brewing service quality in higher education
DESCRIPTION
Service QualityTRANSCRIPT
-
Brewing service quality in highereducation
Characteristics of ingredients that makeup the recipe
Roland K. YeoKing Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Purpose The paper seeks to explore the influences of service quality in higher education and theperceptions associated with the implementation of a Singapore tertiary institution. It draws on theunderpinnings of SERVQUAL, and discusses the dichotomy and interrelation between customerperception and expectation.
Design/methodology/approach Qualitative methodology was employed and data were collectedby means of structured in-depth interviewing with both internal (18 academics and ten currentstudents) and external samples (ten graduates and five industry representatives). Content analysiswas utilized to examine three key aspects of service standards: customer orientation, coursedesign/delivery, and support services.
Findings The way students are perceived, whether as customers or products, will have aninfluence on the type of learning dynamics that develop both within and outside the classroom. Servicequality, therefore, needs to be evaluated based on an integrated experience which occurs in a networkof learning spaces created to promote dialogue, inquiry and reflection.
Practical implications Management of student expectations is fundamental to ensuringappropriate service quality in higher education. Closer working relationship with industry partnersshould be encouraged to serve as an audit on curricula relevance. Long-term quality of supportservices can be achieved by short-term measures such as training staff to be student-centered ratherthan task-driven.
Originality/value This paper is based on an actual framework developed by the engineeringschool as part of their strategic plan in achieving excellence in both quality of courses and learningexperiences.
Keywords Higher education, SERVQUAL, Service quality assurance, Singapore
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking (Henry Ford, 1863-1947).
Quality improvement is no longer an organizational buzzword that resides in thepractices of quality control circles. It goes beyond examining products and processes asinfluencing final outcomes that would contribute towards the competitive advantage
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
The author thanks the Editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Theauthor acknowledges the help of Andy Kwek in the initial stage of data collection andappreciates King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support given in thepreparation of this paper.
QAE16,3
266
Received August 2007Revised February 2008Accepted March 2008
Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 16 No. 3, 2008pp. 266-286q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0968-4883DOI 10.1108/09684880810886277
-
of organizations. Increasingly, quality has become a subjective term that is not solelydetermined by tangible satisfaction; it is concerned with customers expectations andperceptions (Harvey and Green, 1993; Lawson, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). In fact,what has been perceived to be of greater importance is service quality (Brysland andCurry, 2001; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). As American industrialist, Henry Ford, wouldargue, quality can only be maintained through a consistent and conscientious effort;hence the need for a continuous pursuit of excellence.
The rapid competition in the service industry has led many organizations to focuson their internal and external customers as there are sometimes no actual productsinvolved (Lewis and Smith, 1994). As such, higher education would be considered apart of service industry since the primary focus of tertiary institutions is to providequality learning experiences to students. With the proliferation of study optionsavailable to students internationally including the use of virtual technology to delivercourses, it is no wonder tertiary institutions worldwide are under pressure to provideunique learning experiences to students so as to capture the market share (Gapp andFisher, 2006; ONeill and Palmer, 2004). Hence, service quality becomes the means formany institutions to retain student numbers and to capture the educational market.
The most common understanding of service quality is its association withteacher-student participation in relation to the professionalism-intimacy scale asaffecting immediate and lifelong learning. However, service quality is far morecomplex; it is concerned with the physical, institutional and psychological aspects ofhigher education. For instance, Li and Kaye (1998) argue that service quality deals withthe environment, corporate image and interaction among people. They distinguishbetween process and output quality, where the former is judged by customers duringthe service and the latter, after the service. Emphasis on continuous improvement iscrucial to the sustainability of service quality. As defined, continuous improvement is asystematic way of evaluating process and outcome, learning from mistakes as well asexceeding internal and external expectations (Henderson-Smart et al., 2006). It alsorequires a constant negotiation of deep-rooted values as a result of the changing needsand expectations of customers (Koslowski, 2006).
The Singapore educational sceneEducationally, Singapore is driven by a significant level of competition withinstitutions developing specialist and interdisciplinary courses to cater to a widevariety of students to create a unique learning experience. Increasingly, institutionalmanagement and administration have become more systematized and efficient. Forinstance, in their quest for excellence, many institutions have adopted the benchmarksystems such as the ISO 9000 (a type of standards for quality management systemsand maintained by the International Organization for Standardization) and SingaporeQuality Award (SQA) two uppermost desirable service quality achievementscommonly striven for by organizations in the commercial sector. The SQA wasestablished in 1994 to help Singapore organizations attain world-class standards ofbusiness excellence. The business excellence model underpinning the SQA is based onuniversally accepted standards that are found in the US Malcolm Baldrige NationalQuality Award, the European Quality Award and the Australian Business ExcellenceAward (Quazi and Padibjo, 1998). A fundamental emphasis of ISO 9000 and SQA isbeing customer focused.
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
267
-
Singapore offers a unique political landscape, setting herself apart from othercountries. Further, Singapores educational system is governed by strict guidelines instriving towards being the education hub of Asia and remaining competitive in globalsettings. In this study, we will draw on the experience of a tertiary institution inSingapore, whose pursuit in service quality has been based on the guidelines of ISO 9000and SQA. At the point of research, the institution had already attained ISO 9000certification and was working towards achieving SQA. As a prerequisite to SQA,organizations must have attained the Singapore Quality Class and this intermediateaward was achieved by the institution in 1999. In working towards SQA, the institutionsaim is to diversify the service quality development strategies within each academic schoolyet centrally monitor their outcomes periodically by referring to the SQA guidelines.
The case institution is one such example of how every facet of education has beenclosely evaluated to bring about changes that would have an impact on lifelonglearning. Hence, the objective is to attract the best local and international students tothis institution. While students generally have a choice of tertiary institutions to applyto both locally and internationally, they tend to be influenced by the uniqueness ofcourses and the types of learning experiences offered by each institution. For thisresearch, we will focus on the engineering school as it is the largest academic unit andoffers a strategic service quality plan leading to a number of initiatives. Hence, thepurpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of service quality offered by theschool and examine if these perceptions are aligned to its strategic objectives. Inparticular, we raise a pertinent question which serves as the research problem (RP):
RP1. What are the factors that influence service quality in higher education andhow do they contribute to the overall performance of a higher learninginstitution?
An overview of the literatureEducation, a type of serviceDifferentiation between products and services can be evaluated in terms of the level oftangibility, such that services are characterized by behavioral attributes including acts,deeds, performances or efforts (Rossi et al., 1999) and activities or processes (Gronoos,2001; Smith et al., 2007). According to Parasuraman et al. (1988), characteristicsassociated with services include intangibility, perishability, inseparability ofproduction and consumption, and heterogeneity. In contrast to products, services areusually short-lived as they are consumed as long as the activity or process lasts. Hence,service processes are perishable and cannot be stored in the way physical products can.Further, services are consumed at the same time as they are produced without anyclear transfer of ownership. As such, the customer plays an integral part in thetransaction of most services. For instance, each customers expectation of servicequality is different and this has led to a lack of standardization as it varies fromsituation to situation (Boulding et al., 1993; Douglas et al., 2006).
In this context, educational processes in the form of lesson delivery, advising,counselling and project supervision can be regarded as a type of service provided tostudents who assume the role of customers. The service quality of each learningexperience, particularly in higher education, is unique as it is largely determined by theexpectation of the student, also the individual customer. This expectation variesbetween experiences derived from intellectual engagement and outcomes
QAE16,3
268
-
of examination. We first address this concern by discussing the notion of customersin higher education.
Students as customersRinehart (1993) offers two distinct views of students as customers; for instance, thosewho regard students as primary customers associate them as being involved in theinput and output of the learning process. However, those who regard studentspotential employers as primary customers argue that it is important to consider theeconomic reality of the situation where lesson contents should be tailored to employersneeds. Students, in both contexts, have been regarded as internal customers with thesecond group regarding future employers as external customers. Jaraiedi and Ritz(1994) further argue that students have no conception of what they need to learn; assuch, education is preparing them for the long-term benefits of the future. It is with thislong-term view that potential employers are regarded as primary customers whilestudents, secondary customers.
In another view, students have been categorized as the primary beneficiaries ofeducation and hence should be treated as customers. This perspective stems from theunderstanding that educational institutions are highly competitive on the market withstrategies being aggressively developed to satisfy student needs in order to attract asustainable market share (Joseph and Joseph, 1998). Secondary beneficiaries, in thiscontext, would include parents, the marketplace and society at large. The interplaybetween the two beneficiary types is, to a large extent, time and event specific. Forinstance, within a classroom context, students are customers to teachers; however,when students are working on an assignment for teachers, the latter becomes thecustomer (Johnson and Golomskiis, 1999; Koslowski, 2006).
Yet, there is another view of students being associated with customers and products.McCollough and Gremler (1999) argue that service guarantee should be fundamentalconsideration in any educational institution and this includes both customer andproduct satisfaction. The implication is that if the external customer (employer) is notsatisfied with the quality, the product (student) may be returned to the manufacturer(institution) for further inspection (Naumann and Giel, 1995). As an example, DurhamCollege in Ontario, Canada, offers a mutual-benefit agreement between employers andstudents, an initiative launched in 1994. The college provides a satisfaction guarantee toemployers of their alumni in positions related to their major academic disciplines. If agraduate of the college is not performing to the level as expected by the employer, theagreement allows this alumnus to be returned to the institution for further trainingwith no additional cost incurred by the sender. As a parallel to industry standards, theultimate goal of higher education is the production of students who are equipped withboth the intellectual and practical qualities that will contribute to optimal jobperformance (Worthen and Sanders, 1973). In this context, we develop out RQ1 insupport of the RP:
RQ1. Why is customer focus an important factor of service quality in highereducation?
Service quality measurementMuch of the research of the measurement of service quality within educational settingshas been influenced by the seminal work of Zeithaml et al. (1990) based on the
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
269
-
SERVQUAL model from which a 22-item instrument for measuring customerexpectations and perceptions has been developed along with five-quality dimensions:tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. This methodologyoperates by means of identifying expectations and perceptions with the aim ofclosing the gap between the two. These can be demonstrated in the following fivedimensions in relation to educational settings.
Responsiveness. Institutions should be responsive to the shifting needs of theircustomers (students) in providing courses and training programmes that are relevantin subject matter and teaching approaches. The learning process is expected to beacademically rigorous yet flexible in areas pertaining to course selection andassessment. With the advent of technology, course design and delivery are expected tobe progressive, wherein the innovative and spontaneous construction of knowledgeshould be the by products (and process) of learning.
Empathy. It is sometimes a challenge for institutions to exceed customerexpectations and demands. For instance, a shortage of teaching staff and the need foroptimal enrolments have seen an increase in class sizes, stretching the teacher-studentratio. This has implication on the level of individual attention and empathy given toeach student inside and outside class. Further, when teachers are expected to assumemultiple roles including curriculum writing, stand-up teaching, mentoring, projectsupervising and administrative responsibilities, the level of service quality maybecome less standardized and desirable over time.
Tangibility. The challenge for institutions is to ensure that service specificationssuch as course content, delivery and application meet the expectations of theircustomers consistently. This is a precarious concern as performance associated withthese specifications is highly context-driven based on a variety of factors, sometimesbeyond the control of the actors involved. Learning experience and orientation at largecannot entirely be evaluated by grades alone; service performance should go beyondtangible forms. In addition, learning objectives need not necessarily lead to outcomesthat are strictly quantifiable. As some would argue, the relevance of any course canonly be evaluated years later when knowledge and skills acquired by students areusefully applied in professional contexts.
Taking into consideration the first three dimensions of SERVQUAL, we developour RQ2:
RQ2. How does course design and delivery contribute to service quality in highereducation?
Reliability. Discrepancy between promise and delivery is largely the result of inaccuratecommunication from advertisements, roadshows and exhibitions. Some institutionstend to oversell their services, leading to grand promises that misrepresent their actualpotential and academic readiness. For instance, one of the most common strategies isthe promotion of facilities and support services, ranging from hardware to softwareavailability. Others boast of their state-of-the-art technology used in laboratories,computer systems and other learning facilities. On the software front, commonconcerns include the number of student clubs, activities, counseling and medicalfacilities, and entertainment outlets.
Assurance. Judgment of high- or low-service quality largely depends on how thecustomers perceive the actual performance based on their expectation. The level of
QAE16,3
270
-
tolerance in service standards differs across all areas; for instance, the more importantthe area, the smaller the boundary of tolerance. Customers willingness to modifyexpectation of service standards can be appropriately managed through theavailability of choices. These should diversify the expectation levels of customers ina way that the shortcomings of one service can be offset by the strengths of another.Hence, from a holistic perspective of education, support services and facilities shouldplay an equal, if not an even more important role, in contributing to the overall ofservice quality in higher education (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
In summary, the final two dimensions of SERVQUAL have led us to developour RQ3:
RQ3. What support services are required to enhance service quality in highereducation?
A conceptual frameworkWe refer to a service quality framework developed by the engineering school of thecase institution to serve as a prior theory that guided this exploratory research. Figure 1is an integrated version of SERVQUAL based on three variables as expressed inthe RQs.
On customer focus, the school has classified their customers into three distinct yetinterrelated groups: employers of its graduates, current students and their parents.Performance in this strategic objective is evaluated by an annual employersatisfaction survey and student satisfaction survey. In addition, focus groupdiscussions involving employers and parents constitute another feedback mechanismto ascertain the level of customer orientation.
On course design and delivery, performance is largely determined by the studentsatisfaction survey and graduate employment survey. Feedback gathered from theformer survey provides a sounding board for the school to fine-tune its curricula andcourse delivery, while the latter survey provides a double-feedback channel throughwhich more broad-based and industry-relevant perspectives are considered. Forinstance, it is believed that graduates having been employed should be in a betterposition to provide constructive comments on the quality of course, content comparedwith current students.
Figure 1.A service quality
framework for highereducation
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
271
-
On support services, satisfaction is evaluated by the number of compliments andcomplaints received. Students are encouraged to submit comments, suggestions orcomplaints via online channels to help the school improve their support service further.Quality expectations include the availability of facilities such as computer andtechnical laboratories, printing and internet facilities, as well as administrative andtechnical support from staff.
The relationship between learning and teaching is not necessarily straightforward asmuch depends on the approach which students adopt in their learning process. In thiscontext, a students experience involves much more than simply teaching and learning.As a consequence, none of the available instruments would be able to completelyaccount for service quality in higher education (ONeill and Palmer, 2004). Hence,adapting SERVQUAL to provide a qualitative dimension to the evaluation of servicequality in higher education would be appropriate (Brysland and Curry, 2001; Cuthbert,1996; Entwistle and Tait, 1990). The advantage of this model over others is that itencompasses the whole-person experience rather than the experience of teaching. TheSERVQUAL approach is one that integrates both the dimensions of perception andexpectation, eliminating student bias caused by recent assessment experiences asaffecting their rating decisions. Asking students to consider their expectations as well asexperiences provides an opportunity for reflection based on personal desires andcontextual considerations. This way, rating and feedback provided by students wouldbe more objective and less erratic.
We draw on Douglas et al.s (2006) notion of implicit and explicit service to relate thedifferent dimensions of SERVQUAL to service quality in higher education. Implicitservice is akin to a service that affects people psychologically through cognitive andbehavioral reactions. Examples include friendliness, approachability, care and concern.On the other hand, explicit service is one that connects to people at the sensual level.Instructors knowledge, teaching ability and availability in addition to course contentand workload are representative of explicit services.
MethodologyWe employed an exploratory orientation in our research by means of structuredinterviewing as the rich qualitative data gathered would be useful in providing insightsinto the issues being investigated (Table I) (Lee, 1999). We adopted a purposive samplingframe for all four stages of our research as our aim was to select respondents who wereable to provide views of their perceived and lived-in experience of the quality movementencountered at the institution (Cohen and Manion, 1994). We divided our interviewsbetween internal and external samples, and these involved in the former are18 academics and ten current students across all levels of courses, and the lattercomprised ten recent graduates who had experienced the transition between the qualitymovement within the institution and five industry human resource (HR)representatives who had experience recruiting their graduates. According toWellington (2000), the total number of subjects considered for this study is adequateas the overall sample acted as key informants to this qualitative research, allowingin-depth issues and views to form the core of theory-building. The interview questionswere piloted at each stage with a smaller group of sample to minimize ambiguity andsensitive issues. The interviews each lasted between 30 and 60 minutes averagely for theoverall sample.
QAE16,3
272
-
Sam
ple
A(a
cad
emic
s)S
amp
les
Ban
dC
(cu
rren
tst
ud
ents
and
gra
du
ates
)S
amp
leD
(em
plo
yer
s)
RQ
1:w
hy
iscu
stom
erfo
cus
an
impo
rtant
fact
orof
serv
ice
qualit
yin
hig
her
educa
tion
?(A
1).
Do
you
con
sid
erou
rst
ud
ents
ascu
stom
ers
orp
rod
uct
s?(B
1).
Did
/do
you
see
you
rsel
fas
acu
stom
erin
the
Sch
ool?
(C1)
.D
oy
ouse
ey
ours
elf
asan
(ex
tern
al)
cust
omer
toth
ein
stit
uti
on?
(A2)
.Do
you
thin
kth
atin
stru
ctor
s/st
aff
gen
eral
lyca
reab
out
the
wel
lbei
ng
ofst
ud
ents
?(A
3).
Do
you
thin
kth
ere
isg
ood
rap
por
tb
etw
een
inst
ruct
ors/
staf
fan
dst
ud
ents
?(A
4).
Do
you
thin
kth
atin
stru
ctor
s/st
aff
hav
ed
one
enou
gh
tom
eet
orex
ceed
our
cust
omer
s(s
tud
ents
)ex
pec
tati
ons?
(B2)
.W
hat
exp
ecta
tion
sd
id/d
oy
ouh
ave
ofy
our
inst
ruct
ors/
staf
fin
term
sof
thei
rre
lati
ons
wit
hy
ou?
(B3)
.W
hat
rig
hts
do
you
thin
kst
ud
ents
hav
e?(B
4).
Wh
atri
gh
tsd
oy
outh
ink
inst
ruct
ors/
staf
fh
ave?
(C2)
.As
anem
plo
yer
,wh
atex
pec
tati
ons
do
you
hav
eof
the
loca
lte
rtia
ryin
stit
uti
ons
that
are
pro
du
cin
gy
our
futu
reem
plo
yee
s?(C
3).
Wh
eny
ouin
terv
iew
edg
rad
uat
esof
this
inst
itu
tion
,d
idy
oug
etth
eid
eath
atth
eyw
ere
sati
sfied
wit
hth
eir
lear
nin
gex
per
ien
ce?
RQ
2:how
doe
squalit
yco
urs
edes
ign
and
del
iver
yco
ntr
ibute
tose
rvic
equalit
yin
hig
her
educa
tion
?(A
5).D
oy
outh
ink
that
syst
ems
are
inp
lace
inen
suri
ng
that
the
cou
rse
del
iver
yis
effe
ctiv
e?(A
6).
How
do
you
ensu
reth
atth
eco
urs
esar
ein
du
stry
rele
van
t?(A
7).
Are
the
inst
ruct
ors
gen
eral
lyco
mp
eten
tin
thei
rsu
bje
ctar
eas?
(A8)
.Wh
atd
oy
outh
ink
are
som
eof
the
chal
len
ges
that
inst
ruct
ors
face
intr
yin
gto
des
ign
aq
ual
ity
cou
rse?
(B5)
.W
hat
do
you
thin
kof
the
cou
rses
offe
red
by
the
Sch
ool?
(B6)
.W
hat
did
/do
you
lik
eab
out
the
cou
rses
?(B
7).
Wh
atd
idn
t/d
ont
you
lik
eab
out
the
cou
rses
?(B
8).
Wh
atd
oy
ouli
ke
tose
ech
ang
edin
the
cou
rses
?
(C4)
.D
oy
outh
ink
gra
du
ates
ofth
ein
stit
uti
onh
ave
dem
onst
rate
dth
ek
now
led
ge
and
skil
lsth
atar
ere
lev
ant
toth
ein
du
stry
?(C
5).W
hat
wou
ldy
ouli
ke
tose
eta
ug
ht
inth
eco
urs
es?
(C6)
.H
owd
oy
outh
ink
cou
rses
can
be
mad
em
ore
rele
van
tto
the
ind
ust
ry?
RQ
3:w
hat
supp
ort
serv
ices
are
requir
edto
enhance
serv
ice
qualit
yin
hig
her
educa
tion
?(A
9).A
reth
ere
way
sto
incr
ease
the
effe
ctiv
enes
sof
the
sup
por
tse
rvic
esin
the
Sch
ool?
(B9)
.W
hic
hfa
cili
ties
orse
rvic
esd
id/d
oy
oum
ost
freq
uen
tly
use
?(C
7).H
owim
por
tan
td
oy
outh
ink
sup
por
tse
rvic
esar
eto
ate
rtia
ryin
stit
uti
on?
(A10
).D
oy
our
thin
kth
atth
ete
chn
ical
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
staf
far
eg
ener
ally
com
mit
ted
top
rov
idin
gac
cep
tab
lese
rvic
esth
atw
ill
mee
tth
ecu
stom
ers
(stu
den
ts)
nee
ds/
exp
ecta
tion
s?(A
11).
Wh
atd
oy
outh
ink
are
the
shor
tcom
ing
sin
the
curr
ent
serv
ice
sup
por
tin
the
Sch
ool?
(A12
).D
oy
outh
ink
that
stu
den
tsg
ener
ally
hav
eea
syac
cess
toth
era
ng
eof
serv
ices
avai
lab
lew
ith
inth
eS
choo
l?
(B10
).D
oy
outh
ink
the
Sch
oolp
rov
ides
aw
ide
ran
ge
ofse
rvic
esof
stu
den
ts?
(B11
).W
hat
was
/is
the
gen
eral
imp
ress
ion
ofth
esu
pp
ort
serv
ices
pro
vid
edb
yth
eS
choo
l?(B
12).
How
do
you
thin
kth
esu
pp
ort
serv
ices
can
be
imp
rov
ed?
(C8)
.B
ased
ony
our
curr
ent
un
der
stan
din
g,
do
you
thin
kth
ere
are
suffi
cien
tsu
pp
ort
serv
ices
for
the
stu
den
tsp
rov
ided
by
the
inst
itu
tion
?(C
9).H
owd
oy
outh
ink
sup
por
tse
rvic
esca
nen
han
cea
stu
den
ts
lear
nin
gex
per
ien
ce?
Note:
Sta
ff
refe
rsto
non
-tea
chin
gp
erso
nn
el
Table I.Development of interview
protocol based on priortheory
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
273
-
The data were analyzed using a manual approach through the technique of thematiccategorization (Holliday, 2002). Thematic headings were developed based on the RPand questions, and with close reference to the literature. This helped us to ensureconstruct validity of the data as the views were gathered in strict accordance to theinterview protocol. External validity was achieved through the use of a pilot study toensure clarity and consistency of the questions asked (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970). Theraw data were further coded at different levels to allow underlying themes and patternsto emerge. Word recurrence, repeat phrases, convergence of anecdotes and examples inaddition to general (dis)agreements were closely observed in the treatment of the data.The RQs, in particular, and the probes used were useful in helping us formulatethematic categories to reduce the data further in meaningful ways. Reliability wasestablished by matching the analyzed data to the RP, questions and probes todetermine the amount of variation (Llusar and Zornoza, 2000).
Discussion and implicationsThe following are key themes that have emerged from the qualitative data presented aspart of theory elaboration and implications for practice.
Level of responsiveness the implicit serviceIn response to RQ1, findings indicate different interpretations of customers. Forinstance, instructors would view their students as internal customers if a marketingperspective was adopted where satisfied students would increase the profile andpopularity of the institution. In contrast, the view of products would be adopted ifstudents were considered as outcomes of the educational system to be prepared for theindustry and society. Despite general agreement that industry partners would beregarded external customers for whom current students would be produced as futureemployees, few would argue that it is not one of their immediate concerns, as reinforcedby an industry representative:
[. . .] I hardly feel that we have been regarded as customers of sorts [. . .] I believe many of our[local tertiary] institutions are churning out graduates based on industry trends rather thanwhat we (employers) really want [. . .] in terms of creativity, resilience and a willingness tochange [. . .] (HR manager).
Instructors who treat students based on contextual considerations tend to providestudents with mixed feelings. As reflected by both current students and graduates, thelevel of empathy expected of instructors becomes ambiguous. For instance, instructorswho treat students as customers within the confines of the classroom tend to be morestudent-centred than those who treat students as products. However, their observationfurther suggests that there is a great deal of compartmentalization of emotionalengagement in the student-instructor relationship, affecting reciprocal trust. Evident inthe stories told, the lack of role consistency of instructors has affected the mentalmodels of students:
[. . .] I once bumped into a Math lecturer outside class and at that time I had some urgentquestions to ask him. Thinking he is a nice lecturer in class, I expected a warm response.Instead, he brushed me off giving an excuse. I was disappointed of course. I guess I felt like aproduct then. After that time, I didnt dare to even ask him questions in class (graduate).
QAE16,3
274
-
The psychological dimension of learning is a type of implicit service that has an impacton service quality as a variety of motives and interests between instructors andstudents are involved (Harris, 1994; Thakkar et al., 2006). It is the mental conditioningof instructors that often determines their friendliness and approachability includingtheir availability for private consultations regardless of whether they view students asproducts or customers (Douglas et al., 2006). A number of interviewees testified to thisperspective:
[. . .] Not every lecturer is used to treating students as customers. It is kind of degrading as wemust exercise our authority on occasions. I dont think if a lecturer regards his students asproducts, he is less effective than those who dont (academic).
[. . .] Some of our [Engineering] lecturers may not have good social skills but they are helpfulin their own way. They may be mechanical in their approach; they can still teach and guide[us] (current student).
Findings further suggest that emphasis should be given to a process-oriented approachby empowering students with specific skills, knowledge and mental models, which willenable them to contribute usefully and productively to the knowledge society. Thefocus should be on the whole-person development of learners so that such expectationsas intellectual, psychological, emotional and social needs will contribute to the overalleducational experience.
As a consequence, the dichotomy between customers and products is largelycontext-driven and each perspective may influence service quality differently (Perry,1991; Rinehart, 1993). However, this study has shown that the challenge is forinstructors to create an orientation whether customer or product-driven that isconsistent and not demonstrated at the expense of psychological vulnerability,causing a lack of responsiveness. It is with this observation that we develop our P1with reference to Athiyaman (1997), Cuthbert (1996), Douglas et al. (2006), Hill (1995),Joseph and Joseph (1998) and Owlia and Aspinwall (1998), as an extension toSERVQUAL:
P1. Views of students as customers or products are context-driven and theinterplay between the two influences the way in which service quality inhigher education will be perceived, evaluated and upheld. Beingprocess-oriented enhances psychological responsiveness betweeninstructors and students.
Level of empathy the implicit serviceThe type of perception given to students determines the affective relationship betweeninstructors and learners. In relation to RQ1, general sentiments reflect that there is agreater need for instructors to adopt a customer-orientation by demonstrating a humandimension to their interaction with students. This is to align general practices to theinstitutions mission statement which emphasizes the need to be caring. The underlyingmessage for all instructors is to view their network of association as an organism wheresatisfaction is derived from the learners continued growth and renewal (Argyris, 1982)rather than a machine where the primary preoccupation is to repair faulty parts (Taylor,1911). According to the internal samples, the empathetic orientation of instructors hasyielded better teaching evaluation results rated by students. A recurring sentiment fromthe current students suggests that:
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
275
-
[. . .] although lecturers are strict with deadlines and expect a lot from us, they are consideratein giving assignments and projects across the semester [. . .] with some lecturers even willingto adjust deadlines to help us manage our workload.
Such an implicit service requires a fundamental willingness of all instructors to modifytheir attitudes, beliefs and values (Koslowski, 2006). Although there is a general ethosof human-centeredness, instructors sometimes feel that this is achieved somewhatmechanically, as reflected in some strong sentiments:
[. . .] Not all lecturers are ready for change (in terms of attitude) but the teaching evaluationconducted every semester is largely tied into our performance appraisal. As such, sometimesit goes against our principles of being extra nice to students. Students being students [. . .]they will bargain for anything that is to their advantage. We can loosen up but I believe mostof us have our own integrity and will not let students climb over us unnecessarily (academic).
Given the above scenario, we believe that empathy in higher education stems from thepremise that students are delicate and valuable entities, and should be sensitively dealtwith. As such, even the simple act of listening would be perceived as a type of implicitservice by them (Hill, 1995; Douglas et al., 2006). Following this perspective, we developour P2:
P2. Intent and empathy of instructors cannot be overemphasized as these areattributes that can transform mental models of students and recreate theclassroom into an extended learning space where the interaction dynamicswill engage the whole person rather than a portion, the mind. Maintainingintegrity and reasonableness is the balancing act.
Our external samples provided another dimension to empathy by highlighting the levelof mentorship and coaching given to students. Particularly, majority of the graduateswho experienced the quality transition reflected that:
[. . .] there was closer supervision in our project work including laboratory activities andfieldwork [. . .] there was a more consistent follow-through with the same instructors teachingthe same courses that were offered at different levels. This helped us with projectexpectations greatly.
This phenomenon was also observed by several HR managers:
In our recent recruitment exercises, we have noticed that graduates of [this institution] tend toremember their lecturers more. The ratio between lecturers and students, especially in theirfinal project supervision seems to have reduced. Graduates who were closer to theirsupervisors tend to be happier with their learning process (HR senior manager).
Still, interpretation of service quality should be consolidated rather than distributed inorder to achieve a baseline for continued evaluation. This assumption is enmeshed inSERVQUAL that an appropriate interpretation begins with the narrowing of thedisparity between expectation and perception. Our internal and external samples haveindicated some positive aspects of service quality in higher education; however, suchperceptions should be evaluated continuously to avoid a situation of familiaritysaturation where continuous improvement might be hampered (Ford et al., 1999; Owliaand Aspinwall, 1998; Smith et al., 2007). Hence, to allow the role of interpretation tomanoeuvre within reasonable boundaries, we develop our P3:
QAE16,3
276
-
P3. Clarification of expectations to meeting students needs is fundamental to theunderstanding of service quality in higher education. Communication ofjudiciously-defined expectation outcomes is vital to the facilitation ofconditions for the achievement of desired service standards. Progressiveevaluation is necessary for continuous improvement.
Level of empathy and responsiveness the explicit serviceIn relation to RQ2 on course content and delivery, findings reveal that instructorsreadiness to provide answers to students queries is to some extent determined by thepotential fear of students unfavorable rating of their teaching effectiveness. As reflectedin a dominant viewpoint from the academics, sometimes lecturers tell students exactlywhat they want for the assignments, tests or exams. If this is the case, we are not reallymolding thinking individuals. This has led us to conclude that an over-reliance onexternal measures (student ratings) to bring about the intrinsic value of teachingmay not be completely feasible in todays changing educational contexts wherespontaneity and innovativeness count towards creating an essential learning experiencefor tertiary students (Harvey and Green, 1993; ONeill and Palmer, 2004). As aconsequence, the explicit service of knowledge transfer has become a mechanical deviceto shield instructors from being downplayed by the ratings. This situation has animpact on the delivery power of instructors where content is not used appropriately toengage in us but to feed us, as commented by a graduate. Although current studentsfelt that there is a fundamental desire for most instructors to conduct a high-impactlesson . . . through worksheets and activities . . . not all lessons are stimulating. Reasonscited include the lack of intellectual engagement where content is used to fill the gapsrather than promote debate. On that basis, knowledge dissemination as a feature ofexplicit service cannot be said to have contributed to the service quality of the school.
According to Gapp and Fisher (2006), explicit utility of knowledge should beevaluated on a continuum with one end emphasizing student retention and another endengaging students in knowledge application. Otherwise, it is quite likely that whenthey (graduates) join the workforce, they will be concerned with giving the rightanswers, preventing them from taking risk and being creative, as commented by anHR director. If spoon-feeding was used as a means of empathy and responsivenessin disguise, then this situation would have violated the schools aim of building aneducational system that prepares students effectively to meet employers expectation,as recounted by an academic. Also suggested is the need for teaching effectiveness tobe evaluated on a systems perspective which takes into consideration the public andprivate teaching spaces of instructors. To support this view, we develop our P4:
P4. Systems related to the facilitation of effective course delivery are necessarymediating agents that support teachers quest for continued professionalimprovement and development. However, these should not be established forthe purpose of increasing organizational profile nor as criteria used to assessteaching competence in performance appraisals. Utility of knowledge shouldlead to empowerment.
Level of tangibility the explicit serviceFurther insights into RQ2 can be gained from the schools quest for continuedgrowth and renewal where provisions have been made to support instructors in their
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
277
-
teaching competence. According to the academics, the teaching and learning effectivecircles created as part of the schools ethos in promoting good teaching practice havehelped instructors greatly in content development and lesson delivery. This initiativebrought together instructors as project teams to be involved in reflective thinking andaction taking to bring about a wider dimension of teaching and learning, as supportedby the works of Emiliani (2006), Holmes (1993), Muller and Funnel (1993), Ramsden(1979, 1991), and Trigwell and Prosser (1991). According to Carlzon (1987), the essenceof teaching effectiveness lies at the heart of individual interaction within a specificcontext, which he calls the moment of truth where enlightenment is revealed in thehuman dynamism of meta-cognition. Here, the tangibility of human-centred activitygoes beyond knowledge; it is the practicality of complex content that will motivatelearners into a doing mode to explore new perspectives, even with the possibility offailing (Emiliani, 2006). This doing-the-learning experience will bring toconceptualization a higher form of operationalization in terms of concrete actionswhich will benefit students when they apply them in actual work contexts. Thisscenario is what the industry representatives would call going beyond the text . . . andjumping into the context.
As agreed by both current and past students, tangibility is not merely satisfiedthrough content or lesson objectives; it is the actionable knowledge gained that willcarry us a long way (current student) and provide tools to apply in times of need(graduate). In facilitating such meta-knowledge, the general perception is that the schoolis moving along the right direction especially with the regular review of curriculumbased on industry needs and the comprehensive development of assessmentframework, as commented by several academics. One of the features of the Schoolscurriculum is a problem-based learning approach where students participate in bothself-directed and team learning. Although faced with some resistance by bothinstructors and students initially, the experience has proven to be fairly worthwhile, asreflected in the following sentiments:
The strong mandate in a new teaching approach (problem-based learning) has caused us torethink the course content. This has provided us with a lot of scope to teach. Must say theinitial work was very onerous (academic).
The required teamwork and project-based assessments have helped us to expose ourinteraction and expand our learning (current student).
According to Narasimhan (1997), learners are generally concerned about theapplicability of knowledge learnt in class to the external world. In this context,instructors will need to keep current knowledge on industry trends and technologicaldevelopments to provide a balance between theory and practice in the course content.According to a framework developed by Owlia and Aspinwall (1998), such factors asrelevance of curriculum to the future jobs of students, primary knowledge skills, use ofcomputer, communication skills, team working and flexible utilization of knowledgecollectively contribute to the overall service quality of higher education. It is with thisreference that we develop our P5:
P5. Students learning experience can be greatly enhanced by acquiringknowledge and skills that have lifelong impact. This requires curriculathat are designed to incorporate a balance between theoretical and practical
QAE16,3
278
-
perspectives with an applied emphasis on industrial relevance. Tangibility isturning knowledge into appropriate action.
In ensuring that instructors are competent in facilitating industry-relevant knowledgetransfer, the school has invested in staff development by promoting applied research,training and industry attachment. In expanding the competency base of theirinstructors, a number of research units have been established to support contentspecializations and industry linkups. This initiative has, to a number of academics,worked well for the overall quality of the courses but there are also reservations. Forinstance, there could be a closer integration between these research units with contentdevelopment where research and teaching could be less divided, as reflected by twoacademics. From the students perspective, the opportunity to further research inspecialized areas is a form of tangibility extended from course content:
I remember learning more of specific concepts when I undertook my final year project at therobotics [research] unit. There, I learnt with people of the same interest and that actuallydeveloped my interest in the robotics technology (graduate).
I see my current courses as a platform for more interesting projects to come in my final yearwhen I will get to do real projects (current student).
In the above examples, applied research is an extension of tangible knowledge that canbe demonstrated in testable and practical forms. In order for this meta-tangibility to takebetter shape, instructors need to have a sense of the latest developments and be equippedwith the essential skills to guide students and further their knowledge in specializedareas. Otherwise, the fear of insecurity and helplessness will ultimately set in whenstudents can do the job (research) better than us, as expressed by an academic. Hence,the linking mechanism between instructors competence and the quality of learningexperience is a readiness to unlearn and relearn (Douglas et al., 2006; Owlia andAspinwall, 1998). It is with this perspective that we develop our P6:
P6. Competency in both theory and practice of instructors is a key asset to thetransformation of learning experience within and outside the classroom forlearners. The success of knowledge facilitation within learning communitiesbegins with the fundamental utilization of instructors core skills insimplifying complex concepts for the relevance of the current environment.Competence requires knowledge and skills renewal.
Level of reliability the explicit serviceIn support of RQ3 on service quality, findings reveal that service quality in highereducation is not limited to experiences that take place within the confines of classrooms.The wider spaces of learning and social interaction involving such facilities aslaboratories, libraries, computers, sports and healthcare centers as well as cafeterias are ofimportant consideration as well. For instance, a study by Clark and Ramsay (1990)reported that high-achieving university students were found to have made extensive useof support services. Diversification of education involves stretching students interestsand getting them involved in all aspects that any institution is prepared to offer. From thestudents viewpoint, the ability to utilize computer facilities and laboratories to do ourprojects beyond schooling hours would be an avenue for extending their learning in waysthat classroom teaching cannot provide, as commented by current and past students.
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
279
-
According to the academics, such services must be mediated by staff who should provideprompt assistance whenever required. Here is an example of how the reliability of anexplicit service is put to test, as recounted by several academics:
[. . .] Ive heard students complaining of unfriendly and unhelpful administrators and labtechnicians [. . .] They have the tendency to turn students away when they are busy withsomething else [. . .] They (support staff) are also educators in their own right [. . .] Byproviding the right information or showing them how to use the facilities, they are involved inteaching as well (academic).
Views from the industry representatives further suggest that the pressures to improveservice quality could sometimes be instigated by different sources. For instance, internalpressure from managers to improve service quality as a means of conformity to higherdirectives is a negative reflection of the explicit reliability of related services provided(Smith et al., 2007). Ultimately, the reliability of any service is determined by how youplease your customers and what value they get out of what you have provided for them,as commented by an HR senior officer. According to Patterson (1991), the reliability ofsupport services enhances the total learning experience as evident in the increasingdemand for package deals in international educational institutions. A study by Brown(1991) on Australian tertiary institutions attests to the need for academic and facilityexcellence in attracting international enrolment. As global education increases incompetitiveness, it is crucial that service quality be evaluated from a broad-basedperspective (Brysland and Curry, 2001). Hence, the overall reliability of educationalexperience is likely to be determined by both the hardware (facilities) and software(people) of support services. As an example, the students overall satisfaction inSteadman and Dagwells (1990) study was indirectly affected by their low evaluation ofgeneral and library facilities despite their high regards for the quality of courses andinstructors. It is in this context that we develop our P7:
P7. Satisfaction in any learning experience goes beyond the classroom; it requiresfulfillment of the diverse aspects of that experience through supportivefacilities, systems and processes. Taken together, these will promote anenvironment that motivates self-directed and team learning continuallysupported by a variety of learning networks and infrastructures. Reliability isdetermined by availability of resources and staff response.
Level of assurance the explicit serviceA further perspective to RQ3 points to issues associated with assurance of explicitservices. As reflected by most academics, there are adequate facilities and supportservices provided by the school; however, the level of utilization by students is low.There are two possible reasons to this: the availability of facilities after office hoursand the availability of staff on duty. Deeper views from the academics indicate that:
[. . .] we are not fully catering these facilities [. . .] such as free-access computers, printers,laboratories [. . .] to students because we do not know what they really want and when theywant them.
A dominant sentiment reflected by current and past students suggests a different areaof need other than technical support, as represented by the following comment:
QAE16,3
280
-
The administrative office sometimes cannot handle the floods of queries during peak hours,example mornings or lunch hours. There is also no admin support after office hours.Sometimes it is difficult for us to seek admin help in between classes (current student).
According to Li and Kaye (1998), the level of assurance in explicit services isdetermined by adequate guidance given to students in all aspects of education. Thiswould include encouraging students to develop skills in working independently and todevelop their ability to work with others. A wide range of support services wouldprovide the avenues for students to be involved in self-directed learning and teamwork.According to the industry representatives, adequate support services would:
[. . .] let students go the extra mile to extend their knowledge and skills [. . .] to exercise theirimagination, learn to be resourceful, and use technology and information to excel in theirstudies,
as suggested by an HR assistant vice president. Taken together, availability, serviceand utility all contribute towards service quality assurance.
At the core is the need to change employees mental models about service qualityand this requires clear direction from senior management and the strategic influence ofleadership. In order to enhance collective mental models, a shared vision on thephilosophy of service quality as influencing the overall institutional performance isessential. In achieving a shared cognition on how service quality is to be interpretedand institutionalized, regular feedback and dialogue with all levels of employees wouldbe necessary. In addition, an appropriate deployment of HRs and allocation ofresponsibilities are crucial to creating the conditions for achieving an optimal level ofassurance in support services (ONeill and Palmer, 2004; Solomon, 1993). Given thisperspective, we develop our final proposition:
P8. Quality of an educational service can be achieved by having the right HRs ascontributing to the success of multifaceted experiences created to developlearners knowledge- and skills-based learning needs and expectationsfurther. A strong mindset to serve rather than to instruct is fundamental tothe acceleration of service standards in educational settings. Assurance isdetermined by availability, service and utility.
In summary, Table II illustrates that service quality in higher education is a continuouspursuit where expectations and perceptions are likely to change with context and time.Even so, the internal samples seem to regard service quality as a self-regulatingparadigm that is amplified in routines and experiences. While these subjects appear tobe more concerned with the lived in experience serving the current needs of students,the external samples seem to relate service quality to a vision that resides in the mindsof individuals. The latter group comprising graduates and employers attaches alongitudinal orientation to what service quality might ultimately promise. It is theability to withstand the test of time that will determine the perseverance andconsistency of service quality in the long-run.
ConclusionsOne of the challenges for todays tertiary institutions is to identify and implementappropriate measurement tools that will determine the sustainability of service quality(ONeill and Palmer, 2004). The intangibility of services has made it difficult for
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
281
-
Sam
ple
A(n
18)
(aca
dem
ics)
Sam
ple
B(n
10)
(cu
rren
tst
ud
ents
)S
amp
leC
(n
10)
(gra
du
ates
)S
amp
leD
(n
5)(e
mp
loy
ers)
RQ
1:w
hy
iscu
stom
erfo
cus
an
impo
rtant
fact
orof
serv
ice
qualit
yin
hig
her
educa
tion
?A
nor
gan
icap
pro
ach
toin
stru
ctor
-stu
den
tre
lati
onsh
ips
isth
eex
clu
sion
ofth
em
ech
anic
al
fun
ctio
nof
hu
man
dim
ensi
onb
yb
alan
cin
gse
nsi
bil
ity
wit
hin
teg
rity
Un
der
stan
din
gc
ust
omer
rig
hts
ch
alle
ng
esol
dw
ays
oft
ran
sact
ion
b
etw
een
inst
ruct
ors
and
stu
den
ts.
Cu
stom
eror
ien
tati
oncr
eate
sn
ewm
enta
lm
odel
sfo
rle
arn
ing
and
dev
elop
men
t
Bei
ng
cust
omer
focu
sed
allo
ws
stu
den
tsto
be
vie
wed
bey
ond
teac
hab
ilit
y.
Itis
the
des
irab
ilit
yof
rela
tion
ship
crea
tion
that
lear
nin
gb
ecom
esm
utu
ally
imp
lica
tin
g
Div
ersi
fica
tion
ofed
uca
tion
alex
per
ien
ceb
egin
sw
ith
the
wid
erp
erso
nae
ofs
tud
ents
.It
isth
ep
oten
tial
ity
ofco
nsu
mer
ism
that
dis
card
sol
dm
odel
sof
teac
hin
g
RQ
2:how
doe
squalit
yco
urs
edes
ign
and
del
iver
yco
ntr
ibute
tose
rvic
equalit
yin
hig
her
educa
tion
?U
sin
gth
eori
esto
cau
sea
reta
liat
ion
ofq
ues
tion
sis
the
beg
inn
ing
ofp
ract
ical
wis
dom
.R
elev
ance
ofle
arn
ing
isth
ere
sult
ofb
ein
gco
nst
antl
yd
istu
rbed
wit
hin
qu
iry
Var
iety
isk
eyto
lear
nin
gen
joy
men
t.In
tera
ctiv
ity
thro
ug
hm
ult
iple
sou
rces
ofin
form
atio
nd
erai
lsm
enta
lab
sen
teei
sman
dp
rom
otes
acti
ve
eng
agem
ent
Th
ev
alu
eof
lear
nin
gis
der
ived
from
dir
ect
inv
olv
emen
tw
ith
the
mat
eria
ls.
Lea
rnin
gn
eed
sto
be
recr
eate
dw
ith
mu
lti-
lev
elex
pos
ure
that
jolt
sth
em
ind
for
futu
reap
pli
cati
on
Rev
olu
tion
ary
lear
nin
gis
the
abol
ish
men
tof
did
acti
cism
.R
elev
ance
ofle
arn
ing
isth
eor
der
ing
ofan
amb
igu
ous
wor
ldth
atse
eks
ase
ttle
dm
anag
eab
ilit
yan
dp
ract
ical
ity
RQ
3:w
hat
supp
ort
serv
ices
are
requir
edto
enhance
serv
ice
qualit
yin
hig
her
educa
tion
?T
he
shor
tfal
lof
dir
ect
lear
nin
gex
per
ien
ce(i
ncl
ass)
may
be
offs
etb
yex
tern
alin
flu
ence
sth
atco
ntr
ibu
teto
stu
den
ts
psy
chol
ogic
alsa
tisf
acti
onof
the
wid
erfu
nct
ion
sof
lear
nin
g
Th
ele
vel
ofco
ntr
olov
erv
ario
us
lear
nin
gsu
pp
ort
mec
han
ism
sis
anot
her
dim
ensi
onof
cu
stom
erri
gh
ts
that
eng
ages
stu
den
tsin
dif
fere
nt
lear
nin
gac
tiv
itie
s
Acc
essi
bil
ity
isa
con
sid
erat
ion
for
lear
nin
g-s
up
por
tco
mp
reh
ensi
ven
ess.
Usa
ge
offa
cili
ties
isan
exte
nsi
onof
con
sum
pti
on
ined
uca
tion
Av
enu
esto
sup
por
tle
arn
ing
pro
vid
ea
pu
llfa
ctor
for
stu
den
tsto
feel
affi
liat
edw
ith
the
inst
itu
tion
.S
up
por
tse
rvic
escr
eate
ad
iffe
ren
tsl
ice
ofli
feth
atp
rov
ides
plu
rali
tyto
edu
cati
on
Table II.Cross-sample tabulationof themes
QAE16,3
282
-
performance standards to be set, monitored and measured (Thakkar et al., 2006). Asrevealed in this study, the fear, as reflected by most academics, is to have peoplereluctantly conform to the required practices just so that they can save themselvesfrom unpleasant and problematic professional outcomes (Cartwright, 2007).
Although the study provides an in-depth exploration of what it takes for anacademic institution to embark on a service-quality strategy, it has not determined theenduring success of its implementation. A longitudinal approach would be required tomonitor the changes and potential resistance that are likely to occur. Perhaps an actionresearch would give rise to more accurate firsthand information on the interventionand developmental process (Athiyaman, 1997; Hill, 1995; Jaraiedi and Ritz, 1994). Thestudy is also limited by the inability to capitalize on the student survey results,teaching evaluation reports and other service performance indicators due to reasons ofconfidentiality. Such secondary data would provide a wider empirical dimension to theissues investigated (Bell, 1993).
Still, the study provides opportunity for further research. For instance, anexplanatory dimension could be pursued through quantitative means using a morecross-sectional sample. The use of questionnaire surveys would serve to capture amuch wider data set to evaluate both perception and performance in terms of thespecific aspects of service quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Lawson, 1992). In addition,the framework (Figure 1) developed for this study could be further tested through thedevelopment of scale items pertaining to each construct.
One the conceptual front, it was discovered that appropriate systems should beimplemented to facilitate a community of teaching practice across all course levels.Future work could explore the relationship between systems development and teachingeffectiveness to determine how personal mastery can be integrated into team learningto enhance individual competence (Senge, 1990). Although such individual attributes asattitude and motivation may be difficult to modify over a short period, given the rightstimulus through, for instance, an appropriate reward and compensation system,mental models can be changed for the benefit of the institution. Further work couldfocus on a strategic stimulus-response system to encourage positive mental models,developed through an integrated HR perspective (Skinner, 1972).
In summary, we concur with Garvins (1988) view that service quality is a complexissue largely driven by contextual uncertainties. As such, any study that attempts tounravel this concept further would require a fundamental preparedness to withstandthe test of time.
References
Argyris, C. (1982), Reason, Learning and Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Athiyaman, A. (1997), Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case ofuniversity education, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 528-40.
Bell, J. (1993), Doing Your Research Project. A Guide for First-time Researchers in Education andSocial Science, 2nd ed., Open University Press, London.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), A dynamic process model ofservice quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-27.
Brown, J. (1991), Selling our education, Brainstorm, December/January, pp. 44-6.
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
283
-
Brysland, A. and Curry, A. (2001), Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 389-401.
Carlzon, J. (1987), Moments of Truth, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Cartwright, M.J. (2007), The rhetoric and reality of quality in higher education: an investigationinto staff perceptions of quality in post-1992 universities, Quality Assurance in Education,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 287-301.
Clark, E. and Ramsay, W. (1990), Bridging the gulf: secondary student expectations and tertiarystudy, Catholic School Studies, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994), Research Methods in Education, 4th ed., Routledge, London.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: reexamination and extension,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 55-68.
Cuthbert, P.F. (1996), Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 1,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 11-16.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A. and Barnes, B. (2006), Measuring student satisfaction at a UKuniversity, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 251-67.
Emiliani, M.L. (2006), Improving management education, Quality Assurance in Education,Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 363-84.
Entwistle, N. and Tait, H. (1990), Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferencesfor contrasting academic environments, Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 169-94.
Ford, J.B., Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1999), Importance-performance analysis as a strategic toolfor service marketers: the case of service quality perceptions of business students inNew Zealand and the USA, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 171-86.
Gapp, R. and Fisher, R. (2006), Achieving excellence through innovative approaches to studentinvolvement in course evaluation within the tertiary education sector, Quality Assurancein Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 156-66.
Garvin, D.A. (1988), Managing Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Gronoos, C. (2001), The perceived service quality concept a mistake?, Managing Service,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 150-2.
Harris, R.W. (1994), Alien or ally? TQM, academic quality and the new public management,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 33-9.
Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993), Defining quality, Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9-34.
Henderson-Smart, C., Winning, T., Gerzina, T., King, S. and Hyde, S. (2006), Benchmarkinglearning and teaching: developing a method, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 143-55.
Hill, F.M. (1995), Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student asprimary consumer, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 10-21.
Holliday, A. (2002), Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Holmes, G. (1993), Quality assurance in further and higher education: a sacrificial lamb at thealtar of managerialism, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-8.
Jaraiedi, M. and Ritz, D. (1994), Total quality management applied to engineering education,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Johnson, F.C. and Golomskiis, W.A.J. (1999), Quality concepts in education, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 467-73.
QAE16,3
284
-
Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1998), Identifying needs of potential students in tertiary education forstrategy development, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 90-6.
Koslowski, F.A. III (2006), Quality and assessment in context: a brief review, Quality Assurancein Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 277-88.
Krejcie, R. and Morgan, D. (1970), Determining sample size for research activities, Educationaland Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, pp. 607-10.
Lawson, S.B. (1992), Why restructure? An international survey of the roots of reform, Journal ofEducation Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 139-54.
Lee, T.W. (1999), Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lewis, R.G. and Smith, H.D. (1994), Total Quality in Higher Education, St Lucie Press, DelrayBeach, FL.
Li, R.Y. and Kaye, M. (1998), A case study for comparing two service quality measurementapproaches in the context of teaching in higher education, Quality in Higher Education,Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 103-13.
Llusar, J.C.B. and Zornoza, C.C. (2000), Validity and reliability in perceived quality measurementmodels: an empirical investigation in Spanish ceramic companies, International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 899-918.
McCollough, M.A. and Gremler, D.D. (1999), Guaranteeing student satisfaction: an exercise intreating students as customers, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 118-31.
Muller, D. and Funnel, P. (1993), Learner perceptions of quality and the learner career, QualityAssurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 29-33.
Narasimhan, K. (1997), Improving teaching and learning: the perceptions minus expectationsgap analysis approach, Training for Quality, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 121-5.
Naumann, E. and Giel, K. (1995), Customer Satisfaction Measurement and Management,Thompson Executive Press, Cincinnati, OH.
ONeill, M.A. and Palmer, A. (2004), Importance-performance analysis: a useful tool for directingcontinuous quality improvement in higher education, Quality Assurance in Education,Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M. (1998), A framework for measuring quality in engineeringeducation, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 501-19.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Patterson, G. (1991), The university student: valued client or just another number?, YouthStudies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 50-5.
Perry, P. (1991), Quality in higher education, in Schuller, T. (Ed.), The Future of HigherEducation, SHRE & Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 91-9.
Quazi, H.A. and Padibjo, S.R. (1998), A journey toward total quality management through ISO9000 certification: a study on small- and medium-sized enterprises in Singapore,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 489-508.
Ramsden, P. (1979), Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment, HigherEducation, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 411-27.
Ramsden, P. (1991), A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the courseexperience questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 129-50.
Rinehart, G. (1993), Quality Education: Applying the Philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming toTransform the Educational System, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Brewing servicequality in higher
education
285
-
Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. and Freeman, H.E. (1999), Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
Skinner, B.F. (1972), Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Cape, London.
Smith, G., Smith, A. and Clarke, A. (2007), Evaluating service quality in universities: a servicedepartment perspective, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 334-51.
Solomon, H. (1993), Total quality in higher education, Management Services, Vol. 37 No. 1,pp. 10-21.
Steadman, G.T. and Dagwell, R.H. (1990), A survey of overseas students in Queensland,Australian Universities Review, Vol. 1/2, pp. 59-63.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Thakkar, J., Deshmukh, S.G. and Shastree, A. (2006), Total quality management (TQM) inself-financed technical institutions: a quality function deployment (QFD) and force fieldanalysis approach, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 54-74.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991), Improving the quality of learning: the influence of learningcontext and the student approaches to learning on learning outcomes, Higher Education,Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 251-66.
Wellington, J. (2000), Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches,Continuum, London.
Worthen, B.R. and Sanders, J.R. (1973), Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice, CharlesA. Jones, Worthington, OH.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service, BalancingCustomer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Further reading
Gummesson, E. (1987), Quality The Ericsson Approach: What It Is, What It Isnt, What ItShould Be, Kungsbacka Elander, Stockholm.
Tan, K.C. and Kek, S.W. (2004), Service quality using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach,Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
Voss, R., Gruber, T. and Szmigin, I. (2005), Service quality in higher education: the role ofstudent expectations, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 949-59.
Wright, C. and ONeill, M. (2002), Service quality evaluation in the higher education sector: anempirical investigation of students perception, Higher Education Research andDevelopment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-39.
Corresponding authorRoland K. Yeo can be contacted at: [email protected]
QAE16,3
286
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints