Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Service Quality in
Higher Education:
The students viewpoint
A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester
for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the Faculty of
Humanities
May 2012
Statement of Originality
This dissertation is my own original work and has not been
submitted for any assessment or award at the University
of Manchester or any other university.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Anna Goatman for her invaluable
input and phenomenal support throughout the process of
completing this dissertation.
2ii
Abstract
In light of the imminent rise in tuition fees, university funding cuts and fears of
declining student numbers, gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the higher
education sector is at the forefront of many universities agendas. In what can be
categorised as an extremely intangible service sector, one way that a university can
differentiate their service offering from the competition is through the provision of
excellent service quality. This study investigates perceptions of service quality at the
University of Manchester, collecting viewpoints from Undergraduate students from
different academic year groups.
The research was gathered through the use of focus groups as the primary data
collection method, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques to
triangulate the methodology and increase the credibility of findings. By using
Importance-Performance Analysis to examine the data, the findings indicate that
perceptions of different service quality characteristics are complex, varying in terms
of importance and performance, whilst also displaying disparity between different
academic year groups. Despite this, a set of core characteristics has been
uncovered, which all students deemed important to their university experience,
regardless of which academic year group they were part of.
This study provides university service management with a snapshot of the current
provision of service quality at the University of Manchester. It also offers suggestions
that could be implemented to improve service quality, given the limited resources
available to management. Due to the dynamic nature of service quality, it is essential
to conduct further research to build on this study, in order to ensure that the
university remains competitive in what is an increasingly turbulent environment.
3iii
Contents
1. Introduction
12
12
13
2. Literature Review
15
2.1 Introduction
15
15
21
27
37
38
4. Methodology
39
4.1 Introduction
39
39
42
43
47
48
49
5. Discussion
50
5.1 Introduction
50
50
60
70
4iv
76
84
6. Conclusion
85
6.1 Introduction
85
85
88
89
7. Appendices
91
8. References
111
5v
List of Figures
25
29
30
31
61
62
63
List of Tables
11
11
52
57
64
65
72
79
6vi
List of Appendices
91
93
94
96
98
99
101
104
105
7vii
1. Introduction
The service sector has grown considerably since the 1970s and services are now
playing an increasingly important role in the economy of many nations (Abdullah,
2006a). In conjunction to this trend, the construct of service quality has become an
extremely topical issue within the services literature (Baron et al., 2009). The
provision of good service quality is commonly associated with increased profitability,
customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer retention, customer attraction and
positive word of mouth (Abdullah, 2006a; Nadiri et al., 2009; Voss et al., 2007). In
consideration of these apparent relationships, it is no surprise that there is great
interest in the measurement of service quality (Abdullah, 2006a). Despite the
realisation of its importance, many researchers have found it difficult to properly
define and measure service quality (Giese and Cote, 2000; Parasuraman et al.,
1998) due to the unique characteristics of services, specifically, intangibility,
inseparability, perishability and lack of ownership (Zeithaml et al., 1985).
Given the evident interest in service quality, its potential benefits and issues
associated with its measurement, the purpose of this study is to investigate
perceptions of service quality at the University of Manchester from the point of view
of the student. The first chapter begins by reviewing the current UK higher education
sector, focusing specifically on the role that service quality plays in universities. Next,
the background of the study is introduced and the chapter concludes by providing an
overview of the structure of the study.
Labelled as the sector that has experienced the highest number of changes over the
last two decades (Key Note, 2011), the higher education sector has been at the
forefront of intense changes. The sector is experiencing constant readjustment and
has been subject to several major reforms, largely pertaining to political, social and
economic factors. On the back of the formation of the coalition government,
alongside the economic recession, the higher education sector is facing the risk of
students becoming disenfranchised from education as the cost of tuition is set to rise,
as well as issues relating to reductions in the funding that institutions receive from the
government.
1.1.1 Tuition Fees
As of September 2012, universities have the freedom to charge 6,000, and in some
circumstances 9,000, providing the institution can offer sufficient financial support to
students from poorer backgrounds (Direct Gov, 2012b). With universities
experiencing the brunt of the economic crisis and facing significant cuts in their
funding, it is no surprise that many are attempting to offset these cuts by charging the
maximum 9,000 per year of study. According to the Guardian (2011), more than a
third (i.e. 47 universities) will charge the full rate of 9,000 for the first time in
September 2012, and it is anticipated that many more will increase to the full rate in
the near future. With fears of excess of 40,000 debt on graduation from university,
students have reacted furiously with numerous protests through Westminster, though
these seem to have been unsuccessful with regard to changing government policy
9
Although the higher education sector is fairly robust and it is anticipated that there is
always going to be demand for education, there have been fears that higher fees
may prevent students from studying in the UK, making higher education unobtainable
for many young people who wish to go to university (Key Note, 2011). Accordingly,
many students may cross international borders in an attempt to seek lower fees, thus
reducing the competitive position of UK universities in the marketplace. Worryingly, it
is forecasted that the number of students will fall from 2.7 million in 2011/2012 to 2.6
million in 2012/2013, and continue to decline year-on-year to 2015/2016 (Key Note,
2011).
1.1.2 University Funding Cuts
In addition to rising student fees and the economic downturn, the coalition
government have also decided to cut university funding for 2011/2012 and beyond.
Key Note (2011) point out that universities traditionally receive funding from a range
of organisations, including Higher Education Funding Councils (e.g. Higher Education
Funding Council for England) and Research Councils (e.g. Economic and Social
Research Council). Nevertheless, a total of 940m cuts have been made for
2011/2012 in comparison to the previous year. The largest cuts hit the teaching
budget, which is forecast to lose 342m by July 2012, while the research budget is
set to fall by 45m (HEFCE, 2011). This has led to worries that UK universities,
especially those less established, could find it difficult to fund some of the most
important research in the world, potentially jeopardising their reputation and
competitive position in the marketplace. Moreover, it is believed that government cuts
in the higher education sector are causing customer loyalty, satisfaction, retention,
attraction and service quality to become increasingly important issues, which can all
contribute in alleviating funding concerns. Therefore, in the face of various funding
cuts and intense global competition, higher education institutions are shifting their
focus to market-orientated mechanisms like many other service industries (DeShields
et al., 2005).
Despite the surge in tuition fees in 2006, university student numbers have increased
steadily year-on-year by approximately 12.4% between 2006 and 2011 (Department
10
Number of
Students
Diff (+/-)
% Change
Year-onyear
2006
2,281.2
2007
2,304.7
2008
2,306.1
2009
2,396.1
2010
2,493.4
2011
2,605
23.5
1.4
90
97.3
111.6
1.0
0.1
3.9
4.1
4.5
Table 1.1: Total Number of Students in Higher Education in the UK 2006 - 2011 (000s)
Source: Department for Education (2011)
Table 1.1 demonstrates that the greatest growth was experienced between 2009 and
2011, increasingly steadily and growing by 4.2% on average. Similarly, figures from
UCAS (2012) show that student university applications have experienced an average
percentage increase of 30% between 2007 and 2011 (Table 1.2). However,
examination of total applicants between 2011 and 2012 illustrates that applications
have decreased by 7.4%. It is believed that the root cause of this is students reaction
to the increase in tuition fees, which will be introduced in September 2012 (Guardian,
2012).
Total
Applicants
Diff (+/-)
% Change
Year-onyear
2007
402,831
2008
435,658
2009
464,167
2010
555,439
2011
583,546
32,827
8.1
28,509
6.5
91,272
19.7
28,107
4.8
2012
540,07
3
43,473
-7.4
Table 1.2: Total University Student Applicants 2007-2012 as of January Each Year
Source: UCAS (2012)
In recognition of these figures, it is predicted that the higher education sector will
continue to experience small declines year-on-year in student numbers by as much
as 2.9% (Key Note, 2011). This makes attracting students extremely important for
university management. After all, customer attraction is crucial for institutions and it is
no surprise that the recruitment of students is a major priority for many universities
due to the desire to increase the student population in line with the government
targets (Sultan and Wong, 2010).
11
Currently, the literature pertaining to service quality in the higher education sector is
significantly undeveloped. Traditionally, many researchers have focused their efforts
on commercial services (Sultan and Wong, 2010). However, it is increasingly
apparent that institutions operating in the higher education sector, previously not
regarded as profit-making organisations, are attempting to gain a competitive
advantage over their competition (Oldfield and Baron, 2000). As a result, universities
must consider themselves as a profit-making organisation that is operating in a
competitive marketplace (Oldfield and Baron, 2000).
In light of the current economic climate, funding cuts and potential future decreases
in student numbers, universities must realise that they are business entities,
competing for resources and students, both in the local and international market
(Paswan and Ganesh, 2009). This means that universities should be continually
looking for appropriate ways of gaining a competitive advantage. Accordingly, the
higher education sector must strive to deliver a high quality of service and satisfy its
students, who some may term participating customers, to achieve sustainability in a
competitive service environment (DeShields et aI., 2005). After all, universities can
only be successful as long as their students are being offered something that they
wish to buy, at a quality they feel is acceptable (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009). This
demonstrates the importance of service quality in gaining a competitive advantage,
whilst also highlighting the need to better understand the role that service quality
plays in the higher education sector.
This illustrates that reputable individuals at the university acknowledge the need to
continually improve the university experience for students. Accordingly, an
understanding of the current provision of service quality could provide university
service management with invaluable insights, as well as highlighting potential areas
that could be improved to enhance the university experience for students. After all,
providing a high level of quality can help build customer loyalty and positive word-ofmouth (Abdullah, 2006a), which ultimately assists in producing higher profit margins
for an organisation.
The purpose of this chapter is to set the scene for the rest of the study. Chapter 2
investigates current literature, focusing predominantly on the Nature of Services, the
13
Construct of Service Quality, and the Measurement of Service Quality in the context
of higher education. This is useful for formulating research objectives and questions,
which are uncovered in Chapter 3. Following this, Chapter 4 details the studys
methodology, which includes a justification of the research approach adopted, the
data collection method and data analysis procedures, as well as ethical
considerations. Subsequently, Chapter 5 incorporates both the findings and
discussion into one succinct chapter, which aims to present, analyse and discuss the
results of the study in relation to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. Finally, Chapter
6 presents conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and discussions
detailed in Chapter 5, as well as detailing the limitations of the study and future
research opportunities.
14
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the relevant literature relating to the construct of service
quality a heavily researched component of the services marketing literature (Baron
et al., 2009). In particular, it seeks to unravel and critically analyse the relevant
theories, models and concepts from key authors in the subject field, whilst
addressing the role played by service quality in a higher education context.
The literature review is divided into three sections: the Nature of Services (Section
2.2.), the Construct of Service Quality (Section 2.3) and Measuring Service Quality
(Section 2.4). The Nature of Services concentrates on introducing and defining
services in the context of higher education. Following an introduction to services, the
Construct of Service Quality is examined, attempting to understand what is termed
an elusive and indistinct construct by many academics (Bolton and Drew, 1991;
Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Within this
section, the debate surrounding the relationship between service quality and
satisfaction is explored. A section on Measuring Service Quality follows, uncovering
the different instruments developed by academics to measure service quality. Finally,
the literature review concludes with a summary of the chapter that details the key
findings, as well as highlighting a gap in the current literature that this study seeks to
address.
According to Zeithaml et al. (1993), services marketing did not emerge as a distinct
research discipline until the late 1970s. In less than four decades services have
become the dominant form of economic activity and are now playing an increasingly
important role in the economy of many nations (Abdullah, 2006a). There appears to
be a positive relationship between economic development of a country and its
service sector; developed economies are increasingly more service orientated
(Palmer, 2011). For instance, in the United Kingdom approximately 77% of workers
15
are employed in the service sector, in comparison to only 38% of workers in Thailand
a particularly less developed country than the United Kingdom (International
Labour Organization, 2009, cited in Palmer, 2011).
Each definition captures the intangible nature of services, illustrating the most
fundamental difference between a service and good. However, it is also evident that
as well as differences, similarities between services and goods also exist. Therefore,
it is appropriate to distinguish between the two to broaden the definition of a service.
16
difficulty in defining and measuring a service (see e.g. Shostack, 1977). However,
Gronroos (1978) suggests that services should not be treated as physical goods.
Nonetheless, ambiguity still exists today, since services and goods share much of the
conceptual underpinning of quality (Palmer, 2011). Despite this, services tend to
pose much greater problems in the understanding of customers needs and
expectations than goods, which form the basis for evaluation (Palmer, 2011).
Hill (1995) manages to differentiate between goods and services, suggesting that a
service is ephemeral and can only be consumed as long as the process continues.
However, due to the heterogeneity of services, an individuals time spent consuming
a service could be longer lasting, challenging the notion that services are short-lived
(Zeithaml et al, 2009). Notwithstanding this issue, Parasuraman et al. (1985) argue
that the presence of tangible cues when purchasing goods (e.g. style, colour, feel
and fit) make it is easier for the customer to evaluate goods in comparison to
services. This limits the evaluation of a service to the service providers physical
facilities, equipment and personnel.
general consensus between many academics that these are the characteristics that
differentiate services from goods (Fisk et al., 1993; Nadiri, et al., 2009; Palmer, 2011;
Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Firstly, due to the intangible nature of services, problems tend to arise for both the
service provider and the consumer. This can often present problems for service
providers when attempting to differentiate their offerings from that of the competition
(Hill, 1995). Secondly, the heterogeneity of services makes most services unique,
resulting in problems when attempting to standardise a service. It is inevitable that
one service encounter will differ from the next within the same organisation
(Parasuraman et al., 1985), requiring the need to carefully manage the service
encounter. Thirdly, since services are an experience, they can only be consumed if
the service is made available to the consumer. Therefore, production and
consumption occur at the same time, resulting in most services being deemed
inseparable (Palmer, 2011).
A further distinction between services and goods is that a service cannot be stored.
This results in the need to pay more attention to the management of supply and
demand of the service to ensure that the service is utilised to its maximum potential
(Palmer, 2011). Similarly, the lack of ownership of services can be related to the
inherent perishability of a service. When a service is performed, no ownership is
transferred from the seller to the buyer (Palmer, 2011). In other words, the service is
essentially temporary, giving the buyer the right to participate in the service process.
DeShields et al. (2005) argue that it is essential for higher education management to
apply market-orientated principles and strategies that are used in profit-making
institutions. These principles and strategies are being applied to higher education
institutions with the aim of gaining a competitive advantage (Hemsley-Brown and
Oplatka, 2006). Accordingly, institutions are increasingly realising the importance of
higher education as a service industry and are placing greater emphasis on meeting
18
the expectations and needs of students (DeShields et al., 2005). Nadiri et al. (2009)
point out that it is crucial for higher education providers to understand students
expectations and perceptions of what constitutes a quality service in order to attract
students and serve their needs. This promotes the need for higher education
institutions to continue to deliver a quality service and satisfy its participating
customers to achieve sustainability in a competitive service environment (DeShields
et al., 2005).
According to Oldfield and Baron (2000), higher education can be seen as a pure
service, suggesting that it possesses all the unique characteristics of a service
(Section 2.2.4). More recently, Gruber et al. (2010) assert that higher education is a
service that is predominantly intangible, perishable and heterogeneous. This is due
to the service experience varying from one situation to the next, making higher
education service encounters difficult to standardise. Higher education as a service
also satisfies the perishability criterion since it is difficult to store. However, ways to
overcome this are evident, for instance, the emergence of e-learning and video
technology (Cuthbert, 1996a) over the past fifteen years. As a result, service sectors
such as higher education are attempting to defy the perishability characteristic of a
service through the assistance of innovation and technological advances.
This study recognises that there are a range stakeholders in higher education.
However, the focus for the study is the student as the primary stakeholder, with the
aim of revealing what they actually think, which may support or contradict what other
representatives in higher education believe. Therefore, all subsequent discussion
pertaining to stakeholders in higher education relates to the student as the primary
stakeholder.
20
2.3.1 Importance
Service quality has been a prominent research topic for many service marketers and
researchers over the last three decades. Baron et al., (2009, p. 167) maintain that:
The reason for the vast interest in service quality is obvious; poor quality places the
firm at a disadvantage to the rest of the competition, potentially driving away
dissatisfied customers (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011). Organisations are operating in
extremely tough environments, and service managers now realise that improving
service quality is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage (Baron et al., 2009;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). Where there is competition, the quality of the service
experience becomes an important factor in buyer decision-making (Cuthbert, 1996a).
Accordingly, service quality is particularly important for organisational growth and
differentiating one service experience from another (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
21
Crosby (1979, p. 15) provides one of the earliest definitions of quality, suggesting
that it is the conformation to specifications. According to Crosby (1979, p. 17),
quality is often mistaken for imprecise adjectives like goodness, or luxury or
shininess or weight, illustrating the indefinable nature of the construct. Nevertheless,
Lewis and Booms (1983, p. 100) were one of the first to define quality in terms of
services, defining service quality as:
This definition can be developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), who argue that
service quality stems from a comparison of a consumers general expectations with
their actual perceptions of a firm. As a result, the level of service quality can be
measured by how much the service provided to consumers exceeds their
expectations (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011). Alternatively, authors such as Berry et al.
(1988), propose that service quality is an overall evaluation similar to an attitude. This
illustrates that there appears to be confusion and no general consensus between
academics with regards to a definitive definition for service quality.
Due to the subjective nature of service quality (Rust and Oliver, 1994), the services
marketing literature focuses on quality in terms of perceived service quality (Nadiri et
al., 2009). Perceived service quality results from the comparison of customer service
expectations with their perceptions of actual performance (Zeithaml et al., 1990), and
is seen as a global judgement of the service (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Athiyaman
(1997) extends this idea, claiming that perceived service quality is an overall
evaluation of the goodness or badness of a product or service.
22
Perceptions of service quality differ between different parties. For example, the
discussion pertaining to different stakeholders in higher education (Section 2.2.6)
demonstrates that a customers perceptions of service quality might not be the same
as company perceptions of service quality, resulting in a mismatch when attempting
to measure service quality. In addition, perceptions of service quality change over
time. In the context of higher education, experiences of students are varied and
continuous, over months and years (Cuthbert, 1996a). This highlights the relevance
of the context when measuring perceived service quality.
Hill (1995) adds to the complexity of perceived service quality, stating that the service
does not just depend on the service provider, but also on the performance of the
consumer. The co-production of services is of greatest concern to an organisation
when customers are more involved in the production process (Palmer, 2011). This is
extremely significant in the context of higher education, as the participation of the
student is vital since they play a large role in determining the success of the service.
As a result, managing and monitoring the quality of services is increasingly difficult
for the service provider (Palmer, 2011).
According to Sultan and Wong (2010), service quality research in the higher
education sector is relatively new, at least when compared to that of the commercial
sector. With significant changes taking place in higher education institutions over the
last decade, it seems that higher education should be regarded as a business-like
service industry, which focuses on meeting and exceeding the needs of students
(Gruber et al., 2010). Many higher education institutions are beginning to realise this
and are competing for students, both in the local and international market (Paswan
and Ganesh, 2009). Furthermore, with the emergence of many informal platforms for
students to post their views on their experiences (e.g. The Student Room), higher
education institutions are increasingly being called to account for the quality of
education that they provide. Accordingly, achieving quality has become an important
goal for most higher education institutions (Abdullah, 2006b).
Harvey and Green (1993) contend that quality in higher education is a complex and
multifaceted concept and an appropriate definition is lacking. There are many ways
to define quality in higher education and each definition has its own criteria and
perspective and is regarded as stakeholder relative (Harvey and Green, 1993). In
23
terms of the student as the stakeholder, DeShields et al. (2005) argue that the higher
education sector needs to continue to deliver a high quality service and satisfy
students in order to succeed in a competitive service environment. Therefore,
attempting to evaluate the level of service quality and understanding how different
factors impact overall service quality is crucial so that higher education institutions
can design their service in the best possible way (Abdullah, 2006b). Furthermore,
knowing the strengths and weaknesses of different factors and their relative influence
may lead to better allocation of resources, resulting in students being provided with
an improved service (Abdullah, 2006b).
2.3.5 Expectations and Perceptions
25
service quality were strongly correlated; however, the authors concluded that they
were indeed two separate constructs. Finally, Zeithaml et al. (2009) see satisfaction
as a broader concept than service quality, suggesting that service quality is a
component of satisfaction.
2.4.1 Introduction
Practitioners and academics are keen to accurately measure service quality in order
to better understand its essential antecedents and consequences, and ultimately
establish methods for improving quality to achieve a competitive advantage and build
customer loyalty (Abdullah, 2006a). In addition, there are many areas of
27
Over the last three decades, a range of conceptual frameworks and models have
been proposed that attempt to measure service quality (see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a,
2006b; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985,
1988). According to Palmer (2011), the main methods used to measure service
quality are performance-only and disconfirmation approaches. Furthermore, the most
widely used methods applied to measure service quality can be categorised as
quantitative multi-attribute measurements (Abdullah, 2006a), for instance, the
SERVQUAL approach (Parasuraman et al., 1988), the SERVPERF approach, and in
the context of higher education, the HEdPERF approach (Abdullah, 2006a, 2006b).
Of the approaches highlighted above, the most frequently cited model is the
SERVQUAL model, which stems from the earlier work of Gronroos (1984).
Furthermore, the development of the SERVPERF model has encouraged the
introduction of context specific models for measuring service quality. Abdullah (2006)
developed the Higher Education performance-only model (HEdPERF). The model is
a comprehensive performance-based measuring scale that attempts to capture the
determinants of service quality within the higher education sector.
Gronroos (1982, 1984) was one of the first authors to conceptualise service quality
with the development of the perceived service quality model (Figure 2.2). The model
28
Gronroos (1984) claims that two types of service quality exist, namely, technical
quality and functional quality. Technical quality relates to what is provided during the
service process (e.g. knowledge, tangibles and technical solutions). These are the
relatively quantifiable aspects of the service, which the customer and supplier can
easily measure (Gronroos, 1984). On the other hand, functional quality refers to how
the service is provided and the interpersonal behaviours contributed by the service
employee during the service encounter. It is more difficult to measure than technical
quality (Gronroos, 1984). Gronroos (2007) proposes that the gap between the
expected service and perceived service is of utmost importance and that it is vital for
a service organisation to keep this gap as small as possible. In addition, it is
important for managers to understand how the technical quality and functional quality
of a service is influenced, and how customers perceive these quality dimensions
(Gronroos, 2007) to ensure perceived service quality is maximised.
29
The introduction of the perceived service quality model encouraged the development
of the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). SERVQUAL is founded
on the view that the customers assessment of service quality is paramount (Figure
2.3). As with the perceived service quality model, the disconfirmation model (Section
2.3.6) is employed. In this instance, quality evaluations as perceived by customers,
stem from a comparison of what the customers feel the organisation should offer and
their perceptions of the performance of the organisation providing the service
(Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Parasuraman et al. (1988) believe that the level of
perceived service quality is dependent on the magnitude of the gap between
expectations and perceptions the smaller the gap, the higher the level of perceived
service quality.
30
perceptions (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Parasuraman et al. (1988, p. 23) illustrate
that the model incorporates five dimensions:
Reliability: The ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
Empathy: The caring, individualised attention the firm provides its customers.
Assurance: The knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence.
Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel.
Parasuraman et al. (1988) assert that the SERVQUAL instrument could be applied to
most service organisations. The use of a SERVQUAL instrument is particularly
relevant in the context of higher education (see e.g. Cuthbert, 1996a, 1996b; Hill,
1995; Oldfield and Baron, 2000). In particular, Cuthbert (1996a, 1996b) used the
SERVQUAL scale to measure student perceptions of university service quality. The
author found very weak results when testing the five SERVQUAL dimensions and
concluded that using a SERVQUAL scale to measure university service quality was
inappropriate. The author argues that a modified SERVQUAL instrument might be
applicable since it may be able to capture a better representation of the entire
student experience (Cuthbert, 1996a).
Literature relating to the validity and reliability of the SERVQUAL model is extremely
well documented (Buttle, 1995; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994). One
31
of the most controversial issues is the reliability of SERVQUAL (Nadiri et al., 2009).
Firstly, the dimensions are not generic; that is, the applicability of the SERVQUAL
scale to different service settings is questionable (Abdullah, 2006a). Secondly, it is
argued that the five dimensions are not universal, since the number of dimensions
comprising service quality is contextualised (Buttle, 1995). Therefore, it is no surprise
that the application of the SERVQUAL model in a higher education context has been
met with little success (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Despite the criticisms
SERVQUAL has received, it is clear that the model provides a convenient starting
point for practitioners and academics seeking to measure and monitor perceived
service quality. It provides a platform that is capable of directing attention to issues of
service quality, which can be built upon to generate a more comprehensive
interpretation of service quality.
Cronin and Taylor (1992) were one of the first authors to criticise the reliability and
validity of the SERVQUAL model. In response to the limitations of the SERVQUAL
model, Cronin and Taylor (1992) developed the SERVPERF scale, which was born
out of the inadequacies of SERVQUAL. The authors believe that service quality
should be defined simply on perceptions, basing their model on the premise that it is
difficult to conceptualise expectations. This led to the development of a more direct
form of measurement that utilised an attitudinal rather than a disconfirmation
paradigm (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). The SERVPERF approach requires the
customer to rate only the service providers performance in a particular service
encounter.
32
Empirical results suggest that SERVPERF offers better reliability than SERVQUAL,
illustrating that expectations can be disregarded for assessment (Cronin and Taylor,
1992). In response to this, Parasuraman et al. (1994) defended the inclusion of
expectations suggesting that the diagnostic value of SERVQUAL offsets the
instrument loss of predictive power. In consideration of both models, Zeithaml et al.
(1996) contend that using only perceptions to measure service quality was more
appropriate if the primary purpose of the research was to explain the variance in a
dependent construct. Despite this, a recent study concluded that both the
SERVPERF and SERVQUAL scales are adequate predictors of overall service
quality (Carrillat et al., 2007).
Taking into account this evidence, this study focuses on collecting current
perceptions of students, rather than attempting to collect expectations retrospectively
as well. Empirical evidence from Cronin and Taylor (1992) endorse the feasibility of
this approach, demonstrating that the quality of the study it is not disadvantaged by
disregarding expectations.
Evidence of the application of the SERVPERF model in the higher education context
can be uncovered. Many researchers have preferred this methodology to
SERVQUAL and have used an adapted performance version of SERVQUAL to
measure the perceptions of service quality and evaluate students course experience
(see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a; Hill, 1995; McElwee and Redman, 1993; Oldfield and
Baron, 2000; Rigotti and Pitt, 1992). In particular, Oldfield and Baron (2000)
investigated students perceptions of service quality in a university in the UK. The
research identified that students perceived service quality has three dimensions:
33
Despite the emergence of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, it has been
suggested that industry-specific service quality measures may prove more relevant
(Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1985). Generic measures
(e.g. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) of service quality may not be totally suitable for
assessing perceived quality in higher education (Abdullah, 2006a), creating the need
for an instrument specific to the higher education sector. In addition, it has been
recognised that little has been done to identify the determinants of service quality in
higher education from the viewpoint of the student (Abdullah, 2006a). As a result,
Abdullah (2006a) developed the HEdPERF model. The model is an adaptation of the
standard SERVPERF model (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992), adopting a
perceptions-only approach. Abdullah (2006a) states that the aim of this model is to
capture a context specific view of service quality in higher education, enabling the
whole student experience to be measured. The instrument measures 41-items
(Appendix B) and each item have been tested for reliability and validity, using both
types of factorial analysis, exploratory and confirmatory (Abdullah, 2006a).
Furthermore, comparative results show that the HEdPERF scale captures more
variance relative to that of the SERVPERF scale (Sultan and Wong, 2010).
Abdullah (2006a) argues that tertiary institutions can use HEdPERF to improve
service performance. In particular, research findings confirm that students
perceptions of service quality can be determined by evaluating six dimensions,
specifically, non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access,
programme issues and understanding. Evaluating service quality and understanding
how these dimensions impact service quality can enable higher education institutions
to efficiently design the service delivery process (Abdullah, 2006a). This is important
given the current economic climate since many UK universities are facing substantial
funding cuts (Section 1.1.2). In addition, rising tuition fees have the potential to
disenchant students from higher education (Section 1.1.1), making it even more
crucial to consider the provision of service quality. Furthermore, it is important to
satisfy students, since satisfied students will recommend the service to other
prospective students and will also be more likely to continue the relationship with the
service provider (Munteanu et al., 2010). Therefore, since the student is the main
recipient of the service, it becomes even more crucial to understand service quality
and its influence on the service delivery process, in an attempt to fulfil students
needs more effectively.
34
There is an extensive amount of literature pertaining to the search for a general scale
and instrument for the measurement of service quality in all or a number of distinct
groups of service contexts (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Furthermore, Seth et al.
35
More sophisticated approaches to the construct of service quality within the service
encounter are required (Svensson, 2006). Abdullah (2006a) suggests that it may be
time to bury the existing instruments and attempt to reconstruct or redefine service
quality from a new and different perspective. However, instead of trying to generalise
and attempt to model service quality for a particular sector (e.g. higher education),
Sultan and Wong (2010) see service quality as a contextual issue since its
dimensions vary widely. Therefore, it could be more worthwhile to investigate service
quality based entirely on the situation at hand, since findings may vary from one
situation to the next. Carrillat et al. (2007) support this view suggesting that the
measurement of service quality should be adapted to context of each study.
Customers do not perceive quality in a one-dimensional way but rather judge quality
based on multiple factors relevant to the context (Zeithaml et al., 2009).
36
The chapter has reviewed the literature regarding the nature of services, the
construct of service quality and the measurement of service quality. In summary, it
has been acknowledged that the construct of service quality is complex and multifaceted in nature, making it increasingly difficult to measure. It has also been
established that confining the measurement of service quality to its particular context
could be more useful than using a generic methodology (e.g. SERVQUAL).
A review of the literature has uncovered a gap that this research attempts to address.
It is evident that service quality is deemed an elusive and indistinct construct by
many authors (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1988). Furthermore, there appears to be no definitive instrument
that accurately measures service quality (Clewes, 2003), since many measurement
instruments tend to be generic and subject to various criticisms in terms of their
reliability and validity. Accordingly, Abdullah (2006a) suggests that measuring service
quality using existing instruments is inadequate and that there is a need to explore
service quality from new perspectives. In consideration of these issues, a gap exists
to conduct research that investigates students perceptions of services quality, using
a combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques applicable to the study
context, in order to provide service management at the University of Manchester with
fresh insights regarding the current provision of service quality.
37
The literature review presented in the previous chapter has raised a number of
objectives and questions that this study seeks to investigate further. The fundamental
purpose of this study is to investigate students perceptions of service quality at the
University of Manchester.
Findings to the research questions listed above enable the final research question to
be answered:
38
4. Methodology
4.1 Introduction
The following chapter outlines the methodology and research techniques adopted to
answer the research questions proposed in Chapter 3. The chapter begins by
explaining the methodological stance of the researcher; justifying the course for
research, which dictates subsequent methodology decisions (Malhotra and Birks,
2007). Following this, the use of focus groups as the primary data collection method
is rationalised. Subsequently, the focus group data collection procedure is outlined,
illustrating the sample, procedure and issues faced in the data collection process.
Next, reliability and validity are considered, outlining the measures undertaken to
maintain each of these. Finally, the ethical issues concerning the research are
evaluated and the chapter concludes with a summary, which attempts to review the
methodology and offer improvements for future research.
The methodological stance of a researcher asserts how researchers view the world
and what their assumptions and beliefs are concerning their existence (Saunders et
al., 2009). Therefore, when conducting research, it is important to ensure that the
philosophical position of the researcher is properly considered since this underpins
the chosen research strategy (Saunders et al., 2009), ensuring that the phenomenon
being investigated is fully understood (Johnson and Clarke, 2006). In order to
determine the methodological stance of the researcher, two philosophical concepts
must be considered, namely, epistemology and ontology (Saunders et al., 2009).
Epistemology relates to the study of knowledge, its limitations and how the
researcher interprets knowledge. It is concerned with how knowledge is generated
and establishes which information is valid and which is not (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Traditionally, the paradigms of postivism and interpretivism are associated with
epistemology (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Generally, the paradigm determines which
research techniques are adopted for a study (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). However,
when choosing which paradigm is most applicable for research, Weber (2004)
suggests that the researchers beliefs and the purpose of the research dictate this
decision, as well as which method is most appropriate.
39
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the study of reality and
dictates how a researcher approaches different phenomena (Saunders et al., 2009).
Ontology is concerned with the nature of social entities and asks how we perceive
objects to exist in the world (Bryman and Bell, 2011). It questions whether reality is
objective and exists regardless of our perception of it, or whether it is subjective and
only exists because we believe this to be so (Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, a
researcher must question whether social entities should be considered as objective
entities that have a reality external to social actors, or whether they should be
considered as social constructions built up from the perceptions and actions of social
actors (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
40
Saunders et al. (2009) argue that the most appropriate philosophical stance depends
on the research objectives and questions. Based on this assertion, the researchers
beliefs and the literature presented above, this study adopts a positivist
epistemological perspective that focuses on an objective ontological reality. Utilising
an interpretivist approach for research would be inappropriate in this context, given
that this perspective centres on personal opinion and feelings instead of attempting
to establish objective reality. Instead, this study seeks to utilise a scientific approach
to research in order to achieve truth and uncover reality.
philosophical stance adopted by the researcher. The authors term adopters of this
approach the pragmatic researcher. This type of researcher tends to deal with
problems in a sensible and realistic manner that focuses more on practical rather
than theoretical considerations. After all, it is widely accepted that research
methodologies are merely tools that are designed to aid our understanding of the
world (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005).
The pragmatic researcher appreciates that incorporating both quantitative and
qualitative techniques in the same study can strengthen the validity of a
methodology, offsetting some of the limitations and problems associated with
individual research techniques (Sechrest and Sidani, 1995). In consideration of this
study, Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) add that the inclusion of qualitative data can
be particularly useful for explaining and validating relationships that have been
discovered by quantitative data, since relying on one type of data (i.e. number or
words) can be extremely limiting.
4.3 Rationalising the Methodological Approach
The methods and techniques that are most suitable for research depends on the
research problem and its purpose (Jankowicz, 2005). Therefore, with the studys
philosophical stance, objectives and research questions in mind, this section of the
methodology explains the rationale for selecting focus groups as the primary data
collection tool for the methodology.
This study defies common conventions, utilising focus groups as the main research
technique, whilst researching from a positivist perspective. Saunders et al. (2009)
42
Given the nature of the study (i.e. cross-sectional) and the various resource
constraints (i.e. time, money, accessibility) placed upon the researcher, focus groups
appeared to be the most feasible method in comparison to other data collection
methods. For instance, attempting to distribute large questionnaires to students
across different academic years could have been problematic. There are multiple
reasons for this, including the issues associated with achieving a good representation
of the population and guaranteeing a high response rate (Malhotra and Birks, 2007),
as well as the difficulty of accurately interpreting the results from the questionnaires
(Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010).
4.4 The Research Process: Focus Groups
focus groups should have between six and ten participants. Importantly, Morgan
(1998) asserts that groups of fewer than six are unlikely to generate the momentum
for a successful session, while groups of more than ten may be too crowded and may
not be conducive to a cohesive and natural discussion. More recently, Ghauri and
Gronhaug (2010) claim that a focus group that is too small (e.g. less than 5
participants) or too large (e.g. more than 10 participant) can make the focus group
ineffective as the participation of individuals can become too fragmented.
The participants for each focus group were selected using convenience sampling.
Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that is used to obtain
a sample of convenient elements at the researchers own discretion (Saunders et al.,
2009). In addition, convenience sampling is the least expensive and least time
consuming of all sampling techniques (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Therefore, in an
attempt to maximise homogeneity between participants, a requirement of the sample
was that all participants were enrolled on the BSc Management degree programme
(including associated specialisms) and part of Manchester Business School. In
support of this, Hair et al. (2008) recommend that focus groups should be as
homogenous as possible. Furthermore, Krueger and Casey (2009) believe that it is
important that some kind of homogeneity exists between the participants, but with
enough difference to allow for variation of opinions and debate. Kitzinger (1994)
claim that being with others who share similar experiences encourages those
participating to express, clarify, or even to develop particular perspectives. In
addition, commonality among group members is useful for avoiding conflict as well as
acting as a mechanism that encourages more in-depth and open discussion (Ghauri
and Gronhaug, 2010).
Before the actual six focus groups were carried out, a pilot focus group was
conducted with a convenience sample of six final year business students to ensure
consistency in the format, design, layout and structure of the focus group.
Importantly, this was also used as an opportunity to confirm the service quality
44
characteristics used in the focus group (Appendix F), which were taken from the
literature (Appendix A and Appendix B) and adapted to this study. Participants also
had the opportunity to suggest additional characteristics if they felt that they had not
been brought up. Regardless, as Malhotra and Birks (2007) point out, the first focus
group should be treated as an experimental group. The intention here was to
ascertain whether the procedure worked, how participants reacted, how participants
perceived the service quality characteristics and how the moderator dealt with the
focus group (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). In essence, the pilot focus group aimed to
eliminate any confusion, in an attempt to improve the reliability and validity of each
future focus group.
Apart from one, each of the other focus groups was carried out in a quiet study room
in the John Rylands University Library. According to DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree
(2006), it is important to ensure that the environment is familiar and comfortable each
time for all participants. Furthermore, Malhotra and Birks (2007) claim that a relaxed,
informal atmosphere helps group members to forget that they are being questioned
and observed. Finally, each focus group ended by summarising the main points that
had been covered and asking participants if this seemed an accurate summary.
For each of the main focus groups, each participant was welcomed, given an
overview, introduced to key terms (e.g. service quality) and informed of the ground
rules (Krueger and Casey, 2009). As group sessions are often unpredictable in terms
of the flow of conversation (Silverman, 2006), a topic agenda was utilised to ensure
that all of the necessary topics were covered. More specifically, the first part of each
focus groups required participants to rate different service quality characteristics
based on how important they perceived them to be and how well they performed
(Appendix I). The second part of each focus group engaged participants in a lengthy
discussion to determine why they had rated characteristics the way they did, as well
as asking students to provide suggestions for improving the level of service quality at
the university.
The researcher was the moderator for each focus group since similar demographics
were shared with participants, which allowed the researcher to relate to each of the
participants more readily (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Moreover, it is useful for the
moderator to have a good understanding of the group so that they can maintain
useful conversation and debate when the group is going off topic (Silverman, 2006).
Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) also believe that the moderator is useful for ensuring
45
that the focus groups remained effective and structured, and should only intervene if
the discussion started to stray off topic. Accordingly, the moderator attempted to
remain neutral throughout each focus group and recorded the discussion using a
dictaphone. As Krueger and Casey (2009) advocate, this was important so that the
conversation could be better managed without the need for note taking.
It was important to be aware biases that could arise throughout the focus group
process and therefore crucial to maintain the validity and reliability. According to
Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010), validity refers to measures that capture what they are
supposed to capture whereas reliability considers the stability of measures. One
downside to the use of focus groups for collecting data is that it is very difficult to
summarise and categorise information that has been gathered (Ghauri and
Gronhaug, 2010), creating the possibility of biased results.
In order to enhance the reliability and validity of each focus group, data was collected
using a triangulation approach. Saunders et al. (2009) assert that triangulation is the
combination or use of two or more different data collection techniques within one
study of the same phenomenon. According to Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010), when
correctness or precision is important, it is logical to collect information using different
methods and angles. With this in mind, a combination of both quantitative and
qualitative research techniques was used within each focus group to embrace a
triangulated approach to data collection. First of all, the use of a basic quantitative
survey (Appendix F) to collect student perceptions was used in each focus group.
However, the researcher acknowledged that independently, surveys do not reveal
any reasoning behind the responses, commonly providing management with a simple
indication and no justification. The overriding purpose of using a survey within the
focus group was to encourage discussion. Therefore, the second part of the focus
group centred on discussing participants ratings from the surveys and also asking
them to provide suggestions for university service management. Each discussion
was also recorded to allow easier transcription of findings in the analysis.
It is appropriate to discuss which techniques have been used to analyse data that
has been collected. Firstly, mean scores, variances and rankings were calculated for
each academic year group based on each of the service quality characteristic
(Appendix G). To achieve this, ratings from each participant across both focus
groups in each year were combined.
It is acknowledged that each IPA matrix, without any further support, does not give
management an accurate interpretation of each service quality characteristic. As a
result, the recordings from each focus group discussion were transcribed and
47
organised into key themes that could be used in conjunction to each IPA matrix to
provide further evidence for the discussion. This supports the methodological stance
of the researcher, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques
in the same study to increase the credibility of the findings.
Saunders et al. (2009) point out that ethical concerns can occur at all stages of a
research project; when seeking access, during data collection, as data is analysed
and when findings are reported. Ethical concerns include protecting the anonymity of
participants, honouring all statements and conducting research in a way that does
not embarrass or harm the participants (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Thomas (2004)
postulates that it can be difficult to try to avoid ethical problems in marketing
research, making it increasingly important to consider ethics throughout the research
process. Moreover, Malhotra and Birks (2007), and later Ghauri and Gronhaug
(2010), advise that the ethical consideration process should begin during the design
stage of the research, since ethics can have a detrimental impact on time and
resources if they are only considered at the final stage of the research process.
A researcher must take all possible precautions to inform and safeguard each
respondent (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Therefore, to ensure complete ethical
consideration, the research was conducted in line with the Data Protection Act
(1998), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) research ethics
framework (2010) and the ethical research guidelines provided by the University of
Manchester. In particular, the Data Protection Act (1998) was followed to help
prevent the invasion of privacy of data held about participants. The act also ensures
that personal data must be: processed fairly, obtained for a specific purpose,
accurate, kept secure, kept up-to-date and kept no longer than necessary (Saunders
et al., 2009).
Each participant that was involved in the study was informed about the studys
purpose, procedure and structure at the beginning of each focus group. Silverman
(2006) asserts that it is crucial for the participants to be aware of the purpose of the
study and how the research will be used to avoid any element of deception.
Additionally, Loue (2000) claims that participants must be respected and provided
with sufficient privacy and confidentiality to safeguard their interests. Therefore, it
was made clear to participants that their involvement was voluntary and that they
48
retained the right to withdraw from the study at their own discretion. Finally, all
participants were ensured that data would remain completely anonymous and that
any evidence would be destroyed on completion of the study.
4.7 Chapter Summary
As with any methodology, it is common for issues to arise throughout the data
collection process. Although the methodology proved to be a very challenging part of
the research study due to its unpredictable nature, only minor technological issues
were encountered.
This chapter has outlined the research plan and methodology used to address the
research questions that were proposed in Chapter 3. Firstly, the methodological
stance of the researcher was outlined, which influenced the rationale of using focus
groups as the primary data collection method. Following this, the data collection
process was outlined, describing and explaining the sample, procedure, problems
encountered and mechanisms used to maintain validity and reliability throughout the
process. Subsequently, the methods used to analyse the data were considered and
issues associated with the analysis were highlighted and justified. Finally, important
ethical issues relating to the study were considered, whilst listing the techniques and
procedures used to ensure the study remained within suitable ethical boundaries.
49
5. Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The discussion is divided into four sections, namely, the Importance and
Performance of Service Quality Characteristics (Section 5.2), ImportancePerformance Analysis and Problematic Areas (Section 5.3), Differences between
Students Perceptions of Service Quality (Section 5.4), and Suggestions for
University Service Management (Section 5.5). The first three sections place
emphasis on tackling research question one and two, while the final section focuses
on research question three, bringing in elements from the first three sections to
support each suggestion proposed to university service management.
5.2 The Importance and Performance of Service Quality Characteristics
5.2.1 Overview
This section focuses on research question one, determining what students perceived
to be the most important and best performing service quality characteristics, in order
to understand the current provision of service quality at the university. Baron et al.
(2009) provide support for the need to tackle this question, arguing that a good
starting point for service managers is to determine the level of quality that the
organisation should provide for different aspects of the service.
In general, the findings indicate that both importance and performance ratings for
different characteristics of service quality vary amongst students. In many instances,
the findings indicate that variances exist between students perceptions of the same
50
characteristic (Appendix G). For example, one student could consider the range of
teaching methods used by lecturers to be extremely important, whereas another
student could consider the same characteristic to be relatively unimportant. This
supports the work of Zeithaml et al. (2009), who suggest that customers have many
service requirements and that characteristics are not of equal importance and that
some customers may consider one characteristic to be relatively unimportant, while a
different customer regards the same factor as being crucial. In terms of higher
education, this presents various implications for university service management
(Abdullah, 2006a), making it important for institutions to concentrate on the
characteristics perceived to be important rather than focusing on characteristics in an
ad-hoc manner. After all, knowing the relative importance of different characteristics
could enable the universitys limited resources to be allocated more efficiently,
stimulating the possibility of better service provision for students.
Although the positioning of each characteristic varies, there are six characteristics
that are common to each academic year group. The remaining characteristics signify
specific needs for students in each year group, which is explored further in Section
5.4. Nevertheless, when questioned about the six characteristics, participants termed
these as essential. More specifically, one participant claimed that these
characteristics were:
51
To further the credibility of a core set of characteristics, the variance for each
characteristic is relatively low, ranging between 0.33 and 1.11. To put this into
perspective, according to the perceptions of year 3 students, the highest variance
recorded was 9.24 for the performance of seminars (Appendix G). Despite this, a low
variance suggests that students perceptions did not fluctuate significantly from the
mean, demonstrating that participants were in agreement with regards to the rating of
each of these characteristics, albeit some characteristics more than others.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year 1
Characteristic
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Quality of lectures
Relevance of course material
Internal student feedback systems
The reputation of the university
Social opportunities
Quality of seminars
Ability to understand student needs
Year 2
Relevance of course material
Internal student feedback systems
Prompt and efficient feedback on work
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
The reputation of the university
Quality of seminars
Quality of lectures
Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently
Year 3
Quality of seminars
Internal student feedback systems
The reputation of the university
Careers service
Quality of lectures
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Relevance of course material
Quality of academic facilities and learning resources
Mean
Variance
9.33
0.42
8.92
0.63
8.83
0.33
8.75
0.57
8.75
0.75
8.75
0.75
8.58
0.99
8.42
0.81
9.17
9.08
8.92
8.67
8.42
8.25
7.83
7.83
0.52
0.63
0.81
0.97
0.99
1.11
0.70
0.52
9.33
9.25
9.25
9.25
9.25
8.92
8.83
8.67
0.61
0.57
0.93
0.75
0.75
0.81
0.70
0.61
Table 5.1: Extract of Most Important Characteristics Data in Each Academic Year Group
See Appendix G for full data tables
52
Cuthberts (1996a) argues that perceptions of service quality change over time. The
findings contradict this assertion, indicating that perceptions for certain
characteristics (i.e. core characteristics) do not fluctuate greatly, remaining fairly
consistent as time progresses (i.e. year 1 through to year 3). Notwithstanding this
issue, the findings also show similarities with the results of a study conducted by
Oldfield and Baron (2000), who also investigated students perceptions of service
quality. As the findings demonstrate in this study, Oldfield and Baron (2000) also
established that students place different importance on service quality characteristics
and that perceived service quality could be grouped into three dimensions, namely,
requisite, acceptable and functional elements. In particular, Oldfield and Baron
(2000) classified requisite elements as those characteristics that were essential to
enable students to fulfil their study obligations (e.g. knowledge of academic staff,
queries are dealt with efficiently and promptly, academic staff deal with me in a
caring fashion). Similarly, the findings of this study suggest that there appears to be
a set of core characteristics that enable a student to fulfil their study obligations.
However, Oldfield and Baron (2000) only compared perceptions of first and final year
students, whereas this study investigated perceptions across each year of an
undergraduate degree.
5.2.3 Academic Characteristics
Four of the six essential characteristics identified in Table 5.1 (i.e. knowledge and
experience of academic staff, quality of lectures, relevance of course material and
quality of seminars) show strong resemblance to the academic aspect of a students
university experience. Similarly, Abdullah (2006a) identified academic aspects as
one of six key dimensions when developing of the HEdPERF scale, providing
evidence to support their relevance to a students university experience. Likewise,
the requisite elements identified in Oldfield and Barons (2000) study show that the
majority of these elements were academic related. In this study, three of the
characteristics fell into the teaching section of the survey, while the remaining
characteristic fell into the academic staff section of the survey (Appendix F). In
addition, numerous participants commented on the possibility that some of these
characteristics were linked, for example, one participant pointed out how the range
of teaching methods used could affect the quality of a lecture. Another participant
believed that these characteristics were part of the universitys primary offering,
explaining that they best reflect what a student is paying for to study at university.
53
It was evident that participants were torn when deciding whether the quality of
lectures or the quality of seminars was more important to them. The general
consensus from the discussion was that the quality of lectures would act as a bigger
determinant on the students final grade than the quality of seminars did.
Regardless, several participants believed that these complemented each other,
pointing out that a good quality seminar is crucial for consolidating what had been
learnt in class. Despite this, a large number of participants also claimed that given
their experience of seminars and the lack of consistency in quality, good quality
lectures were more important to them.
Participants also perceived the knowledge and experience of academic staff as
important across each academic year. The majority of participants believed that it
was important to be taught by leading doctors and professors that are the forefront of
their subject fields. Participants also commented on a supposed linkage of this
characteristic with the quality of lectures and seminars, illustrating that this was
influential in determining the quality of the lecture or seminar. One participant
classified this as the most important characteristic, suggesting that if the lecturer is
knowledgeable and the information they are providing is up-to-date, useful and from
trustworthy sources, then a student is more likely to galvanise an interest in the
subject, which in turn, could have a positive influence on the performance of that
particular student. Finally, participants believed that the provision of relevant course
material is crucial, especially when applying for jobs in the future, due to need to
apply what had been learnt in class to practical situations in an employment position.
54
This supports the view of DeShields et al. (2005) who claim that it is crucial for higher
education management to apply market orientated principles and strategies that are
used in profit-making institutions. In conjunction to this, students should be at the
forefront of service quality design and involved in improving the service quality by
being able to provide feedback to management. In order to achieve this, participants
believe that it is important that a variety of feedback mechanisms are available. One
participant acknowledged the importance of internal student feedback systems
stating:
This statement illustrates the importance of student feedback and its role in gaining a
competitive advantage in the higher education marketplace. Hill (1995) provides
support for this, claiming that students play a key role in the production and delivery
process of the service. Finally, many third year participants commented on the issue
that the NSS is the only mechanism that they could use to provide feedback on their
entire university experience. These participants also recognised that the NSS was
externally focused and did not collect any meaningful information that university
service management could use to improve service quality.
5.2.5 The Universitys Reputation
For the majority of participants, the reputation of the university was a considerably
important characteristic. Participants believed the universitys reputation was related
to employability and that it influenced their future job prospects. The overriding
purpose of attending university for many students is to increase the likelihood of
securing a job post graduation. Therefore, participants were in agreement that they
wanted their university and degree classification to be recognised when applying for
jobs upon completion of their university degree. One participant claimed that:
55
Table 5.2 illustrates students perceptions of the eight best performing service quality
characteristics. By combining the performance results for each year group and
ranking them in accordance to their mean, it is evident that there are numerous
characteristics that perform consistently across different academic year groups.
56
Although the positioning of each characteristic varies, there are four characteristics
that are common to each academic year group (i.e. the reputation of the university,
knowledge and experience of academic staff, campus location and layout, and
organisation and management of course).
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year 1
Characteristic
The reputation of the university
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Knowledge of administrative staff
Campus location and layout
Organisation and management of course
Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently
Provision of other facilities and services
Quality of academic facilities and learning resources
Year 2
Course flexibility
The reputation of the university
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Campus location and layout
Physical appearance of university
Careers service
Organisation and management of course
Quality of academic facilities and learning resources
Year 3
Careers service
The reputation of the university
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Course flexibility
Campus location and layout
Organisation and management of course
Quality of lectures
Relevance of course material
Mean
Variance
8.75
0.93
8.67
0.97
8.58
0.99
8.42
1.17
7.83
0.88
7.75
0.39
7.50
2.09
7.33
1.52
8.08
8.08
8.00
7.92
7.75
7.50
7.42
7.33
0.63
0.63
0.91
0.45
0.39
0.64
0.99
0.79
9.08
8.42
8.25
8.17
8.00
7.75
7.58
7.33
0.45
0.45
1.30
0.70
1.09
2.39
0.27
2.24
Table 5.2: Extract of Best Performing Characteristics Data in Each Academic Year Group
See Appendix G for Full Data Tables
57
consensus from each focus group was that the university was highly regarded and
respected, particularly MBS.
There is an enormous collection of evidence to support the universitys high
performance in this particular characteristic. It is evident that the reputation of the
university is rated highly by various independent organisations. According to Times
Higher Education World University Rankings (2012), the university placed 48th in the
world and 9th in Europe for 2012. In addition, QS World University Rankings (2012)
ranked the university 29th in the world for 2011/2012. Nevertheless, as numerous
participants correctly pointed out, the university will face the challenge of upholding
their reputation over the next few years, due to the rise in tuition fees (Section 1.1.1),
and its likely impact on the level of service quality sought by students.
Participants also rated the knowledge and experience of academic staff highly,
regarding it as the second best performing of the common characteristics across
each academic year group. Interestingly, several participants brought up the
possibility that this particular characteristic is influenced by the reputation of the
university. They added, to maintain a good reputation, the university needs to
employ people that are knowledgeable and experienced in their fields, since this is
something that will directly impact the reputation of the university.
5.2.8 Organisation and Management of Course
All participants were in agreement that the organisation and management of the
course was another area in which the university performed well. Despite the large
number of people enrolled on the course, participants felt that the timetables,
lectures, module choices were very well organised. Many participants brought up
positive incidents with administration, where they had gone out of their way to deal
with non-routine problems such as clashes with timetables. In addition, numerous
participants commented on the universitys efficient and diverse use of channels to
communicate with students. For example, they felt that the SMS service that
informed students when a lecture is cancelled is a very efficient communication
method, realising that the majority of students have more immediate access to their
mobile phones. In addition to this, participants believed that that they are kept well
up-to-date with different events and opportunities by the universitys effective e-mail
system.
58
Interestingly, several participants pointed out that the campus layout and location
was extremely influential when originally making the decision to study at the
University of Manchester. This is perhaps a result of the lack of search properties
(Zeithaml, 1981) for many prospective students when evaluating university as a
service, resulting in them resorting to things that can be evaluated (e.g. campus
layout and location) in the absence of any tangible manifestation. In support of this,
one participant argued that:
59
A - Year 3, Group 1)
This demonstrates the need for the university to focus the universitys limited
resources on improving the more important service quality features that have a
greater impact on students perceptions rather than allocating resources to less
important parts of the service that have a less significant impact on students
perceptions. This falls in line with Zeithaml et al. (2009) who suggest that a common
mistake for managers is to try and improve the quality of service by spending
resources on the wrong initiatives, only to become discouraged because customer
perceptions of the organisations service do not improve.
5.3 Importance-Performance Analysis and Problematic Areas
5.3.1 Overview
The previous section focused on determining what the most important and best
performing characteristics were without considering whether a relationship existed
between the importance and performance of different characteristics. As a result,
Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was used as part of the data analysis,
combining the mean scores for both the importance and performance of each
characteristic and plotting them on an easy to read matrix for each academic year
group (Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2, and Figure 5.3). Each matrix provides university
service management with a simple visual interpretation of the current provision of
service quality, which could be beneficial for making more informed decisions in the
future.
More specifically, university service management can use each matrix to direct
attention to the service quality characteristics that need improving, as well as those
that should be maintained or de-emphasised. In this instance, each matrix maps the
relationship between students importance perceptions and students performance
perceptions for each service quality characteristic. Each IPA matrix recognises
problematic areas for management, which are those characteristics that are
perceived to be extremely important by students but perform poorly. The location of
problematic characteristics and the reasoning behind each is useful for backing up
the suggestions that are provided to management (see e.g. Section 5.5). The IPA
matrix for each academic year group is illustrated below (Appendix H for key).
60
61
62
63
Firstly, as mean scores for each service quality characteristic did not fallow below 4,
each IPA matrix graphed data using a shortened scale (e.g. 4-10). This generated a
better representation of the results, making it easier for university service
management to locate areas to improve as well as areas to maintain. However, due
to using a shortened scale and the possibility of bias, the positioning of each
characteristic on each matrix does not explain anything without any justification.
Instead, the discussion points from each focus group must be used to support and
complement the IPA matrices, in order to provide better and more reasoned
suggestions for university service management.
11
23
As Table 5.3 illustrates, that there are four characteristics that perform consistently
well (i.e. high importance and high performance) across each academic year group.
Section 5.2 provided reasoning for each of these characteristics. Nevertheless, it is
clear that management should maintain these in the short-term and turn their
attention to other characteristics that require more immediate attention. However, it is
important for management not to overlook these characteristics completely and
periodically review students perceptions to ensure their importance or performance
ratings do not change. Cuthbert (1996a) provides support for this, pointing out that
perceptions are varied and continuous, over months and years and are therefore
prone to change, illustrating the need to continually update students perceptions.
Furthermore, the findings also indicate that campus location and layout is a
characteristic that needs de-emphasising, plotting in the bottom right quadrant of
each IPA matrix. It is evident that this characteristic appears to perform well (Section
5.2.9) but is seen as relatively unimportant by students. In reality, it would be
impractical to attempt to de-emphasise this characteristic; therefore, this
characteristic should be something that university management should maintain.
64
The IPA matrices identified five characteristics (Table 5.4) that fell into the quadrant
representing areas to improve. Each of these characteristics were considered
extremely important by students but performed poorly. These characteristics are not
equal in terms of their importance and performance and those characteristics that are
closer to the top left corner of the quadrant indicate problematic areas that the
university should consider first (i.e. higher importance and lower performance). The
availability of academic staff is an example of a characteristic that fell into the
improve quadrant for each years IPA matrix. However, this characteristic positioned
in the bottom right corner of the quadrant of each matrix, suggesting that it would be
an issue of immediate priority for university management, as students consider other
characteristics to be more important, and at the same time, worse preforming.
Quality of Seminars
12
24
Due to the issues identified with the scale used for each IPA matrix, the discussion
now explores each of the problematic characteristics identified in Table 5.4 in more
detail. This is also useful to provide evidence to support suggestions made in Section
5.5 of this chapter.
65
consolidate or improve knowledge and that more often than not their seminar leaders
were of a poor standard. For several participants, the impact of just one bad
experience in a seminar significantly jeopardised their overall evaluation of the quality
of seminars. Accordingly, there were extremely diverse evaluations for this
characteristic since many participants found it difficult to evaluate. This is supported
by Gruber et al. (2010) who argue that higher education is predominantly intangible,
perishable and heterogeneous, resulting in aspects of the service experience varying
from one situation to next and making them difficult to evaluate.
Many participants believed that most seminar leaders were knowledgeable but found
it difficult to convey their ideas and engage the seminar class in discussion. When
probed further, a selection of participants felt that some seminar leaders lacked the
necessary skills to evoke passion and stimulate participation of all group members.
Worryingly, one participant claimed that in some instances their motive for attending
one particular seminar was to simply register their attendance and get a tick,
claiming that they did not gain any value from the seminar. Moreover, the majority of
participants claimed that there appeared to be no evidence that seminar leaders had
been subject to any training. Several participants believed that this had a detrimental
affect upon the quality of the seminar and could be a plausible reason for the evident
lack of consistency.
The participants identified that feedback given to students on their work is another
important but relatively low performing characteristic. The general consensus
amongst participants was that feedback was often delayed and there were
inconsistencies in the time taken mark and return a piece of coursework, assignment
or examination. Several participants recalled experiences of poor promptness where
receiving the feedback had surpassed the promised window. One participant
provided an example of one member of staff that marked and returned their
coursework within a week of submitting it, whereas another member of staff greatly
surpassed their deadline, providing feedback four weeks late.
Aside from the issue of delays, numerous participants pointed out that feedback
tends to be generic, providing no real guidance for improvement. Many participants
believed that staff did not provide enough comments or useful comments that could
be used to improve their work in the future. According to several participants, there
seems to be unwillingness amongst staff to provide extensive feedback to students
on an individual basis for assessed work. Worryingly, one participant felt that this was
the worst performing characteristic of service quality because of the nature of the
feedback received. When asked to elaborate, the participant pointed out that:
Despite the issues associated with feedback, many participants were aware that
class sizes were large and finding a way for a lecturer to provide individualised
attention to every student is extremely problematic. One participant believed that this
problem linked to the availability of academic staff, which is another characteristic
that needs to be considered by university service management. In relation to this
issue, a significant number of participants claimed that the contact time with
academic staff was extremely limited in comparison to the number of people enrolled
on the module. They went on to explain that lecturers only offer a small and inflexible
selection of office hours, perhaps one to two hours per week, which could be
expected to cover up to 150 students on the larger and more popular modules. The
67
Of the characteristics that have been located in the improve quadrant, participants
perceived this to be the most important and worst performing characteristic across all
academic year groups. Participants in the focus groups believed that the university
does not take a customer-centric approach. They felt that the student should be seen
as the primary customer since they are the consumers of the service and without
them the service would not be able to function. This falls in line with Hill (1995) who
believes that students are the primary customers of higher education services.
Gruber et al. (2010) provides further support for this, suggesting that students need
to be seen as the primary target audience by universities and that there is a need for
academic administrators to focus on understanding their requirements.
asking the question of how the university could act upon a mere rating for a particular
characteristic. Furthermore, these participants believed that these questionnaires do
not properly engage with students and are not designed with the students in mind;
rather collecting what the university perceives to be important. This is consistent with
Gruber et al. (2010), who claim that many existing surveys used by higher education
institutions are poorly designed, lack standardisation and give no evidence
concerning reliability or validity.
All participants in the third year focus groups mentioned the NSS as a means for
assessing the entire student experience at the university. However, many
participants appreciated that this was externally moderated and did not act as a
constructive feedback system for the university. When probed further about validity of
the NSS, many participants stated that the NSS was not a fair reflection of their
university experience and that they felt pressurised when completing it. Many
participants did not want to give a bad interpretation of the university, as they were
under the impression that a bad perception of the university would ultimately affect
their own employability opportunities. Worryingly, several participants that had
completed the NSS survey admitted to not giving a truthful interpretation of the
university and exaggerating the quality of the university, portraying the university to
be better than it actually is. Interestingly, prospective students are one of the main
users of NSS data when looking to join a university and this data contributes in
forming their expectations. If they choose to attend the university, they may
experience negative disconfirmation (e.g. dissatisfaction), resulting from a mismatch
between their initial expectations and actual perceptions (Buttle, 1995).
explained that on one occasion they had to work on the floor because the library was
too overcrowded. In addition to this issue, a selection of participants commented on
concerns regarding the availability of course textbooks for certain modules. They
believe that more often than not there are not enough course textbooks relative to the
number of students on the course and this becomes an even greater issue when
most textbooks are compulsory and can be priced anywhere between 20 and 50.
5.4 Differences between Students Perceptions of Service Quality
5.4.1 Overview
The following section focuses on addressing research question two. It is evident from
the findings that differences also exist between certain characteristics across
different academic year groups. Moreover, students have different perceptions
regarding the importance and performance of service quality characteristics on both
an intra and inter year basis, imposing various implications for university service
management.
The literature highlighted that service quality in higher education is a complex and
multifaceted issue (Harvey and Green, 1993). This is supported by the findings,
which illustrate that perceptions change between different academic year groups (i.e.
on a inter year basis). For example, third year participants perceived the careers
service to be more important than first year participants did. Such findings support
the view that service quality is context specific, and varies from place to place
depending on the context being studied. Sultan and Wong (2010) provide evidence
to support this view, stating that service quality should be seen as a contextual issue
since its dimensions vary widely. Zeithaml et al. (2009) provide further support,
postulating that customers do not perceive service quality in a one-dimensional
manner but rather judge quality based on multiple characteristics relevant to the
context. To add to the complexity of this issue, and in support of the notion of service
quality being context specific, the findings also suggest that students perceptions of
service quality also vary within each year group (i.e. on a intra-year basis). For
instance, one third year student could regard seminars as high performing whereas
another student in the same year could perceive them to be poor. This finding falls in
line with Lovelock and Wirtz (2011), who believe that quality means different things to
70
different people depending on the context being examined, and that two people can
have drastically different perceptions of the same service.
As a result of the context specific nature of service quality, it can be postulated that
service managers face considerable difficultly producing a meaningful representation
of service quality within the same organisation. This challenges past studies
conducted by various researchers that have attempted to generalise the
conceptualisation and measurement of service quality by developing generic service
quality measurement scales (Section 2.4.4) that claim adaptability and versatility to
different service industries. However, despite numerous attempts by academics, no
single model of service quality is completely accepted (Clewes, 2003). Seth et al.
(2005) provide additional support for this, suggesting that there is not a generally
accepted model of service quality nor is there any generally accepted operational
definition of how to measure service quality. Instead, studies have suggested that
service quality scales need to be adapted to the study context (Carman, 1990;
Carilliat et al., 2007), providing further evidence to support the notion that service
quality is context specific.
The literature identified that university service management tend to regard service
quality as uniform, assuming students require the same provision and failing to
71
acknowledge the possibility that perceptions may alter over time as a student
progresses through their undergraduate degree. Through the use of mean service
quality perception scores, the findings demonstrate that student perceptions of
certain characteristics alter in terms importance and performance as students make
the transition from first year to third year of their undergraduate degree. This falls in
line with Cuthbert (1996a), who points out that service quality perceptions are varied
and continuous, over months and years and are therefore subject to change.
Furthermore, Berry et al. (1985) state that the quality of service can vary within the
same organisation. Therefore, university service management must be able to track
and manage perceptions as they change over time rather than assuming all
perceptions of each characteristic remain the same. The challenge here is to not only
meet students needs but to react to these needs as they alter over time.
Notable Trends
Characteristics
I/P
Careers Service
or
Mean
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
5.92
6.08
9.25
Social Opportunities
8.75
7.25
4.50
8.33
6.83
5.33
Quality of Lectures
6.92
6.92
7.58
Quality of Seminars
4.17
6.00
6.17
Table 5.5 illustrates that the importance of social opportunities and provision of
other facilities and services decreased in importance from year one to year three,
whereas the careers service increased in importance from year one to year three.
On the other hand, the quality of lectures and seminars appeared to increase in
performance from year one through to year three. Based on this principle of change
over time, comparable findings can be are witnessed in a study conducted by
Oldfield and Baron (2000). The authors investigated student perceptions of both first
year and final students, establishing that perceptions of service quality changed over
time. Although the authors were unable to conclude definitively, their limited
comparative study revealed that acceptable elements (e.g. availability of staff and
willingness of staff to provide individual attention) showed a gradual increase,
72
becoming increasingly important, the longer the students had been on the course.
5.4.4 The Careers Service
As Table 5.5 illustrates, students perceptions of the careers service increased in
importance through year one to year three. More specifically, the findings highlight
that third year participants found the careers service extremely important in
comparison to participants in other years. When the careers service was discussed
with third year participants in the focus group, the general consensus the careers
service is essential, since a career is now more important to them than it had been
previously, considering each participant was approaching the end of their
undergraduate degree. When asked to elaborate, the majority of third year
participants said that they had been using the career service, mainly for seeking
advice and guidance for a gap year, work experience and graduate schemes. One
participant explained:
In contrast, first year participants perceived the careers service to be less important
than the other two academic year groups did. When participants were asked to
discuss the careers service, it was clear that a career was not something at the
forefront of their agendas this early on in their degrees. To support this, the majority
of participants claimed that they had only used the careers service once or twice with
two participants admitting that they had never visited the careers service at all.
Despite this, first year participants agreed that over the course of the degree they
would be more inclined to use the careers service.
Finally, results from second year participants regarding the careers service appeared
to be very mixed. An extremely large variance of 11.36 supports the view that there is
large disparity between students perceptions of the importance of the careers
service. Evidently, some participants found the careers service very important
whereas others rated it as unimportant. When the careers service was discussed
73
with participants, it was clear that this disparity had arisen from a small selection of
participants that were seeking summer internships and had found the career service
very useful. One participant explained:
Each focus group identified that specific student needs across different academic
years influenced the importance of the careers service. Importantly, if the purpose
and importance of the careers service is promoted to first year students earlier and
more thoroughly then students perceptions of its importance might improve towards
those of third year students.
On the other hand, third year participants believed that their networks had already
been established, combined with the increased importance of their academic studies
thus decreasing the importance of social opportunities to them. Several participants
pointed out that they had already worked their way up to high positions in various
societies and sports teams that they were involved in and that they were now at the
74
forefront of organising and providing many of the social opportunities for first and
second year students. Furthermore, many third year participants also commented on
the decreased importance of the provision of other facilities and services. All third
year participants in this study lived in student houses and pointed out that the
provision of facilities such as student accommodation was no longer applicable to
them. Four of the twelve participants stated that they were completing a
Postgraduate degree and that student accommodation may become important to
them. However, this is beyond the scope of this study, since the purpose here is to
understand only undergraduate student perceptions.
Finally, the discussion with second year participants revealed that the general
consensus was that they were indifferent about social opportunities. Numerous
participants pointed out that second year was worth 25% of their final degree,
providing evidence to support the gradual decrease in importance from first to
second year. Moreover, several participants pointed out that they were using second
year as an opportunity to strike the appropriate balance between social
opportunities and their studies.
Although consistent teaching should be provided across each year of study, the
findings show that the quality of lectures and seminars were two performance
characteristics that increased in performance from year one through to year three.
Only third year participants could properly relate to the transition of quality in terms of
lectures and seminars from year one to year three. Accordingly, several participants
from the third year discussion pointed out that they had noticed a gradual
improvement in the quality of seminars. In particular, one participant provided
evidence for this, explaining that lecturers seemed to be much more willing to meet
students needs. They added that during semester one of year three, one of their
lecturers took all the seminars for a class size of approximately 170 students, which
did not occur in their first or second year at the university.
As with the quality of seminars, participants of the third year focus groups believed
that their lectures in third year were of better quality than they were in second or first
year. When asked to provide a reason for this, participants thought that management
might have more consideration for third year due to its increased importance, as well
as the impact that positive degree results will have on the universitys reputation.
75
The findings also show that the performance of the quality of lectures for both year
one and two is the same. This provides evidence to suggest that the university may
place more emphasis on enhancing the quality of lectures for third year students. In
support of this, one participant in third year commented on a positive approach taken
by one of their lecturers to improve the quality of their lectures. They stated:
Finally, the participant added that each of the seminar leaders were required to
attend each lecture and in some cases took some of the lectures that related to their
specialised fields. The participant believed that this improved the quality of each
seminar, as seminar leaders were more aware of what was covered in class and
able to relate to students needs much more readily.
5.5 Suggestions for University Service Management
5.5.1 Overview
76
service quality justified the increase in tuition. Worryingly, 28 of the 36 (i.e. 78%)
participants stated that they would not have chosen to attend the university if the
tuition fee stood at 9,000. The majority of participants could not justify the increase,
claiming that there is a clear misalignment between price and the level of service
quality offered by the university. Since higher education is a credence-based service
and has even been termed a pure service by some authors (Oldfield and Baron,
2000), evaluation is increasingly difficult, resulting in prospective students relying on
aspects such as price to evaluate the service in the absence of any tangible
manifestation or when all other factors are equal (Palmer, 2011).
Despite this, the majority of participants believed that an increase in price should
encourage the university to improve the level of service quality. Participants pointed
out that an increase in price would increase a students expectations of the service
they received, which would probe problems for the university in terms of improving
service quality and meeting higher expectations. Palmer (2011) supports this,
illustrating that price influences customers perceptions of service quality, as well as
the service organisations ability to produce quality services. In terms of higher
education, since the price of the service influences a students expectations, it is
more likely that negative disconfirmation (i.e. dissatisfaction) will occur when actual
perceptions are lower than the students original expectations (Buttle, 1995),
presenting problems for university service management.
When asked about the impact of the tuition fees, participants believed that the
university would face problems in the short-term, especially in terms of those
students entering the university system in 2012. As students start to pay more money
for their higher education, their expectations are likely to be raised in terms of contact
time, resources and facilities (Key Note, 2011). Several participants believed that,
due to the possibility of an inevitable delay in the implementation of service quality
changes, these students would experience a similar level of service quality for almost
three times the price. Numerous participants thought that the standard of service
quality would remain the same for the next two years or so and that improvements in
service quality would not be witnessed for some time. Accordingly, participants
believed that this could have a negative impact on the universitys reputation and
brand image. Furthermore, if the university does not react appropriately then this
could also damage their competitive position in the future. Palmer (2011) supports
this, suggesting that maintaining high price and low quality positions is not a
sustainable strategy for an organisation to follow in the long term.
77
The discussion has already identified evidence to suggest that the university fails to
fully acknowledge the student as its primary customer (Section 5.3.6). Participants in
the focus groups believed that service quality is designed from the perspective of the
organisation rather than the perspective of the student. In reality, it is important for an
organisation to listen to the voice of primary customer and understand and serve
their needs (Nadiri et al., 2009). The student can indicate exactly what improvements
are needed as they experience the service first hand. As a result, the university must
consider adopting customer-centric approach that focuses on acknowledging
students viewpoints when designing the service.
It is clear that the university needs to understand service quality to be able to improve
it. Baron et al. (2009) support this notion, stressing that service quality does not come
about by chance and that an organisation needs to develop strategies to ensure that
they deliver consistent and high-quality services. This is no different for a higher
education institution such as the University of Manchester.
varied and utilise a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research techniques since
each individual research method has its own limitations. Secondly, the measurement
of service quality must be ongoing since expectations and perceptions of customers
are dynamic and constantly changing. Accordingly, the university should utilise a
continuous approach, focusing on periodical evaluations of service quality throughout
the year rather than at the end of each semester. Thirdly, the service quality
improvement programme should be undertaken with employees (e.g. academic staff
and administration staff) as the closeness of staff to customers within the services
sector makes it important that they are asked about problems and possible
improvements as well as their personal motivations and requirements. Finally, results
must be shared with employees since this may improve employees performance in
delivering service quality if they are made aware of the results of studies of customer
expectations and complaints (Zeithaml et al., 1990).
As part of the service quality improvement programme, Lovelock and Wirtz (2011)
recommend the need for service management to provide three types of service
performance reports to assist an improvement programme: a monthly service
performance update, a quarterly service performance review and an annual service
performance report. These reports should be short and reader-friendly, focusing on
key indicators and providing easy to understand information for management to act
on.
Taking into account the components of a service quality programme and factors
influencing its success, it is necessary to outline the problematic areas that were
identified in Section 5.3, since these are useful for constructing suggestions that
management can include in their service quality improvement programme (Table
5.6).
Quality of Seminars
12
24
79
5.5.5 Feedback
This section addresses two problematic areas that relate to feedback: feedback
systems (i.e. internal student feedback systems) and feedback received on work
(i.e. prompt and efficient feedback on work). It is clear that two key issues underpin
the need to improve internal student feedback systems. First of all, there is no
internal system in place that allows students to evaluate the whole student
experience. Secondly, the university seemingly fails to adopt a customer-centric
approach.
There is no single best way to measure service quality as all methods have
limitations (Clewes, 2003), however, a triangulated approach that adopts a range of
methods could as a means of reducing the possibility of bias. This falls in line with
one of the recommendation made by Zeithaml et al. (1990), that a service quality
improvement programme should utilise a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative
research techniques. Moreover, Baron et al. (2009) provide additional support,
suggesting that approaches for measuring service quality are not mutually exclusive,
and that in practice, organisations use a combination of measurement
methodologies.
They believed that the current approach used to collect perceptions at the end of
modules was meaningless and did not motivate or incentivise students to provide
appropriate feedback as they did not reap the benefits of any of the improvements.
Many participants suggested that the delivery of this feedback mechanism must be
reconsidered, and that a continuous improvement approach is needed that provides
a platform for students to give feedback at anytime throughout the semester.
Students should be provided with the option to log feedback, both negative and
positive, at the earliest possible opportunity. This would allow the lecturer to act upon
and improve the quality of their lectures or seminars as quickly and efficiently as
possible, rather than being made aware of, and possibly rectifying student
dissatisfaction at the end of a semester when it may be too late. This would help
better address the consequences of changing customer perceptions over time
(Section 5.4.3). This suggestion also falls in line with one of the requirements of a
service quality improvement programme that the measurement of service quality
must be ongoing and not just a snapshot of service quality at one point in time
(Zeithaml et al., 1990). In addition, not only can this suggestion be applied to end of
module feedback systems, but it could also be applied to other internal student
feedback systems that university service management decides to implement.
Feedback that students received on work was another characteristic that was
perceived to be problematic. Participants identified that it is more commonplace for
feedback to not be given to students on time, as well as the issue of feedback being
too generic. Participants believed that feedback is extremely important to them and
suggested that academic staff need to focus on improving the quality of feedback,
providing students with more relevant feedback that they can use to improve
performance in subsequent assignments and examinations. To achieve this,
participants suggested that university service management should consider providing
more opportunities for students to receive feedback on their work. More specifically,
participants brought up the lack up feedback given on examinations they complete. In
light of this, several participants suggested that the provision of a post-exam
feedback lecture, which the lecturer can use to highlight things that had been done
well, as well as providing pointers for improving in future examinations. Moreover,
participants also brought up the idea of offering the opportunity of one-to-one
allocated appointments with lecturers to discuss assignments and coursework. One
participant claimed that one of their lecturers already did this, despite no formal
requirements being in place.
81
Finally, participants felt that feedback should be more prompt. However, many
participants did appreciate that delays with coursework were usually due to the sizes
of classes, sympathising with a lecturer that could have up to 150 students
assignments to mark. Not only does this make it increasingly difficult to give
indiviudalised feedback to each student, but it also increases the workload placed on
the lecturer. As a result, participants suggested that larger courses are examined and
possibly split into smaller classes; utilising more teaching staff. Although this is a very
optimistic suggestion, participants were convinced that lecturers would be able to
provide more individual attention to students, especially in terms of the feedback they
received on work.
5.5.6 Staff Development
One of the main issues raised by the majority of participants pertained to the lack of
consistency in the quality of seminars, despite being regarded as one of the most
important characteristics by participants. Although it was only the quality of seminars
located as a problematic area, participants brought up similar issues with the quality
of lectures, but agreed that lectures did not need to be improved as much as
seminars. Despite this, the majority of participants could recall at least one encounter
where they were dissatisfied with either a lecture or a seminar.
In order to tackle the issue of inconsistency with lectures and seminars, participants
suggested that a training academy should be introduced whereby all academic staff
are provided with formalised training to develop the appropriate skills to enhance the
delivery of teaching, in an attempt to meet a certain level of service quality. The
purpose of the training academy would be to improve their communication, team
working ability and presentation skills. In order to achieve this, the training academy
could be run by a mixture of external qualified personnel, as well as experienced
academic staff. The training academy could use a range of methods such as videos,
one-to-one training, group exercises and seminar classes. Furthermore, participants
suggested that the teaching academy could also encourage communication between
staff across the university and facilitate the diffusion of best practice principles (e.g.
teaching methods and techniques used). Transferring knowledge in this way could
increase transparency and allow staff to improve their understanding of the level of
quality that students expect. However, the university must consider the level of
standardisation, since introducing a formal training academy or following a best
practice model could stifle creativity and in fact limit the quality of lecture or
82
seminar. Therefore, the university faces the challenge of striking the appropriate
balance between the formality of training and the level of standardisation so that
unique teaching methods are not phased out.
Finally, participants suggested that in every possible instance, lecturers should take
charge of each of seminars for their module. They believed that lecturers are more
in the know and have a better understanding of how to integrate their own lecture
with the seminar. In cases where this is not possible, one participant used an
experience in one of their modules to provide the suggestion that seminar leaders
should take some of the lectures or at least have to attend the lectures. Many
participants believed that this would reduce the likelihood of a mismatch between the
quality of the lecture and a seminar, making it easier for seminar leaders to integrate
lecture material into seminars.
Participants also brought up a range of other interesting suggestions that may not be
of primary concern to the university but are factors that might be useful to consider.
As well as seminars and lectures, another issue brought up by participants pertained
to the performance and inconsistent nature of academic advisors, who are assigned
to students when they join the university. Although most participants that were
involved in the study were happy with their academic advisor, it was evident that
some participants were equally disappointed. As a result of inconsistencies,
participants suggested that as with academic staff, academic advisors should also
receive formal training and guidance. Participants believed that academic advisors
should be more proactive and take the role of a mentor, guiding students through
83
their university degree. Participants added that progress meetings with academic
advisors should be made compulsory. Students need to be provided with the
opportunity to foster a good relationship with their academic advisors, in order to
understand how to progress properly through university.
Several participants also brought up the suggestion that the university needs to
provide more social opportunities. Although the majority of participants agreed that
the provision of societies was sufficient, many were astonished by how under utilised
the student union is. Participants felt that the student union is a big facility with a
large capacity but is not being marketed properly. According to numerous
participants, there appears to be considerable demand for the introduction of a
weekly social event using the unions facilities.
This chapter has critically analysed the findings from each focus group, using
literature presented in Chapter 2. Section 5.2 focused on research question one,
identifying the most important and best performing characteristics as perceived by
students at the university. Subsequently, Section 5.3 combined the data to create
importance-performance matrices, which enabled the identification of problematic
areas, which the university needs to address. Section 5.4 focused entirely on
research question two, locating and explaining differences in students perceptions
from different academic year groups. Finally, Section 5.5 addressed the problematic
areas highlighted in Section 5.3 to provide suggestions that university management
could choose to adopt.
84
6. Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
This chapter begins by outlining the conclusions for each research question and
determining whether the studys research objectives have been achieved.
Subsequently, the limitations of the research are presented. Finally, the chapter
concludes by providing potential avenues for future research.
6.2 Conclusions Pertaining to Research Questions
This particular section focuses on research question one. With support from Zeithaml
et al. (2009), it can be concluded that students perceptions of both the importance
and performance of various service quality characteristics varies, witnessing some
students perceiving certain characteristics to be more important than others. As a
result, there is a need for university service management to determine the
importance and performance of different service quality attributes and manage them
accordingly. Management must adjust the level of service quality for each
characteristic based on the importance and performance of that characteristic rather
than managing service quality in an ad-hoc manner. Knowing the relative importance
and performance of different characteristics could result in better resource allocation,
providing a greater marginal benefit in terms of service quality improvement, whilst
ensuring resources are not spent on the wrong initiatives.
85
In terms of the context specific nature of service quality, the findings demonstrate
that students perceptions of service quality characteristics vary within the same
organisation (i.e. on both an intra and inter year basis). Based on these findings and
the complex nature of service quality, it can be concluded that perceptions of service
quality depend on the study context, varying depending on the situation at hand. This
presents university service management with the need to determine the most
appropriate way to accurately measure service quality. Notwithstanding this issue, it
86
can also be established that students perceptions of service quality change over
time. The study provides reasoned evidence to support this conclusion point,
demonstrating that perceptions of service quality change from year-to-year as a
student progresses through their undergraduate degree. Cuthbert (1996a) also
provided support for this, suggesting that in the context of higher education, students
experiences are varied and continuous, over months and years. As a result,
university service management should not perceive service quality to be the same
across different academic year groups, but rather manage service quality on a yearto-year basis.
The final research question sought to identify problematic areas and offer
suggestions for university service management to improve the provision of service
quality. The findings from the study identified that maintaining the current provision of
service quality could be problematic in the short term for the university, especially in
consideration of the imminent rise in tuition fees and the consequences of a
misalignment between price and quality. As a result, and with the guidance of
87
Zeithaml et al. (2009), it was recommended that a service quality programme must
be undertaken that monitors service quality periodically, involves employees and
utilises a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods.
The study utilised IPA to integrate both the importance and performance data,
identifying characteristics that university service management needed to focus on
improving (i.e. high importance and low performance). Importantly, IPA was useful for
directing attention to the characteristics that need considering, providing
management with a convenient visual interpretation of the universitys service quality.
In doing so, IPA highlighted that some characteristics were more important than
others, introducing the need for management to prioritise characteristics. As a result,
suggestions were provided for those characteristics requiring more immediate
attention, including the introduction of a staff-training academy to combat
inconsistencies in seminars and lectures. However, the study highlighted that
management must consider the potential impact of introducing a training academy,
since the consequences of too much standardisation could negatively impact the
overall service. Finally, it was evident that the university needs to acknowledge the
student as their primary customer. Therefore, it can be concluded that the university
needs to adopt a customer-centric approach that involves students in service design
as much as possible.
6.3 Limitations of Study
As with any research project, this study has been subject to various limitations that
may have hindered its accuracy. Consequently, interpretation of findings should be
considered with caution since constraints including time and limited resources
accentuate the chance of methodological issues. Although the research attempted to
reduce issues through the use of a triangulation approach to research (e.g.
qualitative and quantitative methods), the boundaries of the study must be
acknowledged.
The research only considered a small sample of 36 students, 12 from each year of
study. In addition, the sample was based on a specific course (BSc Management)
within a school (i.e. Manchester Business School) of one university. Accordingly, it is
appreciated that the discussion revolves around a limited sample and it would not be
appropriate to generalise the findings of the study to all UK universities. At the same
time, it is important to not underestimate the significance of the findings. Instead, the
88
findings present a strong case for service quality, providing invaluable insights that
are specific to the University of Manchester, which service management could
consider when addressing service quality issues. As a result, this study acts as a
foundational basis that university service management can use as a starting point in
their quest to understand the complexities associated with service quality from the
viewpoint of students.
Although the researcher maintained best efforts to ensure that homogeneity existed
between participants, the use of a convenience sample could have introduced an
element of bias to the investigation. Due to the difficulty attracting participants,
especially first and second year students, convenience sampling techniques were
used at the discretion of the researcher to choose students rather than randomly
selecting students. Aside from this issue, the use of a shortened scale in each IPA
matrix may have represented each characteristic to be more problematic than they
actually were, which may have an introduced a further element of bias. Despite this,
the researcher acknowledges that these issues could have skewed the results;
however, it is firmly believed that the discussion provides a good reflection of
students perceptions. This offers further evidence to support the findings that are
illustrated in each IPA matrix.
In hindsight, if the researcher had access to more time and resources, then a larger
sample (i.e. more focus groups) would have been used, as well as a more detailed
investigation into the relationship between different service quality characteristics.
This may have encouraged better understanding of service quality, yielding results
that are more generalisable.
Despite the limitations of this study, there is a range of interesting potential future
avenues for research. Although it is evident that this study has provided fresh
insights into what is a very topical issue, additional research could build on this,
enhancing the universitys understanding of service quality.
Considering tuition fees are set to rise in September 2012, there is potential to
replicate the study at a later date to assess whether students perceptions change
dramatically in the future in response to the price increase. A repeat study of this kind
would need to be carried at least a year on from the current study since perceptions
89
may take some time to change. This will allow university management to monitor the
change in student perceptions, as the findings from the future study could be
compared with the findings from this study.
Additionally, there is potential to change the context of the study. Obviously, the
focus on university education would remain but there is an opportunity to measure
perceptions of students from different faculties within the universities to determine
whether disparity exists. At a broader level, a study could be undertaken at other
universities in the UK, as well as the possibility of measuring the perceptions of
postgraduate students since their perceptions may differ from those of undergraduate
students. As Oldfield and Baron (2000) point out, each replication would add to
knowledge, and it would be useful to see if similar findings were uncovered in
different contexts.
Finally, this study has only focused on the perceptions of the student, considering
them as the primary customer in a higher education context. It did not measure the
perceptions of other stakeholders in higher education (e.g. academic staff and
administrative staff). As Appleton-Knapp and Krentler (2006) point out, different
stakeholders have different opinions and it is natural for perceptions to vary between
these stakeholder groups. Gruber et al. (2010) also suggest that every stakeholder in
higher education has their own view of service quality due to particular needs. As a
result, opportunities exist to investigate the service quality perceptions of academic
or administrative staff. Due to the unique nature of higher education as a service, the
provision of good service quality is largely dependent on employees. Therefore,
conducting similar studies with different stakeholders in higher education could
identify useful insights for university service management, as well as offering an
opportunity to compare how employees perceive service quality with students
perceptions from this study.
90
7. Appendices
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Frequency
36
6
6
2
Frequency
20
16
36
56%
44%
100%
4
8
14
6
4
36
11%
22%
39%
17%
11%
100%
5
0
2
5
12
4
3
5
36
14%
0%
6%
14%
33%
11%
8%
14%
100%
98
99
100
101
102
103
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course Structure
and Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Personal
Development
Other
Characteristic
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Range of teaching methods
Relevance of course material
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Availability of academic staff
Willingness to provide individual attention
Prompt and efficient feedback on work
Organisation and management of course
Course flexibility
Quality of academic facilities and learning resources
Access to academic facilities and learning resources
Knowledge of administrative staff
Availability of administrative staff
Ability to understand student needs
Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently
Social opportunities
Careers service
Student welfare
Provision of other facilities and services
Campus location and layout
Physical appearance of university
The reputation of the university
Internal student feedback systems
104
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A
8
8
6
8
9
7
7
9
8
9
7
8
9
8
9
7
9
6
8
8
9
7
8
9
B
9
9
7
9
9
6
6
8
7
9
8
7
9
7
9
8
10
6
9
9
6
8
9
9
C
8
8
6
9
8
7
5
8
8
8
9
8
8
7
8
8
9
7
7
8
5
7
9
8
D
8
9
7
9
9
8
6
9
9
6
10
6
7
6
7
9
9
6
8
9
6
7
9
7
E
9
9
5
9
10
7
8
7
9
7
10
6
7
9
8
8
8
6
7
9
7
6
10
9
Focus Group 2
F
10
10
8
8
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
6
10
9
6
9
7
8
8
6
6
10
9
G
10
9
9
10
10
10
6
6
7
6
8
8
8
9
9
7
10
9
9
7
7
8
7
9
H
10
7
5
9
9
7
7
6
8
7
7
9
7
8
10
8
8
5
7
9
8
7
9
8
I
9
10
6
9
9
8
5
9
9
8
6
9
9
6
9
8
7
4
7
9
7
8
8
10
J
9
9
5
9
10
7
8
10
6
9
9
6
10
7
7
9
8
5
9
8
6
7
8
9
K
9
8
7
8
9
8
9
7
7
7
7
7
9
8
8
9
9
5
9
7
6
7
9
9
L
8
7
8
9
10
9
10
7
7
9
8
8
9
10
8
7
9
5
9
9
7
8
9
9
106
A B C
6 7 8
7 8 7
6 7 8
9 9 8
8 9 9
9 6 7
6 6 7
8 9 9
8 9 7
7 7 8
8 7 9
7 8 7
9 3 9
8 5 6
8 7 6
8 8 7
7 8 9
10 3 4
8 8 9
7 6 7
5 5 4
5 6 7
9 8 8
10 9 9
D E
8
8
8
7
8
9
9
9
7 10
8
8
3
8
10 10
5
8
8
6
9
6
8
8
10
7
8
7
7
8
8
8
6
7
1 10
4
6
8
6
6
7
8
8
7
9
10
9
Focus Group 2
F G
7 8
9 9
7 8
9 10
9 9
9 10
5 6
9 8
6 7
8 9
9 7
9 9
9 9
8 9
5 8
7 8
6 9
9 2
7 8
5 6
8 8
9 10
9 6
10 9
H
8
10
8
10
9
9
6
9
8
6
9
9
5
9
6
7
4
4
6
7
5
9
9
9
I
J
8
9
10
8
5
7
10
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
5
9
7
7
6
8
6
9
6
9
7
8
9
8
9
7
9 10
7
6
8
9
5
7
5
6
9
9
10
8
K L
8
9
8
8
8
6
10
8
7 10
6
6
6
5
10
9
6
9
7
5
6
6
6
7
9
7
9
9
5
9
9
7
7
8
5
6
7
8
6
7
8
8
7
5
9
9
8
8
107
A
9
9
7
10
9
10
9
9
8
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
5
8
10
9
B C D E
8
8 10 10
9
8 10 10
6
6
8
8
10
9
8
8
10
7
9
9
7
7
8
9
6
7
9
7
7
8
9
8
7
6
9
7
5
6
8
8
9
8
9
8
9
8
9
8
8
7
7
5
5
7
9
5
6
7
6
5
8
7
8
6
3
6
6
3
8
8
9 10
8 10 10
9
6
5
8
6
5
4
8
6
10
3
7
6
10
8 10 10
8
9
8 10
Focus Group 2
F
10
10
7
8
9
7
6
7
10
9
10
10
6
8
6
10
4
10
9
6
6
7
10
9
G
10
9
7
10
10
9
9
8
9
7
10
10
8
9
6
10
5
10
9
5
5
5
9
9
H
8
10
6
9
10
10
10
10
8
10
8
9
7
3
6
7
2
10
5
2
3
2
10
10
I
J K L
10
9
9 10
10
8
9 10
8
8
7
8
9
8
8
9
9
8
9
8
7 10
3
6
6
8
9 10
8
8
9
8
8
7
7
8
7
9
9
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
9
7
6
5
6
7
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
8
7
7
4
4
6
3
10
8
9
9
5
3
5
1
4
5
4
5
4
5
2
2
5
4
5
6
10
8
8
8
10 10 10
9
108
A
8
6
6
8
9
6
6
5
8
5
7
6
9
8
5
6
5
6
3
7
9
6
10
4
B
6
2
6
7
7
7
7
6
8
4
6
5
10
9
6
7
7
7
3
8
9
7
8
3
C
8
3
7
7
9
5
6
5
7
5
5
6
9
7
7
8
8
8
4
7
6
8
8
5
D
6
6
7
6
10
7
6
5
8
6
8
7
7
7
9
8
7
6
5
6
9
8
8
4
E
5
2
5
8
9
8
7
6
9
5
9
8
9
6
6
8
6
6
8
7
8
8
9
3
Focus Group 2
F
8
1
7
7
9
6
6
7
8
4
8
9
8
7
6
8
7
5
4
8
7
6
10
4
G
6
6
6
6
8
7
7
7
7
5
8
6
7
7
6
8
8
6
3
9
8
7
9
5
H
6
7
7
5
7
8
8
5
6
6
6
4
8
8
7
8
9
7
5
5
9
9
8
6
I
7
7
6
3
8
6
5
3
9
4
7
5
9
6
8
8
3
8
6
6
8
8
7
4
J
7
4
6
8
9
7
7
4
9
5
7
6
10
5
9
8
9
6
9
10
10
6
9
4
K
9
4
7
8
10
8
7
3
7
6
8
6
8
7
8
8
5
5
2
8
9
5
9
4
L
7
2
8
7
9
7
6
3
8
5
9
8
9
7
9
8
3
7
9
9
9
7
10
5
109
Participant
A
6
7
9
6
9
6
6
6
7
9
7
5
6
7
7
7
6
8
7
6
8
8
8
4
B
7
4
7
7
8
6
6
6
6
9
6
5
7
7
8
6
7
9
5
7
8
7
7
3
C
8
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
8
7
4
6
6
7
7
7
7
5
8
9
8
9
2
D
8
3
9
6
7
5
7
7
8
7
7
6
8
7
7
6
7
8
3
9
7
8
9
2
E
6
7
6
7
8
8
8
6
9
8
8
6
8
8
6
7
7
7
5
6
8
8
7
4
Focus Group 2
F
8
5
5
7
9
8
6
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
6
8
6
7
8
7
7
5
G
6
7
5
9
6
7
8
6
8
8
6
6
6
6
5
7
7
8
7
6
8
8
8
5
H
5
7
6
8
7
6
7
7
7
8
8
7
8
7
6
6
8
7
4
5
7
9
8
5
I
6
8
7
7
8
7
5
8
9
9
9
6
8
7
7
7
6
6
8
6
7
7
8
5
J
7
8
8
6
8
7
9
7
7
9
8
5
7
8
7
8
7
7
4
6
8
8
8
5
K
7
3
7
7
9
8
6
8
6
7
8
8
6
7
7
7
6
7
6
6
9
8
9
6
L
9
4
8
8
9
8
7
7
7
8
7
6
7
7
8
7
6
8
7
8
8
7
9
3
110
A
7
5
4
7
9
7
8
6
7
9
9
8
7
7
7
8
7
9
9
7
6
6
9
4
B
8
9
7
10
10
8
7
4
6
8
8
8
5
5
5
6
6
8
5
5
8
7
9
4
C
7
8
5
8
8
3
7
6
6
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
8
6
6
7
7
8
4
D
8
4
10
9
9
8
7
4
6
10
9
9
3
8
8
8
7
9
8
7
7
6
8
6
E
8
5
6
7
8
7
5
6
7
8
8
7
6
5
6
6
5
9
8
7
7
8
8
3
Focus Group 2
F
8
10
10
6
6
9
4
6
8
7
3
5
4
8
2
2
5
10
1
7
9
3
8
2
G
8
2
5
8
8
4
8
6
7
8
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
9
7
7
9
8
8
6
H
7
9
7
9
10
8
5
5
10
9
9
6
6
8
6
8
6
10
2
7
9
9
10
1
I
8
4
8
6
8
8
9
5
8
8
8
6
5
8
6
7
5
10
5
6
8
6
9
4
J
7
8
6
6
8
5
8
6
10
7
6
6
2
6
8
8
6
9
2
8
8
8
8
3
K
8
9
6
7
7
4
8
6
10
8
5
6
5
7
8
8
6
9
1
7
9
8
8
5
L
7
1
5
5
8
6
8
6
8
8
5
5
2
6
8
8
6
9
9
7
9
6
8
7
8. References
Addis, M., & Podesta, S. (2005). Long life to marketing research: a postmodern view.
European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 386-412.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in
higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 203-218.
Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate
education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254.
Baines, P., Fill, C., & Page, K. (2008). Marketing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baron, S., Harris, K., & Hilton, T. (2009). Services marketing: text and cases. 3rd ed.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
111
Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). The Service-Quality Puzzle.
Business Horizons, 31(5), 35-43.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service
changes on customer attitudes. The Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1-9.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin Jr, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing
perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. The Journal of Marketing, 65(3),
34-49.
Brown, R., & Mazzarol, T. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student
satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81-95.
The Browne Review. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/101208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf>
[Accessed 14th March 2012].
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
112
Carrillat, F., Jaramillo, F., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). The validity of the SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF scales: A meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five
continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490.
The Complete University Guide. (2011). University League Table 2012. [online].
Available at: <http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/leaguetables/rankings?o=Satisfaction>
[Accessed 14th March 2012].
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination
and extension. The Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service
quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-131.
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York:
McGraw-Hill New York.
The Data Protection Act. (1998). Data Protection Act 1998. [online].
Available at: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents>
[Accessed 7th February 2012].
113
Department for Education. (2011). Education and Training Statistics for the United
Kingdom: 2010. [online]. Available at:
<http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000992/index.shtml>
[Accessed 7th March 2012].
DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business
student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two-factor
theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128-139.
Direct Gov. (2012a). Student finance for 2011/12: new and continuing students.
[online]. Available at:
<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/
StudentFinance/Gettingstarted/DG_171572>
[Accessed 8th March 2012].
Economic and Social Research Council. (2010). Framework for Research Ethics.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/information/researchethics.aspx>
[Accessed 6th February 2012].
114
Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W., & Bitner, M. J. (1993). Tracking the evolution of the
services marketing literature. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 61-103.
Gruber, T., Fu, S., Voss, R., & Glser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student
satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105-123.
115
The Guardian. (2011). Universities given go-ahead to charge 9,000 tuition fees.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/12/universitiesgo-ahead-tuition-fees>
[Accessed 16th March 2012].
The Guardian. (2012). UK university applications in steepest fall for 30 years.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/30/ukuniveristy-applications-fall?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487>
[Accessed 20th April 2012].
Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2008). Marketing research: in a digital
information environment. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and
postmodern perspectives. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after
the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 311.
HEFCE. (2011). Funding for universities and colleges 2010-11 and 2011-12. [online].
Available at: <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2011/cl05_11/>
[Accessed 14th March 2012].
Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the
student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.
116
Key Note. (2011). Market Report 2011: Further & Higher Education. [online].
Available at: <http://www.keynote.co.uk>
[Accessed 14th March 2012].
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied
research. 4th ed. London: SAGE.
Lewis, R. C., & Booms, B. H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality, in
Berry L., Shostack G. & Upah, G (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services
Marketing, AMA, Chicago, IL, 99-107.
Loue, S. (2000). Textbook of Research Ethics: Theory and Practice. London: Kluwer
Academic.
Lovelock, C. H., & Wirtz, J. (2011). Services marketing: people, technology, strategy.
7th ed. London: Pearson.
117
Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Boblca, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of
customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 23(2), 124-140.
Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service
quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5),
523-535.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 3344.
118
Paswan, A., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutes: satisfaction and
loyalty among international students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
19(1), 65-84.
Rigotti, S., & Pitt, L. (1992). SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service
provider gaps in business schools. Management Research News, 15(3), 9-17.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New directions in theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and
market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215.
119
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business
students. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Sechrest, L., & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an
alternative?. Education and Program Planning, 18(1), 77-87.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 913-949.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text,
and interaction. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: theory and
practice. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Stodnick, M., & Rogers, P. (2008). Using SERVQUAL to measure the quality of the
classroom experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 115133.
120
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The
role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959.
121
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in
services marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 33-46.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1990). Delivering quality service:
balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Free Press.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants
of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
21(1), 1-12.
122
123