Conocimiento Metalingüístico de la Lectura

Marketisation has been defined as the process of opening the market to competitive forces and increasing the influence of this competition on academic life (Judson & Taylor, 2014). It has been also defined as:

“… the attempt to put the provision of higher education on a market basis, where the demand and supply of student education, academic research and other university activities are balanced through the price mechanism” (Brown, 2015; p.

5).

Marketisation aims to encourage HE institutions to provide and dedicate more attention to students, teaching and research (Jongbloed, 2003). According to Tomlinson (2016), HE marketisation has been felt more in countries that have “broadly liberal market economy”

(p.3) such as the USA, UK, Australia and Canada. In most western countries, marketisation has been viewed as a:

“Compromise between privatization, academic autonomy and blatant state control in the face of the backlash against government intrusion in western socioeconomic life” (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006: p. 317)

According to Brown (2011), accommodating high numbers of students while maintaining the same quality was one driver of marketisation.

In 2015, Ashwin, Abbas, & McLean stated that the introduction and increase of tuition fees strengthened HE marketisation. They agreed that marketisation put HE quality central focus of attention to satisfy HE customers (students) by the need to provide “information about the quality of the product” (p. 610).

Marketisation has some academic support. In 2003, Jongbloed argued that marketisation improves student choice and service quality provided by HE institutions. Naidoo, Shankar, & Veer (2011) suggest that marketisation can help universities to identify and fulfil student needs. That said, Molesworth, Nixon & Scullion (2009) noted that marketisation of HE undermines students reflection, engagement and reinvention. Additionally, Brown (2015) sees how it makes HE “economic goods” (p. 7). Moreover, Brown feels that it will direct

institutions to focus on student surveys as the “best proxy for quality” and consequently

this will affect professional assessments and in effect “learning gains”.

Some of these researches have contributed to the debate as to whether students should be treated as customers or not. Jongbloed (2003) states that by being a customer of HE student have a fundamental contribution to the teaching process. As mentioned in section 1.4 the

53 second research question explores the effect of HE marketisation on PG student perception. For this reason literature that examines the debate surrounding the ‘student as a customer' will be discussed in the following section.

2.3.1 Are student customers?

As discussed in the introduction, customer satisfaction is an important topic in the marketing literature, though it cannot be applied to HE without considering the current debate that questions the perception of students as customers. Some scholars considered students as internal customers and some as external customers, while others simply refuse to accept the concept of students being customers of HE.

Sax (2004) argued that in order to be a customer, there is a requirement to have more than a single exchange. This is why people usually buy from someone they know and trust. The same principle applies to the relationship between current students and universities. Recruiters recommend universities to new students, suggesting that they join one of those universities that offer special privileges or discounts. It has also been stated that new technology helps define students as customers by connecting them to the university by bonds of familiarity and trust over an extended period. In the same vein, Yeo (2008) indicated that students are considered as HE customers, either as primary customers, involved in the learning process input and output, or as secondary customers for those who consider future employers as their primary customers.

That said, scholars like Parsell (2000) argue that students are not customers, although this does not suggest a lack of involvement from those students in their education. However, it is suggested that students should be treated as “learning workers” who have the power to participate, in a positive and productive way within the educational process.

Similarly, Durkin et al. (2014) agree on this perception of students as customers, as the unique situation of education means that outcome quality depends on the consumer (student) efforts. DeShields Jr et al. (2005) argues that students should be considered as customers due to the fact that without them, there would be no customers to be served by the educational institutions. This was also supported by Voss et al., (2007), who claimed that due to the tuition fees application in Germany, the "consumerist" concept will be most likely strengthened and German universities would need to offer value for money. Moreover, the main income for universities tends to originate from tuition fees

54 (UniversitiesUK, 2014d) and so it is of paramount importance to the HE sustainability model.

Sharrock (2000) and Cuthbert (2010) classified students into four categories:

 Customers who need routine information.

 Clients who needs guidance from an expert.

 Citizens who have a right to appeal against someone or an act.

 Subjects who maintain obligations, such as working to achieve a grade.

Moreover, Hart & Coates (2010) who conducted a study on international (East Asian) students suggested that students view themselves as customers when they are dissatisfied and subsequently provide feedback to the university. Twersky, Buchanan, & Threlfall (2013) also concluded that students are beneficiaries, as they benefit directly from the HE system.

In the investigation of Finney & Finney (2010) the correlation between students perceiving themselves as customers of their universities and their educational attitude or behaviour was examined. The research argues that students who perceive themselves as customers feel that they are entitled to receive positive outcomes from the university. In this case, students view that for their input of fees and tuition payment, and in exchange they will receive their grades and qualifications. Treating students as customers might decrease student responsibilities and destabilise student academic rigor (Finney & Finney, 2010). Similarly, Clayson and Haley (2005) stated that the application of customer orientation may have some implications, such as anticipating good grades; an “easy A” in return for the tuition paid regardless of the effort made. Students will also act as judges whenever they feel unsatisfied, and they will fill out a service form even if it is not related to teaching (Clayson & Haley, 2005).

Table 2.8 demonstrated the concept in regards to other scholars who support or refute the idea of treating students as customers.

Scholars

supporting the

idea of treating students as customers

Hill (1995). In the UK, students are the primary customers of HE. Michael, Sower, & Motwani (1997). Students are customers of higher

education; they are consumers of service and knowledge. On the other hand, future employers are consumers of the student product. Joseph & Joseph (1998). Due to high competition, universities are

55 to fulfill those needs and gain market share. Students should be treated as customers, as they are the main beneficiaries of the education process.

Maguad (2009). Students are usually considered as the most important internal customers of universities.

Cardoso, Carvalho, & Santiago (2011). Students are perceived as consumers or clients; they are no longer considered as the beneficiary of public goods.

Jackson et al. (2011). Students are considered as customers of the education system.

Scholars against the idea of treating students as customers

Driscoll & Wicks (1998). It is suggested that applying the marketing concept in HE should be limited and that stakeholders should consider the dangers of exacerbating the concept of customer-seller. Franz (1998). Students should be treated as co-workers, with the

respect and dignity they deserve.

Svensson & Wood (2007). Treating students as customers caused a misunderstanding of the relationship between students and universities.

Table 2.8: Studies that support and oppose the idea of dealing with students as higher education customers.

Despite this literature, Saunders (2014) and Vuori (2013) suggest that there is a lack of recent empirical studies that investigate PG student perception of being HE customers. Having considered the above debate and Juran & Godfrey (1999) opinion that a customer is anyone the work has an impact on, for the current study customer will been defined as “the recipient or beneficiary of the outputs of work efforts or the purchaser of products and services” (Maguad, 2007: p. 334). This is because I agree with the fact that PG students

have to take out a loan to pay their own fees.

Having reviewed literature of service quality, satisfaction and marketisation of HE it becomes important to review both Cognitive Consistency Theories and Balance theory which will be used within the conceptual framework in section 2.4.

56