The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.

htm

QAE 16,3

Brewing service quality in higher education

Characteristics of ingredients that make up the recipe
Roland K. Yeo
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Purpose The paper seeks to explore the inuences of service quality in higher education and the perceptions associated with the implementation of a Singapore tertiary institution. It draws on the underpinnings of SERVQUAL, and discusses the dichotomy and interrelation between customer perception and expectation. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative methodology was employed and data were collected by means of structured in-depth interviewing with both internal (18 academics and ten current students) and external samples (ten graduates and ve industry representatives). Content analysis was utilized to examine three key aspects of service standards: customer orientation, course design/delivery, and support services. Findings The way students are perceived, whether as customers or products, will have an inuence on the type of learning dynamics that develop both within and outside the classroom. Service quality, therefore, needs to be evaluated based on an integrated experience which occurs in a network of learning spaces created to promote dialogue, inquiry and reection. Practical implications Management of student expectations is fundamental to ensuring appropriate service quality in higher education. Closer working relationship with industry partners should be encouraged to serve as an audit on curricula relevance. Long-term quality of support services can be achieved by short-term measures such as training staff to be student-centered rather than task-driven. Originality/value This paper is based on an actual framework developed by the engineering school as part of their strategic plan in achieving excellence in both quality of courses and learning experiences. Keywords Higher education, SERVQUAL, Service quality assurance, Singapore Paper type Research paper

266
Received August 2007 Revised February 2008 Accepted March 2008

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 the practices of quality control circles. It goes beyond examining products and processes as inuencing nal outcomes that would contribute towards the competitive advantage
Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 16 No. 3, 2008 pp. 266-286 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0968-4883 DOI 10.1108/09684880810886277

The author thanks the Editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. The author acknowledges the help of Andy Kwek in the initial stage of data collection and appreciates King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support given in the preparation of this paper.

of organizations. Increasingly, quality has become a subjective term that is not solely determined by tangible satisfaction; it is concerned with customers expectations and perceptions (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 and Curry, 2001; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). As American industrialist, Henry Ford, would argue, 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 focus on their internal and external customers as there are sometimes no actual products involved (Lewis and Smith, 1994). As such, higher education would be considered a part of service industry since the primary focus of tertiary institutions is to provide quality learning experiences to students. With the proliferation of study options available to students internationally including the use of virtual technology to deliver courses, it is no wonder tertiary institutions worldwide are under pressure to provide unique learning experiences to students so as to capture the market share (Gapp and Fisher, 2006; ONeill and Palmer, 2004). Hence, service quality becomes the means for many institutions to retain student numbers and to capture the educational market. The most common understanding of service quality is its association with teacher-student participation in relation to the professionalism-intimacy scale as affecting immediate and lifelong learning. However, service quality is far more complex; it is concerned with the physical, institutional and psychological aspects of higher education. For instance, Li and Kaye (1998) argue that service quality deals with the environment, corporate image and interaction among people. They distinguish between process and output quality, where the former is judged by customers during the service and the latter, after the service. Emphasis on continuous improvement is crucial to the sustainability of service quality. As dened, continuous improvement is a systematic way of evaluating process and outcome, learning from mistakes as well as exceeding internal and external expectations (Henderson-Smart et al., 2006). It also requires a constant negotiation of deep-rooted values as a result of the changing needs and expectations of customers (Koslowski, 2006). The Singapore educational scene Educationally, Singapore is driven by a signicant level of competition with institutions developing specialist and interdisciplinary courses to cater to a wide variety of students to create a unique learning experience. Increasingly, institutional management and administration have become more systematized and efcient. For instance, in their quest for excellence, many institutions have adopted the benchmark systems such as the ISO 9000 (a type of standards for quality management systems and maintained by the International Organization for Standardization) and Singapore Quality Award (SQA) two uppermost desirable service quality achievements commonly striven for by organizations in the commercial sector. The SQA was established in 1994 to help Singapore organizations attain world-class standards of business excellence. The business excellence model underpinning the SQA is based on universally accepted standards that are found in the US Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, the European Quality Award and the Australian Business Excellence Award (Quazi and Padibjo, 1998). A fundamental emphasis of ISO 9000 and SQA is being customer focused.

Brewing service quality in higher education 267

QAE 16,3

268

Singapore offers a unique political landscape, setting herself apart from other countries. Further, Singapores educational system is governed by strict guidelines in striving towards being the education hub of Asia and remaining competitive in global settings. In this study, we will draw on the experience of a tertiary institution in Singapore, whose pursuit in service quality has been based on the guidelines of ISO 9000 and SQA. At the point of research, the institution had already attained ISO 9000 certication and was working towards achieving SQA. As a prerequisite to SQA, organizations must have attained the Singapore Quality Class and this intermediate award was achieved by the institution in 1999. In working towards SQA, the institutions aim is to diversify the service quality development strategies within each academic school yet 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 been closely evaluated to bring about changes that would have an impact on lifelong learning. Hence, the objective is to attract the best local and international students to this institution. While students generally have a choice of tertiary institutions to apply to both locally and internationally, they tend to be inuenced by the uniqueness of courses and the types of learning experiences offered by each institution. For this research, we will focus on the engineering school as it is the largest academic unit and offers a strategic service quality plan leading to a number of initiatives. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of service quality offered by the school and examine if these perceptions are aligned to its strategic objectives. In particular, we raise a pertinent question which serves as the research problem (RP): RP1. What are the factors that inuence service quality in higher education and how do they contribute to the overall performance of a higher learning institution? An overview of the literature Education, a type of service Differentiation between products and services can be evaluated in terms of the level of tangibility, such that services are characterized by behavioral attributes including acts, noos, deeds, performances or efforts (Rossi et al., 1999) and activities or processes (Gro 2001; Smith et al., 2007). According to Parasuraman et al. (1988), characteristics associated with services include intangibility, perishability, inseparability of production and consumption, and heterogeneity. In contrast to products, services are usually 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 any clear transfer of ownership. As such, the customer plays an integral part in the transaction of most services. For instance, each customers expectation of service quality is different and this has led to a lack of standardization as it varies from situation 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 to students who assume the role of customers. The service quality of each learning experience, particularly in higher education, is unique as it is largely determined by the expectation of the student, also the individual customer. This expectation varies between experiences derived from intellectual engagement and outcomes

of examination. We rst address this concern by discussing the notion of customers in higher education. Students as customers Rinehart (1993) offers two distinct views of students as customers; for instance, those who regard students as primary customers associate them as being involved in the input and output of the learning process. However, those who regard students potential employers as primary customers argue that it is important to consider the economic reality of the situation where lesson contents should be tailored to employers needs. Students, in both contexts, have been regarded as internal customers with the second group regarding future employers as external customers. Jaraiedi and Ritz (1994) further argue that students have no conception of what they need to learn; as such, education is preparing them for the long-term benets of the future. It is with this long-term view that potential employers are regarded as primary customers while students, secondary customers. In another view, students have been categorized as the primary beneciaries of education and hence should be treated as customers. This perspective stems from the understanding that educational institutions are highly competitive on the market with strategies being aggressively developed to satisfy student needs in order to attract a sustainable market share (Joseph and Joseph, 1998). Secondary beneciaries, in this context, would include parents, the marketplace and society at large. The interplay between the two beneciary types is, to a large extent, time and event specic. For instance, within a classroom context, students are customers to teachers; however, when students are working on an assignment for teachers, the latter becomes the customer (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 fundamental consideration in any educational institution and this includes both customer and product satisfaction. The implication is that if the external customer (employer) is not satised with the quality, the product (student) may be returned to the manufacturer (institution) for further inspection (Naumann and Giel, 1995). As an example, Durham College in Ontario, Canada, offers a mutual-benet agreement between employers and students, an initiative launched in 1994. The college provides a satisfaction guarantee to employers of their alumni in positions related to their major academic disciplines. If a graduate of the college is not performing to the level as expected by the employer, the agreement allows this alumnus to be returned to the institution for further training with no additional cost incurred by the sender. As a parallel to industry standards, the ultimate goal of higher education is the production of students who are equipped with both the intellectual and practical qualities that will contribute to optimal job performance (Worthen and Sanders, 1973). In this context, we develop out RQ1 in support of the RP: RQ1. Why is customer focus an important factor of service quality in higher education? Service quality measurement Much of the research of the measurement of service quality within educational settings has been inuenced by the seminal work of Zeithaml et al. (1990) based on the

Brewing service quality in higher education 269

QAE 16,3

270

SERVQUAL model from which a 22-item instrument for measuring customer expectations and perceptions has been developed along with ve-quality dimensions: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. This methodology operates by means of identifying expectations and perceptions with the aim of closing the gap between the two. These can be demonstrated in the following ve dimensions in relation to educational settings. Responsiveness. Institutions should be responsive to the shifting needs of their customers (students) in providing courses and training programmes that are relevant in subject matter and teaching approaches. The learning process is expected to be academically rigorous yet exible in areas pertaining to course selection and assessment. With the advent of technology, course design and delivery are expected to be progressive, wherein the innovative and spontaneous construction of knowledge should be the by products (and process) of learning. Empathy. It is sometimes a challenge for institutions to exceed customer expectations and demands. For instance, a shortage of teaching staff and the need for optimal enrolments have seen an increase in class sizes, stretching the teacher-student ratio. This has implication on the level of individual attention and empathy given to each student inside and outside class. Further, when teachers are expected to assume multiple roles including curriculum writing, stand-up teaching, mentoring, project supervising and administrative responsibilities, the level of service quality may become less standardized and desirable over time. Tangibility. The challenge for institutions is to ensure that service specications such as course content, delivery and application meet the expectations of their customers consistently. This is a precarious concern as performance associated with these specications is highly context-driven based on a variety of factors, sometimes beyond the control of the actors involved. Learning experience and orientation at large cannot entirely be evaluated by grades alone; service performance should go beyond tangible forms. In addition, learning objectives need not necessarily lead to outcomes that are strictly quantiable. As some would argue, the relevance of any course can only be evaluated years later when knowledge and skills acquired by students are usefully applied in professional contexts. Taking into consideration the rst three dimensions of SERVQUAL, we develop our RQ2: RQ2. How does course design and delivery contribute to service quality in higher education? Reliability. Discrepancy between promise and delivery is largely the result of inaccurate communication from advertisements, roadshows and exhibitions. Some institutions tend to oversell their services, leading to grand promises that misrepresent their actual potential and academic readiness. For instance, one of the most common strategies is the promotion of facilities and support services, ranging from hardware to software availability. Others boast of their state-of-the-art technology used in laboratories, computer systems and other learning facilities. On the software front, common concerns include the number of student clubs, activities, counseling and medical facilities, and entertainment outlets. Assurance. Judgment of high- or low-service quality largely depends on how the customers perceive the actual performance based on their expectation. The level of

tolerance in service standards differs across all areas; for instance, the more important the area, the smaller the boundary of tolerance. Customers willingness to modify expectation of service standards can be appropriately managed through the availability of choices. These should diversify the expectation levels of customers in a 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 should play an equal, if not an even more important role, in contributing to the overall of service quality in higher education (Parasuraman et al., 1988). In summary, the nal two dimensions of SERVQUAL have led us to develop our RQ3: RQ3. What support services are required to enhance service quality in higher education? A conceptual framework We refer to a service quality framework developed by the engineering school of the case institution to serve as a prior theory that guided this exploratory research. Figure 1 is an integrated version of SERVQUAL based on three variables as expressed in the RQs. On customer focus, the school has classied their customers into three distinct yet interrelated groups: employers of its graduates, current students and their parents. Performance in this strategic objective is evaluated by an annual employer satisfaction survey and student satisfaction survey. In addition, focus group discussions involving employers and parents constitute another feedback mechanism to ascertain the level of customer orientation. On course design and delivery, performance is largely determined by the student satisfaction survey and graduate employment survey. Feedback gathered from the former survey provides a sounding board for the school to ne-tune its curricula and course delivery, while the latter survey provides a double-feedback channel through which more broad-based and industry-relevant perspectives are considered. For instance, it is believed that graduates having been employed should be in a better position to provide constructive comments on the quality of course, content compared with current students.

Brewing service quality in higher education 271

Figure 1. A service quality framework for higher education

QAE 16,3

272

On support services, satisfaction is evaluated by the number of compliments and complaints received. Students are encouraged to submit comments, suggestions or complaints via online channels to help the school improve their support service further. Quality expectations include the availability of facilities such as computer and technical laboratories, printing and internet facilities, as well as administrative and technical support from staff. The relationship between learning and teaching is not necessarily straightforward as much depends on the approach which students adopt in their learning process. In this context, a students experience involves much more than simply teaching and learning. As a consequence, none of the available instruments would be able to completely account for service quality in higher education (ONeill and Palmer, 2004). Hence, adapting SERVQUAL to provide a qualitative dimension to the evaluation of service quality 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 it encompasses the whole-person experience rather than the experience of teaching. The SERVQUAL approach is one that integrates both the dimensions of perception and expectation, eliminating student bias caused by recent assessment experiences as affecting their rating decisions. Asking students to consider their expectations as well as experiences provides an opportunity for reection based on personal desires and contextual considerations. This way, rating and feedback provided by students would be more objective and less erratic. We draw on Douglas et al.s (2006) notion of implicit and explicit service to relate the different dimensions of SERVQUAL to service quality in higher education. Implicit service is akin to a service that affects people psychologically through cognitive and behavioral 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 content and workload are representative of explicit services. Methodology We employed an exploratory orientation in our research by means of structured interviewing as the rich qualitative data gathered would be useful in providing insights into the issues being investigated (Table I) (Lee, 1999). We adopted a purposive sampling frame for all four stages of our research as our aim was to select respondents who were able to provide views of their perceived and lived-in experience of the quality movement encountered at the institution (Cohen and Manion, 1994). We divided our interviews between internal and external samples, and these involved in the former are 18 academics and ten current students across all levels of courses, and the latter comprised ten recent graduates who had experienced the transition between the quality movement within the institution and ve industry human resource (HR) representatives who had experience recruiting their graduates. According to Wellington (2000), the total number of subjects considered for this study is adequate as the overall sample acted as key informants to this qualitative research, allowing in-depth issues and views to form the core of theory-building. The interview questions were piloted at each stage with a smaller group of sample to minimize ambiguity and sensitive issues. The interviews each lasted between 30 and 60 minutes averagely for the overall sample.

Sample A (academics) (C1). Do you see yourself as an (external) customer to the institution? (C2). As an employer, what expectations do you have of the local tertiary institutions that are producing your future employees? (C3). When you interviewed graduates of this institution, did you get the idea that they were satised with their learning experience? (C4). Do you think graduates of the institution have demonstrated the knowledge and skills that are relevant to the industry? (C5). What would you like to see taught in the courses? (C6). How do you think courses can be made more relevant to the industry?

Samples B and C (current students and graduates)

Sample D (employers)

RQ1: why is customer focus an important factor of service quality in higher education? (A1). Do you consider our students as customers or (B1). Did/do you see yourself as a customer in the products? School? (A2). Do you think that instructors/staff generally care (B2). What expectations did/do you have of your instructors/staff in terms of their relations with about the wellbeing of students? you? (A3). Do you think there is good rapport between (B3). What rights do you think students have? instructors/staff and students? (B4). What rights do you think instructors/staff have? (A4). Do you think that instructors/staff have done enough to meet or exceed our customers (students) expectations? RQ2: how does quality course design and delivery contribute to service quality in higher education? (A5). Do you think that systems are in place in ensuring (B5). What do you think of the courses offered by the School? that the course delivery is effective? (A6). How do you ensure that the courses are industry (B6). What did/do you like about the courses? (B7). What didnt/dont you like about the courses? relevant? (A7). Are the instructors generally competent in their (B8). What do you like to see changed in the courses? subject areas? (A8). What do you think are some of the challenges that instructors face in trying to design a quality course? RQ3: what support services are required to enhance service quality in higher education? (A9). Are there ways to increase the effectiveness of the (B9). Which facilities or services did/do you most support services in the School? frequently use? (B10). Do you think the School provides a wide range of (A10). Do your think that the technical and services of students? administrative staff are generally committed to providing acceptable services that will meet the (B11). What was/is the general impression of the support services provided by the School? customers (students) needs/expectations? (A11). What do you think are the shortcomings in the (B12). How do you think the support services can be improved? current service support in the School? (A12). Do you think that students generally have easy access to the range of services available within the School?

(C7). How important do you think support services are to a tertiary institution? (C8). Based on your current understanding, do you think there are sufcient support services for the students provided by the institution? (C9). How do you think support services can enhance a students learning experience?

Note: Staff refers to non-teaching personnel

Brewing service quality in higher education 273

Table I. Development of interview protocol based on prior theory

QAE 16,3

274

The data were analyzed using a manual approach through the technique of thematic categorization (Holliday, 2002). Thematic headings were developed based on the RP and questions, and with close reference to the literature. This helped us to ensure construct validity of the data as the views were gathered in strict accordance to the interview protocol. External validity was achieved through the use of a pilot study to ensure clarity and consistency of the questions asked (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970). The raw data were further coded at different levels to allow underlying themes and patterns to emerge. Word recurrence, repeat phrases, convergence of anecdotes and examples in addition 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 formulate thematic categories to reduce the data further in meaningful ways. Reliability was established by matching the analyzed data to the RP, questions and probes to determine the amount of variation (Llusar and Zornoza, 2000). Discussion and implications The following are key themes that have emerged from the qualitative data presented as part of theory elaboration and implications for practice. Level of responsiveness the implicit service In response to RQ1, ndings indicate different interpretations of customers. For instance, instructors would view their students as internal customers if a marketing perspective was adopted where satised students would increase the prole and popularity of the institution. In contrast, the view of products would be adopted if students were considered as outcomes of the educational system to be prepared for the industry and society. Despite general agreement that industry partners would be regarded external customers for whom current students would be produced as future employees, few would argue that it is not one of their immediate concerns, as reinforced by 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 than what we (employers) really want [. . .] in terms of creativity, resilience and a willingness to change [. . .] (HR manager).

Instructors who treat students based on contextual considerations tend to provide students with mixed feelings. As reected by both current students and graduates, the level of empathy expected of instructors becomes ambiguous. For instance, instructors who treat students as customers within the connes of the classroom tend to be more student-centred than those who treat students as products. However, their observation further suggests that there is a great deal of compartmentalization of emotional engagement in the student-instructor relationship, affecting reciprocal trust. Evident in the stories told, the lack of role consistency of instructors has affected the mental models of students:
[. . .] I once bumped into a Math lecturer outside class and at that time I had some urgent questions 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 a product then. After that time, I didnt dare to even ask him questions in class (graduate).

The psychological dimension of learning is a type of implicit service that has an impact on service quality as a variety of motives and interests between instructors and students are involved (Harris, 1994; Thakkar et al., 2006). It is the mental conditioning of instructors that often determines their friendliness and approachability including their availability for private consultations regardless of whether they view students as products or customers (Douglas et al., 2006). A number of interviewees testied to this perspective:
[. . .] Not every lecturer is used to treating students as customers. It is kind of degrading as we must exercise our authority on occasions. I dont think if a lecturer regards his students as products, he is less effective than those who dont (academic). [. . .] Some of our [Engineering] lecturers may not have good social skills but they are helpful in their own way. They may be mechanical in their approach; they can still teach and guide [us] (current student).

Brewing service quality in higher education 275

Findings further suggest that emphasis should be given to a process-oriented approach by empowering students with specic skills, knowledge and mental models, which will enable them to contribute usefully and productively to the knowledge society. The focus should be on the whole-person development of learners so that such expectations as intellectual, psychological, emotional and social needs will contribute to the overall educational experience. As a consequence, the dichotomy between customers and products is largely context-driven and each perspective may inuence service quality differently (Perry, 1991; Rinehart, 1993). However, this study has shown that the challenge is for instructors to create an orientation whether customer or product-driven that is consistent and not demonstrated at the expense of psychological vulnerability, causing a lack of responsiveness. It is with this observation that we develop our P1 with reference to Athiyaman (1997), Cuthbert (1996), Douglas et al. (2006), Hill (1995), Joseph and Joseph (1998) and Owlia and Aspinwall (1998), as an extension to SERVQUAL: P1. Views of students as customers or products are context-driven and the interplay between the two inuences the way in which service quality in higher education will be perceived, evaluated and upheld. Being process-oriented enhances psychological responsiveness between instructors and students.

Level of empathy the implicit service The type of perception given to students determines the affective relationship between instructors and learners. In relation to RQ1, general sentiments reect that there is a greater need for instructors to adopt a customer-orientation by demonstrating a human dimension to their interaction with students. This is to align general practices to the institutions mission statement which emphasizes the need to be caring. The underlying message for all instructors is to view their network of association as an organism where satisfaction 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 has yielded better teaching evaluation results rated by students. A recurring sentiment from the current students suggests that:

QAE 16,3

[. . .] although lecturers are strict with deadlines and expect a lot from us, they are considerate in giving assignments and projects across the semester [. . .] with some lecturers even willing to adjust deadlines to help us manage our workload.

276

Such an implicit service requires a fundamental willingness of all instructors to modify their attitudes, beliefs and values (Koslowski, 2006). Although there is a general ethos of human-centeredness, instructors sometimes feel that this is achieved somewhat mechanically, as reected in some strong sentiments:
[. . .] Not all lecturers are ready for change (in terms of attitude) but the teaching evaluation conducted every semester is largely tied into our performance appraisal. As such, sometimes it 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 most of 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 the premise that students are delicate and valuable entities, and should be sensitively dealt with. As such, even the simple act of listening would be perceived as a type of implicit service by them (Hill, 1995; Douglas et al., 2006). Following this perspective, we develop our P2: P2. Intent and empathy of instructors cannot be overemphasized as these are attributes that can transform mental models of students and recreate the classroom into an extended learning space where the interaction dynamics will engage the whole person rather than a portion, the mind. Maintaining integrity and reasonableness is the balancing act.

Our external samples provided another dimension to empathy by highlighting the level of mentorship and coaching given to students. Particularly, majority of the graduates who experienced the quality transition reected that:
[. . .] there was closer supervision in our project work including laboratory activities and eldwork [. . .] there was a more consistent follow-through with the same instructors teaching the same courses that were offered at different levels. This helped us with project expectations greatly.

This phenomenon was also observed by several HR managers:

In our recent recruitment exercises, we have noticed that graduates of [this institution] tend to remember their lecturers more. The ratio between lecturers and students, especially in their nal project supervision seems to have reduced. Graduates who were closer to their supervisors tend to be happier with their learning process (HR senior manager).

Still, interpretation of service quality should be consolidated rather than distributed in order to achieve a baseline for continued evaluation. This assumption is enmeshed in SERVQUAL that an appropriate interpretation begins with the narrowing of the disparity between expectation and perception. Our internal and external samples have indicated some positive aspects of service quality in higher education; however, such perceptions should be evaluated continuously to avoid a situation of familiarity saturation where continuous improvement might be hampered (Ford et al., 1999; Owlia and Aspinwall, 1998; Smith et al., 2007). Hence, to allow the role of interpretation to manoeuvre within reasonable boundaries, we develop our P3:

P3.

Clarication of expectations to meeting students needs is fundamental to the understanding of service quality in higher education. Communication of judiciously-dened expectation outcomes is vital to the facilitation of conditions for the achievement of desired service standards. Progressive evaluation is necessary for continuous improvement.

Brewing service quality in higher education 277

Level of empathy and responsiveness the explicit service In relation to RQ2 on course content and delivery, ndings reveal that instructors readiness to provide answers to students queries is to some extent determined by the potential fear of students unfavorable rating of their teaching effectiveness. As reected in a dominant viewpoint from the academics, sometimes lecturers tell students exactly what they want for the assignments, tests or exams. If this is the case, we are not really molding thinking individuals. This has led us to conclude that an over-reliance on external measures (student ratings) to bring about the intrinsic value of teaching may not be completely feasible in todays changing educational contexts where spontaneity and innovativeness count towards creating an essential learning experience for tertiary students (Harvey and Green, 1993; ONeill and Palmer, 2004). As a consequence, the explicit service of knowledge transfer has become a mechanical device to shield instructors from being downplayed by the ratings. This situation has an impact on the delivery power of instructors where content is not used appropriately to engage in us but to feed us, as commented by a graduate. Although current students felt that there is a fundamental desire for most instructors to conduct a high-impact lesson . . . through worksheets and activities . . . not all lessons are stimulating. Reasons cited include the lack of intellectual engagement where content is used to ll the gaps rather than promote debate. On that basis, knowledge dissemination as a feature of explicit 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 be evaluated on a continuum with one end emphasizing student retention and another end engaging students in knowledge application. Otherwise, it is quite likely that when they (graduates) join the workforce, they will be concerned with giving the right answers, preventing them from taking risk and being creative, as commented by an HR director. If spoon-feeding was used as a means of empathy and responsiveness in disguise, then this situation would have violated the schools aim of building an educational system that prepares students effectively to meet employers expectation, as recounted by an academic. Also suggested is the need for teaching effectiveness to be evaluated on a systems perspective which takes into consideration the public and private teaching spaces of instructors. To support this view, we develop our P4: P4. Systems related to the facilitation of effective course delivery are necessary mediating agents that support teachers quest for continued professional improvement and development. However, these should not be established for the purpose of increasing organizational prole nor as criteria used to assess teaching competence in performance appraisals. Utility of knowledge should lead to empowerment.

Level of tangibility the explicit service Further insights into RQ2 can be gained from the schools quest for continued growth and renewal where provisions have been made to support instructors in their

QAE 16,3

278

teaching competence. According to the academics, the teaching and learning effective circles created as part of the schools ethos in promoting good teaching practice have helped instructors greatly in content development and lesson delivery. This initiative brought together instructors as project teams to be involved in reective thinking and action taking to bring about a wider dimension of teaching and learning, as supported by the works of Emiliani (2006), Holmes (1993), Muller and Funnel (1993), Ramsden (1979, 1991), and Trigwell and Prosser (1991). According to Carlzon (1987), the essence of teaching effectiveness lies at the heart of individual interaction within a specic context, which he calls the moment of truth where enlightenment is revealed in the human dynamism of meta-cognition. Here, the tangibility of human-centred activity goes beyond knowledge; it is the practicality of complex content that will motivate learners into a doing mode to explore new perspectives, even with the possibility of failing (Emiliani, 2006). This doing-the-learning experience will bring to conceptualization a higher form of operationalization in terms of concrete actions which will benet students when they apply them in actual work contexts. This scenario is what the industry representatives would call going beyond the text . . . and jumping into the context. As agreed by both current and past students, tangibility is not merely satised through content or lesson objectives; it is the actionable knowledge gained that will carry 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 school is moving along the right direction especially with the regular review of curriculum based on industry needs and the comprehensive development of assessment framework, as commented by several academics. One of the features of the Schools curriculum is a problem-based learning approach where students participate in both self-directed and team learning. Although faced with some resistance by both instructors and students initially, the experience has proven to be fairly worthwhile, as reected in the following sentiments:
The strong mandate in a new teaching approach (problem-based learning) has caused us to rethink the course content. This has provided us with a lot of scope to teach. Must say the initial work was very onerous (academic). The required teamwork and project-based assessments have helped us to expose our interaction and expand our learning (current student).

According to Narasimhan (1997), learners are generally concerned about the applicability of knowledge learnt in class to the external world. In this context, instructors will need to keep current knowledge on industry trends and technological developments to provide a balance between theory and practice in the course content. According to a framework developed by Owlia and Aspinwall (1998), such factors as relevance of curriculum to the future jobs of students, primary knowledge skills, use of computer, communication skills, team working and exible utilization of knowledge collectively contribute to the overall service quality of higher education. It is with this reference that we develop our P5: P5. Students learning experience can be greatly enhanced by acquiring knowledge and skills that have lifelong impact. This requires curricula that are designed to incorporate a balance between theoretical and practical

perspectives with an applied emphasis on industrial relevance. Tangibility is turning knowledge into appropriate action. In ensuring that instructors are competent in facilitating industry-relevant knowledge transfer, the school has invested in staff development by promoting applied research, training and industry attachment. In expanding the competency base of their instructors, a number of research units have been established to support content specializations 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. For instance, there could be a closer integration between these research units with content development where research and teaching could be less divided, as reected by two academics. From the students perspective, the opportunity to further research in specialized areas is a form of tangibility extended from course content:
I remember learning more of specic concepts when I undertook my nal year project at the robotics [research] unit. There, I learnt with people of the same interest and that actually developed my interest in the robotics technology (graduate). I see my current courses as a platform for more interesting projects to come in my nal year when I will get to do real projects (current student).

Brewing service quality in higher education 279

In the above examples, applied research is an extension of tangible knowledge that can be demonstrated in testable and practical forms. In order for this meta-tangibility to take better shape, instructors need to have a sense of the latest developments and be equipped with the essential skills to guide students and further their knowledge in specialized areas. Otherwise, the fear of insecurity and helplessness will ultimately set in when students can do the job (research) better than us, as expressed by an academic. Hence, the linking mechanism between instructors competence and the quality of learning experience is a readiness to unlearn and relearn (Douglas et al., 2006; Owlia and Aspinwall, 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 the transformation of learning experience within and outside the classroom for learners. The success of knowledge facilitation within learning communities begins with the fundamental utilization of instructors core skills in simplifying complex concepts for the relevance of the current environment. Competence requires knowledge and skills renewal.

Level of reliability the explicit service In support of RQ3 on service quality, ndings reveal that service quality in higher education is not limited to experiences that take place within the connes of classrooms. The wider spaces of learning and social interaction involving such facilities as laboratories, libraries, computers, sports and healthcare centers as well as cafeterias are of important consideration as well. For instance, a study by Clark and Ramsay (1990) reported that high-achieving university students were found to have made extensive use of support services. Diversication of education involves stretching students interests and getting them involved in all aspects that any institution is prepared to offer. From the students viewpoint, the ability to utilize computer facilities and laboratories to do our projects beyond schooling hours would be an avenue for extending their learning in ways that classroom teaching cannot provide, as commented by current and past students.

QAE 16,3

According to the academics, such services must be mediated by staff who should provide prompt assistance whenever required. Here is an example of how the reliability of an explicit service is put to test, as recounted by several academics:
[. . .] Ive heard students complaining of unfriendly and unhelpful administrators and lab technicians [. . .] They have the tendency to turn students away when they are busy with something else [. . .] They (support staff) are also educators in their own right [. . .] By providing the right information or showing them how to use the facilities, they are involved in teaching as well (academic).

280

Views from the industry representatives further suggest that the pressures to improve service quality could sometimes be instigated by different sources. For instance, internal pressure from managers to improve service quality as a means of conformity to higher directives is a negative reection of the explicit reliability of related services provided (Smith et al., 2007). Ultimately, the reliability of any service is determined by how you please your customers and what value they get out of what you have provided for them, as commented by an HR senior ofcer. According to Patterson (1991), the reliability of support services enhances the total learning experience as evident in the increasing demand for package deals in international educational institutions. A study by Brown (1991) on Australian tertiary institutions attests to the need for academic and facility excellence in attracting international enrolment. As global education increases in competitiveness, it is crucial that service quality be evaluated from a broad-based perspective (Brysland and Curry, 2001). Hence, the overall reliability of educational experience is likely to be determined by both the hardware (facilities) and software (people) of support services. As an example, the students overall satisfaction in Steadman and Dagwells (1990) study was indirectly affected by their low evaluation of general and library facilities despite their high regards for the quality of courses and instructors. It is in this context that we develop our P7: P7. Satisfaction in any learning experience goes beyond the classroom; it requires fulllment of the diverse aspects of that experience through supportive facilities, systems and processes. Taken together, these will promote an environment that motivates self-directed and team learning continually supported by a variety of learning networks and infrastructures. Reliability is determined by availability of resources and staff response.

Level of assurance the explicit service A further perspective to RQ3 points to issues associated with assurance of explicit services. As reected by most academics, there are adequate facilities and support services 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 ofce hours and 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 they want them.

A dominant sentiment reected by current and past students suggests a different area of need other than technical support, as represented by the following comment:

The administrative ofce sometimes cannot handle the oods of queries during peak hours, example mornings or lunch hours. There is also no admin support after ofce hours. Sometimes it is difcult for us to seek admin help in between classes (current student).

According to Li and Kaye (1998), the level of assurance in explicit services is determined by adequate guidance given to students in all aspects of education. This would include encouraging students to develop skills in working independently and to develop their ability to work with others. A wide range of support services would provide 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 their imagination, learn to be resourceful, and use technology and information to excel in their studies,

Brewing service quality in higher education 281

as suggested by an HR assistant vice president. Taken together, availability, service and utility all contribute towards service quality assurance. At the core is the need to change employees mental models about service quality and this requires clear direction from senior management and the strategic inuence of leadership. In order to enhance collective mental models, a shared vision on the philosophy of service quality as inuencing the overall institutional performance is essential. In achieving a shared cognition on how service quality is to be interpreted and institutionalized, regular feedback and dialogue with all levels of employees would be necessary. In addition, an appropriate deployment of HRs and allocation of responsibilities are crucial to creating the conditions for achieving an optimal level of assurance in support services (ONeill and Palmer, 2004; Solomon, 1993). Given this perspective, we develop our nal proposition: P8. Quality of an educational service can be achieved by having the right HRs as contributing to the success of multifaceted experiences created to develop learners knowledge- and skills-based learning needs and expectations further. A strong mindset to serve rather than to instruct is fundamental to the acceleration of service standards in educational settings. Assurance is determined by availability, service and utility.

In summary, Table II illustrates that service quality in higher education is a continuous pursuit 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-regulating paradigm that is amplied in routines and experiences. While these subjects appear to be 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 minds of individuals. The latter group comprising graduates and employers attaches a longitudinal orientation to what service quality might ultimately promise. It is the ability to withstand the test of time that will determine the perseverance and consistency of service quality in the long-run. Conclusions One of the challenges for todays tertiary institutions is to identify and implement appropriate measurement tools that will determine the sustainability of service quality (ONeill and Palmer, 2004). The intangibility of services has made it difcult for

282

QAE 16,3

Sample A (n 18) (academics)

RQ1: why is customer focus an important factor of service quality in higher education? Being customer focused allows Understanding customer rights An organic approach to challenges old ways of transaction students to be viewed beyond instructor-student relationships is teachability. It is the desirability of between instructors and students. the exclusion of the mechanical relationship creation that learning Customer orientation creates new function of human dimension by becomes mutually implicating balancing sensibility with integrity mental models for learning and development RQ2: how does quality course design and delivery contribute to service quality in higher education? Using theories to cause a retaliation Variety is key to learning enjoyment. The value of learning is derived from direct involvement with the Interactivity through multiple of questions is the beginning of materials. Learning needs to be sources of information derails practical wisdom. Relevance of recreated with multi-level exposure mental absenteeism and promotes learning is the result of being that jolts the mind for future active engagement constantly disturbed with inquiry application RQ3: what support services are required to enhance service quality in higher education? Accessibility is a consideration for The level of control over various The shortfall of direct learning learning-support experience (in class) may be offset by learning support mechanisms is comprehensiveness. Usage of external inuences that contribute to another dimension of customer facilities is an extension of students psychological satisfaction rights that engages students in consumption in education different learning activities of the wider functions of learning

Table II. Cross-sample tabulation of themes Sample B (n 10) (current students) Sample C (n 10) (graduates) Sample D (n 5) (employers) Diversication of educational experience begins with the wider personae of students. It is the potentiality of consumerism that discards old models of teaching Revolutionary learning is the abolishment of didacticism. Relevance of learning is the ordering of an ambiguous world that seeks a settled manageability and practicality Avenues to support learning provide a pull factor for students to feel afliated with the institution. Support services create a different slice of life that provides plurality to education

performance standards to be set, monitored and measured (Thakkar et al., 2006). As revealed in this study, the fear, as reected by most academics, is to have people reluctantly conform to the required practices just so that they can save themselves from unpleasant and problematic professional outcomes (Cartwright, 2007). Although the study provides an in-depth exploration of what it takes for an academic institution to embark on a service-quality strategy, it has not determined the enduring success of its implementation. A longitudinal approach would be required to monitor the changes and potential resistance that are likely to occur. Perhaps an action research would give rise to more accurate rsthand information on the intervention and developmental process (Athiyaman, 1997; Hill, 1995; Jaraiedi and Ritz, 1994). The study is also limited by the inability to capitalize on the student survey results, teaching evaluation reports and other service performance indicators due to reasons of condentiality. Such secondary data would provide a wider empirical dimension to the issues investigated (Bell, 1993). Still, the study provides opportunity for further research. For instance, an explanatory dimension could be pursued through quantitative means using a more cross-sectional sample. The use of questionnaire surveys would serve to capture a much wider data set to evaluate both perception and performance in terms of the specic 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 the development of scale items pertaining to each construct. One the conceptual front, it was discovered that appropriate systems should be implemented to facilitate a community of teaching practice across all course levels. Future work could explore the relationship between systems development and teaching effectiveness to determine how personal mastery can be integrated into team learning to enhance individual competence (Senge, 1990). Although such individual attributes as attitude and motivation may be difcult to modify over a short period, given the right stimulus through, for instance, an appropriate reward and compensation system, mental models can be changed for the benet of the institution. Further work could focus 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 complex issue largely driven by contextual uncertainties. As such, any study that attempts to unravel this concept further would require a fundamental preparedness to withstand the 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 of university 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 and Social Science, 2nd ed., Open University Press, London. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-27. Brown, J. (1991), Selling our education, Brainstorm, December/January, pp. 44-6.

Brewing service quality in higher education 283

QAE 16,3

284

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 investigation into 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 tertiary study, 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 UK university, 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 preferences for 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 tool for service marketers: the case of service quality perceptions of business students in New 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 student involvement in course evaluation within the tertiary education sector, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 156-66. Garvin, D.A. (1988), Managing Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY. noos, C. (2001), The perceived service quality concept a mistake?, Managing Service, Gro 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), Dening quality, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9-34. Henderson-Smart, C., Winning, T., Gerzina, T., King, S. and Hyde, S. (2006), Benchmarking learning and teaching: developing a method, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 143-55. Hill, F.M. (1995), Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary 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 sacricial lamb at the altar 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 TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 467-73.

Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1998), Identifying needs of potential students in tertiary education for strategy 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 Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 277-88. Krejcie, R. and Morgan, D. (1970), Determining sample size for research activities, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, pp. 607-10. Lawson, S.B. (1992), Why restructure? An international survey of the roots of reform, Journal of Education 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, Delray Beach, FL. Li, R.Y. and Kaye, M. (1998), A case study for comparing two service quality measurement approaches 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 measurement models: an empirical investigation in Spanish ceramic companies, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 899-918. McCollough, M.A. and Gremler, D.D. (1999), Guaranteeing student satisfaction: an exercise in treating 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, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 29-33. Narasimhan, K. (1997), Improving teaching and learning: the perceptions minus expectations gap 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 directing continuous 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 engineering education, 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 for measuring 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?, Youth Studies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 50-5. Perry, P. (1991), Quality in higher education, in Schuller, T. (Ed.), The Future of Higher Education, SHRE & Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 91-9. Quazi, H.A. and Padibjo, S.R. (1998), A journey toward total quality management through ISO 9000 certication: 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, Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 411-27. Ramsden, P. (1991), A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience 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 to Transform the Educational System, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Brewing service quality in higher education 285

QAE 16,3

286

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 service department 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 Scientic Management, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Thakkar, J., Deshmukh, S.G. and Shastree, A. (2006), Total quality management (TQM) in self-nanced technical institutions: a quality function deployment (QFD) and force eld analysis approach, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 54-74. Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991), Improving the quality of learning: the inuence of learning context 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, Charles A. Jones, Worthington, OH. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service, Balancing Customer 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 It Should 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 of student 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: an empirical investigation of students perception, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-39. Corresponding author Roland K. Yeo can be contacted at: yeokkr@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints