NASB (ACTUALIZADO) TEXTO: 9:35-44

This section will review existing research relating to application and/or decision. When students submit their applications to their selected institutions, a quick response, and developing “keep warm” activities will gain an advantage (Sargeant, 1999). Students may submit multiple applications and may accept multiple offers, therefore it is important to maintain dialogue and make a psychological bond between both parties (Maringe, 2006). The more traditional approach of “one size fits all concept” to HE recruitment marketing may not be the best approach.

At the final decision stage there is a vast amount of research covering the choice factors used to select their preferred university and the focus of this is at either undergraduate level, postgraduate level, or international level (Simões and Soares, 2010). Furthermore, studies looking at choice factors consider either narrower or wider ranges of choice factors. Examples of various choice factors highlighted in previous studies can be seen in Table 4.3.

73 | P a g e Table 4.3: Choice factors highlighted in a selection of previous studies

Research study Choice factors highlighted in study

Ahmad and Hussain (2017)

Learning environment, cost issues, institutional reputation, personal development, recommendation, socio-cultural proximity, government initiatives

Soilemetzidis et al., (2014)

Location of the institution, overall reputation of the institution, content of the course, reputation in chosen subject area/department.

Simoes & Soares (2010)

Geographical proximity, academic reputation, guidance, current students’ influence, family influence

Maringe (2006) Programme (e.g. course/structure), price (e.g. fees, cost of living, availability of work), Promotion (e.g. academic research, publicity about university), People (e.g. alumni, graduate profiles, tutor credentials), Prospectus (e.g. university prospectus and information), Prominence (e.g. university and staff reputation, website), Place (e.g. accommodation, facilities, racial diversity, class sizes)

Foskett et al., (2006) Availability of part-time work Worthington &

Higgs (2004)

Course reputation and the location of the HEI Soutar and Turner

(2002)

Course suitability, academic reputation, job prospects, quality of teaching, campus atmosphere, type of university, distance from home, family opinion, ability to transfer and friends

Mazzarol and

Soutar (2002)

An institution’s reputation for quality, an institution’s links or alliances with other institutions familiar to the student, an institution’s reputation for having high‐quality staff, an institution’s alumni base and‐word‐of‐mouth referral process, the number of students enrolled at the institution, whether an institution is willing to recognise students’ qualifications Webb (1993) Academic reputation, accreditation, evening classes,

programs, potential degree marketability, part-time programs, completion time, proximity, costs, faculty contact time, location, library size, reputation in the community, parking, and placement reputation

Krone (1981) Career prospects

Leister and Menzel (1976); Wright and Kriewal (1980)

Location and the size of the institution

Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2015) undertook a comprehensive review of literature covering university choice factors in published work between 1992 and 2013. They state that the HE market is not homogenous and that a single list of choice factors for all students is unlikely. Furthermore, they identify studies are often based on one institution, or one subject area, and that caution should be used when considering these results. There are also few studies at postgraduate level relating to choice factors.

74 | P a g e Moreover, they identify a need for further research relating to international students’ choice of university outside of their home country, especially to identify differences relating to the process of choice.

Sheng (2015: 227) researching undergraduate education choices in China found that social class impacted upon university degree programme choice, especially when combined with gender differences. “Social class leads working-class students to make less gender-stereotypical choices than students of the middle-class origin”. Working- class parents made higher education decisions for their children (female or male) based upon which subjects provided the best job opportunities. Furthermore, middle-class parents displayed more preference for females to undertake courses that would be in keeping with Chinese traditional femininity (softness, obedience and sexual subordination), and for males, Chinese masculinity (independent, higher-level academic degree and have a successful career). However, previous research undertaken during the 1970s suggests lower class students are more traditional regarding typical sex related roles than higher class adolescents (for example see Angrist, Michelson and Penna (1977); Bayer (1975); Osmond and Martin (1975). Therefore, class and culture may be a contributory factor in choice, which is supported by the Blackwell et al., (2001) model as an environmental influence. The attributes or criteria that students select a university by might therefore vary in different countries (Soutar and Turner, 2002). This can clearly be seen in the research by Soilemetzidis et al. (2014), with non-UK students seeing the reputation of the institution and course being more important than for UK students. This supports research by Briggs and Wilson (2007) who found that league tables were more important in decision making for students at pre-1992 universities, compared to those students at post-1992 universities. Other differences were also found that suggest overall importance of various criteria varies between students at pre and post-92 universities. Postgraduate students however mentioned the importance of their research supervisors in influencing them about which institution to study at (Maringe and Carter, 2007). Moreover, graduate level student perception of the reputations of teaching staff (for example number of staff who are PhD holders, professorial title, academics’ public profiles) may influence their decision (Cubillo et al., 2006; Ivy, 2001). This supports earlier work highlighting the importance of perceived

75 | P a g e educational standards and reputation (Borjas, 1994; Price et al., 2003), and also the latest PTES results (Soilemetzidis et al., 2014).

Ahmad and Hussain (2015) undertook research into choice factors relating to international students studying in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is seen as a complex process, with personal and situational factors influencing, but not all were viewed with equal importance. The learning environment, cost issues and institutional reputation were the top three ranking factors, and social-cultural proximity and government initiatives the least important. Whilst this research is focused on the UAE, it provides a useful classification of different choice factors.

Figure 4.1: International student choice factors for UAE (Ahmad and Hussain, 2017)

Once students have made their final decision, based upon relevant choice criteria, some models indicate that they will then move onto the final stage of post-purchase evaluation, although a number of models within HE do not include this stage.