Theoretical Approach and Analysis of Stakeholders’ Impact on Quality Processes in Higher Education - The Case of Greek Universities

Theoretical Approach and Analysis of Stakeholders’ Impact on Quality Processes in Higher Education - The Case of Greek Universities

Loading document ...
Page
of
Loading page ...

Author(s)

Author(s): Panagiota Xanthopoulou

Download Full PDF Read Complete Article

DOI: 10.18483/ijSci.2269 33 87 34-45 Volume 9 - Feb 2020

Abstract

The issue of identifying and managing stakeholders has been largely explored by international literature and articles focusing on private sector organizations (Christopher et al., 2002; Rutterford et al., 2006), and the importance of this issue is also gradually increasing in public sector organizations (Maassen, 2000; Wit and Verhoeven, 2000; Peters, 1996; Kettle, 2002). However, less extensive research efforts have been observed in the application and analysis of stakeholder theory in public universities. Stakeholder recognition and management as well as the measurement and subsequent evaluation of their impact on quality service delivery are important in terms of effective management (Mitchell et al., 1997), strategic decision making and rational planning (Bryson, 2004), and by consistency in the application of the principles of Total Quality Management. Identifying and understanding the stakeholders related to an organization and the influence they have on the organization are crucial for managers and policy makers. The purpose of the present research is to explore the specific gap in the literature, that is, to understand the nature, needs and expectations of stakeholders, the satisfaction of which is a sufficient and necessary condition for the effective delivery of quality services at a University. In this context, the study focused on identifying stakeholders of a University as well as the degree of influence they have on providing quality educational services but also on the dropout rate of students, using case studies from two Greek Universities. Specifically, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences has been selected as a foundation based on traditional, life-long teaching, and the Hellenic Open University, focusing on its undergraduate and postgraduate programs. In this way, a comparison is made of the quality criteria as perceived by the stakeholders of the two Universities with a different approach and philosophy of providing educational services.

Keywords

Higher Education, Stakeholders, Quality of Service, Quality in Education

References

  1. Abdulsalam, D., & Mawoli, M. A. (2012). Motivation and job performance of academic staff of state universities in Nigeria: the case of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State. International Journal of Business and management, 7(14), 142.
  2. Agle, B., T. Donaldson, R. Freeman, M. Jensen, R. Mitchell, and D. Wood. 2008. 'Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory.' Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2), 155-190.
  3. Asif, M., Awan, M. U., Khan, M. K., & Ahmad, N. (2013). A model for total quality management in higher education. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 1883-1904.
  4. Avram, E. M., & Avram, R. M. (2011). Quality Management In Higher Education Institutions. Holistic Marketing Management Journal, 1(2), 41-47.
  5. Baumgartner, J. and Jones, B. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
  6. Beerkens, M. (2015). Quality assurance in the political context: in the midst of different expectations and conflicting goals. Quality in Higher Education, Vol 51(3), 231-250. Retrieved on 30 October, 2017 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13538322.2015.1111004.
  7. Bone, Z., J. Crockett, and S. Hodge. (2006). Deliberation forums: a pathway for public participation. Paper presented at the APEN International Conference 2006,
  8. Beechworth, Australia.
  9. Bryson, J. (1995) Strategic Planning for Public & Non-Profit Organisations (rev, edn), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Bryson, J. (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6(1). (Routledge).
  11. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003) Business Research Methods (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
  12. Chapleo, C., & Simms, C. (2010). Stakeholder analysis in higher education: A case study of the University of Portsmouth. Perspectives, 14(1), 12-20.
  13. Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., Shiau, J. Y., & Wang, H. H. (2006). The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. the TQM Magazine, 18(5), 484-500.
  14. Clarkson, M. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluation corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
  15. Denscombe, M. (2008). The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects (Third Edition). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
  16. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  17. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality assurance in education, 14(3), 251-267.
  18. Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality assurance in education, 16(1), 19-35.
  19. Drennan, L. T. (2000). Total quality management in higher education: an evaluation of the impact of assessment and audit on the quality of teaching and learning in the Scottish Universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
  20. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic
  21. Management. London: Sage Publications.
  22. Emanuel, R., & Adams, J. N. (2006). Assessing college student perceptions of instructor customer service via the Quality of Instructor Service to Students (QISS) Questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(5), 535-549.
  23. Enz, C., Renaghan, L. M. and Geller, N. A. (1993) Graduate-level education: A survey of stakeholders. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 90-95.
  24. Falasca, M. (2011). Barriers to adult learning: Bridging the gap. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(3), 583-590.
  25. Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. (Boston, MA, Pitman).
  26. Gomes, R.C. and Gomes, L.O.M. (2009) Depicting the arena in which Brazilian local government authorities make decisions – what is the role of stakeholders?, Internbational Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.22 No.2, pp.76-90.
  27. Hamshire, C., Forsyth, R., Bell, A., Benton, M., Kelly-Laubscher, R., Paxton, M., & Wolfgramm-Foliiaki, E. (2017). The potential of student narratives to enhance quality in higher education, Quality in Higher Education, Vol 23(1), 50-64. Retrieved on 12 July, 2017 from http://www-tandfonline-com.proxy.eap.gr/doi/pdf/10.1080/13538322.2017.1294407.
  28. Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of service research, 3(4), 331-344.
  29. Hillesheim, G. (1998). Distance learning: Barriers and strategies for students and faculty. The Internet and Higher Education, 1(1), 31-44.
  30. Houle, C. O. (1964). Who Stays-and Why?. Adult Education, 14(4), 225-233.
  31. Leiber, T., Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2015). Impact evaluation of quality assurance in higher education: methodology and causal designs. Quality in Higher Education, Vol 21(3), 288-311. Retrieved on 7 September, 2016 from http://www-tandfonline-com.proxy.eap.gr/doi/pdf/10.1080/13538322.2015.1111007?needAccess=true.
  32. LeNoue, M., Hall, T., & Eighmy, M. A. (2011). Adult education and the social media revolution. Adult learning, 22(2), 4-12.
  33. MacBeath, J. (2001). Η Αυτοαξιολόγηση στο Σχολείο: Ουτοπία και Πράξη. Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα.
  34. Maassen, P. (2000) The Changing Roles of Stakeholders in Dutch University Governance. European Journal of Education, 35(4), 449-464(16).
  35. Margerum, R. (2002) Collaborative Planning: Building consensus and a distinct model of practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 237-53.
  36. Michaelson, S. J. (1994). Implementation of total quality management in an academic unit of a higher education institution.
  37. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, USA).
  38. Mitchell, R., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997) Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4).
  39. Mohammad Mosadegh Rad, A. (2006). The impact of organizational culture on the successful implementation of total quality management. the TQM Magazine, 18(6), 606-625.
  40. Moore, M. (1995) Creating Public Value, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
  41. Neville, B. and Menguc, B. (2006) Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377-391.
  42. Nutt, P. C. &. Backoff,. R. W. (1992). Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations: A Handbook for Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  43. Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 pp.145-179.
  44. Perkins, J.A. (1973), The University as an Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
  45. Polonsky, M. J. 1995. A Stakeholder Theory Approach to Designing Environmental Marketing Strategy. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 5(3): 29–46
  46. Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. and Stringer, L. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 90, 1933-1949.
  47. Rogers, A. (2002). H Εκπαίδευση Ενηλίκων. Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο
  48. Rowley, T. (1997) ‘Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences’ The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4. pp.887-910.
  49. Rumble, G. (2000). Student support in distance education in the 21st century: Learning from service management. Distance education, 21(2), 216-235.
  50. Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164. doi: 10.1080/02602930301671
  51. Shanahan, P. and Gerber, R. (2004) Quality in university student administration: stakeholder conception. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 166-174.
  52. Shortell, S. M., O'Brien, J. L., Carman, J. M., Foster, R. W., Hughes, E. F., Boerstler, H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1995). Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: concept versus implementation. Health services research, 30(2), 377.
  53. Stake, R.E. (1995) The art of case study research. (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
  54. Walker, E. A. (1999). Characteristics of the adult learner. The Diabetes Educator, 25(6_suppl), 16-24.
  55. Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41(1), 75-86.
  56. Wit, K. and Verhoeven, J. (2000) Stakeholders in Universities and Colleges in Flanders. European Journal of Education, 35(4).
  57. World Bank (2007) How to Build M&E Systems to Support Better Government http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585672-1251737367684/How_to_build_ME_gov.pdf
  58. UNICEF (2001) A UNICEF Guide for Monitoring and Evaluation, http://www.unicef.org/reseval/index.html
  59. UNDP (2002) Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, http://www.undp.org/eo/handbook
  60. Βεργίδης, Δ. & Παναγιωτακόπουλος, Χ. (2003). Διερεύνηση των λόγων διακοπής της φοίτησης στο Μεταπτυχιακό Πρόγραμμα "Σπουδές στην Εκπαίδευση" του Ελληνικού Ανοικτού Πανεπιστημίου. Στο Α. Λιοναράκης (Επιμ.), Πρακτικά εισηγήσεων, 2ο Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο για την Ανοικτή και εξ Αποστάσεως Εκπαίδευση (σελ. 81-90). Αθήνα: Προπομπός
  61. Γκίνου, Ε. (2001), εισήγηση στο 1ο Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο στην Ανοικτή και Εξ Αποστάσεως Εκπαίδευση. Πάτρα 25-27 Μαΐου 2001
  62. Ιωακειμίδου Β., Λιοναράκης Α. (2017). Η διασφάλιση και διαρκής βελτίωση της ποιότητας στην εξ αποστάσεως πανεπιστημιακή εκπαίδευση. Τάσεις και προσανατολισμοί, The Journal of Open and Education and Educational Technology,
  63. Κόκκος, Α. (2008α). Εισαγωγή στην Εκπαίδευση Ενηλίκων: Θεωρητικές Προσεγγίσεις. Πάτρα: ΕΑΠ
  64. Λιοναράκης, Α. (2014). Ταξινόμηση και διαμόρφωση μοντέλων επιστημονικού λόγου για σχεδιασμό και ανάπτυξη εκπαιδευτικού υλικού, είναι ελεύθερο και προσβάσιμο, hyperlink: https://www.slideshare.net/antonislionarakis, Toμ.13, Αρ.2
  65. Λιοναράκης, Α. (2001). Ποιοτικές προσεγγίσεις στο σχεδιασμό και στην παραγωγή εξ αποστάσεως πολυμορφικού εκπαιδευτικού υλικού. Στο Μακράκης, Β.(επιμ.), Πρακτικά Πανελλήνιου Συνεδρίου με Διεθνή Συμμετοχή για τις Νέες Τεχνολογίες στην Εκαίδευση και την Εκπαίδευση απο απόσταση, εκδόσεις: Ατραπός
  66. Παπανδρέου, Χ. (2017). Μετασχηματισμός κειμένου και παραγωγή επικαιροποιημένου εκπαιδευτικού υλικού για εξΑΕ μετά απο διαδικασίες συνεργασίας, αλληλεπίδρασης & συνδημιουργίας. Μελέτη περίπτωσης ομάδας φοιτητών της Θ.Ε.ΕΚΠ65, hyperlink: http://eproceedings.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/openedu/article/view/1038/0
  67. Χουλιάρα, Ξ., Λιοναράκης, Α., Σπανακά, Α. (2011). Η έννοια της πολυμορφικότητας στο εξΑΕ διδακτικό υλικό: θεώρηση, σχεδιασμός, ζητήματα εφαρμογής, Διεθνές Συνέδριο για την Ανοικτή & εξ Αποστάσεως Εκπαίδευση, 6, ανακτήθηκε στις 4/02/2018 απο http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/icodl.767

Cite this Article:

  • BibTex
  • RIS
  • APA
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Vancouver
  • Chicago

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Search Articles

Issue April 2020

Volume 9, April 2020


Table of Contents


Order Print Copy

World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:


Submit your Paper