a comparative study of administrative practices of …

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES OF

PAKISTAN

By

Bibi Asia Naz

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION & RESEARCH GOMAL UNIVERSITY DERA ISMAIL KHAN

KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN February, 2013

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES OF PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES OF

PAKISTAN

By

Bibi Asia Naz

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr.Umar Ali khan

Submitted in Partial fulfillment of the requirement for Ph.D. in Education

at the Institute of Education & Research (IER)

GOMAL UNIVERSITY, DERA ISMAIL KHAN KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN

February, 2013

iii

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH

THE BENEFICENT

AND

MERCIFUL MOST

iv

Dedicated to

My Great Abu Jee and Mummy whose constant support, prayers & encouragement

always provided me a foundation for achieving my objectives

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful

ALHAMDULILLAH, all praises to Allah for the strengths and His blessing in

completing this thesis. All respects to His Holy Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W)

who enabled us to recognize our creator.

The researcher is grateful to her research supervisor Prof. Dr Umar Ali Khan, whose

scholarly advice, help and constant encouragement have contributed significantly to

the completion of this study. The researcher enjoyed working with him as she

witnessed him a generous attitude towards the work, and every moment of our

interaction has been a process of tremendous learning experience.

The researcher is also grateful to her senior colleagues Dr. Rehmat Ullah Shah and

Dr. Javed Iqbal who encouraged her all the times and provided her necessary

assistance and help in the completion of this task. The researcher offer her sincerest

thanks from the core of her heart to her loving parents, and other family members

whose heartily prayers brought ever success in her life. The researcher is thankful to

her sweet brother Fazli Amin for his constant support in data collection. The

researcher could not have completed this study without the encouragement of all of

these people. The researcher is humbled, and grateful for each of them. Thank you for

all.

The researcher is also grateful to her sponsor: Higher Education Commission of

Pakistan for its financial support throughout her study.

Bibi Asia Naz

vi

Declaration

I, Bibi Asia Naz, Daughter of Fazle Hadi, Registration No. 433.NCPEM.03 as

student of PhD at the IER, Gomal University do hereby solemnly declare that the

thesis entitled “A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public and

Private Sector Universities of Pakistan”, submitted by me in partial fulfillment of

Ph.D. Degree in Education is my original work, except where otherwise

acknowledged in the text and has not been submitted or published earlier and shall not

in future, be submitted by me for obtaining any Degree from this or any other

university or institution.

_______________

12 February, 2013 Bibi Asia Naz)

vii

FORWARDING SHEET

The thesis entitled “A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public

and Private Sector Universities of Pakistan” submitted by Bibi Asia Naz in partial

fulfillment of the requirement of PhD Degree in Education has been completed under

my guidance and supervision. I am fully satisfied with the quality of her research

work.

Dated: 12 February, 2013

Supervisor

Dr. Umar Ali Khan)

viii

APPROVAL SHEET

Title of Thesis: “A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public and

Private Sector Universities of Pakistan.”

Submitted by: Bibi Asia Naz, PhD scholar

Accepted by IER, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, in Partial Fulfillment

of the requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy in Education.

Evaluation Committee:

Supervisor)

External Examiner)

Director)

Dean)

Dated: 12/02 / 2013

ix

ABSTRACT

Administration is the backbone of any institute, which not only utilizes the human and

material resources in the best possible way but also gives direction for the

achievement of its goals and objectives. This study aimed to compare the

administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan. The

administrative practices consisted of amendments in university statutes; university

governing bodies; its members selection; tenure; meetings; decision making practice;

and implementation of decisions; recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of

official and faculty; provision of facilities to faculty; administrative, financial and

academic matters; establishment of new departments; allocation of funds; university

timings suitability; scholarships; evaluation of the employees; Procedure for

overcoming irregularities; university management; dealing of university with

community, HEC; Government, and other universities; HEC influence in university

affairs; students admission; affiliation to colleges; and the like. The population of the

study consisted of all administrators and academicians in the universities of Punjab

and KPK provinces of Pakistan. Eight universities, four each from Punjab and Khyber

Pakhtoon-khwa (two public and two private of each provinces) were randomly

selected as sample of the study. Questionnaire for Administrative Practices (QAP),

consisted of 32 domains, was utilized for data elicitation. Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient was used to measure the reliability of QAP, resulting in 0.963. Data was

analyzed through the utilization of Mean score and t-test.

Significant difference was observed between public and private sector universities

regarding the administrative practices i.e. amendments in the statutes; universities

bodies tenure; the provision of facilities to staff; officials attitude for handling of

x

academic matters; official’s way of supervising their subordinates; student admission;

university timings suitability; process of college affiliation; evaluation of employees;

procedure for overcoming irregularities; meeting with authorities; university

management. While insignificance difference was found for universities bodies

members selection; student representation in university bodies; their meetings;

decision making; decision implementation; official appointment; staff promotion;

administrative and financial matters; relations with community; HEC; Government

and other universities; HEC influence in administration and other matters;

scholarships; fund allocation; process to visit authorities and establishment of new

departments.

Significant difference was found between the opinions of academicians of public and

private sector universities in terms of amendments in statutes; bodies decision

making; staff selection; financial matters; academic matters; HEC influence in

administration; student admission; university timings; meeting with authorities, and

university management.

Significant difference was observed between the opinions of administrators of public

and private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’ tenure; bodies’ decision

implementation; provision of facilities to staff; administrative matters; academic

matters; official supervision; relations with other universities; HEC influence; fund

allocation; university timings; College affiliation; procedure for overcoming

irregularities; and university management.

It was concluded from the findings that both public and private sectors are performing

numerous practices in different ways and means. The university stakeholders’

administrators and academicians have lack of coordination.

xi

It is recommended that the coordination body HEC may arrange workshops, seminars

for both public and private sectors universities. In the universities a body may be

established which strives for the coordination between administrators and

academicians.

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Content Page

Acknowledgements v

Declaration vi

Forwarding Sheet vii

Approval Sheet vii

Abstract ix

List of Tables xv

List of Figurres xxiv

1. Introduction 1-9

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 5

1.3 Objectives of the Study 6

1.4 Hypotheses 6

1.5 Significance of the Study 7

1.6 Limitations of the Study 8

1.7 Delimitations of the Study 8

1.8 Definitions of Terms / Abbreviations 8

2 Review of related literature 10-40

2.1 University Organizational Structure and Autonomy 11

2.2 University Statutes 15

2.3 University Operating Bodies, its Members Selection, Students 17

xiii

Representation, Tenure, Meetings, Decision Making Practice,

Implementation of Decisions

2.4 Recruitment/Selection/Appointment, Promotion and Provision

of Facilities to Officials and Faculty

23

2.5 Administrative, Financial and Academic Matters. 28

2.6 Establishment of New Departments and Allocation of Funds 29

2.7 Students admission and scholarships 31

2.8 Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for Overcoming

Irregularities

32

2.9 Relationship of University with Community, HEC, Govt, and

other Universities

33

2.10 Affiliation to Colleges 36

3 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 41-46

3.1 Population 41

3.2 Sample and sample size 41

3.3 Data collection instrument 43

3.3.1 Validity of the questionnaire 43

3.3.2 Pilot testing 43

3.3.3 Reliability of the questionnaire 44

3.4 Analytical procedure 44

3.4.1 Operational definitions of independent variables 44

3.4.2 Operational definitions of dependent variables 44

3.5 Data analysis 45

3.6 Assumptions 46

xiv

4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 47-147

5 SUMMERY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, DISCUSION,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

148-164

5.1 Summary 148

5.2 Findings 151

5.2.1 Findings relationship with hypothesis #1. 151



5.3 Conclusion 153

5.4 Recommendations 155

5.5 Discussion 157

5.6 Suggestions for further research 168

References 169

Appendices 170-197

Appendix-A: Permission for the utilization of Administrative Practices Scale

Appendix-B: Cover letter to Teachers

Appendix-c: Questionnaire for Administrative Practices

Appendix-D: Item Mean, Variance, Corrected Item Total Correlation and

Cronbach’s Alpha for the Whole Scale

Appendix-E: List of Experts for Validation of Scale

Appendix-F: List of Public and Private Sector Universities

xv

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page

3.1 Sector, university and category wise number of respondents in

study sample.

42

4.1 sector wise and respondent wise sample 48

4.2 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private

Sector Universities Regarding the amendments in the statutes.

49


Sector Universities Regarding the universities bodies members

selection

50


Sector Universities Regarding the universities bodies tenure

51


Sector Universities Regarding the student representation

52


Sector Universities Regarding the university bodies meeting

53


Sector Universities Regarding the bodies decision making

54


Sector Universities Regarding the bodies decision

implementation

55


Sector Universities Regarding the official appointment

56

4.10 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private 57

xvi

Sector Universities Regarding the staff selection


Sector Universities Regarding the staff promotion

58


Sector Universities Regarding the staff facilities

59


Sector Universities Regarding the official in administrative

matter

60


Sector Universities Regarding the financial matters

61


Sector Universities Regarding the academic matters

62


Sector Universities Regarding the official supervision

63


Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with

community

64


Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with HEC

65


Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with

government

66


Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with other

67

xvii

universities


Sector Universities Regarding the HEC influence in

administration

68


Sector Universities Regarding the HEC influence

69


Sector Universities Regarding the student admission

70


Sector Universities Regarding the scholarships

71


Sector Universities Regarding the fund allocation

72


Sector Universities Regarding the university timings

7


Sector Universities Regarding the college affiliation

73


Sector Universities Regarding the evaluation of employees

74


Sector Universities Regarding the procedure for irregularities

75


Sector Universities Regarding the meeting with authorities

76


Sector Universities Regarding the process to visit authorities

77

xviii


Sector Universities Regarding the university management

78


Sector Universities Regarding the establishment of new

departments

79

4.34 Comparative views of academicians of public and private

sector universities regarding the amendments in the statutes

82


sector universities regarding the universities bodies members

selection

83


sector universities regarding the universities bodies tenure

84


sector universities regarding the student representation

85


sector universities regarding the university bodies meeting

86


sector universities regarding the bodies decision making

87


sector universities regarding the bodies decision

implementation

88


sector universities regarding the official appointment

89

4.42 Comparative views of academicians of public and private 90

xix

sector universities regarding the staff selection


sector universities regarding the staff promotion

91


sector universities regarding the staff facilities

92


sector universities regarding the administrative matters

93


sector universities regarding the financial matters

94


sector universities regarding the academic matters

95


sector universities regarding the supervision of the subordinates

96


sector universities regarding the relation with community

97


sector universities regarding the relation with HEC

98


sector universities regarding the relation with government

99


sector universities regarding the relation with other universities

100


sector universities regarding the HEC influence in

administration

101

xx


sector universities regarding the HEC influence

102


sector universities regarding the student admission

103


sector universities regarding the scholarships.

104


sector universities regarding the fund allocation

105


sector universities regarding the university timings

106


sector universities regarding the college affiliation

107


sector universities regarding the procedure of evaluation of

employees

108


sector universities regarding the irregularities procedure

109


sector universities regarding the meetings with authorities

110


sector universities regarding the process to visit authorities.

111


sector universities regarding the university management

112

4.65 Comparative views of academicians of public and private 113

xxi

sector universities regarding the establishment of new

departments

4.66 Comparative views of administrator’s official of public and

private sector universities regarding the amendments in statutes

115

4.67 Comparative views of administrators of public and private

sector universities regarding the different bodies members

selection

116


sector universities regarding the different bodies members

tenure

117


sector universities regarding the student representation in

different bodies.

118


sector universities regarding the different bodies meetings

119


sector universities regarding the bodies decision making

practice

120


sector universities regarding the bodies’ decision

implementation

121


sector universities regarding the official appointment

122

4.74 Comparative views of administrators of public and private 123

xxii

sector universities regarding the staff selection


sector universities regarding the staff promotion

124


sector universities regarding the provision of facilities to staff

125


sector universities regarding the official in administrative

matters

126


sector universities regarding the in financial matters

127


sector universities regarding the official in academic matters

128


sector universities regarding the supervision of the subordinates

129


sector universities regarding the relation with community

130


sector universities regarding the relation with HEC

131


sector universities regarding the relation with government

132


sector universities regarding the relation with other universities

133


sector universities regarding the HEC influence in

134

xxiii

administration


sector universities regarding the HEC influence

135


sector universities regarding the student admission procedure

136


sector universities regarding the scholarships

137


sector universities regarding the fund allocation

138


sector universities regarding the university timings

139


sector universities regarding the affiliation of colleges

140


sector universities regarding the procedure of evaluation of

employees

141


sector universities regarding the procedure for any irregularities

142


sector universities regarding the meetings with authorities

143


sector universities regarding the procedure to visit authorities

144


sector universities regarding the university management

145

xxiv


sector universities regarding the establishment of new

departments

146

xxv

LIST OF FIGURRES

Figure No Title Page

2.1 University Organizational/Governance Structure 13

2.2 Staff Selection Process in Pakistani Universities 26

2.3 College Affiliation Chart 39

2.4 Affiliated Colleges of Pakistan 34

4.1 At a Glance Comparison of Administrative practices of

Public and Private Sector

81

4.2 At a Glance Comparison of Administrative practices

according to the opinions of Public and Private Sector

114

4.3 At a Glance Comparison of Administrative practices

according to the opinions of Public and Private Sector

147

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Higher education plays major role in the overall development of a nation by

providing it skilled, educated, trained and professional manpower. The major function

of higher education is to develop and flourish the academic and specialized

qualification of the youths of society. Higher education enhances the capability of

learners to think logically, objectively and clearly. It also develops the critical

thinking ability of the learners. In most of the countries, it is the responsibility of

higher education institutions to train country’s intellectual proficient, technological

and supervisory human resources as they have to perform their functions as agents for

the transmission and propagation of knowledge through scientific trainings and

research. Higher education objectives can be classified as economic, social, cultural

and personal (Govt. of Pakistan, 1998).

Universities are the main centers and pillars of higher education. Universities are the

chief determinants of quality and standard of higher education. According to Vohra &

Sharma, ( 1990) a university is like a laboratory for experiments where students enter

to be equipped with skills and knowledge. They considered higher education as a

major national investment and suggest that all its essentials should be carefully

planned and managed for the best results. A university is a combination of academic

departments linked together by administration. Administration brings coordination

between different departments/institutes and faculties of university. According to

2

(Sporn, 1996), Universities are complex social organizations with distinctive cultures.

Academic freedom and autonomy are the inviolable values of universities.

To run an educational organization like university is an art not a science. As it

requires good possible strategies, techniques and professional approach to tackle with

and deal the matters. The university’s governance formulates its policies and

objectives, finding its way to achieve them with fairness and equity. It is machinery

which ensures the responsible authority that is held accountable for the persuasion of

those policies and objectives (White Paper on University, 2006). Governance simply

means how the organizations are doing for the accomplishment of their goals and

objectives. Governance is concerning how an organization steers itself in order to

achieve those goals. Governance of a university is the decision making practice

regarding all the matters that are important for all the stakeholders. Professional

administration is the key for quality education especially in higher education.

Administration plays a key and crucial role in the endorsement of education. If the

educational administration is unable to meet the global changes and challenges, the

educational organization cannot achieve the desired objectives. Administration is the

life of an organization which provides conducive and vibrant environment for the

development of an individual and society. Education polishes, develops and enhances

those capacities of an individual which facilitate and enable him/her to bring

improvement in his environment and accomplish his responsibilities. (Campbell,

1957). So for as university’s administration is concerned, Homadi (1989) reported

that

3

“The administration of university has many responsibilities. They are expected to

mobilize, organize, and maximize the human, physical and fiscal resources under its

jurisdiction in order to achieve educational objectives”.

Administrators are the high ranking personnel for the overall management of

university administrative practices. They serve as decision makers and educational

advisors. University administrators perform their different functions i.e. goal setting,

teaching and research, decision making, communication, reporting, supervision,

evaluation, matters regarding students admission and their scholarships, recruitment,

selection of officials, trainings of the personnel, dealing with stakeholders and other

agencies etc. These functions are termed as administrative practices. According to

(Khan, 1992) “Administrative practices are seen as organizational variables which

include organizing, goal setting, decision making, building morale or climate,

communicating, initiating changes, negotiating, resolving conflicts, supervising and

evaluating. The task of administration includes curriculum planning and instruction,

finance and business management, legal responsibilities, staffing, pupil accounting

and so on…”

Today the universities in Pakistan and in other developing countries are on the

threshold of a new era. They are facing issues like rapid growth of population,

advancement of knowledge, abilities and talent of the teaching faculty, solution of

social problems and the increased interest in higher education. All these issues need

the reshaping of university administration. These problems can’t be solved with the

expansion of staff, facilities and establishment of new universities. The university

may be taken as a social system designed to accomplish goals and objectives.

4

For the execution of the administrative practices the organizational structure of every

university has its top level governing bodies/authorities. Every country has its own

structure of the university authorities’ but almost an identical structure of authorities

and their liaison exist. Syndicate, the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research,

the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Board of studies, the Selection Board for the

appointment of Staff, the Finance Committee, the Planning and Development

Committee etc are authorities in Pakistani Universities. (Handbook to the Universities

of Pakistan , 1963).

Universities operate their administrative practices with the approval of university act.

An act is the legal and constitutional statement which provides jurisdiction for the

operation of university. In the light of constitutional act every university frame its

statutes for its day to day matters and activities. Statutes works like a spinal column

on which all the university structure is standing. The day to day activities of the

university get direction for the attainment of set goals and objectives but it also gives

light to compete with other universities. “The statutes provide a skeleton, and blood

activity to local discretions. The changes in the constitutions of each university are

necessary to meet the changing situations and requirements” (Singh, 1978).

In Pakistan higher education is the responsibility of the universities, Degree

Awarding Institutes and the affiliated Colleges in both public and private sector. Their

prestige and influence is based on their integrity and intellectual competence; it is not

based on their being wealthy, or having political contacts and influences.

During the last three decades many universities have experienced growth in students’

enrollment and as such will be growing up to five or six folds in the coming decades.

The establishment of private sector universities in the last two decades copes well

5

with the situation of expanding gross enrollment in higher education. Despite

unprecedented growth in the number of private sector universities, the public sector

remains the dominant contributor of university education (Cohen, 2003). (Yossof &

Ishak, 2005) find out “public universities are more proficient in fulfilling public need

and demand for provision of quality education.” At the time of independence there

were only two universities in Pakistan, University of Punjab 1882 and University of

Dacca 1921. Only two universities could not fulfill the needs of the nation. The

government took steps and university of Sind was established in April, 1947,

university of Peshawar in 1950, Rajshahi University in 1953. Similarly in this regard

the efforts of community in private sector are very appreciable; the first private sector

university The Agha Khan University started its working in 1983, LUMS (Lahore

University of Management Sciences) in 1985. During 1980s and 1990s higher

education in private sector emerged in all countries of the south Asian region except

Bhutan and Afghanistan and is gradually moving from periphery to a dominant

position. According to (Lemaitre, 2010) “Private provision has also expanded, and

some countries such as Korea, Japan or Chile have over 70% of their students

enrolled in private institutions.”

At present there are 69 public and 58 private sector universities in Pakistan. Different

studies have been conducted on different aspects of university system and governance

(Anwer, 2005), (Parveen, 2011), (Figel, 2008) and (Homadi A. , 1989) but very little

attention has been paid to the prevailing overall administrative practices of public and

private sector universities. Therefore it is intended to propose a particular study to

compare and evaluate the prevailing administrative practices of public and private

sector universities. Furthermore, an investigation has also been made into the internal

6

and extenal pressure and influence on these administrative practices which directly or

indirectly affect the quality and standard of higher education.

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The study attempts to compare the administrative practices of public and private

sector universities of Pakistan. The administrative practices include such as:

amendments in university statutes; university operating bodies; its members selection;

tenure; meetings; decision making practice; implementation of decisions;

recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of official and faculty; provision of

facilities to faculty; administrative, financial and academic matters; establishment of

new departments; allocation of funds; university timings suitability; scholarships;

evaluation of the employees; Procedure for overcoming irregularities; university

management; dealing of university with community, HEC; Government; and other

universities; HEC influence in university affairs; students admission; and affiliation to

colleges.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Following were the main objectives of the study.

1. To compare the prevailing status of administrative practices of public and

private sector universities of Pakistan.

2. To investigate the similarities and differences among the views of

administrators regarding the administrative practices of public and private

sector universities of Pakistan.

3. To compare the different views of academicians regarding the administrative

practices of both sector universities.

7

1.4. HYPOTHESES

Ho 1. There is no significant difference between the administrative practices of

public and private sector universities of Pakistan.

Ho 2. There is no significant difference between the opinions of academicians

regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector universities

of Pakistan.

Ho 3. There is no significant difference between the opinions of administrators

regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector universities of

Pakistan.

1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The university’s education plays a pivotal role and is held responsible for the

advancement of the society. The higher education can be made effective with the

sound administrative practices. The importance of the study can be elaborated with

the following points.

1. The results of this study may bring out an obvious representation of the

university administrative system in Pakistan.

2. This study may be valuable for the development of university governance

structure in Pakistan.

3. This study may be helpful for high authorities of the universities to analyze the

problems and issues to raise the standard of education more effectively.

8

4. The results of the study may be helpful for the university administrators to

discover imbalance in the allocation of resources and to identify the responsible

factors.

5. The result of this study may be helpful for HEC to frame rules and regulations

for day to day activities and matters of both public and private sector

universities.

6. This study may provide educational administrators and researchers with useful

information regarding administrative practices in universities

1.6. Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted for the purpose to compare the administrative practices of

public and private sector universities, but due to time constraint, lack of resources,

worst situation of law and order in the province of Sindh and Balochistan and access

to all universities of Pakistan and their stakeholders this study was limited to:

3 Only selected, independent variable viz: status of universities, position of

stakeholders, academicians and administrators.

4 The public and private sector universities of Baluchistan and Sind provinces were

not included in the study.

5 Only general type universities were included in the study.

6 Specialized and degree awarding institutes were also excluded from the study.

1.7 Delimitations of the Study

1. The study was delimited to eight (8) public and private general type

universities of Pakistan, four (4) each from Punjab, Khyber Pakhtoon-khwa

provinces.

2. Only academicians and administrators were selected for the study.

9

1.8. Definitions of Terms / Abbreviations

KPK: Stands for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formally named as NWFP.

Academicians: Teaching faculty with designations like professors, associate

professors, assistant professor and lecturer.

Administrators: An office hold who helps in maintaining establishment like Vice

Chancellor, registrar, Provost, Deans, Director Academics, head of the departments

and etc,

Public university: That is mainly financed by public funds through a national or

provincial government

Private university: Which are not funded by government, but obtain public grant,

particularly in the form of tax breaks and public student loans and grants.

ASRB: Advanced studies and Research Board

Cal: value: Calculated value

HEC: Higher Education Commission

HOD: Head of Teaching Department

S.D: Standard Deviation

SPSS: Statistical package for social sciences

Tab; value Tabulated value

VC: Vice chancellor

CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The major purpose of this chapter is to discuss the university administrative practices

in the light of related literature. Keeping in view the importance of review of related

literature; an attempt has been made to describe the available research on different

aspects of university administration. The research topic administrative practices at

universities are presented in various sections. The illustration of which is given below.

2.1 University organizational structure and university autonomy

2.2 University Statutes

2.3 University Operating Bodies

Its Members Selection, Students Representation, Tenure, Meetings,

Decision Making Practice and its Implementation

2.4 Recruitment/Selection/Appointment, Promotion and Provision of Facilities of

Officials and Faculty

2.5 Administrative, Financial and Academic Matters.

2.6 Establishment of New Departments and Allocation of Funds

2.7 Students Admission and Scholarships

2.8 Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for overcoming Irregularities

2.9 Relationship of University with Community, HEC, Govt, and Other

Universities

2.10 Affiliation to Colleges

11

2.1. University Organizational Structure and Autonomy

The main responsibilities of Higher education institution are to contribute to the

socio-economic development of the country, to disseminate and create knowledge and

to produce skilled manpower. It also helps in improving problem-solving skills, self

confidence, maturity, creative ability and effective communication skills. According

to Narasaiah (2007) “Higher education institutions also play an important role in

contributing to the social cohesiveness of a nation and as a forum for constructive

debates on development.”

In Pakistan, universities are established and operated with the approval of Act of

national or provincial assembly. This provides an administrative structure for the

better functioning of the university. Figel (2008) stated that “The

governance/administration structure of an institution tells us how stakeholders

including the executive head of the institution, staff, students, parents, governments,

laypersons, etc. communicate with each other: who is accountable to whom, how they

are held accountable and for what.” The president of Pakistan in case of federal

university and the provincial governor is the chancellor of provincial universities. He

holds great powers and authority such as the university pro-chancellor, vice

chancellor, members of syndicate and the deans are appointed by him. The federal or

provincial minister of education is the pro-chancellor of the university. His position is

formal and in the absence of chancellor he executes all the responsibilities. The vice

chancellor is appointed and accountable to chancellor. He is the acting chairman of

the syndicate, academic council and other bodies of the university. The vice

chancellor is the principal academic and administrative officer of the university as the

chancellor and pro-chancellor seldom attend the meetings of syndicate.

12

The university supreme legislative and governing body is Syndicate. The chancellor

appoints its members. Its main powers and responsibilities are

Approval of Budget

Approval of Curriculum

Promotion, salary and remuneration

Although Chancellor is the chairman of the syndicate but he never attends its

meetings so the acting and effective chairman of the syndicate is vice chancellor.

Registrar is the real head and executive authority of the university. He is responsible

for the interpretation and enforcement of administrative and academic policies. He

also controls the hiring and promotion of the faculty (The Boston Group), and (The

Task Force, 2002). University academic, financial and administrative matters requires

competent bodies like senate, syndicate, academic council, advance study and

research board, board of faculties, selection board, finance and planning committee,

affiliation and discipline committee. Parallel to these bodies the universities have the

other authorities like controller of examination, provost, treasure, librarian and deans

which supervise and help the heads of teaching department in academic matters.

These Bodies provide instructional leadership as well as manage day-to-day activities

of the university. They also direct the educational programs and community service

organizations. These bodies set educational standards, goals, rules and regulations and

establish the policies and procedures to carry them out. These Bodies also supervise

and support faculty members, librarians, coaches, affairs and management of the

property of the university. They develop academic programs, standard of teaching,

monitor students, educational progress, train and motivate teachers and other staff,

13

manage guidance and other students services, administer record keeping, planning &

development, prepare budget, handle relation with parents, prospective and current

students, and the community, and performs many other duties. All these Bodies and

other authorities may handle all these functions effectively if the members discourage

the political or external pressure. The university organizational structure and

governance comprised of legislative and executive authorities are presented in the

following figure.

Figure. 2.1. University Organizational/Governance Structure

For the better execution and supervision of their administrative, academic, and

financial functions university must have to discourage undue internal and external

pressure and influences. Particularly, for the development of academic programs; in

External

Pressure

External

Pressure

External

Pressure

External

Pressure

14

terms of recruitment, assessment, and development of their faculty; and selection,

training and educating their students university autonomy and academic freedom is

necessary (The Task Force, 2002). University autonomy and academic freedom are

the basic asset and essence of the university progress and development. University

autonomy is freedom of the university to make certified appointments, tenure,

research, salary and all academic decisions should be delegated to the academics

themselves. Academic freedom is a privilege of the teachers, researcher and students

in order to enable them to carry on their roles (Homadi, 1989).

“No single matter can affect the working of a university more profoundly than the

selection of its vice chancellor. The university vice chancellor is its chief academic

and executive officer. To be equal to his responsibilities he must have the strength of

character to resist firmly the many pressures that seek to relax standards of training,

scholarship and student behavior” (Vohra & Sharma, 1990). The politically loyal

Vice-chancellor of the university will always strive to work out for the interest of the

party in power. The political pressure and influence was reported by Siddiqui (2007)

and Isani & Virk (2005) in hiring of teaching faculty and even in the

appointment/nomination of Vice Chancellor. He is appointed by Chancellor and holds

the office to the entire satisfaction of chancellor. This produces the feelings of

insecurity on the part of Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor chairs different

important meeting and so the decision making process in respect of administrative,

financial and academic matters are made on the demand of political pressure which

creates indiscipline from the very top.

To bring quality in education, the undue internal and external influences should be

discouraged in educational institutes. According to Panday & Jamil government

15

should reduce its undue intervention in the university administration. Vice-Chancellor

should be elected through the senate, not by the government. A selected political vice-

chancellor always tries to preserve the interest of the party he belongs to even at the

cost of quality of education. Process of recruitment of teachers should be streamlined.

In Pakistan, very little autonomy is provided to universities under its Act, which is not

only laughable but also blurred, By Virk, M.L (The Task Force, 2002). Tapper &

Salter (1995) reported that “in the past decade, the link between institutional and

individual autonomy within the British university system has been broken. But the

state has established parameters which are managed by the funding councils. It is

within the framework of these parameters, and the managerial strategies of the

funding councils, that the universities now exercise their autonomy…” Universities in

Pakistan depend on government funds and so the political leaders influence the

university matters. For the essence of university autonomy university should generate

their own funds in different ways and means.

2.2. University Statutes

For the proper operation of any institute whether it is academic or business requires

some rules and regulations. University as an autonomous body prepares and develops

its own rules and regulation for the smooth and proper operation of its day to day

academic, administrative, and financial matters. These rules and regulations are called

statutes. The university statutes are legal framework for the management,

administration and supervision of the university. It provides a constitutional and

regulatory way for all the university policies and processes (Amendments to

University Statutes, 2010).

16

The world is rapidly changing with the changing needs and demands of the people. So

the university structure is also changing. And with this the university statutes also

demands amendment to cope with the changing and new arising situation.

(Melbourne, 2011) In Melbourne, University statutes are framed by the university

under Victorian legislation. The Statutes are considered as the primary legislative

procedure. The university council has the power to endorse, amend and repeal the

statutes with the approval of the Victorian minister for Higher Education and Skills.

Statutes are the conventional way and private law for the internal regulation of

universities. To sustain the university Statutes relevant and pertinent they should be

kept under regular review (University Statutes). To cope with the changing

technological advanced era, it is necessary to amend statutes of a university when and

where it is needed.

A university becomes operational with the approval of establishment act and statutes.

According to Naz et al (2012), and Naz (2012) “The statutes provides legal ways for

the university’s function and responsibilities, determines the various authorities

through which it governs itself, prescribes the areas of rule making, allows for

affiliation and inspection of colleges, and locates up the offices of administration.” In

Pakistani universities it is the responsibility of senate which proposes and also

recommends changes/amendment in statutes (The Task Force, 2002), (The University

of the Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan

University Mardan Act, 2009). But there is difference in theory and practice regarding

amendments in statutes which is evident from the Gomal University Amendment Bill,

1996, which was passed by the North West Frontier Province, Provincial Assembly

on the 30th September and assented to by the Governor on the 14th October, 1996 was

17

published as an Act of the Provincial Legislature of N.W.F.P

(http://legaladvicepk.com). Same case was repeated by the University of Peshawar

when the provincial government has not incorporated the recommendations of

teachers in the amended University of Peshawar Act 1974, on Dec 6, 2010 even with

drift of regarding three months. So, teachers raised their voice against it. They were

also complaining of the amended law because the structure and the authority of the

senate and syndicate of the university were distorted (Shah S. , 2011). Many times

amendments are made without the consultation of the university officials. In many

universities there is a clear distinction between what is stated in acts/statutes and what

is practiced.

2.3 University Governing Bodies, Selection of Members, Students

Representation, the Members Tenure, Meetings, Decision Making Practice,

Decisions Implementation

University is the academic community and for the better functioning of different

academic, administrative and financial matters, the university officials and the

exterior eminent personalities are given different tasks to be done through their shared

experience and vision. This coalition of renowned personalities is called university

authorities and bodies. According to Clark (1998) the university structure depends on

its authorities and its apex operational/governing bodies. Governing bodies perform

significant role in strengthening of universities. In the view of Ashley (2011) “The

main function of university governing bodies should be to protect the institution

against interference by government and business.” The major statutory bodies and

authorities of the university which deal with academic, administrative and financial

matters are Senate, Syndicate, Selection Board, Academic Council, Advanced Studies

18

and Research Board, Board of Faculty, Board of Studies (Jadoon & Jabeen),

(Nasreen, 2008), (The University of the Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University

Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan Act, 2009).

Different governance bodies together constitute the governance structure. Each

university has its own operational bodies e.g. senate, the syndicate, the academic

council, the selection board, the board of advance study and research, the finance and

planning committee etc that shape the university organizational structure for the

effective and efficient execution of university. These Bodies provide instructional

leadership as well as manage day-to-day activities in universities. They also direct the

educational programs and community service organizations. These bodies set

educational standards, goals, rules and regulations and establish the policies and

procedures to carry them out. Bodies also supervise and support faculty members,

librarians, coaches, affairs and management of the property of the university. They

develop academic programs, standard of teaching, monitor students, educational

progress, train and motivate teachers and other staff, manage guidance/counseling and

other student’s services, administer record keeping, planning & development, prepare

budget, handle relation with parents, students and the community. Thus for the

selection of best course of action very intellectual and wise decision making abilities

are expected from them (Anwer, 2005). The names of bodies may be different in other

countries of the world but they have identical structure in respect of governing bodies.

These are meticulous for the institutional academic matters and activities of the

university. According to (Huisman .J) the responsibilities of governing bodies are:

i. Determination of university mission and vision

ii. Conducive environment for the achievement of institutional objectives.

19

iii. Long-term educational plans,

iv. Approval of annual budgets,

v. Appointment of institutional head,

vi. Make sure and examination systems institutional performance through

accountability.

The prominent governing bodies in public or private sector universities of Pakistan

are:

The Senate: Senate is the supreme governing body of university and it has more than

hundred (100) members consisted of all Syndicate members, Deans, Directors, Heads

of Department, Representatives of Faculty, Alumni, and Provincial Assembly and

Appointees of the Chancellor. Its key powers are voting on the budget and proposing

amendments to Statutes.

The tenure for the other than ex-officio members of the Senate, is three years. They

can hold the office for more than two consecutive terms. The senate meets two times

in a calendar year.

All the decisions are made by a majority vote. In case of being equally divided on any

matter, the person who chairs the meeting has a casting vote (The University of the

Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan

University Mardan Act, 2009). According to Gupta (1987) the senate or the court is

the chief deliberating body of the university. The senate has the power to make new

rules and regulations and to make a whole range of decisions.

Syndicate: The Syndicate is the managerial and financial authority. It is comprised of

regarding 15-20 members, one third are ex-officio; the others are either elected by

20

faculty members or appointed by the Chancellor. The membership includes a

representative of the Provincial Assembly although a management team; it is often

viewed as a means of achieving independent governance. However, since the VC

chairs the Syndicate, it is not an independent body.

Members of the Syndicate other than ex-officio members can hold office for three

years and it meets at least once in each quarter of the year (The University of the

Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan

University Mardan Act, 2009). Syndicate is the main executive authority of the

university; the academic council decides the academic issues (Gupta, 1987).

Academic Council AC): Academic Council is responsible for all curricular matters.

It comprised of over 100 members, Chaired by the VC, it encompasses some senior

management staff, deans, department heads, Senior professors, librarian, elected

faculty representatives, Chancellor's nominees, and representatives of colleges. It is

too cumbersome body to make timely decisions on academic matters.

Members appointed by nomination or election hold the office for three years. The

academic council meets at least once in six months (The University of the Punjab Act,

1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan

Act, 2009)

Selection Board: The Selection Board is convened whenever needed to consider

appointments and other personnel matters. Chaired by the VC, it encompasses a

representative of the Public Service Commission, nominees of the Chancellor,

nominee of the Syndicate, department chairs, Deans concerned and relevant subject

experts are usually included.

21

ASRB: The committee of Advanced Studies and Research Board consists of the vice

Chancellor, persons appointed by the syndicate, two teachers with research

qualifications and two experts appointed by the vice Chancellor. The board advises

the syndicate on all matters connected with the promotion of advanced studies and

research in the university, prepares university ordinance and regulations regarding the

award of research degree, makes admission to research courses, appoints supervisors

for research students and recommends a panel of names of examiners for doctoral

degrees (Inter-University Board of Pakistan, 1963).

A few decades ago the governing bodies of universities in most systems were

considered rather indistinct assembly whose particular function was unclear to the

other members of the university. Kelleher presented a perception that larger governing

bodies are unmanageable and unproductive while smaller are deliberate to reach

decisions in a more “business-like” manner. Hoare (1995) reported that in Australia,

official reports advocating a suitable size of the governing bodies of 10 to 15

members. Similar changes have been observed in United Kingdom (Dearing, 1997),

& (Lambert, 2003). While in United States the size of university boards varies in both

public and private universities with a range of 10 to 40 members (Kelleher). Some of

the members of the university governing bodies are selected/appointed/elected from

internal employees of the university while others are external/lay members or

community members. Kelleher reported that in Australia, external members account

for over 60% of membership and similarly in the United Kingdom, there is a majority

of external members. In view of Musselin & Mignot-Gerard (2002) French councils

were either ‘rubber stamping’ or have no role in decision making. While De Boer

(2003) is not in favor of Musselin & Mignot-Gerard (2002) that academics have many

22

informal powers to influence decision-making and to achieve their objectives. The

faculty means academicians should also be properly concerned and should actively

participate in decision making process that may directly affect the educational policies

for which it is primarily responsible. These matters include the size of the student

enrollment, academic calendar, establishment of new departments and other academic

matters.

Magrath (1969) recommended in his study of Student participation; what happens

when try it in academic and curricular matters, students should have an advisory role,

and channels should be established for the communication of their opinions

The decision making bodies within the university present a common pattern all over

the country. In views of (Kelleher) various governing bodies are making decisions

which have a direct bearing on the type of course taught, on curriculum issues in

general and especially on all important aspects of exams. Gupta (1987) stated that the

persons who are affected by the decisions are to be involved and associated; they will

be a party to them. While the situation is different as University does not offer all its

members equal opportunity to take part in decision-making process as influential

citizens (Ekong). Huisman, Boer, & Goedegebuure (2006) focuses on student and

staff participation in decision making and on the actual appraisal of different actors

within the universities leaders, managers, staff, and students of the governance

structure of their university. According to Gayle, Tewarie, & White (2003) university

governance refers to the structure and process of authoritative decision making across

issues that are significant for external and internal stakeholders of a university cited

by (Lee & Land, 2010). Coaldrake, Stedman, & Little (2003) pointed out gradual shift

from the conventional collegial modes of decision making practice to managerial

23

style, with stronger managerial power. (James & Blackman) find out that governing

body’s role was to approve and confirm knowledge and decisions that have been

transferred to them; knowledge creation should happen in the subcommittees that feed

into council and academic board. Chaudhary (2004) concluded in his study that good

governance was lacking in the universities of Pakistan.

The results of the study conducted by Scheytt ( 2007) show that board members’

personal factors such as personality, experience, and their attitude towards the multi

faceted nature of university governance strongly influence the boards’ identity

formation and actual work. It is concluded that such factors must be regarded when

implementing governing boards in universities by means of university reform.

2.4 Recruitment/Selection/Appointment, Promotion and Provision of Facilities to

Officials and Faculty

The purpose of any educational institute is to provide and disseminate knowledge in

consonance with the highest ideals and traditions of their faith and national aspirations

and this can be accomplished by devoted and dedicated teachers who show a high

standard of disciplined, critical and constructive intelligence in the discharge of their

responsibilities and obligations. (Jamil) is of the view that “You cannot have a good

university without good faculty; the fundamental asset of a university is its faculty.

Without faculty working with students, the university is just a set of buildings”.

Faculty is an institution's most valuable asset (Matier, 1991). Gregorian (2005) names

the faculty as the "heart and soul, the bone marrow and blood of universities" cited by

(Gonzales, 2010). He further reported that “The quality of faculty is very directly

linked to the quality of a student’s education and the value of the degree”. Teaching is

the major professional activity of academic staff (Cannon, 1983). According to

24

Sochail (2005) one of the basic elements of a university is obviously its academic

staff.” .In view of Pankajam (2005) “a college or university stands or falls by its

teachers. Teacher can make or mar the image of college” and he further added that

quality of citizens depends on the quality of education and the quality of education in

turn depends on the quality of teachers.

The process of recruitment and selection of human resources refers to the process of

attracting properly and highly qualified personnel to apply for the job through

comprehensive advertisements and the process to choose from within the applicants

the person/s who best meets the selection criteria for hire or promotion (Nasreen,

2008). While in view of Newell (2005) recruitment is often a process when an

existing employee departs (Figel, 2008). The recruitment of academic staff is based

first and foremost on public advertisements in all countries official journal at central

level, national or international press, websites, etc. In addition with this the higher

education institutes may enjoy a certain degree of flexibility especially in distinct

recruitment procedures according to the institutions or categories of staff to be

recruited. According to Moy (2006) employers constantly function as information

processors. The personnel selection process requires employers to decide among

candidates characterized by multiple attributes.

For the proper management, the officials including the deans should be selected on

the basis of pre-set, clear and well-defined criteria (Birru, 2002). For quality

education it is necessary to conduct an energetic search throughout the country for

outstanding and promising young people for its teaching and research staff. In

Pakistani universities whether it is public or private faculty has two main streams,

administration positions Registrar, deputy registrar, Dean, provost, Director

25

Academics, controller of exams etc and teaching positions lecturer, assistant

professor, associate professor and professor. Parveen (2011) proposed that the

Chancellor should appoint senior administrative staff, deans, and departmental chairs.

And Departmental selection committees should hire faculty on the recommendation of

departmental chair. While Committees of senior faculty should be responsible for

faculty appointments and evaluation on tenure track system based on performance in

research, teaching and service. She further suggested that the promotions, incentives

and salaries of the faculty should be linked with i) research output ii) performance in

teaching iii) peer rating iv) student’s rating v) and faculty’s ‘market value’

In Pakistanis’ universities recruitment for lecturer, assistant professor, associate

professor and professor are made through a process which is shown in the following

chart. The test and demonstration is meant for the lecturers only and assistant

professors, associate professors and professors are excluded from the test and

demonstration.

26

Figure 2.2. Staff selection process in Pakistani universities

In Pakistan either the search committee which may be departmental, request to the

registrar, or registrar directs the department to propose the required staff. In second

stage after the approval of registrar and Vice Chancellor it is sent to the Provost for

advertisement in newspapers with eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions

with deadline. After the deadline the registrar sends all the applications to search

committee for scrutinizing. The shortlisted and all eligible applicants with the

approval of registrar are called on for the test. The test is checked through centralized

marking. And the merit list is notified with the approval of registrar and candidates

are called for demonstration in front of experts of subject. In the next stage the

shortlisted candidate are called upon for the viva in front of the selection board which

consists of Vice chancellor, registrar, chairman of Public Service commission and the

27

subject expert members of the university and other universities. And the list of

recommended candidates for final decision is sent to syndicate for approval.

(Panday & Jamil) Find out in Bangladesh that every administration have tried to

recruit teachers more on political grounds than on the basis of merit. They always

remain in search of recruiting a voter than a teacher. As an obvious consequence, the

quality of education has gone down. People are chosen for reasons more personal to

the recruiter than to the applicant (Atias & Mouly, 1993). In most of the developing

countries higher educational institutions suffer from corruption, favoritisms and undue

political backing in the selection process. In this situation and condition the

educational institutes can only dream for quality education than reality. Politics in

universities has made them as center of politics instead of centre of excellence. Birru

(2002) found that academic qualification and teaching experience was very important

criteria for selecting teaching staff.

Faculty members play pivotal role in imparting the education at the higher education

level in any country. They happen to be the nucleus of the education system.

Disturbing and disrupting them in any way is disturbing and disrupting the education

process. Influencing them directly or indirectly halts the true teaching process

(Sarwar., 2011).

(Panday & Jamil) claimed that selection of faculty on political basis is a usual

practice. Even the Promotional opportunities are also dominated by the influence of

politics in Bangladesh. Ramsden (1997) believes that “dissatisfaction of faculty

members regarding the rewards that they get for optimal teaching at universities has

become an international problem” cited by (Razavi, 2007).

28

Perna (2005) conducted a study to examine the ways in which parental status, marital

status, and employment status of the spouse are related to two outcomes, tenure and

promotion, among college and university faculty. It was found that the contribution of

family ties to tenure status and academic rank is different for women than for men.

“Task Force recommends an enhancement of the Government grant by Rs. 5 billion

annually in order to improve recruitment and retention of competent and qualified

faculty and staff; develop infrastructure for research; provide adequate libraries,

electronic access to information and communication, equipment and maintenance; and

refurbish the dilapidated physical facilities” (The Task Force, 2002).

Another important factor for the standard education and motivation of teachers is the

provision of facilities to them. Birru (2002) reported shortage of facilities and other

human as well as material resources, weaknesses in implementing staff development

programs. It is generally accepted that good facilities are needed for good education

(Bakare). Ndirangu & Udoto (2011) suggested that the improvement in quality of

educational facilities is important for all interested in enhancing student learning

environment anywhere. Teacher quality is affected adversely by the poor salary and

benefits and perverse incentives provided by systems of retention and promotion (The

Boston Group). According to (Panday & Jamil) unfortunately University Authority

provides undue privileges to the teachers loyal to them.

2.5 Administrative, Financial and Academic Matters.

An effective system of university governance with shared responsibility should have

the main purposes of providing educational opportunities in pursuit of academic

excellence with a spirit of productive cooperation (Lee & Land, 2010). Democratic

governance of universities is good for staff morale but not so good for their

29

productivity (Ekong). According to Kilmei & et al (2007) Governance is important

because it involves the recruitment of individuals managing the higher education

institutions and determines relevance and whether management structures are more or

less open.

Governing bodies must also give adequate and timely financial support towards the

maintenance of the existing structures in universities (Bakare). According to Gupta

(1987) “finance is an important area which includes problems of income and

expenditure and their accounting and auditing. A successful administrator must keep

himself intimately in touch with the financial position of the organization he is

responsible for”.

2.6 Establishment of New Departments and Allocation of Funds

With the growing population and raising needs and demands of the society,

universities are expanding its existing departments and also establishing new areas of

study for the production of technologically advanced manpower.

Chaudhary (2004) recommended that new discipline should be established according

with the need of the market. Birru (2002) recommended “to assess all the necessary

resources, forecast the constraints and possible solutions based on deep-rooted study

and come with a feasible guiding plan before opening new institutions.”

Financial resources are required for any educational institute to accomplish its tasks

and objectives. The institute head allocates funds for different activities and practices

in a wise manner. Unfortunately everyone is crying of the lack of financial support. It

is the excellency of institutional head as an administrator to utilize the resources in

best possible way with more productivity.

30

Hamid-Ullah (2005) reported that “Public sector in higher education could not fulfill

its functions due to shortage of funds, ill qualified teachers, lack of professional

competencies and adequate research facilities in the universities.” The same was

reported by Chandrasiri (2003) that the universities in Sri Lanka are facing with an

acute shortage of funds and that existing financial systems and procedures are control

oriented rather than promoting efficiency and quality enhancement. Moreover, the

heavily state dependent university system, particularly in the area of financing, has

failed to keep pace with technologically advanced market at national level. While in

the present era of globalization, universities need to be more market oriented in terms

of management, delivery of services and revenue generation. Rasul & Akram (2010)

recommended in their studies that inter university linkage and university industry

linkage should be developed for better academic environment of university and better

utility of higher education.

The new departments should be opened with the need and demands of labor market

and for this the university and industry have a good system of liaison. Dridi &

Houssine (2007) conducted a study which revealed that strengthening of university-

industry relationships has an impact on university research and from this not only

graduate students can get benefits but the institution itself. Assistance is needed for

the process of planning the allocation of funds from the various sources to potential

uses over time. Tyagi, J, & Taylor (1988) presented a report on a computer based

decision support system developed and implemented at a large public university to

provide senior university administrators with up-to-date information on the status of

funds, by source and use over time, and an interactive multi criteria model embedded

within the overall computer package to assist university administrators in decision

31

making regarding the allocation of funds from sources to uses over several time

periods. Basic institutional problem is that even when the allocated funds are spent on

education, they may be used inefficiently (Glewwe & Kremer, 2005). Universities, to

the extent that they enjoy autonomy to develop their own plans and programs, must

make hard choices in setting priorities and allocating resources (Altbach, Reisberg, &

Rumbley, 2009).

2.7 Students Admission and Scholarships

All over the world educational institutes are set up for educating the children. Ajmal

& et al (2009) stated that “Universities are like green houses where various types of

seeds grow into plants and are sent out throughout the world”. The process of

admission of students into higher education institutions has consequences which can

be examined from many points of view. For the applicant and his family the process is

a determinant of future occupational and social status (Pearse, 1978). University

admission or college admissions is the process through which students enter tertiary

education at universities and colleges. Systems vary widely from country to country,

and sometimes from institution to institution. Birru (2002) suggested that to make the

new emerging colleges competent and sustainable in the market the admission

requirements should be checked and revised so that academically competent students

can be attracted. (Government of, 1998) The National Education Policy (1998–2010)

recommended that quotas were to be abolished. Growth in number and quality of

students must become a means of enhancing quality of education (Homadi, 1989).

Khan A. (2007) reported in his study fairly negative opinion regarding selection of

students during admission on the basis of their merit and motivation and

competitiveness of the private sector graduates with public sector universities.

32

Gupta (1987) stated that the scholarship dimension of a college or university emphasis

the academic achievement. “Scholarships and bursary awards for able but indigent

students are resuscitated, cost recovery measures in the universities need to be

intensified” (Pearse, 1978). Fontes & Patricia (1980) found Overall participation rate

to be higher for males than for females in university education.

Parveen (2011) stated that in Pakistan the higher education institutions did not

concentrate on globalization, commercial consideration, scientific and technical

advancement. This made the situation worst with creating an environment of cheating,

corruption and ignorance of merit.

2.8 Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for Overcoming Irregularities

For judging the worth, value, supervision and future planning of any program

evaluation are necessary. According to Betored, (2003) and Hudd Leston, (2002)

universities should properly evaluate their performance for achievement of high

performance standards cited by (Razavi, 2007).

Teaching should be an important evaluative criterion (Gentry, Jauch, & James, 1976).

Most studies of how faculty performance is evaluated have been based on reports

from academic deans or vice presidents (Centra, 1977). Individual evaluation of

academic staff is, in most countries, an integral part of internal quality assurance

procedures. Internal procedures are often made compulsory by authorities, and are

generally determined by the institutions themselves (Figel, 2008).

33

2.9 Relationship of University with Community, HEC, Govt, and Other

Universities

Universities are established for the welfare of the society and therefore they are not

isolated institutions but part of the society and community. Universities are to present

a positive image to their internal and external stakeholders and therefore to have good

relationship with community, HEC, Govt, and other universities and also to get

possible benefits from them. Half the battle is won if good human relations prevail in

an organization (Gupta, 1987). He further stated “Community dimension indicates a

friendly, supportive and sympathetic environment and a sense of group welfare and

loyalty. When there is community spirit the college has a reputation for being

friendly; students commonly share their problems; professors go out of their way to

be helpful.” Today universities are not so isolated from society. According to Nasreen

(2008) universities realize that they are more than an institution disseminating

knowledge. They are agent of essential, or even critical, social change. So their

existence will be meaningful. University is the part of community and so they have to

maintain close links with community and industry. Universities should strive to

develop into active agents of social change. Badat (2009) proposed three purposes of

university. The first purpose of universities is the production of knowledge; the

second is the dissemination of knowledge and the formation & cultivation of the

cognitive character of students. The final, is to undertake community engagement.

According to Simone & Marselli University as a place for high education and

scientific investigation cannot avoid the social confrontation and communication with

the society on the contrary, it risks its own existence.

34

As universities and society in general grow closer together, administration has a

crucial part to plan in strengthening the links which unite them (The Administration

of Universities, 1966). Well reputed and good universities are connected with the

‘exterior world’ while for the better function and understanding their needs and

demands even became its part. In the same way, it was seen that university activities

are in contact with society in general and that their accomplishment depends on these

relations. University administrative systems, therefore, are never isolated but are

articulated with other institutions (The Administration of Universities, 1966). The

working party showed their agreement on the matter that relations between

government and universities were everywhere growing closer, even in university

systems where traditionally they had been weak or even non-existent. In United

States, the distrust of interference by the government in university matters was

particularly strong. (The Administration of Universities, 1966).

Parveen (2011) proposed that the management of government sector universities be

made more autonomous rather keeping it linked with government. In her study the

responses of management members and interviews of officials indicated that the

colleges received support and faced bureaucratic problems when dealing with

government offices (Birru, 2002). “Universities are large and complex organizations

dependent still on government i.e. taxpayer funds” (Edwards). The coordination,

control and financing mechanisms for higher education institutions have been the

subject of ongoing political analysis and technical debate within university systems

over recent years. The interrelationships between governments as the ones in charge

of university policy, universities and society have in recent years undergone a

35

restatement process, due principally to the widespread changes that have occurred in

the higher education environment (Vilalta, 2001)

Local government should support universities under their control, through relaxation

in tax as an incentive, financial support on utilities, student support and infrastructure

development grants, etc (Parveen, 2011).

The Higher Education Commission (HEC) was established for the progress and

advancement of the universities into world-class centers of education and research.

The due authority of the Higher Education Commission covers all universities and

degree awarding institutions. It strives for the quality education in these institutions

by facilitating and coordinating self-assessment of academic programs with an

external review by national and international experts. The HEC also supervises the

planning, development, and accreditation of public and private sector institutions of

higher education (Mukhtar, Tatlah, & Saeed, 2011). The government of Pakistan, in

an effort to enhance intellectual capital and enrollments, established the Higher

Education Commission (HEC) assigned to evaluate, improve and promote the higher

education and research culture in both public and private sectors in Pakistan (Qazi, S,

Rawat, & Hamid, 2010).

Steering committees on higher education recommend that “establishment of the

Higher Education Commission as a supportive body for quality assurance and

funding, and abolition of the UGC to enhance academic quality” (Pakistan, 2002).

(HEC, 2002-2003) The Task Force, Study Group and later the Steering Committee all

agreed to recommend an enhancement of the government grant annually in order to

improve recruitment and retention of competent and qualified faculty; develop

infrastructure for research; provide adequate library facilities electronic access to

36

information and communication, equipment and maintenance; and refurbish the

physical facilities of the universities.

Parveen (2011) has outlined the achievements of HEC in this manner:

i. Each and every student of the public sector universities has been given access

to e-textbooks and research articles from international research journals

ii. Enrolments to the universities have been quadrupled over a span of five.

iii. Promotion of research culture has resulted into the enhanced number of

research publication.

iv. Even a long span could not get any Pakistani university some place among the

high ranked universities of the world. Five Pakistani universities including

National University of Science and Technology could get a standing position

among the top 300 universities of the world.

v. To bring in quality into teacher education programs,

vi. As an innovative step, HEC has financed around 5000 PhD scholars for their

study in their own and advanced countries.

vii. HEC has given affiliation to around fifty universities for offering novel market

oriented programs.

2.10. Affiliation to Colleges

The term affiliation has the origin from a latin word ‘filius’ a son which means of

being adopted as a member of the family but unfortunately in practice we suppose it

to have come from the word ‘filus’ means a thread and so the colleges are connected

with the university only as a string.

37

Therefore Gupta (1987) suggested that each university should see before the

affiliation is given to a college that whether it strongly satisfied the conditions laid

down by the university. According to Mishra (2007) “in fact, the university has the

right to withhold or withdraw, in whole or in parts, the rights conferred on a college

by affiliation or in cases, a) it has failed to carry out any of the terms and conditions

of affiliation, b) a college is conducting its affairs in a manner prejudicial and at

loggerheads with the main purpose of education”. A college has the right to be

permanently affiliated by fulfilling all conditions laid down by the university statutes.

In Indian universities, first of all the college authority will write an application to the

registrar of the University for Affiliation with explanation of the position of the

college. The registrar will discuss it with the affiliation committee. If there is a need

and the college position is satisfactory with conditions laid down by the statutes. In

next stage a team of experts will be sent to the college for checking and verifying the

conditions and requirements and then they will submit their report. The affiliation

committee will decide in a meeting what to recommend. And finally the concerned

authorities of the university approve or disapprove the affiliation. When approval is

given that will be on temporary basis. The permanent affiliation will be given after

three years if the college is developing its position from time to time (Mishra, 2007).

Mishra (2007) divided the procedure in two parts. “First of all the university should

be convinced of the need for a college. When the need is established, then the college

should make suitable arrangements for fulfilling the conditions of affiliation as laid

down by the university”.

While in Pakistan before or after the establishment of an educational institution by the

private sector, the Principal/Head shall submit a formal application to the Registrar on

38

the prescribed Porforma, complete in all respects, along with registration of the

institution from Higher Education Regulatory Authority. The Registrar, after

satisfying himself with regard to the completion of the application in all respects shall,

in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor, furnish a copy of the questionnaire, to the

Head of the Higher Educational Institution concerned.

The Registrar examines the documents, and if finds it satisfactory he then proposed to

the Vice Chancellor, the appointment of an Inspection Committee for visiting the

concerned Institution.

The members of Inspection Committee are appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The

Inspection Committee submits its report to the Affiliation Committee.

The Affiliation Committee then accept the recommendations or reject or send back

the case with comments to the Inspection Committee for re-examination

The Affiliation Committee, after satisfying from every angle then forwards its

recommendation to the Syndicate for approval. The affiliation is granted on

permanent basis after having ensured the fulfillment of all affiliation requirements in

fulfillment of the Statutes. The process is presented in the following figure.

39

figure 2.3. College affiliation Chart

Isani U. A (2001) reported in his study that affiliated colleges are a source of great

dissatisfaction. The system of affiliation seems to have contributed significantly to the

deterioration of academic standards in the country. Safder, M. rightly called it as “the

affiliation curse” in The News, September 27, 1996 cited by (Isani U. A., 2001). The

affiliation is given to the colleges only to raise and generate funds. When once

affiliation is given then the universities authorities are neither give any consideration

nor supervise them on regular basis. Today the number of affiliated colleges has risen

to 1994 according to the (HEC, Universities affiliated colleges) Pakistan.

40

Figure 3.4. Affiliated colleges of Pakistan

Source: http://beta.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/QALI/Others/Pages/HEIs.aspx

CHAPTER-III

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

This chapter presents an overview of the research methodology that was used to

compare the administrative practices of universities. This section of the study

concisely describes population, procedure for selection of sample, sample size,

validity and reliability of data collection instrument, procedure of data collection, data

analysis, and assumptions.

3.1. Population:

The population of the study consisted of:

1. Total 24 public and 24 private sector universities of Punjab and KPK

provinces (attached as appendices F).

2. All administrators and academicians of 24 public and 24 private sector

universities of Punjab and KPK provinces in the year 2010.

3.3. Sample and Sample Size:.

Multi-stage sampling technique (Louis Cohen, 2007) was applied in order to select

the study sample of 320 respondents in the following way:

1. At first stage, eight (8) universities were selected (4 from Punjab and 4 from

KPK provinces) randomly in such a way that two (2) public and two (2)

private sector universities from each province were included in sample.

2. In the next stage, 40 respondents (20 administrators and 20 academicians)

were chosen conveniently from each selected university. Administrators

42

having key position i.e. VC, registrar, deputy registrar, deans, provost, director

academics, director finance, director QEC and Head of teaching departments

were selected while 20 Academicians were selected conveniently from each

selected university. Composition of the Sample of the study was:

The table 3.1 above shows the sector, university and category wise number of

respondents in study sample.

N Sector Universities Administrators Academicians Total1 P

U B L I C

Gomal university D.I.Khan 20 20 40

2 University of Hazara 20 20 40

3 University of Sargodha 20 20 40

4 Bahauddin Zakaria University (BZU) Multan

20 20 40

5 P R I V A T

City university Peshawar 20 20 40

6 Qurtaba University D.I.Khan

20 20 40

7 UMT Lahore 20 20 40

8 University of Lahore 20 20 40

Total 160 160 320

The researcher anticipated the sample size to be based on the proposition: a sample

with a minimum number of 100 is essential for descriptive studies (Fraenkel, 2003).

43

3.4. Data Collection Instrument

1. Data were collected with the use of two-part questionnaire for the

administrators and academician. In the construction of the instrument, items

were adapted from Singh, 1987 administration rating scale with prior

permission. Permission to use, modify and add according to local environment

the tool was obtained from the author (Appendix-A). Part-1 of the

questionnaire consisted of different independent variables viz: status of

University public or private , position of stakeholder academicians and

administrators), Part- II of the questionnaire was consisted of 112 Likert-type

items, responded on a 5 point rating scale from “Always” to “Never”, carrying

a value of 5 to 1 respectively. Items designated positively were scored as 5, 4,

3, 2 and 1 respectively. Omitted or invalid responses were given a score of 3.

They were classified into 32 domains measuring the overall comparison of

administrative practices of public and private sector universities. The scale is

attached as (Appendices-C).

3.4.1. Validity of the Questionnaire

For the content validity of the data collection, questionnaire was sent to eminent

researchers, Ph.D scholars and experts of social sciences. The list of experts is given

as an (Appendix-E).

3.3 .2 Pilot Testing

To assess the consistency of items, it was personally administered to 42 stakeholders,

21 academicians and 21 administrators, from Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan,

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

44

3.4.3 Reliability of the Questionnaire.

Internal consistency of the items was calculated through Cronbach’s coefficient Alpha

method. For the whole scale 0.963 Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained in terms of scale

mean if item deleted, scale variance if item deleted, corrected item-total correlation,

appendix-D illustrates Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted. Generally, the range as rule

of thumb for sorting out the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is always between

0 and 1. Actually there is no lower limit to the coefficient. The nearer the reliability

coefficient is to 1.0, the better will be the internal consistency of the item in the

questionnaire. According to (Sekaran, 1999: 311) In general the reliabilities less than

0.6 are considered to be poor, 0.7 range are satisfactory, and those more than 0.8 are

considered good: cited by (Shah R. , 2011). In the light of views of George and

Mallery 2003) rules of thumb for examining internal consistency of the item is “≥.9

=Excellent, ≥ .8 = Good, ≥ .7 = Acceptable, ≥.6 = Questionable, ≥ .5 = Poor and ≤ .4

= Unacceptable” cited by (Gliem. J. A.) .

3.5. Analytical Procedure

3.5.1. Operational Definitions of Independent Variables

1. Status of University: Status of university was treated as a dichotomous

variable to be either private or public sector

2. Position of stakeholder: Position of stakeholder was treated as a

dichotomous variable to be either academician or administrator.

3.5.2. Operational Definitions of dependent Variables

1. Administrative Practices: The administrative practices consist of amendments in

university statutes; university governing bodies; its members selection; tenure and

45

meetings; decision making practice; implementation of decisions;

recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of official and faculty; provision of

facilities to faculty; official attitude in administrative; financial and academic matters;

establishment of new departments; allocation of funds; university timings suitability;

scholarships; evaluation of the employees, Procedure for overcoming irregularities;

visiting authorities, university management; relationship of university with

community; HEC; Government; and other universities; HEC influence in university

affairs; students admission; and affiliation to colleges.

2. Comparison of Administrative Practices: This variable was measured by 112

Likert-type items comprising of 32 domains, asking the respondents to indicate their

opinions regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector

universities. The scale was developed on 5 point Likert type scale design. The

respondents have to score on the suitable place on one of the five categories ranging

from “Always” to “Never”. Scoring used for the instrument was; Always 5,

Frequently 4, Occasionally 3, Seldom 2, Never as 1.

3.6. Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed by employing statistical method: Independent

Samples t-test. T-test was used to examine the Means difference among the views of

overall respondents, academicians and administrators.

The formula for t-test if the samples are related i.e two measures from the same

subject is

46

Where

= Mean of sample 1

= Mean of sample 2

= number of subjects in sample 1

= number of subjects in sample 2

= Variance of sample 1 =

= Variance of sample 2 =

To find out the significant difference between the samples Means, usually t-test was

applied. For testing null hypothesis significance level value was set as 0.05 values.

According to Stevens (1996) for all types of research studies in social sciences

statistical significance is placed at .05 Alpha levels.

Independent Samples t-test was utilized when cases are classified into two groups

and a test of Mean difference was performed for specified variables.

For testing null hypothesis emblematic values which are preferred for the significance

level are .05. Means are compared for independent samples.

The data was analyzed through the utilization of SPSS statistical software package,

version 16.

47

3.7. Assumptions

Following were the assumptions that were made for this study:

1. Stakeholders’ academicians’ and administrators’ responses on the

questionnaire were genuine.

2. Items of the questionnaire measured the comparative analysis of

administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan.

3. A proper survey was made to collect data in order to accomplish the true

worth of the study.

4. Respondents re cooperative with the researcher.

CHAPTER – IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with presentation and analysis of data. Descriptive and inferential

statistics were utilized to compare the administrative practices of Public and Private

Sector Universities. Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic profile of the respondents.

To test the stated hypotheses, as presented in chapter-1, t-test was utilized for data

analysis. This chapter comprised of 97 tables.

4.1. Sector and Respondent Wise Sample Size

Sector N Academicians Administrators Total

Public 4 80 80 160

Private 4 80 80 160

Total 8 160 160 320

The table 4.1 above shows descriptive analysis of the sample size of respondents

(academicians and administrators). The researcher collected data from eight 8

universities (four 4 public and four 4 private). The total number of respondents from

the selected public and private sector universities was 320, out of which 160 were

academicians and 160 were administrators.

49

Table 4.2: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector

Universities Regarding Amendments in the Statutes.

S.No Respondents N Mean Std t df p-value

1 Public 160 12.43 2.19 3.64

318

.000

2 Private 160 11.37 2.96

The table 4.2 above shows that the cal; value 3.64 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =

0.05, hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between public and private

sector universities regarding the amendments in statutes is rejected. It is concluded

that respondents of both public and private sectors were of different opinions

regarding amendments in the statutes.

50


Universities Regarding the Universities Bodies Members Selection.

S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value

1 Public 160

12.48 2.08 .355

318

.723

2 Private 160 12.39 2.31

The table 4.3 above shows that the cal; value .355 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =

0.05, hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of

respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding universities bodies’

selection is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were

of same opinions regarding universities bodies’ selection.

51


Universities Regarding Universities Bodies Tenure.


1 Public 160 13.00 2.11 .211

318

.003

2 Private 160 13.66 1.78

The table 4.4 above shows that the above shows that the cal; value .211 < tab; value

1.97; with df 318 at α = 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference

between the opinions of respondents of the public and private sector universities

regarding universities bodies’ tenure is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of

both sector universities were of uniform opinions regarding universities bodies’

tenure.

52


Universities Regarding Student Representation.


1 Public 160 15.16 2.41 .511

318

.863

2 Private 160 15.11 2.83


0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of

respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding student

representation in university bodies is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of

both sector universities were of same opinions regarding student representation in

university bodies.

53


Universities Regarding University bodies Meeting.


1 Public 160 14.38 4.30 1.29

318

.195

2 Private 160 13.85 2.87

The table 4.6 above shows that the cal; value 1.29 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =


respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding bodies meeting is

accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same

opinions regarding bodies meeting.

54


Universities Regarding Bodies Decision Making.


1 Public 160 9.38 1.67 1.95

318

.052

2 Private 160 8.96 2.08


0.05. Hence means that null hypothesis of no significant difference between the

opinions of respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding bodies

decision making is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector

universities were of similar opinions regarding the bodies’ decision making.

55


Universities Regarding Bodies Decision Implementation.


1 Public 160 11.62 3.40 1.63

318

.104

2 Private 160 10.84 5.02


0.05. Hence means that null hypothesis of no significant difference between opinions

of respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding bodies decision

implementation is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector

universities were of same opinions regarding the bodies’ decision implementation.

56


Universities Regarding Official Appointment.


1 Public 160 10.09 3.35 1.16

318

.245

2 Private 160 9.75 1.65


0.05. Hence means that null hypothesis of no significant difference between the

opinions of respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding official

appointment is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of same opinions regarding the official appointment.

57


Universities Regarding Staff Selection.


1 Public 160 10.71 1.51 3.57

318

.000

2 Private 160 10.08 1.67

The table 4.10 above shows that the cal; value 3.57 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α

= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of

respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding staff selection is

rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of different

opinions regarding staff selection.

58


Universities Regarding Staff Promotion.


1 Public 160 10.71 1.80 .118

318

.906

2 Private 160 10.68 1.96

The table 4.11 above shows that the cal; value .118 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α

= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between opinions of

respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding staff promotion is

accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector were of same opinions

regarding the staff promotion.

59


Universities Regarding the Staff Facilities.


1 Public 160

12.74 2.63 2.72

318

.007

2 Private 160 11.96 2.49



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding staff facilities is


opinions regarding the staff facilities.

60


Universities Regarding the Official in Administrative Matter.


1 Public 160

9.68 1.79 .333

318

.740

2 Private 160 9.75 1.56



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding official in

administrative matters is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector

universities were of same opinions regarding official in administrative matters.

61


Universities Regarding the Financial Matters.


1 Public 160

12.88 1.90 .128

318

.898

2 Private 160 12.85 2.42



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding financial matters is

accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of similar

opinions regarding financial matters.

62


Universities Regarding the Academic Matters.


1 Public 160 12.36 2.01 2.58

318

.010

2 Private 160 13.04 2.60



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding academic matters is


opinions regarding academic matters.

63


Universities Regarding the Official Supervision.


1 Public 160

9.24 1.87 2.19

318

.029

2 Private 160 9.67 1.62



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding official supervision

is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of

different opinions regarding official supervision.

64


Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with Community.


1 Public 160

9.09 2.06 .790

318

.430

2 Private 160 8.93 1.59

The table 4.17 above shows that cal; value .790 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =


respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding relations with

community is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of same opinions regarding official relations with community.

65


Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with HEC.


1 Public 160 8.75 2.07 .092

318

.927

2 Private 160 8.73 1.54

The table 4.18 above shows cal; value .092 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α = 0.05.

Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of

respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the relations with

HEC is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of

same opinions regarding officers’ relations with HEC.

66


Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with Government.


1 Public 160

8.96 2.08 .345

318

.730

2 Private 160 9.04 1.78



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding relations with

government is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of same opinions regarding officers’ relations with government.

67


Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with other Universities.


1 Public 160 8.82 1.64 1.54

318

.124

2 Private 160 9.11 1.76

The table 4.20 above shows that cal; value 1.54 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =


respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding relations with other

universities is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of same opinions regarding officers’ relations with other universities.

68


Universities Regarding the HEC influence in Administration.


1 Public 160

16.87 3.58 1.80

318

.072

2 Private 160 16.11 3.89

The table 4.21 above shows that cal; value 1.80 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =


respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding HEC influence in

administration is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of similar opinions regarding the HEC influence in administration.

69


Universities Regarding the HEC influence.


1 Public 160 10.83 2.49 .465

318

.645

2 Private 160 10.93 1.50



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the HEC influence

is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same

opinions regarding HEC influence.

70


Universities Regarding the Student Admission.


1 Public 160 14.14 1.67 5.11

318

.000

2 Private 160 12.86 2.69

The table 4.23 above shows that cal; value 5.11 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =


respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the student

admission is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were

of different opinions regarding student admission.

71


Universities Regarding the Scholarships.


1 Public 160 10.75 1.49 .00

318

1.00

2 Private 160 10.75 1.85



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the scholarships is

accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same

opinions regarding scholarships.

72


Universities Regarding the Fund Allocation.


1 Public 160 11.01 2.41 1.85

318

.065

2 Private 160 10.56 1.89

The table 4.25 above shows that the cal; value 1.85 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α


respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the fund allocation

is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same

opinions regarding the fund allocation.

73


Universities Regarding the University Timings.


1 Public 160 16.00 2.25 3.52

318

.000

2 Private 160 14.76 3.83



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the university

timings is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of

different opinions regarding the university timings.

74


Universities Regarding the College Affiliation.


1 Public 160

16.37 2.70 4.7

318

.000

2 Private 160 14.86 3.02



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the college

affiliation is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were

of different opinions regarding college affiliation.

75


Universities Regarding the Evaluation of employees.


1 Public 160 7.44 1.92 2.64

318

.009

2 Private 160 7.93 1.37



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the evaluation of

employees is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were

of different opinions regarding evaluation of employees.

76


Universities Regarding the Procedure for overcoming irregularities.


1 Public 160 10.65 1.86 2.35

318

.019

2 Private 160 11.12 1.73



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the procedure for

overcoming irregularities is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector

universities were of different opinions regarding procedure for irregularities.

77


Universities Regarding the Meeting with Authorities.


1 Public 160 9.23 2.53 2.86

318

.004

2 Private 160 8.35 2.91



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding meeting with

authorities is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were

of different opinions regarding meeting with authorities.

78


Universities Regarding the Process to visit Authorities.


1 Public 160

10.27 1.50 .62

318

.538

2 Private 160 10.38 1.56



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the process to visit

authorities is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of same opinions regarding process to visit authorities.

79


Universities Regarding the University Management.


1 Public 160

10.26 2.92 5.68

318

.000

2 Private 160 11.71 1.39



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding university

management is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities

were of different opinions regarding university management.

80


Universities Regarding the Establishment of New Departments.


1 Public 160

13.54 2.12 .43

318

.667

2 Private 160 13.32 6.07



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding establishment of

new departments is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector

universities were of same opinions regarding establishment of new departments.

81

Figure 4.1. At a Glance Comparison of Administrative Practices of Public and

Private Sector Universities (Graphical Representation)

Figure 4.1 above shows at a glance comparison of administrative practices of public

and private sector universities in terms of their standard deviation of Table No. 4.2,

4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18,

4.19,4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33.

82

Table 4.34: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector

universities regarding amendments in the statutes.

S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value

1 Public Academicians 80 12.67 2.06

4.08

158

.000 Private Academicians 80 12.67 2.96



respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding amendments of

statutes is rejected. It is concluded that academicians were of different opinions

regarding amendments in statutes.

83


universities regarding the Universities Bodies Members Selection.



.531

158 .596

Private Academicians 80 12.3 2.3




members’ selection is accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of same

opinions regarding universities bodies’ members’ selection.

84


universities regarding the Universities Bodies Tenure.



.210

158 .834





tenure is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sector universities were

of same opinions regarding universities bodies’ tenure.

85


universities regarding the Student Representation.



.431

158

.667

2 Private Academicians 80 15.25 2.30



academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding student’s

representation in university different bodies is accepted. It is concluded that

academicians of both sectors were of similar opinions regarding student’s

representation in university different bodies.

86


universities regarding University bodies Meeting.



.292

158

.771

2 Private Academicians 80 14.37 2.68



academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding university bodies

meetings is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar

opinions regarding university bodies meetings.

87


universities regarding Bodies Decision Making.



2.31

158

.022



= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between opinions of

academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding universities

bodies’ decision making practice is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both

sector universities were of different opinions regarding universities bodies’ decision

making practice.

88


universities regarding Bodies Decision Implementation.



.016

158

.987



= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference among opinions of

academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding universities

bodies’ decision implementation is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both

sectors were of similar opinions regarding universities bodies’ decision

implementation.

89


universities regarding Official Appointment.



4.59

158

.225




academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding official’s

appointment is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding official’s appointment.

90


universities regarding the Staff Selection.



3.67

158

.000




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding staff selection is

rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of different opinions

regarding staff selection.

91


universities regarding the Staff Promotion.



1.36

158

.173




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding staff promotion is

accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar opinions

regarding staff promotion.

92


universities regarding Staff Facilities.



1.33

158

.185




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding provision of facilities

to staff is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar

opinions regarding provision of facilities to staff.

93


universities regarding Administrative Matters.



1.69

158

.09




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding administrative

matters is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar

opinions regarding the administrative matters.

94


universities regarding Financial Matters.



2.16

158

.032




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding financial matters is


regarding financial matters.

95


universities regarding the Academic Matters.



2.05

158

.042




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding academic matters is


regarding academic matters.

96


universities regarding Supervision of the subordinates.



0.55

158

.583




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding supervision of the

subordinates is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding supervision of the subordinates.

97


universities regarding the Relation with Community.



1.27

158

.206




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with

community is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding relations with community.

98


universities regarding the Relation with HEC.



1.88

158

.06




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with HEC is

accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of similar opinions regarding

relations with Higher Education Commission (HEC).

99


universities regarding the Relation with Government.



.36

158

.710




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with

government is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding relations with government.

100


universities regarding the Relation with other Universities.



1.49

158

.130




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with other

universities is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding relations with other universities.

101


universities regarding the HEC Influence in administration.



2.13

78

.03




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with other

universities is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding relations with other universities.

102


universities regarding the HEC influence.



.210

158

.834




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding HEC influence is

accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of uniform opinions

regarding HEC influence.

103


universities regarding the Student Admission.



6.63

158

.000




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding student’s admission is

rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sector universities were of different

opinions regarding student’s admission.

104


universities regarding the Scholarships.



1.49

158

.138




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding scholarship is

accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of similar opinions regarding

scholarship.

105


universities regarding the Fund Allocation.



.205

158

.838




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding fund allocation is

accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of similar opinions regarding fund

allocation.

106


universities regarding suitability of University Timings.



2.54

158

.01




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding university timings is


regarding suitability of university timings.

107


universities regarding College Affiliation.



1.84

158

.06



= 0.05. Hence that null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions

of academicians of public and private sector universities regarding college affiliation

is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar opinions

regarding college affiliation.

108


universities regarding Procedure of evaluation of employees.



1.80

158

.073




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding the procedure of

evaluation of employees is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors

were of similar opinions regarding procedure of evaluation of employees.

109


universities regarding Irregularities Procedure.



.258

158

.797




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding procedure for

irregularities is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding procedure for irregularities.

110


universities regarding meetings with Authorities.



3.64

158

.000




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding meeting with

authorities is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding meeting with authorities.

111


universities regarding Process to visit Authorities.



.465

158

.642


The table 4.63 above shows that the cal; value .465 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α


academicians of public and private sector universities regarding the procedure to visit

authorities is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding the procedure to visit authorities.

112


universities regarding the University Management.



4.24

158

.000




academicians of public and private sector universities regarding the university

management is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding the university management.

113


universities regarding Establishment of New Departments.



3.97

158

.00


The table 4.65 above shows that the cal; value 3.97 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α


respondents of public and private sector universities regarding establishment of new

departments is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding establishment of new departments.

114

Figure 4.2. At a Glance Comparison of Administrative Practices according to the

opinions of academicians of Public and Private Sector Universities (Graphical

Representation)

Figure 4.2 above shows at a glance comparison of administrative practices according

to the opinions of academicians of public and private sector universities in terms of

their standard deviation of Table No. 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, 4.37, 4.38, 4.39, 4.40, 4.41,

4.42, 4.43, 4.44, 4.45, 4.46, 4.47, 4.48, 4.49, 4.50, 4.51,4.52, 4.53, 4.54, 4.55, 4.56,

4.57, 4.58, 4.59, 4.60, 4.61, 4.62, 4.63, 4.64, 4.65.

115

Table 4.66: Comparative views of administrator’s official of public and private

sector universities regarding the amendments in statutes.


1 Public Administrators 80 12.20 2.31

1.14

158

.257

Private Administrators 80 11.72 2.92

The table 4.66 above shows that the cal; value 1.14 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α


administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the amendments in

statutes is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar

opinions regarding amendments in statutes.

116

Table 4.67: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector

universities regarding Different Bodies Members Selection.



0.00

158

1.00




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the different bodies’

members’ selection is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors

were of similar opinions regarding different bodies’ members’ selection.

117


universities regarding the Different Bodies Members tenure.



4.00

158

.000





members’ tenure is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding different bodies’ members’ tenure.

118


universities regarding the Student Representation in different Bodies.



.14

158

.889


The table 4.69 above shows that the cal; value .14 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α =


administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the student’s

representation in different bodies is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of

both sectors were of similar opinions regarding students’ representation in different

bodies.

119


universities regarding the Different Bodies Meetings.



1.50

158

.134




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding different bodies

meetings is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding different bodies meetings.

120


universities regarding Bodies Decision Making Practice.



.423

158

.673





decision making practice is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both

sectors were of similar opinions regarding different bodies’ decision making practice.

121


universities regarding bodies’ decision implementation.



2.86

158

.005




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding different bodies’

decision implementation is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors

were of different opinions regarding different bodies’ decision implementation.

122


universities regarding Official Appointment.



.061

158

.951




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the official’s

appointment is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding official’s appointment.

123


universities regarding Staff Selection.



1.20

158

.231




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the staff selection is

accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar opinions

regarding staff selection.

124


universities regarding Staff Promotion.



1.24

158

.215




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the staff promotion

is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar

opinions regarding staff promotion.

.

125


universities regarding the Provision of Facilities to Staff.



2.59

158

.01




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the provision of

facilities to staff is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding provision of facilities to staff.

126


universities regarding the Official in Administrative Matters.



2.32

158

.02




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the officials in

administrative matters is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors

were of different opinions regarding officials in administrative matters.

127


universities regarding Financial Matters.



1.76

158

.079




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding financial matters is


regarding financial matters.

128


universities regarding Academic Matters.



4.78

158

.000




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding academic matters is

rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions

regarding academic matters.

129


universities regarding Supervision of the Subordinates.



2.40

158

.017


The table 4.80 above shows that the cal; value2.40 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α =


administrators of public and private sector universities regarding official’s supervision

of their subordinates is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors

were of different opinions regarding official’s supervision of their subordinates.

130


universities regarding Relation with Community.



.133

158

.894




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding relation with

community is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding relation with community.

131


universities regarding Relation with HEC.



.137

158

.172




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding relation with HEC is


regarding relation with HEC.

132


universities regarding the Relation with Government.



.878

158

.381




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the officers’ relation

with government is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were

of similar opinions regarding officers’ relation with government.

133


universities regarding the Relation with other Universities.



3.83

158

.000




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the relation with

other universities is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were

of different opinions regarding relation with other universities.

134


universities regarding the HEC influence in administration.



.352

158

.725




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the HEC influence in

administration is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding HEC influence in administration.

135


universities regarding the HEC influence.



2.83

158

.005




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding HEC influence is


regarding HEC influence.

136


universities regarding the Student Admission Procedure.



1.10

158

.270




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding student’s admission

process is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar

opinions regarding students’ admission process.

137


universities regarding the Scholarships.



1.35

158

.179




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding scholarship is

accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions

regarding scholarship.

138


universities regarding Fund Allocation.



2.24

158

.026




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding fund allocation is


regarding fund allocation.

139


universities regarding the University Timings.



2.49

158

.014




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding university timings is


regarding university timings.

140


universities regarding the affiliation of colleges.



4.53

158

.000




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding college affiliation is


regarding college affiliation.

141


universities regarding the procedure of evaluation of employees.



1.92

158

.056




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding procedure of

evaluation of employees is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both

sectors were of similar opinions regarding procedure of evaluation of employees.

.

142


universities regarding the procedure for any Irregularities.



3.83

158

.000




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding procedure for

irregularities is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding procedure for irregularities.

143


universities regarding the Meetings with Authorities.



.470

158

.639




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding meetings with

authorities is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding meetings with authorities.

144


universities regarding the Procedure to Visit Authorities.



.410

158

.683




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding procedure to visit

authorities is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

similar opinions regarding procedure to visit authorities.

145


universities regarding University Management.



3.83

158

.000




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the university

management is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of

different opinions regarding university management.

146


universities regarding Establishment of New Departments.



1.14

158

.253




administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the establishment of

new departments is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were

of similar opinions regarding establishment of new departments.

147

Figure 4.3. At a Glance Comparison of Administrative Practices of Public and

Private Sector Universities (Graphical Representation)

Figure 4.3 above shows at a glance comparison of administrative practices according

to the opinions of administrators of public and private sector universities in terms of

their standard deviation of Table No. 4.66, 4.67, 4.68, 4.69, 4.70, 4.71, 4.72, 4.73,

4.74, 4.75, 4.76, 4.77, 4.78, 4.79, 4.80, 4.81, 4.82, 4.83, 4.84, 4.85, 4.86, 4.87, 4.88,

4.89, 4.90, 4.91, 4.92, 4.93, 4.94, 4.95, 4.96, 4.97

148

CHAPTER-V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. SUMMARY

This study dealt with the comparison of administrative practices of public and

private sector universities of Pakistan in terms of amendments in statutes of

universities; University Operating Bodies; their members Selection; Students

representation in the bodies; its Tenure; Meetings; Decision Making Practice and

Implementation of Decisions; Recruitment/Selection/Appointment and Promotion

of Officials and Faculty; Provision of Facilities to Faculty; Official Attitude in

Administrative; Financial and Academic Matters; Establishment of New

Departments; Allocation of Funds; Students Admission and Scholarships

;Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for overcoming Irregularities;

meetings with Authorities ;University Management; Relationship of University

with Community; HEC; Government; and Other Universities ;HEC Influence in

University Affairs; Affiliation to Colleges and to know the actual situation as to

what extent rules and regulations are followed and is the internal and external

influences affect the administration of both public and private sectors universities.

The main objectives of the study were:

4. To compare the prevailing status of administrative practices of public and

private sector universities of Pakistan.

149

5. To investigate the similarity and dissimilarity among the views of

administrators regarding the administrative practices of public and private

sector universities of Pakistan.

6. To compare the different views of academicians regarding the administrative

practices of both sector universities.

The following hypothesis was formulated to test the administrative practices.

Ho 1. There is no significant difference between the administrative practices of

public and private sector universities of Pakistan.

Ho 2. There is no significant difference between the opinions of academicians


Pakistan.

Ho 3. There is no significant difference between the opinions of administrators


Pakistan.

For cross checking and finding the authentic and existent situation data was collected

from both administrators and academicians of public and private sector universities.

The population of the study consisted of:

1. Total 24 public and 24 private sector universities of Punjab and KPK

provinces in the year 2010.

2. All administrators and academicians of public and private sector universities

of Punjab and KPK provinces.

The sample of the study was 320 respondents with ratio of 160 administrators and 160

academicians. A questionnaire of administrative practices was developed by the

150

researcher in which some items were adopted from (Singh, 1978) India with prior

permission.

For the whole scale 0.963 Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained. The data was analyzed

through the utilization of SPSS statistical software package, version 16.

In both public and private sector universities, the administrative practices i.e.

amendments in the statutes; universities bodies tenure; the provision of facilities to

staff; official attitude for handling of academic matters; official’s way of supervising

their subordinates; student admission; university timings suitability; process of

college affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure for irregularities; meeting with

authorities; university management was observed significant.

Significant difference was observed between the opinions of academicians of public

and private sector universities in terms of amendments in statutes; bodies decision

making; staff selection; financial matters; academic matters; HEC influence in

administration; student admission; university timings; meeting with authorities;

university management except the following administrative practices which was

found insignificant for both public and private sector universities of Pakistan, these

were:

Universities bodies’ selection; universities bodies’ tenure; student representation in

university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies decision implementation; official

appointment; staff promotion; staff facilities; official in administrative matters;

official supervision of subordinates; relations with community; relations with HEC;

relations with government; officers relations with other universities; HEC influence;

scholarships; fund allocation; College affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure

151

for overcoming irregularities; process to visit authorities; establishment of new

departments.

Significant difference was found between the opinions of administrators of public and

private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’ tenure; bodies decision

implementation; staff facilities; administrative matters; academic matters; official

supervision; relations with other universities; HEC influence; fund allocation;

university timings; College affiliation; procedure for overcoming irregularities;

university management.

5.2 FINDINGS

Following were the findings of the study:

5.2.1 Findings related to hypothesis #1.

1. Significant difference was found between the opinions of respondents public

and private sector universities of Pakistan regarding the amendments in the

statutes, universities bodies tenure, staff selection, the provision of facilities to

staff, academic matters, official’s supervision of subordinates, student

admission, university timings, college affiliation, evaluation of employee,

procedure for overcoming irregularities, meeting with authorities, university

management see table 4.2, 4.4, 4.12, 4.15, 4.16, 4.23, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29,

4.30, 4.32.

2. In the light of opinions of respondents no significant difference was found

between the public and private sector universities of Pakistan regarding the

universities bodies members selection, student representation in university

bodies, their meetings, decision making, decision implementation, official

152

appointment, staff promotion, administrative and financial matters, relations

with community, HEC, Government and other universities, HEC influence in

administration and other matters, scholarships, fund allocation, process to visit

authorities and establishment of new departments see table 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7,

4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 4.14, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.24, 4.25,

4.31 & 4.33.

5.2.2. Findings related to hypothesis #2.

3. Significant difference was found between public and private sector

universities according to the opinions of academicians regarding amendments

in statutes; bodies decision making; staff selection; financial matters;

academic matters; HEC influence in administration; student admission;

university timings; meeting with authorities; university management see table

4.34, 4.39, 4.42, 4.46, 4.47, 4.53, 4.55, 4.58, 4.62, 4.64

4. No significant difference was found between public and private sector

universities in the light of the opinions of academicians concerning

universities bodies’ selection; universities bodies’ tenure; student

representation in university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies decision

implementation; official appointment; staff promotion; staff facilities; official

in administrative matters; official supervision of subordinates; relations with

community; relations with HEC; relations with government; officers relations

with other universities; HEC influence; scholarships; fund allocation; College

affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure for overcoming irregularities;

process to visit authorities; establishment of new departments see table 4.35,

153

4.36, 4.38, 4.40, 4.41, 4.43, 4.44, 4.45, 4.48.4.48, 4.49, 4.50, 4.51, 4.52, 5.54,

4.56, 4.57, 4.59, 4.60, 4.61, 4.63,4.65.

5.2.3. Findings related to hypothesis #3.

5. According to the opinions of administrators significant difference was found

between public and private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’

tenure bodies decision implementation; staff facilities; administrative matters;

academic matters; official supervision; relations with other universities; HEC

influence; fund allocation; university timings; College affiliation; procedure

for overcoming irregularities; university management see table 4.68,

4.72,4.76, 4.77, 4.79, 4.80, 4.84, 4.86, 4.89, 4.90, 4.91, 4.93, 4.96

6. No Significant difference was found between the public and private sector

universities in terms of amendments in statutes; universities bodies’ selection;

student representation in university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies decision

making; official appointment; staff selection; staff promotion; financial

matters; relations with community; relations with HEC; relations with

government; HEC influence in administration; student admission;

scholarships; evaluation of employees; meeting with authorities; process to

visit authorities establishment of new departments according to the opinions of

administrators see table 4.66, 4.67, 4.69, 4.70, 4.71, 4.73, 4.74, 4.75, 4.78,

4.81, 4.82, 4.83, 4.85, 4.87, 4.88, 4.92, 4.94, 4.95, 4.97.

5.3. CONCLUSION

1. Public sector universities are performing better job than private sector

universities in respect of amendments in statutes; universities bodies’

154

selection; student representation in university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies

decision making; bodies decision implementation; official appointment; staff

selection; staff promotion; staff facilities; official in financial matters;

relations with community; relations with HEC; HEC influence in

administration; student admission; funds allocation; university timings;

College affiliation; meeting with authorities; establishment of new

departments. The reason may be that public:

i. Following rules and regulation, in these matters

ii. Have maintained their esteem, autonomy, and are free of internal and external

pressure.

iii. All stakeholders are respected and have an equal voice in all important

matters.

iv. Have a cooperative environment.

v. Giving importance to quality education.

vi. Have transparent system of responsibilities and accountability.

2. The main variable the university status (Public and private sector universities)

proved to be significant in terms of many administrative practices. Mostly,

administrative practices are exercised in different ways in both sectors and

there is less uniformity in the execution of the practices in both sectors.

The reason may be the weak coordination by HEC between both public and

private sector universities.

i. The major stakeholder’s administrators and academicians are not equally

involved in university administrative practices where they are directly

155

affected. The administrators and academicians are not of uniform opinions

regarding the administrative practices.

ii. The university administrative practices are becoming paralyzed by internal

and external pressure.

5.4 DISCUSSION

Results of the study are discussed in this section according with the demographic

variable overall respondents, academicians, and administrators and their correlation

with the administrative practices one by one. The administrative practices ware

examined and compared in terms of amendments in university statutes; university

operating bodies; its members selection; tenure and meetings; decision making

practice; implementation of decisions; recruitment/selection/appointment and

promotion of official and faculty ;provision of facilities to faculty; official attitude in

administrative; financial and academic matters; establishment of new departments;

allocation of funds; university timings suitability; scholarships; evaluation of the

employees; Procedure to tackle the irregularities; university management; relationship

of university with community; HEC; Government; and other universities; HEC

influence in university affairs; students admission and affiliation to colleges.

Results showed significant difference between public and private sector universities

regarding the amendments in statutes according to the views of overall respondents,

academicians and administrators. The reason of this significance may be:

i. The public sector is following a set procedure for any amendments in statutes

and

ii. Amendments are made according to the needs of the university.

156

iii. The university has maintained its autonomy and can never come under

pressure by any politically influential or socially dominant persons.

The results of the study aligns with Naz (2012) who found insignificant difference

between public and private sector university regarding amendments in statures while

the results contradict with Singh (1978) who found that political pressure, influential

personalities, and desire of the officers of the universities has no role in any case of

amendments in only American, English, Japanese, south African, Canadian, two

Australian, and Indian universities. While the results are in line with the findings that

in some universities e.g. two American, English, Australian and Indian universities

the matter is not democratic and healthy. He also found that in one English,

Australian, South African, Canadian and two American universities amendments were

made according to the need of the situation Pp.99-100. All stakeholders, especially

university administrators and academicians, should be involved in the process of

amendments in statutes but when they are ignored then the situation is evident from

Peshawar University Teachers Association (PUTA) who condemned the Khyber

Pakhtoon-khwa Assembly for amendment in the Peshawar University Act-1974,

terming it an undemocratic and unilateral move (http://www.pakstudy.com, 2010)

The results reflected no significant difference between public and private sector

universities regarding university bodies’ members’ selection according to the views of

overall respondents, academicians and administrators. This indicates that both public

and private sectors are performing on same line. The reason may be that both sectors

are:

157

i. Strictly following the rules and regulations for the selection/election of the

members.

ii. Selecting members on seniority basis.

iii. Free of political pressure and motivation.

The results of the study are closely in line with Naz (2012) who found insignificance

between Public and Private Sector University regarding university bodies’ members’

selection.

In the light of views of overall respondents and administrators significant difference

was noted regarding bodies members tenure, The results of the study oppose (Naz,

2012) who found insignificance between public and private sector university

regarding different bodies members tenure. While no significant difference was found

in the light of the views of academicians between public and private sector

universities in terms of university different body’s tenure. The significance for the

tenure of different body’s members may be due to:

i. The rules and regulations are not followed as laid down in the statutes and the

act

ii. Extending and shortening by political consideration.

Alam (2005) Found “complain of educational administrators regarding the political

interference, engagement in unnecessary task and pressure from the top level”.

According to Sochail (2005) “political forces badly influenced the day to day working

of the universities.”

158

No significant difference was revealed according to the opinions of overall

respondents and academicians while the views of administrators showed significant

difference between public and private sector universities in terms of students’

representation in university different bodies. It is revealed from the results that the

main stakeholder students are given representation in different universities bodies

where it is necessary and where they matter. According to the (The University of the

Punjab Act, 1973) The University of Punjab in giving representation to two students’

representatives of the University Students’ Union and two elected representatives of

the Unions of the affiliated colleges by their Presidents in Senate and also the

President of the University Students’ Union is member of syndicate.

The views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators showed no

significant difference. It is clear that both sectors are following the same procedure for

university bodies meeting and working on same grounds.

According to the views of overall respondents and administrators no significant

difference was found while the views of academicians showed significant difference

in terms of university bodies’ decision making practice. It means that one of the major

stakeholder, academicians, is not given equal participation in decision making

practice. It is revealed from the results that both sectors have the same procedure for

decision making. The results of the study contradict with Naz (2012) who found no

significant difference between public and Private Sector University regarding

university bodies’ decision making practice. The findings of Anwar, Yousaf, &

Sarwar (2008) and Anwer (2005) contradict with the study who found that overall

159

decision-making practices are unsatisfactory in the universities of Pakistan and,

mostly decisions are made without appliance of decision-making skills and technique.

Decision implementation was found insignificant in the light of views of overall

respondents and academicians and was found significant in the light of views of

administrators. The results clearly indicate that the decisions made in meetings are

implemented in both public and private sector without any delay by authorities.

Official appointments were found insignificant in the light of views of overall

respondents and academicians and were found significant in the light of views of

administrators. It is revealed that the situation is unclear Sometimes the officials are

appointed on merit but sometimes there is internal or external pressure for the

appointment of a specific person. Collen & Linda, 1963 noted variation in the degree

of formalization in the hiring procedures in mid western universities.

Significant difference was found in the light of views of overall respondents and

academicians and was found insignificant in the light of views of administrators

regarding staff selection which affect the standard education. The result is surprising

and the reason for significance may be:

i. The recruitment/selection/appointment is not fair.

ii. The competent authority is influenced by internal or external pressure which

damages the university autonomy.

According to Panday & Jamil every administration has tried to recruit teachers more

on political ground than on the basis of merit in Bangladesh. They always remain in

search of recruiting a voter than a teacher. These findings are in line with the results

of the study that faculty recruitment selection/appointment was found unsatisfactory

160

in both public and private sector universities of Pakistan (Panday & Jamil) and Naz

(2012).

According to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators no

significant difference was found between public and private regarding staff

promotion. So it is revealed from the finding that both public and private sector

universities in Pakistan have a very clear and transparent system of promotion of

faculty. The promotions are totally on merit basis. The results contradict with Panday

& Jamil who found that in Bangladesh Promotional opportunities are dominated by

the influence of politics. Allen (1988) found that in Australian university system

promotion opportunities for academic staff are becoming more restricted. The result

of the study contradicts with the Moses (1986) who showed the dissatisfaction of

academic staff with existing promotion practices in the USA, Britain, Australia and

New Zealand.

Provision of Facilities to staff was found significant in light of views of overall

respondent and administration while according to the views of academicians it was

found insignificant. The reason of significance may be due to:

i. The favors shown by higher authorities

ii. The political backings

iii. The dominancy of influential personality

Chaudhry (2004) recommended in his study that political activities should be banned

and rules and regulations should be enforced in universities for eradication of

problems and to bring quality in higher education in Pakistan. And results of the study

161

are same as Agbowuro (1976) who observed that undue political interference has

endangered the autonomy of Nigerian universities.

No significant difference was found between public and private sector universities in

terms of academic matters according to overall respondents, and academicians. While

significance was found according to the opinions of administrators. The academic

matter which is the soul of any educational institute is being practiced on same line by

both the public and private sector universities. So it is evident that both sectors are

following rules and regulation and are free of any internal or external pressure. But

the results also showed that there is less coordination between administrators and

academicians as both have different opinions regarding academic matters.

According to the views of overall respondents and administrators no significant

difference was found between public and private sector universities in terms of

financial matters. While significant difference was found according to the opinions of

academicians. For the operation of any program, fund is one of the important

elements. The results showed that the financial matters are dealt according to rules

and regulation in both sectors. But the academicians are not satisfied with the

financial matters and the reason may be that academician’s main role is teaching and

they are not given involvement in financial matters.

Administrative matters were found significant according to the views of overall

respondents, academicians and administrators. The results revealed that the situation

is satisfactory regarding the administrative matters in both public and private sectors.

The officer’s way of supervision of their subordinates was found significant in the

light of views of overall respondents, and administrators while according to the views

162

of academicians no significant difference was found between public and private sector

universities. The reason of significance may be:

i. Supervision is not properly given on democratic grounds

ii. Supervision is not based on the report of the juniors

Insignificant difference was found between public and private sector universities

according to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators in

terms of university relations with the community. University is part of the community

and works for the welfare of the people. The results indicate that both sectors are

striving to maintain good relation with community.

According to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators

insignificant difference was noted in terms of university relations with government.

The results of the study clearly indicate that both public and private sector is striving

to maintain good relation with the government. The government should not interfere

in those matters of university which can erode its autonomy.

Insignificant difference was found between public and private sector universities in

the light of views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators in terms of

university relation with HEC. The results were surprising are those both public and

private sector universities having good relations with HEC.

University relations with other universities was found insignificant between public

and private sector according to the opinions of overall respondents, and academicians

while found significant according to the administrators. The results showed that both

public and private sector has maintained good relation as it is necessary. But for

163

quality and standard education the administrators were not satisfied with this situation

in both public and private sectors.

Significant difference was found between public and private sector universities in

terms of student’s admission according to the opinions of overall respondents, and

academicians while insignificance was observed according to the views of

administrators. The reasons of insignificance may be the violation of rules and

regulations and the political backing as revealed from the case of Karachi University

where students protested against the chief of admission committee who was not

giving admission on political and religious basis. The intensity of political pressure

can be measured from the fact that the head of the admission committee, Prof Dr

Saleem Shehzad, was recently locked in his room for over half an hour by student-

cum-political activists who wanted their colleagues enrolled in the university

(www.ilmkidunya.com, 2010)


terms of fund allocation according to the opinions of overall respondents, and

academicians while insignificance was observed according to the views of

administrators. The results showed that public sector is performing better than private

sector in terms of fund allocation. The reason may be that public sector is allocating

funds on:

i. Need basis

ii. The consultation of HOD/Director/Dean

iii. Priority basis

164

Insignificant difference was found between public and private sector universities

according to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators in

terms of scholarships. Both public and private sectors are awarding scholarships to the

students on merit to enhance the quality and standard of education.

University timings, according to the opinions of overall respondents, academicians

and administrators, were found insignificant. The results were very interesting as in

both public and private sector the stakeholders were satisfied with the university

timings.


terms of college affiliation according to the opinions of overall respondents, and

administrators while insignificance was observed according to the views of

academicians. The reason of insignificance for the affiliation of colleges may be:

i. The rules and regulations are not followed

ii. Political pressure

iii. The concerned person is influential

According to the opinions of overall respondents, and academicians significant

difference was found between public and private sector universities in terms of

meeting with authorities while no significant difference was found according to the

views of administrators. The reason of significance may be that in meetings:

i. Only influential persons takes more time in discussion

ii. Those who are closer to authorities can speak.

iii. Only the person in chair speaks all the time

165

Establishment of departments was found insignificant according to the opinions of

overall respondents, academicians and administrators. The practice of establishments

of new departments is satisfactory in both sectors and the reason of insignificance

may be:

i. The departments are established according to the need and demand of the

society

ii. Infrastructure/Financial availability

iii. Space facility/ availability

According to the views of academicians and administrators, evaluation of employees

was found insignificant while according to the opinions of overall respondent’s

significant difference was noted. The overall situation was significant and the reason

of insignificance may be

i. That evaluation is not regularly done.

ii. Proper meetings are not arranged in this regard with HoDs, Directors and

Deans

Significant difference was found in terms of procedure to tackle irregularities

according to the opinions of overall respondents, and administrators while no

significant difference was found according to the opinions of academicians between

public and private sector universities. Both public and private sector are not following

rules and regulation to give punishment whenever any irregularities were found.

Collen & Linda (1963) found variation in the degree of formalization in the

evaluation of performers, and handling of unsatisfactory faculty members.

166

University management was found significant between public and private sector

universities according to the opinions of overall respondents. Memon (2007) pointed

out that “in Pakistan higher education has low quality of staff, lack of students, library

and laboratory, irrelevance with society needs, lack of research facilities, financial

crisis, and weaknesses of examination, ineffective governance and academic results

are not at par with international standards”. Mabokela (2000) discovered that “gender

inequities are persistent in the allocation of key administrative positions and

permanent teaching and research positions”.

5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. University as an independent educational institute should perform its

functions and practices without any undue interference from the outside

world. The other agencies, such as Government, political parties,

influential personalities of the society should not interrupt in any matter of

educational institutes i.e. faculty and official selection/appointment; their

promotion; university executive and operation bodies; decision making

practice; students admission and their scholarship; and all other matter

from which the education system can be affected directly or indirectly.

2. Universities and especially HEC whose sole responsibility is to bring

coordination among universities of both public and private sectors, should

arrange workshops, seminars and other programs to bring uniformity in

their practices. And in this way they can get benefits and valuable

information from each other’s experiences.

3. Academician should not be kept aloof from the important matters and

decisions in the university. Wherever it is necessary the academicians

167

should be involved in the administrative practices of the university. It will

bring strong coordination between administrators and academicians for the

best operation of the university.

4. There should be a coordination center/body between administrators and

academicians

5. Overall management of the university should be cooperative and

democratic. The university should:

i. Invite suggestions on important issues

ii. Listen to the new ideas of faculty and

iii. Give respect and regard to other’s ideas

6. The university should

i. Follow rules and regulations and the same should be

amended/modified with time to time.

ii. Internal or external pressure/influences should be discouraged from

undermining the very integrity of a university.

iii. Follow strict merit in all matters of students’ admission & faculty

selection.

iv. Strive for the generation of their own funds through different programs i.e.

business shops, plazas, agriculture center, pharmaceutical laboratories, and

the like.

v. Faculties among public and private sector universities are made equal.

7. The following cells should be set up in the university:

168

i. Public-relations/media cell to mobilize and increase awareness of the

community through the use of newspaper articles, press releases, TV

interviews and websites etc.

ii. Community involvement cell to mobilize the community within

universities; through consultative seminars, talks, community gatherings,

and update sessions on the progress of the university.

iii. Liaison cell to engage the political leadership outside the university

and lobby for changes.

5.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The conclusions drawn from the study indicate that there are similarities and

differences in administrative practices of both public and private sector universities.

There are other areas which can be studied for further findings:

1. To generalize these results across Pakistan, this study should be replicated in

other provinces viz; Sindh and Baluchistan and federal area Islamabad.

2. Keeping in view the importance of administrative practices in educational

institutions, it should be investigated at other type of universities i.e.

engineering, medical universities, colleges and also secondary and elementary

level.

3. Keeping in view the importance of administrative practices in universities, it

should be compared with the advanced and developing countries universities.

4. This study should be supplemented with inclusion of other demographic

variables including gender, and experience.

169

5. This study should be replicated by using other instruments for data collection

such as interview and observation.

6. Significant difference was found in this study in terms of administrative

practice of public and private sector universities so the study should be

conducted by utilizing qualitative research method.

170

REFERENCES

Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan Act, Registered no. PIII (The provincial assembly sectriate, The North-West Frontier Province Oct 24, 2009).

Agbowuro, J. (1976). Nigerianization and the Nigerian Universities. Comparative Education , 12 (3), 243-254.

Ajmal, M., & et al. (2009). Effectiveness of quality assurance programs of higher education commission in teacher training sector. International journal of academic research , 2 (5).

Alam, S. (2005). Need Assessment and Designing a Model for Professional Development of Educational Administrators in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.

Allen, N. (1988). Universities, Aspects of Promotion Procedures in Australian. Higher Education , 17 (3), 267-280.

Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world confernce on higher education. SIDA/SAREC.

Amendments to University Statutes. (2010, May). Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/committees/senate/2009_10docs/S0956Statutes.pdf

Anwar, M. N., Yousaf, M. I., & Sarwar, M. (2008). Decision Making Practices in Universites of Pakistan. Journal of Divesity Management, Fourth Quarter , 3, (4).

Anwer, M. N. (2005). Evaluative study of Management Techniques Used in Administrative and Academic Decision Making in Universities. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.

Ashley, D. (2011). Universities' governing bodies need more educationalists. University and College Union.

Atias, C., & Mouly, C. (1993). Faculty Recruitment in France. The American Journal of Comparative Law , 41 (3), 401-411.

Azmat, Z. (2012, January 12). Internationl The News. No admissions under pressure, says KU . Karachi: International The News.

Badat, S. (2009). The role of higher education in society: Valuing higher education. South Africa: Rhodes University.

171

Bakare, T. A consideration of the adequacy of teaching facilities in the universities of the South Western. University of Lagos: Unpublished Thesis.

Birru, K. (2002). Planning and Managerial Problems of Private Colleges in Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa University: Unpublished Thesis.

Campbell, R. F. (1957). Administration Behaviour in Education. New York, USA.: Harper Brother Publisher.

Cannon, R. A. (1983). The Professional Development of Australian University Teachers: An Act of Faith? Higher Education , 12 (1), 19-33.

Centra, J. (1977). How universities evaluate faculty performance: A survey of departments heads. New jersey: Educational testing service prisceton.

Chandrasiri, S. (2003). Financing of University Education in Sri Lanka. Higher Education , 5 (1), 91-108.

Chan-Young, C. (1988). A Study on the Autonomy of Educational Administration. Korean Educational Development Institute Press.

Chaudhry, A. I. (2004). Problems and Prospects of Higher Education in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis, University Institute of Education and Research.

Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Pergamon: Oxford.

Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L., & Little, P. (2003, August). Issues in Australian University Governance. Retrieved Jan 22, 2012, from http://www.chancellery.qut.edu.au/vc/governancefinal.pdf

Cohen, C. C. (2003). Diversification in Argentine Higher Education: Dimension and Impact of Private Sector Growth. Higher Education , 46 (1), 1-35.

Collen, E. H., & Linda. (1963). Administrative Practices in University Departments. Administrative Sciences Quarterly , 8 (1), 44-60.

Committee, K. (1967). Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from www.google.com

De Boer, H. (2003). Institutionele verandering en professionele autonomie. Center .

Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the learning society: Main Report. Londom: H.M.S.O.

172

Dopson, S., & McNay, I. (1996). Management of Higher Education: Organizational Culture. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Dridi, M. C., & Houssine. (2007). Intensification of University-Industry Relationships and Its Impact on Academic Research. Higher Education , 54 (1), 61-84.

Ekong, E. E. (n.d.). Management Styles in Nigerian Universities under Military Rule and the Challenges of Democracy: How Democractic can University Management be? Retrieved October 15, 2011, from www.google.com

Figel, J. (2008). Higher education governance in Europe: policies, structure, funding and academic staff. Retrieved Feb 14, 2012, from www.eurydice.org.

Fontes, T. K., & Patricia, J. (1980). Participation in University Education by Gender and Geographical Location. The Irish Journal of Education , 14 (1), 3-18.

Fraenkel, J. R. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Gary Orfield, H. H. (April 06, 2011). Two Studies of a Faculty in Crisis. University of california: The Civil Rights Project,Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

Gentry, L. R., Jauch, & James, W. (1976). Perceptions of Faculty Evaluation in the Soft Sciences: A Case Study. Research in Higher Education , 5 (2), 159-170.

Glewwe, P., & Kremer, M. (2005, April). Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from www.google.com

Gliem. J. A., &. G. (n.d.). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Retrieved December 5th, 2011, from 2003: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu

Gonzales, L. D. (2010). Faculty inside a changing university: Constructing roles, making spaces. Retrieved october 29, 2011, from www.google.com: http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/dissertations/AAI3426847/

Gornitzka, A. &. (2004). Towards Professionalisation? Restructuring of Administrative Work Force in Universities. Higher Education , 47 (4), 455-471.

Government of, P. (1998). National educational policy (1998-2010). Islamabad: Ministry of Education.

Group, T. B. Higher Education in Pakistan: Towards a Reform Agenda, A Contribution to the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan.

173

Gupta, L. (1987). Educational Administration: Revised Edition. New Delhi: Oxford & IB Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd.

Hamid-Ullah, M. (2005). Comparison of the Quality of Higher Education in Public and Private Sector Institutions in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.

Handbook to the Universities of Pakistan . (1963). Karachi: Inter-University Board of Pakistan 42-W P.E.C.H Society.

HEC, P. (2002-2003). Islamabad: Higher education commission.

HEC, P. (n.d.). Universities affiliated colleges. Retrieved Feb 14, 2012, from http://beta.hec.gov.pk: http://beta.hec.gov.pk/OurInstitutes/Pages/UniversitiesAffiliatedColleges.aspx

Hoare, D. (1995). Higher Education Management Review: report of committee of inquiry. Canberra: AGPS.

Homadi, A. H. (1989). University Administration In Developing Countries. New Delhi: India Biblographic Burea.

http://legaladvicepk.com. (n.d.). Gomal University (amendment) Act, 1996. Retrieved 15 Feb, 2012, from http://legaladvicepk.com/gomal-university-amendment-act-1996-3168.html

http://www.pakstudy.com. (2010, Dec 10). PUTA Criticised for Amend in Peshawar University Act . Retrieved 15 Feb, 20112, from http://www.pakstudy.com/index.php?topic=28995.0

Huisman, J. Governing bodies of higher education institutions: Roles and responsibilities (Conduct of governing bodies). OECD.

Huisman, J., Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2006). The perception of participation in executive governance structures in Dutch universities. Tertiary Education and Management , 12 (3).

Inter-University Board of Pakistan. (1963). Hand book to the universities of Pakistan. Karachi: Inter-university Board of Pakistan.

Isani, U. A. (2001). Higher education in Pakistan: A historical - futuristic persective. The national university of modern languages, Islamabad: Unublished thesis.

Isani, U. A., & Virk, M. L. (2005). Higher education in Pakistan: A historical and futuristic perspective. Islamabad: National Book Foundation.

174

Jack R. Fraenkel., N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Jadoon, Z. I., & Jabeen, N. (n.d.). Human Resource Management and Quality Assurance in Public Sector Universities of Pakistan: The case of Punjab university. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from www.google.com

James, S., & Blackman, D. (n.d.). Goveranance in Australian Universities: Where Next? Retrieved Jan 22, 2012, from www.ifo.de/DocDL/dicereport209-rm1.pdf

Jamil, P. K. (n.d.). Impact of Politicization on the Recruitment of University Teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi. Retrieved Jan 27, 2012, from www.napsipag.org: www.napsipag.org/PDF/PRANAB.pdf

Joseph A. Gliem., &. R. (n.d.). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Retrieved December 5th, 2011, from 2003: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu

Kelleher, M. F. (n.d.). Governing bodies of higher education institutions: Roles and responsibilities, The Effectiveness of Governing Bodies. Retrieved Jan 22, 2012, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/31/37378222.pdfSimilar

Khan, A. (2007). The Role of Private Sector in Higher Education in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.

khan, S. H., Saeed, M., & Fatima, K. (2009). Assessing the Performance of Secondary School Head Teachers: A Survey Study Based on Teachers’ Views in Punjab. Educational Management Administration and leadership , 37 (6), pp. 766-783.

Kilmei, M., & et al. (2007). Public and Private Universities in Kenya. New York: James Currey Ltd.

Lambert, R. (2003). Review of Business-University Collaboration. London: H.M.S.O.

Lee, L.-S., & Land, M. H. (2010). What University Governance can Taiwan Learn from the United States? Paper presented at International Presidential Fourm (pp. 179-187). China: Harbin Institute of Technology, Herbin.

Lemaitre, M. (2010). New approaches to quality assurance in the changing world of higher education. 3rd International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education,. Lahore.

Louis Cohen, L. M. (2007). Research Method in Education. New York: Routledge.

Mabokela, R. O. (2000). 'We Cannot Find Qualified Blacks': Faculty Diversification Programmes at South African Universities. Comparative Education , 36 (1), 95-112.

175

Magrath, C. P. (1969). Student Participation; What Happens When We Try It? Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal

Maria Grazia Simone., G. M. (n.d.). Governance and management in the universities. Ict for decisional. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6g00G8s64zcJ:www.formatex.org/micte2009/book/525-528.pdf

Matier, M. W. (1991). Recruiting Faculty: Complementary Tales from Two Campuses. Research in Higher Education , 32 (1), 31-44.

Melbourne, T. U. (2011, June). University Secretary's Department: Statutes and Regulation. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.unimelb.edu.au/Statutes/

Memon, G. R. (2007). Education in Pakistan: The Key Issues, Problems and The. Journal of Management and Social Sciences , 3 (1), 47-55.

Minksova, L., & Pabian, P. (2011). Approaching students in higher education governance: Introduction to the special issue. Tertiary Education and Management , 17 (3).

Mishra, M. (2007). Modern methods of educational administration. New Delhi: Alfa publications.

Moses, I. (1986). Promotion of academic staff: reward andiIncentive. Higher Education , 15 (1/2), 135-149.

Moy, J. W. (2006). Are employers assessing the right traits in hiring? Evidence from Hong Kong companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 17 (4).

Mukhtar, S., Tatlah, I., & Saeed, M. (2011). An analytical study of higher education system of Pakistan. International journal of academic research , 3 (2).

Musselin, C., & Mignot-Gerard, S. (2002). The recent evolution of French universities. In A.Amaral, G. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Narasaiah, M. L. (2007). Education and Economic Development. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

Nasreen, A. (2008). Faculty management in public sector universities of the Punjab. Institute of education and research, University of Punjab: Unpublished Thesis.

176

Naz, e. (2012). A comparative study of selected administrative practices at public and private sector universities of Pakistan. International Journal of Learning & Development , 2 (1), 593-603.

Ndirangu, M., & Udoto, M. O. (2011). Learning Facilities and Learning Environment: Challenges for Teaching and Learning in Kenya's Public Universities. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective , 19 (3).

Newell, S. (2005). The recruitment process, Organizational review and job analysis. Managing human resources: Personal management in transition (4th ed.). (S. Bach, Ed.) Cornwall: TJ international, Padstow.

Pakistan, G. o. (2002). Streering Committee on Higher Education. Islamabad.

Pakistan., G. o. (1998). National Education Policy. Islamabad.: Ministry of.

Pakistan: Country Summary of Higher Education. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2012, from https://docs.google.com: www.google.com.pk

Panday, P. K., & Jamil, I. (n.d.). Impact of Politicization on The recruitment of University teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi. Retrieved Jan 27, 2012, from 2012, from www.napsipag.org:: www.napsipag.org/PDF/PRANAB.pdf

Panday, P., & Jamil, I. Impact of Politicization on the Recruitment of University Teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi. Bangladesh: University of Rajshahi.

Pankajam, G. (2005). Education and Development. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.

Parveen, A. e. (2011). System and reforms of higher education in Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 2 (20).

Paul Glewwe., M. K. (2005, April). Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from www.google.com

Pearse, R. (1978). The Role of Selection Based on Academic Criteria in the Recruitment Process at an Indonesian Government University. Higher Education , 7 (2), 157-176.

Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex Differences in Faculty Tenure and Promotion: The Contribution of Family Ties. Research in Higher Education , 46 (3), 277-307.

Pranab Kumar Panday. (n.d.). Impact of Politicization on the Recruitment of University Teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi.

177

Qazi, W., S, H. C., Rawat, K. J., & Hamid, S. (2010, January). ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION OF PAKISTAN: PREDICAMENTS AND INSIGHTS. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from www.google.com.pk

Rasul, S. ,., & Akram, M. (2010). Opinions of Teachers and Students about Futurology of Higher Education in Pakistan. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), , 1 (4).

Razavi, S. M. (2007). Desigining a model for evaluation of universities system. Iranian journal of management studies , 1 (1), 133-141.

Sarwar., S. (2011). Internal and external influences on the university teachers in semester system. International journal of emergiging sciences , 1 (1).

Scheytt, C. M. (2007). Reinventing Governance: The Role of Boards of Governors in the New Austrian University. Tertiary Education and Management , 13 (3).

Shah, R. (2011). Role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication at postgraduate level. Gomal University D.I.Khan: Unpublished Thesis.

Shah, S. (2011, June 1st). Amendments in University of Peshawer Act: Govt ignores teachers` views. Peshawer, KPK, Pakistan: Dawn.

Shah, S. (2011, June 1st). Amendments in UoP Act: Govt ignores teachers` views. Peshawer, KPK, Pakistan: Dawn.

Siddiqui, S. (2007). Rethinking education in Pakistan: Percepttions, practices and possibilities. Karachi: Paramount Publishing.

Simone, M., & Marselli, G. (n.d.). Governance and management in the universities. Ict for decisional. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6g00G8s64zcJ:www.formatex.org/micte2009/book/525-528.pdf

Singh, V. (1978). A Comprative Study of Administration of Selected Universities in India and Abroad. Vedya Bhawan Teachers College Udaipur (Udaipur): un published thesis.

Sochail, F. (2005). Comparative study of Provincial Educational Administration Systems in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.

Spangler, D. P., & Ronald, K. (1979). The Measurement of Administrative Effectiveness of the Academic Department Head. Research in Higher Education , 10 (4), 291-303.

178

Sporn, B. (1996). Managing University Culture: An Analysis of the Relationship between Institutional Culture and Management Approaches. Higher Education , 32 (1), 41-61.

Tapper, E., & Salter, B. (1995). The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education , 20 (1).

The Administration of Universities. (1966, October 5-8). Retrieved July 29, 2011, from www.eric.ed.gov

The Boston Group. (n.d.). Higher education in Pakistan: Towards a reform agenda, A contribution to the task force on improvement of higher education in Pakistan. Retrieved Feb 5, 2012, from www.docstoc.com: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/45606234/Higher-education-in-pakistan

The Gomal University Act, 1. (1974, Dec 2). Retrieved Feb 15, 2012, from www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk: http://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/Gov/files/v8_0010.htm

The Task Force. (2002). Task force on improvement of higher education in Pakistan. Retrieved from www.tfhe.net: http://www.tfhe.net/resources/pakistan.htm

The University of the Punjab Act, 1. (1973). Retrieved Feb 22, 2012, from http://punjablaws.gov.pk: http://punjablaws.gov.pk/laws/279.html

Tyagi, R., J, M. L., & Taylor, B. W. (1988). A Decision Support System for Funds Management in a Public University. Operations Research , 36 (6), 864-881.

University Statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://9thlevel.ie/

Vilalta, J. (2001). University policy and coordination systems between governments and universities: The experience of the Catalan university system. Tertiary Education and Management , 7 (1).

Vohra, A., & Sharma, S. (1990). Management of Higher Education In India. New Delhi: Anmol Publication.

(2006). White Paper on University. University of Oxford.

wikipedia. (n.d.). Chancellor (education). Retrieved Jan 26, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_(education)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). University and College Admissions. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_and_college_admissions

www.ilmkidunya.com. (2010, Nov 8). Political pressure to enroll ineligible canditates in KU . Retrieved 12 Feb, 2012, from

179

https://doctorfinder.pk/edunews/political-pressure-to-enroll-ineligible-canditates-in-ku-5089.aspx

Yossof, R. W., & Ishak. (2005). Public and Private Provision of Higher Education in Malaysia: A Comparative Analysis. Higher Education , 50 (3), 361-386.

180

Appendix-A

Request for use and amendments in administrative practices rating scale

182

Appendix-B

Questionnaire for Administrative Practices

Respected sir/Madam

Asslam-O-Alaikum

I am a Ph.D scholar at Institute of Education & Research Gomal University D.I.Khan, working on a topic “A comparative study of administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan”.

This survey is being conducted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Ph.D. I need your assistance in this regard.

Kindly read each statement carefully and respond according to your best judgment.

The data obtained will be kept confidential and will only be used for research purpose.

I shall be grateful to you for your cooperation.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Sincerely yours

Bibi Asia Naz

Research Scholar

Institute of Education & Research

Gomal University, D.I.Khan.

E-Mail: [email protected]

183

Appendix-C

Questionnaire for Administrative Practices

PART “A

Status of the University: Public Private Designation: Teaching Faculty Administration

PART “B”

S. No

STATEMENT

Alw

ays

Fre

qu

entl

y

Occ

asio

nal

ly

Sel

dom

Nev

er

1

The amendments in statutes of your university are made Due to political pressure

5 4 3 2 1

2 A group of influential persons wants it. 5 4 3 2 1 3 The officials of the university desire it. 5 4 3 2 1 4 As per need. 5 4 3 2 1 5

The election/selection of the members for different bodies of the university Is politically motivated

5 4 3 2 1

6 On bases of different groups interacts. 5 4 3 2 1 7 Is based on the seniority. 5 4 3 2 1 8 Is held strictly in accordance with the rules and

regulation. 5 4 3 2 1

9

The tenure of different bodies is As laid down in the statutes and the act.

5 4 3 2 1

Please read the following statements carefully and tick (√) that best describe your opinion.

The criteria for ticking the statement are as follows.

Always (5) Frequently (4) Occasionally (3) Seldom (2) Never (1)

184

10 Extended and shortened on political consideration. 5 4 3 2 1 11 Extended and shortened on the basis of decision taken by

the body concerned. 5 4 3 2 1

12 Extended and shortened due to unavoidable situation. 5 4 3 2 1 13

The students are given representation in various bodies of the university In accordance with rules and regulation.

5 4 3 2 1

14 Due to political backing. 5 4 3 2 1 15 Students backing 5 4 3 2 1 16 On merit 5 4 3 2 1 17 Whenever the students demands 5 4 3 2 1 18

In your university there is a regular meeting of Advance studies & Research Board.

5 4 3 2 1

19 Academic council. 5 4 3 2 1 20 Syndicate. 5 4 3 2 1 21 Senate 5 4 3 2 1 22

The decision in meeting of the different bodies of your university are Dictated by the chair

5 4 3 2 1

23 Are made by a majority vote. 5 4 3 2 1 24 Are taken on political grounds. 5 4 3 2 1 25

The implementation of the decisions taken by different bodies of the university is Delayed by the authorities.

5 4 3 2 1

26 Put of till they are again considered by the bodies. 5 4 3 2 1 27 Based on political consideration 5 4 3 2 128 Not cared by the authorities. 5 4 3 2 1 29

Are all the appointments of officials in your university made Due to political pressure

5 4 3 2 1

30 On the basis of academic record/merit 5 4 3 2 1 31 On basis of seniority 5 4 3 2 1 32

The selection of the staff of your university is made on the basis of The academic record of the candidates

5 4 3 2 1

33 The performance at the interview 5 4 3 2 1 34 The political push 5 4 3 2 1 35

The promotion of the staff of your university is made on the basis of Performance at the university

5 4 3 2 1

36 Confidential report and past record 5 4 3 2 1 37 Any other consideration not covered above. 5 4 3 2 1 38

The various facilities/Benefits are given to a member of the staff of your university By the virtue of post s/he holds.

5 4 3 2 1

39 Due to favors shown by higher authorities. 5 4 3 2 1

185

40 Due to political backings. 5 4 3 2 1 41 Due to influence s/he commands. 5 4 3 2 1 42

The officials of your university in administrative matters Follow the rules and regulations.

5 4 3 2 1

43 Are influenced by political pressure. 5 4 3 2 1 44 Are influenced by the opinions of high officials. 5 4 3 2 1 45

The officials of your university in financial matters Follow the rules and regulations.

5 4 3 2 1

46 Are influenced by political pressure. 5 4 3 2 1 47 Are influenced by the opinion of high officers 5 4 3 2 1 48 Use their own judgment 5 4 3 2 1 49

The official of your university in academic matters Follow rules and regulation

5 4 3 2 1

50 Are influenced by political pressure 5 4 3 2 1 51 Are influenced by high officials 5 4 3 2 1 52 Use their own individual judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 53

The officers supervise and control Supervision is based on the report of the juniors

5 4 3 2 1

54 A separate body does the supervision work. 5 4 3 2 1 55 Through a method not covered above. 5 4 3 2 1 56

In dealing with the community the officers Are influenced by political pressure.

5 4 3 2 1

57 Are influenced by high officers 5 4 3 2 1 58 Use their own judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 59

The relationship of the officers with HEC Is influenced by political pressure.

5 4 3 2 1

60 Is influenced by high officers. 5 4 3 2 1 61 Personal judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 62

The relationship of the officers with the government Is influenced by political pressure.

5 4 3 2 1


The relationship of the officers with other universities Is influenced by political pressure.

5 4 3 2 1


The HEC influences the administration of your university In the appointment of teachers and other officials

5 4 3 2 1

69 In the admission of students. 5 4 3 2 1 70 In framing of courses 5 4 3 2 1 71 In matters of finance i.e. grant in aid 5 4 3 2 1 72 In the formulation of rules and regulation. 5 4 3 2 1 73

Your university is influenced by HEC In the exchange of teachers.

5 4 3 2 1

186

74 In the field of maintenance of standard 5 4 3 2 1 75 In the recognition of degree and diplomas. 5 4 3 2 1 76

The admission of students to various courses in your university is based on The academic record.

5 4 3 2 1

77 Performance in the admission test. 5 4 3 2 1 78 Political backing. 5 4 3 2 1 79 The reservation of seats. 5 4 3 2 1 80

Scholarship are awarded to students on Merit basis

5 4 3 2 1

81 According to prescribed rules 5 4 3 2 1 82 Due to favors shown by higher authorities. 5 4 3 2 1 83

Funds are allocating on Need basis

5 4 3 2 1

84 Consultation of HOD/Director/Dean 5 4 3 2 1 85 Priority basis 5 4 3 2 1 86

University timings are suitable for Students

5 4 3 2 1

87 Teachers 5 4 3 2 1 88 Administrators 5 4 3 2 1 89 Non-teaching staff 5 4 3 2 1 90

Affiliation to educational colleges are given According to prescribed rules

5 4 3 2 1

91 Political pressure 5 4 3 2 1 92 Person concerned is influential 5 4 3 2 1 93 The officials of the university desire it. 5 4 3 2 1 94 As and when there is a need of these situations. 5 4 3 2 1 95

Vice chancellor satisfy himself regarding the teachers & officials performance through Regular/accidental visits

5 4 3 2 1

96 Meeting with HoD/Director/Dean 5 4 3 2 1 97

Procedure for any irregularities Call explanation

5 4 3 2 1

98 Punish according to rules and regulation 5 4 3 2 1 99 Flexible in taking disciplinary action. 5 4 3 2 1 100

In a meeting with the authorities of your university Only influential ones consume major time in discussion.

5 4 3 2 1

101 Those who are closer to authorities can speak. 5 4 3 2 1 102 Only the person in chair speaks all the time. 5 4 3 2 1 103

Authorities can be visited. On appointment only.

5 4 3 2 1

104 Any time under open door policy. 5 4 3 2 1 105 On request. 5 4 3 2 1 106

Your university management is Inviting suggestions on important issue.

5 4 3 2 1

107 Listening to ideas of faculty. 5 4 3 2 1

187

APPENDIX D

108 Giving respect and regard. 5 4 3 2 1 109

New discipline/departments are established with consideration of Society need and demand

5 4 3 2 1

110 Infrastructure/Financial availability 5 4 3 2 1 111 Space facility/ availability 5 4 3 2 1 112 Due to political pressure 5 4 3 2 1

188

ITEM MEAN, VARIANCE, CORRECTED ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION AND CRONBACH’S ALPHA FOR THE WHOLE SCALE

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted

Cases

q1 375.82 4762.302 .674 .962 42

q2 375.52 4765.179 .647 .963 42

q3 374.92 4833.815 .369 .963 42

q4 373.85 4967.926 -.463 .964 42

q5 376.32 4817.302 .581 .963 42

q6 375.92 4807.661 .518 .963 42

q7 374.58 4817.276 .435 .963 42

q8 375.40 4814.092 .508 .963 42

q9 375.42 4839.071 .282 .963 42

q10 375.85 4790.592 .580 .963 42

q11 375.10 4844.041 .308 .963 42

q12 375.05 4844.408 .311 .963 42

q13 375.22 4880.076 .154 .963 42

q14 374.88 4962.984 -.320 .964 42

q15 376.18 4804.712 .687 .963 42

q16 375.45 4816.818 .434 .963 42

q17 375.80 4813.138 .581 .963 42

q18 375.48 4892.563 .065 .963 42

q19 375.65 4802.438 .595 .963 42

q20 375.82 4876.866 .145 .963 42

q21 376.18 4804.712 .687 .963 42

q22 375.30 4786.882 .569 .963 42

q23 375.62 4813.676 .548 .963 42

q24 375.65 4802.438 .595 .963 42

q25 375.58 4795.687 .717 .963 42

q26 375.72 4829.692 .382 .963 42

q27 375.48 4892.563 .065 .963 42

q28 374.88 4934.061 -.157 .964 42

189

q29 375.40 4794.554 .575 .963 42

q30 375.80 4793.292 .710 .963 42

q31 375.95 4795.895 .636 .963 42

q32 375.88 4801.138 .606 .963 42

q33 375.58 4795.687 .717 .963 42

q34 375.58 4786.969 .599 .963 42

q35 375.32 4871.456 .209 .963 42

q36 375.78 4795.102 .612 .963 42

q37 375.58 4786.969 .599 .963 42

q38 374.52 4872.256 .172 .963 42

q39 375.85 4803.926 .608 .963 42

q40 375.68 4816.225 .504 .963 42

q41 375.95 4818.151 .566 .963 42

q42 375.40 4820.144 .490 .963 42

q43 375.65 4803.105 .625 .963 42

q44 375.50 4760.410 .722 .962 42

q45 375.85 4803.926 .608 .963 42

q46 374.20 4923.651 -.125 .964 42

q47 375.08 4816.738 .463 .963 42

q48 375.88 4800.112 .612 .963 42

q49 374.52 4872.256 .172 .963 42

q50 375.12 4839.087 .314 .963 42

q51 375.58 4795.020 .581 .963 42

q52 375.40 4888.913 .095 .963 42

q53 374.50 4962.462 -.389 .964 42

q54 375.88 4800.112 .612 .963 42

q55 375.88 4800.112 .612 .963 42

q56 374.28 4969.538 -.403 .964 42

q57 375.30 4812.010 .521 .963 42

q58 375.75 4782.808 .681 .963 42

q59 375.62 4792.035 .625 .963 42

q60 375.72 4821.948 .519 .963 42

q61 375.18 4842.251 .380 .963 42

q62 374.22 4924.179 -.137 .964 42

190

q63 375.62 4772.599 .674 .963 42

q64 375.10 4868.759 .200 .963 42

q65 375.72 4807.538 .600 .963 42

q66 375.62 4801.625 .611 .963 42

q67 374.15 4933.054 -.210 .964 42

q68 375.12 4813.907 .527 .963 42

q69 375.42 4864.661 .260 .963 42

q70 375.78 4811.410 .603 .963 42

q71 375.68 4814.020 .581 .963 42

q72 375.82 4876.866 .145 .963 42

q73 375.65 4802.438 .595 .963 42

q74 375.58 4795.687 .717 .963 42

q75 375.12 4873.189 .179 .963 42

q76 374.62 4881.471 .114 .963 42

q77 375.50 4795.385 .665 .963 42

q78 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42

q79 375.78 4811.410 .603 .963 42

q80 375.60 4765.426 .722 .962 42

q81 374.98 4874.538 .160 .963 42

q82 375.35 4817.208 .471 .963 42

q83 375.92 4796.379 .679 .963 42

q84 376.18 4806.763 .657 .963 42

q85 374.62 4881.471 .114 .963 42

q86 376.15 4818.387 .648 .963 42

q87 375.10 4849.733 .291 .963 42

q88 375.85 4756.336 .760 .962 42

q89 374.62 4881.471 .114 .963 42

q90 375.40 4814.862 .512 .963 42

q91 375.25 4852.859 .271 .963 42

q92 375.78 4765.615 .715 .962 42

q93 374.75 4929.526 -.145 .964 42

q94 375.38 4831.728 .395 .963 42

q95 375.92 4806.687 .558 .963 42

q96 374.90 4852.605 .279 .963 42

191

q97 375.50 4795.385 .665 .963 42

q98 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42

q99 375.58 4795.225 .580 .963 42

q100 376.00 4818.615 .472 .963 42

q101 374.88 4828.984 .410 .963 42

q102 374.90 4852.605 .279 .963 42

q103 375.50 4795.385 .665 .963 42

q104 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42

q105 375.78 4811.410 .603 .963 42

q106 374.75 4957.372 -.313 .964 42

q107 374.88 4829.804 .371 .963 42

q108 375.25 4852.859 .271 .963 42

q109 376.00 4818.615 .472 .963 42

q110 375.42 4814.097 .515 .963 42

q111 375.35 4836.541 .353 .963 42

q112 374.88 4828.984 .410 .963 42

q113 374.75 4957.372 -.313 .964 42

q114 375.18 4815.687 .416 .963 42

q115 374.95 4843.690 .288 .963 42

q116 374.90 4897.272 .034 .964 42

q117 375.35 4836.541 .353 .963 42

q118 374.35 4852.182 .308 .963 42

q119 375.18 4815.687 .416 .963 42

q120 374.82 4838.661 .353 .963 42

q121 374.48 4888.256 .082 .964 42

q122 375.15 4858.695 .292 .963 42

q123 375.45 4774.254 .711 .962 42

q124 374.35 4852.182 .308 .963 42

q125 375.45 4841.638 .347 .963 42

q126 374.95 4929.536 -.163 .964 42

q127 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42

q128 375.58 4795.225 .580 .963 42

q129 374.70 4905.497 -.014 .964 42

q130 375.32 4851.866 .260 .963 42

192

q131 375.40 4846.862 .295 .963 42

q132 375.45 4774.254 .711 .962 42

q133 375.45 4841.638 .347 .963 42

q134 375.40 4846.862 .295 .963 42

q135 374.35 4852.182 .308 .963 42

q136 374.82 4838.661 .353 .963 42

APPENDIX E

193

LIST OF EXPERTS FOR VALIDATION OF SCALE

1. Prof. Dr. Umar Ali Khan, Director, Institute of Education & Research, Gomal

University D.I.Khan KPK.

2. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shah, Institute of Education & Research, Gomal University

D.I.Khan KPK.

3. Prof. Dr. Saeed Anwar, Department of Education, Hazara University.

4. Dr. Rahmatullah Shah, Department of Education, University of Science and

Technology Bannu.

5. Porf. Dr. Ihsan Ali, Vice Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan.

6. Dr. Wajid Ali Shah, Assistant Professor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan.

7. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, Assistant Professor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan.

8. Dr. Sajjad Hayat Akhter, Elementary and Secondary Education, Mardan.

194

APPENDIX F

LIST OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN THE PROVINCE OF

PUNJAB AND KPK PROVINCES

Public Sector Universities chartered by Government of the Punjab S. No University/DAI Name Main

Campus Location

Website Address

1 Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

Multan www.bzu.edu.pk

2 Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi

Rawalpindi www.fjwu.edu.pk

3 Government College University, Faisalabad

Faisalabad www.gcuf.edu.pk

4 Government College University, Lahore

Lahore www.gcu.edu.pk

5 Islamia University, Bahawalpur

Bahawalpur www.iub.edu.pk

6 Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore

Lahore www.kinnaird.edu.pk

7 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore

Lahore www.lcwu.edu.pk

8 University of Education, Lahore

Lahore www.ue.edu.pk

9 University of Gujrat, Gujrat Gujrat www.uog.edu.pk

10 University of Sargodha, Sargodha

Sargodha www.uos.edu.pk

11 University of the Punjab, Lahore

Lahore www.pu.edu.pk

12 University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi

Rawalpindi www.uaar.edu.pk

195

Public Sector Universities chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa S. No

University/DAI Name Main Campus Location

Website Address

1 Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan

Mardan www.awkum.edu.pk

2 Frontier Women University, Peshawar

Peshawar www.fwu.edu.pk

3 Gomal University, D.I. Khan D.I.Khan www.gu.edu.pk/

4 Hazara University, Dodhial, Mansehra

Manshera www.hu.edu.pk/

6 Islamia College University, Peshawar

Peshawar www.icp.edu.pk

7 Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat

Kohat www.kust.edu.pk

8 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir

Dir www.sbbu.edu.pk

9 University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir, Malakand

Malakand www.uom.edu.pk

10 University of Peshawar, Peshawar Peshawar www.upesh.edu.pk

11 University of Science & Technology, Bannu

Bannu www.ustb.edu.pk

12 University of Swat, Swat Swat www.swatuniversity.edu.pk

Private sector Universities chartered by Government of the Punjab S. No


Website Address

1 Beaconhouse National University, Lahore

Lahore www.bnu.edu.pk

3 Hajvery University, Lahore Lahore www.hajvery.edu.pk

4 HITEC University, Taxila Taxila www.hitecuni.edu.pk

5 Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan

Multan www.usp.edu.pk

6 Lahore Leads University, Lahore

Lahore www.leads.edu.pk

7 Minhaj University, Lahore Lahore www.mul.edu.pk

8 The GIFT University, Gujranwala

Gujranwala www.gift.edu.pk

10 The University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad

Faisalabad www.tuf.edu.pk

11 University of Central Punjab, Lahore www.ucp.edu.pk

196

Private Sector Universities chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa S. No


Website Address

1 Abasyn University, Peshawar Peshawar www.abasyn.edu.pk

2 CECOS University of Information Technology and Emerging Sciences, Peshawar

Peshawar www.cecos.edu.pk

3 City University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar

Peshawar www.cityuniversity.edu.pk

4 Gandhara University, Peshawar Peshawar www.gandhara.edu.pk

5 Iqra National University, Peshawar

Peshawar www.iqrapsh.edu.pk

6 Northern University, Nowshera Nowshera www.northern.edu.pk

7 Preston University, Kohat Kohat www.preston.edu.pk

8 Qurtaba University of Science and Information Technology, D.I. Khan

D.I.Khan www.qurtuba.edu.pk

9 Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar

Peshawar www.suit.edu.pk

Lahore 12 University of Lahore, Lahore Lahore www.uol.edu.pk 13 University of Management &

Technology, Lahore Lahore www.umt.edu.pk

14 University of South Asia, Lahore

Lahore www.usa.edu.pk

15 University of Wah, Wah Wah www.uw.edu.pk

a comparative study of administrative practices of …

Documents