UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

MANCHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL

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

DANIEL JAKE BEAUMONT BSc (Honours) in Management

7408488

Supervisor: Dr Anna Goatman

2

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.

ii

3

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.

iii

4

Contents

1. Introduction 8

1.1 The UK Higher Education Sector 8

1.2 The Higher Education Sector and Service Quality 12

1.3 The University of Manchester 12

1.4 Study Structure 13 2. Literature Review 15

2.1 Introduction 15

2.2 The Nature of Services 15

2.3 The Construct of Service Quality 21

2.4 Measuring Service Quality 27

2.5 Chapter Summary 37 3. Research Objectives and Questions 38 4. Methodology 39

4.1 Introduction 39

4.2 Methodological Stance 39

4.3 Rationalising the Methodological Approach 42

4.4 The Research Process: Focus Groups 43

4.5 Data Analysis Techniques 47

4.6 Ethical Considerations 48

4.7 Chapter Summary 49 5. Discussion 50

5.1 Introduction 50

5.2 The Importance and Performance of Service Quality Characteristics 50

5.3 Importance-Performance Analysis and Problematic Areas 60

5.4 Differences between Students’ Perceptions of Service Quality 70

iv

5

5.5 Suggestions for University Service Management 76 5.6 Chapter Summary 84 6. Conclusion 85

6.1 Introduction 85

6.2 Conclusions Pertaining to Research Questions 85

6.3 Limitations of Study 88

6.4 Future Research Opportunities 89 7. Appendices 91 8. References 111

v

6

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. The Disconfirmation Model 25

Figure 2.2. The Perceived Service Quality Model 29

Figure 2.3. The SERVQUAL Model 30

Figure 2.4. Determinants of Perceived Service Quality 31

Figure 5.1. Importance-Performance Matrix – Year 1 61

Figure 5.2. Importance-Performance Matrix – Year 2 62

Figure 5.3. Importance-Performance Matrix – Year 3 63

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Total Number of Students in Higher Education 11

Table 1.2. Total University Student Applicants 11

Table 5.1. Most Important Characteristics in Each Academic Year Group 52

Table 5.2. Best Performing Characteristics in Each Academic Year Group 57

Table 5.3. Areas to Maintain 64

Table 5.4. Problematic Areas 65

Table 5.5. Notable Patterns Across Different Academic Year Groups 72

Table 5.6. Problematic Areas Located from IPA 79

vi

7

List of Appendices

Appendix A: The SERVQUAL Instrument 91

Appendix B: Variables and Dimensions for the HEdPERF Scale 93

Appendix C: Sample End of Unit Questionnaire 94

Appendix D: National Student Survey Questionnaire 96

Appendix E: Focus Group Details & Participant Demographics 98

Appendix F: Example Focus Group Survey 99

Appendix G: Importance-Performance Data - Year 1, 2 & 3 101

Appendix H: Importance-Performance Analysis Matrix Key 104

Appendix I: Individual Participant Ratings from Focus Groups 105

vii

8

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.

1.1 The UK Higher Education Sector

The UK is regarded as one of the leading providers of higher education, housing

some of the best universities in the world. According to Times Higher Education

World University Rankings (2012), three of the top fifteen universities are based in

the UK, while the remaining twelve are of US and Japanese origin. In Europe, five of

the top seven universities are UK based, while the remaining two are located in

Sweden and Switzerland. On a domestic level, there is evidence to suggest that the

competitive marketplace for higher education is increasing. As of August 2011, there

were 129 universities in operation throughout the UK, compared to only 109 in 2001

(Department for Education, 2011). This translates to a percentage increase of

approximately 15.50% for the last decade.

9

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

Historically, university experience came at no direct financial cost to students

studying in the UK. However, in 1998 the government decided to introduce tuition

fees for the first time, capping them at £1,000 to aid the growth and competitive

position of universities (Department for Education, 2000). In response to the Higher

Education Act 2004, fees were increased to £3,000 a year in 2006. From then

onwards, fees have climbed slowly in line with inflation up to £3,375 for 2011/2012

(Direct Gov, 2012a). However, the Browne Review (2010), commissioned in late

2009 and published in 2010, suggested that the cap on tuition fees should be lifted

and that universities should have the ability to increase their fees. In December 2010,

323 MP’s voted in favour of an increase in tuition fees, while 302 rejected the

increase (Key Note, 2011). Accordingly, the coalition government decided against

lifting the cap on fees but instead revealed their intention to increase tuition fees,

removing the standardised cost of university for the first time.

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

10

(Key Note, 2011).

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).

1.1.3 Student Numbers

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

11

for Education, 2011).

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Students

2,281.2 2,304.7 2,306.1 2,396.1 2,493.4 2,605

Diff (+/-) - 23.5 1.4 90 97.3 111.6

% Change Year-on-year

- 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).

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Applicants

402,831 435,658 464,167 555,439 583,546 540,073

Diff (+/-) - 32,827 28,509 91,272 28,107 43,473

% Change Year-on-year

- 8.1 6.5 19.7 4.8 -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).

12

1.2 The Higher Education Sector and Service Quality

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.

1.3 The University of Manchester

The study is based upon the University of Manchester, which is a well-established

higher education institution. The university’s origin dates back to the formation of the

Manchester Mechanics’ Institute in 1824. In October 2004, the University of

Manchester was formed when the Victoria University of Manchester (founded in

1851) merged with UMIST (University of Manchester, 2012a). The university is the

most popular in the UK with nearly 40,000 students, of which approximately 28,500

are at undergraduate level. In support of this, Key Note (2011) state that the

University of Manchester ranked number one for total student applications, receiving

a staggering 58,252 applications during 2010. The university is supported by 10,712

staff, of which more than 4,500 are academic and research staff, making them one of

13

the biggest employers in the North West (University of Manchester, 2012b).

According to Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2012), the

university ranked 48th in the world for 2012, which represents a 39 place

improvement on their ranking of 87th in 2011. At a European level, the university

ranked 9th in 2012, behind only 6 other UK universities - Oxford, Cambridge,

Edinburgh, Imperial College London, University College London, and London School

of Economics and Political Science. Although the university is widely recognised on

the international stage, the Complete University Guide (2012), which is compiled by

Mayfield University Consultants, placed the University of Manchester a mediocre 29th

in the UK for 2012. Although the overall rankings are derived from entry standards,

student satisfaction, research assessment and graduate prospects, it is evident that

the university placed poorly in terms of student satisfaction. Of the 116 universities

surveyed, the university ranked 106th. These figures are particularly concerning

considering that the university is one of those set to charge the maximum £9,000

tuition fee rate as of September 2012. Despite this, and in response to rising tuition

fees, the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, Professor

Dame Nancy Rothwell, states:

“…this is necessary to ensure and improve the quality of teaching

and the wider experience that we offer to all of our student.” (BBC,

2011)

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-of-

mouth (Abdullah, 2006a), which ultimately assists in producing higher profit margins

for an organisation.

1.4 Study Structure

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

14

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 study’s

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.

15

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.

2.2 The Nature of Services

2.2.1 The Importance of Services

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

16

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).

2.2.2 Defining a Service

Many definitions exist in regards to what constitutes a service. However, Palmer

(2011, p. 2) defines a service as:

“The production of an essentially intangible benefit, either in its own

right or as a significant element of a tangible product, which through

some form of exchange, satisfies an identified need.”

Alternatively, Lovelock and Wright (1999, p. 5) adopt a more informal approach,

defining a service as:

“Something that may be bought and sold but that cannot be

dropped on your foot.”

Finally, Zeithaml et al. (2009, p. 4), state:

“…services are deeds, processes, and performances provided or

co-produced by one entity or person for another entity or person.”

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.

2.2.3 Services versus Goods

In the past, marketing literature fundamentally focused on the manufacturing of

tangible goods, discounting services and treating them like goods because of the

17

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 individual’s 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 provider’s physical

facilities, equipment and personnel.

Services can also be differentiated from goods by examining their properties. As

identified by Zeithaml (1981), the properties of a service, namely, search, experience

and credence, influence how the service or good is evaluated. Search properties are

those elements that help customers to evaluate offerings prior to purchase.

Experience properties allow evaluation after performance of the service whereas

credence properties relate to those characteristics that customers find difficult to

evaluate even after purchase and consumption (Baines et al., 2008). Most services

contain few search properties and are high in experience and credence properties,

making their quality increasingly difficult to evaluate compared to the quality of goods

(Zeithaml, 1981). More recently, Baines et al. (2008) assert that most physical goods

are high in search properties, whereas services tend to have higher levels of

experience and credence characteristics.

2.2.4 The Characteristics of Services

An examination of the characteristics of services is useful when differentiating

between a service and a good. As highlighted by Parasuraman et al. (1988), and

later Giese and Cote (2000), the difficulty in defining and measuring services is

generally due to their unique characteristics (Zeithaml et al., 1985) - intangibility,

inseparability, heterogeneity, perishability and lack of ownership. It appears to be the

18

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.

It is clear that each characteristic poses significant implications for service

management regarding the delivery of a quality service. This presents the challenge

of understanding how the service is being perceived, consumed, or enacted when

developing marketing strategies (Hill, 1995).

2.2.5 Higher Education as a Service

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

19

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.

Notwithstanding the characteristics of higher education as a service, it is important to

appreciate that higher education institutions, like any other businesses, have different

stakeholders with varying interests and agendas.

2.2.6 The Stakeholders of Higher Education

It is important to define a stakeholder in order to enable an understanding of the

various stakeholders in the context of higher education. An early definition, which is

still very prominent today, is provided by Freeman (1984, p. 46), who defines a

stakeholder as:

“Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of the organisation objectives.”

It is common for many organisations to have a number of stakeholders with different

opinions, interests and attitudes towards the organisation. This is no different in the

20

context of higher education, where a number of stakeholders exist, all experiencing

the institution in different ways. Stakeholders in a higher education institution tend to

include students, their parents and family, the local community, society, the

government, the governing body, staff, local authorities, and current and potential

employers (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Due to the variety of stakeholders in higher

education, it is natural for perceptions to vary between different stakeholder groups

(Appleton-Knapp and Krentler, 2006). Gruber et al. (2010) argue that every

stakeholder involved in a higher education institution has their own view of quality

due to particular needs. Moreover, quality means different things to different people

depending on the context being examined (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011), illustrating the

importance of acknowledging different stakeholder groups.

2.2.7 The Student as the Primary Stakeholder

Identifying the primary stakeholder in higher education is problematic (Cuthbert,

1996a). This combined with the issue that service providers can only deliver an

effective service if they know what the customer wants (Gruber et al., 2010), makes

the identification of the primary stakeholder even more crucial. Hill (1995) claims that

students are the primary stakeholders of higher education services in the UK,

demonstrating that they play a key role in the production and delivery process of the

service. More recently, Gruber et al. (2010) contend that students are the specific

and primary target audience, stressing the need for academic administrators to focus

on understanding their requirements. In addition, if universities focus on

understanding how their students perceive the services offered, they may be able to

adapt their services in a way that stimulates a positive impact on students’ perceived

service quality (Section 2.3.3). This could provide the institution with a certain

competitive advantage, principally in terms of generating positive word-of-mouth

communication between potential, current and future students (Alves and Raposo,

2009).

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.

21

2.3 The Construct of Service Quality

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:

“Service quality is the single most researched area in services

marketing to date.”

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).

Service quality is widely regarded as a driver of corporate marketing and financial

performance (Buttle, 1996). It is no surprise that service quality is a heavily

researched topic due to its supposed relationship with costs (Crosby, 1979),

profitability (Rust and Zahorik, 1993), customer satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor,

1992), customer retention (Bolton and Drew, 1991), and positive word-of-mouth

(Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). In the context of higher education, each of the

relationships mentioned above are of fundamental importance given the decreased

funding available for universities and the controversial rise in tuition fees proposed for

September 2012 (Section 1.1).

2.3.2 Defining Service Quality

Many researchers have termed service quality an ‘elusive’ and ‘indistinct’ construct

that is difficult to define and measure (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin

and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Baron et al. (2009) claim that service

22

quality is a highly abstract construct in contrast to goods quality, where technical

aspects of quality are evident. Moreover, Clewes (2003) suggests that one

unresolved issue in the service quality field includes finding an appropriate definition

for service quality and a suitable model for measuring service quality.

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:

“…a measure of how well the service level delivered matches

customer’s expectations.”

This definition can be developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), who argue that

service quality stems from a comparison of a consumer’s 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.

2.3.3 Perceived 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.

23

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 customer’s 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).

2.3.4 Service Quality in Higher Education

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

24

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

The services marketing literature presents an interesting debate regarding whether

customer expectations and perceptions should be used, or whether it is appropriate

to use purely perceptions to form judgements (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992,

1994). Despite this, Zeithaml et al. (1990) maintain that word of mouth

communications, personal needs, external communications from the service

provider, price and past experiences of the service are pivotal in influencing the

customer’s expectations.

Notwithstanding the issues associated with multiple stakeholders discussed earlier

(Section 2.2.6), Berry et al. (1988) suggest that the consumer is the sole judge of

service quality and that it is assessed by comparing expectations with their actual

experience of the service (Section 2.3.2). Zeithaml et al. (1990) propose that knowing

what the customer expects is an essential step for delivering good service quality.

This demonstrates the importance of understanding consumer expectations, how

they develop and their significance when managing service quality. On the other

hand, many academics believe in disregarding expectations completely, stating that

recalling them can be problematic (see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a, 2006b; Cronin and

Taylor, 1992, 1994; Oldfield and Baron, 2000). Theories of hindsight bias (see e.g.

Hawkins and Hastie, 1990) suggest that people generally do not recall the past

correctly but rather allow their experience to shape what they claim to have believed

initially, resulting in the possibility of biased expectations (Appleton-Knapp and

Krentler, 2006). Furthermore, in the context of higher education, Hill (1995) suggests

that students’ expectations of higher education are informed by their experiences at

high school leading to a potential mismatch between expectations and perceived

service quality.

25

Despite the debate surrounding the relevance of expectations, it is appropriate to

discuss the disconfirmation paradigm, as this provides a basis for understanding the

relationship between student expectations and student satisfaction (Appleton-Knapp

and Krentler, 2006).

2.3.6 The Disconfirmation Paradigm

Traditionally, the disconfirmation paradigm has been used extensively to determine

satisfaction. However, the disconfirmation paradigm is a flexible model that is also

useful for the measurement of quality in services (see e.g. Gronroos, 1982). The

paradigm is useful for understanding the relationship between a consumer’s

expectations and actual perceptions (Figure 2.1). It utilises four important constructs

– expectations, performance, disconfirmation, and satisfaction (Smith and Houston,

1982, cited in Parasuraman et al., 1985).

Expectations are predictions of performance and their comparison with perceived

performance leads to three possible outcomes:

Confirmation: Occurs when actual performance is as expected.

Positive disconfirmation: Occurs when actual performance is greater than

expectations.

Figure 2.1: The Disconfirmation Model Source: Walker (1995)

26

Negative disconfirmation: Occurs when actual performance is less than

expectations.

Positive disconfirmation produces satisfaction, whereas negative disconfirmation

produces dissatisfaction (Buttle, 1995). Moreover, when the expected and perceived

performance is the same, the customer is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (Buttle,

1996). This paradigm has been studied and tested by many researchers and serves

as the basis for the vast majority of satisfaction studies (Appleton-Knapp and

Krentler, 2006).

2.3.7 The Relationship between Service Quality and Satisfaction

The terms ‘service quality’ and ‘satisfaction’ are often used in an interchangeable

manner (Palmer, 2011), causing difficulty when attempting to distinguish between the

two theoretical concepts. Like service quality, customer satisfaction is an abstract

and ambiguous concept (Munteanu et al., 2010) and many researchers have

attempted to develop a consensus definition for this construct (Giese and Cote,

2000). Satisfaction has been defined as the perception of pleasurable fulfilment of a

service (Oliver, 1999). In contrast, Athiyaman (1997) argues that satisfaction is the

result of the evaluation of a specific transaction or consumption experience. Despite

this, measuring customer satisfaction provides organisations with one way to

ascertain the success of a product following its introduction to its market (Munteanu

et al., 2010).

On the other hand, service quality is interpreted as an enduring global attitude,

encompassing a view of the organisation in its entirety, while satisfaction is related to

a specific transaction or consumption experience (Rowley, 1997). Parasuraman et al.

(1985) also suggest that service quality is a form of attitude that is connected with

satisfaction but can still be differentiated. However, Carman (1990) argues that it is

uncommon for researchers to refer to quality as an attitude. Despite the controversy,

a clear distinction can be made between the two constructs; quality is based on

current perceptions whereas satisfaction is based on past, present and anticipated

experiences or outcomes (Anderson et al., 1994).

Sureshchandar et al. (2002) maintain that satisfaction possesses a multi-dimensional

nature, proposing that satisfaction should be operationalised along the same

dimensions that constitute service quality. It was established that satisfaction and

27

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.

2.3.8 The Antecedent: Service Quality or Satisfaction?

A heavily debated topic in the services marketing literature relates to whether

satisfaction influences service quality or vice-versa. Cronin and Taylor (1992)

contend that service quality is an antecedent to satisfaction and that the direction of

causality is from service quality to satisfaction. However, the authors also state that

the causal directional relationship between satisfaction and service quality needed

further study (Cronin and Taylor, 1994). Still, the majority of recent publications

consider service quality as an antecedent to customer satisfaction (Gruber et al.,

2010).

While a significant amount of research suggests that service quality is a vital

antecedent to customer satisfaction, there is also evidence suggesting that

satisfaction may be an antecedent to service quality (Bitner, 1990). Likewise,

Parasuraman et al. (1988) also argue that consumer satisfaction leads to perceived

service quality.

Regardless of which construct is the antecedent, it is clear that the relationship

between satisfaction and service quality is strong when examined in both directions.

Despite the different arguments proposed by various authors, this study focuses on

service quality as the main construct. Therefore, it is assumed for the basis of this

study that service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction, advocating that service

quality influences satisfaction.

2.4 Measuring Service Quality

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

28

disagreement in the debate of relating to measuring service quality (Abdullah,

2006a). Some authors deem service quality difficult to define and model as a result of

the problems involved in conceptualising and measuring the construct (Parasuraman

et al., 1985). This is predominantly due to the intangible nature of services, making

conceptualisation more difficult for services than goods (Palmer, 2011). Therefore, it

is no surprise that the complexity in conceptualising and measuring service quality

has been deemed to be one of the most debated and controversial topics in services

marketing (Brady and Cronin, 2001). Despite numerous attempts by academics, no

single model of service quality is universally accepted (Clewes, 2003). Moreover, a

review of the existing literature demonstrates that there is no agreement pertaining to

the measurement of service quality (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005), providing further

evidence to illustrate that a generally accepted measurement scale does not exist.

2.4.2 Models for Measuring Service Quality

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.

2.4.3 The Perceived Service Quality Model

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

29

is based on the disconfirmation paradigm (Section 2.3.6), where the consumer

compares their expectations with their perceptions, and the quality of the service is

determined by the outcome of this evaluation process.

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.

Figure 2.2: The Perceived Service Quality Model Source: Gronroos (1984)

30

2.4.4 The SERVQUAL Model

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 customer’s 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.

As identified by Parasuraman et al. (1988), the SERVQUAL model uses 22 items,

asking customers what they expect from an organisation in terms of service quality

(Appendix A). A seven-point Likert scale is used to record expectations and

Figure 2.3: The SERVQUAL Model Source: Parasuraman et al. (1985)

31

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

Figure 2.4: Determinants of Perceived Service Quality Source: Parasuraman et al. (1988)

32

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.

It is usually impractical to measure expectations before the service is experienced

(Palmer, 2011). In the context of higher education, it is commonly out of the bounds

of the researcher to be able to capture student expectations of the university they

intend on joining. As a result, the researcher often tries to record expectations

retrospectively, which can be problematic, since expectations may have been

influenced by service delivery resulting in measurement becoming fairly meaningless

(Palmer, 2011). Buttle (1996) argues that there is little evidence that customers

assess service quality in terms of performance minus expectations. Consequently,

alternative approaches have been developed that attempt to improve the validity and

reliability of this model.

2.4.5 The SERVPERF Model

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 provider’s performance in a particular service

encounter.

33

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:

Requisite elements: Essential to enable students to fulfil their study obligations.

Acceptable elements: Desirable but not essential to students.

Functional elements: Possess a practical or utilitarian nature.

This study is also based on determining students’ perceptions of service quality, but

also the relative importance of different elements and how the importance of various

factors changes across different years of study (i.e. first year and third year

students).

34

2.4.6 The HEdPERF Model

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.

35

2.4.7 Existing Approaches to Service Quality Measurement in Higher Education

Many higher education institutions use in-house evaluation techniques to measure

the quality of education provided to students, as well as an assessment of student

satisfaction (Munteanu et al., 2010). They tend to perform an evaluation of other

aspects of the student experience beyond the assessment of the quality of teaching

and learning (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). According to Gibson (2010), higher

education institutions normally use a survey to obtain student feedback on a

particular academic programme. These normally incorporate questions relating to

various aspects of the programme, including questions relating to satisfaction with

regards to the overall academic experience. In addition, the survey tends to include

corroborating questions, for instance, whether or not the student would recommend

the programme to others (Gibson, 2010). In contrast, Manchester Business School

obtain feedback from students by distributing a standard course specific survey at the

end of each semester, requiring students to evaluate their experience of a particular

module (Appendix C). In turn, completed questionnaires are collected and analysed;

results are sent to faculties, as well as the course leaders (Palihawadana and

Holmes, 1996).

Alternatively, some universities, such as the University of Manchester, also utilise

external bodies to measure their service quality. An example of this is the National

Student Survey (NSS) (Appendix D). The NSS provides an opportunity for final year

students to give opinions on what they liked about their institution and course, as well

as things that could be improved (Student Survey, 2011). Subsequently, feedback is

used to compile year-on-year comparative data, which prospective students can use

to make informed choices in regards to where and what to study (Student Survey,

2011). Meanwhile, universities can use the data to enhance the student’s university

experience. Finally, the survey is administered by an independent market research

agency (e.g. Ipsos MORI), in order to ensure transparency and encourage a fair

assessment of each university (Student Survey, 2011).

2.4.8 The Search for a Uniform Measurement Model in Higher Education

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.

36

(2005, p. 933) state that:

“There does not seem to be a well-accepted conceptual definition

and model of service quality nor is there any generally accepted

operation definition of how to measure service quality.”

Although measurement scales such as SERVQUAL and SERVPERF were designed

as generic measures of service quality, it is important to view these instruments as

the basic platforms, which often require modification to fit the specific situation

(Abdullah, 2006a). More specifically, higher education institutions must focus their

attention on the dimensions perceived to be important rather than focusing on a

number of different attributes (Abduallah, 2006a). However, the approach of

attempting to determine what students perceive to be the important dimensions

through the use of surveys is questionable. According to Gruber et al. (2010), many

existing surveys are poorly designed, lack standardisation and give no evidence

concerning reliability or validity. Therefore, it is inevitable that problems pertaining to

the reliability and validity will arise when developing an instrument (e.g. the

HEdPERF model) that attempts to capture and model the complex and multifaceted

nature of service quality (Hill, 1995).

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).

37

2.5 Chapter Summary

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 multi-

faceted 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.

38

3. Research Objectives and Questions

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.

Accordingly, the following objectives can be proposed:

To identify the most and least influential characteristics of service quality as

perceived by students studying at the University of Manchester.

To determine whether dissimilarities exist in students’ perceptions of service

quality across different academic year groups.

To provide suggestions to university service management in an attempt to

improve the service quality provided to students.

The study attempts to answer the following research questions:

1. In terms of importance and performance, how do students perceive

different characteristics of service quality at the University of

Manchester?

2. Do discrepancies exist between students’ perceptions of service quality

across different academic year groups?

Findings to the research questions listed above enable the final research question to

be answered:

3. How can service management at the University of Manchester improve

the level of service quality provided to students?

39

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.

4.2 Methodological Stance

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 researcher’s beliefs and the purpose of the research dictate this

decision, as well as which method is most appropriate.

40

Positivism is an epistemological position, which advocates the application of methods

of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and beyond (Bryman and Bell,

2011). It is based on foundational principals that advocate the values of reason, truth

and validity (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). Therefore, a positivist perspective suggests

that human beings, their actions and institutions can be studied as objectively as the

natural world (Fisher and Buglear, 2007). The researcher that embraces a positivist

perspective believes that reality is ‘out there’ waiting to be captured (Malhotra and

Birks, 2007). In capturing reality, a positivist approach focuses on research that

involves scientific experimentation that places emphasis on a highly structured

methodology (Gummesson, 2005). Furthermore, the overriding purpose of a positivist

approach is to generate generalised laws that can be used to predict behaviour and

provide an explanation for marketing phenomena (Fisher and Buglear, 2007).

However, in critique of a positivist approach to research, Addis and Podesta (2005)

assert that such an approach reduces participants of the study to mere numbers;

disregarding any interactions they may have in the research process.

On the other hand, interpretivism is an epistemological perspective that advocates

the need to understand the differences between humans in their role as social actors

(Saunders, et al., 2009). Interpretivism states that individuals create, modify and

interpret the world, and that adopting such an approach is often useful for generating

knowledge that is said to be socially constructive. The interpretivist approach uses a

subjective approach to explore the world, suggesting that no independent objective

reality exists. Accordingly, the interpretivist researcher believes that there may be a

wide array of interpretations of realities. The interpretivist researcher does not set out

to test hypotheses, but instead explores the nature and interrelationships of

marketing phenomena (Malhotra and Birks, 2007).

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).

41

Conventionally, an objectivist is likely to favour quantitative research while a

subjectivist will favour qualitative research. The main difference between quantitative

and qualitative research is that quantitative researchers employ measurement and

qualitative researchers do not (Bryman and Bell, 2011). However, Strauss and

Corbin (1998) state that the decision of whether to use either qualitative or

quantitative methods largely depends on the nature of the research problem.

Furthermore, Weber (2004) criticises the approach of sticking too rigidly to one

paradigm for research, suggesting that the best findings come from picking the most

appropriate methods that are relevant to the research problem at hand. Alternatively,

many authors suggest combining both quantitative and qualitative data since the two

approaches are complementary, suggesting that they should not be used in isolation

of each other (Jankowicz, 2005; Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Worryingly, many

researchers fall into the trap of adopting a rigid position in favour of either qualitative

or quantitative research (Malhotra and Birks, 2007), which can put the reliability and

validity of the research study in jeopardy.

Saunders et al. (2009) argue that the most appropriate philosophical stance depends

on the research objectives and questions. Based on this assertion, the researcher’s

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.

However, as illustrated above, it is crucial to avoid reducing participants of the study

to mere numbers and disregarding their interaction in the research process.

Therefore, since the approach taken depends on the research problem at hand, this

study contradicts the customary use of solely quantitative research for a positivist

approach and utilises a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative measurement

where necessary. Sticking too rigidly to one approach by using either qualitative or

quantitative measurement could jeopardise the findings and potentially impact the

reliability and validity of the research, which ultimately affects the credibility of the

study. Furthermore, it is reasonable to integrate qualitative research techniques

(conventionally associated with interpretivist research) in a positivist study. This is

supported by Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) who advocate that researchers should

learn to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research, regardless of the

42

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 study’s

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.

Focus groups as a research technique have long been prominent in marketing

studies (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Focus groups are a quick, flexible and

inexpensive method of gathering data from several respondents in a short period of

time (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Traditionally, focus groups are seen as an

interpretivist research technique and useful for exploratory research when little is

known about the phenomenon at hand (Stewart et al., 2007). However, as located in

Section 4.2, their application is not solely dedicated to qualitative research. In support

of this, Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) state that although focus groups are mostly

used for collecting qualitative data, they can also be used to produce quantitative

data.

This study defies common conventions, utilising focus groups as the main research

technique, whilst researching from a positivist perspective. Saunders et al. (2009)

43

provide evidence to support this approach, suggesting that it is possible to quantify

qualitative data and convert it into numerical codes so that it can be analysed

statistically. Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) provide additional support suggesting that

a researcher may collect and code the data that they have collected in such a

manner that would allow statistical analysis.

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

The purpose of the study is to investigate students’ perceptions of service quality so

that suggestions can be provided to service management at the University of

Manchester. In addition, the study is cross-sectional, focusing on determining

whether perceptions change over the course of a student’s degree (i.e. Year 1

through to Year 3). Each of the focus groups was carried out over a two-week period

at the beginning of semester two (February 2012) using students enrolled at the

University of Manchester. Apart from one of the focus groups, the remaining five

lasted approximately one and one and a half hours in duration, falling in line with

guidelines set out by Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) who believe that focus groups

should last between 30 minutes and 2 hours to achieve the most promising results.

4.4.1 Sample

In total, 36 BSc Management students from Manchester Business School

participated in the study; including 16 females and 20 males, with an age range of

18-24 (Appendix E). This translates to a total of six semi-structured focus groups,

each with six participants involved. In order to increase reliability and validity, two

focus groups were conducted for each year of study (i.e. Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3).

These characteristics fall in line with Malhotra and Birks (2007) who recommend that

44

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 researcher’s 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).

The researcher acknowledges that convenience sampling may not be representative

of a definable population (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Therefore, the researcher

appreciates the boundaries of the study and the potential bias attached to the results

in the conclusion of the study.

4.4.2 Procedure

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

45

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 Ryland’s 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

46

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.

4.4.3 Maintaining Reliability and Validity

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.

In addition to attempting to triangulate the research procedure, two focus groups

were conducted for each year of study, thus repeating the data collection process to

ensure consistency and the elimination of potential anomalies. Furthermore, the

moderator ensured that each focus group was semi-structured in nature to help

47

prevent creating bias by unintentionally guiding responses. Despite these attempts to

improve reliability, the researcher acknowledges that the data collection process was

not perfect and that it could be subject to possible bias (e.g. demographic bias). That

said, Krueger and Casey (2006) claim that it is necessary to make trade-offs when

selecting participants and that this is acceptable as long as it is taken into account in

the analysis of data.

4.5 Data Analysis Techniques

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.

Subsequently, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was used to profile the data

for each academic year group. IPA is one of the most useful forms of analysis in

marketing research, combining information about customer perceptions and

importance ratings (Zeithaml et al., 2009). In this instance, IPA was used to link

perceptions of importance with perceptions of performance for different service

quality characteristics, as perceived by students (Section 5.1). The data were then

mapped out onto simple to read matrices that management can use at to establish

what service quality characteristics need addressing, which need maintaining and

which need de-emphasising. For instance, a characteristic that was perceived

extremely important but performed poorly would be considered as a problematic area

that management needed to address. Although, students’ perceptions were

measured using a scale ranging from 1 - 10 for both the importance (e.g. 1 = Low

Importance, 10 = High Importance) and performance (1 = Low Performance, 10 =

High Performance) of characteristics, the scale was readjusted during analysis to 4 -

10 to generate a better representation of the findings. The mean results used to plot

the data on the IPA matrices did not fall below 4, making it possible to map the data

using a shortened scale. This is taken into consideration when interpreting the results

in the discussion.

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

48

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.

4.6 Ethical Considerations

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 study’s

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

49

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.

50

5. Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse and discuss findings simultaneously,

allowing coherent presentation and interpretation of the results. It is logical to adopt

such an approach, as the discussion of results that follow the analysis is key in

understanding the findings at each stage. This allows each of the research questions

proposed in Chapter 3 to be answered more succinctly than if the chapters were

separated. In doing so, the discussion attempts to compare and contrast findings with

the relevant literature that was reviewed in Chapter 2, as well as identifying aspects

that are absent from the current scholarly literature.

The discussion is divided into four sections, namely, the Importance and

Performance of Service Quality Characteristics (Section 5.2), Importance-

Performance 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

51

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 university’s limited resources to be allocated more efficiently,

stimulating the possibility of better service provision for students.

5.2.2 The Importance of Service Quality Characteristics

Despite the ‘elusive’ and’ indistinct’ nature of service quality (Bolton and Drew, 1991;

Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988), demonstrated by

discrepancies between students’ perceptions of different characteristics, the findings

indicate that there is a ‘core’ set of characteristics that are important to each

student’s university experience. Table 5.1 provides evidence to support this,

illustrating students’ perceptions of the eight most important service quality

characteristics. The data was extrapolated, utilising the mean scores from each year

of study to rank each characteristic based on its importance. Moreover, the

corresponding variance was calculated for each characteristic to show how much

deviation existed between students’ responses for each characteristic.

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:

“…fundamental to the university experience and extremely

important in achieving a good degree at university, which is the

52

primary objective for most students.” (Participant A – Year 2,

Group 1)

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.

Year 1

Rank Characteristic Mean Variance

1 Knowledge and experience of academic staff 9.33 0.42

2 Quality of lectures 8.92 0.63

3 Relevance of course material 8.83 0.33

4 Internal student feedback systems 8.75 0.57

5 The reputation of the university 8.75 0.75

6 Social opportunities 8.75 0.75

7 Quality of seminars 8.58 0.99

8 Ability to understand student needs 8.42 0.81

Year 2

1 Relevance of course material 9.17 0.52

2 Internal student feedback systems 9.08 0.63

3 Prompt and efficient feedback on work 8.92 0.81

4 Knowledge and experience of academic staff 8.67 0.97

5 The reputation of the university 8.42 0.99

6 Quality of seminars 8.25 1.11

7 Quality of lectures 7.83 0.70

8 Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 7.83 0.52

Year 3

1 Quality of seminars 9.33 0.61

2 Internal student feedback systems 9.25 0.57

3 The reputation of the university 9.25 0.93

4 Careers service 9.25 0.75

5 Quality of lectures 9.25 0.75

6 Knowledge and experience of academic staff 8.92 0.81

7 Relevance of course material 8.83 0.70

8 Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 8.67 0.61 Table 5.1: Extract of Most Important Characteristics Data in Each Academic Year Group See Appendix G for full data tables

53

Cuthbert’s (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 student’s

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 student’s university experience. Likewise,

the requisite elements identified in Oldfield and Baron’s (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 university’s primary offering,

explaining that they best reflect what a student is paying for to study at university.

54

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 student’s 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.

5.2.4 Internal Student Feedback Systems

Participants believed that students should be seen as the university’s primary

customer. Gruber et al. (2010) provide support for this, claiming that students should

be seen as the primary target audience, stressing the need for academic

administrators to understand their requirements. One participant explained that:

“The university needs to focus on operating more as if it was a

business rather than a university. One of the most fundamental

tasks for any business is to understand customer needs and this

university is no exception.” (Participant G - Year 3, Group 2)

55

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:

“…without any chance for students to give feedback, the university

would find it difficult to improve the provision of service quality,

which could result in the competition overtaking and potentially

jeopardising the university’s reputation.” (Participant C - Year 3,

Group 1)

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 University’s Reputation

For the majority of participants, ‘the reputation of the university’ was a considerably

important characteristic. Participants believed the university’s 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:

56

“You could have an amazing time at a less reputable university, but

sooner or later it all comes down to employability, and this is not

going to work as well if the reputation of the university is not there.”

(Participant F - Year 3, Group 1)

Furthermore, an overwhelming 75% of participants believed that due to the relatively

intangible nature of education (Gruber et al., 2010) and the difficulty in defining and

measuring a service (Giese and Cote, 2000; Parasuraman et al., 1988), the

university’s reputation acted as a key search attribute (Zeithaml, 1981) when

deciding which university to study at. Nevertheless, Abdullah (2006a) provides

evidence to support the importance of this characteristic with the development of the

HEdPERF scale. The author’s study identified ‘reputation’ as one of six key

dimensions, which must be carefully evaluated when using the scale to gauge the

current level of service quality. Despite the evident importance of the university’s

reputation, another participant acknowledged the difficulty of not being able to

properly ascertain the true value of the university’s reputation until they have started

applying for jobs.

5.2.6 The Performance of Service Quality Characteristics

Understanding the performance of different service quality characteristics is critical to

enable university service management to understand how to improve service quality.

DeShields et al. (2005) provide support for this claiming that institutions need to

continue to deliver a high quality service and satisfy students in order to succeed in a

competitive service environment. In particular, one participant explained that:

“Being in touch with the service and understanding how various

aspects perform is crucial for determining what improvements are

needed, in order to enhance the overall level of service quality and

to satisfy various stakeholders.” (Participant G - Year 3, Group 2)

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.

57

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’).

Year 1

Rank Characteristic Mean Variance

1 The reputation of the university 8.75 0.93

2 Knowledge and experience of academic staff 8.67 0.97

3 Knowledge of administrative staff 8.58 0.99

4 Campus location and layout 8.42 1.17

5 Organisation and management of course 7.83 0.88

6 Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 7.75 0.39

7 Provision of other facilities and services 7.50 2.09

8 Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 7.33 1.52

Year 2

1 Course flexibility 8.08 0.63

2 The reputation of the university 8.08 0.63

3 Knowledge and experience of academic staff 8.00 0.91

4 Campus location and layout 7.92 0.45

5 Physical appearance of university 7.75 0.39

6 Careers service 7.50 0.64

7 Organisation and management of course 7.42 0.99

8 Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 7.33 0.79

Year 3

1 Careers service 9.08 0.45

2 The reputation of the university 8.42 0.45

3 Knowledge and experience of academic staff 8.25 1.30

4 Course flexibility 8.17 0.70

5 Campus location and layout 8.00 1.09

6 Organisation and management of course 7.75 2.39

7 Quality of lectures 7.58 0.27

8 Relevance of course material 7.33 2.24 Table 5.2: Extract of Best Performing Characteristics Data in Each Academic Year Group See Appendix G for Full Data Tables

5.2.7 The Reputation of the University

Participants from the focus groups believed that ‘the reputation of the university’ was

one of the best performing factors. As Table 5.2 illustrates, of the four common

characteristics across each academic year, ‘the reputation of the university’ appears

to be the highest scoring. Since all the participants involved in the study were part of

Manchester Business School (MBS), they commonly referred to the their school’s

reputation rather than the reputation of the university. However, the general

58

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 university’s 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 university’s 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 university’s effective e-mail

system.

59

5.2.9 Campus Location and Layout

Participants across each academic year group felt that the ‘campus layout and

location’ was another well performing characteristic. However, it appears that many

students regard this characteristic as relatively unimportant, ranking 22nd for year 1

and 2 students, and 23rd for year 3 students, of 24 characteristics studied (Appendix

G). Several participants believed that the university is well networked by good local

bus services, which also integrate well with the city. Moreover, students also brought

up the provision of a free shuttle bus connecting North and South campus, and that

most of their lectures were conveniently located close to Manchester Business

School (MBS) on Oxford Road (participants were all MBS students). Accordingly,

good transportation links may make the campus location and layout become less

important to students. One participant provided support for the lack of importance of

this particular characteristic, suggesting that it did not affect the provision of service

quality:

“Although the performance of the campus and layout exceeds what

I would have expected, it is not something that I perceive to be

extremely important to my university experience as this does not

really impact my ability to study at the university.” (Participant G -

Year 1, Group 2)

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:

“In first year I was more concerned with the location of different

amenities and facilities in relation to the campus. However, this was

purely a first year thing which has deteriorated in importance as the

years have gone on, despite it remaining a seemingly well

preserved aspect of the university’s service provision.” (Participant

60

A - Year 3, Group 1)

This demonstrates the need for the university to focus the university’s 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 organisation’s 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).

61

Figure 5.1: Importance-Performance Matrix – Year 1

62

Figure 5.2: Importance-Performance Matrix – Year 2

63

Figure 5.3: Importance-Performance Matrix – Year 3

64

5.3.2 Areas to Maintain

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.

5 Knowledge and Experience of Academic Staff

9 The Organisation and Management of the Course

11 The Quality of Academic and Learning Facilities

23 The University’s Reputation

Table 5.3: Areas to Maintain

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.

65

5.3.3 Problematic Areas

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 year’s 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.

2 Quality of Seminars

6 Availability of Academic Staff

8 Prompt and Efficient Feedback on Work

12 Access to Academic Facilities and Learning Resources

24 Internal Student Feedback Systems

Table 5.4: Problematic Areas

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.

5.3.4 The Quality of Seminars

There was a lengthy discussion concerning this particular characteristic in each of

the focus groups. On a positive note, the majority of participants believed that

seminars were extremely important, with the majority of participants emphasising

their relevance for consolidating what had been learnt in lectures. However, it is also

evident that there were conflicting views about the performance of seminars, with

many participants identifying the lack of consistency in regards to their quality. A

selection of participants believed that some of their seminar leaders fail to

66

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.

In contrast, a handful of participants gave examples of positive seminar experiences

where their lecturer had taught their seminars. These participants believed that more

often than not this resulted in better coordination between the lecture and seminar.

Despite the issue associated with the competence of some seminar leaders,

participants appreciated the difficulty in achieving quality when seminars are heavily

based upon co-creation of value between the producer (seminar leader) and the

consumer (student). This is supported by Hill (1995) who recognises the complexity

associated with achieving quality, especially when the service does not just depend

on the service provider but also on the performance of the consumer. Worryingly, a

significant number of participants brought up the problem of unequal participation in

seminars and the issue of some students ‘freeriding’. Several participants pointed out

that it was commonplace that some people had not completed the required work,

which jeopardised the quality of the seminar. This is a problem that university

management needs to consider, given that the co-production of services is of greater

concern to organisations when customers are more involved in the production

process (Palmer, 2011).

67

5.3.5 Feedback on Work and Availability of Academic Staff

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:

“… it is difficult to gain anything from the feedback received on work

at university. It is commonplace to receive a feedback sheet full of

ticks and one comment.” (Participant I - Year 3, Group 2)

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

68

importance of receiving efficient feedback and individualised attention from academic

staff cannot be undermined. In support of this, Oldfield and Baron (2000) found that

the ‘provision of individualised attention’ fell into requisite elements, which were

important for allowing a student to fulfill their study obligations. Furthermore, some

participants believed that the potential marginal benefit of good feedback and access

to academic staff is relatively high and has a direct positive impact on the quality of

their next assignment.

5.3.6 Internal Student Feedback Systems

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.

A significant number of participants also commented on the lack of mechanisms in

place for students to give their opinions on the university. More specifically,

participants were under the impression that no feedback system existed, or at least

they were not aware of any, to post their feedback on the complete student

experience. The majority of participants pointed out that end of unit questionnaires

were available for completion at the end of each semester, however, these were

course specific and did not assess the entire university experience. Moreover, a

number of participants brought up the backward looking nature of this particular

feedback mechanism. They believed that there is no incentive for students to fill in

the questionnaire properly and provide the university with reliable feedback, since

these students do not reap the benefits of change due to a potential time lag and

difficultly implementing change immediately in such a rigid organisation.

Additionally, a handful of participants thought that end of unit questionnaires were

seen more of an administrative task rather than a true evaluation of the service

quality. These participants doubted the integrity of end of module questionnaires,

69

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).

5.3.7 Access to Academic Facilities and Learning Resources

‘Access to academic facilities and learning resources’ is a further characteristic that is

regarded as problematic. Generally, participants of each focus group believed that

the provision of facilities and resources is above average. However, one particular

issue weakened the performance of this characteristic for many participants.

Numerous participants commented on the issue of learning resources during

examination period at the end of semester one and semester two. During this time,

demand exceeds supply and there appears to be a limited supply of learning

resources (e.g. study areas, computers, books) available to fulfill a student’s needs.

One participant recalled an occasion where they were queuing in the main library for

1 hour 45 minutes to get access to a university computer, while another participant

70

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.

5.4.2 The Complex Nature of Service Quality Perceptions

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

71

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.

In reference to a higher education context, the literature identified that Abdullah

(2006a, 2006b) created the HEdPERF tool, based on six dimensions (i.e. non-

academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, programme issues and

understanding), to assess service quality in a higher education context. It is evident

that even industry specific instruments assume linearity when conceptualising and

measuring service quality. In reality it is impractical to assume that generic models

capture a detailed perspective of a complex sector such as higher education.

Instead, and as this study has found, it seems more feasible to adopt a context

specific view of service quality, using measurement technique(s) based on the

situation at hand, in order to be able to deal with the multifaceted, indistinct and

elusive nature of the construct (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990). Despite this,

it must be acknowledged that models may provide a good starting point for a

researcher wishing to measure service quality, by directing attention to various

issues that may need considering.

5.4.3 Variations in Students’ Perceptions Over Time

The literature identified that university service management tend to regard service

quality as uniform, assuming students require the same provision and failing to

72

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 Mean ↑ or

↓ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Careers Service I 5.92 6.08 9.25 ↑

Social Opportunities I 8.75 7.25 4.50 ↓

Provision of other Facilities and Services I 8.33 6.83 5.33 ↓

Quality of Lectures P 6.92 6.92 7.58 ↑

Quality of Seminars P 4.17 6.00 6.17 ↑

I – Importance, P – Performance, ↑ - Increase, ↓ - Decrease

Table 5.5: Notable Patterns Across Different Academic Year Groups

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,

73

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:

“…having the support of the careers service is crucial for improving

my job prospects, especially in consideration of the competitive job

market and the evident impact of the recession.” (Participant G -

Year 3, Group 2)

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

74

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:

“…the careers service provided access to a range of resources

such as blogs, industry guides and practice psychometric tests that

were extremely useful for securing a place on an internship

scheme.” (Participant D - Year 2, Group 1)

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.

5.4.5 Social Opportunities and the Provision of Other Facilities

Table 5.5 highlights that both ‘social opportunities’ and the ‘provision of other facilities

and services’ decreased in importance from year one through to year three. Many

first year participants believed that the provision of social opportunities were

important for establishing networks and new friendships. Of the first year focus

group, 75% of participants were involved in either a society or sports team.

Correspondingly, social opportunities were more important to these students. In

addition, several first year participants identified the possibility of a positive

relationship between the importance of ‘social opportunities’ and the ‘provision of

other facilities and services’ (e.g. cafes, social areas, student accommodation). When

asked to elaborate, participants claimed that these facilities enhanced a student’s

access to social opportunities, providing a place for people to meet and socialise.

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

75

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.

5.4.6 Quality of Lectures and Seminars

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 university’s reputation.

76

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:

“The lecturer used a range of methods to stimulate learning and

improve quality such as podcasts, case studies, news links and

other initiatives, including providing no lecture notes until after the

lecture had finished.” (Participant B - Year 3, Group 1)

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

The purpose of this section is to provide suggestions to university service

management that can be utilised to improve the level of service quality. This falls in

line with Baron et al. (2009) who point out that organisations are operating in

extremely tough environments, and service managers now realise that improving

service quality is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage. The problematic areas

uncovered in Section 5.3 are used as a basis to provide suggestions for

management. These are identified as the areas that management will achieve the

greatest marginal benefit if management focus on improving them.

5.5.2 Tuition Fee Rise

Many English universities, including University of Manchester, are increasing their

tuition fees to £9,000 as of September 2012. Part of the discussion in each focus

group centered on whether participants believed that the university’s current level of

77

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 student’s 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 customer’s perceptions of service quality, as well as

the service organisation’s ability to produce quality services. In terms of higher

education, since the price of the service influences a student’s expectations, it is

more likely that negative disconfirmation (i.e. dissatisfaction) will occur when actual

perceptions are lower than the student’s 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 university’s 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.

78

5.5.3 Customer-Centric Approach

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.

Gruber et al. (2010) provide further evidence to support a customer-centric approach,

suggesting the need for university service management to focus on understanding

student requirements instead of collecting data based on what the institution thinks

students perceive as important. This would enable the university to understand how

their students perceive the services offered, from which they may be able to adapt

their services in a way that stimulates better provision of service quality for students.

However, it is important to acknowledge the complex nature associated with

understanding students’ needs. The findings revealed in Section 5.4 that students’

perceptions of service quality were varied over time and changed across different

years of study. As a result, it is impossible to satisfy all students’ needs and

management must carefully determine which customer needs must be fulfilled.

5.5.4 Service Quality Improvement Programme

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.

It is appropriate for the university to undertake a service quality improvement

programme, which is continually monitored and measured correctly. Zeithaml et al.

(1990) provide support for this, outlining a number of guidelines that the programme

must follow to increase the possibility of success. Firstly, the programme must be

79

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).

Table 5.6: Problematic Areas Located from IPA

2 Quality of Seminars

6 Availability of Academic Staff

8 Prompt and Efficient Feedback on Work

12 Access to Academic Facilities and Learning Resources

24 Internal Student Feedback Systems

80

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.

Several participants in the focus group suggested the creation of an internal

feedback system that allowed students to evaluate the whole university experience.

They explained that this could be integrated online within the student portal to

provide all students with easy access. When probed further, participants suggested

that the university could build in a range of methods such as Likert-scale based

questionnaires, Critical Incident Techniques and online forums that students could

use to post their issues that need addressing. As well as collecting feedback using

online channels, participants suggested that university management could conduct a

set of periodic focus groups (e.g. on monthly basis) with a chosen set of students

from each year of study to better understand the experience from the students’ point

of view as they progress through their undergraduate degree. Also, the continued

use of external bodies such as NSS will encourage a more rounded interpretation of

service quality, complementing the internal measures that the university decides to

adopt.

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.

Several participants suggested the use of real-time continuous feedback systems,

using end of module feedback surveys as an example to illustrate this suggestion.

81

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.

82

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

83

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.

In relation to seminars, numerous participants in the focus groups discussed the

notion of co-creation of value and acknowledged that unprepared students could

negatively affect the ‘quality of a seminar’. After all, service quality does not only

depend on the service provider, but also the performance of the consumer (Hill,

1995). Participants believed that group participation from all students in the seminar

positively influences the performance of seminars. Therefore, a suggestion made by

participants to overcome this issue involved incentivising seminars and rewarding

students for participating in class by allocating a proportion of their grade for that

particular module based on the completion of work and their contribution to

discussion within each seminar.

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.

5.5.7 Further Suggestions

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

84

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 union’s facilities.

Finally, a number of participants had suggestions in regards to more practical

methods for assessment. Participants suggested assigning coursework projects to

students based on local firms in the Manchester area. This would create value for

local firms by helping them solve complex business problems, whilst offering

students a good opportunity to apply their skills in real-life business situations.

Accordingly, students would discover how the theory that they have learnt in class

could be applied in a business situation, whilst gaining experience to help bridge the

gap between the transition from university to employment.

5.6 Chapter Summary

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.

85

6. Conclusion

6.1 Introduction

This study has investigated perceptions of service quality at the University of

Manchester from the viewpoint of the student. It sought to uncover what students

perceived to be most important and best performing characteristics of service quality.

In addition, the study aimed to determine how these perceptions varied across

different academic years of study, whilst also identifying problematic areas that

contributed in generating suggestions for university service management to improve

the level of service quality.

This chapter begins by outlining the conclusions for each research question and

determining whether the study’s 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

6.2.1 Important and Best Performing Service Quality Characteristics

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.

86

Although the importance and performance of characteristics varied, extrapolation of

the data identified a ‘core’ set of 6 service quality characteristics that are perceived to

be essential to all students’ university experience. Further analysis identified that the

majority of these characteristics could be grouped as ‘academic’. With the support of

Oldfield and Baron (2000), it can be concluded that there appears to be certain

service quality characteristics that are part of the university’s ‘primary package’ and

essential in allowing a student to fulfil their study obligations at university.

In terms of the performance of different characteristics, it can be concluded that there

are four characteristics that students believed performed well - reputation, knowledge

and experience of staff, campus location and layout, organisation and management

of course. Although further investigation is needed, it is also evident that there

appears to be relationships between some of the characteristics, demonstrating that

focusing on improving the service quality of one characteristic could have a positive

impact on another characteristic (e.g. the ‘knowledge of academic staff’ influences

the ‘quality of lectures’). This makes it important for the university to understand how

various characteristics impact each other, in order to become more tactical in

managing and improving service quality. Therefore, it is important to conduct

additional research in an attempt to better understand the relationships between

different characteristics.

6.2.2 Differences between Student Perceptions across Different Academic Year

Groups

This research question sought to determine where differences exist between

students’ perceptions of service quality across different academic years. It can be

concluded that two main themes can be extracted from the study’s findings: the

contextual nature of service quality and the effect of time on service quality

perceptions.

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

87

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 year-

to-year basis.

Although these findings present various implications for management, university

service management must embrace them and adopt a continuous approach when

measuring students’ service quality perceptions. In order to take on such an

approach, management must closely monitor and track service quality perceptions,

altering the level of service quality in accordance to perceptions as they change over

time. This will ensure perceptions do not change too dramatically, which could result

in the possibility of the university losing its competitive advantage.

It is acknowledged that service quality is an ‘elusive’ and ‘indistinct’ construct where

huge ambiguity still exists (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin and

Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). The findings of this study contradict the

findings of previous research that suggest that service quality models and

questionnaires are appropriate for attempting to measure service quality perceptions

in higher education. Due to the context specific nature and complexity of service

quality, it is likely that a higher education institution wishing to measure perceptions

of service quality could achieve more credible results by using a range of

methodologies, triangulating the data collection process based on the situation at

hand, since there is no best way to measure service quality (Clewes, 2003).

6.2.3 Suggestions for University Service Management

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

88

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 university’s 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

89

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.

6.4 Future Research Opportunities

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 university’s 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

90

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.

91

7. Appendices

Appendix A: The SERVQUAL Instrument

92

Source: Parasuraman et al. (1998)

93

Appendix B: Variables and Dimensions for the HEdPERF Scale

Source: Abdullah (2006a)

94

Appendix C: Sample End of Unit Questionnaire

95

96

Appendix D: National Survey Questionnaire

97

Source: Ipos MORI (2012)

98

Appendix E: Focus Group Details & Participant Demographics

Focus Group Details Frequency

Total no. of participants 36

Participants per focus group 6

No. of focus groups conducted 6

No. of focus groups conducted per year (i.e. Year 1, Year 2 & Year 3)

2

Participant Demographic Details Frequency %

Gender Split Male Participants Female Participants Total

20 16 36

56% 44% 100%

Age of Participants 18 19 20 21 22+ Total

4 8 14 6 4 36

11% 22% 39% 17% 11% 100%

Course Specialism Accounting & Finance Decision Science Human Resources International Business Economics Marketing Operations & Technology Innovation, Sustainability & Entrepreneurship No Specialism Total

5 0 2 5 12 4 3 5 36

14% 0% 6% 14% 33% 11% 8% 14% 100%

99

Appendix F: Example Focus Group Survey

100

101

Appendix G: Importance-Performance Data - Year 1, Year 2 & Year 3

102

103

104

Appendix H: Importance-Performance Analysis Matrix Key

Characteristic ID

Teaching

Quality of lectures 1

Quality of seminars 2

Range of teaching methods 3

Relevance of course material 4

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 5

Availability of academic staff 6

Willingness to provide individual attention 7

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 8

Course Structure and Academic

Facilities

Organisation and management of course 9

Course flexibility 10

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 11

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 12

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 13

Availability of administrative staff 14

Ability to understand student needs 15

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 16

Personal Development

Social opportunities 17

Careers service 18

Student welfare 19

Provision of other facilities and services 20

Other

Campus location and layout 21

Physical appearance of university 22

The reputation of the university 23

Internal student feedback systems 24

105

Appendix I: Individual Participant Ratings from Focus Groups

YEAR 1 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - IMPORTANCE

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

Service Quality Characteristics Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Teaching

Quality of lectures 8 9 8 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 9 8

Quality of seminars 8 9 8 9 9 10 9 7 10 9 8 7

Range of teaching methods 6 7 6 7 5 8 9 5 6 5 7 8

Relevance of course material 8 9 9 9 9 8 10 9 9 9 8 9

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 9 9 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 10 9 10

Availability of academic staff 7 6 7 8 7 9 10 7 8 7 8 9

Willingness to provide individual attention 7 6 5 6 8 9 6 7 5 8 9 10

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 9 8 8 9 7 8 6 6 9 10 7 7

Course Structure and

Academic Facilities

Organisation and management of course 8 7 8 9 9 8 7 8 9 6 7 7

Course flexibility 9 9 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 7 9

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 7 8 9 10 10 8 8 7 6 9 7 8

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 8 7 8 6 6 7 8 9 9 6 7 8

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 9 9 8 7 7 6 8 7 9 10 9 9

Availability of administrative staff 8 7 7 6 9 10 9 8 6 7 8 10

Ability to understand student needs 9 9 8 7 8 9 9 10 9 7 8 8

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 7 8 8 9 8 6 7 8 8 9 9 7

Personal Development

Social opportunities 9 10 9 9 8 9 10 8 7 8 9 9

Careers service 6 6 7 6 6 7 9 5 4 5 5 5

Student welfare 8 9 7 8 7 8 9 7 7 9 9 9

Provision of other facilities and services 8 9 8 9 9 8 7 9 9 8 7 9

Other

Campus location and layout 9 6 5 6 7 6 7 8 7 6 6 7

Physical appearance of university 7 8 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 7 8

The reputation of the university 8 9 9 9 10 10 7 9 8 8 9 9

Internal student feedback systems 9 9 8 7 9 9 9 8 10 9 9 9

106

YEAR 2 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - IMPORTANCE

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

Service Quality Characteristics Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Teaching

Quality of lectures 6 7 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 9 8 9

Quality of seminars 7 8 7 8 7 9 9 10 10 8 8 8

Range of teaching methods 6 7 8 8 9 7 8 8 5 7 8 6

Relevance of course material 9 9 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 9 10 8

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 8 9 9 7 10 9 9 9 9 8 7 10

Availability of academic staff 9 6 7 8 8 9 10 9 7 7 6 6

Willingness to provide individual attention 6 6 7 3 8 5 6 6 7 7 6 5

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 8 9 9 10 10 9 8 9 7 9 10 9

Course Structure and

Academic Facilities

Organisation and management of course 8 9 7 5 8 6 7 8 7 7 6 9

Course flexibility 7 7 8 8 6 8 9 6 5 9 7 5

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 8 7 9 9 6 9 7 9 7 7 6 6

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 7 8 7 8 8 9 9 9 6 8 6 7

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 9 3 9 10 7 9 9 5 6 9 9 7

Availability of administrative staff 8 5 6 8 7 8 9 9 6 9 9 9

Ability to understand student needs 8 7 6 7 8 5 8 6 7 8 5 9

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 8 8 7 8 8 7 8 7 9 8 9 7

Personal Development

Social opportunities 7 8 9 6 7 6 9 4 9 7 7 8

Careers service 10 3 4 1 10 9 2 4 9 10 5 6

Student welfare 8 8 9 4 6 7 8 6 7 6 7 8

Provision of other facilities and services 7 6 7 8 6 5 6 7 8 9 6 7

Other

Campus location and layout 5 5 4 6 7 8 8 5 5 7 8 8

Physical appearance of university 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 9 5 6 7 5

The reputation of the university 9 8 8 7 9 9 6 9 9 9 9 9

Internal student feedback systems 10 9 9 10 9 10 9 9 10 8 8 8

107

YEAR 3 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - IMPORTANCE

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

Service Quality Characteristics Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Teaching

Quality of lectures 9 8 8 10 10 10 10 8 10 9 9 10

Quality of seminars 9 9 8 10 10 10 9 10 10 8 9 10

Range of teaching methods 7 6 6 8 8 7 7 6 8 8 7 8

Relevance of course material 10 10 9 8 8 8 10 9 9 8 8 9

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 9 10 7 9 9 9 10 10 9 8 9 8

Availability of academic staff 10 7 7 8 9 7 9 10 7 10 3 6

Willingness to provide individual attention 9 6 7 9 7 6 9 10 6 8 9 10

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 9 7 8 9 8 7 8 10 8 8 9 8

Course Structure and

Academic Facilities

Organisation and management of course 8 7 6 9 7 10 9 8 8 7 7 8

Course flexibility 9 5 6 8 8 9 7 10 7 9 9 8

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 9 9 8 9 8 10 10 8 9 8 8 8

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 9 9 8 9 8 10 10 9 8 8 9 7

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 8 8 7 7 5 6 8 7 6 5 6 7

Availability of administrative staff 8 5 7 9 5 8 9 3 6 5 6 6

Ability to understand student needs 8 6 7 6 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 6

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 8 8 7 8 6 10 10 7 7 8 7 7

Personal Development

Social opportunities 8 3 6 6 3 4 5 2 4 4 6 3

Careers service 10 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 8 9 9

Student welfare 8 8 10 10 9 9 9 5 5 3 5 1

Provision of other facilities and services 8 6 5 8 6 6 5 2 4 5 4 5

Other

Campus location and layout 5 5 4 8 6 6 5 3 4 5 2 2

Physical appearance of university 8 10 3 7 6 7 5 2 5 4 5 6

The reputation of the university 10 10 8 10 10 10 9 10 10 8 8 8

Internal student feedback systems 9 8 9 8 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 9

108

YEAR 1 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - PERFORMANCE

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

Service Quality Characteristics Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Teaching

Quality of lectures 8 6 8 6 5 8 6 6 7 7 9 7

Quality of seminars 6 2 3 6 2 1 6 7 7 4 4 2

Range of teaching methods 6 6 7 7 5 7 6 7 6 6 7 8

Relevance of course material 8 7 7 6 8 7 6 5 3 8 8 7

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 9 7 9 10 9 9 8 7 8 9 10 9

Availability of academic staff 6 7 5 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 7

Willingness to provide individual attention 6 7 6 6 7 6 7 8 5 7 7 6

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 5 6 5 5 6 7 7 5 3 4 3 3

Course Structure and

Academic Facilities

Organisation and management of course 8 8 7 8 9 8 7 6 9 9 7 8

Course flexibility 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 4 5 6 5

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 7 6 5 8 9 8 8 6 7 7 8 9

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 6 5 6 7 8 9 6 4 5 6 6 8

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 9 10 9 7 9 8 7 8 9 10 8 9

Availability of administrative staff 8 9 7 7 6 7 7 8 6 5 7 7

Ability to understand student needs 5 6 7 9 6 6 6 7 8 9 8 9

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Personal Development

Social opportunities 5 7 8 7 6 7 8 9 3 9 5 3

Careers service 6 7 8 6 6 5 6 7 8 6 5 7

Student welfare 3 3 4 5 8 4 3 5 6 9 2 9

Provision of other facilities and services 7 8 7 6 7 8 9 5 6 10 8 9

Other

Campus location and layout 9 9 6 9 8 7 8 9 8 10 9 9

Physical appearance of university 6 7 8 8 8 6 7 9 8 6 5 7

The reputation of the university 10 8 8 8 9 10 9 8 7 9 9 10

Internal student feedback systems 4 3 5 4 3 4 5 6 4 4 4 5

109

YEAR 2 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - PERFORMANCE

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

Service Quality Characteristics Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Teaching

Quality of lectures 6 7 8 8 6 8 6 5 6 7 7 9

Quality of seminars 7 4 9 3 7 5 7 7 8 8 3 4

Range of teaching methods 9 7 8 9 6 5 5 6 7 8 7 8

Relevance of course material 6 7 8 6 7 7 9 8 7 6 7 8

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 9 8 8 7 8 9 6 7 8 8 9 9

Availability of academic staff 6 6 7 5 8 8 7 6 7 7 8 8

Willingness to provide individual attention 6 6 7 7 8 6 8 7 5 9 6 7

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 8 7 8 7

Course Structure and

Academic Facilities

Organisation and management of course 7 6 7 8 9 8 8 7 9 7 6 7

Course flexibility 9 9 8 7 8 7 8 8 9 9 7 8

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 7 6 7 7 8 7 6 8 9 8 8 7

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 5 5 4 6 6 7 6 7 6 5 8 6

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 6 7 6 8 8 7 6 8 8 7 6 7

Availability of administrative staff 7 7 6 7 8 7 6 7 7 8 7 7

Ability to understand student needs 7 8 7 7 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 8

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 7 6 7 6 7 8 7 6 7 8 7 7

Personal Development

Social opportunities 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 8 6 7 6 6

Careers service 8 9 7 8 7 8 8 7 6 7 7 8

Student welfare 7 5 5 3 5 6 7 4 8 4 6 7

Provision of other facilities and services 6 7 8 9 6 7 6 5 6 6 6 8

Other

Campus location and layout 8 8 9 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 9 8

Physical appearance of university 8 7 8 8 8 7 8 9 7 8 8 7

The reputation of the university 8 7 9 9 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9

Internal student feedback systems 4 3 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 3

110

YEAR 3 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - PERFORMANCE

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

Service Quality Characteristics Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Teaching

Quality of lectures 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 7 8 7 8 7

Quality of seminars 5 9 8 4 5 10 2 9 4 8 9 1

Range of teaching methods 4 7 5 10 6 10 5 7 8 6 6 5

Relevance of course material 7 10 8 9 7 6 8 9 6 6 7 5

Academic Staff

Knowledge and experience of academic staff 9 10 8 9 8 6 8 10 8 8 7 8

Availability of academic staff 7 8 3 8 7 9 4 8 8 5 4 6

Willingness to provide individual attention 8 7 7 7 5 4 8 5 9 8 8 8

Prompt and efficient feedback on work 6 4 6 4 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6

Course Structure and

Academic Facilities

Organisation and management of course 7 6 6 6 7 8 7 10 8 10 10 8

Course flexibility 9 8 8 10 8 7 8 9 8 7 8 8

Quality of academic facilities and learning resources 9 8 8 9 8 3 9 9 8 6 5 5

Access to academic facilities and learning resources 8 8 7 9 7 5 9 6 6 6 6 5

Admin Staff

Knowledge of administrative staff 7 5 7 3 6 4 8 6 5 2 5 2

Availability of administrative staff 7 5 7 8 5 8 8 8 8 6 7 6

Ability to understand student needs 7 5 6 8 6 2 7 6 6 8 8 8

Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently 8 6 6 8 6 2 7 8 7 8 8 8

Personal Development

Social opportunities 7 6 5 7 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 6

Careers service 9 8 8 9 9 10 9 10 10 9 9 9

Student welfare 9 5 6 8 8 1 7 2 5 2 1 9

Provision of other facilities and services 7 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 8 7 7

Other

Campus location and layout 6 8 7 7 7 9 9 9 8 8 9 9

Physical appearance of university 6 7 7 6 8 3 8 9 6 8 8 6

The reputation of the university 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 10 9 8 8 8

Internal student feedback systems 4 4 4 6 3 2 6 1 4 3 5 7

111

8. References

Abdullah, F. (2006a). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF

versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47.

Abdullah, F. (2006b). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of

service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 30(6), 569-581.

Addis, M., & Podesta, S. (2005). Long life to marketing research: a postmodern view.

European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 386-412.

Aldridge, S., & Rowley, J. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction in higher

education. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), 197-204.

Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in

higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 203-218.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction,

market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. The Journal of Marketing,

58(3), 53-66.

Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate

education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254.

Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and

their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations.

Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 254-264.

Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions:

the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540.

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.

112

BBC. (2011). University of Manchester wants to charge maximum fees. [online].

Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12843390>

[Accessed 14th March 2012].

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). The Service-Quality Puzzle.

Business Horizons, 31(5), 35-43.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical

surroundings and employee responses. The Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69-82.

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/10-

1208-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.

Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. European Journal

of Marketing, 30(1), 8-32.

Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of

the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33-55.

113

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.

Clewes, D. (2003). A Student-centred Conceptual Model of Service Quality in Higher

Education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 69-85.

The Complete University Guide. (2011). University League Table 2012. [online].

Available at: <http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-

tables/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, L. A. (1991). Expanding the Role of CSM in Total Quality. International

Journal of Service Industry Management, 2(2), 5-19.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York:

McGraw-Hill New York.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996a). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?

Part 1. Managing Service Quality, 6(2), 11-16.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996b). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?

Part 2. Managing Service Quality, 6(3), 31-35.

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].

114

Department for Education. (2000). Changing student finances: income, expenditure

and the take-up of student loans among full and part-time higher education students

in 1998/99. [online]. Available at:

<https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/RR21>

[Accessed 6th March 2012].

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.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.

Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.

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].

Direct Gov. (2012b). Student Finance. [online]. Available at:

<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/

StudentFinance/DG_194804/>

[Accessed 9th March 2012].

Economic and Social Research Council. (2010). Framework for Research Ethics.

[online]. Available at: <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/information/research-

ethics.aspx>

[Accessed 6th February 2012].

Fisher, C. M., & Buglear, J. (2007). Researching and writing a dissertation: a

guidebook for business students. 2nd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

115

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.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. London:

Pitman.

Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: a review and summary

of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3),

251-259.

Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of

marketing science review. [online]. Available at:

<http://www.amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/giese00-01.html>

[Accessed 9th February 2012].

Ghauri, P. N., & Gronhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. 4th ed.

New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Gronroos, C. (1978). A Service-Orientated Approach to Marketing of Services.

European Journal of Marketing, 12(8), 588-601.

Gronroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of

Marketing. 16(7), 30-41.

Gronroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications.

European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

Gronroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing: customer management in

service competition. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-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.

116

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/universities-

go-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/uk-

univeristy-applications-fall?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487>

[Accessed 20th April 2012].

Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing: Road-map for a

wilderness of complexity and unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing,

39(3/4), 309-327.

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].

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global

marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing.

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338.

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.

117

Ipos MORI. (2012). National Student Survey Main Questionnaire. [online].

Available at: <http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/ /nss-questionnaire.pdf>

[Accessed 20th March 2012].

Jankowicz, A. D. (2005). Business research project for students. 4th ed. Andover:

Cengage Learning EMEA.

Johnson, P., & Clark, M. (2006). Business and management research

methodologies. London: SAGE.

Key Note. (2011). Market Report 2011: Further & Higher Education. [online].

Available at: <http://www.keynote.co.uk>

[Accessed 14th March 2012].

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction

between research participants. Sociology of health & illness, 16(1), 103-121.

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.

Lovelock, C. H., & Wright, L. (1999). Principles of Services Management and

Marketing. London: Prentice Hall.

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: an applied approach:

Pearson Education.

118

Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2005). Measuring

customer satisfaction in summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 53-

65.

McElwee, G., & Redman, T. (1993). Upward appraisal in practice: an illustrative

example using the Qualed model. Education & Training, 35(2), 27-31.

Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. London: SAGE.

Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobâlca, 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.

Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK

university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2),

85-95.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 33-

44.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher:

The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.

Palihawadana, D., & Holmes, G. (1999). Modelling module evaluation in marketing

education. Quality Assurance in Education, 7(1), 41-46.

Palmer, A. (2011). Principles of services marketing. 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Education.

119

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of

service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing,

49(1), 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item

Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing,

64(1), 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of

expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for

further research. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-124.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and

Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-450.

Paswan, A., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutes: satisfaction and

loyalty among international students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,

19(1), 65-84.

QS Top Universities. (2012). QS World University Rankings 2011/2012. [online].

Available at: <http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-

rankings>

[Accessed 27th March 2012].

Rigotti, S., & Pitt, L. (1992). SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service

provider gaps in business schools. Management Research News, 15(3), 9-17.

Rowley, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and

towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 7-14.

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.

120

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.

Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. The Journal of

Marketing, 41(2), 73-80.

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), 115-

133.

Strauss, A. & Corbin J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

Student Survey. (2011). The National Student Survey. [online].

Available at: <http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/>

[Accessed 9th December 2011].

Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y. (2010). Service quality in higher education – a review and

research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(2), 259-

272.

Sureshchandar, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. (2002). The relationship

between service quality and customer satisfaction‚ a factor specific approach. Journal

of Services Marketing, 16(4), 363-379.

121

Svensson, G. R. (2006). New aspects of research into service encounters and

service quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(3), 245-

257.

Thomas, A. B. (2004). Research skills for management studies. London: Routledge.

Times Higher Education. (2012). World University Rankings 2011-12. [online].

Available at: <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-

2012/reputation-rankings.html>

[Accessed 14th March 2012].

UCAS. (2012). 2012 Applicant Figures. [online].

Available at:

<http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2012/20120130>

[Accessed 14th March 2012].

University of Manchester. (2012a). History and origins. [online].

Available at: <http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/history/>

[Accessed 15th March 2012].

University of Manchester. (2012b). Students and staff. [online].

Available at:

<http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/statistics/studentsandstaff/>

[Accessed 15th March 2012].

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.

Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: conceptualized. Journal of

Services Marketing, 9(1), 5-14.

Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view.

MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 3-12.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods

and services. Marketing of services, 9(1), 25-32.

122

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., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (2009). Services marketing:

integrating customer focus across the firm. 5th ed. London: McGraw-Hill.

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.

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral

consequences of service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.

123