain. However, some public institutions,
notably Universitat Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona (UPF) and the Universitat Jaume I de Castellón
(UJI) have demonstrated significant success, including UPFs online campaign for research and
UJI’s impressive 5,000-member alumni society which raised over 2.9 million euros in 2020
(Morón, F., 2019). The report noted that while professional fundraising management is rare,
interest in testing philanthropy as a strategy is growing among Spanish universities.
Approximately 30% of Spanish universities offer information on fundraising on their websites,
although without structured programs. Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 32% of
Spanish universities conducted online donation campaigns directed to scholarship funds for
students impacted by the pandemic or related research (Villanueva & Sardinero, 2022). The
report outlined the critical state of funding for higher education in Spain and exhorted
policymakers and higher education leadership to invest in fundraising as a revenue solution.
The Higher Education Fundraising Profession, Challenges, and Trends
While higher education fundraising dates to the 17th century and is responsible for the
solicitation and procurement of nearly 60 billion dollars in the United States alone (CASE,
2023), academics and practitioners continue to debate whether fundraising is an occupation or a
profession (Breeze, 2017; Worth, 2016). This last section discusses the profession of higher
education fundraising from the viewpoint that it is both an art and a science, with fundraisers
41
relying on a combination of soft skills and technical knowledge. Finally, this section concludes
the literature review with an overview of the emerging field of European higher education
fundraising best practices and the influence of the “American Fundraising Model.”
An Overview of the Fundraising Profession
Higher education fundraising is still seen as an emerging profession, with several
challenges preventing it from attaining full professional status. Breeze (2017) argues that
fundraising lacks many of the defining characteristics of a profession, such as widespread public
recognition, an agreed-upon body of knowledge, and standardized qualifications. Instead, she
describes fundraising as a creative profession, likening the field to the creative class in its
dependence on qualities like passion, openness, non-conformity, and internal motivation. This
perception is mirrored in academic research, where researchers and professional organizations
have demonstrated a significant interest in understanding who gives (CASE VSE Survey, 2019,
2023; Giving USA, 2022) and why (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Konrath & Handy, 2018;
Sargeant, 1999), with little exploration of the fundraisers themselves (Aldrich, 2017). Scholars
like Drezner and Hueles (2014) attribute this lack of research to political sensitivities, limited
access to fundraising data, and a need for established theoretical frameworks. As higher
education institutions increasingly depend on fundraising to offset declining public funds, the
need for research-driven methodology is becoming more critical (Hunsaker & Aldous, 2018).
Research exploring fundraisers' qualities and perceptions, particularly their views on their
profession, is limited but insightful. Worth and Asp (1994) were among the first to categorize
fundraisers into four overlapping profiles: salesman, catalyst, manager, and leader. They
highlighted adaptability to their environment as the key characteristic for success. Similarly, in
Nagaraj’s (2015) survey of 1,217 higher education fundraisers, successful fundraisers were
42
described as “curious chameleons,” combining four key attributes: behavioral and linguistic
flexibility, intellectual and social curiosity, the ability to distill information, and the skill to
solicit donors strategically. Nyman et al. (2016) interviewed 16 Canadian fundraisers and
concluded that high-performing fundraisers excel in relational negotiation, balancing their
influence between both major donors and institutional leadership. Across all these studies, a
recurring theme emerged: successful fundraisers blend technical skills with personal attributes,
such as curiosity, flexibility, and social navigation. However, misconceptions continue to plague
the fundraising field, with many professionals advocating for sector-wide benchmarks,
standardization education, and ethical training (Shaker & Nathan, 2017).
Two complementary factors drive the professionalization of higher education fundraising.
First, fundraisers seek recognition as instrumental contributors to the institution’s success and
sustainability, and second, universities seek proven talent in their race to raise increasingly
ambitious philanthropic revenue (Shaker & Nathan, 2017). In the United States, the availability
of certifications and training in the nonprofit sector has increased significantly. The number of
universities offering nonprofit management education coursework, with such titles as Nonprofit
Leadership, Governance, and Fundraising, has risen by 67% from 1996 to 2022 (Mirabella,
2007; Mirabella et al., 2022). However, specific training in fundraising remains a relatively small
component of these programs. While non-academic training is more accessible, the quality and
rigor are contested (Sargeant & Shang, 2011), and traditional paths for higher education
fundraisers remain limited (Farwell et al., 2020).
The need for standardization in fundraising has long been debated. Three primary factors
fuel this ongoing discussion. First, credentialing is not necessarily a prerequisite for success in
the field, as demonstrated by the many accomplished professionals who have raised substantial
43
philanthropic funds without formal certification (Aldrich, 2010). Second, most higher education
fundraisers report learning skills through on-the-job training and mentorship (Shaker & Nathan,
2017). Third, critics of standardization argue that regulation could inhibit civil society and
prevent citizen groups from rallying and raising funds independently from public or private
spheres (Aldrich, 2010). To address these concerns, voluntary credentialing, such as the Certified
Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) credential, the Advanced Certified Fund Raising Executive
(ACFRE) credential, and other university or college-based certifications (AFP, 2021) have
emerged. These voluntary credentials sidestep the concern of government regulation and reward
fundraising professionals through higher compensation and increased competitiveness in the job
market.
Results from these credentialing programs are promising but varied. According to the
Association of Fundraising Professionals Compensation and Benefits Report (2021), fundraisers
with credentials earned 9 to 26% higher incomes than fundraisers with comparable years of
fundraising experience, with ACFRE holders averaging 47% higher salaries (AFP, 2021).
Despite this, credentialed professionals represent only a small proportion of the fundraising
workforce. Currently, there are 6,492 CFRE credentialed fundraisers in the United States and
approximately 1,308 CFRE holders globally, with the majority being from Canada, Australia,
and the United Kingdom (CFRE, 2024). However, only 28 % of Association of Fundraising
Professionals (AFP) members hold CFRE credentials (AFP, 2024), and only 8% of CASE
(CASE, 2024). In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates over 120,000
fundraising jobs (2023). Thus, while voluntary certification provides clear advantages,
fundraising remains largely uncertified (Farwell et al., 2020).
44
Several universities are developing formal educational programs to address the gap and
offer the technical and interpersonal skills necessary for successful fundraising. These programs
aim to provide training that encompasses both the science, which is thought to include
communications, marketing, and philanthropic law and gift structure (Breeze, 2017; Duronio &
Tempel, 1997), and the art, the soft skills of curiosity, relationship management, and tenacity
(Breeze, 2017; Shaker & Nathan, 2017). Notable institutions include Indiana University’s Lilly
Family School of Philanthropy, which offers a bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree in
philanthropy, and the University of Michigan’s Development Summer Institute Program, which
has received two CASE awards for excellence in fundraising education. Additionally,
fundraising education is growing globally. Among the frontrunners are Bournemouth
University’s Fusion Fundraising Academy, University of Chinchester’s Master in Fundraising,
University of Kent’s Masters in Philanthropic Studies, University of Bologna’s Master in
Fundraising, and Zurich University of Applied Sciences Master of Advanced Studies in
Fundraising Management. There is much interest in the growth and development of these
programs and the success of the students and graduates as representatives of a new wave of
philanthropic leadership.
Current Practices and Trends in Higher Education Fundraising
Higher education fundraising serves to inform and engage an institution’s key
stakeholders, including alumni, students, and parents, about the vital role philanthropy plays and
to actively solicit their support. While new strategies are offered in books, workshops, and
conferences worldwide, the fundamental fundraising practices at higher education institutions
have changed little over the years (Sargeant & Jay, 2004; Shafer, 2016). The widely accepted
framework for categorizing fundraising activity, called the fundraising cycle (Drezner, 2011),
45
guides fundraisers through five key stages: identification of potential donors, cultivation of
relationships, solicitation of gifts, recognition of donors, and stewardship to maintain and deepen
donor engagement (CASE, n.d.). This approach, originally developed and refined in the United
States, has come to be known as the "American Fundraising Model." Its simplicity, scalability,
and adaptability have contributed to widespread adoption within diverse institutional contexts. Its
effectiveness has been demonstrated in fundraising campaigns of various sizes across the United
States and internationally. The challenge of fundraising, therefore, lies less in the model itself
and more in how each institution tailors the five stages to align with its unique value proposition
and philanthropic culture.
In the United States, higher education fundraising is evolving into complex,
comprehensive programs, with institutions often undertaking multi-billion dollar campaigns.
These mega-campaigns wrap together the fundraising goals typically associated with capital
improvements, endowments, scholarships, and operating funds and rely on tens to hundreds of
fundraisers with expertise ranging from database management to major and “mega” gift
cultivation (Schafer, 2016; Worth, 2016). In larger institutions, parts of the fundraising cycle
have spun into their own departments. For example, the identification and cultivation of alumni
is usually housed within alumni relations (CASE, 2017; Skinner, 2019). The procurement of
public and private grants for research is managed by teams of grant writers and program
evaluators, and the development of private partnerships with for-profit companies is led by
corporate relations teams (Skinner, 2019). Major giving, which focuses on finding and securing
donations at a financial level deemed organizationally significant (Hodge & Bout, 2022), has
become a highly prized and well-compensated position, earning top fundraisers salaries up to and
exceeding $500,000 (Hall et al., 2014). The mega-campaign model of fundraising in the United
46
States demonstrates the scale and complexity of the fundraising cycle and the need for
specialized fundraisers to manage relationships with constituencies in the hundreds of thousands.
Emerging technologies, new research, and novel philanthropic investment tools add to
the nuance of higher education fundraising. New giving vehicles and partnerships, such as
venture and impact philanthropy (McNamee III, 2021) and crowdfunding (Madeo, 2021),
challenge the status quo and benefit the institutions most prepared to try new initiatives.
Furthermore, rapid technological advances, such as the transition to mobile giving (Bellio et al.,
2013) and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) fundraising (Park et al., 2024), require
fundraisers to learn and evaluate new methods of communication and solicitation quickly.
Additionally, the expanding body of research on donor motivation and identity underscores the
importance of cultural competency. For instance, research providing insight into donor
motivation amongst marginalized groups, including alumni of color (Gasman, 2002), gender and
sexual orientation (Drezner & Garvey, 2016), and factors related to ability (Drezner & Huels,
2014) highlight the need for continual growth and professional development in the field.
Theories like identity-based motivation (IBM) (Oyserman & Destin, 2010) illuminate the role of
identity in driving donations (Drezner, 2018), while other studies examine the training needed to
prepare institutional leaders, such as deans and university presidents, for their growing role as
fundraisers (Hodson, 2010; Hunsaker & Aldous, 2018). The best practices developed by higher
education fundraisers in the United States influence global fundraising strategies and
demonstrate the need for higher education institutions to remain agile and responsive to changing
trends.
The influence of the “American Fundraising Model” has also shaped higher education
philanthropy in Europe. Two pivotal reports, the European Commission’s Expert Group Report
47
on Fundraising by Universities from Philanthropic Sources (2008) and the CASE-More UK
Philanthropy Reports (2006-2023), explicitly draw from the United States’ fundraising model to
offer strategies and recommendations. Both reports urge European university leadership to
integrate philanthropy as a critical strategy to enhance their ability to compete as world-class
institutions, diversify their funding sources, and ensure long-term financial sustainability.
Recommendations include investing in a strong fundraising unit, building the capacity of
institutional leadership, including presidents, deans, and professors, and cultivating a culture of
philanthropy. While the CASE-More reports focus on the growth and challenges of philanthropic
support for universities in the United Kingdom (2006-2023), the European Commission (2008)
takes a prescriptive approach in guiding European universities in starting or growing their
fundraising activities.
The European Commission’s Four Fundraising Models for European Universities presents
the first European framework for higher education fundraising. The four models are listed in
Table 4.
Table 4 The Four Fundraising Models for European Universities
The Four Fundraising Models for European Universities
Models Definition Characteristics
Alumni
Model
"The continuous collection
of small donations from
a large pool of university
alumni and friends. (European
Commission, 2008, p. 8).
"Alumni can constitute a powerful network reaching
many layers of society and with a wide geographical
spread to draw on substantial national and international
networks." (European Commission, 2008, p. 55).
Major Gift
Model
"Focuses on the efforts made to
attract donations from
extremely wealthy individuals"
(European Commission, 2008,
p. 8).
“This model presents the major gift fundraising approach
of most universities and accounts for the majority of
donations, which is characterized by the commitment of
the university leadership to the process and the
development of personal relations with wealthy
individuals” (European Commission. 2008, p. 8).
48
Models Definition Characteristics
Foundation
Research
Model
"Resembles the ordinary,
everyday activity of
researchers seeking funds"
(European Commission, 2008,
p.9).
"Application procedures are highly formal and structured,
involving strict rules of procedure and highly specified
selection criteria guaranteeing that the use of funds is in
line with the foundation's aims" (European Commission,
2008, p. 55).
Multi-mode
Model
"Involves a medley of both
sources of funds and university
actors, with many different
options available for
universities to choose from"
(European Commission, 2008,
p. 9).
"The more varied sets of ad hoc interactions that
characterize the relationships between various types of
university actor (university leaders, administrations and
academic staff) and many of the smaller foundations and
corporate sources of philanthropic funding--many of
whom have less formal and regimented sets of
procedures governing their distribution of philanthropic
funds" (European Commission, 2008, p. 62).
Note. Personal compilation from European Commission: Engaging Philanthropy for University
Research. Report by an Expert Group on Fundraising by universities from philanthropic
sources: Developing partnerships between universities and private donors (2008) p. 53-66.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
According to Grant and Osanloo (2014), the theoretical framework provides the
researcher and the reader with a structured blueprint that explains the study’s purpose and
methodology. The conceptual framework represents the researcher’s personalized articulation
and application of the theory, encapsulating the key concepts, assumptions, and beliefs that
inform the research questions, literature review, and methodology (Camp, 2001). Key
considerations include addressing the advantages and disadvantages of the theory and the
application of the theory in practice.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework most applicable to a qualitative field study examining the
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors affecting Spanish higher education fundraising is
49
Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT). Moving away from prior unidirectional models
(e.g., Skinner, 1971), Bandura introduced the concept of triadic reciprocity, wherein cognitive,
behavioral, and environmental factors interact to influence human development and change
(Bandura, 1986, 1988, 2001). In his work, Bandura developed key concepts such as modeling,
self-efficacy, self-regulation, motivation, outcome expectations, and performance attribution
(Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1991, 1997, 2001). Since its publication, SCT has been applied across
various disciplines by scholars such as Zimmerman (1995), Schunk (1995, 2003, 2012), Pajares
(1996, 2006), Usher (2017), Maddux and Kleiman (2018), and Schunk and Usher (2019). This
growing empirical base further reinforces the strength of SCT’s foundational concepts and
principles.
SCT offers many strengths as a theoretical framework for understanding the dynamic
interactions between individuals and their environments. SCT lends itself to analyzing human
behavior within complex environments, such as higher education fundraising in Europe, as it
identifies the factors that support or hinder performance outcomes (Wood & Bandura, 1989). By
applying SCT, researchers have effectively uncovered and predicted reciprocal relationships
between factors like motivation, behavior, and self-regulatory processes, resulting in
interventions and targeted strategies for real-world contexts (Maddux & Kleiman, 2018; Schunk
& Usher, 2019). Moreover, the concept of self-efficacy, introduced by Bandura (1977), has been
widely shown to correlate with resilience, or the capacity to persist through significant
challenges (Scoloveno, 2018). Bandura and Locke (2003) further emphasized this relationship,
demonstrating how some individuals lower their goals when confronted with obstacles while
others maintain confidence and persist despite setbacks. The correlation between self-efficacy
and resilience makes SCT an ideal framework for identifying the skills, attitudes, and support
50
systems necessary for Spanish fundraisers to persist and succeed despite the limited
philanthropic tradition and the barriers they face in their field. Therefore, SCT offers both a
practical and theoretical foundation for developing interventions and strategies that can enhance
the effectiveness and sustainability of fundraising efforts in Spain's higher education sector.
However, despite its many strengths, social cognitive theory has limitations that must be
considered. These include concerns about the generalizability of its concepts across diverse
settings and populations (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2018), difficulties in capturing moment-tomoment behavioral changes and the influences shaping them (Nolen, 2018), and the barriers to
conducting meaningful follow-up in social cognitive research (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
Additionally, its focus on cognitive processes may overlook broader socio-cultural factors that
are vital in shaping behavior, especially in contexts with deep-rooted traditions like Spain.
Nevertheless, SCT remains a valuable and versatile framework, particularly for its predictive
capacity in modeling behavior change across various domains. These qualities make it an
appropriate and pragmatic framework for this study, which focuses on understanding the
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors shaping higher education fundraising in Spain,
Conceptual Framework
Conceptualizing the relationship between theory and practice is essential for effective
research. The conceptual framework is the researcher’s application of theory to their specific
study (Grant & Osanloo, 2014; Saunders, 2019). This study employs Bandura’s (1978) triadic
reciprocal determinism (TRD) model, which accounts for the interplay between personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors. As depicted in Figure 2, the TRD model shows reciprocal
causation between “B,” behavioral factors; “P,” personal factors; and “E,” environmental factors.
51
While unable to be depicted, Bandura’s TRD model is elastic and dynamic, shifting weight
according to each factor's exposure, experience, and influence (Bandura, 1978).
Figure 2 Bandura’s Model of Triadic Reciprocal Determinism (TRD)
Bandura’s Model of Triadic Reciprocal Determinism (TRD)
Note. This model was reproduced from “The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism” by A.
Bandura, 1978, American Psychologist, 33(4), 345.
This study’s conceptual framework is informed by Badura’s social cognitive theory and
triadic reciprocal determinism model to examine the factors influencing fundraising
professionals in Spanish higher education. Figure 3 illustrates the interconnected relationship
between the three key SCT elements: “P,” representing personal factors such as knowledge (the
cognitive understanding of a task or subject), self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to perform a
task), and motivation (the internal drive to achieve a goal); “B,” behavioral factors including
modeling (learned behaviors through observation), outcome expectations (anticipated
consequences of behavior), and resilience (the ability to persist in behaviors despite setbacks or
difficulties); and “E,” environmental factors, which encompass cultural norms (shared
expectations, values, and behaviors), social factors (networks and relationships that shape an
52
environment), political contexts (government regulations and incentives), and the economic
climate (financial stability or constraints impacting behavior) (Bandura, 1977, 1978). These
factors, depicted in Figure 3, form the basis of the research inquiry.
Moreover, the conceptual framework of this study is enriched by integrating two
complementary research paradigms: constructivism and critical realism. Constructivism posits
that individuals derive meaning from their historical, social, and cultural environments (Berger &
Luckmann, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mannheim, 1952). Within constructivism, knowledge
is considered a social construct emerging from the interactions between individuals,
environments, and the cultures in which they live (Creswell, 2014). It acknowledges reality as a
product of negotiation and organization by participants attempting to make sense of what is
occurring around them (Kelemen & Rumens, 2008). However, constructivism alone is
insufficient for addressing causal relationships (Bogna et al., 2020), so this study applies a
critical realism lens.
Critical realism provides a complementary lens to the constructivist view of reality and
permits the identification of patterns and links to form a picture of the underlying causation.
Critical realism asserts that objective reality exists independent of perception (Syed et al., 2009;
Wynn & Williams, 2012), allowing researchers to explore the structures and mechanisms
contributing to the participants’ experiences and perspectives (Bogna et al., 2020). Integrating
critical realism into this study allows for exploring historical and contemporary developments
within the broader field of higher education philanthropy and an examination of the
organizational structures and trends influencing the lives and choices of fundraisers in Spanish
higher education. The incorporation of constructivism and critical realism, as depicted in Figure
3, enhances the study by empowering participants to create and interpret their reality while
53
uncovering patterns, trends, and causal relationships. The result is an enriched analysis of the
data.
Figure 3 TRD Model of Spanish Higher Education Fundraisers
TRD Model of Spanish Higher Education Fundraisers
Conclusion
Higher education institutions must navigate a rapidly evolving global market.
Globalization, shrinking government funding, and increased pressure from ranking and market
leaders are forcing higher education institutions to diversify revenue streams and consider new
54
strategies (CASE, 2023; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Drezner, 2019). The philanthropic model
and fundraising practices developed and adopted throughout the United States afford higher
education institutions in the United States an unparalleled advantage in the race for talent,
research, and rankings (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017; Skinner, 2019). While this “American
Fundraising Model” has been successfully replicated on a smaller scale in the United Kingdom
and is proving advantageous to institutions in Northern and Western Europe, Spanish universities
have been slower to adopt fundraising as a strategic approach (de la Torre et al., 2018; de la
Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019; Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017; Pérez-Esparrells & Torre, 2012).
Although there is a growing body of research on the development of higher education
philanthropy on a global scale (EFA, 2017; IU, 2022) and an understanding of the historical and
political factors shaping the philanthropic culture in Spain (AEF, 2024; Rey-Garcia & PuigRaposo, 2013; Rey-Garcia, 2018), little is known about Spanish higher education fundraisers.
This study seeks to address this gap by exploring the factors that support or hinder the success of
Spanish fundraising professionals. The following chapter details the research design and
methodology of this study.
55
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three outlines the methodology used to examine the personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors influencing fundraising in Spanish higher education. Chapter Two
discussed the political and economic factors driving competition in the global knowledge
economy, the role of philanthropy in higher education funding across the United States, United
Kingdom, and Europe, and a summary of best practices and trends in higher education
fundraising, highlighting Spain’s emerging practices. Furthermore, Chapter Two presented the
study’s theoretical and conceptual framework, rooted in Bandura’s SCT (1986, 1988, 2001) and
TRD model (1986). The framework emphasizes the dynamic interplay between personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors influencing Spanish higher education fundraising and
presents the complementary research paradigms shaping this inquiry: constructivism and critical
realism.
Chapter Three explains the study’s research questions and presents the research
methodology, including the design, setting, data collection, and analysis. It concludes by
discussing positionality and ethical considerations relevant to this research. The research
questions, informed by social cognitive theory, aim to explore personal and environmental
variables that collectively shape the landscape of Spanish higher education fundraising. As
noted, behavioral factors emerge through the qualitative interview process and are addressed in
the findings. The first research question focuses on personal factors, including knowledge and
motivation, and the second focuses on environmental factors. Through qualitative inquiry, this
study contributes to a deeper understanding of Spanish higher education fundraisers and what
supports or hinders their success.
56
Research Questions
1. What are the perceived knowledge and motivation of fundraising professionals
working within higher education institutions in Spain?
2. What perceived environmental factors support or hinder the success of higher
education fundraising in Spain?
Overview of Design
This field-based study utilizes qualitative interviews to investigate the complex personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors influencing fundraising professionals in Spanish higher
education. Data was collected through in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and
decision-makers in Spain's higher education fundraising. Qualitative interviews are the vehicle
most adept at exploring complex social and individual phenomena (Creswell, 2014), allowing
researchers to construct themes and interpretations of the participants' lived experiences. The
qualitative interview methodology supports inductive and deductive reasoning, where the
researcher can engage with participants’ interpretations and analyze the complexity of their
conditions (constructivism) while uncovering underlying patterns and structures (critical realism)
(Bogna et al., 2020; Creswell, 2014). This approach also enables the discovery of emergent
themes and can direct future research by identifying gaps in the current literature. The interview
questions address topics of knowledge and motivation, offering rich, descriptive insights into the
participants’ experiences and the broader environments in which they operate. Additionally, the
semi-structured qualitative design allows the researcher to explore factors not originally
anticipated at the outset, ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of the opportunities and
challenges in the field. This approach is essential for shaping context-specific recommendations
57
to drive future fundraising in Spain. Table 5 outlines the study’s two research questions and
methodological approach.
Table 5
Data Sources
Research Questions Method 1
(Interviews)
RQ1: What are the perceived knowledge and
motivation of fundraising professionals working
within higher education institutions in Spain?
X
RQ2: What perceived environmental factors support
or hinder the success of higher education fundraising
in Spain?
X
Research Setting
The target demographic of this study comprised 19 key stakeholders and decision-makers
involved in Spanish higher education fundraising. In this study, “fundraising” refers to any
activity related to soliciting tax-deductible donations. In institutions without dedicated
fundraising teams, fundraising responsibilities are often assigned to alumni relations, marketing,
or communication departments. Therefore, including a broad range of participants and
stakeholders was essential. Key stakeholders are those with decision-making authority over
fundraising activities at their institution. Accordingly, this study included directors of
58
foundations, alumni and external relations, and corporate partnerships. Furthermore, to minimize
the risk of overlooking relevant fundraising professionals whose titles or roles may not be
intuitive to this inquiry, participants were asked to recommend colleagues engaged in fundraising
activities at their or other Spanish higher education institutions. This expanded the participant
pool by adding three participants with relevant experience outside my original scope: two
Spanish higher education consultants and one CEO of a Spanish higher education fundraising
software company.
The research was conducted within higher education institutions in Spain, which are
characterized according to their legal status and funding structures. Spanish universities fall into
three categories: (a) public universities, primarily funded by government resources and tuition
fees; (b) private, non-profit universities, which are funded by a combination of tuition and, in
some cases, funding from religious organizations; and (c) private for-profit universities, which
rely predominantly on tuition and private funding, supplemented by limited public support (de la
Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019). Participants were recruited from all three types of universities.
The following data, drawn from the 76 accredited Spanish universities that are members
of the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities during the 2015/2016 academic year
(Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017), offer a profile of a typical Spanish university:
• Since 2000, most Spanish universities (56%) have a communications department that
provides two-way communication with university stakeholders.
• A majority (92%) of Spanish universities invest in brand management and public
relations.
• All Spanish universities (100%) actively engage stakeholders through social media.
59
• Spanish universities are engaged in corporate relations and secure contracts for
research and research chairs (100%).
• Only 38% of public and 17% of private universities are engaged in philanthropy,
which includes campaigns, fundraising events and activities, and donor recognition
programs.
• Half (50%) of public universities engage consistently with their alumni compared to
87% of private universities.
The institutions represented by this study align with this profile; however, they were
among the few actively involved in philanthropy.
A critical consideration for international research is language. Spain recognizes four
official languages: Castilian Spanish, Catalan, Basque (Euskera), and Galician. Approximately
46.6% of the population is monolingual, with 72% identifying Spanish as their first language
(BBC, 2024). According to the 2019 English Proficiency Index (EPI), Spain ranks 25th out of 33
European countries for English language proficiency. However, the education sector
demonstrates relatively high English proficiency levels (EPI, 2023). Given the sector’s
proficiency in English and my familiarity with the Spanish higher education fundraising
community, the study was conducted in English. Conducting the research in English eliminated
the need for translators and reduced the risk of miscommunication between the participant and
researcher.
The Researcher
During the design of this study and before commencing data collection, I considered my
positionality, potential biases, and the impact I might have on the participants. According to
Small and Calarco (2022), self-reflexive researchers intentionally reflect on their identity and its
60
relationship to their study subjects. My background in international philanthropy and specific
experience in Spanish higher education fundraising contributed valuable insight and strengthened
the study. Specifically, I gained insight and familiarity with the problem of practice through
working as a fundraising consultant for Spanish higher education institutions and universities
based in the United Kingdom. These experiences allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of
the practical challenges faced by European universities seeking to start or grow their
philanthropic support. Furthermore, the professional relationships I built within the Spanish
higher education sector provided me with direct insight into the knowledge and motivation of
fundraising practitioners and the perspectives of university leadership on fundraising and
philanthropy. This positionality facilitated recruitment and supported authentic engagement with
the target population.
However, the relationships and experiential knowledge of higher education fundraising
present a risk of bias and preferential treatment. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest, it is
essential to understand one’s bias rather than attempt to eliminate it. My training and
professional background in philanthropic institutions in the United States may unintentionally
shape the direction of my questioning, the emerging themes, and the interpretations of my
findings. To minimize bias, I approached each interview with clear intentions to listen, observe,
and inquire with genuine curiosity and openness. I actively checked for emergent themes, invited
feedback on the interview format and questions, and remained vigilant of not making undue
comparisons between fundraising practices in Spain with those in the United States.
Additionally, the friendships I developed with Spanish fundraisers may limit my ability to
analyze the data without preconceptions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) emphasized the
importance of mitigating personal bias through regular, thoughtful reflection on observations,
61
ensuring that the researcher’s positionality is explicitly acknowledged throughout the research
process. To reduce personal bias, I focused on faithfully interpreting the participants’
experiences and perceptions through the data analysis process rather than my interpretations.
Data Sources
This study’s primary vehicle for data collection was the qualitative interview. According
to Creswell (2014) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative interviews are an effective tool
for understanding the participants' experiences, developing themes, and reflecting on the problem
of practice. This study used semi-structured qualitative interviews to capture the nuances and
complexities of Spanish higher education fundraisers, to test assumptions, and to build on
emerging themes.
I collected data for the first and second research questions through 19 semi-structured
interviews with Spanish fundraising professionals. Based on the conceptual framework, the
interview questions explored the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors influencing the
success of Spanish higher education fundraisers. The questions examined knowledge, selfefficacy, motivation, and outcome expectations through SCT-informed queries and probes.
Additionally, they sought to understand how the cultural, political, and institutional environment
shaped the participants' perceptions, experiences, and understanding.
Participants
The study participants were 19 fundraisers and related stakeholders working for higher
education institutions in Spain. The participants were selected based on specific work experience
and positions in Spanish higher education, and two non-Spanish nationals were included.
According to LeCompte and Schensul (2010), this is called criterion-based selection. The
recruitment process included three phases. The first was to identify which higher education
62
institutions in Spain were engaged in fundraising activities. This process was completed by
searching university websites, using search terms such as scholarship, alumni, fundraising,
campaign, foundation, and giving. Secondly, potential participants were identified via the
university staff directory, LinkedIn, and personal recommendations from preexisting
relationships with Spanish higher education fundraisers. Third, communications were sent to
potential participants via LinkedIn and email, with an introduction of myself, the study's purpose
and scope, and the interview process.
The participants had to have current or recent fundraising experience in Spanish higher
education to meet eligibility. As fundraising is a developing field in Spain, and the term
“fundraiser” is rare, the study expanded the range of participants to include additional titles and
roles that reflect the variety of individuals working in higher education fundraising. Roles
included alumni and institutional relations, corporate partnerships, and institutional leadership,
all with decision-making powers regarding the university’s fundraising strategy. In addition,
three participants were included based on their intimate knowledge of higher education
fundraising through their roles as consultants and service providers. While the range of
experience was broad, sufficient familiarity was necessary to ensure the participants could reflect
on the challenges and opportunities of institutional fundraising within higher education and the
environmental factors at play.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation is the process of finetuning the data-collection procedure to gain as
accurate an understanding of the participants as possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
established the following interview protocol to capture rich, descriptive data on the personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors influencing higher education fundraisers in Spain. The
63
interview protocol (Appendix A) outlined twelve semi-structured questions with corresponding
probes and two additional questions. These alternate questions were designed for use when
questions one through twelve yielded insufficient data, did not apply, or were openings for
participants interested in continuing the conversation. The semi-structured design guided the
interviewer and interviewee into exploring the research questions through participant storytelling
and experience. Good qualitative interview questions encourage participants to define and
describe their experiences in their own words (Dezin & Lincoln, 1994; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Accordingly, the study’s interview questions avoided fundraising vocabulary and
prompted participants to share their experiences as naturally as possible. Furthermore, the
questions addressed Patton’s (2022) question matrix and key SCT-related concepts, such as the
participant’s ability to acquire new knowledge and capacity (Dweck & Elliot, 1983) and their
perception of motivation and performance (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Data Collection Procedures
Patton (2014) claimed that researchers use interviews to learn what is on someone’s
mind. To achieve such valuable insight, it is imperative that the participants feel psychologically
safe and at ease in their environment to share their thoughts and experiences candidly. Safety and
comfort are primarily impacted by the setting and experience of the participant during the
interview. According to Taylor and Bogdan (1984), providing clarity on the researcher’s motive,
intention, and purpose of the study and offering clear direction regarding time, place, and use of
data are essential first steps to increasing the participant's comfort and engagement. Furthermore,
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe the importance of the interviewer’s attitude and orientation.
Being respectful, nonjudgmental, and nonthreatening is essential to establishing an open and
honest dialogue between the interviewer and the participant.
64
Well-designed and thoughtful research protocols support the participants’ comfort, ease,
and trust. Lichtman’s (2013) criteria for good qualitative research include employing direct and
transparent communication with the participants, being explicit regarding the role and
relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, and offering a clear outline for how the
study will be conducted. This study employed multiple strategies to build trust and empower the
participants to contribute freely. First, the initial email communications outlined the scope,
purpose, and time required for participating in the study. Second, semi-structured interview
questions permitted participants to add, explore, and deviate from the questions. Third,
interviews were conducted via an online video call platform that allowed for greater flexibility in
time and location, enabling the participant to find a quiet and private space to participate. Fourth,
participants were invited to reschedule if factors had changed. Lastly, through recording and
transcribing tools, the interviewer engaged the interviewee with eye contact and monitored other
body language signals for distress or discomfort. While the internal factors impacting the
participant lie outside this study's control, these steps set a tone of respect, genuine interest, and
thoughtful accommodation.
Data Analysis
The data analysis portion of the study reflects Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory
and the epistemological framework of critical realism and constructivism. Leaning on the
flexibility of Boyatzis’ (1998) thematic analysis procedure and the six-step method of Braun and
Clarke (2006) for analyzing qualitative data, I developed a six-step process for analyzing the
interview data. The six-step thematic analysis structured the data into identifiable patterns or
themes, incorporating both a constructivist approach aimed at interpreting the meanings
65
conveyed by participants and a critical realist perspective focused on uncovering underlying
structures, patterns, and causal relationships.
Interviews
Based on Braun and Clark's six-step method (2006), the following steps describe my
process for analyzing interview data (Appendix A).
1. Familiarization: I will familiarize myself with the data by rereading the transcriptions,
observations, reflections, and notes collected throughout the study.
2. Initial Coding: Codes are the most essential element derived from the data that hold
meaning to the interpreter (Boyatzis, 1998). In this phase, I code for as many possible
themes or patterns as possible.
3. Theme Identification: Once the data is coded and collated, I will review the data
again, focusing on the broader themes. These themes will be clustered under the key
SCT concepts addressed in the interview questions.
4. Theme Review: During this portion, I may discover that some themes are insufficient
to be considered significant or are too large and require separation. The result is a
thematic map that aligns the themes into a comprehensive picture that begins to tell a
story.
5. Defining Themes: I include a detailed account of how the data fits into the larger
picture, how it relates to and differentiates from other themes, and how it relates to
my research question for each theme.
6. Reporting the Findings: The thematic analysis results in a concise, logical, and nonrepetitive final analysis of the themes, rich with descriptive examples that bring the
data to life.
66
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research explores the intricate and interrelated lives, behaviors, and
perceptions of human subjects, providing nuanced insight into feelings, perceptions, ideas, and
reflections. However, questions often arise regarding the accuracy and precision of qualitative
results. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers are equally responsible for demonstrating
the rigor with which the research is carried out. While quantitative research focuses on reliability
and validity, qualitative research emphasizes credibility and trustworthiness. According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative credibility assesses how congruent the research findings
are with reality. Trustworthiness, or consistency, refers to the extent to which the findings can be
replicated and applied to different situations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A credible study begins by asking well-constructed questions. Patton (2014) suggests that
effective questions explore participants’ experiences, behavior, opinions, values, feelings,
knowledge, and senses, as well as their background and demographics. Such questions elicit indepth descriptions that offer rich insights into the participants' environment, perspectives, and
experiences. In alignment with Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) guidance to seek detailed, thick
descriptions, this study's interview protocol encouraged participants to share stories and
elaborate on their experiences, thereby enhancing both the credibility and transferability of the
research. Moreover, this study reached saturation after approximately 12 to 16 interviews, at
which point recurring themes were observed, and no new information was forthcoming (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The study also sought to explore alternative explanations to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the findings. Including multiple university participants
contributed to achieving saturation and ensuring a diversity of perspectives. Additionally, the
accuracy of qualitative data was reinforced through interview transcript review (ITR), a method
67
that allows participants to verify and amend transcripts to ensure that the data accurately
represents their perspectives (Rager, 2005; Valentine, 2007).
Trustworthiness, like credibility, is essential for enhancing a study’s value by enabling
future researchers to apply the findings to new contexts. Lincoln and Guba (1985) define
transferability as the extent to which the findings can be applied in different settings. While the
responsibility for new research is outside the original investigator's scope, the process, protocols,
and descriptions must be sufficient to make transferability possible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Credibility and trustworthiness ultimately rely on the researcher's expertise and consistent
application of rigorous methods. Through intellectual rigor and meticulous documentation, this
study took significant measures to ensure both credibility and trustworthiness. Great care was
exercised in thoroughly describing the population, recording the methodology, and clearly
defining the study’s limitations to support future research.
Ethics
Qualitative data requires both rigorous thinking and ethical integrity. Ethical integrity is
demonstrated by strict compliance with the policies of the governments, institutions, and
professional associations and adherence to the researchers' values and commitments (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Tracy (2024) stated that ethical considerations are procedural and relational. To
conduct an ethical procedure, it is essential to seek out all available guidance that applies to the
research context, including informed consent, the protection of subjects from harm and
deception, and the right to privacy. Relational ethics are complicated and are more likely to
emerge during the study as the power and impact of the research dynamic are revealed between
participant and researcher. Tracy described the ethical researcher as treating the research
participants as people, not just data. Therefore, throughout this study, it is essential to consider
68
the ethical issues that might arise, anticipate the participants' experiences, and determine how to
ensure no harm.
Conducting qualitative interviews involves several ethical considerations. Patton’s (2014)
Ethical Issues Checklist highlights the importance of informing participants about the study’s
purpose, methods, confidentiality, data access, ownership, and obtaining informed consent. In
my study, I ensured transparent communication with all participants by discussing these
elements in detail. The initial email soliciting participation outlined the methodology, the use of
pseudonyms, data aggregation, and the intended distribution of the findings. Participants were
encouraged to ask clarifying questions, ensuring their consent was based on full and accurate
information about the study's objectives and procedures. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further
stress the potential long-term emotional effects that qualitative interviews may have on
participants, particularly when reflecting on their experiences or considering the implications for
their careers. In this study, these ethical concerns were particularly relevant, as the participants’
reflections on their roles in higher education fundraising might influence their career trajectories
or reshape their perspectives on their work. Throughout the research design and data collection
phases, I carefully reflected on and addressed ethical concerns as they arose, enhancing the
study's credibility and trustworthiness. This reflective practice helped mitigate potential risks and
reinforced the ethical integrity of the research process.
69
Chapter Four: Results or Findings
The purpose of this study is to explore the role of philanthropic funding as an alternative
revenue stream for higher education institutions in Spain. This field-based study utilized
Bandura’s (1977, 1997, 2001) social cognitive theory to shape semi-structured interviews to
investigate the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors hindering or supporting Spanish
fundraising professionals. This chapter focuses on the study’s qualitative interviews, analyses,
and emerging themes related to the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived knowledge and motivation of fundraising professionals
working within higher education institutions in Spain?
2. What perceived environmental factors support or hinder the success of higher
education fundraising in Spain?
Participants
The study’s participants represented all three types of higher education in Spain: (a)
public universities; (b) private, non-profit universities; and (c) private for-profit universities. The
universities were selected based on evidence of philanthropic activities demonstrated on their
websites or through direct recommendations from within the Spanish higher education
fundraisers network. The participants were identified based on their roles as fundraisers or
leadership in charge of fundraising activities for the university or related foundation. Four
institutions responded affirmatively of the thirteen universities contacted, yielding 16
participants. Three additional participants were discovered through the interviews, including one
Spanish fundraising software company founder and two Spanish higher education fundraising
consultants. Interviews were conducted between May and August 2024. The demographics of the
interview participants were 68% female and 32% male. Of the 19 participants, 18 were current
residents of Spain, and one worked remotely from Canada. All participants had a bachelor's
70
degree, eleven had a graduate degree, and seven had pursued graduate-level certifications. Over
half of the participants specialized in business administration, eight studied law, and seven
completed degrees in communication, including journalism, corporate communications, and
advertising. Of the 19 participants, all identified their primary training source as “on the job,”
and over half attended some fundraising conferences. Only three participants had completed
formal fundraising training. Figure 4 summarizes the interview participants’ educational
background. Note that participants reported more than one educational degree.
Figure 4 Participants’ Educational Background
Participants’ Educational Background
Figure 5 outlines the source and frequency of fundraising training, with some participants
sharing multiple sources of fundraising training and experiences. Lastly, Figure 6 provides
information on the interviewee’s current position, examples of titles for each of the three
institutional types, and the titles of participants who fall into the “other” category.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Other: International Studies, Arts, Engineering,
Economics
Law
Communications
Business Administration
71
Figure 5 Participants’ Fundraising Training and Experience
Participants’ Fundraising Training and Experience
Figure 6 Participants’ Titles [Sample] and Institution Type
Participants Titles [Sample] and Institution Type
Institution Type Participants Sample Titles
Public 1 “Director of the Organization Area”
“Administrator of University Foundation”
Private Non-Profit 5 “Director of Development Services”
“Director of Development Communications”
Private For-Profit 9 “Director of Development Programs”
“Head of Alumni Engagement”
Other 4 “Executive Coach & Fundraising Consultant”
“Co-Founder & CEO of Fundraising Software”
Findings Research Question One
The study’s first research question explored the participants’ knowledge of higher
education fundraising strategies and motivation. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were
conducted, with queries and probes exploring participants' personal factors, such as their
knowledge of fundraising, self-efficacy, and motivation, as well as behavioral factors like
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Fundraising/ Nonprofit Management Certificate
Fundraising Conferences [CASE, AEFr]
On the Job Training
72
modeling, outcome expectations, and performance attributions. The findings revealed that
Spanish higher education fundraisers possess a comprehensive understanding of donor behavior
and institutional fundraising needs and are driven by a deep internal desire to create lasting
impact through their work.
Knowledge of Effective Fundraising Activities
Participants demonstrated growing knowledge about effective activities and strategies for
Spanish higher education institutions implementing fundraising. Regardless of the institutional
type, size, or maturity of the fundraising program, six key strategies emerged: (a) the effective
use of the fundraising cycle, (b) fostering a culture of belonging, (c) educating both internal and
external stakeholders, (d) building trust through transparency and accountability, (e) developing
a compelling case for support, and (f) leveraging the international community. These strategies
were presented as examples of successful best practices and solutions to the barriers that hinder
their current efforts. These findings further underscored their depth of knowledge and insight
into what was missing in their institutional environments.
Implement the Fundraising Cycle
Participants demonstrated knowledge of and adherence to the fundraising cycle, whether
in practice or described as part of a future strategy. Despite the wide range of resources, all 19
participants expressed an alignment with and a desire to enhance efforts related to all five stages
of the fundraising cycle—identification, cultivation, solicitation, recognition, and stewardship.
Collectively, their insights revealed the fundraising cycle as forming the backbone of Spanish
higher education best practices. Table 6 outlines each element of the Fundraising Cycle with
illustrative participant quotes.
73
Beatriz described her institution’s commitment to the identification of potential donors as
a “core part that you need to have in place to do your job well as a fundraiser… [in order to] help
assess if the person that you're talking to could potentially have interest or capacity.” She
described herself as a “big believer” in this first step of the fundraising cycle as it allowed her to
“tap into segments of your database and [have] data points” to conduct efficient donor outreach.
Gerardo highlighted the importance of relationship building, or cultivation, by reflecting on how
he builds trust within the alumni community before asking for a donation. He described his
approach: "What I tell alumni… is we want to do something that you're happy with, and we're
happy with, and we need to trust each other.” Gerardo emphasized establishing common
“objectives” and ensuring that the donor felt “comfortable,” further underscoring his desire to
build authentic connections. Noelia, in her experience of training Spanish higher education
fundraisers at various institutions, elaborated on the solicitation process, “If you work on
warming up the relationship, building trust, understanding what you have in common, and
determining the impacts that you want to achieve together, that's when you make the ask.” While
many participants described the need to thank donors, Héctor discussed how his software
company automates and simplifies the donor recognition process, explaining, “You can also
customize the thank-you message, the thank-you email, …issue the certificate here in Spain,
connect to the gift aid in England, or manage the local tax request depending on the country.”
Finally, Adriana underscored the critical role of stewardship. Although she expressed frustration
with the insufficient resources allocated to fundraising at her institution, she insisted that the
ability to “keep your donors… with the proper stewardship in place” was essential for achieving
success in her fundraising efforts.
74
Table 6 The Fundraising Cycle as Described by Spanish Higher Education Fundraisers
The Fundraising Cycle as Described by Spanish Higher Education Fundraisers
Stage Participant Illustrative Quote
Identification Beatriz “I'm a big believer in research. I think, let's say, that it’s a core part that you need to
have in place to do your job well as a fundraiser, being able to tap into segments of
your database and having data points, to help assess if the person that you're talking to
could potentially have interest and /or capacity.”
Cultivation Gerardo “What I want and what I tell alumni, either because they were my students or not, or
companies, is we want to do something that you're happy with, and we're happy with,
and we need to trust each other, and we're going to work well with you. It's building
that trust, and having the same objective, and if not, if you're not comfortable, then
let's not do it.”
Solicitation Noelia “And the asking and fundraising are exactly the same. If you work on warming up the
relationship, building trust, understanding what you have in common, and determining
the impacts that you want to achieve together, that's when you make the ask.”
Recognition Héctor “You can also customize the thank-you message, the thank-you email, and all this
stuff. Then there is a third one, which we call an administrative engine. This is a
system that can, for example, issue the certificate here in Spain, connect to the gift aid
in England, or manage the local tax request depending on the country.”
Stewardship Adriana “And what I would say to be successful in this, I suppose you just have to have a lot of
resilience and perseverance and, try to set priorities and try to keep your donors well
with the proper stewardship in place.”
75
Foster a Sense of Belonging
Fifteen out of nineteen participants emphasized that a sense of belonging, identity, and
pride were fundamental motivators for philanthropic support. Gerardo, a foundation director,
explained, “People give money because they want to belong to something and also see their
names associated with it.” Additionally, donations were often linked to regional pride. Eduardo,
a fundraising consultant, explained that some of the most successful fundraising campaigns have
touched on the desire of alumni to support their smaller regional universities to help them
compete with the larger, more affluent urban centers. “They [alumni donors] invest in the
territory… to protect their own economy, knowledge, and everything else.” Lastly, a strong
sense of belonging and associated identity with the university were presented as precursors to
giving. For Lucia, her institution’s culture of belonging was a notable advantage. “The thing we
do have, which is not very normal in Spain, is that all of our students really feel proud,” She
explained with evident pride,
We want them [the alumni] to feel a sense of belonging and be grateful to the donors.
Because even if you’ve paid… you are benefiting from the donations because you are
studying in a very nice building, …[and] if you're with a very good teacher, it's because
some of his research projects have been funded by donations.
Lastly, her colleague Lorena explained, "By placing the student at the center of these
[fundraising] initiatives, a sense of community and belonging is fostered, which can motivate
participation and financial support.”
Educate Key Stakeholders on the Value and Process of Fundraising
A related yet distinct concept from belonging was the importance ascribed to educating
critical stakeholders on the value and process of fundraising. Across all 19 interviews,
76
participants wanted to educate alumni, gain buy-in from employees, leadership, and students, and
normalize philanthropy. Esteban, a director of a large fundraising team, described his focus on
educating the students and alumni, “One of the projects we have now is to develop a culture of
fundraising in the university among the employees who are part of the stakeholders and among
the students and alumni.” Nuria, a relationship manager assigned to top alumni prospects, shared
her hope for greater board involvement, “I think one of the low-hanging fruit we have, which is a
little bit untapped, is our board leaders, who we think could be a part of the fundraising efforts.”
Similarly, Lorena, responsible for alumni giving, expressed the key role deans and board
members play in cultivating donors, “I have closely collaborated with deans and boards to
engage them in scholarship projects for students, leveraging their alumni networks and their
knowledge of the professional sectors where these alumni work.” Lorena explained, “This
approach has been crucial in identifying and nurturing relationships with potential donors.”
Sixteen of the nineteen participants described that the initial step in educating
stakeholders about fundraising involved demonstrating its impact among current students and
securing support from the institution’s faculty and staff. Gerardo clarified that to educate the
alumni community effectively, the institution must invest in demonstrating the value and impact
of the foundation early. He described his reasoning, “We have to set the basis now… our current
students have to see what the foundation does… and 30 years down the road, they will remember
us”. Another participant, Adriana, echoed this desire to lay the foundation for future giving,
“This is something we're trying to do here. We're talking about impact and we're talking a lot to
student and student governments and showing the things that we're building.” Raquel, who
recently transitioned from the admissions team to fundraising, stressed the importance of
educating the employees alongside the students. “We want to make donating a normal thing. And
77
we want to translate it to our students and our employees.” Similarly, Lucia outlined her
institution’s current campaign to shape the internal culture.
We call it a donation culture. We are starting to show, ‘Hey, our financial sustainability
comes from the donations,’ and we are starting from the very beginning. We told it to our
employees over the last year because many of us… didn't know that all the projects and
many research projects and all the buildings have been raised with donations… So, when
they told me to start this campaign, I said, well, the first point is to tell our employees and
our teachers… So, this was the first step, and now next year, we are starting to say that to
our students.
While participants expressed a desire and intention to expand their outreach, the majority agreed
that the first step in establishing a culture of philanthropy was to focus on educating the
institution’s key stakeholders, the students and employees.
Build Trust through Transparency and Accountability
Trust emerged as a central theme throughout the discussions, with nine out of nineteen
participants highlighting its critical role in establishing a sustainable fundraising program. They
emphasized that building donor confidence requires consistent investment in accountability,
transparency, and demonstrating both short-term and long-term impact. Inés, an experienced
relationship manager, explained the value of transparency in establishing a successful
fundraising program. “We need to explain very clearly… exactly how the money is going to be
used. In Spain, people usually don't trust in those kinds of things. You need to really show and be
super, super transparent on your finances.” Mateo, an associate director of the University’s
foundation, reinforced these recommendations by sharing that the foundation's priority was
ensuring donor accountability. “During that first phase of the foundation, the goal was… to give
78
more credibility in all the reports… in terms of everything to be ready for donations and having
transparency in everything we do.” Furthermore, Lorena named “transparency and
accountability,” as central to her institution’s fundraising strategy. She described that part of her
role was “ensuring funds are used effectively and transparently, providing regular reports to
donors on the use of their contributions and the impact achieved.” Lastly, Esteban discussed the
importance of building trust over time, “The people trust that we are honest people, that we
manage their funds well, that we do the research we say we are going to do, and we have an
impact on the students [for over] … 75 years.” The participants’ emphasis on trust demonstrated
a common understanding that transparent and accountable practices were essential to building a
strong foundation for fundraising.
Develop A Strong Case for Support: Emphasize Research, Talent, & Recognition
Fifteen of the nineteen participants highlighted the ongoing challenge of developing a
compelling case for support. They described this process as involving identifying donor interests,
aligning those interests with the institution’s mission and priorities, and crafting a
communication strategy that conveys the campaign's urgency and potential impact. Elena
described her approach to ensure that the purpose and impact of the donation are clear, “The
strategy that has been the most valuable to me are products [fundraising campaigns] that are easy
to understand… with tangible impact for the donor too. This is quite straightforward… if the
fundraising focuses solely on scholarships.” Furthermore, Eduardo reflected on the most
effective messaging used by his higher education fundraising clients, “If you want good people,
we have to pay them. That's the message.” Eduardo explained how important it was for donors to
understand that their contributions enabled the university, or foundation, to “pay an extra salary.”
79
Recruiting, sustaining, and supporting talent amongst the faculty and students resonated
among the participants as compelling areas for support. Gerardo discussed the connection
between attracting talent and achieving recognition amongst higher education institutions. He
provided an example of his solicitation strategy, “[Alumni], we need your support in order to
make us able to compete with the Harvards and the Stanfords and the Yales… help us with the
scholarship to bring brilliant people here [and] help us with research.” Similarly, Laura outlined
her institution’s most compelling case for support as a combination of building talent and
regional pride, “Scholarships are the main trigger for them [donors]… Building the future of the
country is what they really care about, contributing to their own country and building the talent
they think they need for the future of the country.” Lastly, Lorena provided an example of a
donor who chose to give back to show “solidarity.”
The first significant scholarship obtained this year comes from an alum who, after
receiving a scholarship to study at [our university], decided to give back what they once
received. This action exemplifies a chain of solidarity. I found it a very touching story of
how a scholarship can change lives, and now this former student has the dream of
transforming the lives of other students.
Participants expressed the challenge of crafting a compelling case for support as multifaceted,
requiring alignment of donor interests with institutional goals, clear communication of purpose
and impact, and the ability to tap into motivations such as alumni loyalty, regional pride, and the
desire to enhance institutional talent and reputation.
Draw on the International Community
Seventeen participants discussed the growing opportunity for Spanish higher education
institutions to benefit from the increasing number of international students and partnerships. The
80
participants expressed knowledge and interest in the rise of global higher education philanthropy
and the potential of tapping into more developed philanthropic cultures, such as the United States
and the United Kingdom. At times, the reliance on international alumni was expressed
negatively, as though it reflected poorly on the Spanish community. Participants like Laura
explained, “I have to confess that we are focusing out of Spain. Our main earners come from
Latin America, and from Europe, but not Spain.” Similarly, Mateo shared, “Our main
fundraising is outside of Spain. It's not in Spain.” Adriana reinforced the consensus that
international students are more inclined to donate, further suggesting that this tendency extends
to anyone with experience living abroad. She explained, “I have to say that most of my donors…
are not Spanish or not living in Spain. [Even Spanish] people who travel abroad understand the
concept much faster and much better.”
In other instances, the presence of international students was considered an advantage.
Sharing his experience of providing fundraising software and services to multiple universities in
Spain, Hector provided one particularly successful example of a public university that does “a
yearly campaign where they try to connect with their alumni outside of Spain… And they are
quite successful.” Elena expressed a similar optimism at the growing number of international
students.
Spain is becoming a highly appealing destination for studying. This allows Spain to have
more alumni from different countries in the world. This geographic diversification
presents challenges but also plenty of opportunities when it comes to fundraising, if you
think in the potential support from Alumni and companies from many countries where
there is a more developed culture of giving back and a greater economic capacity for
donations.
81
Lastly, Lucia indicated that, while they are not currently soliciting, they expect the international
community will be more open to giving. “We've never done anything with them [international
students] because, as I told you, this is very new, but we do know that whenever we ask them for
money, we think it will feel more natural.” Notably, the participants highlighted the promising
potential of engaging international students and alumni in fundraising efforts as an opportunity to
role-model successful fundraising strategies to inspire and cultivate a stronger fundraising
culture within their Spanish communities.
An Exploration of Individual and Institutional Motivation
Despite challenges, participants expressed growing optimism and pride in leading
Spanish higher education fundraising at their institutions and participating in this emerging field.
Multiple individuals shared their reasons for pursuing higher education fundraising as a career,
stating that they were highly motivated to grow professionally, positively impact students' lives,
and espoused pride in seeing how fundraising contributed to the institution’s long-term
objectives. When individuals were asked why their institution was engaged in fundraising, many
emphasized that fundraising was a long-term strategy for increased revenue, expanded research
opportunities, and enhanced ranking.
Individual Motivation to Grow Professionally
Participants shared various motivations and outcome expectations that enabled them to
remain in the field despite the obstacles higher education fundraising presents in Spain. Esteban
expressed a deep passion for learning more about Spanish philanthropy at higher education
institutions, sharing, “I am conducting a PhD myself about why people give to us.” He also
shared his desire to lead groundbreaking work for his institution. He disclosed, “This is my hope
that before retiring. [I will have] the opportunity to conduct a campaign one-tenth the size of
82
Yale.” Likewise, Nuria, a major gifts officer, was motivated to help her institution succeed,
seeing fundraising as a critical component of its success. She explained, “I cannot wait to see
how [my university] progresses in the next 50 years… I'm going to help because I want to…
contribute towards that excellence.” Elena described her initial reluctance and subsequent pride
in her role in developing the field, “I didn't originally seek to do fundraising; management asked
me to join this team as an expert in business development and the higher education sector, with
the idea of bringing best practices to the world of fundraising.” Similarly, Rosario, a fundraising
project manager, shared her surprise at finding herself in a fundraising role, “Sincerely, it
[fundraising] was something completely unexpected and [something] that I did not know of
previously. I was offered the opportunity, and I started in this field.” Despite the unexpected
career path, she conveyed her enthusiasm for fostering a culture of philanthropy in Spain, noting,
“What most motivates me to continue is the opportunity to collaborate in the culture of donation,
which is still emerging in Spain but increasingly known in the business world.”
Furthermore, participants repeatedly expressed a desire to make a difference in students'
lives. Celia shared, “I'm just very content to work in an environment where I can… make sure
that these people are getting the funding that they need so that they can be given these
opportunities that they never would have dreamed of.” Adriana identified her highest motivator,
as “helping people and having an impact.” She expounded her vision, “that we fundraise so
much that I don't know, like, two-thirds or the whole of the community can come for free.”
Lastly, Lorena connected the dots, from desiring to positively impact students' lives to shaping
future leaders and world events.
Central to my motivation is the impact achieved by providing scholarships to talented
students who lack the necessary resources to pursue a university education. These
83
scholarships not only transform the lives of the recipients, enabling them to reach their
full potential but also have a positive impact on the university and society at large. By
offering these opportunities, we help shape future leaders and professionals who will
significantly contribute to their communities and social and economic development.”
Participants’ motivations ranged from career advancement and a passion for advancing
philanthropy to contributing to student access and the growth of their institutions.
A Belief in the Potential of Fundraising for the Institution
Insight into the institution's motivation was gained through participants’ observations on
the institutional benefits that could be achieved through fundraising. One of the most illustrative
comments came from Esteban, who quoted his university president as saying, “I would like to be
acknowledged more for our scholarship program than for our prices.” To Esteban, the message
was clear, “She sees that if we want the university to grow and to have the freedom to conduct
research… to [have] the best scientists and the very best researchers, we need money to make the
university attractive… [and] accessible.” Similarly, Inés, a director of alumni relations, reflected
on the advantages offered by philanthropic funding to the institution’s research and ranking. She
explained that “having money for professors to study and publish what they want will also
increase our prestige—not only nationally but internationally.” Rosalia listed the many benefits
that could be achieved by increased philanthropic revenue: “diversification of income stream,”
“improvement of infrastructure,” “development of new projects,” “increased prestige and
competitiveness,” “improved innovation in research and education,” and lastly, “increased
autonomy and flexibility.” Finaly, Elena, a board and foundation director, underscored the
importance of fundraising for the long-term health of the institution, “Without a doubt,
84
fundraising holds a significant source of growth for organizations, with the added benefit of
having a long-term organic and exponential impact.”
Findings Research Question One Summary
The study’s first research question investigated participants’ perceived knowledge and
motivation for higher education fundraising in Spain. Spanish higher education fundraisers
possess a nuanced awareness of donor behavior and institutional fundraising needs and are proud
to be contributing to the development of best practices in Spain. Six key strategies emerged: (a)
the effective use of the fundraising cycle, (b) fostering a culture of belonging, (c) educating both
internal and external stakeholders, (d) building trust through transparency and accountability, (e)
developing a compelling case for support, and (f) leveraging the international community
Despite the challenges, participants conveyed a sense of optimism and professional pride,
viewing fundraising as a long-term strategy essential for enhancing revenue, expanding research
opportunities, and elevating institutional reputation. Personal motivations ranged from a
commitment to positively impacting students’ lives and advancing their institutions' broader
objectives to leading knowledge generation through research and trailblazing campaigns. Table 6
outlines the key knowledge and motivation factors through illustrative quotes.
85
Table 7 Knowledge & Motivation Factors
Knowledge & Motivation Factors
Factor Finding Participant Illustrative Quote
Knowledge Implement the
Fundraising Cycle
See Table 6
Create a Sense of
Belonging
Lucia “We want them [the alumni] to feel a sense of belonging and be grateful to the donors.
Educate Key
Stakeholders
Lorena “This year, I have also observed the importance of ensuring that the entire university
community, including staff and students, understands the pivotal role that donations
play for the University. Fostering this internal awareness ensures that everyone is
aligned with the fundraising mission and goals, which is critical for the success of our
campaign.”
Build Trust Inés “In Spain, people usually don't trust in those kinds of things. You need to really show
and be super, super transparent on your finances.”
Present a Strong
Case for Support
Gerardo “Even though we're an expensive institution and we're private, we need your support
in order to make us be able to compete with the Harvards and the Stanfords and the
Yales… help us with the scholarship to bring brilliant people here, help us with
research.”
Focus on the
International
Community
Elena “Spain is becoming a highly appealing destination for studying. This allows Spain to
have more alumni from different countries in the world. This geographic
diversification presents challenges but also plenty opportunities when it comes to
fundraising.”
Motivation Individual Celia “I'm just very content to work in an environment where I can help share that narrative
and make sure that these people are getting the funding that they need so that they can
be given these opportunities that they never would have dreamed of.”
Institutional Esteban “She sees that if we want the university to grow and to have the freedom to conduct
research… to [have] the best scientists and the very best researchers, we need money
to make the university attractive… [and] accessible.”
86
Findings Research Question Two
The second research question examined the perceived environmental factors influencing
higher education fundraising in Spain. Participants provided rich accounts of the institutional,
cultural, social, political, and economic contexts that support and hinder their success in
developing philanthropic support. Within each context, consistent themes emerged, including the
importance of institutional commitment to fundraising, Spain’s culture of privacy and negative
perception of fundraising, the pressures resulting from reduced government funding and the
effects of globalization, and the political challenges impacting public and private higher
education fundraising efforts. Despite variances in institutional size or fundraising maturity,
participants underscored the complex environmental factors influencing the establishment and
advancement of fundraising efforts in Spanish higher education.
Institutional Factors Shaping Higher Education Fundraising
Participants unanimously agreed that a successful fundraising strategy requires clear
institutional support, emphasizing that higher education leaders must actively spearhead
fundraising initiatives, allocate the necessary resources, and actively cultivate a culture of
philanthropy. When reflecting on the institutional factors that influenced their fundraising
efforts, participants frequently highlighted gaps in institutional support as their primary obstacle,
with one institution standing out as an exception. Three key barriers to developing effective
philanthropic programs in higher education emerged from their responses: (a) lack of leadership,
(b) lack of a professionalized team, and (c) lack of training or professional network.
Lack of Leadership
Thirteen of the nineteen participants expressed deep frustration at the perceived mixed
messages their leadership sends to internal and external stakeholders negatively impacting their
87
ability to lead fundraising. Beatriz described her most significant challenge with leadership as
“we weren’t all speaking the same language.” She described the expectations placed on her and
her team to achieve results without the necessary institutional support as the reason she left the
institution, noting, “If you don't have the person who's leading the organization understand
fundraising for the institution, it won’t cascade down. If you don't have a clear definition from
the top, it's difficult to get everybody rowing in the same direction.” Similarly, Adriana
expressed her desire for a fundamental shift in leadership perspective and investment, “We need
a fast-paced increase in the knowledge of the leadership because they still want the results
without all the processes that you have to put into place to get those results.” Eduardo, a
fundraising consultant, indicated a desire to move away from taking higher education clients due
to the institutions’ lack of vision or purpose for fundraising, “They want to have a fundraising
strategy, but what for? They want to get money, but who are the donors? The most important
problem I see now in universities is that they don’t have institutional [fundraising] projects.”
One of the challenges identified by participants was the difficulty in getting university
leadership to take a more active role in leading fundraising activities. For multiple participants,
the hesitation shown by leadership was accredited to the Spanish cultural reluctance to ask for
money. According to Inés, “It's a huge leap, even for a university like ours, which is super
international… We have deans who are not Spaniards, but, for the president, it's going to be
super difficult for him to… want to do it.” Laura, a top corporate relations officer, explained, “It
is so different here… it is not like in the United States where they devote 50% or 60% just to
attract funds. They don't do that. They don't ask. It is the people like me who ask.” Lastly, Elena
shared her perspective as a board member and advisor to the president.
88
The institution’s leadership must be able to visualize and communicate the strategic
importance of fundraising just as they would for any other growth strategy. Senior
management must also lose the fear of “asking for money” as their involvement sets an
example and facilitates the implementation of a top-down strategy.
Despite broad consensus on the importance of fundraising as a critical step toward financial
sustainability from their university leadership, a disconnect between their rhetoric and the
absence of a clear institutional vision or adequate resources left fundraisers feeling frustrated and
uncertain about their role and prospects for success.
One institution exemplified the transformative impact of strong institutional support in
developing an effective fundraising strategy and motivated team. Five participants expressed
gratitude and enthusiasm for the support and participation of their university president. Esteban
shared that not only does his president take an active role in the growing development team but
she is “our main fundraiser.” He said with great pride that when considering attending a
fundraising course in the United States, she requested to join him, saying, “If I want to command
[fundraising], I have to know.” He reflected on the overall impact that her leadership has on the
intuitional culture and the investment in the team, “The president taking a course on fundraising
and taking charge to be the first and the main fundraiser for the organization has had a strong
impact… we are inviting talented people to join the project from other parts of the university.”
Similarly, Rosario, a recent addition to his team, reflected on the impact of the university
president’s engagement in fundraising, claiming it produces a powerful trickle-down effect.
The Director’s Office plays a crucial role in promoting fundraising. The institution's
management is the pillar on which an effective fundraising strategy is built. Their
leadership, vision, and commitment are critical not only in mobilizing resources, but also
89
in inspiring the entire university community to participate in creating a lasting and
sustainable culture of philanthropy.
The active engagement of leadership not only mobilizes resources but inspires the entire
university community to embrace a sustainable culture of philanthropy. This effect is further
amplified through the involvement of other key figures within the institution. Esteban noted,
“[through her leadership, we are] making the deans the main fundraisers of the different
schools.” Lorena reinforced this perspective, emphasizing that “the Director’s Office plays a
fundamental role in achieving alignment among deans and boards and in establishing
[fundraising] objectives. This element is key.” This cohesive approach illustrated the power of
engaged leadership in building a unified and effective fundraising strategy.
Lack of Professionalized Team
Whether reflecting on their own institutions or observing others, all 19 participants
viewed the insufficient allocation of resources toward developing a professionalized team as a
clear indication of the institution's lack of commitment and understanding of the essential
components required for successful fundraising. Héctor expressed his frustration on the subject,
“I can understand that universities and business schools would like to somehow get some return
before investing. But in the end, I think the approach to fundraising is the same approach as in
the other [business development] areas.” He outlined his recommendations for higher education
decision-makers. “They have to do it professionally, prepare a budget, and be ready for an
investment.” Similarly, Jordi, head of fundraising for a public Spanish university, shared the
pushback he receives when seeking to grow his team. He argued, “it is necessary to invest and
dedicate more resources in order to obtain better results.” Adriana put into perspective the weight
of carrying an entire fundraising department on her own.
90
I do a bit of everything and nothing because I've worked from doing the case for
support… to preparing the interviews with the major gift prospects… to serving as both a
major gift officer… [and] working on all the materials to launch annual campaigns, and
many of the asks and the emailing of the materials that we put out, but also taking care of
the recognition of the donors that we have.
Lastly, Héctor underscored the need for greater investment in dedicated and skilled fundraising
professionals to sustain effective fundraising efforts, "The challenge is that there are no
fundraising teams at the university. And sometimes, who starts the fundraising is the corporate
development or the alumni. And it's an extra task for them.” The recurring theme of underresourced teams highlighted a critical gap in institutional strategy.
Limited Availability of Training or Professional Network
Participants shared specific struggles within the emerging Spanish higher education
fundraising field, highlighting the need for additional training and access to a professional
network. Lack of staff training was consistently cited as a significant hurdle to the team’s
success. Nuria, a major gifts officer, conveyed that her team needed additional training to meet
its goals. She said, “We need to get more resources around the development and fundraising
pieces and then train them according to what would help them be successful in their jobs.”
Lorena, the director of alumni fundraising, identified the team's lack of fundraising skills and
resources, saying, “[we need] investment in ongoing training for fundraising staff… we may lack
that technical know-how, but we have to help the team meet the fundraising objective.” She
added her hope that opportunities would grow for networking and knowledge sharing. “It would
be interesting to have that sort of knowledge sharing or opportunity to build on certain skill sets
as well.”
91
Similarly, participants shared their frustrations with the absence of applicable
professional development, peer-to-peer networking, or experienced leadership in the field.
Beatriz explained that while she is highly engaged in attending the workshops and professional
development offered through CASE, she has been unable “to tap into a local network.” Raquel
shared her experience at a recent fundraising conference. “I attended a [Spanish Fundraising
Association] conference three weeks ago, but we were the only university. Everyone was like
UNICEF or Greenpeace… that's the only training that I have had.” Similarly, Gerardo expressed
a similar sentiment about his participation in the Spanish Association of Foundations, “the truth
is, we have not been that active because our target population is very different. Those
associations are focused toward broadly reaching resources in Spain, while… we're trying to get
resources from all over the world.” Furthermore, he identified that his team was lacking not only
in technical know-how but also in experienced leadership to lead the way. “It doesn't mean that
100% of people working in the foundation need to have all those credentials, but we need more
of that information, and we need more people who have been in those fields for some years.”
Participants identified a desire for the professional development opportunities available
within more philanthropic cultures, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Rosalia
noted, “I think there is still not enough fundraising culture in Spain, and therefore, there is not a
wide range of options compared to the United States.” Likewise, Celia observed that her team
lacked experienced leadership and needed to look outside Spain for talent. “I would hire
someone with specific experience directing fundraising activities at a higher education university
in the United States… someone who has worked in higher education fundraising…, managed a
large team, and been successful.” Lastly, Héctor, in reflecting on the barriers he faces in
providing sufficient training to clients using his software, shared, “There is a space for a
92
professional fundraising program in Spain.” Despite access to CASE and other online training,
participants expressed an urgent need for more local training.
Cultural Factors Shaping Higher Education Fundraising
Spain’s culture of giving emerged as a dominant theme for all 19 interviews. When asked
to reflect on the cultural factors influencing higher education philanthropy, participants
unanimously shared their frustration with Spain's current climate of giving and what is missing
in the institutional and cultural landscape compared to other cultures like the United States. The
findings developed into three themes, presented mainly as barriers: (a) negative associations of
fundraisers related to the privacy of the Spanish culture, (b) the perceived differences in value
between religiously affiliated, private, and public higher education, and (c) a lack of a culture of
giving towards institutions of higher education.
Privacy and Perception of Fundraising
Privacy was frequently mentioned as a significant hurdle to developing effective
fundraising programs and donor recognition. Mateo described Spanish donors as private to the
point of secretive, "There is one saying in Spain that says, don't tell your right hand what your
left hand does. In terms of fundraising… they don't want to brag about it; they do not want to be
recognized for it.” In contrast, participants, such as Gerardo, highlighted the culture of giving in
the United States as well-established. He explained it is “something everybody's so accustomed
to, and that's why we want to learn from it… in the United States, nobody gets offended if people
ask them for contributions. They say yes or no, and that's it. People accept it.” Esteban shared
how this culture of privacy presents a challenge in recruiting talent for his fundraising team, “We
tend not to talk about money. Even when I told some people to come to work here, they were
afraid to ask for money. They’d say, Esteban, I can do whatever you want except ask for
93
money.” Lastly, Ines succinctly summarized her opinion: "In Spain, we always say that you
never talk about money.”
Spain’s culture of privacy was cited as contributing to the negative perception of
fundraisers. Laura explained that in Spain, asking for money is taboo. “Spanish people say, ‘Hey,
I’m not going to beg for money.’ And they say ‘beg’ not ‘ask.’ They are very against people who
ask for money.” Rosario shared that in Spain, “it is not well seen ‘to ask’ for money.” Lucia
underscored the cultural differences by comparing Spanish society to the United States,
“Fundraisers are not well-seen in Spain. It's not like in the United States. In Spain, no one asks
for donations. They do, but not in the open way of the U.S.” Lastly, Noelia, explained, “The
tendency in Spain is to think that asking is an aggressive act, where you jump into someone's life
[to] get what you want, and you cause trouble…. They don't get that fundraising is a win for both
parties." The deeply ingrained cultural norms of privacy, coupled with the negative perception of
fundraising, significantly hinder the development of a robust culture of giving toward higher
education institutions in Spain
Perceived Value Differences Between Religiously Affiliated, Public, and Private Universities
Another consistent theme was which higher education institutions were considered more
in need or worthy of philanthropic support, with religiously affiliated institutions benefiting from
their historic role in leading philanthropic activities in Spain (Rey-Garcia et al., 2013).
According to multiple interviews, the role of religion helped explain the success of private,
religiously affiliated universities. Héctor stated, “I would say that private organizations somehow
already know how to raise money because some of these organizations came from religious
organizations in their regions.” Adriana explained, “In Europe, fundraising has been done
forever… there are many religious institutions that have been doing that [fundraising] for
94
centuries.” In addition to religiously affiliated giving, prominent foundations and NGOs were
more likely to receive donations in Spain. Lucia said, “Here, if someone is asking for money or
donations, maybe it's because it's a religious thing or an NGO or something like that, but it’s not
for a university, particularly a private university.”
For many participants, private universities were seen as the least likely recipients of
philanthropic funding due to the high level of funding provided to public education and the
transactional nature of paying for private education. This perception was reflected in multiple
statements, such as Inés’ comment, “There's no need to give to universities because either they
are public—the best ones are public—or they are for wealthy people who pay, and that's it…
they obtained their degrees.” Mateo, building on this theme of private education being
transactional, described, “The mentality and the culture is that you don't owe [private]
institutions more than what you got from them [when] you had a transaction with them… most
of the people's reaction would be, hey, I paid my dues.” Lastly, Beatriz reported the perceived
value difference between Spanish institutions and higher education in the United States as a
significant barrier to philanthropy, “Education is more accessible [in Spain]. It's not like in the
United States where you have a lot of private universities charging very high tuition.” She
explained that, ultimately, her task is to educate on “what the purpose of fundraising is and why
it is important.”
The Shifting Culture of Giving to Higher Education Institutions
The lack of an established culture of giving to higher education played a central role in
the narrative of why fundraising has been challenging to implement in Spain. Participants
representing private institutions, such as Laura, felt strongly enough to suggest that the lack of a
giving culture should be a central component of the study.
95
In Spain, you have to take into account and the most important thing is the culture. In
Spain, we don't give back. We don't have that mindset. I think that is the most important
thing you have to focus on and give a lot of importance to, because without that you don't
have the rest. You have to build from the very beginning the culture that they give back.
Similarly, Rosario expressed her frustration and surprise, “I think the most remarkable thing is
the lack of awareness on this issue, which makes it difficult to start a conversation thinking about
a possible donation.” Laura took her reflection one step further, declaring that Spanish students
and alumni simply don’t have a “giving back” mindset. Likewise, Jordi, a fundraising leader at a
public institution, shared, “The main challenge is the lack of a culture of philanthropy in Spain.”
Lastly, Raquel, a director of fundraising communications, affirmed that even at religiously
affiliated institutions, “we don't have a culture of donations here in Spain or on our campus
because of the country's culture.”
While the lack of a culture of giving was presented consistently as the fundamental
obstacle facing institutions, optimism emerged as participants pointed out the exceptions and
recent shifts in cultural expectations. Héctor noted the growing interest of Spanish universities in
exploring fundraising as a revenue-generating opportunity. He said, “Now, it's the universities
who call us because they see their neighbors doing fundraising, and they don't want to be [left]
behind.” Similarly, Eduardo reflected on the growing number of business schools engaged in
fundraising as having reached a tipping point, “This is the big change, no? We are talking not
only about IESE, ESADE, and Instituto Empresa but also about DEUSTO. DEUSTO is also very
active.” Likewise, Beatriz emphasized the impact of successful Spanish higher education
fundraising models on the field. “Thanks to universities like Instituto Empresa and IESE, who
96
are doing a better job and raising awareness around the importance and impact of professional
fundraising… [the] space is opening up a lot more.”
Economic Factors Shaping Higher Education Fundraising
Economic factors play a significant role in shaping the landscape of higher education
fundraising in Spain, with some creating urgency within institutions to seek alternative revenue
streams while others present economic roadblocks. A common theme from all 19 interviews was
the need for higher education institutions to present a compelling “business case” for increasing
philanthropic revenue to internal and external stakeholders. Higher education fundraisers and
decision-makers pointed to three critical economic factors shaping their efforts: (a) reduced
government funding, (b) increased pressure to compete for students, talent, and prestige, and (c)
reduced tax incentives and conservative investment strategies.
Reduced Government Funding for Higher Education in Spain
Participants from public, private, and religiously affiliated higher education institutions
consistently cited the reduction in government funding as a primary motivator for seeking
alternative revenue streams. Lucia noted, “Universities are becoming increasingly expensive in
Spain, and right now, there is an economic crisis.” As a result, expanding philanthropic efforts
has become a strategic priority for institutions of all types. Noelia, a consultant for several
Spanish universities, explained:
The picture in Spain is as follows: Governments cannot continue giving the support they
were giving before to universities… This has provoked a need to diversify the search for
funding. More and more NGOs, business schools, hospitals, associations, and
foundations in Spain are seeking to be more economically independent and are now more
open to learning how to raise funds from companies and individuals.
97
Eduardo highlighted a similar perspective for religiously affiliated private universities, “They
[higher education institutions] began to say, we are losing, we don't have resources.
Professionals and researchers are leaving the country because they cannot be paid.” Héctor, the
CEO and founder of fundraising software, underscored the growing concern over funding
expressed by his clientele, “They are looking at fundraising as a tool to generate extra revenues
and income that will help the institution run wherever the economic cycle is.” According to
Héctor and many others, all universities in Spain “have to look for alternatives.”
Globalized Pressure to Compete for Talent and Prestige
Across all 19 interviews, respondents highlighted the growing pressure on Spanish higher
education institutions to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy. However,
participants shared their institution’s mixed response to leveraging philanthropy as a solution.
Noelia described many public institutions as holding out hope “of getting the funding from the
government.” She explained, “The situation is that they know they need to have private funding
in order to be more sustainable economically, but they are still attached to the government
support.” In contrast, Gerardo, a director at a private institution, saw fundraising as a way to
enhance the university’s competitiveness rather than merely achieve sustainability. He observed,
“In order to really be competitive at the very, very top, which, of course, I would think interests
our alumni, we must become as competitive as possible.” He illustrated his pitch to the alumni,
“Even though we're an expensive institution and we're private, we need your support to compete
with the Harvards and the Stanfords and the Yales. Help us with the scholarship to bring brilliant
people here and help us with research.” Lucia, representing a religiously affiliated private
institution, expressed a similar sentiment, framing fundraising as the only way for them to grow,
“The only way the university can expand is through donations. We need those funds for
98
sustainability and our ability to undertake new projects like buildings or scholarships. We can’t
do them if they don't come from donations.” Eduardo further underscored fundraising as a
catalyst for growth and excellence, noting, “Because in the end, if you want to play that game,
you must be competitive.” The consensus among participants was that fundraising would soon
become essential for Spanish universities to achieve excellence and sustainability.
Differences in Tax Incentives and Investment Strategies
A key challenge identified by participants is the relatively limited tax incentives for
charitable giving in Spain compared to other countries, such as the United States, where
favorable tax benefits significantly encourage private donations. In Spain, lower tax deductions
available to donors make philanthropy a less attractive financial strategy. Participants, such as
Esteban, pointed out, “The tax policy in Spain is very hard for donors. It's not like in the United
States or other countries in the Anglo-Saxon tradition.” Similarly, Gerardo highlighted the
differences in tax-related motivation between Spain and the United States, “There's a new law
that has increased slightly how much money you can discount on the taxes, but my
understanding is that the U.S. is so much more sophisticated than here… it helps, but it's not a
motivator.”
Additionally, universities in Spain tend to adopt more conservative investment strategies,
limiting endowment growth potential. Unlike institutions in other countries where endowments
are aggressively managed to maximize returns, Spanish universities often favor lower-risk
investments. This conservative approach, combined with fewer tax incentives, makes building
and maintaining large endowments less appealing to potential donors, further restricting the
financial flexibility of institutions. Mateo explained,
99
If you give Harvard 40 billion and they have a return on investment of about eight to
seven percent all combined, the money that they get every year for operation is huge. If
the same amount was probably managed by a Spanish… institution, probably that seven
or eight would be a three… So, the impact you can generate is totally different.
While only four participants discussed tax implications, all agreed that the limited incentives for
charitable giving in Spain and the conservative investment strategies by universities pose
significant challenges to attracting philanthropic support and growing endowments, especially
when contrasted with more favorable policies, such as in the United States.
Political Factors Shaping Higher Education Fundraising
Higher education philanthropy in Spain is hindered by entrenched political and
governance structures that limit the growth of fundraising efforts. Public universities face
systemic challenges rooted in governance models prioritizing democratic elections over marketoriented leadership. Contrastingly, even in private higher education institutions, where the
president is not beholden to the same democratic pressures, the percentage of time dedicated to
fundraising in Spain is vastly different than that of the United States. Lastly, the state's role in
providing education creates a cultural mindset that further complicates philanthropic efforts.
With education being more accessible and affordable in Spain compared to countries like the
United States, there is often a lack of public understanding regarding the necessity of private
contributions.
The Politics of University Leadership
In 2001, the Spanish government introduced the new Universities Act, Ley de
Universidades (LOU), which laid the foundation for the democratic election process for
university rectors or presidents. The LOU created a framework by which the members of the
100
university’s community had the most significant say in the election process rather than
appointment by external authorities. The challenge presented by this governance structure is that
it incentivizes university presidents to prioritize fostering internal consensus over more
competitive or entrepreneurial approaches to leadership and solving the funding crisis. As
Eduardo highlighted, there is broad agreement on the need for reform. “Everybody agrees on one
point… We need to change our governance because this model of governance does not work… if
we elect [the rector] based on democracy, they are not oriented to the market.” He explained,
“Being competitive means investing resources in people who expect results. The university's
governing bodies do not have this mindset. The board would probably need to go to the U.S.,
understand the model, and bring it back to the team.”
Despite differences in appointment, presidents and deans of private institutions follow a
similar model. Laura highlighted the differences between the roles of university presidents in
Spain and the expectations placed on institutional leadership in the United States. “It is so
different here. The president takes care of professors, human resources, and institutional things…
It is not like in the United States, where they devote 50% or 60% to attract [philanthropic] funds.
They don't do that.” Adriana succinctly expressed, “In the U.S., [fundraising] would take 50% or
more time from the deans of a school. And here it's something that's like a nice to have. It's not
something that's even on their agenda as of today.” Contrastingly, Lucia, responsible for
fundraising marketing at a private religiously affiliated institution, described the expectations of
her university’s presidents as an exception. She stated, “They [presidents] have been fundraising
from the start. They depend very much on philanthropy… Some are much more talented for it
than others, but I think this president is the one who has wanted to establish it.”
101
The Role of the State
The state's role in Spain's higher education system significantly influences the public's
perception of philanthropy and fundraising. Spain’s education system is predominantly public
and offers accessible, low-cost education compared to the United States. As one interviewee,
Beatriz, explained, “There’s a lack of understanding of why you would have to give to a
university that’s based in Spain when you can access education for a very reasonable tuition.”
This affordability contributes to a societal expectation that higher education is a public good,
funded and maintained by the state rather than through private donations (Escardibul et al.,
2017). Jordi pointed out that "the majority of society considers that it is the state that must solve
the problems." With this reliance on the state, the motivation to engage in university fundraising
or philanthropic support remains low, as education is seen as the responsibility of public
institutions. Gerardo affirmed that the Spanish public believes “education and health are public.”
Concurrently, participants shared evidence of a shift in culture away from traditional
expectations of the state as the primary higher education provider. Jordi argued that the most
promising trend within public higher education institutions was the growing awareness “of the
possibility of solving society's problems from individual action and not only from state action.”
Similarly, in her leadership role within a private higher education institution, Elena reflected on a
promising transition from the state and towards individual agency.
I believe there is a generational change, an awareness in society towards caring for the
environment, for individual well-being and for the progress of individuals and society in
general. The 2030 agenda undoubtedly marked a turning point in common consciousness.
I consider that this represents a fundamental ingredient for activating fundraising efforts
in Spain and worldwide, as it facilitates the creation of connections with potential donors.
102
Eduardo expressed similar optimism, “In the nineties, Spain became a stabilized economy with a
growing middle class… For the first time, this created a sensation that the middle classes were
supposed to give to these causes, …and [donating] become normal.” He added that while
donations to public institutions remain low, the growing success of private business schools,
such as IESE, ESADE, and Institution de Empresa, he fully expects the “mindset and the
governing board [of public universities to] change.”
Findings Research Question Two Summary
The study's second research question examined the perceived environmental factors
shaping higher education fundraising in Spain. Participants highlighted the complex institutional,
cultural, economic, and political contexts that support and constrain their efforts. Four primary
themes emerged: (a) the need for institutional support and expanded professional development,
(b) cultural barriers related to privacy, philanthropy, and perceived value by institutional type, (c)
reduced government funding and the pressures of globalization, and (d) the political and
governance challenges impacting both public and private institutions. Despite these challenges,
participants expressed cautious optimism about shifting mindsets, particularly the increasing
recognition of fundraising as a strategy to compete in the global education landscape. One
institution demonstrated the powerful impact of leadership engagement in establishing
sustainable fundraising practices in Spain. Table 8 outlines the key environmental findings of
this study, highlighting the institutional, cultural, economic, and political factors impacting
higher education fundraising in Spain with illustrative quotes.
103
Table 8 Environmental Factors
Environmental Factors
Factor Finding Participant Illustrative Quote
Institutional Lack of
Leadership
Adriana “We need fast-paced increase of the knowledge of the leadership, because they still want the
results without all the processes that you have to put into place to get those results.”
Lack of
Professionalized
Team
Héctor “The challenge is that there is no fundraising team at the university. And sometimes who
starts the fundraising is the corporate development or the alumni. And it's an extra task for
them.”
Lack of Training
or Professional
Network
Gerardo “It doesn't mean that 100 percent of people working in the foundation need to have all those
credentials, but we need more of that information, and we need more people who have been
in those fields for some years.”
Cultural Privacy &
Perception of
Fundraising
Lucia “Fundraisers are not well-seen in Spain. It's not like in the U.S. In Spain, no one asks for
donations. They do, but not in the really open way of the U.S.”
Religious,
Public, & Private
Institutions
Inés “There's no need to give to universities because either they are public—the best ones are
public—or they are for wealthy people who pay, and that's it. And they obtained their
degrees.”
Culture of
Giving
Laura “In Spain, we don't give back. We don't have that mindset… It is a cultural “no giving back”
mindset.”
Economic Reduced
Government
Funding
Noelia “Governments cannot continue giving the support they were given before to universities.
This has provoked a need to diversify the search for funding.”
Globalization Eduardo “Because in the end, if you want to play that game, you must be competitive.”
Tax Differences Esteban “Fundraising in Spain is very hard because of the tax policy of the government.”
Political The Politics of
University
Leadership
Eduardo “We need to change our governance because this model of governance does not work
because as far as the rector [president]. If we elect based on democracy, they are not
oriented to the market. They are oriented to inside the institutions.”
Role of the State Jordi “In Spain, the majority of society considers that it is the state that must solve the problems.”
104
Summary
Chapter Four presented the findings from 19 semi-structured qualitative interviews
answering the knowledge, motivation, and environmental factors impacting higher education
fundraising in Spain. Participants included higher education fundraisers, fundraising consultants,
fundraising service providers, and fundraising decision-makers. The participants represented
public, private (for-profit), and religiously affiliated (private non-profit) institutions. Participants
represented a wide range of decision-making power, from the most recently hired associate to
directors and board members at the institution's highest level. The study’s research questions
reflected the theoretical and conceptual framework based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory
(1986, 1988, 2001) and TRD model (1986), which predicted a reciprocal relationship between
the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors at play. Applying Braun and Clark’s six-step
method (2006) and Boyatzis’ (1998) thematic analysis procedure for qualitative data analysis,
this study’s findings revealed a complex interplay of knowledge, motivation, and environmental
factors shaping higher education fundraising in Spain. The findings outlined in Chapter Four are
further discussed in Chapter Five, forming the context for this study’s four recommendations to
develop successful higher education fundraising programs in Spain.
105
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Chapter Five synthesizes the findings of this study to offer actionable strategies for
strengthening fundraising efforts within Spanish higher education institutions. Guided by
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and this study’s conceptual framework, Chapter Five
discusses the knowledge, motivation, and environmental factors shaping Spanish higher
education fundraising practices. Furthermore, Chapter Five outlines two recommendations to
address these challenges and enhance fundraising capacity at Spanish universities. While
systemic political and economic factors remain outside the direct scope of this research, the
study identifies two critical areas for intervention: (a) fostering a culture of philanthropy and (b)
investing in the personnel, organizational capacity, and leadership necessary to support
sustainable philanthropic efforts. By enhancing fundraising knowledge through professional
development, fostering motivation by aligning stakeholders with a shared philanthropic vision,
and reshaping environmental factors to support a culture of giving, these evidence-based
strategies position Spanish universities to achieve long-term sustainability and competitiveness
in a globalized higher education landscape.
Discussion Research Question One
Research Question One examined the knowledge and motivation of fundraising
professionals within Spanish higher education institutions. Grounded in Bandura’s social
cognitive theory and the triadic reciprocal determinism model, Question One explored the
interplay of personal factors (knowledge, motivation, self-efficacy) and behavioral factors
(modeling, outcome expectations, and resilience) in shaping fundraising practices in Spain.
Spanish higher education fundraisers demonstrated a foundational understanding of fundraising
theory and practice, moving easily between describing fundraising strategies in the United States
106
and the United Kingdom and discussing how elements of the fundraising cycle—identification,
cultivation, solicitation, recognition, and stewardship (Drezner, 2011)—could be adapted to the
distinct philanthropic environment of Spain. Additionally, participants aligned on six emerging
best practices for advancing fundraising efforts in Spanish universities: fostering a sense of
belonging, educating stakeholders, building trust, crafting a compelling case for support, and
strategically engaging international students. Finally, the findings underscored the role of
Spanish higher education fundraisers’ self-efficacy, outcome expectations, performance
attributions, and resilience, offering a glimpse into Spanish higher education fundraisers’
capacity to navigate obstacles and maintain optimism within challenging environments.
Participants highlighted the critical role of fostering a sense of belonging and institutional
identity as the foundation for successful fundraising in Spanish higher education. Alumni
engagement and pride emerged as pivotal factors in motivating philanthropic support,
particularly in the Spanish cultural context, where historical levels of alumni connection have
been low. This perspective mirrored the findings of Heras-Pedrosa et al. (2017), who identified
insufficient alumni affinity as a significant barrier to donations and underscored the importance
of raising institutional awareness and prestige through enhanced stakeholder engagement and
strategic investments in alumni relations. Participants collectively underscored the need for
initiatives that strengthened alumni bonds, elevated institutional pride, and inspired a culture of
giving. As participants described, they aspired to cultivate a virtuous cycle of belonging, starting
with the student’s experience on campus, through developing lifelong affinity and pride as
alumni of the institution, and a sense of responsibility to give back and provide others with the
opportunities they had as students.
107
In addition to fostering belonging, participants highlighted the importance of educating
key stakeholders—alumni, faculty, board members, and students—about the value of
philanthropy. Pérez-Esparrells and Torre (2012) identified ineffective communication strategies
that failed to connect campaign objectives with tangible outcomes as a common problem
amongst Spanish universities seeking to establish fundraising programs. Corroborating their
findings, participants reflected on the importance of developing engagement opportunities and
communication strategies across the full student lifecycle and securing buy-in from internal
institutional stakeholders. Recommendations included integrating philanthropic education into
the student experience, highlighting the impact of donations on scholarships, research funding,
and institutional ranking, and demonstrating the importance of philanthropy as a strategy to build
long-term sustainability. These approaches further mirrored Heras-Pedrosa et al.'s (2017)
recommendations for raising awareness and engaging stakeholders to drive philanthropic
success. Participants viewed stakeholder education as an essential step in deepening connections
with the institution while addressing misconceptions about the role and purpose of fundraising.
Thirdly, participants emphasized building trust through accountability and financial
transparency. Trust-building initiatives included enhancing financial transparency, demonstrating
donor accountability, and developing systems, including databases and software, that ensured
accurate reporting for gift and tax benefits. These findings aligned with Mora and Nugent’s
(1998) assertion that donor trust is foundational to developing an effective long-term
philanthropic strategy, as well as the European Commission’s (2008) emphasis on investing in
internal capacities to ensure financial accountability. Participants also highlighted the challenges
in developing a compelling case for support that accurately reflected the institution's objectives
while being aspirational and motivating to donors. Key obstacles included a lack of alignment
108
among leadership on the purpose and necessity of philanthropic revenue, political reluctance to
prioritize one program over another, and differing perceptions of value across public, private,
and religiously affiliated institutions. Participants voiced frustration that fundraising
communications were often undermined by a lack of clear vision among university leadership.
Reflective of Villanueva and Sardinero’s (2022) assertion that a strong case for support hinges
on two foundational principles—(a) recognizing fundraising as a collective institutional
responsibility and (b) articulating institutional goals that are clear, measurable, and
aspirational—participants emphasized the necessity of establishing a unified and compelling
philanthropic vision.
Lastly, participants highlighted the increasing opportunities to engage international
students and alumni as a compelling strategy for advancing fundraising efforts and achieving
early wins. Their insights exhibited an understanding of global higher education philanthropic
trends, including regional differences (Bekkers, 2020), the advantages of philanthropic modeling
(Drezner, 2019), and the shifting perception of philanthropy in Europe (Schuyt, 2010).
Participants also demonstrated a willingness to try new strategies, often imitating campaigns or
initiatives like those found in regions like the United States and the United Kingdom, amongst
international students before attempting to apply these strategies within their Spanish
communities. While some participants framed this reliance on international donors as an
unfortunate response to local barriers, others viewed it as an opportunity for global partnerships
and expanded donor networks. Most participants emphasized the benefits of targeting students
and alumni from regions with well-established philanthropic traditions as a means to build
momentum for a more comprehensive fundraising strategy.
109
Participants’ confidence in the potential for higher education fundraising in Spain was
central to their motivation and behavior. Despite a wide range in fundraising capacity amongst
the representing institutions—ranging from universities with less than one dedicated fundraising
staff member and minimal philanthropic revenue to teams exceeding fifty members raising
millions of euros—participants consistently referenced the success of institutions in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and successes within Spain, particularly within the private
business schools, as inspiration and proof of concept. Bandura (1977, 1986) described this
phenomenon as self-efficacy or a person’s belief in their ability to organize and execute the
actions needed to achieve a goal based on vicarious experiences (modeling) and observational
learning. While many participants expressed reservations about the short-term results,
participants expressed confidence in eventual positive fundraising outcomes, such as career
advancement, increased institutional prestige, and making a meaningful difference in students’
lives.
Closely tied to their self-efficacy were the participants’ outcome expectations—beliefs
about the likely consequences of their efforts. Participants’ behavior reflected Bandura’s (1977)
assertion that positive expectations of results can drive sustained effort and resilience. Through
frequent references to “laying the groundwork,” “getting the buy-in,” and “investing now,” they
linked their current efforts to the expectation that they would achieve long-term personal and
institutional goals. Exemplifying Bandura and Locke’s (2003) concept of “resilience,”
participants demonstrated the ability to persist in their efforts despite significant obstacles,
remaining confident that if fundraising were done “right,” the results would follow. These
positive outcome expectations motivated participants to develop their skills and advance the field
despite limited professional development tailored to Spanish higher education institutions.
110
Spanish fundraisers echoed Breeze’s (2017) findings that fundraising training often relies on
informal pathways—such as mentorship, on-the-job experience, and modeling successful
fundraisers. Participants expressed a strong desire to learn from established leaders in the field.
One participant noted, “I follow lots of experts in the sector through LinkedIn… mostly
American professionals. As I think, regarding fundraising, they’re above the curve.” This
statement underscores the self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations held by Spanish
fundraisers as proactive agents in developing their skills and effectiveness. Lastly, participants
demonstrated positive outcome expectations and resilience by consistently framing challenges as
external factors, such as low institutional buy-in or resource limitations, rather than internal
deficits. This positive internal attribution and proactive mindset that credited their potential
success to skill development, perseverance, and effort played a significant role in sustaining their
commitment to fundraising; as Raquel described, "It is also our opportunity to be pioneers in this
activity.”
Discussion Research Question Two
Research Question Two invited participants to reflect on the environmental factors
supporting or hindering fundraising activities within Spanish higher education institutions.
Bandura (1986) conceptualized the environment as encompassing the social and physical
surroundings that shape individuals’ thoughts and actions, such as peer influences and broader
societal norms. While participants demonstrated high levels of knowledge and motivation, they
felt significantly constrained by their cultural, economic, and political barriers, with one notable
exception. Many responses were framed conditionally, with statements like “if the leadership”
were more active in soliciting support or “we should be fundraising” from alumni or students,
but we don’t have the resources or institutional commitment behind us. These statements
111
revealed a clear understanding of effective fundraising strategies, yet also uncovered that their
confidence in achieving short-term goals without significant institutional change was low.
One of the most pressing challenges highlighted by participants was the reluctance of
Spanish higher education institutions to make the necessary investments and fully embrace the
processes required to establish effective fundraising programs. Aligning with insights from the
European Commission’s Expert Group Report on Fundraising by Universities from
Philanthropic Sources (2008), the CASE-More UK Philanthropy Reports (2006–2023), and
Villanueva and Sardinero’s (2022) analysis of challenges in Spanish higher education
fundraising, participants underscored the vital role of institutional leadership in advancing
philanthropic efforts. They highlighted the necessity for leaders to actively champion fundraising
initiatives, allocate sufficient resources, and foster a culture of philanthropy within their
institutions. They reflected that the absence of decisive leadership and institutional commitment
significantly hampered their ability to execute core initiatives, such as strengthening alumni
relationships, educating stakeholders, and developing cohesive, institutionally backed cases for
support. Participants frequently observed a disconnect between institutional leaders' high
expectations for fundraising outcomes and their reluctance to invest in the necessary resources,
training, and personnel required to ensure success. However, one university stood as a notable
exception. Its leadership not only demonstrated a clear vision for advancing philanthropy but
also took actionable steps to implement a strategic approach to developing a comprehensive
culture of philanthropy. This included educating stakeholders, investing in professional
development, and building a skilled fundraising team. By aligning institutional priorities with
effective philanthropic practices, this institution exemplified a model for how leadership and
commitment can drive success in higher education fundraising.
112
The findings from Research Question Two reinforced existing research while
contributing to a deeper understanding of the socio-cultural factors shaping higher education
philanthropy in Spain. Participants described a range of challenges that extended beyond the
institution’s commitment and resources, underscoring systemic barriers rooted in Spain’s history,
politics, and economic landscape. Their observations aligned with prior studies on the cultural
factors hindering Spanish higher education fundraising, including the absence of a uniform
methodological and conceptual understanding of philanthropy (Felgueiras & Rey-Garcia, 2017;
Olabuenaga, 2005); a constrained philanthropic environment characterized by limited tax
incentives, stringent data privacy laws and low public trust (IU, 2022), and the lack of a
philanthropic tradition toward higher education (PHILEA & IU, 2022). Additional challenges
included the scarcity of skilled fundraising professionals and professional development
opportunities (Pérez-Esparrells & Torre, 2012) and limited alumni affinity to their universities
(Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017). Participants identified overcoming these entrenched cultural and
political barriers as the greatest challenge of their role. As one consultant noted, successful
fundraising was not merely about technique or strategy but required confronting deeply ingrained
societal beliefs and leading a shift in mindset akin to “therapy.”
Participants also highlighted sociocultural hurdles not extensively covered in existing
literature, including a negative societal perception of fundraisers, cultural norms around privacy,
and the perceived value disparities between religious, private, and public institutions. While the
philanthropic traditions related to the Catholic Church in Spain are well-researched (Rey-Garcia
et al., 2013), participants described the lasting cultural imprint benefiting fundraising efforts for
religiously affiliated higher education institutions as a unique phenomenon in the emerging
higher education fundraising field. Participants noted that these institutions benefit from long-
113
standing traditions of philanthropy, making their fundraising efforts more intuitively acceptable.
As one participant explained, “They have been fundraising for centuries.” However, they
cautioned that while these models provide insight, replicating them outside religious contexts is
unlikely.
However, a more complicated value dilemma emerged when comparing private and
public institutions. Many participants noted that fundraising efforts are hindered by the public’s
perception that state funding fully supports public universities, which are often viewed as being
of superior quality to private institutions. Consequently, there is resistance to the notion that
public institutions must raise additional funds. Moreover, public university governance
structures—focused on achieving consensus over encouraging entrepreneurial risk-taking—
hinder their ability to pivot toward innovative fundraising strategies. This structure, combined
with the generally held belief that the state will continue to fund education despite cutbacks,
diminishes motivation within public institutions to fundraise. As Eduardo shared, “The
percentage of funding to universities in Spain has decreased, but there has not been the
reaction… ‘we want to raise money’…. That concept does not exist because it has political
implications for the management of the university.” Private universities, meanwhile, face a
different set of challenges. The public often views them as lower in quality and assumes they are
adequately funded by student tuition, creating resistance to the idea that private institutions
should engage in fundraising. This perception raises fundamental questions about the role and
necessity of philanthropy in supporting private higher education in Spain. These deeply
ingrained attitudes, compounded by governance and structural inertia, illustrate the complexity
of advancing a philanthropic culture across the landscape of Spanish higher education.
114
Despite facing economic challenges, participants expressed both surprise and frustration
at continuing to face the question of “why” fundraising for higher education is necessary. This
frustration pointed to a broader challenge: the gap between awareness of economic pressures and
the strategic adoption of philanthropy as a solution. Echoing concerns identified in the literature,
participants identified multiple economic challenges facing Spanish higher education institutions,
including declining state funding (El Gibari et al., 2021; Escardibul et al., 2017; European
Commission, 2008, 2013a, 2013b; Johnstone, 2005; Mora & Nugent, 1998; Schuyt, 2010),
insufficient tax-incentives for private donations (Felgueiras & Rey-García, 2017), increased costs
associated with implementing EHEA requirement (Heras-Pedrosa et al., 2017), and the pressures
of globalization (Drezner, 2019). Additional compounding factors included concerns over
student mobility (de la Torre & Pérez-Esparrells, 2019) and the drive to improve institutional
rankings (Casani et al., 2014; de la Torre et al., 2018; Meyer, 2017; Shin & Kehm, 2013).
Although most participants were unaware of the repeated calls from policymakers and
researchers for European universities to adopt philanthropy as a funding strategy (European
Commission, 2008, 2011; Mora & Nugent, 1998; Proper, 2009; Pruvot & Estermann, 2012;
Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016), each participant independently underscored the need for Spanish
institutions to start or grow their fundraising program. Participants emphasized that university
leadership must reframe the narrative from viewing fundraising as a “nice-to-have” to
recognizing it as an essential component of institutional strategy, integral to ensuring long-term
growth and financial stability.
Despite the numerous environmental challenges identified in response to Research
Question Two, participants noted signs of a cultural shift within Spain—what some referred to as
a “generational change”—that gave them reason for optimism. They highlighted the changing
115
perception of the state’s role in addressing societal needs, such as education, paralleling the
broader societal changes identified in the literature (Rey-Garcia & Alvarez-Gonzalez, 2011; ReyGarcia & Puig-Raposo, 2013; Rey-Garcia, 2018). Furthermore, participants pointed to the
growth of the nonprofit sector and entrepreneurial philanthropy focused on international
assistance, regional development, the environment, policy, humanitarian aid, and research as
evidence of a growing emphasis on individual action to address societal challenges. As
examples, participants cited the success of fundraising at private business schools, such as IESE,
ESADE, and Institution de Empresa, as evidence of a positive shift in attitudes towards
philanthropy. Lastly, building on the findings of Villanueva and Sardinero (2022), they noted
that the COVID-19 pandemic had further accelerated this trend, prompting more universities to
explore fundraising as a strategy. They described an openness among universities to experiment
with philanthropy, although many were limited in scope, such as single faculty-led initiatives or
alumni-sponsored scholarships. Buoyed by the rising interest in fundraising, participants
expressed hope and anticipation that philanthropy could evolve into a more impactful and
sustainable strategy for supporting their universities' long-term goals.
Recommendations
This study outlines evidenced-based strategies for implementing and enhancing
fundraising efforts at Spanish universities. As discussed by participants, Spanish higher
education fundraisers know how to fundraise but lack critical environmental support and
infrastructure to lead efficient and effective fundraising efforts. Although recommendations to
address the broader political and economic conditions influencing higher education fundraising
in Spain lie outside the scope of this study, Spanish institutions can undertake meaningful
institutional changes to mitigate the factors hindering the success of fundraising. Drawing from
116
the study’s findings, the theoretical framework, and successful examples of fundraising within
Spanish higher education, the recommendations focus on two key environmental factors:
enhancing the institutional culture of philanthropy and investing in the necessary personnel,
organizational capacity, and leadership required to support the growth of higher education
philanthropy in Spain. Together, these recommendations offer a conservative yet effective
roadmap for enhancing fundraising capacity at Spanish universities.
Recommendation 1: Fostering a Philanthropic Environment
The first recommendation underscores the necessity of cultivating a culture of
philanthropy within the institution and among the broader institutional stakeholders, including
students, employees, alumni, and institutional leadership. Grounded in the findings and
Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal determinism model, this recommendation seeks to influence
the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors shaping Spanish higher education
philanthropy. This study presents three strategies as critical to normalizing giving and fostering a
collective commitment to fundraising as an institutional strategy, including (a) educating and
engaging students in philanthropic activities, (b) modeling commitment among faculty and staff,
and cultivating vision at the leadership level, (c) and fostering a lifelong sense of belonging
among alumni.
Strategy 1: Embed Philanthropic Education and Engagement into the Student Experience
Spanish higher education institutions should foster a culture of philanthropy by
embedding philanthropic education and engagement into the student experience. Informed by
participant insights and research on student and alumni engagement, this strategy focuses on
fostering students’ sense of institutional identity and pride, cultivating an experiential
understanding of philanthropy and its broader impact, and instilling a sense of gratitude toward
117
the donors who have contributed to their educational opportunities. Participants emphasized that
the student experience lays the foundation for alumni giving. As Lorena noted, “When students
feel integral to their university, they are more likely to contribute and support in the future.” This
observation aligns with related research emphasizing that positive student experiences can
significantly influence future alumni-giving behavior (CASE Insights, 2022). Social Identity
Theory, as proposed by Tajfel (1979), further suggests that strong group membership fosters
loyalty and future support, underscoring the importance of Spanish universities cultivating
belonging and pride during a student’s time at the institution.
Spanish universities can normalize philanthropy for students by integrating opportunities
to learn about and participate in philanthropic activities throughout their time on campus. Efforts
to integrate philanthropy into the student experience may begin with orientation and enrollment
activities, where universities can share the role of donors in funding campus improvements,
scholarships, and research during tours or through marketing materials that emphasize the impact
of philanthropy on institutional success. Additionally, scholarship recipients can be encouraged
to participate in donor recognition activities, such as writing thank-you letters, attending donor
events, or sharing testimonials, which can foster gratitude and awareness. Moreover, involving
students in leadership roles within annual fundraising activities, peer-led campaigns, or
philanthropy-focused events can provide experiential learning opportunities, helping students
understand philanthropy's critical role in institutional sustainability, advancing research, and
maintaining institutional competitiveness. Through these efforts, institutions can cultivate a sense
of gratitude, identity, and pride among students, forming the foundation for long-term alumni
engagement and philanthropic commitment. As one participant summarized, “We have to set the
118
basis now… our current students have to see what the foundation does… and 30 years down the
road, they will remember us.”
Strategy 2: Foster Internal Alignment and Model Philanthropic Commitment
The second strategy for fostering a philanthropic environment focuses on gaining internal
alignment and support for fundraising amongst the faculty, staff, and institutional leadership.
Participants frequently cited the lack of understanding within the internal team as a significant
barrier to normalizing philanthropy, crafting compelling cases for support, and identifying and
cultivating major gifts. As Beatriz observed, for fundraising to succeed within Spanish higher
education's complex economic, political, and cultural environment, it must be “embedded into
everything that the organization is doing.” Noting the key role of faculty and staff in shaping the
student experience, this strategy highlights the importance of gaining the buy-in and support of
the internal team to ensure a continuum of messaging and reinforced philanthropic education
across campus. Faculty and staff advocacy and support is essential as they represent the “front
line” of student and alumni interaction. As one participant described, taking the time to educate
the faculty and staff on the value and impact of philanthropy can be transformational, “This
involves educating students, administrative staff, and faculty about the positive impact of
donations and how they contribute to the advancement of the institution.” Strategies for
achieving internal alignment include integrating philanthropic education into the onboarding and
hiring process, ensuring consistent messaging across departments, providing targeted fundraising
training for deans and faculty, fostering engagement through internal fundraising campaigns,
ensuring faculty and staff donor recognition, and connecting philanthropic achievements to the
expansion of programs and the creation of new opportunities.
119
Leadership involvement is essential to establishing philanthropy as a cultural norm within
higher education institutions. Spanish university leaders must actively champion philanthropic
initiatives by visibly supporting fundraising campaigns, articulating the institution’s vision, and
modeling donor cultivation practices. Research indicates that institutional leaders who prioritize
and engage in advancement activities create an environment where fundraising is considered
integral to institutional strategy (CASE-More UK Philanthropy Report, 2023; Bakhit, 2014).
While transitioning to the chief fundraiser may be a long-term goal for Spanish university
presidents, a shift of mindset that integrates philanthropic vision into their leadership approach
can set a powerful example, establish clear expectations, and create a pathway for development
professionals to build on. Developing the philanthropic “case” for the institution and ensuring
leadership alignment around messaging and impact is key. Additional recommendations for
presidents and senior leaders include participating in student and alumni-focused activities, such
as hosting donor recognition events or engaging directly with students during campus tours,
leveraging the board of trustees and advisory boards to identify and cultivate major donors, and
championing professional development opportunities for faculty and staff to learn about
philanthropy, thereby fostering a collective commitment to advancement.
Strategy 3: Cultivate Alumni Commitment and Sense of Belonging
Alumni engagement emerged as a central strategy for cultivating a culture of
philanthropy. Consistent with insights from prior studies, alumni giving is often motivated by a
combination of positive student experiences, a sense of pride in the institution’s mission, and the
perceived value of contributing to societal good (Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Monks, 2004). To
cultivate long-term philanthropic relationships, Spanish universities should extend engagement
efforts beyond graduation through targeted affinity programs, career services, and volunteer
120
opportunities that maintain alumni connections. As one participant reflected on the increasing
emphasis on alumni programming at her institution over the past 5 years, “You need to get to
know them, learn their interests, and so on… We are fostering clubs and associations and
communities, getting people together, even though we physically cannot be there… and it’s
working.”
While Spanish private business schools have led the way in developing alumni
programming, participants across all three types of higher education institutions emphasized the
importance of cultivating alumni engagement for long-term philanthropic relationships.
Incorporating philanthropic education into alumni programming is key. This can be achieved in
various ways through leadership-driven messaging, volunteer opportunities, peer-to-peer
outreach, affinity groups, and showcasing donor impact through compelling profiles and success
stories. Recognition initiatives, events, and curated experiences highlighting the transformative
power of giving back can also significantly inspire alumni participation. Additionally,
participants highlighted the increased potential for engagement among international students,
particularly from countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, where higher
education philanthropy is deeply ingrained. These international alumni present an opportunity to
secure early wins in fundraising efforts while serving as influential role models to shape
expectations within the broader alumni community. By providing meaningful involvement and
building a strong sense of belonging among alumni, Spanish universities can cultivate an
engaged alumni network that is increasingly motivated to support the institution
philanthropically.
121
Recommendation 2: Strengthening Institutional Fundraising Capacity
The second recommendation underscores the need for strategic investments in
fundraising infrastructure to position philanthropy as a sustainable and impactful revenue stream
for Spanish universities. It provides a research-based framework for allocating resources toward
critical personnel and leadership roles, focusing on maximizing philanthropic returns. While
valuable on its own, each strategy can be integrated for a more comprehensive approach to
institutional advancement. These strategies and the related cost analyses included in Appendix B
consider the challenges of Spain’s limited philanthropic traditions, underdeveloped professional
networks, restricted tax incentives, stringent data privacy laws, and emerging alumni programs.
The proposed investment strategies address key social cognitive factors identified by this study:
(a) investing in a core advancement team to close knowledge gaps and enhance self-efficacy, (b)
expanding alumni engagement and advancement efforts to cultivate influential stakeholders and
shape outcome expectations, and (c) recruiting senior fundraising leadership to address
institutional factors including lack of leadership and limited professional development. While
addressing all institutional barriers is beyond the scope of this study, this recommendation
emphasizes the need for a well-resourced, professionalized approach to fundraising that ensures
alignment with institutional goals and positions philanthropy as a long-term strategy for
sustainability and growth.
Strategy 1: Investing in a Core Advancement Team
Spanish higher education institutions must invest in a core advancement team to
strategically position philanthropy as a sustainable, long-term revenue source. This investment
reduces reliance on government funding, enhances the competitiveness of private institutions,
and creates opportunities to expand programs and increase their impact. Currently, only 19% of
122
Spanish higher education institutions engage in formalized fundraising efforts, and most lack the
dedicated personnel to succeed in such initiatives (Villanueva & Sardinero, 2023). Among the
institutions represented by this study, the size of the team varied. The largest team included 50
full-time staff members, while others had only one full-time employee dedicated to fundraising
efforts. It is recommended that Spanish universities invest in a minimum core five-person
advancement team composed of two major gift officers, one advancement services professional,
one alumni relations officer, and one marketing and communications professional to develop
campaigns and fundraising materials. This team structure mirrors successful advancement
models in the United States and the United Kingdom and provides the foundational capacity to
initiate and lead donor cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship.
Given the emerging philanthropic culture in Spain, institutional leadership must
recognize that fundraising outcomes may take up to 5 years to materialize. The average time
required for major donor prospects to move through the fundraising cycle is 18 months to 3 years
in the United States CASE (2024) and 2 to 4 years to identify, cultivate, and solicit a large
prospect pool (Pagnoni & Solomon, 2013; Pagnoni, 2018). The existing higher education
fundraising programs in Spain demonstrate variety in structure and reporting, with some
fundraising personnel working within the alumni department and others housed in an adjacent
foundation. In the United States, it is typical for the advancement team to report directly to the
president and serve on the university’s leadership team (Weinstein & Barden, 2017). While the
structure can be flexible, the core advancement team must have the authority and access to lead
institution-wide initiatives, integrating with the university’s data management team, alumni and
corporate relations, communications, marketing, legal, and finance departments.
123
The majority of nascent Spanish higher education fundraising programs risk
underinvestment. Investment returns may be limited and take longer than 5 years without proper
support and institutional access. Decision-makers must consider the total costs required to
implement the initial advancement team structure and resist the impulse to expect results without
first providing the necessary resources (see Appendix B). It is also critical that decision-makers
invest confidently and share the rationale and outcomes expected from the core advancement
team, endorsing fundraising as an investment strategy rather than an experiment. It is
recommended that decision-makers look to the successful examples of higher education
fundraising occurring in Spain and pull from longitudinal data on higher education advancement
return on investment based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe to inform
stakeholder expectations. Table 9 shows the average fundraising costs and revenue per type of
institution in the United States as a percentage return on advancement investment.
Table 9 Summary of Fundraising Investment in the United States: Average per Institution
Summary of Fundraising Investment in the United States: Average per Institution
Institution Type # of
Institut
ions
Fundraising
Expenditures
Dollars
Raised
Fundraising
Investment /
Dollar
Raised
% Return on
Advancement
Investment
Research/ Doctoral/
Multiple Campuses
47 $11,418,225 $117,088,937 $0.10 925.5%
Master’s 25 $2,174,319 $10,526,948 $0.21 384.1%
Baccalaureate 16 $1,719,780 $12,930,095 $0.13 651.8%
Specialized 5 $6,288,768 $165,366,756 $0.04 2,529.6%
Associate’s 8 $634,612 $3,937,953 $0.16 520.5%
All 101 $4,447,140 $59,383,948 $0.12 1,002.3%
124
Note: Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education, CASE Voluntary
Support of Education (VSE) Survey 2019. https://www.case.org/resources/voluntary-supporteducation-key-findings-2019-20
Table 10 further illustrates that while the scope and scale of higher education fundraising
is less in Europe than the United States, the return on investment (ROI) remains substantial, with
the lowest-performing regions achieving over 200%. Table 10 details fundraising expenditures
per dollar raised, combining alumni engagement and fundraising costs. Excluding alumni-related
expenses, the average ROI in Europe would exceed the United States. Even with conservative
adjustments to account for the Spanish philanthropic sector, the projected returns present
fundraising as an exceptional opportunity for Spanish universities to generate an alternative
revenue stream.
Table 10 Higher Education Fundraising Investment in Europe: Average per Region
Higher Education Fundraising Investment in Europe: Average per Region
Region1 # Fundraising
Expenditure
Alumni
Relations
Costs
Total Costs Dollars
Raised
Fundraising
Investment /
Dollar
Raised
% Return on
Advancemen
t Investment
[Excl.]
Alumni
Costs
Alpine 9 €770,111 €197,890 €968,001 €16,724,244 €0.06 1,627.7% 2,171%
Lowlands 10 €456,820 €464,085 €920,905 €4,326,345 €0.21 369.7% 947%
Nordic 13 €294,259 €140,415 €434,671 €4,471,544 €0.09 928.7% 1,519%
Other 3 €1,090,498 €945,550 €2,036,048 €6.733.838 €0.30 230.7% 617%
All 35 €554,265 €379,583 €933,848 €7,710,509 €0.12 725.7% 1,391%
1 Alpine (9): France, Germany and Switzerland, Lowlands (10): Belgium and Netherlands,
Nordic (13): Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, Other (3): Hungary, Ireland and Italy
125
Note: Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education, CASE Europe
Fundraising Survey 2017 interactive Infographic. https://www.case.org/case-europe-fundraisingsurvey-2017-interactive-infographic
Strategy 2: Investing in Alumni Advancement Personnel
The second investment strategy presents the strategic benefit of adding advancementspecific alumni professionals to complement an existing core advancement team. This strategy
assumes Spanish universities have a communications department that utilizes multiple platforms
to engage, inform, and connect alumni, a database with contactable alumni information, and an
alumni department that provides networking, career, and engagement opportunities postgraduation. While differentiating which alumni activities are most profitable to fundraising can
be challenging (CASE, 2022), trained alumni-advancement professionals can utilize alumni
career data for prospect research, integrate advancement materials into alumni communications,
and leverage pre-existing engagement opportunities to build alumni advancement at scale.
When investing in alumni advancement, decision-makers must understand the time and
personnel required to achieve meaningful returns. First, alumni advancement is a long-term
investment strategy in the institution's financial sustainability and must be adjusted based on the
size and age of the alumni community. Since alumni advancement professionals seek to move
entire alumni communities, numbering between the thousands and tens of thousands, through the
fundraising cycle, the number of personnel should match the number of contactable alumni
within the organization. Table 11 shows the average number of alumni relations staff in FTEs in
the United States and Europe. Furthermore, alumni are more likely to give the further they move
away from their graduation date (CASE, 2022). Therefore, investing in collecting and
126
maintaining accurate alumni data that can track details such as graduation dates, career
progression, and wealth bands is vital for any advancement department. Spanish universities face
challenges in data collection due to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR), which requires strict adherence to privacy standards and allows alumni to remove their
data at any time. This underscores the importance of fostering lasting alumni relationships. Table
12 demonstrates the value of holding alumni data over many years by showing the increase in the
likelihood of alumni giving as they age.
Table 11 Engaged Alumni per Alumni Relations Staff by Region: United States and Europe
Median Engaged Alumni per Alumni Relations Staff by Region: United States and Europe
Region Alumni Relations Staff Legally Contactable Alumni
United States 5.5 12,627
Europe 6.0 16,489
Note: Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education, Benchmarking
Investments in Advancement, 2022. https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-alumniengagement/2022-key-findings
Table 12 Average Engaged Alumni by Cohort in a Study of 120 United States Universities
Average Number of Engaged Alumni by Cohort in a Study of 120 United States Universities
Cohort Number of Donors
0-5 Years Out 771
6-10 Years out 475
11-20 Years Out 1,038
21-30 Years Out 1,143
31-40 Years Out 1,225
41-50 Years Out 1,283
51+ 1,238
127
Note Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education, Benchmarking
Investments in Advancement 2022. https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-alumniengagement/2022-key-findings
Spanish high education institutions with strong alumni engagement programs stand to
gain significantly from implementing alumni-specific advancement activities, which remain an
untapped opportunity for many. These advancement activities include leading an annual
campaign to engage, educate, and solicit alumni, researching and identifying major donor
prospects, coordinating advancement-oriented events, managing volunteers, and conducting
face-to-face meetings to cultivate donor prospects. The net fundraiser value (Lively &
Vinukonda, 2021) offers a formula to calculate the philanthropic impact per additional alumni
advancement professional by determining the average amount raised, subtracting total
compensation, and dividing by total compensation. Table 13 calculates the net fundraiser value
for a typical Spanish university by assuming a highly conservative percentage of total funds
raised from alumni donors. The total dollars raised, and average alumni FTE count were based
on CASE Insights: CASE-Ross Support of Education (United Kingdom & Ireland) 2021-22
Report. Adjusted for 2023, the net fundraiser value for an alumni-advancement professional is
1.5, indicating that each additional alumni fundraiser will raise at least one and a half times their
total annual cost to the extent of contactable alumni. See Appendix B for a further analysis of
how the net fundraiser value increases over five years, reflecting the fundraiser's experience and
the maturing donor pool. This strategy presents an exciting opportunity for established Spanish
higher education alumni programs to generate philanthropic revenue
128
Table 13 Net Fundraiser Value for Advancement Alumni Professional at Spanish Universities
Net Fundraiser Value for Advancement Alumni Professional at Spanish Universities
Total Raised
in 2017
Adjusted to
2023 Euros
5%
Estimated
from
Alumni
Average Per
Alumni
Fundraiser
(Count 3.7)
Average Total
Compensation
(Including
benefits)
Net
Fundraising
Value
€7,710,509 €9,917,017 €495,850 €134,013 €52,001 1.5
Note: Data based on the net fundraiser value calculation presented by Lively and Vinukonda
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/calculating-the-cost-of-losing-high-performing-fundraisers
and Council for Advancement of Support of Education, CASE Insights: CASE-Ross Support of
Education (United Kingdom & Ireland) 2021-22 Report.
https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-case-ross-support-education-unitedkingdom-and-ireland/findings-results-and-reports
Strategy 3: Investing in Senior Leadership to Lead Fundraising Program
University leadership has historically been central to higher education fundraising,
particularly in the United States. Research as early as the mid-1990s underscored the university
president’s responsibility to articulate a compelling philanthropic vision, develop strategic
fundraising plans, and manage relationships with both internal and external stakeholders (Lasher
& Cook, 1996; Slinker, 1988). Recent studies reinforce the increasing importance of these
responsibilities. According to Gagliardi et al. (2017), 55% of U.S. university presidents identify
fundraising as the most time-intensive aspect of their role, yet only 4% report having prior
advancement experience. This gap in expertise has contributed to a reliance on chief
advancement officers to provide strategic guidance and operational support, highlighting the
129
necessity of strong collaboration between institutional leaders and advancement professionals
(Selingo & Chheng, 2017).
The role of the chief advancement officer (CAO) has evolved in tandem with that of the
president. Since the seminal Greenbrier Report (1958), which called for the top university
fundraiser to be given equal status to other chief administrators, most institutions have embraced
an institutional advancement model that works in partnership with the university president
(Drezner & Huels, 2014; Skinner, 2019; The American College Public Relations Association,
1958; Thelin & Trolllinger, 2014; Worth, 2002). The institutional advancement model is led by
a CAO who manages all advancement operations, provides executive leadership to the board of
trustees, often serves as a member of the president’s cabinet, manages the endowment
investment, and is considered second only to the president in leading advancement relations
(Cook, 1994; Schiller, 2021).
In Europe, the institutional advancement model is emerging but faces challenges due to
insufficient institutional support and a lack of alignment on the role of university presidents in
advancement activities. As Noelia observed, European university presidents often adopt the
mindset of a CEO managing day-to-day operations rather than a founder seeking investment.
This operational approach limits their engagement in fundraising efforts and makes it difficult
for fundraising leadership to gain the partnership needed to foster a cultural shift toward
philanthropy. The CASE-More UK Philanthropic Report (2023) underscores the need for more
decisive leadership and institutional commitment to fundraising. According to the report, 94% of
fundraisers in the United Kingdom called for greater involvement from university presidents,
while only 50% of institutions viewed fundraising as a priority. Respondents expressed
frustration over the lack of cross-departmental collaboration and the absence of authority to drive
130
meaningful change. Despite these challenges, the CASE-More UK Philanthropic Report
forecasted a shift towards greater integration, predicting increased fundraising responsibilities for
European universities and senior academics and noted the need for senior advancement
professionals capable of leading cross-sectoral collaborations and domestic and international
policy.
In Europe, higher education advancement leadership is critical. In contrast to the United
States, where certifications, training, and institutional support for fundraising are more widely
accessible, experienced European higher education fundraisers are rare. Effective European
fundraisers must be able to manage large campaigns, negotiate complex relationships between
the institution and external stakeholders, and simultaneously educate and influence the
institution’s leadership (Breeze, 2017; Daly, 2013; Herrero & Kraemer, 2020). However,
experienced fundraisers are not easily identifiable, as many are self-taught professionals who
have relied on mentorship and on-the-job training from senior colleagues (Breeze, 2017).
However, a senior fundraiser in Europe, capable of leading and mentoring novice fundraisers,
plays a vital role in developing and succeeding a new fundraising department.
This study underscores the critical role of investing in an experienced senior fundraiser to
bolster the effectiveness and success of the core advancement team. Senior fundraisers are highly
prized professionals who can earn salaries in the United States from $87,775 to $175,000, with
outliers earning more than $500,000 (AFP, 2023; Hall et al., 2014). Spanish higher education
decision-makers should weigh the increased cost of a senior advancement professional with the
value they could bring to the Spanish higher education context. An experienced fundraiser would
be better equipped to (a) partner with the president in developing a comprehensive philanthropic
strategy, (b) collaborate and influence the university’s executive team and academic leadership,
131
(c) coach key stakeholders, such as the president and deans, through high-stakes major donor
solicitations, and (d) provide the mentorship and training required to enhance the core
advancement team’s performance outcomes. The ability to offer mentorship and training to
internal stakeholders is particularly notable, as this study’s findings demonstrated a critical lack
of professional development or tailored instruction to guide Spain’s emerging higher education
fundraising profession.
Given this study's unique sociocultural and institutional challenges, hiring a senior
fundraiser represents a pivotal step in overcoming barriers and fostering momentum for
philanthropic growth. An experienced leader can guide the core advancement team through
Spanish higher education's complex cultural and institutional dynamics, positioning philanthropy
as an integral component of institutional sustainability and growth. By leveraging their expertise
and influence, senior fundraisers can provide the strategic vision and operational leadership
necessary to maximize the likelihood of establishing a successful and sustainable fundraising
program. Table 14 presents the average salary of a European higher education advancement
professional categorized by years of experience. For higher education decision-makers,
estimating the salary range of a senior fundraiser at a Spanish university involves two key
factors. First, many respondents to the survey are based in the United Kingdom and Northern
Europe, where fundraising is more prevalent, suggesting that a senior salary may be lower in
Spain. However, Spanish universities may need to consider recruiting talent outside Spain,
potentially driving up salary expectations. Appendix B provides a more comprehensive net
present value calculation, offering further context for decision-makers.
Table 14 CASE Europe Salary Report
CASE Europe Salary Report: Median and Mean Salary (w/o benefits) Years of Experience
132
Experience Level Median (2013) Mean (2013) Mean Salary Adjusted to 2023
Less than 3 years €36,056 €39,698 €50,575
3 – 5 years €37,219 €40,963 €52,186
6 – 10 years €48,851 €52,482 €66,862
11 – 15 years €58,737 €63,944 €81,464
16 – 20 years €81,302 €93,115 €118,628
More than 20 years €90,723 €89,047 €113,532
Note: Salaries were initially reported in pounds, converted to euros, and adjusted for inflation.
Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education, Results of the 2013 CASE
Europe Salary Survey.
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/2013_CASE_Europe_salary_report_Final.pdf
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was shaped by circumstantial limitations as well as intentionally imposed
delimitations. Limitations encompass factors outside the researcher’s control, which may inhibit
the ability to generalize findings or fully apply conclusions to broader contexts (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017). Delimitations, on the other hand, are the restrictions intentionally established by
the researcher to focus the study, enhancing its relevance and transferability to similar
populations (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Identifying a study’s constraints and parameters is
crucial as it considers the risks and implications of the study’s methodology and theoretical
framework.
The first limitation relates to the study’s choice of qualitative methodology. By electing
to conduct semi-structured interviews, the research is exposed to risks such as interviewer bias,
lack of participant candor, potential misinterpretation of interview questions and responses, and
error in the researcher’s interviewing, coding, and analysis. Secondly, the study’s use of
133
purposive and snowball sampling presented the risk of recruiting an insufficient sample for
generalization. Despite these limitations, qualitative interviews offer significant advantages.
Semi-structured interviews allow for a more natural exploration of the participant’s knowledge
and experience, enable real-time clarification and the chance to define concepts directly with the
participant, and permit the researcher to capture non-verbal communication such as body
language, facial expression, and tone.
The study’s delimitations, or boundaries, are reflected in the conceptual framework as
well as the sample, choice of population, and scope, including the time, geographic location, and
focus of the study. The conceptual framework chosen for this study is deliberately confined to
Bandara’s social cognitive theory (1977, 1986, 1997, 2001), which narrows the focus of this
study to the exploration of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors and their influence on
higher education fundraising. The sample, or target population, was limited to 15-20 fundraisers
and related stakeholders working for higher education institutions in Spain. The study’s scope
was limited to the lived experiences of current or recently employed professionals working with
Spanish universities, with a focus on current and future trends within higher education
fundraising. Furthermore, given the relatively high English proficiency levels (EPI, 2023), the
qualitative interviews were conducted in English, which may have limited the number of
respondents but offered the advantage of not requiring a translator. These delimitations provide
transparency and context to the reader and a focused roadmap for the collection and analysis of
data.
Recommendations for Future Research
Higher education fundraising in Europe presents significant opportunities for further
research. According to Bandura’s (1976, 1977, 1988) social cognitive theory, modeling is how
134
individuals or organizations learn new behaviors through observation, especially in the early
stages of skill acquisition. This concept resonates with the research and findings of this study,
which shows that European universities are looking to the United States for the blueprint for
developing their fundraising capabilities. However, modeling depends on the observation process
and the individual or organization’s capacity to adapt and apply the new behaviors within their
own environmental and institutional context (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Additional research is
needed to understand the impact, potential, and risks of European higher education institutions
seeking to implement the “American Fundraising Model.” Conversely, new avenues of research
are opening as European institutions learn, apply, and create new knowledge that is contextually
appropriate and effective.
Beyond the broad global comparisons (Bekkers, 2016, 2020; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007,
2011; De Wit & Bekkers, 2017; Indiana University, 2022; Wiepking, 2021; Wiepking & Handy,
2015;), this study suggests several critical areas for further research: longitudinal studies tracking
the development of fundraising initiatives in Europe, regional comparisons of higher education
fundraising practices (e.g., Spain, Italy, and Portugal verses Northern Europe), an exploration of
governance structures and their impact on fundraising implementation, research on donor
motivations within specific European contexts, the development of region-specific training or
certification programs for advancement professionals and development of a professional
network, and lastly an investigation into the role of private-public partnership in complementing
traditional philanthropic activities. These areas of study are essential for developing a
comprehensive understanding of how European higher education institutions can adopt and
contextualize fundraising best practices, contributing to a more diverse and sustainable higher
education landscape.
135
Conclusion
Spanish higher education institutions are increasingly exploring innovative strategies to
diversify their income streams, with philanthropy as an exciting emerging solution. Philanthropic
revenue offers a critical complement to tuition and government subsidies, offering universities a
means to enhance their financial stability and expand their impact. The low adoption of higher
education fundraising in Spain presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Spanish higher
education leaders. The challenge lies in overcoming the socio-cultural and environmental
barriers hindering philanthropy in Spain; however, the potential is profound. Unlike many higher
education institutions in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, Spanish
institutions do not depend on philanthropy as a significant source of revenue. As a result, every
additional euro raised through fundraising can significantly impact Spanish universities’
financial health and capacity more than those in more established philanthropic-dependent
institutions. This field study offers the first exploration of the personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors influencing the development of higher education fundraising programs in
public, private non-profit, and private for-profit Spanish universities. By examining how these
institutions navigate the emerging field of higher education philanthropy, the findings break new
ground in understanding how European–and specifically Spanish–institutions can cultivate
philanthropy as a sustainable revenue stream.
The philanthropic model and fundraising practices developed in the United States and the
United Kingdom afford their higher education institutions a distinct advantage in the race for
talent, research funding, and rankings. Grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory of
learning, this study acknowledges the influence of the “American Fundraising Model” shaping
the knowledge, behavior, and expectations of higher education fundraisers in Europe. However,
136
this study highlights Spanish fundraisers' unique approach to adapting and contextualizing the
fundraising cycle to their historical, political, economic, and cultural environment. Two
overarching insights emerged from the findings. First, despite varied levels of fundraising
development at their respective institution and shared frustrations, all participants unequivocally
affirmed that higher education fundraising is not only here to stay but is positioned to grow
significantly as a long-term strategy. Secondly, participants demonstrated notable resilience and
resourcefulness in the face of substantial institutional and cultural barriers. This resilience
underscores Spanish higher education fundraisers' confidence in the eventual success of
fundraising efforts and the strategic benefits philanthropy offers to their institutions.
Collectively, participants exhibited a remarkable willingness to confront and surmount
institutional and cultural challenges, positioning themselves as pioneers within Spanish higher
education.
This study underscores the reciprocal relationship between environmental conditions,
knowledge, and individual behavior influencing Spanish higher education fundraising.
Participants emphasized how building a culture of belonging and trust and aligning institutional
support with resources can foster an environment where fundraising practices and expectations
reinforce one another. This study offers two complementary recommendations: (a) fostering a
philanthropic environment through philanthropic engagement of students, faculty, staff,
leadership, and alumni and (b) strengthening institutional fundraising through targeted
investment and capacity building. Specific investments include establishing a core advancement
team, expanding alumni advancement strategies, and recruiting experienced fundraising
professionals. Together, these measures provide a practical framework for Spanish universities to
build or enhance their fundraising program.
137
Philanthropic revenue presents an almost untapped resource for Spanish institutions.
Rather than dwelling on persistent cultural and environmental challenges, participants pointed to
successful examples within Spain and Southern Europe as evidence that fundraising is both
possible and highly impactful. They stressed the importance of learning from fundraisers and
institutions that are achieving results and positioning philanthropy as a tool to expand diversity,
fuel research and innovation, elevate institutional prestige, and secure long-term sustainability.
As participants articulated, the case for philanthropy is clear: it opens doors to a “more diverse
student body,” provides “better resources,” fuels “research and innovation,” raises national and
international “prestige,” and ensures Spanish universities “thrive” in the globalized higher
education landscape.
138
References
Adolph, T. I. (2023). Donor Affinity, Engagement, and Giving: Reframing the Student and
Alumni Experience at California Community Colleges. University of Southern California.
Aldrich, E. (2010). Fundraising Credentialing. In P. Maehara (Ed.), (2010). Achieving excellence
in fundraising (pp. 434-436). John Wiley & Sons.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.
Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (1998). Internationalize higher education. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 3639.
Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2011). The road to academic excellence: The making of
world-class research universities. World Bank Publications.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. Report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World
Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Alter, A., Graf Strachwitz, R., & Unger, T. (2022). Trust in philanthropy: A report on the
philanthropy insight project 2018-2021. Maecenata Foundation.
Association of Fundraising Professionals. (2023). Annual compensation and benefits report.
Retrieved from https://afpglobal.org/2023-afp-compensation-and-benefits-report-afpmember-download
Association of Fundraising Professionals. (2021). Annual compensation and benefits report.
Retrieved from https://afpglobal.org/2021-afp-compensation-and-benefits-report-afpmember-download
Asociación Española de Fundaciones. (2024). The foundation sector INAEF. Retrieved from
139
https://www.fundaciones.org/es/sector-fundacional/inaef
Bacon, F. (1612). Of goodness and goodness of nature. Publisher unknown.
Bakhit, K. (2014) Presidents’ Mindsets Toward Resource Development at California
Community Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(10),
889–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.722414
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.),
Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
applied psychology, 88(1), 87.
Barzelay, M. (2000). The new public management: A bibliographical essay for Latin American
(and other) scholars. International Public Management Journal, 3(2), 229–265.
Bekkers, R. (2020). Global giving. Journal of Trial and Error, 1(1), 72-100.
Bekkers, R. (2016). Regional differences in philanthropy. In J. Harrow & T. Jung (Eds.),
140
Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740324
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1015507
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable
giving. Part one: Religion, education, age and socialization. Voluntary Sector Review,
2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712
Bellio, E., Buccoliero, L., & Fiorentini, G. (2013, July). Marketing and fundraising through
mobile phones: New strategies for nonprofit organizations and charities. In 2013
International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2008). The influence of regulatory frameworks on research and
knowledge transfer outputs: An efficiency analysis of Spanish public universities.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 47, 68–80.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). Aspects sociologiques du pluralisme. Archives de
Sociologie des Religions, 12(23), 117–127.
Bogna, F., Raineri, A., & Dell, G. (2020). Critical realism and constructivism: Merging research
paradigms for a deeper qualitative study. Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management: An International Journal, 15(4), 461–484.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
141
Breeze, B. (2017). The science of fundraising. In The new fundraisers: Who organizes charitable
giving in contemporary society? (pp. 91–114). Policy Press.
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2014, October 14). Languages across Europe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/countries/spain.shtml
Broucker, B., Leišytė, L., De Wit, K., & Verhoeven, J. C. (2019). Understanding higher
education system reform: Practices, patterns and pathways. In Higher education system
reform (pp. 221–238). Brill.
Brusca, I., Blasco, P. & Labrador, M. (2022). Accountability in nonprofit organisations: the value
of integrated reporting for the case of Spain. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía
Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 106, 123-147.
Calero, J. (2004). Higher education policy and finance in Spain. Financing Higher Education in
a Global Market, pp. 149–172.
Camp, W. (2001). Formulating and evaluating theoretical frameworks for career and technical
education research. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 26(1), 4–25.
Carnie, C. (2017). How philanthropy is changing in Europe. Policy Press.
Casani, F., Pérez-Esparrells, C., Petit, J. C., & de la Torre, E. M. (2014). How to place European
universities in the global rankings? Policies and strategies of university international
excellence in France and Spain. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(5),
183–197.
Castells, M. (2000). Globalisation, identity and the state. Social Dynamics, 26(1), 5-17.
CFRE International (2009). Glossary of fundraising terms. www.cfre.org
142
CFRE International (2024). CFRE Online network search.
https://mycfre.cfre.org/cfressa/f?p=CRTSSA:17800:10109556759310:::17800:G_CUST_
ID:1123511:
Christensen, T., Gornitzka, Å., & Ramirez, F. O. (Eds.). (2019). Universities as agencies.
Reputation and professionalization. Palgrave Macmillan.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Published for the IAU Press by Pergamon Press.
Cook, W. B. (1994). Courting philanthropy: The role of university presidents and chancellors in
fund raising. The University of Texas at Austin.
Council for Advancement of Support of Education. (n.d.). Donor cultivation.
https://www.case.org/7-donor-cultivation
Council for Advancement of Support of Education (2012). Benchmarking Investments in
Advancement. Retrieved February 1, 2024, from
https://www.case.org/resources/benchmarking-investments-advancement-resultsinaugural-case-advancement-investment
Council for Advancement of Support of Education (2013). Results of the 2013 CASE Europe
Salary Survey. Retrieved February 1, 2024, from
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/2013_CASE_Europe_salary_report_Final.p
df
Council for Advancement of Support of Education. (2017). CASE Europe fundraising survey
2017 interactive infographic.
https://www.case.org/case-europe-fundraising-survey-2017-interactive-infographic
143
Council for Advancement of Support of Education (2019). CASE Voluntary Support of
Education (VSE) Survey 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2024, from
https://www.case.org/resources/voluntary-support-education-key-findings-2019-20
Council for Advancement of Support of Education (2020). CASE-Ross support of education:
United Kingdom and Ireland 2020 generating philanthropic support for higher
education. Retrieved February 1, 2024, from https://www.case.org/research/surveys/caseinsights-case-ross-support-education-united-kingdom-and-ireland/findings-results-andreports
Council for Advancement of Support of Education. (2023, April). Insights on voluntary support
of education. https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-voluntary-supporteducation
Council for Advancement of Support of Education. (2023, April). CASE Insights: CASE-Ross
support of education (United Kingdom & Ireland) 2021-22 report.
https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-case-ross-support-education-unitedkingdom-and-ireland/findings-results-and-reports
Council for Advancement of Support of Education. (2023, August 29). CASE and more
partnership release joint study of fundraising trends in UK higher education. The 10-year
analysis finds that annual giving to UK universities has doubled in the decade, to a
record £1.5bn in 2022. https://www.case.org/resources/case-and-more-partnershiprelease-joint-study-fundraising-trends-uk-higher-education
Council of the European Union. (2014, February 2024). Conclusions on efficient and innovative
education and training to invest in skills — Supporting the 2014 European semester.
144
Retrieved from
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/141138.pdf
Crampton, T. (2005, July 25) Pedagogy? No problem. Fund-raising? Tough subject. The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/business/media/pedagogy-noproblem-fundraising-tough-subject.html
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability:
Stakeholder perceptions on the connection. Higher Education, 59, 599–613.
Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Routledge.
Curti, M. E., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education.
Rutgers University Press.
Daly, S. (2013). Philanthropy, the new professionals and higher education: The advent of
directors of development and alumni relations. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 35(1), 21–33.
de la Torre, E., Gomez-Sancho, J., & Pérez-Esparrells, C. (2017). Comparing university
performance by legal status: A Malmquist-type index approach for the case of the
Spanish higher education system. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(3), 206–221.
de la Torre, E., Pérez-Esparrells, C., & Casani, F. (2018). The policy approach for the third
145
mission of universities: The Spanish case (1983-2018). Regional and Sectoral Economic
Studies, 18(1), 13–30.
de la Torre, E., & Pérez-Esparrells, C. (2019). Reforms in the Spanish higher education system
since democracy and future challenges. In B. Broucker, K. Wit, J. de Verhoeven, & L.
Leisyte. (Eds.), Higher education system reform an international comparison after twenty
years of Bologna (pp. 119–136). Brill Sense.
de las Heras-Pedrosa, C., Jambrino-Maldonado, C., & Iglesias-Sánchez, P. (2016). Fundraising
en la universidad pública como fórmula de captación de recursos. Prisma Social, 16,
711–753.
de las Heras-Pedrosa, C., Ruiz-Mora, I., & Jambrino-Maldonado, C. (2017). Fundraising
strategies in Spanish universities. An approach from stakeholders’ relations. Revista
Internacional de Relaciones Publicas,14(7), 125–144.
Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E., & Wyness, G. (2011). The impact of tuition fees and support on
university participation in the UK (IFS Publication No. W11/17). Institute for Fiscal
Studies (IFS), London. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2011.1117
Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E., & Wyness, G. (2014). Money for nothing: Estimating the impact of
student aid on participation in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 43, 66–
78.
Delgado, L., & León, G. (2015). Strategic aggregation of Universities in Spain: The Spanish
program international campus of excellence and the experience of the Technical
University of Madrid. In A. Curaj, L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, & E. Egron-Polak (Eds.),
Mergers and alliances in higher education (pp. 243–272). Springer.
De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and
146
recommendations for its future. In H. Eggins, A. Smolentseva, & H. de Wit (Eds.),
Higher education in the next decade (pp. 303–325). Brill.
De Wit, A., & Bekkers, R. (2016). Government support and charitable donations: A metaanalysis of the crowding-out hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw044
Dezin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 14(4), 336.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2) 147–
160.
Doyle, S., Gendall, P., Meyer, L. H., Hoek, J., Tait, C., McKenzie, L., & Loorparg, A. (2010).
An investigation of factors associated with student participation in study abroad. Journal
of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 471–490.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309 336032
Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education, Volume 37,
Number 2. John Wiley & Sons.
Drezner, N. (2019). The global growth of higher education philanthropy and fundraising. In N.
Y. Ridge, A. Terway, & N. D Drezner (Eds.). Philanthropy in education (pp. 90–104).
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Drezner, N. D., & Garvey, J. C. (2016). LGBTQ alumni philanthropy: Exploring (un) conscious
motivations for giving related to identity and experiences. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 45(1_suppl), 52S-71S.
147
Drezner, N. D., & Huehls, F. (2014). Fundraising and institutional advancement: Theory,
practice, and new paradigms. Routledge.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Gen. Ed.) & E.
M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. IV. Social and
personality development (pp. 643–691). Wiley.
Duderstadt, J., Taggart, J., & Weber, L. (2008). The globalization of higher education. The
globalization of higher education, 273-290.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Gen. Ed.) & E.
M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. IV. Social and
personality development (pp. 643-691). Wiley.
Dynarski, S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). Financial aid policy. Lessons from research. The
Future of Children, 23(1), 67–91.
Edelman Trust Barometer. (2021). Global report. Online fieldwork in 28 countries between
October 19th to November 18th, 2020. https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trustbarometer
Education First. (2023). EF English proficiency index: A ranking of 113 countries and regions by
English skill. https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/
El Gibari, S., Pérez-Esparrells, C., Gomez, T., & Ruiz, F. (2021). Analyzing the impact of
Spanish university funding policies on the evolution of their performance: A multicriteria approach. Mathematics (Basel), 9(14),1626. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141626
ESADE, Ramon Llull University. (n.d.). Our campaign.
https://giving.esade.edu/en/esadecampaigns
Escardibul, J. O., & Pérez-Esparrells, C. (2013). The financing of Spanish public universities.
148
Current status and proposals for improvement. Education and Law Review, 8.
Escardibul, J. O., Pérez-Esparrells, C., de la Torre, E. M., & Morales, S. (2017). Tuition fees in
Spanish public universities: A regional convergence analysis. ESE-Estudios sobre
Educación, 32, 197–221.
Estermann, T. (2013). Financiación de las instituciones europeas de educación superior. Revista
De Educacion y Derecho, Suppl. Financiación Universitaria, 8.
https://doi.org/10.1344/re&d.v0i08.8017
Estermann, T., & Pruvot, E, B. (2011). Financially sustainable universities II: European
universities diversifying income streams. European University Association.
European Tertiary Education Register (ETER). (2019). The ETER project: How are European
higher education institutions funded? New evidence from ETER microdata. Retrieved
from https://eterproject.com/uploads/analyticalreports/ETER_AnalyticalReport_02_f
inal.pdf
European Commission. (2006). Efficiency and equity in EU education and training systems.
Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2007). Rates of return and funding models in Europe Final report to the
Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission.
Publications Office of the European Union
European Commission. (2008). Engaging philanthropy for university research. Report by an
expert group: Fundraising by universities from philanthropic sources: Developing
partnerships between universities and private donors. Publications Office of the
European Union.
European Commission. (2011). Fundraising from philanthropy in European universities.
149
Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2011). Modernisation of higher education in Europe 2011: Funding
and the social dimension, Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2013a). Funding of education in Europe 2000-2012: The impact of the
economic crisis. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2013b). European philanthropy: An untapped potential. Publications
Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2014). Higher education funding: Eurydice report. Publications Office
of the European Union.
European Commission. (2017). Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy: Annual
Activity Report 2017 - Regional and Urban Policy. Retrieved from
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/annual-activity-report-2017-regional-andurban-policy_en
European Commission. (2018). The European higher education area in 2018: Bologna process
implementation report. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2019). European Philanthropy: An Untapped Potential. Publications
Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2023). Spanish higher education funding. Eurydice report. Publications
Office of the European Union.
European Fundraising Association. (2017, December). Fundraising in Europe: A brief
exploration of the European charity fundraising environment, based on a survey of
EFA’s members; 15 national fundraising association representatives. https://efanet.eu/resources
150
European Higher Education Area. (1999, June 19). The Bologna declaration of 19 June 1999:
Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. https://www.ehea.info/pageministerial-conference-bologna-1999
European Higher Education Area. (2015). The Bologna process revisited: The future of the
European Higher Education Area.
https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/71/1/Bologna_Process_Revisit
ed_Future_of_the_EHEA_Final_613711.pdf
European Higher Education Area. (2016). A contribution to the horizon 2020. Mid-term review.
European Higher University Association. European University Association.
Farwell, M. M., Gaughan, M., & Handy, F. (2020). How did we get here? The career paths of
higher education fundraisers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 30(3), 487-507.
Felgueiras, A., & Rey-García, M. (2017). Research on giving in Spain. In L. K. Hoolwerf & Th.
N. M Schuyt (Eds.), Giving in Europe. The state of research on giving in 20 European
countries (pp. 2–18). Lenthe Publishers.
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2008). The steering of higher education systems: A
public management perspective. Higher education, 56, 325-348.
Ferrá, J. O. E., & Esparrells, C. P. (2013). La financiación de las universidades públicas
españolas. Estado actual y propuestas de mejora. Revista de educación y derecho, (8).
Friga, P. N., Bettis, R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. (2003). Changes in graduate management education
and new business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 2(3), 233—249.
García Delgado, J. L. (Ed.) (2010). Las cuentas de la economía social: magnitudes y
financiación del tercer sector en España 2005. Thomson Civitas.
151
Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there
negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.
Gibbs, P., & Murphy, P. (2009). Implementation of ethical higher education marketing. Tertiary
Education and Management, 15(4), 341–354.
Gilby, N., Lloyd, C., & Shaw, A. (2010) Ross–CASE survey 2008-9 final report.
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/inline/2008-9-report-final.pdf
Gómez-Marcos, M., Ruiz-Toledo, M., Vicente-Galindo, M., Martín-Rodero, H., Ruff-Escobar,
C., & Galindo-Villardón, M. (2021). Multivariate dynamics of Spanish universities in
international rankings. El Profesional De La Información, 30(2).
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.mar.10
Gouwenberg, B., Karamat Ali, D., Hoolwerf, L., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T., & Smit, J. (2015).
EUFORI study: European foundations for research and innovation. Publications Office
of the European Union.
Graham, G. (2002). Universities: The recovery of an idea. Imprint Academic.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal, 4(2), 12–26.
Gurin, P., & Brim, O. G. (1984). Change in self in adulthood-the example of sense
ofcontrol. Life-Span Development and Behavior, 6, 281–334.
Hall, H. (2008, May 28). Oxford U. announces $2.5-billion campaign. The Chronicle of
Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/oxford-u-announces-2-5-billioncampaign/
152
Hall, H., Daniels, A., & Narayanswamy, A. (2014, April 20). At the top tier, charity fundraisers
earn $500,000 or more. Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.
com/article/at-the-top-tier-charity-fundraisers-earn-500-000-or-more/
Halsey, J. F., & Leslie, W. B. (2003). Britain’s White Paper turns higher education away from
the EU. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News32/text006.htm
Haseeb, A. S. M. A. (2018). Philanthropic fund raising for higher education. Journal of Research
Management and Governance, 1(1), 44–50.
Healey, N. M. (2008). Is higher education in really “internationalizing”? Higher Education, 55,
333–355.
IESE Business School. (n.d.). Why support. https://giving.iese.edu/en/why-support
Indiana University. (n.d.). Environment index. Global Indices. Retrieved from
https://globalindices.indianapolis.iu.edu/environment-index/index.html
Instituto Empresa. (n.d.). IE presidents fund. https://ie-foundation.ie.edu/iepresidentsfund
Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2024). Economy. Retrieved from
https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/en/categoria.htm?c=Estadistica_P&cid=12547355705
41
Johnson, E. L. (1983). The Dartmouth College case: The neglected educational meaning. Journal
of the Early Republic, 3(1), 45–67.
Johnstone, D. B. (2005). A political culture of giving and the philanthropic support of public
higher education in international perspective. International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 5(3), 256‒264.
Johnstone, D. B., & Shroff-Mehta, P. (2003). Higher education finance and accessibility: An
international comparative examination of tuition and financial assistance policies. Glob.
153
Reform High. Educ, 32-54.
Jootun, D., McGhee, G., & Marland, G. R. (2009). Reflexivity: Promoting rigour in qualitative
research. Nursing Standard, 23(23), 42–46.
Kelemen, M. L., & Rumens, N. (2008). An introduction to critical management research. Sage.
Knight, J. (2020). The internationalization of higher education scrutinized: International program
and provider mobility. Sociologias, 22, 176–199.
Konrath, S., & Handy, F. (2018). The development and validation of the motives to donate
scale. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 347-375.
Kosmützky, A., & Putty, R. (2016). Transcending borders and traversing boundaries: A
systematic review of the literature on transnational, offshore, cross-border, and borderless
higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 8–33.
Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organized actor. In G. S. Drori
(Ed.), Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change (pp.
241–257). Oxford University Press.
Labi, A. (2005, September 23). U. of Cambridge will seek to Raise $1.8-billion in biggest
campaign in British University. Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-cambridge-will-seek-to-raise-1-8-billion-inbiggest-campaign-by-a-british-university/
Lafuente, E., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2017). Assessing the productivity of technology transfer
offices: An analysis of the relevance of aspiration performance and portfolio complexity.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 778–801.
Lasher, W. F., & Cook, W. B. (1996). Toward a theory of fund raising in higher education. The
Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 33–51.
154
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2010). Designing & conducting ethnographic research: An
introduction (Vol. 1). Rowman Altamira.
Lee, S. S. (2021). A precarious balancing act: globalization, political legitimacy, and higher
education expansion in Qatar and the UAE. Contemporary Arab Affairs, 14(1), 113-133.
Lepori, B., & Jongbloed, B. (2018). National Resource allocation decisions in higher education:
objectives and dilemmas. In Handbook on the politics of higher education (pp. 211-228).
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. SAGE publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lively, D., & Vinukonda, N. (June 7, 2021). Calculating the Cost of Losing High-Performing
Fundraisers. Retrieved from https://www.philanthropy.com/article/calculating-the-costof-losing-high-performing-fundraisers
Madeo, E. (2021). The role of crowdfunding for new funding challenges in public universities:
An Italian case study. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 15(2), 186–
205.
Maddux, J. E., & Kleiman, E. M. (2018). Self-efficacy. In G. Oettingen, A. T. Sevincer, & P. M.
Gollwitzer (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 174–198). Guilford
Publications.
Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays in the sociology of knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Margalef, L., & Pareja, N. (2008). A path of no return: Active learning methodological
strategies. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 66(22,3), 47–62.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education.
Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. DOI:10.1007/s10734-004-7649-x
155
Marginson, S., Kaur, S., & Sawir, E. (Eds.). (2011). Higher education in the Asia-Pacific.
Strategic responses to globalization. Springer.
McNamee III, M. (2021). Alumni engagement and identity: A case study on beliefs and
behaviors. Philanthropy & Education, 4(2), 25-50.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with
quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage.
Meyer, H.-D. (2017). The design of the university: German, American, and “world class."
Routledge.
Middlehurst, R. (2002, October 17–18). The developing world of borderless higher education:
markets, providers, quality assurance and qualifications. In First global forum on
international quality assurance, accreditation and the recognition of qualifications in
higher education (pp. 17–18) [Forum] UNESCO, Paris, France.
Mirabella, R. M. (2007). University-based educational programs in nonprofit management and
philanthropic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4_suppl), 11S-27S.
Mirabella, R., Sulek, M., & Teo, T.K. (2022). Mapping the field of nonprofit management and
studies in Canada. Journal of Nonprofit Education & Leadership, 12(1).
Monks, J. (2004). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective
institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22 (2).
Mora, J. G., & Nugent, M. (1998). Seeking new resources for European universities: The
example of fund-raising in the U.S. European Journal of Education, 33(1), 113–129.
156
Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1),
64–77.
Morón, F. (2019), “Fundraising, una necesidad creciente para las universidades”, Ecoaula.es,
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecoaula/noticias/10264895/12/19/Fundraising-unanecesidad-creciente-para-las-universidades.html
Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching
self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational Psychology Review,
29, 795–833.
Nagaraj, A. J. (2015). Gifted and talented: What makes a top fundraiser in the age of venture
philanthropy? Washington, D.C.: Education Advancement Board.
National Archive of Data on Arts & Culture. (2001) Giving and Volunteering [United States].
Independent Sector. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NADAC/studies/35584
National Center for Education Statistics (2022) Government and private expenditures on
education institutions as a percentage of gross domestic product, by level of education
and country: Selected years, 2005 through 2019. Retrieved From
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_605.20.asp
Nolen, S. B. (2020). A situative turn in the conversation on motivation theories. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 61, 101866.
Nyman, J., Pilbeam, C., Baines, P., & Maklan, S. (2016). Identifying the roles of university
fundraisers in securing transformational gifts: lessons from Canada. Studies in Higher
Education, 1-14. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1242565
Olabuenaga, J. I. R. (2005). El tercer sector español y sus campos de actuación. Revista española
del tercer sector, 1, 135–162.
157
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). Education at a
glance 2018: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). Education at a Glance 2013.
OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Price level indices.
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/price-level-indices.html
Owen, D. (1964). English philanthropy: 1660–1960. Belknap Press.
Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention.
The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1001–1043.
Padilla, M. T. & Gil, J. (2008). The evaluation oriented to learning in higher education:
Conditions and strategies for its application in university teaching. Revista Española de
Pedagogía, 241, 467–486.
Pagnoni, L., & Solomon, M. (2013). The nonprofit fundraising solution: Powerful revenue
strategies to take you to the next level. Amacon.
Pagnoni, L. (March 20, 2018). Major Gift Officers: Good Things Come to Those Who Wait.
Retrieved from https://lapafundraising.com/2018/03/major-gift-officers-good-thingscome-wait/
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5, 339–367.
Pallisera, M., Fullana, J., Planas, J., & Del Valle, A. (2010). The adaptation to the European
158
space of higher education in Spain: The challenges in teaching based on competencies
and guidelines to respond to them. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 54(2), 1–13.
Park, G., Chung, J., & Lee, S. (2024). Scope and limits of AI fundraisers: Moderated serial
multiple mediation model between artificial emotions and willingness to donate via
humanness and empathy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123211.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2022). Impact-driven qualitative research and evaluation. The SAGE handbook of
qualitative research design, 2, 1165-1180.
Pérez-Esparrells, C., & Torre, E. M. (2012). The challenge of fundraising in universities in
Europe. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(2), 55–66.
Pereyra, M. A., Trujillo, A. L., & Merino, D. S. (2006). Las universidades Espanolas y el process
de construccion el espacio Euroeo de educacion superior. Limitaciones y perspectivas de
cambio. Revista Espanola de Educacion, 12, 113–143.
Peters, L. D., Pressey, A. D., Vanharanta, M., & Johnston, W. J. (2013). Constructivism and
critical realism as alternative approaches to the study of business networks:
Convergences and divergences in theory and in research practice. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42(3), 336–346.
Philanthropy Europe Association (PHILEA) & Indiana University. (2022, December). The
philanthropy environment in Europe report 2022. https://philea.eu/indiana-universitylilly-family-school-of-philanthropy-and-philanthropy-europe-associations-new-releasesheds-light-on-the-philanthropy-landscape-in-europe/
Pollack, R. H. (1999). A view from across the pond. CASE Currents, 32–35.
159
Proper, E. (2009). Bringing educational fundraising back to Great Britain: A comparison with the
United States. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 149–159.
Proper, E., & Caboni, T. (2014). Institutional advancement: What we know. Springer.
Pruvot, E. B., & Estermann, T. (2012). European universities diversifying income streams. In
A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.) European higher education at the
crossroads (pp. 709–726). Springer.
Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing
complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3), 311–320.
QS World University Ranking (2024). QS World University Rankings 2024: Top global
universities. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings
Rager, K. B. (2005). Self-care and the qualitative researcher: When collecting data can break
your heart. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 23–27.
Rashdall, H. (1936). The universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (2nd ed). (F.M & A. B.
Emden, Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). Theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the “realist turn” in organizations and management studies.
Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1621–1644.
Rey-García, M. (2009). Spain. In P. Wiepking (Ed.), The state of giving research in Europe.
Household donations to charitable organizations in twelve European countries (pp. 52–
65). Pallas Publications.
Rey-García, M., & Alvarez, L. I. (2011). Foundations and social economy: Conceptual
approaches and socio-economic relevance. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía
Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 73, 61–80.
160
Rey-García, M., Álvarez-González, L. I., & Valls-Riera, R. (2013). The evolution of national
fundraising campaigns in Spain: nonprofit organizations between the state and emerging
civil society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 302–323.
Rey-Garcia, M., & Pui-Raposo, N. (2013). Globalisation and the organization of family
philanthropy: A case of isomorphism? Business History, 55(6), 1019–1046.
Rhoades, G., Castiello, S., Lee, J. J., O’Toole, L., & Marei, M. (2019). Marketing to
international students: Presentation of university self in geopolitical space. The Review of
Higher Education, 43(2), 519–551.https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0109
Robbins, K. C. (2006). The nonprofit sector in historical perspective: Traditions of philanthropy
in the West. In R. Steinberg & W.-W. Powell (Eds.). The nonprofit sector: A research
handbook (pp. 13-31). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Ruiz Mora, I. M., Heras Pedrosa, C. d. l., & Jambrino Maldonado, C. (2017). Fundraising
strategies in Spanish universities: an approach from stakeholders’ relations. Revista
Internacional De Relaciones Públicas, 7(14), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.5783/RIRP-14-
2017-08-125-144
Ruiz Olabuénaga, J. I. (2005). The Spanish third sector and its fields of action. Spanish magazine
of the third sector, 1(1), 135–162.
Ryan, J. (2011). Teaching and learning for international students: Towards a transcultural
approach. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(6), 631–648.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540 602.2011.625138
Salamon, L. M. (1996). The Emerging Nonprofit Sector: An Overview. The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
161
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit
sector. Kumarian Press.
Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. World Bank
Publications.
Salmi, J., & Froumin, I. (2013). Excellence initiatives to establish world-class universities:
Evaluation of recent experiences. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow,
1, 25–68.
Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser's guide to increasing
lifetime value. John Wiley & Sons.
Sargeant, A., & Shang, J. (2011). Bequest giving: Revisiting donor motivation with dimensional
qualitative research. Psychology & Marketing, 28(10), 980–997.
Satsyk, V. (2018). Global competitiveness of universities. In sustainable futures for higher
education: The making of knowledge makers (pp. 115–122). Springer International
Publishing.
Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P, & A. Thornhill. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and
approaches to theory development. In Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed.
Pearson Education.
Schiller, R. J. (2021). The chief development officer: Beyond fundraising. Rowman & Littlefield.
promise? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(4), 774-789.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Selfefficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303)
Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_10
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting,
162
and self-evaluation. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159–172.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B.
McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook,
Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101–123). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-005
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of human motivation (pp. 11–26). Oxford University Press.
Schuyt, T. N. (2010). Philanthropy in European welfare states: A challenging promise?
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(4), 774–789.
Scoloveno, R. L. (2018). Resilience and self-efficacy: An integrated review of the
literature. International Journal of Science and Research Methodology, 9(1), 176–192.
Shafer, A. A. (2016). Effective approaches in higher education development: A survey in
fundraising best practices. In Facilitating higher education growth through fundraising
and philanthropy (pp. 206–227). IGI Global.
Shin, J., & Kehm, B. (2013). Institutionalization of world-class universities in global
competition. Springer.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Knopf.
Skinner, N. A. (2019). The rise and professionalization of the American fundraising model in
higher education. Philanthropy & Education, 3(1), 23–46.
Sparks, F. H. (1959, April). Balanced support for higher education. Pride, 9–11.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state,
163
and higher education. Jhu press.
Slinker, J. M. (1988). The role of the college or university president in institutional advancement
(Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, 1988). ERIC Number: ED308791.
Small, M. L., & Calarco, J. M. (2022). Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic
and interview research. Univ of California Press.
Smith, J. A., & Borgmann, K. (2001). Foundations in Europe: The historical context. In A.
Schlüter, T. Volker & P. Walkenhorst (Eds.), Foundations in Europe (pp. 2-34). London,
UK: Directory for Social Change.
Squire, W. (2014). University fundraising in Britain: A transatlantic partnership. Troubador
Publishing.
Stacey, V. (2020, April 23). Harness TNE to prepare for post-coronavirus landscape.
Professionals in International Education (PIE). Blogtext.
https://thepi enews.com/news/harne sstne-to-prepare-for-post-coronaviru s-landscape/
Stroud, A. H. (2010). Who plans (not) to study abroad? An examination of U.S. student intent.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 491–507.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10283 15309 357942
Sulek, M. (2010). On the modern meaning of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 39(2), 193–212.
Syed, J., Mingers, J., & Murray, P. A. (2010). Beyond rigour and relevance: A critical realist
approach to business education. Management Learning, 41(1), 71-85.
Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of social and
clinical psychology, 18(2), 183-190.
Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalization: Lessons and practice from four
164
universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 149–171.
Tempel, E. R., & Duronio, M. A. (1997). The demographics and experience of fundraisers. New
Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1997(15), 49-68.
The American College Public Relations Association. (1958). The Advancement of Understanding
and Support of Higher Education: A Conference on 118 Organizational Principles and
Patterns of College and University Relations. Greenbrier White Sulphur Springs.
Thelin, J. (2011). A history of American higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
University of Barcelona. (2019, May 21). Fundraising in public universities will be the
focus of the 2nd seminar on university funding of the UB. Current Event. Retrieved
January 12, 2024, from https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/fundraising-in-publicuniversities-will-be-the-focus-of-the-2nd-seminar-on-university-funding-of-the-ubTimes Higher Education. (2024). World University Rankings 2024. Retrieved from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2024/world-ranking
Tracy, S. J. (2024). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (2012)
Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/treaty-on-stabilitycoordination-and-governance-in-the-economic-and-monetary-union-also-known-as-thefiscal-compact.html
University of Barcelona (2019, May 21) Fundraising in public universities will be the focus of
the 2nd Seminar on University Funding of the UB. Current Event. Retrieved January 12,
2024, from https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/fundraising-in-public-universitieswill-be-the-focus-of-the-2nd-seminar-on-university-funding-of-the-ub-
165
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. (n.d). Becas alumni: UC3M. https://aa.uc3m.es/becasalumni
University of Helsinki. (October 11, 2022). Nearly €22.5 million for the University of Helsinki
from the governmental matched-funding scheme. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/
donation/nearly-eu225-million-university-helsinki-governmental-matched-fundingscheme
U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (May 2023). Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,
Fundraiser. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131131.htm
U.S. News & World Report (2023). 2022-2023 Best Global Universities Rankings. Retrieved
from https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (May 2023). Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,
Fundraiser. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131131.htm
Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for
analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510.
Valentine, C. (2007). Methodological reflections: Attending and tending to the role of the
researcher in the construction of bereavement narratives. Qualitative Social Work, 6(2),
159–176.
Välimaa, J. (2019). A history of Finnish higher education from the middle ages to the 21st
Century (Vol. 52). Springer Nature.
Vallely, P. (2020). Philanthropy: From Aristotle to Zuckerberg. Bloomsbury Continuum.
Van der Zwaan, B. (2017). Higher education in 2040. A global approach. Amsterdam University
Press.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (1996). Thinking ethically: A
framework for moral decision making. Issues in Ethics, 7(1), 2–5.
166
Vernon, K. (2001). Calling the tune: British universities and the state, 1880–1914. History of
Education, 30(3), 251–71.
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education: Primer. Peter Lang.
Vukasovic, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). University alliances in the Europe of knowledge:
Positions, agendas and practices in policy processes. European Educational Research
Journal, 17(3), 349–364.
Webster, N. (1828). American dictionary of the English Language (ADEL). S. Converse.
Weinstein, S., & Barden, P. (2017). The complete guide to fundraising management. John Wiley
& Sons, Incorporated.
Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (2015). Explanations for cross-national differences in philanthropy.
In The palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 9-21). London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK.
Wiepking, P. (2021). The global study of philanthropic behavior. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 194-203.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). UK business school rankings over the last 30 years (1980–
2010): Trends and explanations. Higher Education, 63, 367–382.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(3), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407
Worth, M. J., & Asp, J. W. (1994). The Development Officer in Higher Education: Toward an
Understanding of the Role. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Worth, M. J. (2002). New strategies for educational fund raising. Rowman & Littlefield
167
Publishers.
Worth, M. J. (2016). Leading the campaign: The president and fundraising in higher education.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Wynn Jr, D., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study
research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 787-810.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.
168
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Interview Procedure
Interviews will be conducted via Zoom or Google Meet if a participant cannot access Zoom.
Permission will be obtained from the interviewee before recording audio and video, and the
recording will be destroyed once the study is complete. To ensure adherence to the interviewee's
wishes, the recording will only be initiated once permission has been granted. The interviewer
will outline the following options to protect further the identity and anonymity of the
interviewee: the interviewee will be given the option to hide their name in the Zoom session; the
interviewee will be permitted to keep their video off and conduct the interview in an audio-only
format; lastly, the interviewee may decline to have any part of the interview recorded, and the
interviewer will request permission to take notes by hand to capture the interviewee’s responses.
Introduction to the Interview in English:
Thank you for participating in this research interview. I am Carolyn, a doctoral student at the
University of California Rossier School of Education. I am studying higher education
fundraising in Spain. I am conducting this study to better understand the experiences and
perspectives of professionals like you who work in this sector. The insights gathered from this
research will contribute to a broader understanding of fundraising practices in Spanish higher
education institutions and, I hope, will support the work you do.
Before proceeding with the interview, I want to emphasize that your participation in this study is
voluntary. You are not obligated to participate, and your decision will not impact your current
or future relationship with any organization or institution you are associated with. Furthermore,
your responses will be treated with the utmost confidentiality. Your name and personally
identifiable information will be kept confidential, and your anonymity will be preserved
throughout the study. At any point during the interview or afterward, if you decide that you no
longer wish to participate or are uncomfortable with any aspect of the study, you have the right
to withdraw without any consequences. Do I have your consent to participate in this study?
Additionally, I request your permission to record this interview for research purposes. The
recording will be kept confidential, and your identity will be anonymized in any research
publications resulting from this study. Please rest assured that this recording will only be used to
169
transcribe and analyze the interview. While I will primarily rely on the recording, I may take a
few notes as prompts for follow-up questions. Are you comfortable with this?
Before we begin, do you have any questions or concerns about the research study, the interview
process, or other aspects of your participation? I want to ensure we have time to discuss any
additional questions or concerns you may have. Also, if questions arise during the interview,
please let me know, and we can stop the recording.
Once again, thank you for your willingness to participate in this research. Your insights and
perspectives are precious, and I appreciate your contribution to advancing knowledge in this
field. We can proceed with the interview if you are comfortable and have no further questions or
concerns.
Interview Questions
[Participants]
Potential Probes RQ Q Concept
(SCT)
Q Type
(Patton)
1. Can you describe your
educational background
and any formal training or
certifications you have
pursued in the field of
fundraising?
Where was the
training provided and
who provided it?
How effective was
the training in
preparing you for the
field?
RQ1 Knowledge Experience/
Behaviors
2. Can you please provide
an overview of your
experience as a fundraiser
in the Spanish higher
education sector?
Can you tell me more
about [x] experience?
RQ1 Knowledge Experience/
Behaviors
3. What motivated you to
pursue a career in
fundraising for higher
education?
Can you walk me
through your decision
process?
RQ1 Motivation Opinions/
Values
4. Can you share any
specific experiences,
mentors, or role models
that influenced you in
your fundraising career?
Can you tell me more
about [x]?
How did those
interactions impact
your professional
growth?
RQ1
RQ2
Motivation/
Modelling
Experience/
Behaviors
170
5. Have you attended any
fundraising-related
conferences, events, or
read any publications
associated with these
professional
organizations?
Did these experiences
contribute to your
growth and
development as a
fundraiser? How so?
What role do
professional
associations play in
the Spanish
fundraising sector?
RQ1
RQ2
Environment Opinions/
Values
6. In your experience, are
there sufficient training
programs or resources to
support aspiring higher
education fundraisers in
Spain?
What makes you feel
this way?
RQ2 Environment Opinions/
Values
7. What are some of the
key strategies or tactics
that you have employed as
a fundraiser in Spain's
higher education
institutions?
Can you give me an
example?
What made it
successful?
RQ1 Self-Efficacy/
OutcomeExpectations
Knowledge
8. What are some of the
challenges you face when
fundraising in higher
education institutions in
Spain?
Does this challenge
apply only to your
institution or to the
sector as a whole?
RQ2 Environment Knowledge
9. If resources weren’t an
issues, what steps would
you recommend to
strengthen the fundraising
activities of your
institution?
Can you describe
what a highfunctioning
fundraising team
would look like?
RQ1 Performance
Attribution
Opinions/
Values
10. Are there cultural
factors in Spain that
influence the willingness
of individuals and
organizations to donate to
How can these
factors be addressed?
RQ2 Environment Knowledge/
Feeling
171
higher education
institutions?
11. In your opinion, what
are the most promising
trends or innovations on
the horizon for
fundraising in the Spanish
higher education sector?
How are you
preparing to adapt to
them?
RQ2 Knowledge/
Modeling
Opinions/
Values
12. In your experience,
what role does the
leadership of the
institution play in
promoting fundraising?
Can you give me an
example?
RQ2 Knowledge/
Modeling
Opinions/
Values
Alternate Questions:
A. Are there any lessons
that can be learned from
fundraising programs at
higher education
institutions outside of
Spain that could be
applied to the Spanish
context?
Can you give me an
example?
RQ1
RQ2
Knowledge/
Modeling
Knowledge/
Feeling
B. What are the potential
benefits of increased
fundraising activity for
higher education
institutions in Spain?
What are the potential
downsides of increasing
fundraising activities in
higher education in Spain?
For both questions:
What will be the
financial impact?
What will be the
programmatic
impact?
RQ1
RQ2
OutcomeExpectations/
Environment
Knowledge/
Feeling
Conclusion to the Interview:
In conclusion, I want to express my sincere gratitude for your willingness to participate in this
research interview. Your cooperation and insights are crucial to the success of this study, and
your contributions will enhance our understanding of higher education fundraising in Spain.
172
Thank you for your voluntary participation and willingness to have this interview recorded for
research purposes. All information shared during this interview will be handled with the utmost
care and confidentiality, and your privacy will be safeguarded throughout the research process.
I will provide a copy of the interview transcript for you to review and note any edits you would
like to make. Furthermore, I will inform you if any direct quotes from our interview will be
included in the study. Any quote used will not be attributed to you or any specific individual.
If you have any further questions or concerns, or if there's anything else you'd like to discuss
before we conclude, please don't hesitate to let me know. Once again, thank you for your
participation.
173
Appendix B: Ingredient Cost Analysis
The following cost-benefit analysis of higher education fundraising in Spain is designed
to assist university leadership in making informed decisions about investing in a new or
emerging fundraising program. Additionally, it aims to support existing Spanish higher
education fundraisers interested in analyzing and advocating for their teams. The analysis
assumes several pre-existing roles and functions, outlined in the profile of a typical higher
education institution in Spain, and details the relevant costs associated with building an effective
fundraising program. Furthermore, the cost analysis presents the net present value (NPV) for
each of the strategies listed in Recommendations Two discussed in this study. By outlining the
institution's assumed structures and available resources, higher education leadership and
fundraising staff can scale the quantities and recommendations of each analysis to fit their
specific needs.
The Ingredient Method Part 1: Profile of a Typical Spanish University
For this study, the following cost analysis assumes the typical higher education institution
in Spain consists of the following:
• A communication department that utilizes multiple platforms to engage, inform,
and connect stakeholders.
• A database with contactable alumni and other stakeholder information.
• An alumni department that provides networking, career, and engagement
opportunities post-graduation.
• A nonprofit organizational structure or foundation team that can accept taxdeductible donations and provide the necessary tax receipts.
• There are fewer than three FTEs dedicated to fundraising.
174
The Ingredient Method Part 2: Analyzing and Reporting Costs
Part 2 of The Ingredient Method presents the essential costs and staffing structures
required to start or grow a higher education fundraising program in Spain. A typical higher
education fundraising department in the United States or the United Kingdom, often referred to
as the advancement department, will have a combination of administrative and fundraising staff.
In the United States, the average advancement department consists of 21% fundraising
administrators, such as advancement services, and 79% fundraising professionals, including roles
such as major gift officers and alumni relations staff (Nadel-Hawthorne et al., 2022). This
approximate 4:1 ratio ensures that most resources are dedicated to relationship building and
solicitation, the critical drivers behind donations (NADAC, 2001). For higher education
leadership in Spain seeking to start or grow an effective fundraising team, the difference in scale
between advancement departments in the United States and Europe can be daunting. The
following reports provide insight into the average size of fundraising departments in the United
States and Europe, the total cost of employment in Spain, and the average overhead required for
establishing or growing a higher education fundraising department.
Table B1, from CASE’s Benchmarking Investments in Advancement for Higher
Education in the United States (2012), shows that the average advancement department in the
United States consists of 67 full-time employees (FTEs). Note that the data for Table B2 is more
than ten years old and has been adjusted by 17.8% to bring it closer to the 2017 data in Europe
(CASE, 2019).
175
Table B 1
Total Advancement Staff in FTE in the United States
Category Median Mean Adjusted Minimum Maximum # Reporting
Institutions
Public 54.4 74.2 87.6 6 375.0 57
Private 32.0 41.8 49.4 1.5 258.9 63
BA 29.0 32.7 38.6 1.5 73.2 38
MA 32.0 37.5 44.33 5.5 105.8 45
PhD 113.5 135.5 159.7 26.0 375.0 28
Start-Up 13.8 21.3 16.3 1.5 108.0 18
Emerging 30.5 42.3 36.0 5.5 228.5 42
Mature 54.1 78.4 92.5 10.5 375.0 60
In a
Campaign
40.0 61.2 72.2 5.0 375.0 71
Not in a
Campaign
26.6 51.3 60.57 1.5 356.8 49
All 38.4 57.2 67.43 1.5 375.0 120
Note: Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education Benchmarking
Investments in Advancement. https://www.case.org/resources/benchmarking-investmentsadvancement-results-inaugural-case-advancement-investment
In contrast, Table B2 shows how European fundraising departments are significantly
smaller. According to the CASE Europe Fundraising Survey (2017), which surveyed 35
institutions across 11 countries, the average European fundraising department consists of 4.3
FTEs dedicated to fundraising and 3.7 FTEs focused on alumni relations. While the survey does
not explicitly provide the ratio between frontline fundraisers and administrative staff, the small
department size and necessary administrative functions suggest that a typical European
university has fewer than two FTEs focused on relationship building and solicitation.
176
Table B2 Average Staff Allocation between Fundraising and Alumni Relations Staff
Average Staff Allocation between Fundraising and Alumni Relations Staff
Region Fundraising Staff Alumni Relations
Staff
Total Staff
Alpine 4.2 2.3 6.5
Lowlands 5.6 5 10.6
Nordic 3 2.5 5.5
Other 5.3 7.3 12.6
All 4.3 3.7 8
Note: Adapted from Council for Advancement of Support of Education (2017). CASE Europe
Fundraising Survey (2017). Interactive Infographic. https://www.case.org/case-europe
fundraising-survey-2017-interactive-infographic
To accurately calculate the costs of starting or growing a fundraising team, three
additional questions must be addressed: First, what is the estimated average compensation for
each advancement role? Second, what is the total cost of employing an individual in Spain?
Third, what is the typical percentage of overhead? Table B3 compiles the available salary
benchmark data for four common positions in the United States and Europe: major gift officer,
advancement services, alumni relations officer, and advancement communication and marketing
officer. Given the variation in dates and currencies among the sources, all salaries were
converted into dollars and adjusted to 2023 levels using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These figures were then converted to euros for comparative
purposes. To account for differences in cost of living and average wage between countries, the
salaries were further adjusted by 44% for the United States, 20% for the United Kingdom, and
13% for Europe, based on data from Eurostat (2023) and the OECD (2022).
177
Table B3
Salary Benchmarks for Advancement Positions: United Kingdom & United States
Position Country Annual Pay
(year provided)
Adjusted to
2023 Euros
Adjusted for
Spain
Major Gift Officer or
“Fundraiser”
U.S. $77,610 (2023) €72.247 €43,380
U.K. £49,023 (2013) €75,265 €60,212
Europe €46,034 (2013) €60,338 €52,545
Advancement Services or
“Other”
U.S. $45,000 (2020) €50.886 €30,553
U.K. £44,052 (2013) €67,633 €54,107
Europe €32,363 (2013) €42,419 €36,905
Alumni Relations Officer or
“Donor Relations”
U.S. $48,180 (2020) €54.473 €32.684
U.K. £44,052 (2013) €55.484 €44.388
Europe €35,350 (2013) €46,334 €40,311
Advancement
Communications & Marketing
U.S. $54,460 (2020) €61.562 €36.938
U.K. £42,546 (2013) €65,321 €51,604
Europe €57,317 (2013) €75,127 €65,361
Note: U.K. and Europe salary data adapted from the Council for Advancement of Support of
Education, Results of the 2013 CASE Europe Salary Survey from
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/2013_CASE_Europe_salary_report_Final.pdf.;
U.S. data adapted from Association of Fundraising Professionals, Association of Fundraising
Professionals Annual Compensation and Benefits Report 2021,
https://afpglobal.org/sites/default/files/attachments/resource/AFP%202021%20Compensation%2
0and%20Benefits%20Report.pdf and HigherEdJobs 2019-20 Salary Data: Professional Salaries.
https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=54.
Table B4 outlines the total personnel-related costs in Spain. In compliance with Spanish
law, employers must contribute mandatory benefits, also known as Social Security Contributions
or Mandatory Employer Payroll Contributions, which amount to approximately 29.9% of the
gross base salary (Paulsen, 28 March 2024). Using a base monthly salary of €5,000, Table B4
178
shows the approximate total cost of employment in Spain. In addition to salaries and benefits,
additional operational costs are incurred. According to CASE-Ross Support of Education: United
Kingdom and Ireland 2021, staff costs accounted for 79% of average fundraising expenditures
and 73% of average alumni relations expenditures. Despite differences in scale, the percentage of
personnel-related costs is comparable to that of the United States, at 75% (CASE VSE, 2019).
Therefore, this study assumes that approximately 25% of fundraising expenditures will go to
operational costs, such as travel, publications, and events, as well as capital investments, such as
equipment and software.
Table B4
Cost of Employment in Spain: Example with Base Salary of €5,000/Month
Description of Cost Component Amount Annualized
Monthly Gross Base Salary €5.000 €60,000
Total Mandatory Employer Payroll Contribution (29.90%) €1.495 €17,940
- Social Contribution (23.60%) €1.180 €14,160
- Unemployment (5.50%) €275 €3,300
- Salary Guarantee Fund (0.2%) €10 €120
- Professional Training (0.60%) €30 €360
Total Employment Costs Including Benefits €6.495 €77,960
Note: Personal complication from Paulsen, C. (28 March 2024). Employment Costs in Spain,
Portugal, and France. https://www.eurodev.com/blog/cost-of-employment-in-spain-portugalfrance
179
The Ingredient Method Part 3: Applying NPV to Recommendations
Drawing on recent and adjusted salary studies and benchmarks, this study provides
detailed cost analyses and adjusted NPV for each of the three key recommendations: (a)
investing in a core advancement team, (b) enhancing alumni advancement efforts, and (c) hiring
a senior fundraising professional. The Net Present Value (NPV) analysis applies a 9% discount
rate, which represents the median between the European Union’s recommended rate of 4%
(Hermelink & de Jager, 2015) and the average economic return on Spanish investments of 13.7%
(European Commission, 2017). Additionally, an inflation rate of 8.4% was applied, based on the
annual consumer price inflation in Spain, as reported by the World Bank (2022). This analysis
takes a highly conservative approach to calculating the NPV, reflecting Spain’s relatively
underdeveloped higher education philanthropic sector.
Recommendation 1: Investing in a Core Advancement Team
The first recommendation for Spanish higher education institutions seeking to establish
or expand their fundraising capacity is to invest in a core advancement team. This team
represents the minimal recommendations for ensuring the necessary personnel to support
effective fundraising activities. Table B5 details the total cost of implementing this core team,
incorporating salary data from Table B3, benefit calculations from Table B4, and a 25%
allocation for operational expenses. The example provides typical position titles, which Spanish
universities may customize to reflect their internal structures, ensuring they are fundraising
resources, not additions to the current alumni or communications departments. The total cost for
implementation in year one is €399,361.
180
Table B5
Core Advancement Team Ingredient & Cost Model
Ingredient Description Quantity Price Benefits
(29%)
Cost
Personnel (FTE)
Major Gift Officer Responsible for
Relationship Management
and Solicitation
2 €52,545 €15,238 €135,566
Advancement
Services
Responsible Database
Management, Prospect
Research, and Gift
Stewardship
1 €36,905 €10,702 €47,607
Alumni Relations Responsible for Alumni
Outreach & Annual Giving
1 €40,311 €11,690 €52,001
Marketing &
Comms
Responsible for Campaign
& Fundraising Materials
1 €65,361 €18,954 €84,315
Total Personnel Cost €319,489
Other (25% of Total Personnel Costs) €79,872
Total Core Advancement Team Cost €399,361
When considering the costs of implementing a core advancement team, university
leadership must weigh the investment with projected benefits. Table B6 presents the expected
fundraising returns over five years, discounted to NPV. Historical data from the United States
and Europe demonstrates strong fundraising returns, with universities in the United States
averaging an average ROI of 942.9% in 2018 (VSE, 2019) and European universities yielding
between 617% to 1,391% when excluding alumni costs (CASE, 2017). For Spanish institutions,
a conservative projection estimates a 50% return on expenditures in year 1, increasing to 300%
by year 5, half of the lowest-performing European region. These estimates are further adjusted to
reflect Spain’s unique philanthropic landscape, with returns discounted by 50% in year one and
gradually increasing to 85%. The NPV of Recommendation 1 is estimated at €442,053 over five
years.
181
Table B6
Core Advancement Team: Costs as Net Present Value (NPV)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Revenue € - €108,226.83 €351,953 €763,035 €1,171,768 €1,524,236
Costs €399,361 €432,907 €469,271 €508,690 €551,420 €597,739
Net € (399,361) € (324,680.4 € (117,317) €254,345 €620,347 €926,496
Net w/Disc. € (399,361) € (297,872) € (98,744) € (196,401) €439,470 €602,159
NPV €442,053
Recommendation 2: Investing in Alumni Advancement
The second recommendation emphasizes the benefit of adding advancement-specific
alumni professionals to complement an established core advancement team and existing alumni
engagement program. Spanish universities can achieve impactful alumni fundraising with
minimal additional investment. Based on the net fundraiser value of 1.5 (see Table 13), each
additional alumni fundraiser is projected to raise significantly more than their salary, enhancing
the total funds raised to the limit of legally contactable alumni. Table B7 projects the growth in
fundraising outcomes as alumni fundraisers gain experience and deepen relationships with
alumni over time. As outlined in Table B7, the net fundraising value is projected to rise from 1.5
to 1.8 by year five. While this analysis extends only through year five, it can be assumed that the
benefits of an alumni fundraising program will eventually plateau at the limit of contactable
alumni. The NPV of one alumni advancement professional over five years is estimated at
€112,682.
182
Table B7
Alumni-Advancement: Costs as Net Present Value (NPV)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Revenue €0 €85,152 €92,823 €107,124 €123,380 €1341,612
Costs €52,563 €56,978 €61,764 €66,953 €72,577 €78,673
Net € (52,563) €28,489 €37,059 €40,172 €50,804 €62,939
Net w/Disc. € (52,563) €26,137 €31,192 €31,020 €35,991 €40,906
NPV €112,682
Recommendation 3: Investing in Senior Leadership
The third recommendation highlights the strategic value of hiring an experienced senior
fundraiser to strengthen the core advancement team and alumni-advancement initiatives. Senior
leadership, capable of leading and mentoring novice fundraisers and influencing the culture and
leadership of the institution, enhances the team's capacity and increases the likelihood of
securing major gifts. Table B8 calculates the total cost of the core advancement team with the
additional investment of a senior fundraising position (see Table 14 for salary estimates). The
NPV reflects an increased probability of success, rising from 75% in year one to 85% in years
two and three, 90% in year four, and reaching 100% in year five. The NPV of the enhanced core
advancement team over five years is projected at €1,234,333.
183
Table B8
Core Advancement Team + Senior Fundraising Leadership: Costs as Net Present Value (NPV)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Revenue €217,448 €534,284 €1,226,464 €1,754,184 €2,401,940
Costs €534,927 €579,861 €628,569 €681,369 €738,604 €800,647
Net € (534,927) € (362,413) (€94,285) €545,095 €1,015,580 €1,601,293
Net w/Disc. € (534,927) € (332,489) € (79,358) €420,914 €719,463 €1,040,731
NPV €1,234,333
The Ingredient Method Part 4: Summarize Total Costs
This study aims to provide higher education leadership with a clear framework for
assessing the costs and benefits of implementing fundraising as a sustainable revenue stream.
Despite the conservative assumptions applied throughout the analysis, the NPV calculations
suggest that investing in higher education fundraising is financially feasible and potentially
highly profitable. While the ancillary benefits related to implementing the core advancement
team, including increased alumni engagement, corporate relations, and brand recognition, are
beyond the scope of this study, it is reasonable to assume that the overall value to the university
could be significantly higher. To maximize philanthropic revenue, this study recommends
implementing all three strategies.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Higher education institutions in Spain, facing decreasing state support and an increasingly globalized knowledge economy, must diversify their revenue streams to compete. This qualitative field study examined the factors influencing the development and success of higher education fundraising at Spanish universities. Applying Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) as a theoretical lens, the research investigated the role of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape fundraising professionals’ knowledge and motivation. Additionally, the study analyzed the broader institutional, cultural, and environmental contexts that support or hinder existing fundraising initiatives. Participants included fundraising professionals, university leadership, third-party consultants, and service providers. Findings showed that successful fundraising is driven by the fundraising cycle, a strong sense of belonging and trust, an increasing international demographic, and a compelling case for support. Conversely, institutional, cultural, economic, and political factors hinder fundraising efforts, such as a lack of institutional buy-in and investment, limited professional development resources, a nascent culture of giving, and differences in perceived value between public, private, and religiously affiliated institutions. The study offers two recommendations for Spanish universities to start or grow their fundraising capacity: fostering a philanthropic environment and strengthening institutional fundraising capacity.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Failing toward success: a learn-from-failure mindset and its impact on institutional effectiveness in higher education
PDF
Cultural diversity of dance in higher education: the hip hop remix
PDF
Increasing organizational trust within financial services during times of change: an improvement study
PDF
Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States
PDF
Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders
PDF
The impact of virtual clinical education during the COVID-19 pandemic on nursing graduates in the hospital setting
PDF
Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study
PDF
Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study
PDF
Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory
PDF
Underutilization of employer-funded higher education: a gap analysis
PDF
Cultural assimilation and its impact on educational success
PDF
Enhancing transfer of harassment prevention training into practice
PDF
Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model
PDF
Higher education faculty and reflective practice
PDF
Teaching well-being alongside academic studies in an undergraduate for-credit mindfulness course
PDF
IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice
PDF
Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies
PDF
Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model
PDF
Relocated professional fundraisers in Hawaii: the impact of cultural sensitivity and cultural awareness on fundraising performance
PDF
Navigating the storm: the impact of Hawaiian culture on stress, burnout, and retention of Hawaii’s acute care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022)
Asset Metadata
Creator
Woolf, Carolyn Purdon
(author)
Core Title
European higher education fundraising: a Spanish field study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-12
Publication Date
01/08/2025
Defense Date
10/28/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Fundraising,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,philanthropy,social cognitive theory,Spain
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Datta, Monique (
committee chair
), Eric, Canny (
committee member
), Lynch, Doug (
committee member
)
Creator Email
carolynpwoolf@gmail.com,cwoolf@usc.edu
Unique identifier
UC11399F7S6
Identifier
etd-WoolfCarol-13719.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WoolfCarol-13719
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Woolf, Carolyn Purdon
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20250109-usctheses-batch-1231
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
social cognitive theory