International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 6, Issue 10 (October 2019), Pages: 7-13

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Higher education faculty perception of service quality of Pakistan

 Author(s): Shaheen Fatima 1, *, Samreen Fatima 1, Nausheen Fatima 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
 2Institute of Quality and Technology Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1973-1973

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.10.002

 Abstract:

Faculty serves as stakeholders of higher education institutions (HEIs) and is responsible for knowledge creation and dissemination in society by imparting quality education. With an increase in commercialization of education in Higher Education Institutions more have been an area of concern for HEIs management. Various studies had been done in past on different stakeholders of HEIs and their perception of quality education but the purpose of the current study is to measure the service quality in private HEIs of Lahore, Pakistan by faculty perspective. Quantitative research methods of Principal Component Analysis and Rotated Component Matrix were used in the study. The sample of this study consists of 10 private sectors HEIs having campuses in Lahore. A questionnaire was used to collect primary data from faculty members of private HEIs. The questionnaire consists of 48 items divided into five dimensions of service quality i.e., Reliability, Tangibility, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy.204 questionnaires were completely filled and received from the faculty of 10 HEC recognized universities of Lahore. The value of Cronbach Alpha calculated for this study was 0.973. By using Rotated Component Matrix 40 out of 48 items were converged into eight factors as determinants of quality education from faculty’ perception perspective while the remaining eight items having loadings less than 0.5 were not converged. Non converging items direct HEIs management to improve service quality in those ineffective and weak areas of service quality. This research study contributes towards policymakers, budget allocation committees and stakeholders of HEIs in formulating regulations for maintaining a competitive advantage.

 © 2019 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Service quality, Faculty perception, Private higher education institutions, Exploratory factor analysis

 Article History: Received 24 April 2019, Received in revised form 14 July 2019, Accepted 18 July 2019

 Acknowledgement:

No Acknowledgement.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Fatima S, Fatima S, and Fatima N (2019). Higher education faculty perception of service quality of Pakistan. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(10): 7-13

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table B1 

----------------------------------------------

 References (22) 

  1. Abdullah F (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24(1): 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500610641543   [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson EA (1995). Measuring service quality at a university health clinic. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 8(2): 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526869510081866   [Google Scholar] PMid:10142015
  3. Babakus E and Boller GW (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research, 24(3): 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(92)90022-4   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bahrami S (2016). Effect of organizational structure and corporate entrepreneurship in higher education. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(2): 35-39.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Berry LL, Zeithaml VA, and Parasuraman A (1990). Five imperatives for improving service quality. MIT Sloan Management Review, 31(4): 29-38.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bitner MJ (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2): 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400206   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cronin JJ and Taylor SA (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3): 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600304   [Google Scholar]
  8. Deming WE and Edwards DW (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Garvin D (1987). Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review, 87: 101-109.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Garvin DA (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. Simon and Schuster, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Gronroos C (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketing and organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1): 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90037-E   [Google Scholar]
  12. Jahanbani K (2015). Effective factors on the acceptance mobile bank services from customers of Saderat bank branches in Rasht. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 2(9): 1-7.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Kelley SW, Donnelly Jr JH, and Skinner SJ (1990). Customer participation in service production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66(3): 315-335.   [Google Scholar]
  14. King CA (1985). Service quality assurance is different. Quality Progress, 18(6): 14-18.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Lovelock C and Wirtz J (2004). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(5): 413-414. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040410548320   [Google Scholar]
  16. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, and Berry LL (1985a). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403   [Google Scholar]
  17. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, and Berry LL (1985b). Quality counts in service, too. Business Horizons, 28(3): 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(85)90008-4   [Google Scholar]
  18. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, and Berry LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perc. Journal of Retailing, 64(1): 12-40.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Rust RT and Oliver RL (1993). Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Tjiptono F (2012). Service management: Mewujudkan layanan prima. 2nd Edition, Andi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Zeithaml VA, Bitner MJ, Gremler DD, and Pandit A (2006). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Zeithaml VA, Parasuraman A, Berry LL, and Berry LL (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and Schuster, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]