Most of the existing HE models do not include a post-purchase evaluation stage, as discussed in Chapter 3, where out of ten models reviewed, only three had a post- purchase evaluation stage (Maringe and Carter 2007; Vrontis et al., 2004; Kotler and Fox 1985). At this stage, students will experience either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their choice (Blackwell et al. 2006), and may feel an element of regret if they feel it is the incorrect choice (Landman, 1987), and develop coping strategies (Bui et al., 2011). Moreover, expectations may have formed prior to their arrival at the HEI (Hill 1995). It is important to understand the level of satisfaction, as this may result in either positive or negative WOM/e-WOM, and this is more likely to be online (Moe and Trusov 2011), especially when considering Millennial postgraduate students who perceive digital and social media as being fundamental to their lives (Donnison, 2010; Kozar and Hiller- Connell, 2013; Kemp 2015).
The analysis of the focus groups and interviews revealed that generally students were very happy with their choice, even when considering (as some pointed out) the weather,
184 | P a g e language issues, difficulty of postgraduate study and different education systems. As one interview respondent (Interview 6 from the UK) states “I think it is what people thought it would be”, demonstrating the importance of course promotional material being an accurate reflection of the reality. The focus groups highlighted a number of categories that students used for WOM/e-WOM: traditional WOM; and e-WOM Twitter; e-WOM Facebook; e-WOM blog; e-WOM Foursquare; e-WOM other, and found a large amount of e-WOM taking place. Positive e-WOM is likely to benefit the HEI, however, any negative e-WOM, that by its very nature is likely to be widely read, could cause potential harm to the recruitment of future students. HEIs do therefore need to ensure they are scanning for any negative e-WOM.
Within the interviews, comments were categorised by the types of people they reached: friends; undergraduate staff at a previous institution; work colleagues; students at a previous place of study, and comments on social media. The importance of firstly evaluating their experience early on in the programme, and focusing on improving any negative areas is clear, as their experience is likely to be widely shared. Indeed, in the section on influencers, the strong role a range of people take in influencing them during the decision making process is very apparent.
7.6 Influencers
Influencers on decision making has been widely debated, especially relating to the importance of family and friends within the process (Veloutsou 2005). There are differing viewpoints regarding the influence they have (for example see Vaughn et al., (1978); Harket et al., (2001); Soutar and Turner (2002); Usher et al., (2010); Vrontis et al., (2016), Kaur and Singh (2016) ). Teachers, current and former students have also been discussed (Simoes and Soares 2010), and the role of agents is also well documented (Mazzarol and Soutar (2002); Pimpa (2003); Hagerdorn and Zhang (2010).
As previously discussed, agents are an important group of people as 36.5% of overseas students are recruited in this way (Havergal 2015), and almost 70 per cent of Chines students use agents (Hagerdorn and Zhang 2010). However, surprisingly agents do not appear in HE specific course selection decision making models as an influencer. The
185 | P a g e primary research for this thesis identified that agents were influential for many of the international students, however not all international students were found to use agents. If the student appeared confident in the process, and/or could draw on the expertise of someone (e.g. family member or friend already experiencing the process), then they appeared to not use agents. Furthermore, whilst there was evidence that agents recommended certain countries and universities, the relationship between the prospective student, the agent and how and why certain recommendations are made is not clear. As the nature of this study was about understanding the whole decision journey, it was not possible to explore in-depth the relationship between student, agent and recommendations. However, it is possible to state that they do need including as an influencer within decision models.
Family, friends, current and past students appeared to influence widely, not only specific courses and universities, but also cities and countries. They are also likely to be viewed as credible sources of information (Christodoulides et al., 2012). They appeared to provide advice regarding a variety of areas such as living costs in various cities, general information regarding cities, their experience of studying in a particular university and/or course and/or country, and advice regarding entry requirements (e.g. Visa, course entry tests etc.). It is difficult to establish just how much this influence affected their searching and final decision, but there is some evidence. Interview respondent 9 (from Myanmar) ignored friends that had suggested he should go to the University of Manchester. Interview respondent 8 (from Uzbekistan) however, did listen to a consulting group in her own country that said Manchester would be a better city than London due to living costs. Interview respondent 5 (from Italy), listened to a wide variety of influencers who all suggested the University of Manchester would be too theoretical. Undergraduate lecturers, professional bodies and online discussion groups all appeared to influence.
The focus groups provided evidence of a wide range of influences, and the interviews provided depth and detail regarding specific influences for each interview respondent. Generally, non-UK students appeared to use influencers slightly more overall than UK students, although some exceptions were found. This may be linked to a higher level of perceived risk experienced by these students, as WOM is known to play a key role in
186 | P a g e helping to reduce risk (Mazzarol et al., 2007). However, when considering online comments by unknown individuals, not everyone found these credible influences. In the focus groups, one respondent referring to a range of negative and positive recommendations meaning it was difficult to form an opinion. In the interviews, respondent 4 (from the UK) suggested that online views might be biased, and was not something they could rely on as being an accurate reflection.