Dan Beaumont

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
MANCHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL
Service Quality in
Higher Education:
The students viewpoint
A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester
for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the Faculty of
Humanities
May 2012
DANIEL JAKE BEAUMONT

BSc (Honours) in Management
7408488
Supervisor: Dr Anna Goatman
Statement of Originality
This dissertation is my own original work and has not been
submitted for any assessment or award at the University
of Manchester or any other university.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Anna Goatman for her invaluable
input and phenomenal support throughout the process of
completing this dissertation.
2ii
Abstract
In light of the imminent rise in tuition fees, university funding cuts and fears of
declining student numbers, gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the higher
education sector is at the forefront of many universities agendas. In what can be
categorised as an extremely intangible service sector, one way that a university can
differentiate their service offering from the competition is through the provision of
excellent service quality. This study investigates perceptions of service quality at the
University of Manchester, collecting viewpoints from Undergraduate students from
different academic year groups.
The research was gathered through the use of focus groups as the primary data
collection method, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques to
triangulate the methodology and increase the credibility of findings. By using
Importance-Performance Analysis to examine the data, the findings indicate that
perceptions of different service quality characteristics are complex, varying in terms
of importance and performance, whilst also displaying disparity between different
academic year groups. Despite this, a set of core characteristics has been
uncovered, which all students deemed important to their university experience,
regardless of which academic year group they were part of.
This study provides university service management with a snapshot of the current
provision of service quality at the University of Manchester. It also offers suggestions
that could be implemented to improve service quality, given the limited resources
available to management. Due to the dynamic nature of service quality, it is essential
to conduct further research to build on this study, in order to ensure that the
university remains competitive in what is an increasingly turbulent environment.
3iii
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 The UK Higher Education Sector
1.2 The Higher Education Sector and Service Quality
12
1.3 The University of Manchester
12
1.4 Study Structure
13
2. Literature Review
15
2.1 Introduction
15
2.2 The Nature of Services
15
2.3 The Construct of Service Quality
21
2.4 Measuring Service Quality
27
2.5 Chapter Summary
37
3. Research Objectives and Questions
38
4. Methodology
39
4.1 Introduction
39
4.2 Methodological Stance
39
4.3 Rationalising the Methodological Approach
42
4.4 The Research Process: Focus Groups
43
4.5 Data Analysis Techniques
47
4.6 Ethical Considerations
48
4.7 Chapter Summary
49
5. Discussion
50
5.1 Introduction
50
5.2 The Importance and Performance of Service Quality Characteristics
50
5.3 Importance-Performance Analysis and Problematic Areas
60
5.4 Differences between Students Perceptions of Service Quality
70
4iv
5.5 Suggestions for University Service Management
76
5.6 Chapter Summary
84
6. Conclusion
85
6.1 Introduction
85
6.2 Conclusions Pertaining to Research Questions
85
6.3 Limitations of Study
88
6.4 Future Research Opportunities
89
7. Appendices
91
8. References
111
5v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. The Disconfirmation Model
25
Figure 2.2. The Perceived Service Quality Model
29
Figure 2.3. The SERVQUAL Model
30
Figure 2.4. Determinants of Perceived Service Quality
31
Figure 5.1. Importance-Performance Matrix Year 1
61
62
63
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Total Number of Students in Higher Education
11
Table 1.2. Total University Student Applicants
11
Table 5.1. Most Important Characteristics in Each Academic Year Group
52
Table 5.2. Best Performing Characteristics in Each Academic Year Group
57
Table 5.3. Areas to Maintain
64
Table 5.4. Problematic Areas
65
Table 5.5. Notable Patterns Across Different Academic Year Groups
72
Table 5.6. Problematic Areas Located from IPA
79
6vi
List of Appendices
Appendix A: The SERVQUAL Instrument
91
Appendix B: Variables and Dimensions for the HEdPERF Scale
93
Appendix C: Sample End of Unit Questionnaire
94
Appendix D: National Student Survey Questionnaire
96
Appendix E: Focus Group Details & Participant Demographics
98
Appendix F: Example Focus Group Survey
99
Appendix G: Importance-Performance Data - Year 1, 2 & 3
101
Appendix H: Importance-Performance Analysis Matrix Key
104
Appendix I: Individual Participant Ratings from Focus Groups
105
7vii
1. Introduction
The service sector has grown considerably since the 1970s and services are now
playing an increasingly important role in the economy of many nations (Abdullah,
2006a). In conjunction to this trend, the construct of service quality has become an
extremely topical issue within the services literature (Baron et al., 2009). The
provision of good service quality is commonly associated with increased profitability,
customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer retention, customer attraction and
positive word of mouth (Abdullah, 2006a; Nadiri et al., 2009; Voss et al., 2007). In
consideration of these apparent relationships, it is no surprise that there is great
interest in the measurement of service quality (Abdullah, 2006a). Despite the
realisation of its importance, many researchers have found it difficult to properly
define and measure service quality (Giese and Cote, 2000; Parasuraman et al.,
1998) due to the unique characteristics of services, specifically, intangibility,
inseparability, perishability and lack of ownership (Zeithaml et al., 1985).
Given the evident interest in service quality, its potential benefits and issues
associated with its measurement, the purpose of this study is to investigate
perceptions of service quality at the University of Manchester from the point of view
of the student. The first chapter begins by reviewing the current UK higher education
sector, focusing specifically on the role that service quality plays in universities. Next,
the background of the study is introduced and the chapter concludes by providing an
overview of the structure of the study.
1.1 The UK Higher Education Sector
The UK is regarded as one of the leading providers of higher education, housing

some of the best universities in the world. According to Times Higher Education
World University Rankings (2012), three of the top fifteen universities are based in
the UK, while the remaining twelve are of US and Japanese origin. In Europe, five of
the top seven universities are UK based, while the remaining two are located in
Sweden and Switzerland. On a domestic level, there is evidence to suggest that the
competitive marketplace for higher education is increasing. As of August 2011, there
were 129 universities in operation throughout the UK, compared to only 109 in 2001
(Department for Education, 2011). This translates to a percentage increase of
approximately 15.50% for the last decade.
8
Labelled as the sector that has experienced the highest number of changes over the
last two decades (Key Note, 2011), the higher education sector has been at the
forefront of intense changes. The sector is experiencing constant readjustment and
has been subject to several major reforms, largely pertaining to political, social and
economic factors. On the back of the formation of the coalition government,
alongside the economic recession, the higher education sector is facing the risk of
students becoming disenfranchised from education as the cost of tuition is set to rise,
as well as issues relating to reductions in the funding that institutions receive from the
government.
1.1.1 Tuition Fees
Historically, university experience came at no direct financial cost to students

studying in the UK. However, in 1998 the government decided to introduce tuition
fees for the first time, capping them at 1,000 to aid the growth and competitive
position of universities (Department for Education, 2000). In response to the Higher
Education Act 2004, fees were increased to 3,000 a year in 2006. From then
onwards, fees have climbed slowly in line with inflation up to 3,375 for 2011/2012
(Direct Gov, 2012a). However, the Browne Review (2010), commissioned in late
2009 and published in 2010, suggested that the cap on tuition fees should be lifted
and that universities should have the ability to increase their fees. In December 2010,
323 MPs voted in favour of an increase in tuition fees, while 302 rejected the
increase (Key Note, 2011). Accordingly, the coalition government decided against
lifting the cap on fees but instead revealed their intention to increase tuition fees,
removing the standardised cost of university for the first time.
As of September 2012, universities have the freedom to charge 6,000, and in some
circumstances 9,000, providing the institution can offer sufficient financial support to
students from poorer backgrounds (Direct Gov, 2012b). With universities
experiencing the brunt of the economic crisis and facing significant cuts in their
funding, it is no surprise that many are attempting to offset these cuts by charging the
maximum 9,000 per year of study. According to the Guardian (2011), more than a
third (i.e. 47 universities) will charge the full rate of 9,000 for the first time in
September 2012, and it is anticipated that many more will increase to the full rate in
the near future. With fears of excess of 40,000 debt on graduation from university,
students have reacted furiously with numerous protests through Westminster, though
these seem to have been unsuccessful with regard to changing government policy
9
(Key Note, 2011).
Although the higher education sector is fairly robust and it is anticipated that there is
always going to be demand for education, there have been fears that higher fees
may prevent students from studying in the UK, making higher education unobtainable
for many young people who wish to go to university (Key Note, 2011). Accordingly,
many students may cross international borders in an attempt to seek lower fees, thus
reducing the competitive position of UK universities in the marketplace. Worryingly, it
is forecasted that the number of students will fall from 2.7 million in 2011/2012 to 2.6
million in 2012/2013, and continue to decline year-on-year to 2015/2016 (Key Note,
2011).
1.1.2 University Funding Cuts
In addition to rising student fees and the economic downturn, the coalition
government have also decided to cut university funding for 2011/2012 and beyond.
Key Note (2011) point out that universities traditionally receive funding from a range
of organisations, including Higher Education Funding Councils (e.g. Higher Education
Funding Council for England) and Research Councils (e.g. Economic and Social
Research Council). Nevertheless, a total of 940m cuts have been made for
2011/2012 in comparison to the previous year. The largest cuts hit the teaching
budget, which is forecast to lose 342m by July 2012, while the research budget is
set to fall by 45m (HEFCE, 2011). This has led to worries that UK universities,
especially those less established, could find it difficult to fund some of the most
important research in the world, potentially jeopardising their reputation and
competitive position in the marketplace. Moreover, it is believed that government cuts
in the higher education sector are causing customer loyalty, satisfaction, retention,
attraction and service quality to become increasingly important issues, which can all
contribute in alleviating funding concerns. Therefore, in the face of various funding
cuts and intense global competition, higher education institutions are shifting their
focus to market-orientated mechanisms like many other service industries (DeShields
et al., 2005).
1.1.3 Student Numbers
Despite the surge in tuition fees in 2006, university student numbers have increased
steadily year-on-year by approximately 12.4% between 2006 and 2011 (Department
10
for Education, 2011).
Number of
Students
Diff (+/-)
% Change
Year-onyear
2006
2,281.2
2007
2,304.7
2008
2,306.1
2009
2,396.1
2010
2,493.4
2011
2,605
23.5
1.4
90
97.3
111.6
1.0
0.1
3.9
4.1
4.5
Table 1.1: Total Number of Students in Higher Education in the UK 2006 - 2011 (000s)
Source: Department for Education (2011)
Table 1.1 demonstrates that the greatest growth was experienced between 2009 and
2011, increasingly steadily and growing by 4.2% on average. Similarly, figures from
UCAS (2012) show that student university applications have experienced an average
percentage increase of 30% between 2007 and 2011 (Table 1.2). However,
examination of total applicants between 2011 and 2012 illustrates that applications
have decreased by 7.4%. It is believed that the root cause of this is students reaction
to the increase in tuition fees, which will be introduced in September 2012 (Guardian,
2012).
Total
Applicants
Diff (+/-)
% Change
Year-onyear
2007
402,831
2008
435,658
2009
464,167
2010
555,439
2011
583,546
32,827
8.1
28,509
6.5
91,272
19.7
28,107
4.8
2012
540,07
3
43,473
-7.4
Table 1.2: Total University Student Applicants 2007-2012 as of January Each Year
Source: UCAS (2012)
In recognition of these figures, it is predicted that the higher education sector will
continue to experience small declines year-on-year in student numbers by as much
as 2.9% (Key Note, 2011). This makes attracting students extremely important for
university management. After all, customer attraction is crucial for institutions and it is
no surprise that the recruitment of students is a major priority for many universities
due to the desire to increase the student population in line with the government
targets (Sultan and Wong, 2010).
11
1.2 The Higher Education Sector and Service Quality
Currently, the literature pertaining to service quality in the higher education sector is
significantly undeveloped. Traditionally, many researchers have focused their efforts
on commercial services (Sultan and Wong, 2010). However, it is increasingly
apparent that institutions operating in the higher education sector, previously not
regarded as profit-making organisations, are attempting to gain a competitive
advantage over their competition (Oldfield and Baron, 2000). As a result, universities
must consider themselves as a profit-making organisation that is operating in a
competitive marketplace (Oldfield and Baron, 2000).
In light of the current economic climate, funding cuts and potential future decreases
in student numbers, universities must realise that they are business entities,
competing for resources and students, both in the local and international market
(Paswan and Ganesh, 2009). This means that universities should be continually
looking for appropriate ways of gaining a competitive advantage. Accordingly, the
higher education sector must strive to deliver a high quality of service and satisfy its
students, who some may term participating customers, to achieve sustainability in a
competitive service environment (DeShields et aI., 2005). After all, universities can
only be successful as long as their students are being offered something that they
wish to buy, at a quality they feel is acceptable (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009). This
demonstrates the importance of service quality in gaining a competitive advantage,
whilst also highlighting the need to better understand the role that service quality
plays in the higher education sector.
1.3 The University of Manchester
The study is based upon the University of Manchester, which is a well-established

higher education institution. The universitys origin dates back to the formation of the
Manchester Mechanics Institute in 1824. In October 2004, the University of
Manchester was formed when the Victoria University of Manchester (founded in
1851) merged with UMIST (University of Manchester, 2012a). The university is the
most popular in the UK with nearly 40,000 students, of which approximately 28,500
are at undergraduate level. In support of this, Key Note (2011) state that the
University of Manchester ranked number one for total student applications, receiving
a staggering 58,252 applications during 2010. The university is supported by 10,712
staff, of which more than 4,500 are academic and research staff, making them one of
12
the biggest employers in the North West (University of Manchester, 2012b).
According to Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2012), the

university ranked 48th in the world for 2012, which represents a 39 place
improvement on their ranking of 87th in 2011. At a European level, the university
ranked 9th in 2012, behind only 6 other UK universities - Oxford, Cambridge,
Edinburgh, Imperial College London, University College London, and London School
of Economics and Political Science. Although the university is widely recognised on
the international stage, the Complete University Guide (2012), which is compiled by
Mayfield University Consultants, placed the University of Manchester a mediocre 29th
in the UK for 2012. Although the overall rankings are derived from entry standards,
student satisfaction, research assessment and graduate prospects, it is evident that
the university placed poorly in terms of student satisfaction. Of the 116 universities
surveyed, the university ranked 106th. These figures are particularly concerning
considering that the university is one of those set to charge the maximum 9,000
tuition fee rate as of September 2012. Despite this, and in response to rising tuition
fees, the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, Professor
Dame Nancy Rothwell, states:
this is necessary to ensure and improve the quality of teaching

and the wider experience that we offer to all of our student. (BBC,
2011)
This illustrates that reputable individuals at the university acknowledge the need to
continually improve the university experience for students. Accordingly, an
understanding of the current provision of service quality could provide university
service management with invaluable insights, as well as highlighting potential areas
that could be improved to enhance the university experience for students. After all,
providing a high level of quality can help build customer loyalty and positive word-ofmouth (Abdullah, 2006a), which ultimately assists in producing higher profit margins
for an organisation.
1.4 Study Structure
The purpose of this chapter is to set the scene for the rest of the study. Chapter 2
investigates current literature, focusing predominantly on the Nature of Services, the
13
Construct of Service Quality, and the Measurement of Service Quality in the context
of higher education. This is useful for formulating research objectives and questions,
which are uncovered in Chapter 3. Following this, Chapter 4 details the studys
methodology, which includes a justification of the research approach adopted, the
data collection method and data analysis procedures, as well as ethical
considerations. Subsequently, Chapter 5 incorporates both the findings and
discussion into one succinct chapter, which aims to present, analyse and discuss the
results of the study in relation to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. Finally, Chapter
6 presents conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and discussions
detailed in Chapter 5, as well as detailing the limitations of the study and future
research opportunities.
14
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the relevant literature relating to the construct of service
quality a heavily researched component of the services marketing literature (Baron
et al., 2009). In particular, it seeks to unravel and critically analyse the relevant
theories, models and concepts from key authors in the subject field, whilst
addressing the role played by service quality in a higher education context.
The literature review is divided into three sections: the Nature of Services (Section
2.2.), the Construct of Service Quality (Section 2.3) and Measuring Service Quality
(Section 2.4). The Nature of Services concentrates on introducing and defining
services in the context of higher education. Following an introduction to services, the
Construct of Service Quality is examined, attempting to understand what is termed
an elusive and indistinct construct by many academics (Bolton and Drew, 1991;
Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Within this
section, the debate surrounding the relationship between service quality and
satisfaction is explored. A section on Measuring Service Quality follows, uncovering
the different instruments developed by academics to measure service quality. Finally,
the literature review concludes with a summary of the chapter that details the key
findings, as well as highlighting a gap in the current literature that this study seeks to
address.
2.2 The Nature of Services
2.2.1 The Importance of Services
According to Zeithaml et al. (1993), services marketing did not emerge as a distinct
research discipline until the late 1970s. In less than four decades services have
become the dominant form of economic activity and are now playing an increasingly
important role in the economy of many nations (Abdullah, 2006a). There appears to
be a positive relationship between economic development of a country and its
service sector; developed economies are increasingly more service orientated
(Palmer, 2011). For instance, in the United Kingdom approximately 77% of workers
15
are employed in the service sector, in comparison to only 38% of workers in Thailand
a particularly less developed country than the United Kingdom (International
Labour Organization, 2009, cited in Palmer, 2011).
2.2.2 Defining a Service
Many definitions exist in regards to what constitutes a service. However, Palmer

(2011, p. 2) defines a service as:
The production of an essentially intangible benefit, either in its own

right or as a significant element of a tangible product, which through
some form of exchange, satisfies an identified need.
Alternatively, Lovelock and Wright (1999, p. 5) adopt a more informal approach,

defining a service as:
Something that may be bought and sold but that cannot be

dropped on your foot.
Finally, Zeithaml et al. (2009, p. 4), state:
services are deeds, processes, and performances provided or

co-produced by one entity or person for another entity or person.
Each definition captures the intangible nature of services, illustrating the most
fundamental difference between a service and good. However, it is also evident that
as well as differences, similarities between services and goods also exist. Therefore,
it is appropriate to distinguish between the two to broaden the definition of a service.
2.2.3 Services versus Goods
In the past, marketing literature fundamentally focused on the manufacturing of

tangible goods, discounting services and treating them like goods because of the
16
difficulty in defining and measuring a service (see e.g. Shostack, 1977). However,
Gronroos (1978) suggests that services should not be treated as physical goods.
Nonetheless, ambiguity still exists today, since services and goods share much of the
conceptual underpinning of quality (Palmer, 2011). Despite this, services tend to
pose much greater problems in the understanding of customers needs and
expectations than goods, which form the basis for evaluation (Palmer, 2011).
Hill (1995) manages to differentiate between goods and services, suggesting that a
service is ephemeral and can only be consumed as long as the process continues.
However, due to the heterogeneity of services, an individuals time spent consuming
a service could be longer lasting, challenging the notion that services are short-lived
(Zeithaml et al, 2009). Notwithstanding this issue, Parasuraman et al. (1985) argue
that the presence of tangible cues when purchasing goods (e.g. style, colour, feel
and fit) make it is easier for the customer to evaluate goods in comparison to
services. This limits the evaluation of a service to the service providers physical
facilities, equipment and personnel.
Services can also be differentiated from goods by examining their properties. As

identified by Zeithaml (1981), the properties of a service, namely, search, experience
and credence, influence how the service or good is evaluated. Search properties are
those elements that help customers to evaluate offerings prior to purchase.
Experience properties allow evaluation after performance of the service whereas
credence properties relate to those characteristics that customers find difficult to
evaluate even after purchase and consumption (Baines et al., 2008). Most services
contain few search properties and are high in experience and credence properties,
making their quality increasingly difficult to evaluate compared to the quality of goods
(Zeithaml, 1981). More recently, Baines et al. (2008) assert that most physical goods
are high in search properties, whereas services tend to have higher levels of
experience and credence characteristics.
2.2.4 The Characteristics of Services
An examination of the characteristics of services is useful when differentiating

between a service and a good. As highlighted by Parasuraman et al. (1988), and
later Giese and Cote (2000), the difficulty in defining and measuring services is
generally due to their unique characteristics (Zeithaml et al., 1985) - intangibility,
inseparability, heterogeneity, perishability and lack of ownership. It appears to be the
17
general consensus between many academics that these are the characteristics that
differentiate services from goods (Fisk et al., 1993; Nadiri, et al., 2009; Palmer, 2011;
Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Firstly, due to the intangible nature of services, problems tend to arise for both the
service provider and the consumer. This can often present problems for service
providers when attempting to differentiate their offerings from that of the competition
(Hill, 1995). Secondly, the heterogeneity of services makes most services unique,
resulting in problems when attempting to standardise a service. It is inevitable that
one service encounter will differ from the next within the same organisation
(Parasuraman et al., 1985), requiring the need to carefully manage the service
encounter. Thirdly, since services are an experience, they can only be consumed if
the service is made available to the consumer. Therefore, production and
consumption occur at the same time, resulting in most services being deemed
inseparable (Palmer, 2011).
A further distinction between services and goods is that a service cannot be stored.
This results in the need to pay more attention to the management of supply and
demand of the service to ensure that the service is utilised to its maximum potential
(Palmer, 2011). Similarly, the lack of ownership of services can be related to the
inherent perishability of a service. When a service is performed, no ownership is
transferred from the seller to the buyer (Palmer, 2011). In other words, the service is
essentially temporary, giving the buyer the right to participate in the service process.
It is clear that each characteristic poses significant implications for service

management regarding the delivery of a quality service. This presents the challenge
of understanding how the service is being perceived, consumed, or enacted when
developing marketing strategies (Hill, 1995).
2.2.5 Higher Education as a Service
DeShields et al. (2005) argue that it is essential for higher education management to
apply market-orientated principles and strategies that are used in profit-making
institutions. These principles and strategies are being applied to higher education
institutions with the aim of gaining a competitive advantage (Hemsley-Brown and
Oplatka, 2006). Accordingly, institutions are increasingly realising the importance of
higher education as a service industry and are placing greater emphasis on meeting
18
the expectations and needs of students (DeShields et al., 2005). Nadiri et al. (2009)
point out that it is crucial for higher education providers to understand students
expectations and perceptions of what constitutes a quality service in order to attract
students and serve their needs. This promotes the need for higher education
institutions to continue to deliver a quality service and satisfy its participating
customers to achieve sustainability in a competitive service environment (DeShields
et al., 2005).
According to Oldfield and Baron (2000), higher education can be seen as a pure
service, suggesting that it possesses all the unique characteristics of a service
(Section 2.2.4). More recently, Gruber et al. (2010) assert that higher education is a
service that is predominantly intangible, perishable and heterogeneous. This is due
to the service experience varying from one situation to the next, making higher
education service encounters difficult to standardise. Higher education as a service
also satisfies the perishability criterion since it is difficult to store. However, ways to
overcome this are evident, for instance, the emergence of e-learning and video
technology (Cuthbert, 1996a) over the past fifteen years. As a result, service sectors
such as higher education are attempting to defy the perishability characteristic of a
service through the assistance of innovation and technological advances.
Notwithstanding the characteristics of higher education as a service, it is important to

appreciate that higher education institutions, like any other businesses, have different
stakeholders with varying interests and agendas.
2.2.6 The Stakeholders of Higher Education
It is important to define a stakeholder in order to enable an understanding of the

various stakeholders in the context of higher education. An early definition, which is
still very prominent today, is provided by Freeman (1984, p. 46), who defines a
stakeholder as:
Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of the organisation objectives.
It is common for many organisations to have a number of stakeholders with different

opinions, interests and attitudes towards the organisation. This is no different in the
19
context of higher education, where a number of stakeholders exist, all experiencing

the institution in different ways. Stakeholders in a higher education institution tend to
include students, their parents and family, the local community, society, the
government, the governing body, staff, local authorities, and current and potential
employers (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Due to the variety of stakeholders in higher
education, it is natural for perceptions to vary between different stakeholder groups
(Appleton-Knapp and Krentler, 2006). Gruber et al. (2010) argue that every
stakeholder involved in a higher education institution has their own view of quality
due to particular needs. Moreover, quality means different things to different people
depending on the context being examined (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011), illustrating the
importance of acknowledging different stakeholder groups.
2.2.7 The Student as the Primary Stakeholder
Identifying the primary stakeholder in higher education is problematic (Cuthbert,

1996a). This combined with the issue that service providers can only deliver an
effective service if they know what the customer wants (Gruber et al., 2010), makes
the identification of the primary stakeholder even more crucial. Hill (1995) claims that
students are the primary stakeholders of higher education services in the UK,
demonstrating that they play a key role in the production and delivery process of the
service. More recently, Gruber et al. (2010) contend that students are the specific
and primary target audience, stressing the need for academic administrators to focus
on understanding their requirements. In addition, if universities focus on
understanding how their students perceive the services offered, they may be able to
adapt their services in a way that stimulates a positive impact on students perceived
service quality (Section 2.3.3). This could provide the institution with a certain
competitive advantage, principally in terms of generating positive word-of-mouth
communication between potential, current and future students (Alves and Raposo,
2009).
This study recognises that there are a range stakeholders in higher education.
However, the focus for the study is the student as the primary stakeholder, with the
aim of revealing what they actually think, which may support or contradict what other
representatives in higher education believe. Therefore, all subsequent discussion
pertaining to stakeholders in higher education relates to the student as the primary
stakeholder.
20
2.3 The Construct of Service Quality
2.3.1 Importance
Service quality has been a prominent research topic for many service marketers and
researchers over the last three decades. Baron et al., (2009, p. 167) maintain that:
Service quality is the single most researched area in services

marketing to date.
The reason for the vast interest in service quality is obvious; poor quality places the
firm at a disadvantage to the rest of the competition, potentially driving away
dissatisfied customers (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011). Organisations are operating in
extremely tough environments, and service managers now realise that improving
service quality is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage (Baron et al., 2009;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). Where there is competition, the quality of the service
experience becomes an important factor in buyer decision-making (Cuthbert, 1996a).
Accordingly, service quality is particularly important for organisational growth and
differentiating one service experience from another (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Service quality is widely regarded as a driver of corporate marketing and financial

performance (Buttle, 1996). It is no surprise that service quality is a heavily
researched topic due to its supposed relationship with costs (Crosby, 1979),
profitability (Rust and Zahorik, 1993), customer satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor,
1992), customer retention (Bolton and Drew, 1991), and positive word-of-mouth
(Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). In the context of higher education, each of the
relationships mentioned above are of fundamental importance given the decreased
funding available for universities and the controversial rise in tuition fees proposed for
September 2012 (Section 1.1).
2.3.2 Defining Service Quality
Many researchers have termed service quality an elusive and indistinct construct
that is difficult to define and measure (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin
and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Baron et al. (2009) claim that service
21
quality is a highly abstract construct in contrast to goods quality, where technical

aspects of quality are evident. Moreover, Clewes (2003) suggests that one
unresolved issue in the service quality field includes finding an appropriate definition
for service quality and a suitable model for measuring service quality.
Crosby (1979, p. 15) provides one of the earliest definitions of quality, suggesting
that it is the conformation to specifications. According to Crosby (1979, p. 17),
quality is often mistaken for imprecise adjectives like goodness, or luxury or
shininess or weight, illustrating the indefinable nature of the construct. Nevertheless,
Lewis and Booms (1983, p. 100) were one of the first to define quality in terms of
services, defining service quality as:
a measure of how well the service level delivered matches

customers expectations.
This definition can be developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), who argue that
service quality stems from a comparison of a consumers general expectations with
their actual perceptions of a firm. As a result, the level of service quality can be
measured by how much the service provided to consumers exceeds their
expectations (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011). Alternatively, authors such as Berry et al.
(1988), propose that service quality is an overall evaluation similar to an attitude. This
illustrates that there appears to be confusion and no general consensus between
academics with regards to a definitive definition for service quality.
2.3.3 Perceived Service Quality
Due to the subjective nature of service quality (Rust and Oliver, 1994), the services
marketing literature focuses on quality in terms of perceived service quality (Nadiri et
al., 2009). Perceived service quality results from the comparison of customer service
expectations with their perceptions of actual performance (Zeithaml et al., 1990), and
is seen as a global judgement of the service (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Athiyaman
(1997) extends this idea, claiming that perceived service quality is an overall
evaluation of the goodness or badness of a product or service.
22
Perceptions of service quality differ between different parties. For example, the
discussion pertaining to different stakeholders in higher education (Section 2.2.6)
demonstrates that a customers perceptions of service quality might not be the same
as company perceptions of service quality, resulting in a mismatch when attempting
to measure service quality. In addition, perceptions of service quality change over
time. In the context of higher education, experiences of students are varied and
continuous, over months and years (Cuthbert, 1996a). This highlights the relevance
of the context when measuring perceived service quality.
Hill (1995) adds to the complexity of perceived service quality, stating that the service
does not just depend on the service provider, but also on the performance of the
consumer. The co-production of services is of greatest concern to an organisation
when customers are more involved in the production process (Palmer, 2011). This is
extremely significant in the context of higher education, as the participation of the
student is vital since they play a large role in determining the success of the service.
As a result, managing and monitoring the quality of services is increasingly difficult
for the service provider (Palmer, 2011).
2.3.4 Service Quality in Higher Education
According to Sultan and Wong (2010), service quality research in the higher
education sector is relatively new, at least when compared to that of the commercial
sector. With significant changes taking place in higher education institutions over the
last decade, it seems that higher education should be regarded as a business-like
service industry, which focuses on meeting and exceeding the needs of students
(Gruber et al., 2010). Many higher education institutions are beginning to realise this
and are competing for students, both in the local and international market (Paswan
and Ganesh, 2009). Furthermore, with the emergence of many informal platforms for
students to post their views on their experiences (e.g. The Student Room), higher
education institutions are increasingly being called to account for the quality of
education that they provide. Accordingly, achieving quality has become an important
goal for most higher education institutions (Abdullah, 2006b).
Harvey and Green (1993) contend that quality in higher education is a complex and
multifaceted concept and an appropriate definition is lacking. There are many ways
to define quality in higher education and each definition has its own criteria and
perspective and is regarded as stakeholder relative (Harvey and Green, 1993). In
23
terms of the student as the stakeholder, DeShields et al. (2005) argue that the higher
education sector needs to continue to deliver a high quality service and satisfy
students in order to succeed in a competitive service environment. Therefore,
attempting to evaluate the level of service quality and understanding how different
factors impact overall service quality is crucial so that higher education institutions
can design their service in the best possible way (Abdullah, 2006b). Furthermore,
knowing the strengths and weaknesses of different factors and their relative influence
may lead to better allocation of resources, resulting in students being provided with
an improved service (Abdullah, 2006b).
2.3.5 Expectations and Perceptions
The services marketing literature presents an interesting debate regarding whether

customer expectations and perceptions should be used, or whether it is appropriate
to use purely perceptions to form judgements (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992,
1994). Despite this, Zeithaml et al. (1990) maintain that word of mouth
communications, personal needs, external communications from the service
provider, price and past experiences of the service are pivotal in influencing the
customers expectations.
Notwithstanding the issues associated with multiple stakeholders discussed earlier

(Section 2.2.6), Berry et al. (1988) suggest that the consumer is the sole judge of
service quality and that it is assessed by comparing expectations with their actual
experience of the service (Section 2.3.2). Zeithaml et al. (1990) propose that knowing
what the customer expects is an essential step for delivering good service quality.
This demonstrates the importance of understanding consumer expectations, how
they develop and their significance when managing service quality. On the other
hand, many academics believe in disregarding expectations completely, stating that
recalling them can be problematic (see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a, 2006b; Cronin and
Taylor, 1992, 1994; Oldfield and Baron, 2000). Theories of hindsight bias (see e.g.
Hawkins and Hastie, 1990) suggest that people generally do not recall the past
correctly but rather allow their experience to shape what they claim to have believed
initially, resulting in the possibility of biased expectations (Appleton-Knapp and
Krentler, 2006). Furthermore, in the context of higher education, Hill (1995) suggests
that students expectations of higher education are informed by their experiences at
high school leading to a potential mismatch between expectations and perceived
service quality.
24
Despite the debate surrounding the relevance of expectations, it is appropriate to

discuss the disconfirmation paradigm, as this provides a basis for understanding the
relationship between student expectations and student satisfaction (Appleton-Knapp
and Krentler, 2006).
2.3.6 The Disconfirmation Paradigm
Traditionally, the disconfirmation paradigm has been used extensively to determine

satisfaction. However, the disconfirmation paradigm is a flexible model that is also
useful for the measurement of quality in services (see e.g. Gronroos, 1982). The
paradigm is useful for understanding the relationship between a consumers
expectations and actual perceptions (Figure 2.1). It utilises four important constructs
expectations, performance, disconfirmation, and satisfaction (Smith and Houston,
1982, cited in Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Figure 2.1: The Disconfirmation Model

Source: Walker (1995)
Expectations are predictions of performance and their comparison with perceived

performance leads to three possible outcomes:
Confirmation: Occurs when actual performance is as expected.
Positive disconfirmation: Occurs when actual performance is greater than

expectations.
25
Negative disconfirmation: Occurs when actual performance is less than

expectations.
Positive disconfirmation produces satisfaction, whereas negative disconfirmation

produces dissatisfaction (Buttle, 1995). Moreover, when the expected and perceived
performance is the same, the customer is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (Buttle,
1996). This paradigm has been studied and tested by many researchers and serves
as the basis for the vast majority of satisfaction studies (Appleton-Knapp and
Krentler, 2006).
2.3.7 The Relationship between Service Quality and Satisfaction
The terms service quality and satisfaction are often used in an interchangeable
manner (Palmer, 2011), causing difficulty when attempting to distinguish between the
two theoretical concepts. Like service quality, customer satisfaction is an abstract
and ambiguous concept (Munteanu et al., 2010) and many researchers have
attempted to develop a consensus definition for this construct (Giese and Cote,
2000). Satisfaction has been defined as the perception of pleasurable fulfilment of a
service (Oliver, 1999). In contrast, Athiyaman (1997) argues that satisfaction is the
result of the evaluation of a specific transaction or consumption experience. Despite
this, measuring customer satisfaction provides organisations with one way to
ascertain the success of a product following its introduction to its market (Munteanu
et al., 2010).
On the other hand, service quality is interpreted as an enduring global attitude,

encompassing a view of the organisation in its entirety, while satisfaction is related to
a specific transaction or consumption experience (Rowley, 1997). Parasuraman et al.
(1985) also suggest that service quality is a form of attitude that is connected with
satisfaction but can still be differentiated. However, Carman (1990) argues that it is
uncommon for researchers to refer to quality as an attitude. Despite the controversy,
a clear distinction can be made between the two constructs; quality is based on
current perceptions whereas satisfaction is based on past, present and anticipated
experiences or outcomes (Anderson et al., 1994).
Sureshchandar et al. (2002) maintain that satisfaction possesses a multi-dimensional

nature, proposing that satisfaction should be operationalised along the same
dimensions that constitute service quality. It was established that satisfaction and
26
service quality were strongly correlated; however, the authors concluded that they
were indeed two separate constructs. Finally, Zeithaml et al. (2009) see satisfaction
as a broader concept than service quality, suggesting that service quality is a
component of satisfaction.
2.3.8 The Antecedent: Service Quality or Satisfaction?
A heavily debated topic in the services marketing literature relates to whether

satisfaction influences service quality or vice-versa. Cronin and Taylor (1992)
contend that service quality is an antecedent to satisfaction and that the direction of
causality is from service quality to satisfaction. However, the authors also state that
the causal directional relationship between satisfaction and service quality needed
further study (Cronin and Taylor, 1994). Still, the majority of recent publications
consider service quality as an antecedent to customer satisfaction (Gruber et al.,
2010).
While a significant amount of research suggests that service quality is a vital

antecedent to customer satisfaction, there is also evidence suggesting that
satisfaction may be an antecedent to service quality (Bitner, 1990). Likewise,
Parasuraman et al. (1988) also argue that consumer satisfaction leads to perceived
service quality.
Regardless of which construct is the antecedent, it is clear that the relationship

between satisfaction and service quality is strong when examined in both directions.
Despite the different arguments proposed by various authors, this study focuses on
service quality as the main construct. Therefore, it is assumed for the basis of this
study that service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction, advocating that service
quality influences satisfaction.
2.4 Measuring Service Quality
2.4.1 Introduction
Practitioners and academics are keen to accurately measure service quality in order
to better understand its essential antecedents and consequences, and ultimately
establish methods for improving quality to achieve a competitive advantage and build
customer loyalty (Abdullah, 2006a). In addition, there are many areas of
27
disagreement in the debate of relating to measuring service quality (Abdullah,

2006a). Some authors deem service quality difficult to define and model as a result of
the problems involved in conceptualising and measuring the construct (Parasuraman
et al., 1985). This is predominantly due to the intangible nature of services, making
conceptualisation more difficult for services than goods (Palmer, 2011). Therefore, it
is no surprise that the complexity in conceptualising and measuring service quality
has been deemed to be one of the most debated and controversial topics in services
marketing (Brady and Cronin, 2001). Despite numerous attempts by academics, no
single model of service quality is universally accepted (Clewes, 2003). Moreover, a
review of the existing literature demonstrates that there is no agreement pertaining to
the measurement of service quality (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005), providing further
evidence to illustrate that a generally accepted measurement scale does not exist.
2.4.2 Models for Measuring Service Quality
Over the last three decades, a range of conceptual frameworks and models have
been proposed that attempt to measure service quality (see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a,
2006b; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985,
1988). According to Palmer (2011), the main methods used to measure service
quality are performance-only and disconfirmation approaches. Furthermore, the most
widely used methods applied to measure service quality can be categorised as
quantitative multi-attribute measurements (Abdullah, 2006a), for instance, the
SERVQUAL approach (Parasuraman et al., 1988), the SERVPERF approach, and in
the context of higher education, the HEdPERF approach (Abdullah, 2006a, 2006b).
Of the approaches highlighted above, the most frequently cited model is the
SERVQUAL model, which stems from the earlier work of Gronroos (1984).
Furthermore, the development of the SERVPERF model has encouraged the
introduction of context specific models for measuring service quality. Abdullah (2006)
developed the Higher Education performance-only model (HEdPERF). The model is
a comprehensive performance-based measuring scale that attempts to capture the
determinants of service quality within the higher education sector.
2.4.3 The Perceived Service Quality Model
Gronroos (1982, 1984) was one of the first authors to conceptualise service quality
with the development of the perceived service quality model (Figure 2.2). The model
28
is based on the disconfirmation paradigm (Section 2.3.6), where the consumer

compares their expectations with their perceptions, and the quality of the service is
determined by the outcome of this evaluation process.
Gronroos (1984) claims that two types of service quality exist, namely, technical
quality and functional quality. Technical quality relates to what is provided during the
service process (e.g. knowledge, tangibles and technical solutions). These are the
relatively quantifiable aspects of the service, which the customer and supplier can
easily measure (Gronroos, 1984). On the other hand, functional quality refers to how
the service is provided and the interpersonal behaviours contributed by the service
employee during the service encounter. It is more difficult to measure than technical
quality (Gronroos, 1984). Gronroos (2007) proposes that the gap between the
expected service and perceived service is of utmost importance and that it is vital for
a service organisation to keep this gap as small as possible. In addition, it is
important for managers to understand how the technical quality and functional quality
of a service is influenced, and how customers perceive these quality dimensions
(Gronroos, 2007) to ensure perceived service quality is maximised.
Figure 2.2: The Perceived Service Quality Model

Source: Gronroos (1984)
29
2.4.4 The SERVQUAL Model
The introduction of the perceived service quality model encouraged the development
of the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). SERVQUAL is founded
on the view that the customers assessment of service quality is paramount (Figure
2.3). As with the perceived service quality model, the disconfirmation model (Section
2.3.6) is employed. In this instance, quality evaluations as perceived by customers,
stem from a comparison of what the customers feel the organisation should offer and
their perceptions of the performance of the organisation providing the service
(Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Parasuraman et al. (1988) believe that the level of
perceived service quality is dependent on the magnitude of the gap between
expectations and perceptions the smaller the gap, the higher the level of perceived
service quality.
Figure 2.3: The SERVQUAL Model

Source: Parasuraman et al. (1985)
As identified by Parasuraman et al. (1988), the SERVQUAL model uses 22 items,

asking customers what they expect from an organisation in terms of service quality
(Appendix A). A seven-point Likert scale is used to record expectations and
30
perceptions (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Parasuraman et al. (1988, p. 23) illustrate
that the model incorporates five dimensions:
Reliability: The ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
Empathy: The caring, individualised attention the firm provides its customers.
Assurance: The knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence.
Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel.
Figure 2.4: Determinants of Perceived Service Quality

Parasuraman et al. (1988) assert that the SERVQUAL instrument could be applied to
most service organisations. The use of a SERVQUAL instrument is particularly
relevant in the context of higher education (see e.g. Cuthbert, 1996a, 1996b; Hill,
1995; Oldfield and Baron, 2000). In particular, Cuthbert (1996a, 1996b) used the
SERVQUAL scale to measure student perceptions of university service quality. The
author found very weak results when testing the five SERVQUAL dimensions and
concluded that using a SERVQUAL scale to measure university service quality was
inappropriate. The author argues that a modified SERVQUAL instrument might be
applicable since it may be able to capture a better representation of the entire
student experience (Cuthbert, 1996a).
Literature relating to the validity and reliability of the SERVQUAL model is extremely
well documented (Buttle, 1995; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994). One
31
of the most controversial issues is the reliability of SERVQUAL (Nadiri et al., 2009).
Firstly, the dimensions are not generic; that is, the applicability of the SERVQUAL
scale to different service settings is questionable (Abdullah, 2006a). Secondly, it is
argued that the five dimensions are not universal, since the number of dimensions
comprising service quality is contextualised (Buttle, 1995). Therefore, it is no surprise
that the application of the SERVQUAL model in a higher education context has been
met with little success (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Despite the criticisms
SERVQUAL has received, it is clear that the model provides a convenient starting
point for practitioners and academics seeking to measure and monitor perceived
service quality. It provides a platform that is capable of directing attention to issues of
service quality, which can be built upon to generate a more comprehensive
interpretation of service quality.
It is usually impractical to measure expectations before the service is experienced

(Palmer, 2011). In the context of higher education, it is commonly out of the bounds
of the researcher to be able to capture student expectations of the university they
intend on joining. As a result, the researcher often tries to record expectations
retrospectively, which can be problematic, since expectations may have been
influenced by service delivery resulting in measurement becoming fairly meaningless
(Palmer, 2011). Buttle (1996) argues that there is little evidence that customers
assess service quality in terms of performance minus expectations. Consequently,
alternative approaches have been developed that attempt to improve the validity and
reliability of this model.
2.4.5 The SERVPERF Model
Cronin and Taylor (1992) were one of the first authors to criticise the reliability and
validity of the SERVQUAL model. In response to the limitations of the SERVQUAL
model, Cronin and Taylor (1992) developed the SERVPERF scale, which was born
out of the inadequacies of SERVQUAL. The authors believe that service quality
should be defined simply on perceptions, basing their model on the premise that it is
difficult to conceptualise expectations. This led to the development of a more direct
form of measurement that utilised an attitudinal rather than a disconfirmation
paradigm (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). The SERVPERF approach requires the
customer to rate only the service providers performance in a particular service
encounter.
32
Empirical results suggest that SERVPERF offers better reliability than SERVQUAL,
illustrating that expectations can be disregarded for assessment (Cronin and Taylor,
1992). In response to this, Parasuraman et al. (1994) defended the inclusion of
expectations suggesting that the diagnostic value of SERVQUAL offsets the
instrument loss of predictive power. In consideration of both models, Zeithaml et al.
(1996) contend that using only perceptions to measure service quality was more
appropriate if the primary purpose of the research was to explain the variance in a
dependent construct. Despite this, a recent study concluded that both the
SERVPERF and SERVQUAL scales are adequate predictors of overall service
quality (Carrillat et al., 2007).
Taking into account this evidence, this study focuses on collecting current
perceptions of students, rather than attempting to collect expectations retrospectively
as well. Empirical evidence from Cronin and Taylor (1992) endorse the feasibility of
this approach, demonstrating that the quality of the study it is not disadvantaged by
disregarding expectations.
Evidence of the application of the SERVPERF model in the higher education context
can be uncovered. Many researchers have preferred this methodology to
SERVQUAL and have used an adapted performance version of SERVQUAL to
measure the perceptions of service quality and evaluate students course experience
(see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a; Hill, 1995; McElwee and Redman, 1993; Oldfield and
Baron, 2000; Rigotti and Pitt, 1992). In particular, Oldfield and Baron (2000)
investigated students perceptions of service quality in a university in the UK. The
research identified that students perceived service quality has three dimensions:
Requisite elements: Essential to enable students to fulfil their study obligations.
Acceptable elements: Desirable but not essential to students.
Functional elements: Possess a practical or utilitarian nature.

This study is also based on determining students perceptions of service quality, but
also the relative importance of different elements and how the importance of various
factors changes across different years of study (i.e. first year and third year
students).
33
2.4.6 The HEdPERF Model
Despite the emergence of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, it has been
suggested that industry-specific service quality measures may prove more relevant
(Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1985). Generic measures
(e.g. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) of service quality may not be totally suitable for
assessing perceived quality in higher education (Abdullah, 2006a), creating the need
for an instrument specific to the higher education sector. In addition, it has been
recognised that little has been done to identify the determinants of service quality in
higher education from the viewpoint of the student (Abdullah, 2006a). As a result,
Abdullah (2006a) developed the HEdPERF model. The model is an adaptation of the
standard SERVPERF model (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992), adopting a
perceptions-only approach. Abdullah (2006a) states that the aim of this model is to
capture a context specific view of service quality in higher education, enabling the
whole student experience to be measured. The instrument measures 41-items
(Appendix B) and each item have been tested for reliability and validity, using both
types of factorial analysis, exploratory and confirmatory (Abdullah, 2006a).
Furthermore, comparative results show that the HEdPERF scale captures more
variance relative to that of the SERVPERF scale (Sultan and Wong, 2010).
Abdullah (2006a) argues that tertiary institutions can use HEdPERF to improve
service performance. In particular, research findings confirm that students
perceptions of service quality can be determined by evaluating six dimensions,
specifically, non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access,
programme issues and understanding. Evaluating service quality and understanding
how these dimensions impact service quality can enable higher education institutions
to efficiently design the service delivery process (Abdullah, 2006a). This is important
given the current economic climate since many UK universities are facing substantial
funding cuts (Section 1.1.2). In addition, rising tuition fees have the potential to
disenchant students from higher education (Section 1.1.1), making it even more
crucial to consider the provision of service quality. Furthermore, it is important to
satisfy students, since satisfied students will recommend the service to other
prospective students and will also be more likely to continue the relationship with the
service provider (Munteanu et al., 2010). Therefore, since the student is the main
recipient of the service, it becomes even more crucial to understand service quality
and its influence on the service delivery process, in an attempt to fulfil students
needs more effectively.
34
2.4.7 Existing Approaches to Service Quality Measurement in Higher Education
Many higher education institutions use in-house evaluation techniques to measure

the quality of education provided to students, as well as an assessment of student
satisfaction (Munteanu et al., 2010). They tend to perform an evaluation of other
aspects of the student experience beyond the assessment of the quality of teaching
and learning (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). According to Gibson (2010), higher
education institutions normally use a survey to obtain student feedback on a
particular academic programme. These normally incorporate questions relating to
various aspects of the programme, including questions relating to satisfaction with
regards to the overall academic experience. In addition, the survey tends to include
corroborating questions, for instance, whether or not the student would recommend
the programme to others (Gibson, 2010). In contrast, Manchester Business School
obtain feedback from students by distributing a standard course specific survey at the
end of each semester, requiring students to evaluate their experience of a particular
module (Appendix C). In turn, completed questionnaires are collected and analysed;
results are sent to faculties, as well as the course leaders (Palihawadana and
Holmes, 1996).
Alternatively, some universities, such as the University of Manchester, also utilise

external bodies to measure their service quality. An example of this is the National
Student Survey (NSS) (Appendix D). The NSS provides an opportunity for final year
students to give opinions on what they liked about their institution and course, as well
as things that could be improved (Student Survey, 2011). Subsequently, feedback is
used to compile year-on-year comparative data, which prospective students can use
to make informed choices in regards to where and what to study (Student Survey,
2011). Meanwhile, universities can use the data to enhance the students university
experience. Finally, the survey is administered by an independent market research
agency (e.g. Ipsos MORI), in order to ensure transparency and encourage a fair
assessment of each university (Student Survey, 2011).
2.4.8 The Search for a Uniform Measurement Model in Higher Education
There is an extensive amount of literature pertaining to the search for a general scale
and instrument for the measurement of service quality in all or a number of distinct
groups of service contexts (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Furthermore, Seth et al.
35
(2005, p. 933) state that:
There does not seem to be a well-accepted conceptual definition

and model of service quality nor is there any generally accepted
operation definition of how to measure service quality.
Although measurement scales such as SERVQUAL and SERVPERF were designed

as generic measures of service quality, it is important to view these instruments as
the basic platforms, which often require modification to fit the specific situation
(Abdullah, 2006a). More specifically, higher education institutions must focus their
attention on the dimensions perceived to be important rather than focusing on a
number of different attributes (Abduallah, 2006a). However, the approach of
attempting to determine what students perceive to be the important dimensions
through the use of surveys is questionable. According to Gruber et al. (2010), many
existing surveys are poorly designed, lack standardisation and give no evidence
concerning reliability or validity. Therefore, it is inevitable that problems pertaining to
the reliability and validity will arise when developing an instrument (e.g. the
HEdPERF model) that attempts to capture and model the complex and multifaceted
nature of service quality (Hill, 1995).
More sophisticated approaches to the construct of service quality within the service
encounter are required (Svensson, 2006). Abdullah (2006a) suggests that it may be
time to bury the existing instruments and attempt to reconstruct or redefine service
quality from a new and different perspective. However, instead of trying to generalise
and attempt to model service quality for a particular sector (e.g. higher education),
Sultan and Wong (2010) see service quality as a contextual issue since its
dimensions vary widely. Therefore, it could be more worthwhile to investigate service
quality based entirely on the situation at hand, since findings may vary from one
situation to the next. Carrillat et al. (2007) support this view suggesting that the
measurement of service quality should be adapted to context of each study.
Customers do not perceive quality in a one-dimensional way but rather judge quality
based on multiple factors relevant to the context (Zeithaml et al., 2009).
36
2.5 Chapter Summary
The chapter has reviewed the literature regarding the nature of services, the
construct of service quality and the measurement of service quality. In summary, it
has been acknowledged that the construct of service quality is complex and multifaceted in nature, making it increasingly difficult to measure. It has also been
established that confining the measurement of service quality to its particular context
could be more useful than using a generic methodology (e.g. SERVQUAL).
A review of the literature has uncovered a gap that this research attempts to address.
It is evident that service quality is deemed an elusive and indistinct construct by
many authors (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1988). Furthermore, there appears to be no definitive instrument
that accurately measures service quality (Clewes, 2003), since many measurement
instruments tend to be generic and subject to various criticisms in terms of their
reliability and validity. Accordingly, Abdullah (2006a) suggests that measuring service
quality using existing instruments is inadequate and that there is a need to explore
service quality from new perspectives. In consideration of these issues, a gap exists
to conduct research that investigates students perceptions of services quality, using
a combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques applicable to the study
context, in order to provide service management at the University of Manchester with
fresh insights regarding the current provision of service quality.
37
3. Research Objectives and Questions
The literature review presented in the previous chapter has raised a number of
objectives and questions that this study seeks to investigate further. The fundamental
purpose of this study is to investigate students perceptions of service quality at the
University of Manchester.
Accordingly, the following objectives can be proposed:
To identify the most and least influential characteristics of service quality as

perceived by students studying at the University of Manchester.
To determine whether dissimilarities exist in students perceptions of service

quality across different academic year groups.
To provide suggestions to university service management in an attempt to

improve the service quality provided to students.
The study attempts to answer the following research questions:
1. In terms of importance and performance, how do students perceive

different characteristics of service quality at the University of
Manchester?
2. Do discrepancies exist between students perceptions of service quality
across different academic year groups?
Findings to the research questions listed above enable the final research question to
be answered:
3. How can service management at the University of Manchester improve

the level of service quality provided to students?
38
4. Methodology
4.1 Introduction
The following chapter outlines the methodology and research techniques adopted to
answer the research questions proposed in Chapter 3. The chapter begins by
explaining the methodological stance of the researcher; justifying the course for
research, which dictates subsequent methodology decisions (Malhotra and Birks,
2007). Following this, the use of focus groups as the primary data collection method
is rationalised. Subsequently, the focus group data collection procedure is outlined,
illustrating the sample, procedure and issues faced in the data collection process.
Next, reliability and validity are considered, outlining the measures undertaken to
maintain each of these. Finally, the ethical issues concerning the research are
evaluated and the chapter concludes with a summary, which attempts to review the
methodology and offer improvements for future research.
4.2 Methodological Stance
The methodological stance of a researcher asserts how researchers view the world
and what their assumptions and beliefs are concerning their existence (Saunders et
al., 2009). Therefore, when conducting research, it is important to ensure that the
philosophical position of the researcher is properly considered since this underpins
the chosen research strategy (Saunders et al., 2009), ensuring that the phenomenon
being investigated is fully understood (Johnson and Clarke, 2006). In order to
determine the methodological stance of the researcher, two philosophical concepts
must be considered, namely, epistemology and ontology (Saunders et al., 2009).
Epistemology relates to the study of knowledge, its limitations and how the
researcher interprets knowledge. It is concerned with how knowledge is generated
and establishes which information is valid and which is not (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Traditionally, the paradigms of postivism and interpretivism are associated with
epistemology (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Generally, the paradigm determines which
research techniques are adopted for a study (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). However,
when choosing which paradigm is most applicable for research, Weber (2004)
suggests that the researchers beliefs and the purpose of the research dictate this
decision, as well as which method is most appropriate.
39
Positivism is an epistemological position, which advocates the application of methods

of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and beyond (Bryman and Bell,
2011). It is based on foundational principals that advocate the values of reason, truth
and validity (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). Therefore, a positivist perspective suggests
that human beings, their actions and institutions can be studied as objectively as the
natural world (Fisher and Buglear, 2007). The researcher that embraces a positivist
perspective believes that reality is out there waiting to be captured (Malhotra and
Birks, 2007). In capturing reality, a positivist approach focuses on research that
involves scientific experimentation that places emphasis on a highly structured
methodology (Gummesson, 2005). Furthermore, the overriding purpose of a positivist
approach is to generate generalised laws that can be used to predict behaviour and
provide an explanation for marketing phenomena (Fisher and Buglear, 2007).
However, in critique of a positivist approach to research, Addis and Podesta (2005)
assert that such an approach reduces participants of the study to mere numbers;
disregarding any interactions they may have in the research process.
On the other hand, interpretivism is an epistemological perspective that advocates

the need to understand the differences between humans in their role as social actors
(Saunders, et al., 2009). Interpretivism states that individuals create, modify and
interpret the world, and that adopting such an approach is often useful for generating
knowledge that is said to be socially constructive. The interpretivist approach uses a
subjective approach to explore the world, suggesting that no independent objective
reality exists. Accordingly, the interpretivist researcher believes that there may be a
wide array of interpretations of realities. The interpretivist researcher does not set out
to test hypotheses, but instead explores the nature and interrelationships of
marketing phenomena (Malhotra and Birks, 2007).
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the study of reality and
dictates how a researcher approaches different phenomena (Saunders et al., 2009).
Ontology is concerned with the nature of social entities and asks how we perceive
objects to exist in the world (Bryman and Bell, 2011). It questions whether reality is
objective and exists regardless of our perception of it, or whether it is subjective and
only exists because we believe this to be so (Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, a
researcher must question whether social entities should be considered as objective
entities that have a reality external to social actors, or whether they should be
considered as social constructions built up from the perceptions and actions of social
actors (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
40
Conventionally, an objectivist is likely to favour quantitative research while a

subjectivist will favour qualitative research. The main difference between quantitative
and qualitative research is that quantitative researchers employ measurement and
qualitative researchers do not (Bryman and Bell, 2011). However, Strauss and
Corbin (1998) state that the decision of whether to use either qualitative or
quantitative methods largely depends on the nature of the research problem.
Furthermore, Weber (2004) criticises the approach of sticking too rigidly to one
paradigm for research, suggesting that the best findings come from picking the most
appropriate methods that are relevant to the research problem at hand. Alternatively,
many authors suggest combining both quantitative and qualitative data since the two
approaches are complementary, suggesting that they should not be used in isolation
of each other (Jankowicz, 2005; Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Worryingly, many
researchers fall into the trap of adopting a rigid position in favour of either qualitative
or quantitative research (Malhotra and Birks, 2007), which can put the reliability and
validity of the research study in jeopardy.
Saunders et al. (2009) argue that the most appropriate philosophical stance depends
on the research objectives and questions. Based on this assertion, the researchers
beliefs and the literature presented above, this study adopts a positivist
epistemological perspective that focuses on an objective ontological reality. Utilising
an interpretivist approach for research would be inappropriate in this context, given
that this perspective centres on personal opinion and feelings instead of attempting
to establish objective reality. Instead, this study seeks to utilise a scientific approach
to research in order to achieve truth and uncover reality.
However, as illustrated above, it is crucial to avoid reducing participants of the study

to mere numbers and disregarding their interaction in the research process.
Therefore, since the approach taken depends on the research problem at hand, this
study contradicts the customary use of solely quantitative research for a positivist
approach and utilises a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative measurement
where necessary. Sticking too rigidly to one approach by using either qualitative or
quantitative measurement could jeopardise the findings and potentially impact the
reliability and validity of the research, which ultimately affects the credibility of the
study. Furthermore, it is reasonable to integrate qualitative research techniques
(conventionally associated with interpretivist research) in a positivist study. This is
supported by Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) who advocate that researchers should
learn to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research, regardless of the
41
philosophical stance adopted by the researcher. The authors term adopters of this
approach the pragmatic researcher. This type of researcher tends to deal with
problems in a sensible and realistic manner that focuses more on practical rather
than theoretical considerations. After all, it is widely accepted that research
methodologies are merely tools that are designed to aid our understanding of the
world (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005).
The pragmatic researcher appreciates that incorporating both quantitative and
qualitative techniques in the same study can strengthen the validity of a
methodology, offsetting some of the limitations and problems associated with
individual research techniques (Sechrest and Sidani, 1995). In consideration of this
study, Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) add that the inclusion of qualitative data can
be particularly useful for explaining and validating relationships that have been
discovered by quantitative data, since relying on one type of data (i.e. number or
words) can be extremely limiting.
4.3 Rationalising the Methodological Approach
The methods and techniques that are most suitable for research depends on the
research problem and its purpose (Jankowicz, 2005). Therefore, with the studys
philosophical stance, objectives and research questions in mind, this section of the
methodology explains the rationale for selecting focus groups as the primary data
collection tool for the methodology.
Focus groups as a research technique have long been prominent in marketing

studies (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Focus groups are a quick, flexible and
inexpensive method of gathering data from several respondents in a short period of
time (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Traditionally, focus groups are seen as an
interpretivist research technique and useful for exploratory research when little is
known about the phenomenon at hand (Stewart et al., 2007). However, as located in
Section 4.2, their application is not solely dedicated to qualitative research. In support
of this, Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) state that although focus groups are mostly
used for collecting qualitative data, they can also be used to produce quantitative
data.
This study defies common conventions, utilising focus groups as the main research
technique, whilst researching from a positivist perspective. Saunders et al. (2009)
42
provide evidence to support this approach, suggesting that it is possible to quantify

qualitative data and convert it into numerical codes so that it can be analysed
statistically. Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) provide additional support suggesting that
a researcher may collect and code the data that they have collected in such a
manner that would allow statistical analysis.
Given the nature of the study (i.e. cross-sectional) and the various resource
constraints (i.e. time, money, accessibility) placed upon the researcher, focus groups
appeared to be the most feasible method in comparison to other data collection
methods. For instance, attempting to distribute large questionnaires to students
across different academic years could have been problematic. There are multiple
reasons for this, including the issues associated with achieving a good representation
of the population and guaranteeing a high response rate (Malhotra and Birks, 2007),
as well as the difficulty of accurately interpreting the results from the questionnaires
(Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010).
4.4 The Research Process: Focus Groups
The purpose of the study is to investigate students perceptions of service quality so

that suggestions can be provided to service management at the University of
Manchester. In addition, the study is cross-sectional, focusing on determining
whether perceptions change over the course of a students degree (i.e. Year 1
through to Year 3). Each of the focus groups was carried out over a two-week period
at the beginning of semester two (February 2012) using students enrolled at the
University of Manchester. Apart from one of the focus groups, the remaining five
lasted approximately one and one and a half hours in duration, falling in line with
guidelines set out by Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) who believe that focus groups
should last between 30 minutes and 2 hours to achieve the most promising results.
4.4.1 Sample
In total, 36 BSc Management students from Manchester Business School

participated in the study; including 16 females and 20 males, with an age range of
18-24 (Appendix E). This translates to a total of six semi-structured focus groups,
each with six participants involved. In order to increase reliability and validity, two
focus groups were conducted for each year of study (i.e. Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3).
These characteristics fall in line with Malhotra and Birks (2007) who recommend that
43
focus groups should have between six and ten participants. Importantly, Morgan
(1998) asserts that groups of fewer than six are unlikely to generate the momentum
for a successful session, while groups of more than ten may be too crowded and may
not be conducive to a cohesive and natural discussion. More recently, Ghauri and
Gronhaug (2010) claim that a focus group that is too small (e.g. less than 5
participants) or too large (e.g. more than 10 participant) can make the focus group
ineffective as the participation of individuals can become too fragmented.
The participants for each focus group were selected using convenience sampling.
Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that is used to obtain
a sample of convenient elements at the researchers own discretion (Saunders et al.,
2009). In addition, convenience sampling is the least expensive and least time
consuming of all sampling techniques (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Therefore, in an
attempt to maximise homogeneity between participants, a requirement of the sample
was that all participants were enrolled on the BSc Management degree programme
(including associated specialisms) and part of Manchester Business School. In
support of this, Hair et al. (2008) recommend that focus groups should be as
homogenous as possible. Furthermore, Krueger and Casey (2009) believe that it is
important that some kind of homogeneity exists between the participants, but with
enough difference to allow for variation of opinions and debate. Kitzinger (1994)
claim that being with others who share similar experiences encourages those
participating to express, clarify, or even to develop particular perspectives. In
addition, commonality among group members is useful for avoiding conflict as well as
acting as a mechanism that encourages more in-depth and open discussion (Ghauri
and Gronhaug, 2010).
The researcher acknowledges that convenience sampling may not be representative

of a definable population (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Therefore, the researcher
appreciates the boundaries of the study and the potential bias attached to the results
in the conclusion of the study.
4.4.2 Procedure
Before the actual six focus groups were carried out, a pilot focus group was
conducted with a convenience sample of six final year business students to ensure
consistency in the format, design, layout and structure of the focus group.
Importantly, this was also used as an opportunity to confirm the service quality
44
characteristics used in the focus group (Appendix F), which were taken from the
literature (Appendix A and Appendix B) and adapted to this study. Participants also
had the opportunity to suggest additional characteristics if they felt that they had not
been brought up. Regardless, as Malhotra and Birks (2007) point out, the first focus
group should be treated as an experimental group. The intention here was to
ascertain whether the procedure worked, how participants reacted, how participants
perceived the service quality characteristics and how the moderator dealt with the
focus group (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). In essence, the pilot focus group aimed to
eliminate any confusion, in an attempt to improve the reliability and validity of each
future focus group.
Apart from one, each of the other focus groups was carried out in a quiet study room
in the John Rylands University Library. According to DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree
(2006), it is important to ensure that the environment is familiar and comfortable each
time for all participants. Furthermore, Malhotra and Birks (2007) claim that a relaxed,
informal atmosphere helps group members to forget that they are being questioned
and observed. Finally, each focus group ended by summarising the main points that
had been covered and asking participants if this seemed an accurate summary.
For each of the main focus groups, each participant was welcomed, given an
overview, introduced to key terms (e.g. service quality) and informed of the ground
rules (Krueger and Casey, 2009). As group sessions are often unpredictable in terms
of the flow of conversation (Silverman, 2006), a topic agenda was utilised to ensure
that all of the necessary topics were covered. More specifically, the first part of each
focus groups required participants to rate different service quality characteristics
based on how important they perceived them to be and how well they performed
(Appendix I). The second part of each focus group engaged participants in a lengthy
discussion to determine why they had rated characteristics the way they did, as well
as asking students to provide suggestions for improving the level of service quality at
the university.
The researcher was the moderator for each focus group since similar demographics
were shared with participants, which allowed the researcher to relate to each of the
participants more readily (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Moreover, it is useful for the
moderator to have a good understanding of the group so that they can maintain
useful conversation and debate when the group is going off topic (Silverman, 2006).
Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) also believe that the moderator is useful for ensuring
45
that the focus groups remained effective and structured, and should only intervene if
the discussion started to stray off topic. Accordingly, the moderator attempted to
remain neutral throughout each focus group and recorded the discussion using a
dictaphone. As Krueger and Casey (2009) advocate, this was important so that the
conversation could be better managed without the need for note taking.
4.4.3 Maintaining Reliability and Validity
It was important to be aware biases that could arise throughout the focus group
process and therefore crucial to maintain the validity and reliability. According to
Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010), validity refers to measures that capture what they are
supposed to capture whereas reliability considers the stability of measures. One
downside to the use of focus groups for collecting data is that it is very difficult to
summarise and categorise information that has been gathered (Ghauri and
Gronhaug, 2010), creating the possibility of biased results.
In order to enhance the reliability and validity of each focus group, data was collected
using a triangulation approach. Saunders et al. (2009) assert that triangulation is the
combination or use of two or more different data collection techniques within one
study of the same phenomenon. According to Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010), when
correctness or precision is important, it is logical to collect information using different
methods and angles. With this in mind, a combination of both quantitative and
qualitative research techniques was used within each focus group to embrace a
triangulated approach to data collection. First of all, the use of a basic quantitative
survey (Appendix F) to collect student perceptions was used in each focus group.
However, the researcher acknowledged that independently, surveys do not reveal
any reasoning behind the responses, commonly providing management with a simple
indication and no justification. The overriding purpose of using a survey within the
focus group was to encourage discussion. Therefore, the second part of the focus
group centred on discussing participants ratings from the surveys and also asking
them to provide suggestions for university service management. Each discussion
was also recorded to allow easier transcription of findings in the analysis.
In addition to attempting to triangulate the research procedure, two focus groups

were conducted for each year of study, thus repeating the data collection process to
ensure consistency and the elimination of potential anomalies. Furthermore, the
moderator ensured that each focus group was semi-structured in nature to help
46
prevent creating bias by unintentionally guiding responses. Despite these attempts to

improve reliability, the researcher acknowledges that the data collection process was
not perfect and that it could be subject to possible bias (e.g. demographic bias). That
said, Krueger and Casey (2006) claim that it is necessary to make trade-offs when
selecting participants and that this is acceptable as long as it is taken into account in
the analysis of data.
4.5 Data Analysis Techniques
It is appropriate to discuss which techniques have been used to analyse data that
has been collected. Firstly, mean scores, variances and rankings were calculated for
each academic year group based on each of the service quality characteristic
(Appendix G). To achieve this, ratings from each participant across both focus
groups in each year were combined.
Subsequently, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was used to profile the data

for each academic year group. IPA is one of the most useful forms of analysis in
marketing research, combining information about customer perceptions and
importance ratings (Zeithaml et al., 2009). In this instance, IPA was used to link
perceptions of importance with perceptions of performance for different service
quality characteristics, as perceived by students (Section 5.1). The data were then
mapped out onto simple to read matrices that management can use at to establish
what service quality characteristics need addressing, which need maintaining and
which need de-emphasising. For instance, a characteristic that was perceived
extremely important but performed poorly would be considered as a problematic area
that management needed to address. Although, students perceptions were
measured using a scale ranging from 1 - 10 for both the importance (e.g. 1 = Low
Importance, 10 = High Importance) and performance (1 = Low Performance, 10 =
High Performance) of characteristics, the scale was readjusted during analysis to 4 10 to generate a better representation of the findings. The mean results used to plot
the data on the IPA matrices did not fall below 4, making it possible to map the data
using a shortened scale. This is taken into consideration when interpreting the results
in the discussion.
It is acknowledged that each IPA matrix, without any further support, does not give
management an accurate interpretation of each service quality characteristic. As a
result, the recordings from each focus group discussion were transcribed and
47
organised into key themes that could be used in conjunction to each IPA matrix to
provide further evidence for the discussion. This supports the methodological stance
of the researcher, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques
in the same study to increase the credibility of the findings.
4.6 Ethical Considerations
Saunders et al. (2009) point out that ethical concerns can occur at all stages of a
research project; when seeking access, during data collection, as data is analysed
and when findings are reported. Ethical concerns include protecting the anonymity of
participants, honouring all statements and conducting research in a way that does
not embarrass or harm the participants (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Thomas (2004)
postulates that it can be difficult to try to avoid ethical problems in marketing
research, making it increasingly important to consider ethics throughout the research
process. Moreover, Malhotra and Birks (2007), and later Ghauri and Gronhaug
(2010), advise that the ethical consideration process should begin during the design
stage of the research, since ethics can have a detrimental impact on time and
resources if they are only considered at the final stage of the research process.
A researcher must take all possible precautions to inform and safeguard each
respondent (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Therefore, to ensure complete ethical
consideration, the research was conducted in line with the Data Protection Act
(1998), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) research ethics
framework (2010) and the ethical research guidelines provided by the University of
Manchester. In particular, the Data Protection Act (1998) was followed to help
prevent the invasion of privacy of data held about participants. The act also ensures
that personal data must be: processed fairly, obtained for a specific purpose,
accurate, kept secure, kept up-to-date and kept no longer than necessary (Saunders
et al., 2009).
Each participant that was involved in the study was informed about the studys
purpose, procedure and structure at the beginning of each focus group. Silverman
(2006) asserts that it is crucial for the participants to be aware of the purpose of the
study and how the research will be used to avoid any element of deception.
Additionally, Loue (2000) claims that participants must be respected and provided
with sufficient privacy and confidentiality to safeguard their interests. Therefore, it
was made clear to participants that their involvement was voluntary and that they
48
retained the right to withdraw from the study at their own discretion. Finally, all
participants were ensured that data would remain completely anonymous and that
any evidence would be destroyed on completion of the study.
4.7 Chapter Summary
As with any methodology, it is common for issues to arise throughout the data
collection process. Although the methodology proved to be a very challenging part of
the research study due to its unpredictable nature, only minor technological issues
were encountered.
This chapter has outlined the research plan and methodology used to address the
research questions that were proposed in Chapter 3. Firstly, the methodological
stance of the researcher was outlined, which influenced the rationale of using focus
groups as the primary data collection method. Following this, the data collection
process was outlined, describing and explaining the sample, procedure, problems
encountered and mechanisms used to maintain validity and reliability throughout the
process. Subsequently, the methods used to analyse the data were considered and
issues associated with the analysis were highlighted and justified. Finally, important
ethical issues relating to the study were considered, whilst listing the techniques and
procedures used to ensure the study remained within suitable ethical boundaries.
49
5. Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to analyse and discuss findings simultaneously,

allowing coherent presentation and interpretation of the results. It is logical to adopt
such an approach, as the discussion of results that follow the analysis is key in
understanding the findings at each stage. This allows each of the research questions
proposed in Chapter 3 to be answered more succinctly than if the chapters were
separated. In doing so, the discussion attempts to compare and contrast findings with
the relevant literature that was reviewed in Chapter 2, as well as identifying aspects
that are absent from the current scholarly literature.
The discussion is divided into four sections, namely, the Importance and
Performance of Service Quality Characteristics (Section 5.2), ImportancePerformance Analysis and Problematic Areas (Section 5.3), Differences between
Students Perceptions of Service Quality (Section 5.4), and Suggestions for
University Service Management (Section 5.5). The first three sections place
emphasis on tackling research question one and two, while the final section focuses
on research question three, bringing in elements from the first three sections to
support each suggestion proposed to university service management.
5.2 The Importance and Performance of Service Quality Characteristics
5.2.1 Overview
This section focuses on research question one, determining what students perceived
to be the most important and best performing service quality characteristics, in order
to understand the current provision of service quality at the university. Baron et al.
(2009) provide support for the need to tackle this question, arguing that a good
starting point for service managers is to determine the level of quality that the
organisation should provide for different aspects of the service.
In general, the findings indicate that both importance and performance ratings for
different characteristics of service quality vary amongst students. In many instances,
the findings indicate that variances exist between students perceptions of the same
50
characteristic (Appendix G). For example, one student could consider the range of
teaching methods used by lecturers to be extremely important, whereas another
student could consider the same characteristic to be relatively unimportant. This
supports the work of Zeithaml et al. (2009), who suggest that customers have many
service requirements and that characteristics are not of equal importance and that
some customers may consider one characteristic to be relatively unimportant, while a
different customer regards the same factor as being crucial. In terms of higher
education, this presents various implications for university service management
(Abdullah, 2006a), making it important for institutions to concentrate on the
characteristics perceived to be important rather than focusing on characteristics in an
ad-hoc manner. After all, knowing the relative importance of different characteristics
could enable the universitys limited resources to be allocated more efficiently,
stimulating the possibility of better service provision for students.
5.2.2 The Importance of Service Quality Characteristics

Despite the elusive and indistinct nature of service quality (Bolton and Drew, 1991;
Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988), demonstrated by
discrepancies between students perceptions of different characteristics, the findings
indicate that there is a core set of characteristics that are important to each
students university experience. Table 5.1 provides evidence to support this,
illustrating students perceptions of the eight most important service quality
characteristics. The data was extrapolated, utilising the mean scores from each year
of study to rank each characteristic based on its importance. Moreover, the
corresponding variance was calculated for each characteristic to show how much
deviation existed between students responses for each characteristic.
Although the positioning of each characteristic varies, there are six characteristics
that are common to each academic year group. The remaining characteristics signify
specific needs for students in each year group, which is explored further in Section
5.4. Nevertheless, when questioned about the six characteristics, participants termed
these as essential. More specifically, one participant claimed that these
characteristics were:
fundamental to the university experience and extremely

important in achieving a good degree at university, which is the
51
primary objective for most students. (Participant A Year 2,

Group 1)
To further the credibility of a core set of characteristics, the variance for each
characteristic is relatively low, ranging between 0.33 and 1.11. To put this into
perspective, according to the perceptions of year 3 students, the highest variance
recorded was 9.24 for the performance of seminars (Appendix G). Despite this, a low
variance suggests that students perceptions did not fluctuate significantly from the
mean, demonstrating that participants were in agreement with regards to the rating of
each of these characteristics, albeit some characteristics more than others.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year 1
Characteristic
Knowledge and experience of academic staff
Quality of lectures
Relevance of course material
Internal student feedback systems
The reputation of the university
Social opportunities
Quality of seminars
Ability to understand student needs
Year 2
Prompt and efficient feedback on work
Quality of seminars
Quality of lectures
Ability to deal with queries promptly and efficiently
Year 3
Quality of seminars
Careers service
Quality of lectures
Quality of academic facilities and learning resources
Mean
Variance
9.33
0.42
8.92
0.63
8.83
0.33
8.75
0.57
8.75
0.75
8.75
0.75
8.58
0.99
8.42
0.81
9.17
9.08
8.92
8.67
8.42
8.25
7.83
7.83
0.52
0.63
0.81
0.97
0.99
1.11
0.70
0.52
9.33
9.25
9.25
9.25
9.25
8.92
8.83
8.67
0.61
0.57
0.93
0.75
0.75
0.81
0.70
0.61
Table 5.1: Extract of Most Important Characteristics Data in Each Academic Year Group
See Appendix G for full data tables
52
Cuthberts (1996a) argues that perceptions of service quality change over time. The
findings contradict this assertion, indicating that perceptions for certain
characteristics (i.e. core characteristics) do not fluctuate greatly, remaining fairly
consistent as time progresses (i.e. year 1 through to year 3). Notwithstanding this
issue, the findings also show similarities with the results of a study conducted by
Oldfield and Baron (2000), who also investigated students perceptions of service
quality. As the findings demonstrate in this study, Oldfield and Baron (2000) also
established that students place different importance on service quality characteristics
and that perceived service quality could be grouped into three dimensions, namely,
requisite, acceptable and functional elements. In particular, Oldfield and Baron
(2000) classified requisite elements as those characteristics that were essential to
enable students to fulfil their study obligations (e.g. knowledge of academic staff,
queries are dealt with efficiently and promptly, academic staff deal with me in a
caring fashion). Similarly, the findings of this study suggest that there appears to be
a set of core characteristics that enable a student to fulfil their study obligations.
However, Oldfield and Baron (2000) only compared perceptions of first and final year
students, whereas this study investigated perceptions across each year of an
undergraduate degree.
5.2.3 Academic Characteristics
Four of the six essential characteristics identified in Table 5.1 (i.e. knowledge and
experience of academic staff, quality of lectures, relevance of course material and
quality of seminars) show strong resemblance to the academic aspect of a students
university experience. Similarly, Abdullah (2006a) identified academic aspects as
one of six key dimensions when developing of the HEdPERF scale, providing
evidence to support their relevance to a students university experience. Likewise,
the requisite elements identified in Oldfield and Barons (2000) study show that the
majority of these elements were academic related. In this study, three of the
characteristics fell into the teaching section of the survey, while the remaining
characteristic fell into the academic staff section of the survey (Appendix F). In
addition, numerous participants commented on the possibility that some of these
characteristics were linked, for example, one participant pointed out how the range
of teaching methods used could affect the quality of a lecture. Another participant
believed that these characteristics were part of the universitys primary offering,
explaining that they best reflect what a student is paying for to study at university.
53
It was evident that participants were torn when deciding whether the quality of
lectures or the quality of seminars was more important to them. The general
consensus from the discussion was that the quality of lectures would act as a bigger
determinant on the students final grade than the quality of seminars did.
Regardless, several participants believed that these complemented each other,
pointing out that a good quality seminar is crucial for consolidating what had been
learnt in class. Despite this, a large number of participants also claimed that given
their experience of seminars and the lack of consistency in quality, good quality
lectures were more important to them.
Participants also perceived the knowledge and experience of academic staff as
important across each academic year. The majority of participants believed that it
was important to be taught by leading doctors and professors that are the forefront of
their subject fields. Participants also commented on a supposed linkage of this
characteristic with the quality of lectures and seminars, illustrating that this was
influential in determining the quality of the lecture or seminar. One participant
classified this as the most important characteristic, suggesting that if the lecturer is
knowledgeable and the information they are providing is up-to-date, useful and from
trustworthy sources, then a student is more likely to galvanise an interest in the
subject, which in turn, could have a positive influence on the performance of that
particular student. Finally, participants believed that the provision of relevant course
material is crucial, especially when applying for jobs in the future, due to need to
apply what had been learnt in class to practical situations in an employment position.
5.2.4 Internal Student Feedback Systems

Participants believed that students should be seen as the universitys primary
customer. Gruber et al. (2010) provide support for this, claiming that students should
be seen as the primary target audience, stressing the need for academic
administrators to understand their requirements. One participant explained that:
The university needs to focus on operating more as if it was a

business rather than a university. One of the most fundamental
tasks for any business is to understand customer needs and this
university is no exception. (Participant G - Year 3, Group 2)
54
This supports the view of DeShields et al. (2005) who claim that it is crucial for higher
education management to apply market orientated principles and strategies that are
used in profit-making institutions. In conjunction to this, students should be at the
forefront of service quality design and involved in improving the service quality by
being able to provide feedback to management. In order to achieve this, participants
believe that it is important that a variety of feedback mechanisms are available. One
participant acknowledged the importance of internal student feedback systems
stating:
without any chance for students to give feedback, the university

would find it difficult to improve the provision of service quality,
which could result in the competition overtaking and potentially
jeopardising the universitys reputation. (Participant C - Year 3,
Group 1)
This statement illustrates the importance of student feedback and its role in gaining a
competitive advantage in the higher education marketplace. Hill (1995) provides
support for this, claiming that students play a key role in the production and delivery
process of the service. Finally, many third year participants commented on the issue
that the NSS is the only mechanism that they could use to provide feedback on their
entire university experience. These participants also recognised that the NSS was
externally focused and did not collect any meaningful information that university
service management could use to improve service quality.
5.2.5 The Universitys Reputation
For the majority of participants, the reputation of the university was a considerably
important characteristic. Participants believed the universitys reputation was related
to employability and that it influenced their future job prospects. The overriding
purpose of attending university for many students is to increase the likelihood of
securing a job post graduation. Therefore, participants were in agreement that they
wanted their university and degree classification to be recognised when applying for
jobs upon completion of their university degree. One participant claimed that:
55
You could have an amazing time at a less reputable university, but

sooner or later it all comes down to employability, and this is not
going to work as well if the reputation of the university is not there.
(Participant F - Year 3, Group 1)
Furthermore, an overwhelming 75% of participants believed that due to the relatively

intangible nature of education (Gruber et al., 2010) and the difficulty in defining and
measuring a service (Giese and Cote, 2000; Parasuraman et al., 1988), the
universitys reputation acted as a key search attribute (Zeithaml, 1981) when
deciding which university to study at. Nevertheless, Abdullah (2006a) provides
evidence to support the importance of this characteristic with the development of the
HEdPERF scale. The authors study identified reputation as one of six key
dimensions, which must be carefully evaluated when using the scale to gauge the
current level of service quality. Despite the evident importance of the universitys
reputation, another participant acknowledged the difficulty of not being able to
properly ascertain the true value of the universitys reputation until they have started
applying for jobs.
5.2.6 The Performance of Service Quality Characteristics
Understanding the performance of different service quality characteristics is critical to

enable university service management to understand how to improve service quality.
DeShields et al. (2005) provide support for this claiming that institutions need to
continue to deliver a high quality service and satisfy students in order to succeed in a
competitive service environment. In particular, one participant explained that:
Being in touch with the service and understanding how various

aspects perform is crucial for determining what improvements are
needed, in order to enhance the overall level of service quality and
to satisfy various stakeholders. (Participant G - Year 3, Group 2)
Table 5.2 illustrates students perceptions of the eight best performing service quality
characteristics. By combining the performance results for each year group and
ranking them in accordance to their mean, it is evident that there are numerous
characteristics that perform consistently across different academic year groups.
56
Although the positioning of each characteristic varies, there are four characteristics
that are common to each academic year group (i.e. the reputation of the university,
knowledge and experience of academic staff, campus location and layout, and
organisation and management of course).
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year 1
Characteristic
Knowledge of administrative staff
Campus location and layout
Organisation and management of course
Provision of other facilities and services
Year 2
Course flexibility
Physical appearance of university
Careers service
Year 3
Careers service
Course flexibility
Quality of lectures
Mean
Variance
8.75
0.93
8.67
0.97
8.58
0.99
8.42
1.17
7.83
0.88
7.75
0.39
7.50
2.09
7.33
1.52
8.08
8.08
8.00
7.92
7.75
7.50
7.42
7.33
0.63
0.63
0.91
0.45
0.39
0.64
0.99
0.79
9.08
8.42
8.25
8.17
8.00
7.75
7.58
7.33
0.45
0.45
1.30
0.70
1.09
2.39
0.27
2.24
Table 5.2: Extract of Best Performing Characteristics Data in Each Academic Year Group
See Appendix G for Full Data Tables
5.2.7 The Reputation of the University

Participants from the focus groups believed that the reputation of the university was
one of the best performing factors. As Table 5.2 illustrates, of the four common
characteristics across each academic year, the reputation of the university appears
to be the highest scoring. Since all the participants involved in the study were part of
Manchester Business School (MBS), they commonly referred to the their schools
reputation rather than the reputation of the university. However, the general
57
consensus from each focus group was that the university was highly regarded and
respected, particularly MBS.
There is an enormous collection of evidence to support the universitys high
performance in this particular characteristic. It is evident that the reputation of the
university is rated highly by various independent organisations. According to Times
Higher Education World University Rankings (2012), the university placed 48th in the
world and 9th in Europe for 2012. In addition, QS World University Rankings (2012)
ranked the university 29th in the world for 2011/2012. Nevertheless, as numerous
participants correctly pointed out, the university will face the challenge of upholding
their reputation over the next few years, due to the rise in tuition fees (Section 1.1.1),
and its likely impact on the level of service quality sought by students.
Participants also rated the knowledge and experience of academic staff highly,
regarding it as the second best performing of the common characteristics across
each academic year group. Interestingly, several participants brought up the
possibility that this particular characteristic is influenced by the reputation of the
university. They added, to maintain a good reputation, the university needs to
employ people that are knowledgeable and experienced in their fields, since this is
something that will directly impact the reputation of the university.
5.2.8 Organisation and Management of Course
All participants were in agreement that the organisation and management of the
course was another area in which the university performed well. Despite the large
number of people enrolled on the course, participants felt that the timetables,
lectures, module choices were very well organised. Many participants brought up
positive incidents with administration, where they had gone out of their way to deal
with non-routine problems such as clashes with timetables. In addition, numerous
participants commented on the universitys efficient and diverse use of channels to
communicate with students. For example, they felt that the SMS service that
informed students when a lecture is cancelled is a very efficient communication
method, realising that the majority of students have more immediate access to their
mobile phones. In addition to this, participants believed that that they are kept well
up-to-date with different events and opportunities by the universitys effective e-mail
system.
58
5.2.9 Campus Location and Layout

Participants across each academic year group felt that the campus layout and
location was another well performing characteristic. However, it appears that many
students regard this characteristic as relatively unimportant, ranking 22nd for year 1
and 2 students, and 23rd for year 3 students, of 24 characteristics studied (Appendix
G). Several participants believed that the university is well networked by good local
bus services, which also integrate well with the city. Moreover, students also brought
up the provision of a free shuttle bus connecting North and South campus, and that
most of their lectures were conveniently located close to Manchester Business
School (MBS) on Oxford Road (participants were all MBS students). Accordingly,
good transportation links may make the campus location and layout become less
important to students. One participant provided support for the lack of importance of
this particular characteristic, suggesting that it did not affect the provision of service
quality:
Although the performance of the campus and layout exceeds what

I would have expected, it is not something that I perceive to be
extremely important to my university experience as this does not
really impact my ability to study at the university. (Participant G Year 1, Group 2)
Interestingly, several participants pointed out that the campus layout and location
was extremely influential when originally making the decision to study at the
University of Manchester. This is perhaps a result of the lack of search properties
(Zeithaml, 1981) for many prospective students when evaluating university as a
service, resulting in them resorting to things that can be evaluated (e.g. campus
layout and location) in the absence of any tangible manifestation. In support of this,
one participant argued that:
In first year I was more concerned with the location of different

amenities and facilities in relation to the campus. However, this was
purely a first year thing which has deteriorated in importance as the
years have gone on, despite it remaining a seemingly well
preserved aspect of the universitys service provision. (Participant
59
A - Year 3, Group 1)
This demonstrates the need for the university to focus the universitys limited
resources on improving the more important service quality features that have a
greater impact on students perceptions rather than allocating resources to less
important parts of the service that have a less significant impact on students
perceptions. This falls in line with Zeithaml et al. (2009) who suggest that a common
mistake for managers is to try and improve the quality of service by spending
resources on the wrong initiatives, only to become discouraged because customer
perceptions of the organisations service do not improve.
5.3 Importance-Performance Analysis and Problematic Areas
5.3.1 Overview
The previous section focused on determining what the most important and best
performing characteristics were without considering whether a relationship existed
between the importance and performance of different characteristics. As a result,
Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was used as part of the data analysis,
combining the mean scores for both the importance and performance of each
characteristic and plotting them on an easy to read matrix for each academic year
group (Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2, and Figure 5.3). Each matrix provides university
service management with a simple visual interpretation of the current provision of
service quality, which could be beneficial for making more informed decisions in the
future.
More specifically, university service management can use each matrix to direct
attention to the service quality characteristics that need improving, as well as those
that should be maintained or de-emphasised. In this instance, each matrix maps the
relationship between students importance perceptions and students performance
perceptions for each service quality characteristic. Each IPA matrix recognises
problematic areas for management, which are those characteristics that are
perceived to be extremely important by students but perform poorly. The location of
problematic characteristics and the reasoning behind each is useful for backing up
the suggestions that are provided to management (see e.g. Section 5.5). The IPA
matrix for each academic year group is illustrated below (Appendix H for key).
60
Figure 5.1: Importance-Performance Matrix Year 1
61
62
63
5.3.2 Areas to Maintain
Firstly, as mean scores for each service quality characteristic did not fallow below 4,
each IPA matrix graphed data using a shortened scale (e.g. 4-10). This generated a
better representation of the results, making it easier for university service
management to locate areas to improve as well as areas to maintain. However, due
to using a shortened scale and the possibility of bias, the positioning of each
characteristic on each matrix does not explain anything without any justification.
Instead, the discussion points from each focus group must be used to support and
complement the IPA matrices, in order to provide better and more reasoned
suggestions for university service management.
Knowledge and Experience of Academic Staff
The Organisation and Management of the Course
11
The Quality of Academic and Learning Facilities
23
The Universitys Reputation
Table 5.3: Areas to Maintain
As Table 5.3 illustrates, that there are four characteristics that perform consistently
well (i.e. high importance and high performance) across each academic year group.
Section 5.2 provided reasoning for each of these characteristics. Nevertheless, it is
clear that management should maintain these in the short-term and turn their
attention to other characteristics that require more immediate attention. However, it is
important for management not to overlook these characteristics completely and
periodically review students perceptions to ensure their importance or performance
ratings do not change. Cuthbert (1996a) provides support for this, pointing out that
perceptions are varied and continuous, over months and years and are therefore
prone to change, illustrating the need to continually update students perceptions.
Furthermore, the findings also indicate that campus location and layout is a
characteristic that needs de-emphasising, plotting in the bottom right quadrant of
each IPA matrix. It is evident that this characteristic appears to perform well (Section
5.2.9) but is seen as relatively unimportant by students. In reality, it would be
impractical to attempt to de-emphasise this characteristic; therefore, this
characteristic should be something that university management should maintain.
64
5.3.3 Problematic Areas
The IPA matrices identified five characteristics (Table 5.4) that fell into the quadrant
representing areas to improve. Each of these characteristics were considered
extremely important by students but performed poorly. These characteristics are not
equal in terms of their importance and performance and those characteristics that are
closer to the top left corner of the quadrant indicate problematic areas that the
university should consider first (i.e. higher importance and lower performance). The
availability of academic staff is an example of a characteristic that fell into the
improve quadrant for each years IPA matrix. However, this characteristic positioned
in the bottom right corner of the quadrant of each matrix, suggesting that it would be
an issue of immediate priority for university management, as students consider other
characteristics to be more important, and at the same time, worse preforming.
Quality of Seminars
Availability of Academic Staff
Prompt and Efficient Feedback on Work
12
Access to Academic Facilities and Learning Resources
24
Internal Student Feedback Systems
Table 5.4: Problematic Areas
Due to the issues identified with the scale used for each IPA matrix, the discussion
now explores each of the problematic characteristics identified in Table 5.4 in more
detail. This is also useful to provide evidence to support suggestions made in Section
5.5 of this chapter.
5.3.4 The Quality of Seminars
There was a lengthy discussion concerning this particular characteristic in each of

the focus groups. On a positive note, the majority of participants believed that
seminars were extremely important, with the majority of participants emphasising
their relevance for consolidating what had been learnt in lectures. However, it is also
evident that there were conflicting views about the performance of seminars, with
many participants identifying the lack of consistency in regards to their quality. A
selection of participants believed that some of their seminar leaders fail to
65
consolidate or improve knowledge and that more often than not their seminar leaders
were of a poor standard. For several participants, the impact of just one bad
experience in a seminar significantly jeopardised their overall evaluation of the quality
of seminars. Accordingly, there were extremely diverse evaluations for this
characteristic since many participants found it difficult to evaluate. This is supported
by Gruber et al. (2010) who argue that higher education is predominantly intangible,
perishable and heterogeneous, resulting in aspects of the service experience varying
from one situation to next and making them difficult to evaluate.
Many participants believed that most seminar leaders were knowledgeable but found
it difficult to convey their ideas and engage the seminar class in discussion. When
probed further, a selection of participants felt that some seminar leaders lacked the
necessary skills to evoke passion and stimulate participation of all group members.
Worryingly, one participant claimed that in some instances their motive for attending
one particular seminar was to simply register their attendance and get a tick,
claiming that they did not gain any value from the seminar. Moreover, the majority of
participants claimed that there appeared to be no evidence that seminar leaders had
been subject to any training. Several participants believed that this had a detrimental
affect upon the quality of the seminar and could be a plausible reason for the evident
lack of consistency.
In contrast, a handful of participants gave examples of positive seminar experiences

where their lecturer had taught their seminars. These participants believed that more
often than not this resulted in better coordination between the lecture and seminar.
Despite the issue associated with the competence of some seminar leaders,
participants appreciated the difficulty in achieving quality when seminars are heavily
based upon co-creation of value between the producer (seminar leader) and the
consumer (student). This is supported by Hill (1995) who recognises the complexity
associated with achieving quality, especially when the service does not just depend
on the service provider but also on the performance of the consumer. Worryingly, a
significant number of participants brought up the problem of unequal participation in
seminars and the issue of some students freeriding. Several participants pointed out
that it was commonplace that some people had not completed the required work,
which jeopardised the quality of the seminar. This is a problem that university
management needs to consider, given that the co-production of services is of greater
concern to organisations when customers are more involved in the production
process (Palmer, 2011).
66
5.3.5 Feedback on Work and Availability of Academic Staff
The participants identified that feedback given to students on their work is another
important but relatively low performing characteristic. The general consensus
amongst participants was that feedback was often delayed and there were
inconsistencies in the time taken mark and return a piece of coursework, assignment
or examination. Several participants recalled experiences of poor promptness where
receiving the feedback had surpassed the promised window. One participant
provided an example of one member of staff that marked and returned their
coursework within a week of submitting it, whereas another member of staff greatly
surpassed their deadline, providing feedback four weeks late.
Aside from the issue of delays, numerous participants pointed out that feedback
tends to be generic, providing no real guidance for improvement. Many participants
believed that staff did not provide enough comments or useful comments that could
be used to improve their work in the future. According to several participants, there
seems to be unwillingness amongst staff to provide extensive feedback to students
on an individual basis for assessed work. Worryingly, one participant felt that this was
the worst performing characteristic of service quality because of the nature of the
feedback received. When asked to elaborate, the participant pointed out that:
it is difficult to gain anything from the feedback received on work

at university. It is commonplace to receive a feedback sheet full of
ticks and one comment. (Participant I - Year 3, Group 2)
Despite the issues associated with feedback, many participants were aware that
class sizes were large and finding a way for a lecturer to provide individualised
attention to every student is extremely problematic. One participant believed that this
problem linked to the availability of academic staff, which is another characteristic
that needs to be considered by university service management. In relation to this
issue, a significant number of participants claimed that the contact time with
academic staff was extremely limited in comparison to the number of people enrolled
on the module. They went on to explain that lecturers only offer a small and inflexible
selection of office hours, perhaps one to two hours per week, which could be
expected to cover up to 150 students on the larger and more popular modules. The
67
importance of receiving efficient feedback and individualised attention from academic

staff cannot be undermined. In support of this, Oldfield and Baron (2000) found that
the provision of individualised attention fell into requisite elements, which were
important for allowing a student to fulfill their study obligations. Furthermore, some
participants believed that the potential marginal benefit of good feedback and access
to academic staff is relatively high and has a direct positive impact on the quality of
their next assignment.
5.3.6 Internal Student Feedback Systems
Of the characteristics that have been located in the improve quadrant, participants
perceived this to be the most important and worst performing characteristic across all
academic year groups. Participants in the focus groups believed that the university
does not take a customer-centric approach. They felt that the student should be seen
as the primary customer since they are the consumers of the service and without
them the service would not be able to function. This falls in line with Hill (1995) who
believes that students are the primary customers of higher education services.
Gruber et al. (2010) provides further support for this, suggesting that students need
to be seen as the primary target audience by universities and that there is a need for
academic administrators to focus on understanding their requirements.
A significant number of participants also commented on the lack of mechanisms in

place for students to give their opinions on the university. More specifically,
participants were under the impression that no feedback system existed, or at least
they were not aware of any, to post their feedback on the complete student
experience. The majority of participants pointed out that end of unit questionnaires
were available for completion at the end of each semester, however, these were
course specific and did not assess the entire university experience. Moreover, a
number of participants brought up the backward looking nature of this particular
feedback mechanism. They believed that there is no incentive for students to fill in
the questionnaire properly and provide the university with reliable feedback, since
these students do not reap the benefits of change due to a potential time lag and
difficultly implementing change immediately in such a rigid organisation.
Additionally, a handful of participants thought that end of unit questionnaires were

seen more of an administrative task rather than a true evaluation of the service
quality. These participants doubted the integrity of end of module questionnaires,
68
asking the question of how the university could act upon a mere rating for a particular
characteristic. Furthermore, these participants believed that these questionnaires do
not properly engage with students and are not designed with the students in mind;
rather collecting what the university perceives to be important. This is consistent with
Gruber et al. (2010), who claim that many existing surveys used by higher education
institutions are poorly designed, lack standardisation and give no evidence
concerning reliability or validity.
All participants in the third year focus groups mentioned the NSS as a means for
assessing the entire student experience at the university. However, many
participants appreciated that this was externally moderated and did not act as a
constructive feedback system for the university. When probed further about validity of
the NSS, many participants stated that the NSS was not a fair reflection of their
university experience and that they felt pressurised when completing it. Many
participants did not want to give a bad interpretation of the university, as they were
under the impression that a bad perception of the university would ultimately affect
their own employability opportunities. Worryingly, several participants that had
completed the NSS survey admitted to not giving a truthful interpretation of the
university and exaggerating the quality of the university, portraying the university to
be better than it actually is. Interestingly, prospective students are one of the main
users of NSS data when looking to join a university and this data contributes in
forming their expectations. If they choose to attend the university, they may
experience negative disconfirmation (e.g. dissatisfaction), resulting from a mismatch
between their initial expectations and actual perceptions (Buttle, 1995).
5.3.7 Access to Academic Facilities and Learning Resources

Access to academic facilities and learning resources is a further characteristic that is
regarded as problematic. Generally, participants of each focus group believed that
the provision of facilities and resources is above average. However, one particular
issue weakened the performance of this characteristic for many participants.
Numerous participants commented on the issue of learning resources during
examination period at the end of semester one and semester two. During this time,
demand exceeds supply and there appears to be a limited supply of learning
resources (e.g. study areas, computers, books) available to fulfill a students needs.
One participant recalled an occasion where they were queuing in the main library for
1 hour 45 minutes to get access to a university computer, while another participant
69
explained that on one occasion they had to work on the floor because the library was
too overcrowded. In addition to this issue, a selection of participants commented on
concerns regarding the availability of course textbooks for certain modules. They
believe that more often than not there are not enough course textbooks relative to the
number of students on the course and this becomes an even greater issue when
most textbooks are compulsory and can be priced anywhere between 20 and 50.
5.4 Differences between Students Perceptions of Service Quality
5.4.1 Overview
The following section focuses on addressing research question two. It is evident from
the findings that differences also exist between certain characteristics across
different academic year groups. Moreover, students have different perceptions
regarding the importance and performance of service quality characteristics on both
an intra and inter year basis, imposing various implications for university service
management.
5.4.2 The Complex Nature of Service Quality Perceptions
The literature highlighted that service quality in higher education is a complex and
multifaceted issue (Harvey and Green, 1993). This is supported by the findings,
which illustrate that perceptions change between different academic year groups (i.e.
on a inter year basis). For example, third year participants perceived the careers
service to be more important than first year participants did. Such findings support
the view that service quality is context specific, and varies from place to place
depending on the context being studied. Sultan and Wong (2010) provide evidence
to support this view, stating that service quality should be seen as a contextual issue
since its dimensions vary widely. Zeithaml et al. (2009) provide further support,
postulating that customers do not perceive service quality in a one-dimensional
manner but rather judge quality based on multiple characteristics relevant to the
context. To add to the complexity of this issue, and in support of the notion of service
quality being context specific, the findings also suggest that students perceptions of
service quality also vary within each year group (i.e. on a intra-year basis). For
instance, one third year student could regard seminars as high performing whereas
another student in the same year could perceive them to be poor. This finding falls in
line with Lovelock and Wirtz (2011), who believe that quality means different things to
70
different people depending on the context being examined, and that two people can
have drastically different perceptions of the same service.
As a result of the context specific nature of service quality, it can be postulated that
service managers face considerable difficultly producing a meaningful representation
of service quality within the same organisation. This challenges past studies
conducted by various researchers that have attempted to generalise the
conceptualisation and measurement of service quality by developing generic service
quality measurement scales (Section 2.4.4) that claim adaptability and versatility to
different service industries. However, despite numerous attempts by academics, no
single model of service quality is completely accepted (Clewes, 2003). Seth et al.
(2005) provide additional support for this, suggesting that there is not a generally
accepted model of service quality nor is there any generally accepted operational
definition of how to measure service quality. Instead, studies have suggested that
service quality scales need to be adapted to the study context (Carman, 1990;
Carilliat et al., 2007), providing further evidence to support the notion that service
quality is context specific.
In reference to a higher education context, the literature identified that Abdullah

(2006a, 2006b) created the HEdPERF tool, based on six dimensions (i.e. nonacademic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, programme issues and
understanding), to assess service quality in a higher education context. It is evident
that even industry specific instruments assume linearity when conceptualising and
measuring service quality. In reality it is impractical to assume that generic models
capture a detailed perspective of a complex sector such as higher education.
Instead, and as this study has found, it seems more feasible to adopt a context
specific view of service quality, using measurement technique(s) based on the
situation at hand, in order to be able to deal with the multifaceted, indistinct and
elusive nature of the construct (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990). Despite this,
it must be acknowledged that models may provide a good starting point for a
researcher wishing to measure service quality, by directing attention to various
issues that may need considering.
5.4.3 Variations in Students Perceptions Over Time
The literature identified that university service management tend to regard service
quality as uniform, assuming students require the same provision and failing to
71
acknowledge the possibility that perceptions may alter over time as a student
progresses through their undergraduate degree. Through the use of mean service
quality perception scores, the findings demonstrate that student perceptions of
certain characteristics alter in terms importance and performance as students make
the transition from first year to third year of their undergraduate degree. This falls in
line with Cuthbert (1996a), who points out that service quality perceptions are varied
and continuous, over months and years and are therefore subject to change.
Furthermore, Berry et al. (1985) state that the quality of service can vary within the
same organisation. Therefore, university service management must be able to track
and manage perceptions as they change over time rather than assuming all
perceptions of each characteristic remain the same. The challenge here is to not only
meet students needs but to react to these needs as they alter over time.
Notable Trends
Characteristics
I/P
Careers Service
or
Mean
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
5.92
6.08
9.25
Social Opportunities
8.75
7.25
4.50
Provision of other Facilities and Services
8.33
6.83
5.33
Quality of Lectures
6.92
6.92
7.58
Quality of Seminars
4.17
6.00
6.17
I Importance, P Performance, - Increase, - Decrease

Table 5.5: Notable Patterns Across Different Academic Year Groups
Table 5.5 illustrates that the importance of social opportunities and provision of
other facilities and services decreased in importance from year one to year three,
whereas the careers service increased in importance from year one to year three.
On the other hand, the quality of lectures and seminars appeared to increase in
performance from year one through to year three. Based on this principle of change
over time, comparable findings can be are witnessed in a study conducted by
Oldfield and Baron (2000). The authors investigated student perceptions of both first
year and final students, establishing that perceptions of service quality changed over
time. Although the authors were unable to conclude definitively, their limited
comparative study revealed that acceptable elements (e.g. availability of staff and
willingness of staff to provide individual attention) showed a gradual increase,
72
becoming increasingly important, the longer the students had been on the course.
5.4.4 The Careers Service
As Table 5.5 illustrates, students perceptions of the careers service increased in
importance through year one to year three. More specifically, the findings highlight
that third year participants found the careers service extremely important in
comparison to participants in other years. When the careers service was discussed
with third year participants in the focus group, the general consensus the careers
service is essential, since a career is now more important to them than it had been
previously, considering each participant was approaching the end of their
undergraduate degree. When asked to elaborate, the majority of third year
participants said that they had been using the career service, mainly for seeking
advice and guidance for a gap year, work experience and graduate schemes. One
participant explained:
having the support of the careers service is crucial for improving

my job prospects, especially in consideration of the competitive job
market and the evident impact of the recession. (Participant G Year 3, Group 2)
In contrast, first year participants perceived the careers service to be less important
than the other two academic year groups did. When participants were asked to
discuss the careers service, it was clear that a career was not something at the
forefront of their agendas this early on in their degrees. To support this, the majority
of participants claimed that they had only used the careers service once or twice with
two participants admitting that they had never visited the careers service at all.
Despite this, first year participants agreed that over the course of the degree they
would be more inclined to use the careers service.
Finally, results from second year participants regarding the careers service appeared
to be very mixed. An extremely large variance of 11.36 supports the view that there is
large disparity between students perceptions of the importance of the careers
service. Evidently, some participants found the careers service very important
whereas others rated it as unimportant. When the careers service was discussed
73
with participants, it was clear that this disparity had arisen from a small selection of
participants that were seeking summer internships and had found the career service
very useful. One participant explained:
the careers service provided access to a range of resources

such as blogs, industry guides and practice psychometric tests that
were extremely useful for securing a place on an internship
scheme. (Participant D - Year 2, Group 1)
Each focus group identified that specific student needs across different academic
years influenced the importance of the careers service. Importantly, if the purpose
and importance of the careers service is promoted to first year students earlier and
more thoroughly then students perceptions of its importance might improve towards
those of third year students.
5.4.5 Social Opportunities and the Provision of Other Facilities

Table 5.5 highlights that both social opportunities and the provision of other facilities
and services decreased in importance from year one through to year three. Many
first year participants believed that the provision of social opportunities were
important for establishing networks and new friendships. Of the first year focus
group, 75% of participants were involved in either a society or sports team.
Correspondingly, social opportunities were more important to these students. In
addition, several first year participants identified the possibility of a positive
relationship between the importance of social opportunities and the provision of
other facilities and services (e.g. cafes, social areas, student accommodation). When
asked to elaborate, participants claimed that these facilities enhanced a students
access to social opportunities, providing a place for people to meet and socialise.
On the other hand, third year participants believed that their networks had already
been established, combined with the increased importance of their academic studies
thus decreasing the importance of social opportunities to them. Several participants
pointed out that they had already worked their way up to high positions in various
societies and sports teams that they were involved in and that they were now at the
74
forefront of organising and providing many of the social opportunities for first and
second year students. Furthermore, many third year participants also commented on
the decreased importance of the provision of other facilities and services. All third
year participants in this study lived in student houses and pointed out that the
provision of facilities such as student accommodation was no longer applicable to
them. Four of the twelve participants stated that they were completing a
Postgraduate degree and that student accommodation may become important to
them. However, this is beyond the scope of this study, since the purpose here is to
understand only undergraduate student perceptions.
Finally, the discussion with second year participants revealed that the general
consensus was that they were indifferent about social opportunities. Numerous
participants pointed out that second year was worth 25% of their final degree,
providing evidence to support the gradual decrease in importance from first to
second year. Moreover, several participants pointed out that they were using second
year as an opportunity to strike the appropriate balance between social
opportunities and their studies.
5.4.6 Quality of Lectures and Seminars
Although consistent teaching should be provided across each year of study, the
findings show that the quality of lectures and seminars were two performance
characteristics that increased in performance from year one through to year three.
Only third year participants could properly relate to the transition of quality in terms of
lectures and seminars from year one to year three. Accordingly, several participants
from the third year discussion pointed out that they had noticed a gradual
improvement in the quality of seminars. In particular, one participant provided
evidence for this, explaining that lecturers seemed to be much more willing to meet
students needs. They added that during semester one of year three, one of their
lecturers took all the seminars for a class size of approximately 170 students, which
did not occur in their first or second year at the university.
As with the quality of seminars, participants of the third year focus groups believed
that their lectures in third year were of better quality than they were in second or first
year. When asked to provide a reason for this, participants thought that management
might have more consideration for third year due to its increased importance, as well
as the impact that positive degree results will have on the universitys reputation.
75
The findings also show that the performance of the quality of lectures for both year
one and two is the same. This provides evidence to suggest that the university may
place more emphasis on enhancing the quality of lectures for third year students. In
support of this, one participant in third year commented on a positive approach taken
by one of their lecturers to improve the quality of their lectures. They stated:
The lecturer used a range of methods to stimulate learning and

improve quality such as podcasts, case studies, news links and
other initiatives, including providing no lecture notes until after the
lecture had finished. (Participant B - Year 3, Group 1)
Finally, the participant added that each of the seminar leaders were required to
attend each lecture and in some cases took some of the lectures that related to their
specialised fields. The participant believed that this improved the quality of each
seminar, as seminar leaders were more aware of what was covered in class and
able to relate to students needs much more readily.
5.5 Suggestions for University Service Management
5.5.1 Overview
The purpose of this section is to provide suggestions to university service

management that can be utilised to improve the level of service quality. This falls in
line with Baron et al. (2009) who point out that organisations are operating in
extremely tough environments, and service managers now realise that improving
service quality is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage. The problematic areas
uncovered in Section 5.3 are used as a basis to provide suggestions for
management. These are identified as the areas that management will achieve the
greatest marginal benefit if management focus on improving them.
5.5.2 Tuition Fee Rise
Many English universities, including University of Manchester, are increasing their

tuition fees to 9,000 as of September 2012. Part of the discussion in each focus
group centered on whether participants believed that the universitys current level of
76
service quality justified the increase in tuition. Worryingly, 28 of the 36 (i.e. 78%)
participants stated that they would not have chosen to attend the university if the
tuition fee stood at 9,000. The majority of participants could not justify the increase,
claiming that there is a clear misalignment between price and the level of service
quality offered by the university. Since higher education is a credence-based service
and has even been termed a pure service by some authors (Oldfield and Baron,
2000), evaluation is increasingly difficult, resulting in prospective students relying on
aspects such as price to evaluate the service in the absence of any tangible
manifestation or when all other factors are equal (Palmer, 2011).
Despite this, the majority of participants believed that an increase in price should
encourage the university to improve the level of service quality. Participants pointed
out that an increase in price would increase a students expectations of the service
they received, which would probe problems for the university in terms of improving
service quality and meeting higher expectations. Palmer (2011) supports this,
illustrating that price influences customers perceptions of service quality, as well as
the service organisations ability to produce quality services. In terms of higher
education, since the price of the service influences a students expectations, it is
more likely that negative disconfirmation (i.e. dissatisfaction) will occur when actual
perceptions are lower than the students original expectations (Buttle, 1995),
presenting problems for university service management.
When asked about the impact of the tuition fees, participants believed that the
university would face problems in the short-term, especially in terms of those
students entering the university system in 2012. As students start to pay more money
for their higher education, their expectations are likely to be raised in terms of contact
time, resources and facilities (Key Note, 2011). Several participants believed that,
due to the possibility of an inevitable delay in the implementation of service quality
changes, these students would experience a similar level of service quality for almost
three times the price. Numerous participants thought that the standard of service
quality would remain the same for the next two years or so and that improvements in
service quality would not be witnessed for some time. Accordingly, participants
believed that this could have a negative impact on the universitys reputation and
brand image. Furthermore, if the university does not react appropriately then this
could also damage their competitive position in the future. Palmer (2011) supports
this, suggesting that maintaining high price and low quality positions is not a
sustainable strategy for an organisation to follow in the long term.
77
5.5.3 Customer-Centric Approach
The discussion has already identified evidence to suggest that the university fails to
fully acknowledge the student as its primary customer (Section 5.3.6). Participants in
the focus groups believed that service quality is designed from the perspective of the
organisation rather than the perspective of the student. In reality, it is important for an
organisation to listen to the voice of primary customer and understand and serve
their needs (Nadiri et al., 2009). The student can indicate exactly what improvements
are needed as they experience the service first hand. As a result, the university must
consider adopting customer-centric approach that focuses on acknowledging
students viewpoints when designing the service.
Gruber et al. (2010) provide further evidence to support a customer-centric approach,

suggesting the need for university service management to focus on understanding
student requirements instead of collecting data based on what the institution thinks
students perceive as important. This would enable the university to understand how
their students perceive the services offered, from which they may be able to adapt
their services in a way that stimulates better provision of service quality for students.
However, it is important to acknowledge the complex nature associated with

understanding students needs. The findings revealed in Section 5.4 that students
perceptions of service quality were varied over time and changed across different
years of study. As a result, it is impossible to satisfy all students needs and
management must carefully determine which customer needs must be fulfilled.
5.5.4 Service Quality Improvement Programme
It is clear that the university needs to understand service quality to be able to improve
it. Baron et al. (2009) support this notion, stressing that service quality does not come
about by chance and that an organisation needs to develop strategies to ensure that
they deliver consistent and high-quality services. This is no different for a higher
education institution such as the University of Manchester.
It is appropriate for the university to undertake a service quality improvement

programme, which is continually monitored and measured correctly. Zeithaml et al.
(1990) provide support for this, outlining a number of guidelines that the programme
must follow to increase the possibility of success. Firstly, the programme must be
78
varied and utilise a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research techniques since
each individual research method has its own limitations. Secondly, the measurement
of service quality must be ongoing since expectations and perceptions of customers
are dynamic and constantly changing. Accordingly, the university should utilise a
continuous approach, focusing on periodical evaluations of service quality throughout
the year rather than at the end of each semester. Thirdly, the service quality
improvement programme should be undertaken with employees (e.g. academic staff
and administration staff) as the closeness of staff to customers within the services
sector makes it important that they are asked about problems and possible
improvements as well as their personal motivations and requirements. Finally, results
must be shared with employees since this may improve employees performance in
delivering service quality if they are made aware of the results of studies of customer
expectations and complaints (Zeithaml et al., 1990).
As part of the service quality improvement programme, Lovelock and Wirtz (2011)
recommend the need for service management to provide three types of service
performance reports to assist an improvement programme: a monthly service
performance update, a quarterly service performance review and an annual service
performance report. These reports should be short and reader-friendly, focusing on
key indicators and providing easy to understand information for management to act
on.
Taking into account the components of a service quality programme and factors
influencing its success, it is necessary to outline the problematic areas that were
identified in Section 5.3, since these are useful for constructing suggestions that
management can include in their service quality improvement programme (Table
5.6).
Quality of Seminars
Availability of Academic Staff
Prompt and Efficient Feedback on Work
12
Access to Academic Facilities and Learning Resources
24
Internal Student Feedback Systems
Table 5.6: Problematic Areas Located from IPA
79
5.5.5 Feedback
This section addresses two problematic areas that relate to feedback: feedback
systems (i.e. internal student feedback systems) and feedback received on work
(i.e. prompt and efficient feedback on work). It is clear that two key issues underpin
the need to improve internal student feedback systems. First of all, there is no
internal system in place that allows students to evaluate the whole student
experience. Secondly, the university seemingly fails to adopt a customer-centric
approach.
Several participants in the focus group suggested the creation of an internal

feedback system that allowed students to evaluate the whole university experience.
They explained that this could be integrated online within the student portal to
provide all students with easy access. When probed further, participants suggested
that the university could build in a range of methods such as Likert-scale based
questionnaires, Critical Incident Techniques and online forums that students could
use to post their issues that need addressing. As well as collecting feedback using
online channels, participants suggested that university management could conduct a
set of periodic focus groups (e.g. on monthly basis) with a chosen set of students
from each year of study to better understand the experience from the students point
of view as they progress through their undergraduate degree. Also, the continued
use of external bodies such as NSS will encourage a more rounded interpretation of
service quality, complementing the internal measures that the university decides to
adopt.
There is no single best way to measure service quality as all methods have
limitations (Clewes, 2003), however, a triangulated approach that adopts a range of
methods could as a means of reducing the possibility of bias. This falls in line with
one of the recommendation made by Zeithaml et al. (1990), that a service quality
improvement programme should utilise a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative
research techniques. Moreover, Baron et al. (2009) provide additional support,
suggesting that approaches for measuring service quality are not mutually exclusive,
and that in practice, organisations use a combination of measurement
methodologies.
Several participants suggested the use of real-time continuous feedback systems,

using end of module feedback surveys as an example to illustrate this suggestion.
80
They believed that the current approach used to collect perceptions at the end of
modules was meaningless and did not motivate or incentivise students to provide
appropriate feedback as they did not reap the benefits of any of the improvements.
Many participants suggested that the delivery of this feedback mechanism must be
reconsidered, and that a continuous improvement approach is needed that provides
a platform for students to give feedback at anytime throughout the semester.
Students should be provided with the option to log feedback, both negative and
positive, at the earliest possible opportunity. This would allow the lecturer to act upon
and improve the quality of their lectures or seminars as quickly and efficiently as
possible, rather than being made aware of, and possibly rectifying student
dissatisfaction at the end of a semester when it may be too late. This would help
better address the consequences of changing customer perceptions over time
(Section 5.4.3). This suggestion also falls in line with one of the requirements of a
service quality improvement programme that the measurement of service quality
must be ongoing and not just a snapshot of service quality at one point in time
(Zeithaml et al., 1990). In addition, not only can this suggestion be applied to end of
module feedback systems, but it could also be applied to other internal student
feedback systems that university service management decides to implement.
Feedback that students received on work was another characteristic that was
perceived to be problematic. Participants identified that it is more commonplace for
feedback to not be given to students on time, as well as the issue of feedback being
too generic. Participants believed that feedback is extremely important to them and
suggested that academic staff need to focus on improving the quality of feedback,
providing students with more relevant feedback that they can use to improve
performance in subsequent assignments and examinations. To achieve this,
participants suggested that university service management should consider providing
more opportunities for students to receive feedback on their work. More specifically,
participants brought up the lack up feedback given on examinations they complete. In
light of this, several participants suggested that the provision of a post-exam
feedback lecture, which the lecturer can use to highlight things that had been done
well, as well as providing pointers for improving in future examinations. Moreover,
participants also brought up the idea of offering the opportunity of one-to-one
allocated appointments with lecturers to discuss assignments and coursework. One
participant claimed that one of their lecturers already did this, despite no formal
requirements being in place.
81
Finally, participants felt that feedback should be more prompt. However, many
participants did appreciate that delays with coursework were usually due to the sizes
of classes, sympathising with a lecturer that could have up to 150 students
assignments to mark. Not only does this make it increasingly difficult to give
indiviudalised feedback to each student, but it also increases the workload placed on
the lecturer. As a result, participants suggested that larger courses are examined and
possibly split into smaller classes; utilising more teaching staff. Although this is a very
optimistic suggestion, participants were convinced that lecturers would be able to
provide more individual attention to students, especially in terms of the feedback they
received on work.
5.5.6 Staff Development
One of the main issues raised by the majority of participants pertained to the lack of
consistency in the quality of seminars, despite being regarded as one of the most
important characteristics by participants. Although it was only the quality of seminars
located as a problematic area, participants brought up similar issues with the quality
of lectures, but agreed that lectures did not need to be improved as much as
seminars. Despite this, the majority of participants could recall at least one encounter
where they were dissatisfied with either a lecture or a seminar.
In order to tackle the issue of inconsistency with lectures and seminars, participants
suggested that a training academy should be introduced whereby all academic staff
are provided with formalised training to develop the appropriate skills to enhance the
delivery of teaching, in an attempt to meet a certain level of service quality. The
purpose of the training academy would be to improve their communication, team
working ability and presentation skills. In order to achieve this, the training academy
could be run by a mixture of external qualified personnel, as well as experienced
academic staff. The training academy could use a range of methods such as videos,
one-to-one training, group exercises and seminar classes. Furthermore, participants
suggested that the teaching academy could also encourage communication between
staff across the university and facilitate the diffusion of best practice principles (e.g.
teaching methods and techniques used). Transferring knowledge in this way could
increase transparency and allow staff to improve their understanding of the level of
quality that students expect. However, the university must consider the level of
standardisation, since introducing a formal training academy or following a best
practice model could stifle creativity and in fact limit the quality of lecture or
82
seminar. Therefore, the university faces the challenge of striking the appropriate
balance between the formality of training and the level of standardisation so that
unique teaching methods are not phased out.
In relation to seminars, numerous participants in the focus groups discussed the

notion of co-creation of value and acknowledged that unprepared students could
negatively affect the quality of a seminar. After all, service quality does not only
depend on the service provider, but also the performance of the consumer (Hill,
1995). Participants believed that group participation from all students in the seminar
positively influences the performance of seminars. Therefore, a suggestion made by
participants to overcome this issue involved incentivising seminars and rewarding
students for participating in class by allocating a proportion of their grade for that
particular module based on the completion of work and their contribution to
discussion within each seminar.
Finally, participants suggested that in every possible instance, lecturers should take
charge of each of seminars for their module. They believed that lecturers are more
in the know and have a better understanding of how to integrate their own lecture
with the seminar. In cases where this is not possible, one participant used an
experience in one of their modules to provide the suggestion that seminar leaders
should take some of the lectures or at least have to attend the lectures. Many
participants believed that this would reduce the likelihood of a mismatch between the
quality of the lecture and a seminar, making it easier for seminar leaders to integrate
lecture material into seminars.
5.5.7 Further Suggestions
Participants also brought up a range of other interesting suggestions that may not be
of primary concern to the university but are factors that might be useful to consider.
As well as seminars and lectures, another issue brought up by participants pertained
to the performance and inconsistent nature of academic advisors, who are assigned
to students when they join the university. Although most participants that were
involved in the study were happy with their academic advisor, it was evident that
some participants were equally disappointed. As a result of inconsistencies,
participants suggested that as with academic staff, academic advisors should also
receive formal training and guidance. Participants believed that academic advisors
should be more proactive and take the role of a mentor, guiding students through
83
their university degree. Participants added that progress meetings with academic
advisors should be made compulsory. Students need to be provided with the
opportunity to foster a good relationship with their academic advisors, in order to
understand how to progress properly through university.
Several participants also brought up the suggestion that the university needs to
provide more social opportunities. Although the majority of participants agreed that
the provision of societies was sufficient, many were astonished by how under utilised
the student union is. Participants felt that the student union is a big facility with a
large capacity but is not being marketed properly. According to numerous
participants, there appears to be considerable demand for the introduction of a
weekly social event using the unions facilities.
Finally, a number of participants had suggestions in regards to more practical

methods for assessment. Participants suggested assigning coursework projects to
students based on local firms in the Manchester area. This would create value for
local firms by helping them solve complex business problems, whilst offering
students a good opportunity to apply their skills in real-life business situations.
Accordingly, students would discover how the theory that they have learnt in class
could be applied in a business situation, whilst gaining experience to help bridge the
gap between the transition from university to employment.
5.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter has critically analysed the findings from each focus group, using
literature presented in Chapter 2. Section 5.2 focused on research question one,
identifying the most important and best performing characteristics as perceived by
students at the university. Subsequently, Section 5.3 combined the data to create
importance-performance matrices, which enabled the identification of problematic
areas, which the university needs to address. Section 5.4 focused entirely on
research question two, locating and explaining differences in students perceptions
from different academic year groups. Finally, Section 5.5 addressed the problematic
areas highlighted in Section 5.3 to provide suggestions that university management
could choose to adopt.
84
6. Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
This study has investigated perceptions of service quality at the University of

Manchester from the viewpoint of the student. It sought to uncover what students
perceived to be most important and best performing characteristics of service quality.
In addition, the study aimed to determine how these perceptions varied across
different academic years of study, whilst also identifying problematic areas that
contributed in generating suggestions for university service management to improve
the level of service quality.
This chapter begins by outlining the conclusions for each research question and
determining whether the studys research objectives have been achieved.
Subsequently, the limitations of the research are presented. Finally, the chapter
concludes by providing potential avenues for future research.
6.2 Conclusions Pertaining to Research Questions
6.2.1 Important and Best Performing Service Quality Characteristics
This particular section focuses on research question one. With support from Zeithaml
et al. (2009), it can be concluded that students perceptions of both the importance
and performance of various service quality characteristics varies, witnessing some
students perceiving certain characteristics to be more important than others. As a
result, there is a need for university service management to determine the
importance and performance of different service quality attributes and manage them
accordingly. Management must adjust the level of service quality for each
characteristic based on the importance and performance of that characteristic rather
than managing service quality in an ad-hoc manner. Knowing the relative importance
and performance of different characteristics could result in better resource allocation,
providing a greater marginal benefit in terms of service quality improvement, whilst
ensuring resources are not spent on the wrong initiatives.
85
Although the importance and performance of characteristics varied, extrapolation of

the data identified a core set of 6 service quality characteristics that are perceived to
be essential to all students university experience. Further analysis identified that the
majority of these characteristics could be grouped as academic. With the support of
Oldfield and Baron (2000), it can be concluded that there appears to be certain
service quality characteristics that are part of the universitys primary package and
essential in allowing a student to fulfil their study obligations at university.
In terms of the performance of different characteristics, it can be concluded that there

are four characteristics that students believed performed well - reputation, knowledge
and experience of staff, campus location and layout, organisation and management
of course. Although further investigation is needed, it is also evident that there
appears to be relationships between some of the characteristics, demonstrating that
focusing on improving the service quality of one characteristic could have a positive
impact on another characteristic (e.g. the knowledge of academic staff influences
the quality of lectures). This makes it important for the university to understand how
various characteristics impact each other, in order to become more tactical in
managing and improving service quality. Therefore, it is important to conduct
additional research in an attempt to better understand the relationships between
different characteristics.
6.2.2 Differences between Student Perceptions across Different Academic Year
Groups
This research question sought to determine where differences exist between

students perceptions of service quality across different academic years. It can be
concluded that two main themes can be extracted from the studys findings: the
contextual nature of service quality and the effect of time on service quality
perceptions.
In terms of the context specific nature of service quality, the findings demonstrate
that students perceptions of service quality characteristics vary within the same
organisation (i.e. on both an intra and inter year basis). Based on these findings and
the complex nature of service quality, it can be concluded that perceptions of service
quality depend on the study context, varying depending on the situation at hand. This
presents university service management with the need to determine the most
appropriate way to accurately measure service quality. Notwithstanding this issue, it
86
can also be established that students perceptions of service quality change over
time. The study provides reasoned evidence to support this conclusion point,
demonstrating that perceptions of service quality change from year-to-year as a
student progresses through their undergraduate degree. Cuthbert (1996a) also
provided support for this, suggesting that in the context of higher education, students
experiences are varied and continuous, over months and years. As a result,
university service management should not perceive service quality to be the same
across different academic year groups, but rather manage service quality on a yearto-year basis.
Although these findings present various implications for management, university

service management must embrace them and adopt a continuous approach when
measuring students service quality perceptions. In order to take on such an
approach, management must closely monitor and track service quality perceptions,
altering the level of service quality in accordance to perceptions as they change over
time. This will ensure perceptions do not change too dramatically, which could result
in the possibility of the university losing its competitive advantage.
It is acknowledged that service quality is an elusive and indistinct construct where
huge ambiguity still exists (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin and
Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). The findings of this study contradict the
findings of previous research that suggest that service quality models and
questionnaires are appropriate for attempting to measure service quality perceptions
in higher education. Due to the context specific nature and complexity of service
quality, it is likely that a higher education institution wishing to measure perceptions
of service quality could achieve more credible results by using a range of
methodologies, triangulating the data collection process based on the situation at
hand, since there is no best way to measure service quality (Clewes, 2003).
6.2.3 Suggestions for University Service Management
The final research question sought to identify problematic areas and offer
suggestions for university service management to improve the provision of service
quality. The findings from the study identified that maintaining the current provision of
service quality could be problematic in the short term for the university, especially in
consideration of the imminent rise in tuition fees and the consequences of a
misalignment between price and quality. As a result, and with the guidance of
87
Zeithaml et al. (2009), it was recommended that a service quality programme must
be undertaken that monitors service quality periodically, involves employees and
utilises a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods.
The study utilised IPA to integrate both the importance and performance data,
identifying characteristics that university service management needed to focus on
improving (i.e. high importance and low performance). Importantly, IPA was useful for
directing attention to the characteristics that need considering, providing
management with a convenient visual interpretation of the universitys service quality.
In doing so, IPA highlighted that some characteristics were more important than
others, introducing the need for management to prioritise characteristics. As a result,
suggestions were provided for those characteristics requiring more immediate
attention, including the introduction of a staff-training academy to combat
inconsistencies in seminars and lectures. However, the study highlighted that
management must consider the potential impact of introducing a training academy,
since the consequences of too much standardisation could negatively impact the
overall service. Finally, it was evident that the university needs to acknowledge the
student as their primary customer. Therefore, it can be concluded that the university
needs to adopt a customer-centric approach that involves students in service design
as much as possible.
6.3 Limitations of Study
As with any research project, this study has been subject to various limitations that
may have hindered its accuracy. Consequently, interpretation of findings should be
considered with caution since constraints including time and limited resources
accentuate the chance of methodological issues. Although the research attempted to
reduce issues through the use of a triangulation approach to research (e.g.
qualitative and quantitative methods), the boundaries of the study must be
acknowledged.
The research only considered a small sample of 36 students, 12 from each year of
study. In addition, the sample was based on a specific course (BSc Management)
within a school (i.e. Manchester Business School) of one university. Accordingly, it is
appreciated that the discussion revolves around a limited sample and it would not be
appropriate to generalise the findings of the study to all UK universities. At the same
time, it is important to not underestimate the significance of the findings. Instead, the
88
findings present a strong case for service quality, providing invaluable insights that
are specific to the University of Manchester, which service management could
consider when addressing service quality issues. As a result, this study acts as a
foundational basis that university service management can use as a starting point in
their quest to understand the complexities associated with service quality from the
viewpoint of students.
Although the researcher maintained best efforts to ensure that homogeneity existed
between participants, the use of a convenience sample could have introduced an
element of bias to the investigation. Due to the difficulty attracting participants,
especially first and second year students, convenience sampling techniques were
used at the discretion of the researcher to choose students rather than randomly
selecting students. Aside from this issue, the use of a shortened scale in each IPA
matrix may have represented each characteristic to be more problematic than they
actually were, which may have an introduced a further element of bias. Despite this,
the researcher acknowledges that these issues could have skewed the results;
however, it is firmly believed that the discussion provides a good reflection of
students perceptions. This offers further evidence to support the findings that are
illustrated in each IPA matrix.
In hindsight, if the researcher had access to more time and resources, then a larger
sample (i.e. more focus groups) would have been used, as well as a more detailed
investigation into the relationship between different service quality characteristics.
This may have encouraged better understanding of service quality, yielding results
that are more generalisable.
6.4 Future Research Opportunities
Despite the limitations of this study, there is a range of interesting potential future
avenues for research. Although it is evident that this study has provided fresh
insights into what is a very topical issue, additional research could build on this,
enhancing the universitys understanding of service quality.
Considering tuition fees are set to rise in September 2012, there is potential to
replicate the study at a later date to assess whether students perceptions change
dramatically in the future in response to the price increase. A repeat study of this kind
would need to be carried at least a year on from the current study since perceptions
89
may take some time to change. This will allow university management to monitor the
change in student perceptions, as the findings from the future study could be
compared with the findings from this study.
Additionally, there is potential to change the context of the study. Obviously, the
focus on university education would remain but there is an opportunity to measure
perceptions of students from different faculties within the universities to determine
whether disparity exists. At a broader level, a study could be undertaken at other
universities in the UK, as well as the possibility of measuring the perceptions of
postgraduate students since their perceptions may differ from those of undergraduate
students. As Oldfield and Baron (2000) point out, each replication would add to
knowledge, and it would be useful to see if similar findings were uncovered in
different contexts.
Finally, this study has only focused on the perceptions of the student, considering
them as the primary customer in a higher education context. It did not measure the
perceptions of other stakeholders in higher education (e.g. academic staff and
administrative staff). As Appleton-Knapp and Krentler (2006) point out, different
stakeholders have different opinions and it is natural for perceptions to vary between
these stakeholder groups. Gruber et al. (2010) also suggest that every stakeholder in
higher education has their own view of service quality due to particular needs. As a
result, opportunities exist to investigate the service quality perceptions of academic
or administrative staff. Due to the unique nature of higher education as a service, the
provision of good service quality is largely dependent on employees. Therefore,
conducting similar studies with different stakeholders in higher education could
identify useful insights for university service management, as well as offering an
opportunity to compare how employees perceive service quality with students
perceptions from this study.
90
7. Appendices
Appendix A: The SERVQUAL Instrument
91
92
Appendix B: Variables and Dimensions for the HEdPERF Scale
Source: Abdullah (2006a)
93
Appendix C: Sample End of Unit Questionnaire
94
95
Appendix D: National Survey Questionnaire
96
Source: Ipos MORI (2012)
97
Appendix E: Focus Group Details & Participant Demographics
Focus Group Details

Total no. of participants
Participants per focus group
Frequency
36
6
No. of focus groups conducted

No. of focus groups conducted per year (i.e. Year 1, Year 2 &
Year 3)
6
2
Participant Demographic Details

Gender Split
Male Participants
Female Participants
Total
Age of Participants
18
19
20
21
22+
Total
Course Specialism
Accounting & Finance
Decision Science
Human Resources
International Business Economics
Marketing
Operations & Technology
Innovation, Sustainability & Entrepreneurship
No Specialism
Total
Frequency
20
16
36
56%
44%
100%
4
8
14
6
4
36
11%
22%
39%
17%
11%
100%
5
0
2
5
12
4
3
5
36
14%
0%
6%
14%
33%
11%
8%
14%
100%
98
Appendix F: Example Focus Group Survey
99
100
Appendix G: Importance-Performance Data - Year 1, Year 2 & Year 3
101
102
103
Appendix H: Importance-Performance Analysis Matrix Key
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course Structure
and Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Personal
Development
Other
Characteristic
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Range of teaching methods
Availability of academic staff
Willingness to provide individual attention
Course flexibility
Access to academic facilities and learning resources
Availability of administrative staff
Careers service
Student welfare
104
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Appendix I: Individual Participant Ratings from Focus Groups
YEAR 1 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - IMPORTANCE

Focus Group 1
Service Quality Characteristics
Participant
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course
Structure and Course flexibility
Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Careers service
Personal
Development
Student welfare
Other
105
A
8
8
6
8
9
7
7
9
8
9
7
8
9
8
9
7
9
6
8
8
9
7
8
9
B
9
9
7
9
9
6
6
8
7
9
8
7
9
7
9
8
10
6
9
9
6
8
9
9
C
8
8
6
9
8
7
5
8
8
8
9
8
8
7
8
8
9
7
7
8
5
7
9
8
D
8
9
7
9
9
8
6
9
9
6
10
6
7
6
7
9
9
6
8
9
6
7
9
7
E
9
9
5
9
10
7
8
7
9
7
10
6
7
9
8
8
8
6
7
9
7
6
10
9
Focus Group 2
F
10
10
8
8
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
6
10
9
6
9
7
8
8
6
6
10
9
G
10
9
9
10
10
10
6
6
7
6
8
8
8
9
9
7
10
9
9
7
7
8
7
9
H
10
7
5
9
9
7
7
6
8
7
7
9
7
8
10
8
8
5
7
9
8
7
9
8
I
9
10
6
9
9
8
5
9
9
8
6
9
9
6
9
8
7
4
7
9
7
8
8
10
J
9
9
5
9
10
7
8
10
6
9
9
6
10
7
7
9
8
5
9
8
6
7
8
9
K
9
8
7
8
9
8
9
7
7
7
7
7
9
8
8
9
9
5
9
7
6
7
9
9
L
8
7
8
9
10
9
10
7
7
9
8
8
9
10
8
7
9
5
9
9
7
8
9
9

Focus Group 1
Participant
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course
Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Careers service
Personal
Development
Student welfare
Other
106
A B C
6 7 8
7 8 7
6 7 8
9 9 8
8 9 9
9 6 7
6 6 7
8 9 9
8 9 7
7 7 8
8 7 9
7 8 7
9 3 9
8 5 6
8 7 6
8 8 7
7 8 9
10 3 4
8 8 9
7 6 7
5 5 4
5 6 7
9 8 8
10 9 9
D E
8
8
8
7
8
9
9
9
7 10
8
8
3
8
10 10
5
8
8
6
9
6
8
8
10
7
8
7
7
8
8
8
6
7
1 10
4
6
8
6
6
7
8
8
7
9
10
9
Focus Group 2
F G
7 8
9 9
7 8
9 10
9 9
9 10
5 6
9 8
6 7
8 9
9 7
9 9
9 9
8 9
5 8
7 8
6 9
9 2
7 8
5 6
8 8
9 10
9 6
10 9
H
8
10
8
10
9
9
6
9
8
6
9
9
5
9
6
7
4
4
6
7
5
9
9
9
I
J
8
9
10
8
5
7
10
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
5
9
7
7
6
8
6
9
6
9
7
8
9
8
9
7
9 10
7
6
8
9
5
7
5
6
9
9
10
8
K L
8
9
8
8
8
6
10
8
7 10
6
6
6
5
10
9
6
9
7
5
6
6
6
7
9
7
9
9
5
9
9
7
7
8
5
6
7
8
6
7
8
8
7
5
9
9
8
8

Focus Group 1
Participant
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course
Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Careers service
Personal
Development
Student welfare
Other
107
A
9
9
7
10
9
10
9
9
8
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
5
8
10
9
B C D E
8
8 10 10
9
8 10 10
6
6
8
8
10
9
8
8
10
7
9
9
7
7
8
9
6
7
9
7
7
8
9
8
7
6
9
7
5
6
8
8
9
8
9
8
9
8
9
8
8
7
7
5
5
7
9
5
6
7
6
5
8
7
8
6
3
6
6
3
8
8
9 10
8 10 10
9
6
5
8
6
5
4
8
6
10
3
7
6
10
8 10 10
8
9
8 10
Focus Group 2
F
10
10
7
8
9
7
6
7
10
9
10
10
6
8
6
10
4
10
9
6
6
7
10
9
G
10
9
7
10
10
9
9
8
9
7
10
10
8
9
6
10
5
10
9
5
5
5
9
9
H
8
10
6
9
10
10
10
10
8
10
8
9
7
3
6
7
2
10
5
2
3
2
10
10
I
J K L
10
9
9 10
10
8
9 10
8
8
7
8
9
8
8
9
9
8
9
8
7 10
3
6
6
8
9 10
8
8
9
8
8
7
7
8
7
9
9
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
9
7
6
5
6
7
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
8
7
7
4
4
6
3
10
8
9
9
5
3
5
1
4
5
4
5
4
5
2
2
5
4
5
6
10
8
8
8
10 10 10
9
YEAR 1 FOCUS GROUP INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT RESPONSES - PERFORMANCE

Focus Group 1
Participant
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course
Course flexibility
Structure and
Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Careers service
Personal
Development
Student welfare
Other
108
A
8
6
6
8
9
6
6
5
8
5
7
6
9
8
5
6
5
6
3
7
9
6
10
4
B
6
2
6
7
7
7
7
6
8
4
6
5
10
9
6
7
7
7
3
8
9
7
8
3
C
8
3
7
7
9
5
6
5
7
5
5
6
9
7
7
8
8
8
4
7
6
8
8
5
D
6
6
7
6
10
7
6
5
8
6
8
7
7
7
9
8
7
6
5
6
9
8
8
4
E
5
2
5
8
9
8
7
6
9
5
9
8
9
6
6
8
6
6
8
7
8
8
9
3
Focus Group 2
F
8
1
7
7
9
6
6
7
8
4
8
9
8
7
6
8
7
5
4
8
7
6
10
4
G
6
6
6
6
8
7
7
7
7
5
8
6
7
7
6
8
8
6
3
9
8
7
9
5
H
6
7
7
5
7
8
8
5
6
6
6
4
8
8
7
8
9
7
5
5
9
9
8
6
I
7
7
6
3
8
6
5
3
9
4
7
5
9
6
8
8
3
8
6
6
8
8
7
4
J
7
4
6
8
9
7
7
4
9
5
7
6
10
5
9
8
9
6
9
10
10
6
9
4
K
9
4
7
8
10
8
7
3
7
6
8
6
8
7
8
8
5
5
2
8
9
5
9
4
L
7
2
8
7
9
7
6
3
8
5
9
8
9
7
9
8
3
7
9
9
9
7
10
5

Focus Group 1
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course
Course flexibility
Structure and
Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Careers service
Personal
Development
Student welfare
Other
109
Participant
A
6
7
9
6
9
6
6
6
7
9
7
5
6
7
7
7
6
8
7
6
8
8
8
4
B
7
4
7
7
8
6
6
6
6
9
6
5
7
7
8
6
7
9
5
7
8
7
7
3
C
8
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
8
7
4
6
6
7
7
7
7
5
8
9
8
9
2
D
8
3
9
6
7
5
7
7
8
7
7
6
8
7
7
6
7
8
3
9
7
8
9
2
E
6
7
6
7
8
8
8
6
9
8
8
6
8
8
6
7
7
7
5
6
8
8
7
4
Focus Group 2
F
8
5
5
7
9
8
6
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
6
8
6
7
8
7
7
5
G
6
7
5
9
6
7
8
6
8
8
6
6
6
6
5
7
7
8
7
6
8
8
8
5
H
5
7
6
8
7
6
7
7
7
8
8
7
8
7
6
6
8
7
4
5
7
9
8
5
I
6
8
7
7
8
7
5
8
9
9
9
6
8
7
7
7
6
6
8
6
7
7
8
5
J
7
8
8
6
8
7
9
7
7
9
8
5
7
8
7
8
7
7
4
6
8
8
8
5
K
7
3
7
7
9
8
6
8
6
7
8
8
6
7
7
7
6
7
6
6
9
8
9
6
L
9
4
8
8
9
8
7
7
7
8
7
6
7
7
8
7
6
8
7
8
8
7
9
3

Focus Group 1
Participant
Quality of lectures
Quality of seminars
Teaching
Academic Staff
Course
Course flexibility
Structure and
Academic
Facilities
Admin Staff
Careers service
Personal
Development
Student welfare
Other
110
A
7
5
4
7
9
7
8
6
7
9
9
8
7
7
7
8
7
9
9
7
6
6
9
4
B
8
9
7
10
10
8
7
4
6
8
8
8
5
5
5
6
6
8
5
5
8
7
9
4
C
7
8
5
8
8
3
7
6
6
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
8
6
6
7
7
8
4
D
8
4
10
9
9
8
7
4
6
10
9
9
3
8
8
8
7
9
8
7
7
6
8
6
E
8
5
6
7
8
7
5
6
7
8
8
7
6
5
6
6
5
9
8
7
7
8
8
3
Focus Group 2
F
8
10
10
6
6
9
4
6
8
7
3
5
4
8
2
2
5
10
1
7
9
3
8
2
G
8
2
5
8
8
4
8
6
7
8
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
9
7
7
9
8
8
6
H
7
9
7
9
10
8
5
5
10
9
9
6
6
8
6
8
6
10
2
7
9
9
10
1
I
8
4
8
6
8
8
9
5
8
8
8
6
5
8
6
7
5
10
5
6
8
6
9
4
J
7
8
6
6
8
5
8
6
10
7
6
6
2
6
8
8
6
9
2
8
8
8
8
3
K
8
9
6
7
7
4
8
6
10
8
5
6
5
7
8
8
6
9
1
7
9
8
8
5
L
7
1
5
5
8
6
8
6
8
8
5
5
2
6
8
8
6
9
9
7
9
6
8
7
8. References
Abdullah, F. (2006a). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF

versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47.
Abdullah, F. (2006b). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of

service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 30(6), 569-581.
Addis, M., & Podesta, S. (2005). Long life to marketing research: a postmodern view.
European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 386-412.
Aldridge, S., & Rowley, J. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction in higher

education. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), 197-204.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in
higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 203-218.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction,

market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. The Journal of Marketing,
58(3), 53-66.
Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and

their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations.
Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 254-264.
Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions:

the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540.
Baines, P., Fill, C., & Page, K. (2008). Marketing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baron, S., Harris, K., & Hilton, T. (2009). Services marketing: text and cases. 3rd ed.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
111
BBC. (2011). University of Manchester wants to charge maximum fees. [online].

Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12843390>
[Accessed 14th March 2012].
Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). The Service-Quality Puzzle.
Business Horizons, 31(5), 35-43.
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical

surroundings and employee responses. The Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69-82.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service
changes on customer attitudes. The Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1-9.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin Jr, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing
perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. The Journal of Marketing, 65(3),
34-49.
Brown, R., & Mazzarol, T. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student
satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81-95.
The Browne Review. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/101208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf>
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. European Journal

of Marketing, 30(1), 8-32.
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of

the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33-55.
112
Carrillat, F., Jaramillo, F., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). The validity of the SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF scales: A meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five
continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490.
Clewes, D. (2003). A Student-centred Conceptual Model of Service Quality in Higher

Education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 69-85.
The Complete University Guide. (2011). University League Table 2012. [online].
Available at: <http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/leaguetables/rankings?o=Satisfaction>
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination
and extension. The Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service
quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-131.
Crosby, L. A. (1991). Expanding the Role of CSM in Total Quality. International

Journal of Service Industry Management, 2(2), 5-19.
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York:
McGraw-Hill New York.
Cuthbert, P. F. (1996a). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?

Part 1. Managing Service Quality, 6(2), 11-16.
Cuthbert, P. F. (1996b). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?

Part 2. Managing Service Quality, 6(3), 31-35.
The Data Protection Act. (1998). Data Protection Act 1998. [online].
Available at: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents>
[Accessed 7th February 2012].
113
Department for Education. (2000). Changing student finances: income, expenditure

and the take-up of student loans among full and part-time higher education students
in 1998/99. [online]. Available at:
<https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/RR21>
Department for Education. (2011). Education and Training Statistics for the United
Kingdom: 2010. [online]. Available at:
<http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000992/index.shtml>
DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business
student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two-factor
theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128-139.
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.

Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.
Direct Gov. (2012a). Student finance for 2011/12: new and continuing students.
[online]. Available at:
<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/
StudentFinance/Gettingstarted/DG_171572>
Direct Gov. (2012b). Student Finance. [online]. Available at:

<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/
StudentFinance/DG_194804/>
Economic and Social Research Council. (2010). Framework for Research Ethics.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/information/researchethics.aspx>
Fisher, C. M., & Buglear, J. (2007). Researching and writing a dissertation: a

guidebook for business students. 2nd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
114
Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W., & Bitner, M. J. (1993). Tracking the evolution of the
services marketing literature. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 61-103.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. London:

Pitman.
Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: a review and summary

of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3),
251-259.
Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of

marketing science review. [online]. Available at:
<http://www.amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/giese00-01.html>
Ghauri, P. N., & Gronhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. 4th ed.
New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Gronroos, C. (1978). A Service-Orientated Approach to Marketing of Services.

European Journal of Marketing, 12(8), 588-601.
Gronroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of

Marketing. 16(7), 30-41.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications.

European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.
Gronroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing: customer management in

service competition. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gruber, T., Fu, S., Voss, R., & Glser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student
satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105-123.
115
The Guardian. (2011). Universities given go-ahead to charge 9,000 tuition fees.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/12/universitiesgo-ahead-tuition-fees>
The Guardian. (2012). UK university applications in steepest fall for 30 years.
[online]. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/30/ukuniveristy-applications-fall?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487>
[Accessed 20th April 2012].
Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing: Road-map for a

wilderness of complexity and unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing,
39(3/4), 309-327.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2008). Marketing research: in a digital
information environment. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and
postmodern perspectives. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after
the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 311.
HEFCE. (2011). Funding for universities and colleges 2010-11 and 2011-12. [online].
Available at: <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2011/cl05_11/>
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global

marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338.
Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the
student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.
116
Ipos MORI. (2012). National Student Survey Main Questionnaire. [online].

Available at: <http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/ /nss-questionnaire.pdf>
Jankowicz, A. D. (2005). Business research project for students. 4th ed. Andover:
Cengage Learning EMEA.
Johnson, P., & Clark, M. (2006). Business and management research

methodologies. London: SAGE.
Key Note. (2011). Market Report 2011: Further & Higher Education. [online].
Available at: <http://www.keynote.co.uk>
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction

between research participants. Sociology of health & illness, 16(1), 103-121.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied
research. 4th ed. London: SAGE.
Lewis, R. C., & Booms, B. H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality, in
Berry L., Shostack G. & Upah, G (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services
Marketing, AMA, Chicago, IL, 99-107.
Loue, S. (2000). Textbook of Research Ethics: Theory and Practice. London: Kluwer
Academic.
Lovelock, C. H., & Wirtz, J. (2011). Services marketing: people, technology, strategy.
7th ed. London: Pearson.
Lovelock, C. H., & Wright, L. (1999). Principles of Services Management and

Marketing. London: Prentice Hall.
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: an applied approach:

Pearson Education.
117
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2005). Measuring

customer satisfaction in summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 5365.
McElwee, G., & Redman, T. (1993). Upward appraisal in practice: an illustrative

example using the Qualed model. Education & Training, 35(2), 27-31.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. London: SAGE.
Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Boblca, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of
customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 23(2), 124-140.
Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service
quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5),
523-535.
Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK

university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2),
85-95.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 3344.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher:

The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.
Palihawadana, D., & Holmes, G. (1999). Modelling module evaluation in marketing

Palmer, A. (2011). Principles of services marketing. 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill
Education.
118
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of

service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing,
49(1), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item

Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing,
64(1), 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of

expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for
further research. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-124.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and

Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-450.
Paswan, A., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutes: satisfaction and
loyalty among international students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
19(1), 65-84.
QS Top Universities. (2012). QS World University Rankings 2011/2012. [online].

Available at: <http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-universityrankings>
Rigotti, S., & Pitt, L. (1992). SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service
provider gaps in business schools. Management Research News, 15(3), 9-17.
Rowley, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and

towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 7-14.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New directions in theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and
market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215.
119
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business
students. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Sechrest, L., & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an
alternative?. Education and Program Planning, 18(1), 77-87.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 913-949.
Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. The Journal of

Marketing, 41(2), 73-80.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text,
and interaction. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: theory and
practice. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Stodnick, M., & Rogers, P. (2008). Using SERVQUAL to measure the quality of the
classroom experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 115133.
Strauss, A. & Corbin J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Student Survey. (2011). The National Student Survey. [online].

Available at: <http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/>
[Accessed 9th December 2011].
Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y. (2010). Service quality in higher education a review and
research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(2), 259272.
Sureshchandar, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. (2002). The relationship

between service quality and customer satisfaction a factor specific approach. Journal
of Services Marketing, 16(4), 363-379.
120
Svensson, G. R. (2006). New aspects of research into service encounters and

service quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(3), 245257.
Thomas, A. B. (2004). Research skills for management studies. London: Routledge.
Times Higher Education. (2012). World University Rankings 2011-12. [online].

Available at: <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/20112012/reputation-rankings.html>
UCAS. (2012). 2012 Applicant Figures. [online].

Available at:
<http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2012/20120130>
University of Manchester. (2012a). History and origins. [online].

Available at: <http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/history/>
University of Manchester. (2012b). Students and staff. [online].

Available at:
<http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/statistics/studentsandstaff/>
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The
role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959.
Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: conceptualized. Journal of

Services Marketing, 9(1), 5-14.
Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view.

MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 3-12.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods

and services. Marketing of services, 9(1), 25-32.
121
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in
services marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 33-46.
Zeithaml, V. A., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (2009). Services marketing:

integrating customer focus across the firm. 5th ed. London: McGraw-Hill.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1990). Delivering quality service:
balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Free Press.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants
of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
21(1), 1-12.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral

consequences of service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
122
123

Dan Beaumont

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dan Beaumont

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

MANCHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL

DANIEL JAKE BEAUMONT

Supervisor: Dr Anna Goatman

1.1 The UK Higher Education Sector

1.2 The Higher Education Sector and Service Quality

1.3 The University of Manchester

1.4 Study Structure

2.2 The Nature of Services

2.3 The Construct of Service Quality

2.4 Measuring Service Quality

2.5 Chapter Summary

3. Research Objectives and Questions

4.2 Methodological Stance

4.3 Rationalising the Methodological Approach

4.4 The Research Process: Focus Groups

4.5 Data Analysis Techniques

4.6 Ethical Considerations

4.7 Chapter Summary

5.2 The Importance and Performance of Service Quality Characteristics

5.3 Importance-Performance Analysis and Problematic Areas

5.4 Differences between Students Perceptions of Service Quality

5.5 Suggestions for University Service Management

5.6 Chapter Summary

6.2 Conclusions Pertaining to Research Questions

6.3 Limitations of Study

6.4 Future Research Opportunities

Figure 2.1. The Disconfirmation Model

Figure 2.2. The Perceived Service Quality Model

Figure 2.3. The SERVQUAL Model

Figure 2.4. Determinants of Perceived Service Quality

Figure 5.1. Importance-Performance Matrix Year 1

Figure 5.2. Importance-Performance Matrix Year 2

Figure 5.3. Importance-Performance Matrix Year 3

Table 1.1. Total Number of Students in Higher Education

Table 1.2. Total University Student Applicants

Table 5.1. Most Important Characteristics in Each Academic Year Group

Table 5.2. Best Performing Characteristics in Each Academic Year Group

Table 5.3. Areas to Maintain

Table 5.4. Problematic Areas

Table 5.5. Notable Patterns Across Different Academic Year Groups

Table 5.6. Problematic Areas Located from IPA

Appendix A: The SERVQUAL Instrument

Appendix B: Variables and Dimensions for the HEdPERF Scale

Appendix C: Sample End of Unit Questionnaire

Appendix D: National Student Survey Questionnaire

Appendix E: Focus Group Details & Participant Demographics

Appendix F: Example Focus Group Survey

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

Appendix H: Importance-Performance Analysis Matrix Key

Appendix I: Individual Participant Ratings from Focus Groups

1.1 The UK Higher Education Sector

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

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

(Key Note, 2011).

1.1.3 Student Numbers

for Education, 2011).

1.2 The Higher Education Sector and Service Quality

1.3 The University of Manchester

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

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

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

this is necessary to ensure and improve the quality of teaching

1.4 Study Structure