Journal of the Operational Research Society (2014) 65, 935–953
© 2014 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/14 www.palgrave-journals.com/jors/
Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital S Irani, YK Dwivedi and MD Williams Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK Ever since the announcement that UK higher education (HE) fees were to increase up to £9000, many universities have expressed concern about how to attract the best students while offering choice and promoting student mobility through broader access. This in turn has led to questioning how such complexity might be modelled using sophisticated operational research (OR) techniques. Because higher education institutions (HEIs) are now beginning to compete ‘against’ rather than ‘with’ each other, potential students are paying increased attention to where and what they will study, as well as graduate opportunities after their degree. Hence, the quality of education services becomes increasingly vital for HEIs in order to attract potential students. This study seeks to develop a framework of those factors affecting international (non-EU) students’ choice of institution. A number of factors were identified and collated from the existing literature providing a solid foundation on which to base this research. A survey approach was utilised to determine the importance of identified factors based on data collected from students of two different types of institutions (a university and a feeder institution). Through a better understanding of factors such as social influence, financial and career opportunities, universities should be well placed to construct models underpinned by OR principles that will promote scenario modelling and planning within HE. Journal of the Operational Research Society (2014) 65, 935–953. doi:10.1057/jors.2012.143 Published online 3 April 2013 Keywords: higher education; modelling scenarios; international student choice; decision-making process; strategic planning; OR techniques
Introduction The financial sustainability of UK higher education institutions (HEIs) could depend upon the intake of international students (non-EU) as a source of uncapped revenue. This has led to competition among UK universities to recruit the best-quality international students available. Beyond domestic competition, UK HEIs are facing intense international competition from HEIs in Australia, Canada, the United States and Europe, all competing for a share of the lucrative international student market. However, recent changes in immigration rules (for example, elimination of the post-study work visa) for overseas students may cause difficulties for UK HEIs when competing with institutions in other countries. Such changes in the economic environment necessitate rethinking strategies that support driving up the future recruitment of high-quality international students. This study seeks to develop a framework of those factors affecting international (non-EU) students’ choice of institution. The paper outlines a research design to examine relevant factors affecting international students’ institutional
Correspondence: YK Dwivedi, School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, Haldane Building, Swansea, Wales SA2 8PP, UK.
choice among British universities and feeder institutions. The authors contribute to this area by stimulating debate and constructive thinking on this topical issue by providing guidance and evaluation of those operational research (OR) approaches that will promote a greater understanding of the international student decision-making process, thus supporting the construction of future scenarios. The remaining sections of this paper are structured as follows: the first section provides a detailed exploration and discussion of recent developments in the UK higher education (HE) sector. The next section identifies, justifies and discusses the factors important for determining student choice and outlines associated propositions. The following section presents the research methodology adopted to undertake the proposed investigation. Empirical findings are then presented and discussed. Finally, a brief discussion on the adoption of OR techniques is then presented before presenting the implications, limitations and future research directions in the concluding section.
Turbulence and change in the UK HE sector In 2008/2009, approximately 248 000 international students (excluding EU nationals) were enrolled at UK HEIs
936
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
(HESA, 2010). Overseas students studying in UK HEIs are considered a boost to the country’s economy, as they are calculated to add £8.5 billion per annum to the British economy (Morris and Russell, 2007). International students’ contribution is not only of financial benefit to the British economy, Morris and Russell (2007) claim that they also add cultural and social value to society. De Vita and Case (2003) explain that in a climate of increasing budgetary constraint due to the decline in Government funding, most UK universities have sought to expand their financial base by using international students as a source of revenue. Therefore, the financial sustainability of UK HEIs could depend on the income from students outside the EU. It is worth noting that given the UK membership of the EU, all UK and European students are treated the same for fee-paying purposes, with international, non-EU, students paying higher fees. Therefore, UK HEIs are competing against each other for lucrative student fees, within an increasingly competitive global market. These fees are lucrative because they are uncapped, which means institutions have no upper limit on recruitment levels. There are few countries in Europe that charge similar university fee levels to the United Kingdom. For example, in Denmark and Sweden, university fees for non-EU students average at around 10 000 EUR per year. Applications to Swedish universities from outside the EU have dropped 85% since the introduction of fees that distinguish home/EU from overseas students. However, in contrast, education in Norway, which is outside the EU, is free to all, and hence applications to Norwegian universities have soared. Given that Norwegian universities now offer courses in English, Grove (2011) suggests that this will further strengthen their appeal as a destination. However, it is important to recognise that each university will have its own grade point average requirement. A growing number of universities in the EU now teach in English, which highlights their determination to recruit students from international markets. To demonstrate this point, Baker (2010) reports that a university in the Netherlands offers its degrees in English, with a tuition fee of £1500 a year, provided applicants are less than 30 years old. Visa restrictions play a major role in recruiting potential overseas students. The current Government has overhauled student visa criteria (UK Border Agency, 2011), which came into effect in April 2012, with consequences potentially impacting student numbers. Changes include the following: K
The overall time that can be spent in the United Kingdom on a student visa is now 3 years at lower levels and 5 years at higher levels. Previously, there was no time limit for study at or above degree level. Hence, the time limit on study might discourage less able students from coming to study in the United Kingdom.
K
K
Only postgraduate students at universities and government-sponsored students will be able to bring their dependants. Up to 2012, all students on longer courses could bring their dependants. This rule will discourage students who would like to come to the United Kingdom with their family. Only graduates who have an offer of a skilled job from a sponsoring employer under Tier 2 of the points-based system will be able to stay and work. Until this year, students were allowed 2 years to seek employment after study, which has been a major attraction. Therefore, changes to this requirement may discourage future students from choosing UK universities, especially if they can study elsewhere without such restrictions and potentially seek employment in the same country where they studied.
Consequently, income received by universities from overseas students may decline, as the number of students getting visas may be limited. As Baker (2011) reports, Teresa May, the current Home Secretary under the existing Coalition Government, claimed that the changes would lead up to 80 000 fewer visas a year, more than a quarter of the current total. However, evidence is yet to emerge that substantiates these claims. Another important change to visa restrictions is that students coming to study at degree level will need to speak English at an ‘upper intermediate’ (B2) level, rather than the current ‘lower intermediate’ (B1) requirement. In addition, UK Border Agency staff will be able to refuse entry to students who cannot speak English without an interpreter and, who therefore, clearly do not meet the minimum standard. Fearn (2011) reports that the language requirement is expected to damage recruitment to university foundation courses, which prepare foreign students for HE in the United Kingdom by improving their language and other study skills. Fearn (2011) goes on to claim that up to 80% of those currently studying foundation courses did not have B2-level English upon entry, and about half of all overseas students at UK universities are recruited through that route. Therefore, the clear implication here is that feeder institutions are likely to be affected by these requirements, as their student intake might decline. Many UK universities have agreements with independent colleges, such as Kaplan International Colleges, and London International College of Business & Technology, to offer programmes leading to degrees. In such relationships, the ‘feeder’ institution would normally admit students below an acceptable tariff of entry to university, who then undertake an intensive programme of study. On reaching a pre-defined standard, the university would undertake to admit the student with ‘advanced standing’, often directly into level 2. These colleges are an important pathway to studying in UK universities, as they prepare
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
overseas students for the UK education system, which may be different to their experience in their country of origin or their expectations. International competitiveness is obviously based on various macro factors such as immigration policies, job prospects after study completion and using agencies to recruit students. The use of international recruitment agencies is common practice in Australia and Britain; however, the United States has historically resisted such a strategy (Redden, 2010) until now. The United States now has an awakening desire to increase overseas student entry, as they introduce certified agents to recruit international students. The United States’ move to use agencies could also have an adverse impact on the United Kingdom’s share of the market. However, UK universities might look at other ways to recruit overseas students. Research by the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (2010) suggests that there are 13 international branch campuses belonging to British universities around the world. For example, Queen Margaret University in Scotland has a campus in Singapore, while Middlesex University in London has campuses in Dubai, India and Mauritius. Similarly, The University of Nottingham has campuses in Malaysia and China. The new student visa system (April 2012) might encourage more UK universities to export themselves abroad and open up foreign campuses to recruit non-EU students. According to HESA (2010) figures, UK universities’ overseas enrolment outside the EU rose 5% on the previous year. There are now more students on UK programmes offered outside the European Union than non-EU students studying in the United Kingdom (Morgan, 2011). This reflects the high demand for UK HE by overseas students and allows students to gain a UK education without physically coming to the United Kingdom and thus incurring all the associated expenditure. However, Williams (1990) suggests that by studying abroad (in the United Kingdom) overseas students gain access to resources, teaching and learning from peers within different cultures. Learning about their subject in a different cultural context is a potential motivation to travel thousands of miles. Many institutions provide additional time, tutorials, language support and orientation courses (to adjust to a foreign culture), as well as offering religious services and accommodation to international students, to enable students to contribute successfully during their academic study. However, all these come at a price; Sastry (2006) reports that some institutions will struggle to justify expensive investments in facilities targeted at non-EU students, such as targeted support services, special training for lecturers, help with integration within the host community, off-campus and marketing campaigns. This is particularly true if the institutions are depending on future revenue from non-EU students, now that future recruitment of
937
overseas students is not guaranteed and may even decline or prove less attractive given growing competition. It will also be interesting to observe the impact of increased UK (EU) student tuition fees (up to £9000) on overseas student fees. Questions therefore arise regarding the financial attraction of enrolling overseas students, which may either diminish or universities may have to increase their overseas fees to survive in the new era. Another factor is likely to be British and EU student enrolments; since they now have to pay substantially more for their education in the United Kingdom, they have the choice to study abroad, where it may well be cheaper. Mobility within Europe is encouraged and recognised by all European countries. UK HEIs need to take overseas competition seriously as the European Commission (2001) reported that European Heads of State and Government agreed to give new status to individual mobility at their European Council meeting in Lisbon in March 2000. The EU Government leaders announced that they would promote a more transparent recognition of diplomas, qualifications and training courses undertaken anywhere in the EU. Hence, promoting greater mobility within Europe offers increased choice to potential UK and EU students. Universities UK (2006) stated that personal (off-campus) expenditure of international students attending UK HEIs in 2003–2004 was estimated to be £1.5 billion. This was equivalent to 9% of all UK receipts from overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for the year 2004. HE also makes a key contribution to business tourism. Personal (off-campus) expenditure of international business and recreational visitors to UK HEIs was estimated to be just over £106 million or around 1% of all UK receipts from overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for the year 2004. The expenditure of international students and visitors also generate employment throughout the country. These numbers highlight the importance of international students to the UK economy. The private sector benefits from the needs of students to obtain accommodation, entertainment and personal needs, that is, clothes, food, drink, electrical goods and so on. Hence, a whole infrastructure of cafes, pubs and shops are placed around universities to service such demand. According to Vickers and Bekhradnia (2007), the total expenditure on living costs by non-EU international students is £1626 million. Many international students studying for an undergraduate degree may progress to a master’s, and those who join postgraduate taught courses may continue to postgraduate research. If such students are satisfied with their current institution, they may continue, but if perceived service quality is poor they may express consumer choice by opting for other institutions. Therefore, to understand the factors affecting students’ choice, there is a need for more research to explore ways of identifying and classifying those factors that students consider when choosing to study overseas. It is also important not to underestimate
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
Research Design
938
Start of Research Process
Classification and codification of Literature
Factor Identification and Formulation of Proposition
Identify Research Questions
Develop Suitable Research Methodology Desig (Questionnaire/Interview Agenda)
Identify Suitable Research Strategy (Large Scale Survey and Focus Group)
Instrument Development ,Ethical Approval and Validation
Pilot Test
Statistical Analysis of Questionnaire(s) and Confirmation of proposition
Pilot Data Analysis
Feeder Institution Data Gathering Questionnaire(s) University
Discussions & Conclusions
End of Research Process
Figure 1 Proposed research design and methodology.
the potential of creating strong student alumni associations, as these can potentially market the existing brand to potential new students, thus creating a virtuous circle.
Evolving research questions Given the above discussions on the current economic environment and changes in the HE sector, it is vital for institutions to understand international students’ decisionmaking processes in order to attract and retain them. Such factors then form part of a framework of factors that affect the decisions of international students when pursuing their education at UK HEIs. This leads to the following research questions: K
K
K
What factors influence international students’ choice when deciding to study in the United Kingdom? What factors influence international (non-EU) students’ choice when selecting a feeder institution? What factors influence international (non-EU) students’ choice when selecting a University?
Research design The research design employed in this study is illustrated in Figure 1. The process begins with a comprehensive review of the normative literature, where journal papers, education supplements and books were classified and coded to
provide an overview and then detailed insight to the research domain. The output of this process identified a void and provided the motivation for this research. The void identified is that there is no comprehensive framework that captures all the factors that affect non-EU international students’ decision making. Those identified in the literature tend to explore each factor in depth rather than the breadth of factors. This research sought to establish a knowledge base to provide a deeper understanding of the factors affecting non-EU international students’ choice of UK HEI. A review of the literature led to the formulation of research questions that would ultimately result in the construction of a list of those factors that affect international student decision making, namely, Table 1. This framework was then broken down into nine hypotheses, which were empirically tested using primary data. The next stage of the research process was to think about how best to conduct the research in terms of the research design, and to explore the various options available. This involved the development of the research design, in which different stages of the research were linked into a coherent and robust structure as presented in Figure 1. Following the development of a survey as an appropriate research method, ethical approval was sought to ensure that an appropriate level of oversight was provided. A pilot study was then conducted to test the questionnaire, during the data collection phase. The lessons learnt resulted in modifications to the survey questionnaire, which was followed by full data collection, analysis and confirmation of the research propositions.
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
939
Table 1 Framework of micro factors affecting the decisions of international students when pursuing a programme of study at UK HEIs Factors affecting Students’ choice
Description of factors
Literature source
Social influence
Knowing someone (a friend/staff) at the university Bartram and Bailey, 2009; Owlia and Aspinwall, 1996 Knowing someone (a friend/relative) in the Goldbart et al, 2005 country Recommendation from a friend/family/teacher Ajzen, 1991; Baimbridge, 1997; Pereda et al, 2007; Price et al, 2003
Personal
Developing academic and professional experience Foreign (UK) experience/English language High learning expectations
Financial and career opportunities
Fee sponsorship—fee paid by home government
Baimbridge, 1997; Goldbart et al, 2005; Pereda et al, 2007 Exchange student programme Bartram and Bailey, 2009 Recognition of qualification and job opportunities Goldbart et al, 2005; Cubillo et al, 2006; when going back to country of origin Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003 Starting salary for graduates/employment Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003 prospects University offer of work experience Bailey, 2006
Institutional quality
University reputation/status
Goldbart et al, 2005 Caruana, 2007; Goldbart et al, 2005 Bartram and Bailey, 2009
Type and length of course offered Subject-based Content of the course
Baimbridge, 1997; Goldbart et al, 2005; Pereda et al, 2007; Briggs, 2006 Pereda et al, 2007 Pereda et al, 2007; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003 Pereda et al, 2007; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003 Goldbart et al, 2005; Price et al, 2003 Baimbridge, 1997 Pereda et al, 2007
Marketing
Strong marketing (ie brochures, TV commercials, printed advertisements, seminars, internet)
Conant et al, 1985; Xiaoyan, 2009; Briggs, 2006; Binsardiand Ekwulugo, 2003; Clarke, 2007
Facilities
Sport Health Service Research Library Computing Resources (lectures, books, videos) Other services (ie catering, halal, kosher, praying facilities) Accommodation
Price et al, 2003; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Pereda et al, 2007 Cain and Reynolds, 2006
Student support
University offer of an orientation course (to adjust to a foreign culture) English language course
Cownie and Addison, 1996
Geographical position
Distance to country of origin Specific location of the institution
Baimbridge, 1997; Briggs, 2006; Price et al, 2003
Transport links
Accessibility (car/train/bus)
Baimbridge, 1997
Research ranking Internationally recognised degree Admission criteria/Entry requirements
Survey method The aim of this study was to identify and establish key factors that determine international (non-EU) students’
choice of UK HEI. To achieve this, research methods were evaluated before electinzg to employ a cross-sectional survey to examine the importance of identified factors and confirm the propositions outlined in the previous section.
940
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
In doing so, the use of OR techniques such as statistical analysis (Mingers, 2001; Katsaliaki et al, 2010) were employed to support scenario design and analysis.
Survey questionnaire design and pilot study The survey questions/items relating to each factor were identified from various sources. These questions/items along with their sources are listed in Table 1. These questions/items were then modified to make them suitable to examine the same issue in two different contexts (ie level 2, university (non-EU) international students and feeder institution students). This led to the creation of two versions of the survey questionnaire, which was composed of the following three types of questions: (1) Multiple choice questions to capture demographic data such as age, gender, country of origin, and types and level of qualification, (2) Likert scale (1–7 scale) questions addressing issues related to the identified factors expected to be important for determining student choice, and (3) Open-ended questions. The draft questionnaire was first distributed to 10 academic experts (seven lecturers, two senior lecturers and a professor, all with an interest in enhancing the student experience) to obtain their views on the suitability and clarity of questions. After modifying the draft questionnaire based on their expert comment, the questionnaires were then distributed to seven students (focus group), who volunteered to come and complete the questionnaires on an agreed day and time. The students were from different countries and were all studying at undergraduate level 2 in a business school. The majority of the students came from a feeder institution. The students were given a participant information sheet and a glossary, as well as verbally being asked if they had any questions. There were one or two questions that the students wanted clarification on and the researcher amended these in an updated set of questionnaires. A reliability test was conducted on the pilot data using SPSS software that led to amendment and removal of some of the questions to enhance the reliability of the research instrument. The questions/items of the majority of constructs achieved above 0.70, with only two constructs having an initial reliability generating below 0.70. However, reliability increased above 0.70 after removing some of the items related to these two constructs. A final version of the survey questionnaire was modified accordingly to reflect these changes.
Final questionnaire and data gathering The researcher focused specifically on the international students’ (non-EU Business students) decision-making process at a feeder institution and a university. Data were collected between October and November 2011, and therefore the participants had only recently started to study
at a university in the United Kingdom. The researcher sought to identify international students’ decision-making process at two different institutions. To understand the students’ decision-making process, and to highlight the factors that affected their choice of HEI, the researchers designed a questionnaire that had nine main factors: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Social influence Personal choice Financial and career opportunities Institutional quality Marketing Facilities Student support Geographical position Transport links
These factors were identified through a critical review of the literature, where the authors then codified factors around those presented above. Students’ responses were obtained on a seven-point Likert scale (where 1 meant to strongly disagree and 7 meant to strongly agree). The 7-point scale was used over a 5-point option, as Dawes (2008) suggests that having more scale points is better for a single-item questionnaire, as it gives more options to the respondents. Participants were also asked two open-ended questions; to give students a ‘voice’ to explain why they chose their specific feeder institution/university and what factors affected their decision. The questionnaires were completed by 70 level 2 undergraduate international (non-EU) students, and 40 (non-EU) international students from the feeder institution. Of the 70 level 2 students, data from 66 students were used in this study, and four were disregarded.
Data analysis Bell (1996, p 125) claims that Data collected by means of questionnaires, interviews or any other method means very little until they are analysed and evaluated. The analysis of data was carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics 19. The authors first generated frequency and percentage about demographic variables, which was followed by a reliability test that was carried out to examine the internal consistency of the survey instrument. This was then followed by generating descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) to explore and determine the importance of identified factors. The results of the analysis activities are presented in the following section.
Factor identification and proposition The factors affecting the recruitment of international students are complex, and hence classified by the authors
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
as both macro and micro factors. Although some research has been done in this area, it remains an evolving and challenging area of research motivated by macro factors such as political change (Bailey, 2006), global pressures and markets (Baimbridge, 1997), and financial issues (Harris, 1995; Devos, 2003; Morris and Russell, 2007). Bailey (2006) explains that in 1979 full-cost tuition fees for students from ‘specified’ countries were introduced by the then Conservative UK Government, and subsequently the numbers of international students entering the United Kingdom declined. This measure also allowed the UK Government to cut funding for HE. The UK Government cannot afford to have uncapped (home) student numbers across universities, as ultimately liability lies with the taxpayer. Devos (2003) highlights the importance of exhibiting and maintaining relations with the home countries of students through, for example, international student exchange programmes in recruiting overseas students. Morris and Russell (2007), Devos (2003), and Harris (1995) all claim that cuts in public funding and financial pressures on universities drove them into enrolling overseas students to subsidise home students. Baimbridge (1997) and De Vita and Case (2003) also note that universities enrol overseas students because the number of UK students is capped and expansion through home student numbers remains limited. This makes for an interesting student modelling and planning challenge, as the potential scenarios are numerous. The micro factors considered to affect the recruitment of overseas students are, for example, the international students’ institutional choice for further study. The existing literature examines some of the factors affecting international students’ decision-making process. The authors attempt to develop a framework by combining those partially examined factors into nine constructs with a description of each factor (see Table 1). In addition, there is no research that examines international students’ decision-making process, to both feeder institutions and universities, thus identifying this research as novel. To fill this gap, the proposed research will focus on identifying, classifying and determining micro factors for both types of institution. Table 1 presents an initial classification of those factors extracted from the normative literature concerned with student choice.
Initial introduction and discussion of factors listed in Table 1 1. Social influence: According to Baimbridge (1997) and Bartram and Bailey (2009), students are influenced by their friends, relatives or staff when choosing a university. A recommendation from a relative/friend/teacher determines the potential student’s choice of a university. Therefore, the experience of current students is a very important influencing factor when attracting future students. Goldbart et al
941
(2005) suggest that by just knowing someone in a foreign country potential students often commit to study at a university in that same country. The influence of society may well have a relationship on the perceived prestige of an institution. Specifically, the image of a university may result in local residents encouraging those within their international network to come and study in their community. Hence, an emerging proposition is: Proposition 1: The choice of university is influenced by the views of those already studying/studied in the foreign country and those who live within the local community of the university. 2. Personal attributes: Goldbart et al (2005) suggest that students choose to study in the United Kingdom, as they have a better learning expectation than elsewhere while also developing their academic experience. Caruana (2007) highlights the importance of foreign experience for international students and their willingness to study at an English teaching university, as they see the English language as a global language that improves their employability prospects. This leads to the following proposition: Proposition 2: The choice of university is influenced by the UK education system and English language. 3. Financial and career opportunities: According to Baimbridge (1997), the tuition fee of a university is another factor when choosing an institution. Goldbart et al (2005) explain that the fees of some students are paid by their home government, thus enabling them to study in the United Kingdom without too much concern about the total cost of tuition. Bartram and Bailey (2009) highlight the fact that some students use student exchange programmes to study in the United Kingdom, allowing them to gain UK experience including a placement experience. Goldbart et al (2005) also mention that students come to the United Kingdom to study because of job opportunities available to them with a UK degree, when returning to their home country. Binsardi and Ekwulugo (2003) also highlight the importance of employment benefits after graduation. Hence the following proposition: Proposition 3: The choice of university is influenced by universities links with local/international businesses and governments. 4. Institutional quality: Briggs’ (2006) findings suggested that the most influential factor when choosing an institution is ‘academic reputation’. Goldbart et al (2005) also emphasise the attractiveness of universities by their status/ reputation. They further suggest that the type and length of course is another determining factor when choosing
942
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
a university to study. Pereda et al (2007) claim that the research rankings of institutions together with the offer of an internationally recognised degree are important factors influencing the decision-making process by potential students. Binsardi and Ekwulugo’s (2003) study highlighted the fact that respondents choose to study in the United Kingdom for its educational standard and recognised qualifications. Therefore, an emergent proposition is: Proposition 4: The choice of university is influenced by the university’s research ranking, reputation and degree offering. 5. Marketing and branding: Conant et al (1985) and Xiaoyan (2009) highlight the importance of marketing when attracting international students. They suggest that potential students make their choice of university depending on their own individual needs, perceptions and preferences. Therefore, the image of a university, information on services offered and geographical position could potentially affect overseas students’ choice. Briggs (2006) also claims that ‘effective and informed marketing would influence the decision-making process of students’. The study findings suggest that open days, word of mouth and websites were influential in informing students. Clarke (2007) suggests that one of the factors influencing student applications was commercially produced materials such as guide books, brochures and ranking publications. Hence, a further proposition is: Proposition 5: The choice of university is influenced by the marketing of institutions. 6. Facilities: Students’ choice of university also depends on the facilities that universities offer (Pereda et al, 2007), such as sport, health, catering, religious services, library, computing, research, resources (lectures, books, videos) and so on. Cain and Reynolds (2006) suggest that university facilities are not crucial in the decision-making process; however, there is evidence that some campuses were rejected for having inadequate or poorly maintained facilities. Therefore, the following proposition is offered: Proposition 6: The choice of university is influenced by university facilities. 7. Student support: There is a lack of research surrounding this factor, with this research adding a variety of factors surrounding the exploration of support services as a decision-making construct. Cownie and Addison (1996) claim that offering English-language courses is very important to overseas students. Therefore, universities need to be aware of the culture, religion and strength of English
language when targeting international students. Therefore, the proposition is: Proposition 7: The choice of university is influenced by pastoral services for students. 8. Geographical position: Baimbridge (1997) highlights the point that students’ choice of university is inspired by the specific location of the institution. Therefore, the accessibility of the institution and the distance to local amenities is a deciding factor by potential international students. Briggs (2006) also reveals that ‘distance from home’ and ‘location’ were within the top three factors that influenced choice for Scottish undergraduates entering HE. The proposed work will seek to extend the perspective of Briggs (2006), which has a singular dimension grounded in a Scottish perspective. In this context, we intend to examine the accessibility of the institution, as well the distance to local amenities from the possible local (UK) address of foreign students as a deciding factor. Therefore, the proposition is: Proposition 8: The choice of university is influenced by institutions’ location, the distance from local amenities, social life and by the proximity to local (UK-based) foreign students. 9. Transport links: In order to raise the market share of international students within an institution, Baimbridge (1997) identifies motorway and rail links as an important factor for international students who are unfamiliar with the United Kingdom. Hence, international students need to be aware of the transport links surrounding their choice of university. Therefore, the proposition is: Proposition 9: The choice of university is influenced by access to major motorways, the rail network and the connectivity of the transport system.
Findings Profile of the survey respondents Of the 66 responses received from the University level 2 sample, 31.8% were 20 years old, which formed the largest response category in this sample. This was followed by three categories (ie 19 years, 21 years and 22 years old) with almost equal proportions of respondents. The remaining age categories are listed in Table 2. Comparatively, younger respondents formed the largest categories in the respondent sample from the feeder institution. The comparative data presented in Table 2 suggest that the University level 2 sample is formed of more mature students than the sample from the feeder institution. In terms of gender, data were slightly less skewed towards male (m ¼ 56.1%, f ¼ 43.9%) for the University
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
Table 2 Respondents by age and gender University: Level 2 (Sample: 66) Age 20 19 21 22 23 18 24 27 0 Total
Frequency Percentage 21 11 10 10 5 3 3 2 1 66
Gender
Freq
Male Female Total
37 29 66
31.8 16.7 15.2 15.2 7.6 4.5 4.5 3.0 1.5 100.0
18 19 20 17 21 22 Total Missing Total
Percentage Gender 56.1 43.9 100.0
Table 3 Respondents’ country of origin
Feeder institution (Sample: 40) Age
Male Female Total
943
Frequency Percentage 12 10 6 4 2 1 35 5 40
30.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 2.5 87.5 12.5 100
Freq
Percentage
26 14 40
65.0 35.0 100.0
level 2 sample than the feeder institution sample, which had a comparatively higher proportion of males (65%) than females (35%) (Table 2). In terms of country of origin, the country with the largest proportion of students differed in the two samples. For example, Chinese students formed 21.2% of the University level 2 sample compared to Indian students who formed 22.5% within the feeder institution sample (Table 3). In addition, the University level 2 sample represented students from a larger number of countries (C ¼ 24) than the feeder institution sample, which only contained students from 19 countries. This indicates more diversity in the University level 2 sample. A breakdown of country of origin of respondents is presented in Table 3. All respondents from the University level 2 sample were year 2 degree students. However, the feeder institution sample comprised two categories of students (1) 55% of respondents were studying for a university foundation course and (2) the remaining 45% respondents were studying for 1st year degree. A breakdown of the data is presented in Table 4. Table 4 illustrates a breakdown of respondents according to type of degree for both the samples. The majority of respondents (28.8%) from the University level 2 sample were studying for a BSc Business Management (Marketing) (BSc BMM). In comparison, respondents pursuing a BSc Business and Management (47.5%) formed the largest category of the feeder institution sample. The survey respondents were also asked whether this was their first time staying in the United Kingdom or whether they had been here before. The breakdown of responses is presented in Table 4, which illustrates that a smaller
University: Level 2 (Sample: 66) Country China India Hong Kong Nigeria Pakistan Bangladesh UAE Afghanistan Brunei Kenya Mauritius Sri Lanka Tanzania Turkey Vietnam Botswana Iran Kazakhstan Lebanon Mexico Nepal Russia Taiwan USA Total Missing Total
Feeder institution (Sample: 40)
Frequency Percentage Country 14 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 62 4 66
21.2 7.6 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 93.9 6.1 100.0
Frequency Percentage
India Pakistan China Vietnam Bangladesh Sri Lanka Taiwan Zimbabwe Brazil Cameroon Ivory Coast Egypt Hong Kong Lebanon Nigeria Russia Saudi Arabia Tunisia UAE Total Missing Total
9 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38 2 40
22.5 10.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 95.0 5.0 100
Table 4 Respondents’ year of study, degree types and first time in UK University: Level 2 (Sample: 66)
Feeder institution (Sample: 40)
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Respondent’s year of study 2nd year degree 66 1st year degree 0 University foundation 0 Total 66 Respondent’s degree types BSc BMM 19 BSc BMA 17 BSc BMIB 16 BSc BM 14 Total 66 Missing Respondents’ first time in UK No 48 Yes 18 Total 66
100 0 0 100
0 18 22 40
0 45.0 55.0 100
28.8 25.8 24.2 21.2 100.0
10 6 4 19 39 1
25.0 15.0 10.0 47.5 97.5 2.5
72.7 27.3 100.0
23 17 40
57.5 42.5 100.0
proportion of respondents from the University level 2 sample recorded that this was their first stay in the United
944
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
Kingdom than the respondents from the feeder institution sample (42.5%).
Reliability of the survey measures The survey questions employed to collect data from both samples (ie University level 2 and feeder institution) were tested for internal consistency, which was examined using Cronbach’s alpha to confirm the adequacy of the measures included in this study (see Table 5). Hinton et al (2004) recommended the following four cut-off points for reliability: (1) excellent reliability (0.90 and above); (2) high reliability (0.70–0.90); (3) moderate reliability (0.50–0.70); and (4) low reliability (0.50 and below). Findings presented in Table 5 suggest that all nine constructs included in this study demonstrated either excellent reliability or high reliability across both samples. This means that the measures included in both survey questionnaires were internally consistent and reliable.
Importance of factors for determining student choice and confirmation of propositions The means and standard deviations of aggregated measures for all the nine constructs included in the study to
examine the perceptions of students regarding factors important for making international student choice of institution are illustrated in Table 6. Findings suggest that the importance of factors differs to some extent according to sample. The most important factor for the University level 2 students was ‘Transport links’, whereas this factor was ranked third by the feeder institution student sample. In contrast, the feeder institution students ranked the ‘Personal’ factor as the most important factor, while this was ranked the second most important by the University level 2 students. Social influence was ranked least important by students from both samples. The remaining factors and their importance based on mean are presented in Table 6.
Table 7 Importance of individual measures of Transport Link (TL) construct University: Level 2
Items
T1 T3 T4 T2
Feeder institution
N
Mean
SD
Rank
N
Mean
SD
Rank
66 66 66 66
5.61 5.32 5.17 4.89
1.402 1.349 1.365 1.383
1 2 3 4
39 40 39 38
4.95 4.60 4.56 4.05
1.413 1.598 1.273 1.355
1 2 3 4
Table 5 Reliability of survey measures University: Level 2 (Sample: 66)
Constructs
Feeder institution (Sample: 40)
No of items
Cronbach’s alpha
No of items
Cronbach’s alpha
6 8 8 6 9 8 12 6 4
0.715 0.813 0.879 0.865 0.790 0.902 0.967 0.857 0.858
6 7 6 6 8 10 13 7 4
0.705 0.747 0.677 0.871 0.787 0.814 0.923 0.744 0.867
Social Influence (SI) Personal (P) Financial & Career Opportunities (FCO) Institutional Quality (IQ) Marketing (M) Facilities (IF) Student Support (ISS) Geographical Position (UGP) Transport links (TL)
Table 6 Overall importance of factors determining students’ choice University: Level 2
Constructs
Transport links (TL) Personal (P) Facilities (IF) Student Support (ISS) Institutional Quality (IQ) Marketing (M) Geographical Position (UGP) Financial & Career Opportunities (FCO) Social Influence (SI)
Feeder institution
N
Mean
SD
Rank
N
Mean
SD
Rank
66 56 63 61 62 61 63 61 60
5.25 5.15 5.02 4.99 4.90 4.80 4.71 4.69 4.27
1.15 0.98 1.04 1.22 0.94 0.80 1.22 1.07 1.18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
38 38 35 33 36 37 39 36 33
4.56 4.88 4.49 4.52 4.75 3.90 4.13 3.99 3.80
1.19 1.05 0.91 1.12 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.00 1.25
3 1 5 4 2 8 6 7 9
945
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
Table 8 Importance of individual measures of the Personal (P) construct University: Level 2
Items
P2 P3 P4 P5 P7 P8 P1 P6
Feeder institution
N
Mean
SD
Rank
N
Mean
SD
66 66 64 64 64 65 66 59
5.68 5.41 5.36 5.33 5.06 4.85 4.76 4.32
1.448 1.252 1.314 1.298 1.670 1.725 1.962 1.570
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
39 38 38 38 39 39 38
5.49 1.620 4.61 1.326 4.66 1.547 4.89 1.429 5.46 1.745 4.85 1.814 4.26 2.062 Not Applicable
Table 11 Importance of individual measures of Institutional Quality (IQ) construct University: Level 2
Items
Rank 1 6 5 3 2 4 7
IQ6 IQ5 IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4
Feeder institution
N
Mean
SD
Rank
N
Mean
SD
Rank
64 65 66 66 66 65
5.27 5.18 5.08 4.89 4.71 4.58
1.158 1.310 1.244 1.204 1.078 1.322
1 2 3 4 5 6
39 37 40 37 38 38
4.90 4.97 5.02 4.46 4.42 4.39
1.651 1.384 1.441 1.609 1.536 1.346
3 2 1 4 5 6
Table 12 Importance of individual measures of the Marketing (M) construct Table 9 Importance of individual measures of Institution’s Facilities (IF) construct University: Level 2
Items N IF8 IF1 IF3 IF2 IF4 IF5 IF6 IF7 IF9 IF10 IF11
Mean
66 66 66 65 65 66 65 65 Not
SD
N
Feeder institution
Rank
5.48 1.417 1 5.26 1.194 2 5.15 1.167 3 5.11 1.288 4 5.02 1.281 5 5.00 1.403 6 4.88 1.516 7 4.57 1.489 8 used in this context
N
Mean
39 40 39 40 Not 40 38 37 40 40 40
SD
Rank
4.56 1.569 5 4.95 1.085 2 4.77 1.613 3 4.75 1.335 4 used in this context 4.32 1.716 8 4.29 1.575 9 4.05 1.490 10 4.50 1.617 6 4.45 1.663 7 5.25 1.373 1
Table 10 Importance of individual measures of Institutional Student Support (ISS) construct University: Level 2
Items N ISS2 ISS6 ISS3 ISS7 ISS10 ISS12 ISS4 ISS11 ISS9 ISS8 ISS5 ISS1 ISS13
Mean
SD
Rank
66 5.21 1.504 1 66 5.18 1.413 2 65 5.17 1.330 3 64 5.16 1.394 4 65 5.14 1.456 5 65 5.05 1.430 6 65 5.00 1.510 7 66 4.91 1.486 8 66 4.86 1.346 9 66 4.85 1.373 10 66 4.67 1.482 11 65 4.60 1.637 12 Not used in this context
Feeder institution N Mean 39 39 40 39 38 40 38 39 40 39 38 40 38
4.77 4.85 4.38 5.03 4.45 4.88 4.32 4.36 4.58 4.10 4.24 3.72 5.26
University: Level 2
Items
SD
Rank
1.547 1.582 1.444 1.513 1.446 1.343 1.397 1.693 1.678 1.832 1.618 1.853 1.446
5 4 8 2 7 3 10 9 6 12 11 12 1
In order to provide further insight about each factor (listed in Table 6), Tables 7–15 present the means and standard deviations of the survey measures related to all
M2 M9 M8 M3 M5 M1 M7 M6 M4 M10
Mean
66 64 66 66 65 66 66 64 64 Not
SD
Feeder institution
Rank
N
5.27 1.117 1 5.16 1.336 2 5.09 1.433 3 5.09 1.119 4 4.98 1.269 5 4.74 1.127 6 4.74 1.219 7 4.03 1.458 8 3.95 1.506 9 used in this context
Mean
39 37 38 37 Not 37 Not 37 37 37
SD
Rank
4.03 2.121 4 4.05 1.855 3 4.95 1.785 1 3.89 1.524 5 used in this context 3.41 1.739 7 used in this context 3.08 1.570 8 4.30 1.543 2 3.51 1.592 6
Table 13 Importance of individual measures of the Geographical Position (UGP) construct University: Level 2
Constructs N UGP6 UGP2 UGP1 UGP4 UGP3 UGP5 UGP7
Mean
SD
Feeder institution
Rank N Mean SD Rank
66 5.36 1.651 1 66 5.11 1.541 2 65 4.85 1.822 3 66 4.48 1.438 4 65 4.26 1.603 5 65 4.03 1.468 6 Not used in this context
40 40 40 40 40 39 39
4.83 4.88 4.15 3.85 3.88 3.64 3.87
1.708 1.667 1.942 1.626 1.800 1.547 2.092
2 1 3 6 4 7 5
nine constructs included in the study to explore relative importance of each question in a particular construct. For both samples (ie University level 2 and feeder institution), the respondents agreed strongly for all of the items of the transport link construct, where item T1: Frequent bus service scored the maximum and minimum for item T2: Cycle paths. However, it is clear from Table 7 that respondents from the feeder institution ranked all four items less strongly than the University level 2 students. The findings presented in Table 7 suggest that all items/ questions in the Transport link (TL) construct were rated
946
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
Table 14 Importance of individual measures of the Financial and Career Opportunities (FCO) construct University: Level 2
Constructs
FCO6 FCO7 FCO5 FCO8 FCO4 FCO3 FCO1 FCO2 FCO9
SD
Feeder institution
N
Mean
Rank N Mean
66 64 65 64 64 63 66 65 Not
5.33 1.269 1 5.17 1.386 2 5.14 1.391 3 5.12 1.351 4 5.05 1.350 5 4.08 1.462 6 3.86 1.607 7 3.77 1.801 8 used in this context
SD
Rank
Not 37 40 39 Not
used in this context 4.43 1.788 2 4.40 1.766 4 4.41 1.534 3 used in this context
38 37 39
3.45 2.95 4.69
1.589 1.433 1.436
5 6 1
Table 15 Importance of individual measures of the Social Influence (SI) construct University: Level 2
Constructs
N Mean SI1 SI6 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI2
64 63 64 62 64 61
4.91 4.57 4.44 4.19 4.14 3.72
SD 1.659 1.981 1.825 1.827 2.084 1.714
Feeder institution
Rank N Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6
39 37 37 36 37 34
4.21 4.73 4.43 3.03 3.97 3.00
SD
Rank
1.794 2.207 2.007 2.118 2.242 1.614
3 1 2 5 4 6
above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (5.25 for University level 2 sample and 4.56 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 7) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm the proposition P9: The choice of university is influenced by access to major motorways, the rail network and connectivity of the transport system. Strong agreement was also found in the Personal (P) construct by survey respondents (Table 8). For both samples P2: To seek UK experience was found to be the most important item and P6: Alumni network was considered the least important among all eight measures of the Personal (P) construct. Once again it is clear from Table 8 that respondents from the feeder institution ranked all four items less strongly than University level 2 respondents. As shown in Table 8, all items/questions in the Personal (P) construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (5.15 for the University level 2 sample and 4.88 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 8) identified to measure the importance of this
construct led us to confirm the proposition P2: The choice of university is influenced by the UK education system and English language. Among the questions for the Institution’s Facilities (IF) construct, IF8: Student halls of residence was rated most strongly (M ¼ 5.48, SD ¼ 1.417) by the University level 2 sample on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 9). This question was rated as the fifth most important factor by feeder institution respondents. While feeder institution respondents ranked F11: Library services as a most important factor, IF1: Study facilities question was rated as the second most important factor by respondents from both samples. IF3: Social facilities item was rated third and IF2: Information Technology Facilities question was rated as the fourth most important factor by respondents from both samples. As shown in Table 9, all items/questions related to the institutional facilities construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (5.02 for the University level 2 sample and 4.49 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 9) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm proposition P6: The choice of university is influenced by university facilities. Among the questions for the Institution’s Student Support (ISS) construct, ISS2: Health services rated most strongly followed by ISS6: Enrolment support as the second most important factor by University level 2: students on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 10). However, these two questions were rated as fifth and fourth most important questions, respectively, by feeder institution respondents. While the feeder institution respondents ranked ISS13: Feeder institutions offer extra contact time with your tutor followed by ISS7: Learning support as two most important reasons. ISS5: Financial services reason was rated as the 11th most important factor by respondents from both samples. Table 10 illustrates that all items/questions related to the ISS construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (4.99 for the University level 2 sample and 4.52 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 10) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm the proposition P7: The choice of university is influenced by pastoral services for students. Among the questions for the Institutional Quality (IQ) construct, IQ6: Admission criteria (related to your graduation merits) was rated most strongly by University level 2 students on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 11). However, this item/question was rated as the third most important reason by the feeder institution’s respondents. The feeder
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
institution’s respondents ranked IQ1: University’s reputation/status as the most important reason, while IQ5: Values of the University reason was rated the second most important factor by respondents from both samples. Similarly, respondents from both samples shared almost identical opinions on three questions (IQ2, IQ3 and IQ4), which they rated as the fourth, fifth and sixth most important reasons. Findings presented in Table 11 suggest that all items/questions related to the institutional quality (IQ) construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (4.90 for the University level 2 sample and 4.75 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 11) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm proposition P4: The choice of university is influenced by the university’s research ranking, reputation and degree programmes. Marketing is an important operation (through various activities) aimed at influencing students’ choice of institution. Ten such activities and messages were selected to measure the importance of the Marketing (M) construct. Among these 10 questions, M2: University website was rated most strongly, followed by M9: Word of mouth as the second most important factor by University level 2 students on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 12). However, these two questions were rated as the fourth and third most important questions, respectively, by the feeder institution’s respondents. The feeder institution’s respondents ranked M8: Agents followed by M4: Internet as the two most important reasons. M6: Newspaper features reason was rated as the 8th most important factor by respondents from both samples. Table 12 illustrates that the majority of items/questions (except M1 and M6 for student sample) of the Marketing (M) construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7point Likert scale) by the respondents from both samples. The above average mean (4.80 for the University level 2 sample and 3.90 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 12) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm proposition P5: The choice of university is influenced by institutions’ marketing. The importance of an institution’s geographical position was measured using a total of seven questions. Of these, UGP6: Distance to the airport was rated most strongly followed by UGP2: Distance to town centre as the second most important factor by University level 2 students on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 13). However, these two questions were rated in the reverse order (UGP 6 as second most important and UGP2 as the most important question) by the feeder institution’s respondents. UGP 1: Distance to London was rated as the third most important factor by respondents from both samples. Table 13
947
indicates that all items/questions related to an institution’s geographical position were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (4.71 for the University level 2 sample and 4.13 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 13) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm proposition P8: The choice of university is influenced by institutions’ location, distance from local amenities, social life and from possible local (UK) addresses of foreign students. Among the questions for the Financial and Career Opportunities (FCO) construct, FCO6: Career opportunities was rated most strongly by University level 2 students on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 14). In comparison, the feeder institution’s respondents ranked FCO9: Opportunity of internships/volunteering as the most important reason. FCO7: University’s offer of higher degree courses ie Master’s/PhD reason was rated as the second most important factor by respondents from both samples. Findings presented in Table 14 illustrate that the majority of items/questions (except FCO1 and FCO2 for the student sample) of the FCO construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (4.69 for the University level 2 sample and 3.99 for the sample from the feeder institution) of the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 14) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm proposition P3: The choice of university is influenced by universities links with local/international businesses and governments. The importance of Social Influence was measured using a total of six questions. Among these six questions, SI: Recommendation from a friend/family was rated most strongly followed by SI6: Knowing someone (a friend/ staff) in the country as the second most important factor by the University level 2 students on a 7-point Likert scale (Table 15). However, these two questions were rated as the third and first most important questions, respectively, by feeder institution respondents. SI2: Recommendations from Alumni were rated as the least important reason by respondents of both samples. Table 15 illustrates that the majority of items/questions (except SI4 and SI2 for the feeder institution sample) for the Social Influence construct were rated above average (above 3.5 on a 7-point Likert scale) by respondents from both samples. The above average mean (4.27 for the University level 2 sample and 3.80 for the sample from the feeder institution) for the overall construct (see Table 6) and also the above average mean for the majority of individual questions/items (see Table 15) identified to measure the importance of this construct led us to confirm proposition P1: The choice of
948
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
Table 16 Responses to open-ended questions University students responses:
Feeder institution students responses:
Are there any other factors that affected your decision to study in the UK? To gain international/multi-cultural experience English language Quality of education Recognition of degree all over the world Ranking of the University Rent/on-campus accommodation Different way of teaching Study period shorter than USA Price compared to America Friends/Family living in the UK Recommendation from a relative/friends Lived here before Strong economy
Are there any other factors that affected your decision to study in the UK? New experience English language Quality of education Recognition of degree all over the world Reputation of best University Better studying environment Living expenses Weather
Why did you choose this specific university compared to other universities? Scholarship/Student exchange programme Fee level University’s link with the feeder institution Agency recommendation University ranking course/subject Offer of an international degree Skilled staff and lecturers Entry requirement Website Location Facilities/campus Recommendation from a relative/friends Career development process while doing a placement Living environment Disability and Dyslexia services Distance to home country
Why did you choose this specific feeder institution compared to others? Pathway to go to University A This feeder institution is the best University A’s reputation Wanted to go to University A Agency recommendation London location Transportation between campus to Central London Saving time and money by going to the feeder institution before University
university is influenced by the views of those already studying/studied in the foreign country and those who live within the local community of the university.
Open-ended questions A total of 57/66 level 2: University students, and 15/40 feeder institution students, (six foundation degree and nine first degree) responded to the open-ended questions (see Table 16). The top five reasons for deciding to study in the United Kingdom for both institutions’ students were: experience, English language, quality of education, recognised degree and ranking/reputation of UK universities. Some of their reasons for choosing their specific institution were: agency recommendation, location and ranking/reputation of the university. Some of the responses suggested new factors that could be considered in future research.
Discussion This research suggests that potential students come to study in the United Kingdom from around 69 countries (total 106 international students) out of 196 in the world. Therefore, universities will need to do more to encourage international students from different parts of the world to come and study in this country. The research also highlights the fact that Chinese and Indian students are at the top of the lists at both of the institutions sampled, which suggest that UK education and experience is much sought after by these students but could indicate an overreliance on this geographical region. Foundation and 1st year degree students from a feeder institution, and 2nd year degree students, who entered University via a feeder institution, were chosen to complete the questionnaires. The aim was to gather information on students’ decision-making process at the beginning of their degree level education, while their decision-making process
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
regarding choice of university was still fresh and easy to recall accurately. The study suggests that the most important factor affecting international non-EU university students’ choice was Transport links, ranked third by the feeder institution’s students. Of course, this may be due to these students’ familiarity with the limitations of their location, since 72% of level 2 and 57 % of the feeder institution’s students had studied in the United Kingdom before their university degree, and experienced the complexity of travel during their stay. This might also be due to these students desire to explore and experience other places while studying. This finding could also be explained by the specific university and the feeder institution’s geographical position, and the availability of commuting links. There is a void surrounding research covering this factor; Baimbridge (1997) claimed that transport links were an important factor in international students’ decision-making process, and this study confirmed his findings. The feeder institution students’ reason for choosing this specific institution compared to others was good transportation links between the campus and Central London. The feeder institution’s students identified the Personal attributes construct as the most important factor for them, while this was the second most important factor for the university students. UK education, English language and international experience were among other factors that influenced international students’ personal choice. All of the above factors were suggested by Goldbart et al (2005) and Caruana (2007) as important. These findings suggest that the United Kingdom is a sought-after study location as English language is seen as the world’s language and it plays an important role in attracting international students. Furthermore, if students want to get a job overseas, they know that English is a universal language, and it will help them in their chosen future career. This outcome was confirmed by both institutions’ students as their response to the open-ended question of factors affecting their decision to study in the United Kingdom was English language and international experience. The Institutional Facilities construct was the third most important factor for the university students but fifth for the feeder institution students. Again this might be due to the university students’ prior experience of the university’s facilities and insufficient experience by the feeder institution’s students to view it as an important factor. These findings support the work of Pereda et al (2007) and Cain and Reynolds (2006). The Institutional Student Support construct was ranked as the fourth most important factor by both institutions’ students. As these international students are relatively new to English culture, they need access to the student support system in order to allow them to fit into the environment. The new cultural experience, language and educational system might be overwhelming to an international student;
949
hence, they need pastoral care to feel comfortable in their new surroundings and to help them to succeed in their studies. The research reported in this paper adds to that already reported by Cownie and Addison (1996). In doing so, the authors have confirmed the importance of this new construct and its supporting elements. Admission criteria and university reputation were rated as an important factor in the Institutional Quality construct. Students also highlighted these factors as important reasons for choosing to study in the United Kingdom when answering open-ended questions. This suggests that international students look into the reputation of institutions before making a decision, as suggested by Briggs (2006), Goldbart et al (2005), Pereda et al (2007). This research also highlights that admission criteria are also important to these sets of international students. The Marketing construct was rated as one of the least important factors for these specific students. It is important to highlight that the majority of these students used agency recommendations when choosing which institution to study at. Responses to the open-ended questions highlighted this point too. In addition to the claims made by Conant et al (1985) and Xiaoyan (2009), Briggs (2006), and Clarke (2007), this research found that the relationship between agencies, feeder institutions and universities are vital to the future recruitment of potential international students. The Institutions Geographical Position construct was also rated as an unimportant factor by both sets of students. However students rated ‘distance to original country’ and ‘distance to relative’s/friend’s house’ as the most important aspects within this factor. A majority of the responses to the open-ended questionnaire also highlighted location as an important factor that affects students’ choice of institution. This reinforces the suggested construct within the work of Baimbridge (1997) and Briggs (2006). Overall, the Financial and Career Opportunities construct was also ranked as an unimportant factor; however, in depth the ‘career opportunities, opportunity of internship and offer of higher degrees’ were rated as the most important factors within this construct. This factor was also commented on as important in the open-ended questionnaires. This emphasises that students are looking beyond their studies to see what career opportunities they will have when they complete their course. Goldbart et al (2005) and Bartram and Bailey (2009) suggested that ‘scholarship and bursary’ and ‘student exchange programme’ are important factors when choosing to study in the United Kingdom. Although this was supported by some of the university students as a reason for choosing their specific university, this was not the case for the feeder institution’s students. It was interesting to find out that the Social Influence construct was the least important factor for the students of
950
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
Table 17 OR techniques, application area and adoption and their suitability for this research OR technique
Example source
Application area
Remark: Suitability to this research
Data envelopment analysis
Sarrico et al (1997)
UK Higher Education Sector: Student choice based on the Times League Table
This technique can be further developed and utilised for understanding the perspective of potential students using multiple criteria/attributes.
Simulation
Tsafarakis et al (2011)
Marketing: Consumer choice behaviour
This is suitable and can be used to simulate student choice behaviour
Mathematical modelling/ programming
Dutta et al (2010)
Finance/Insurance: Develop a linear utility model to aid investors in comparing policies across various attributes
This might be suitable for building a utility model that may help students in the institutional decision-making process
Decision analysis
Hand and Zhou (2010)
Banking: Classifying customers in retail banking collections
It is feasible to apply decision analysis to classify students in terms of making institutional choice
Forecasting
Tsafarakis et al (2011)
Marketing: Consumer choice behaviour
This is suitable and can be used to simulate student choice behaviour for forecasting purposes
Statistics (Graphical chain models)
Neri (2001)
Marketing: Planning of marketing strategies in consumer credit
Similar approach can be used for planning marketing strategies in UK HEIs using ordinal variables and scale.
Systems dynamics
Duran-Encalada and Paucar-Caceres (2012)
System dynamics model to explain the implementation and development of business sustainable policies
This can be an appropriate technique to create a cause and effect model and develop business sustainability policies for the UK HE sector
Regression analysis
Irani et al (2009)
Technology adoption: Determining factors influencing broadband adoption using regression analysis and other statistics
This is an appropriate technique for employing in this research in order to obtain further insight on this topic from such data
Markov processes
Tsao et al (2010)
Marketing: Loyalty-based segmentation of consumers
Similar analysis can be applied on loyalty-based segmentation of students from different countries if there is availability of suitable data for this purpose
both institutions, despite the fact that this factor was frequently mentioned in the existing literature. However, the importance of ‘knowing someone, a friend/staff’ was the most important factor within this construct. All responses to the open-ended questionnaire suggest that Social Influence plays an important role in these students decision-making process, when choosing to study in the United Kingdom. These findings are all in line with the claims made by Baimbridge (1997), Bartram and Bailey (2009) and Goldbart et al (2005). Open-ended questions also highlighted that Table 1 could have included additional elements within each factor, such as cost of living, study period, chosen country’s economy, different way of teaching and weather.
Adoption of OR techniques There are many techniques that are utilised to solve OR-related problems in existing publications. Katsaliaki et al (2010, p 92) identified 25 frequently utilised OR techniques, which include heuristics, scheduling, data envelopment analysis, simulation, mathematical modelling, statistics and regression analysis. Examples and possible applications of such techniques for this research is illustrated in Table 17 and briefly discussed below. Such techniques could be utilised to further analyse student decision making based on perception. For example, further statistical techniques such as factor analysis can be utilised to reduce and refine the factors identified in this
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
paper. Future studies could also collect data on intention and student choice as dependent variables, which would then allow researchers to apply regression analysis in order to examine the influence of identified factors on student decision making in terms of choosing an institution. Findings from such studies can help prioritise factors more influential when creating new marketing strategies and campaigns. Data envelopment analysis could also be applied by universities’ international student recruitment offices for comparing efficiency in recruiting students from different countries based on factors considered in creating new marketing campaigns and number of students recruited. Finally, simulation could be employed to optimise a set of factors that are best suited for creating marketing strategies and campaigns for a particular course or a particular geographical area. It would be sensible to employ a combination of more than one technique for sustainable operations management of universities’ international student recruitment function.
This empirical study utilised a survey method to collect data from one HEI and one feeder institution, and compared the importance of nine factors (in two settings) that determine student choice. In extrapolating from the research, the authors conclude: K
K
K
K
Conclusions As the literature reveals, international and domestic competition is vast for UK universities. In addition, the new visa system and the fee rise for UK students means universities need to make serious changes to the ways they recruit international students. Universities need to improve their offer, services and facilities to attract international students to their own institutions. Universities need to consider providing related services and facilities to overseas students to make them feel comfortable and part of the community, while retaining their heritage, culture and identity. The existing literature highlighted gaps in the following areas that require further attention by researchers: K
K
K
K
The development of a comprehensive framework by the authors captures both the depth and breadth of the factors affecting international student’s decision-making process. In doing so, this research complements the limited published work in this area. The need to gather information on international (non-EU) students’ decision-making process, at the point of arrival to an Independent Further and Higher Education College, as they are new to the UK education system. The need to gather information on international (nonEU) students’ decision-making process, once they are at the university, after 6 months of attending a feeder institution. Compare and evaluate all the above findings in order to suggest ways of influencing the decision-making process of international (non-EU) business school students.
951
K
K
K
All nine factors collated from various sources are important for determining students’ choice of country and institution. The research also suggests that for all nine main factors each element within a factor had its own ranking of importance. Although all nine factors are relevant in different contexts, their relative importance differs according to context. This clearly suggests that standard marketing efforts/campaigns may not be effective for attracting all types of students and that a more customised approach should be adopted for better results and sustainable operations. This study identified the top five statistically most significant factors for determining international student choice as being: J Transport links; J Personal factors; J Institutional facilities; J Institutional student support; J Institutional quality. The added contribution of this research is that student pastoral services influence international students’ decision-making process, as well as highlighting the importance of university links with feeder institutions and agencies. There are a number of suitable OR techniques available for analysing the student decision-making process. Application of a combination of these techniques could lead to more sustainable operations management of student marketing and recruitment of functions of UK HEIs. This would create a basis upon which an organisation can strategically plan and revise its resources effectively. Universities taking students from feeder institutions should apply a slightly differentiated approach to manage such students for better performance and satisfaction.
The study is an initial effort towards creating a framework for institutions to use as a guide to understand and positively influence their potential international students, before they make their mind up about where to study. The framework of factors affecting international (non-EU) students’ choice could be used as a guide by universities and feeder institutions to review current strategies, improve their marketing strategies and identify those areas where investment is needed. The HEIs need to assess the diversity of their international students and their multicultural needs to satisfy and attract them to their institutions.
952
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 65, No. 6
Research limitations This research highlighted that the elements for each of the nine constructs can be expanded. Once these extra elements are added to the original framework, there should be more in-depth study to explore the effects of all these factors on the decision-making process of international students. This study focused on one university and its feeder institution; it would be interesting to see whether these factors affect international non-EU students’ choice at other universities and their feeder institutions. This would help establish to what extent the findings are scalable, as well as the robustness of the framework proposed. Since non-EU students’ fee levels are now similar to home and EU students’ fees, another interesting area would be a comparative analysis between prospective home and EU students and non-EU international students’ decision-making process.
Acknowledgements —The authors acknowledge the contribution of the anonymous referees, which significantly helped improve the readability of the paper. The authors also acknowledge the anonymous university and feeder institution that took part in this research. Finally, a special thanks to Dr Wafi Al-Karaghouli.
References Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211. Bailey C (2006). Supporting international students in UK higher education: key issues, and recommendations for further research. University of Wolverhampton, http://wlv.openrepository.com/ wlv/handle/2436/7590, accessed 23 July 2011. Baimbridge M (1997). Factors influencing overseas demand for UK higher education institutions. Journal of Further and Higher Education 21(2): 149–160. Baker S (2010). Dutch university aims to lure British students who lose out on UK places. Times Higher Education, 16 August, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=413025, accessed 29 March 2011. Baker S (2011). Home secretary unveils visa changes. Times Higher Education, 22 March, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/ story.asp?storycode=415577, accessed 29 March 2011. Bartram B and Bailey C (2009). Different students, same difference?: A comparison of UK and International students’ understanding of ‘effective teaching’. Active Learning in Higher Education 10(2): 172–184. Bell J (1996). Doing your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education and Social Science. Open University Press: England. Binsardi A and Ekwulugo F (2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students0 perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 21(5): 318–327. Briggs S (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: The case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education 31(6): 705–722.
Cain D and Reynolds GL (2006). The impact of facilities on recruitment and retention of students. Facilities Manager 22(3): 46–53. Caruana V (2007). Internationalisation of HE in the UK: ‘Where are we now and where might we go?’ University of Salford, http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/01_07.pdf, accessed 22 June 2011. Clarke M (2007). The impact of higher education rankings on student access, choice, and opportunity. Higher Education in Europe 32(1): 59–70. Conant JS, Brown JJ and Mokwa MP (1985). Students are important consumers: Assessing satisfaction in a higher education context. Journal of Marketing Education 7(2): 13–20. Cownie F and Addison W (1996). International students and language support: A new survey. Studies in Higher Education 21(2): 221–231. Cubillo JM, Sanchez J and Cervino J (2006). International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management 20(2): 101–115. Dawes J (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research 50(1): 61–77. De Vita G and Case P (2003). Rethinking the international agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 24(4): 383–398. Devos A (2003). Academic standards, internationalisation and the discursive construction of ‘the international student. Higher Education Research and Development 22(2): 155–166. Dutta G, Basu S and John J (2010). Development of utility function for life insurance buyers in the Indian market. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(4): 585–593. Duran-Encalada JA and Paucar-Caceres A (2012). A system dynamics sustainable business model for Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex): Case based on the global reporting initiative. Journal of the Operational Research Society 63(8): 1065–1078. European Commission (2001). Passport to mobility: learning differently, learning abroad. http://ec.europa.eu/publications/ booklets/move/29/txt_en.pdf, accessed 22 June 2011. Fearn H (2011). Visa reforms a passport to disaster, sector warns. 3 February, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? storycode=415034, accessed 29 March 2011. Goldbart J, Marshall J and Evans IR (2005). International students of speech and language therapy in the UK: Choices about where to study and whether to return. Higher Education 50(1): 89–109. Grove J (2011). Last of the free: will Norway’s universal no fee policy endure? Times Higher Education, 13 October. Hand DJ and Zhou F (2010). Evaluating models for classifying customers in retail banking collections. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(10): 1540–1547. Harris R (1995). Overseas students in the United Kingdom University system. Higher Education 29(1): 77–92. HESA (2010). UK higher education—A global leader. http://www .international.ac.uk/member-services/statistics.aspx, accessed 8 February 2013. Hinton PR, Brownlow C, McMurray I and Cozens B (2004). SPSS Explained. Routledge: Hove, UK. Irani Z, Dwivedi YK and Williams MD (2009). Understanding consumer adoption of broadband: An extension of technology acceptance model. Journal of Operational Research Society 60(10): 1322–1334. Katsaliaki K, Mustafee N, Dwivedi YK, Williams T and Wilson JM (2010). A profile of OR research and practice published in the Journal of the Operational Research Society. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(1): 82–94.
S Irani et al—Analysing factors affecting the choice of emergent human resource capital
Morgan J (2011). Home and away: UK study on foreign soil. Times Higher Education, http://www.timeshighereducation.co. uk/story.asp?storyCode=414902§ioncode=26, accessed 30 January 2011. Morris N and Russell B (2007). Overseas students boost UK economy by £8bn a year. The Independent, 16 November, http:// www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/overseas-studentsboost-uk-economy-by-pound8bn-a-year-400587.html, accessed 18 January 2011. Mingers J (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12(3): 240–259. Neri A (2001). The planning of marketing strategies in consumer credit: An approach based on graphical chain models for ordinal variables. Journal of the Operational Research Society 52(9): 1034–1044. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (2010). International branch campuses: motivations, opportunities & challenges. Going Global 4, http://www.obhe.ac.uk/what_we_do/Going_Global. 7e.26_March._Lasanowski.pdf, accessed 29 March 2011. Owlia MS and Aspinwall EM (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 4(2): 12–20. Pereda M, Airey D and Bennett M (2007). Service quality in higher education: The experience of overseas students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 6(2): 55–67. Price I, Matzdorf F, Smith L and Agahi H (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities 21(10): 212–222. Redden E (2010). From taboo to hot topic. Inside Higher Ed. 1 June, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/01/agents, accessed 18 January 2011. Sarrico CS, Hogan SM, Dyson RG and Athanassopoulos AD (1997). Data envelopment analysis and university selection. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48(12): 1163–1177. Sastry T (2006). How exposed are English universities to reductions in demand from international students? HEPI Report,
953
http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/Exposuretointernationalstudentmarket.pdf, accessed 29 March 2011. Tsafarakis S, Grigoroudis E and Matsatsinis N (2011). Consumer choice behaviour and new product development: An integrated market simulation approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(7): 1253–1267. Tsao H-Y, Pitt L and Campbell C (2010). Analysing consumer segments to budget for loyalty and promotion programmes and maximize market share. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(10): 1523–1529. UK Border Agency (2011). Government outlines overhaul of student visas. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/ newsarticles/2011/march/54-student-visas, accessed 29 March 2011. Universities UK (2006). The economic impact of UK higher education institutions. A report by Strathclyde University, on behalf of Universities UK, http://www.Universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/ Documents/economicimpact3.pdf, accessed 29 March 2011. Vickers P and Bekhradnia B (2007). The Economic Costs and Benefits of International Students. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute, http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1304/The-EconomicCosts-and-Benefits-of-International-Students.html, accessed 18 January 2011. Williams G (1990). Overseas students: a mutual benefit. St Catharine’s Conference Report No 20, Director of Studies, St. Catharine’s Cumberland Lodge, The Great Park, Windsor, Berkshire, England. Xiaoyan W (2009). Institutional recruitment strategies and international undergraduate student university choice at two Canadian universities. PhD Thesis, Department of Theory and Policies Studies, University of Toronto.
Received January 2012; accepted October 2012 after one revision
