CURRICULUM GAPS IN BUSINESS EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Education at the University of Leicester
by
Wong Kee Luen
October 2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Doctor of Education (EdD) pursuit has taken almost six years. But the journey is meaningful and fulfilling. I have learned what is involved to be a scholar and why the journey has to continue.
I take this opportunity to thank Dr. Chua Tee Tee for introducing the EdD degree programme to me. His gentle nature will always be remembered. And also Professor Les Bell who was instrumental for bringing the Leicester’s EdD programme to Malaysia. I would like to thank Dr. Bob Smith and Dr. Mark Lofthouse, both of them taught me how to be a researcher.
Many thanks to Professor Clive Dimmock who took over the reins of the Malaysian Study School and gave me the opportunity to complete the doctoral degree. And also to Professor Bernard Barker for correcting so many of my misconceptions about research. His comments on my draft chapters were so sharp that at times I had to ‘run for cover’. I also like to thank Dr. Justine Mercer, my 4th and last supervisor who so patiently guided me through the crucial stages of the thesis. Without her guidance, I would have drifted away from the programme and would not be able to complete my doctoral studies.
My heartfelt gratitude also goes to my family for being so supportive throughout my doctoral pursuit. The sacrifices Angie has to made for me were great: no holidays, no expensive dinners and no social life for these years. And the three boys (Moses, Joseph, and Benjamin) sacrificed their time with me so that I could complete the degree.
Last but not least, all thanks to God Almighty for giving me the strength and faith, and making all this possible.
i
ABSTRACT Curriculum gaps in business education: A case study of stakeholders’ perceptions Wong Kee Luen The primary objective of this study is to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders on the business curriculum, and the curriculum gaps between them. While the perspectives can be captured on a few continuum, such as the ‘critical’-‘managerialist’ continuum (Macfarlane and Perkins, 1995), this study chose to measure the perspectives of the stakeholders on the ‘about business’-‘for business’ continuum (Tolley, 1983). The study collected primary data from the business lecturers, the business alumni, and the business students of the case institution. The data were collected from the target respondents via a constructed, pilot-tested and reliable questionnaire. The questionnaire made it possible to measure the perspectives of the stakeholders in terms of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. The results confirmed that the lecturers have a high ‘about business’ orientation (mean = 4.25 out of 5). The ‘about business’ mean score of the alumni is 3.70 and the mean score for the students is 3.71. It is surprising that the lecturers scored high in ‘for business’ (mean = 3.88 out of 5), even higher than for the alumni (mean = 3.35) and the students (mean = 3.38). The t-test procedures confirmed the curriculum gap in terms of ‘about business’ between the lecturer and the alumni is significant (t=4.47, p=0.001); and between the lecturers and the students is also significant (t=4.45, p=0.001). The curriculum gap in terms of ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the alumni is significant (t=3.80, p=0.001); and between the lecturers and the students is significant (t=4.06, p=0.001). Both the ‘about business’ score and the ‘for business’ score of the lecturers are higher than those for the alumni and the students, indicating that the lecturers intend to provide a business curriculum to educate the students for life and at the same time preparing the students for employment. Although there is no cause for concern in this respect, the lecturers are recommended to collaborate with the stakeholders in order to satisfy the expectations of all stakeholders concerned. Keywords: business curriculum, curriculum gap, stakeholders, business education, gap analysis.
ii
CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
i
ABSTRACT
ii
CONTENTS
iii
TABLES AND FIGURES
vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
1
CONTEXT
5
LITERATURE
7
RESEARCH STATEMENT AND QUESTIONS
13
RESEARCH METHODS
13
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION
16
CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS
16
THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS
25
The Educators’ Perspective
28
The Business Perspective
30
The Students’ Perspective
32
The Legislator’s Perspective
33
CONCEPTION OF THE BUSINESS CURRICULUM
35
APPROACHES OF BUSINESS CURRICULUM DESIGN
41
PRESENTING THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
47
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS INTRODUCTION
52
RESEARCH PARADIGM
52
RESEARCH APPROACHES/STRATEGY
60
DATA COLLECTION METHOD
63
RESEARCH DESIGN
66 iii
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
67
PILOT STUDY
73
SAMPLING AND FIELDWORK
79
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS INTRODUCTION
83
EDITING AND CODING
83
RE-CHECKING THE RELIABILITY OF THE ITEMS
85
CREATING NEW VARIABLES
87
FACTOR ANALYSIS
88
FINDINGS
90
Characteristics of the respondents
90
(a)
Lecturers
90
(b)
Business Alumni
92
(c)
Students
94
Perspectives of the stakeholders
96
Descriptive statistics: Lecturers
98
Descriptive statistics: Alumni
100
Descriptive statistics: Students
101
Descriptive statistics: Variables of the ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ constructs
103
Descriptive statistics: Skills sets perceived to be required
108
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS INTRODUCTION
111
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ‘ABOUT BUSINESS’ AND ‘FOR BUSINESS’ CONSTRUCTS
111
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
112
CURRICULUM GAPS BETWEEN THE STAKEHOLDERS
114
DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE LECTURERS
122
iv
IDENTIFYING RELATIONSHIPS
125
GAP ANALYSIS
128
RANK CORRELATIONS
135
ANCILLARY RELATIONSHIPS
141
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
142
CHAPTER SUMMARY
151
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION
153
LIMITATIONS
157
IMPLICATIONS
159
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
163
CONCLUSION
165
REFERENCES
167
APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D (SPSS File)
v
TABLES AND FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Combined Curriculum Design Perspecitves
11
Figure 2.1 The ‘for-about’ spectrum of business education
27
Figure 2.2 Curriculum Types
45
Figure 2.3 Continuum of business curriculum
48
Figure 2.4 The Research Framework
50
Table 3.1 Number of items under the knowledge areas
72
Table 3.2 Number of items under the soft skills areas
73
Table 3.3 Pilot study: Alpha coefficients of variables
75
Table 3.4 Total summated means: Lecturers, employers, and students
76
Table 3.5 t-test (Pilot test): Lecturers and employers
77
Table 3.6 t-test (Pilot test): Students and employers
77
Table 4.1 Business lecturers – Alpha coefficients
85
Table 4.2 Business alumni – Alpha coefficients
86
Table 4.3 Business students – Alpha coefficients
87
Table 4.4 Rotated Component Matrix
89
Table 4.5 Gender
90
Table 4.6 Subject taught
91
Table 4.7 Years in education
92
Table 4.8 Gender
92
Table 4.9 Core business of the employers
93
Table 4.10 Departments where they worked
93
Table 4.11 Gender
94
Table 4.12 Business sectors preferred
94
Table 4.13 CGPA
95
Table 4.14 Perspectives of the stakeholders
96
Figure 4.1 ‘About business’-‘For business’ Matrix
97
Table 4.15 Frequency table for ‘about business’: Lecturers
98
Table 4.16 Frequency table for ‘for business’: Lecturers
99
Table 4.17 Frequency table for ‘about business’: Alumni
100
vi
Table 4.18 Frequency table for ‘for business’: Alumni
101
Table 4.19 Frequency table for ‘about business’: Students
102
Table 4.20 Frequency table for ‘for business’: Students
102
Table 4.21 Means and SDs of ‘about business’ variables: Lecturers
104
Table 4.22 Means and SDs of ‘for business’ variables: Lecturers
105
Table 4.23 Means and SDs of ‘about business’ variables: Alumni
106
Table 4.24 Means and SDs of ‘for business’ variables: Alumni
106
Table 4.25 Means and SDs of ‘about business’ variables: Students
107
Table 4.26 Means and SDs of ‘for business’ variables: Students
108
Table 4.27 Means of skill sets by the stakeholders
109
Table 5.1 Correlation matrix between ‘about business’ and ‘for business’
112
Table 5.2 Correlation matrix between ‘about business’ and ‘personal attributes’
113
Table 5.3 Independent-samples t-test: Lecturers and alumni
115
Table 5.4 Independent-samples t-test: Lecturers and students
116
Table 5.5 Independent-samples t-test: Alumni and students
117
Table 5.6 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between lecturers and alumni 119 Table 5.7 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between lecturers and students 121 Table 5.8 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between alumni and students
122
Table 5.9 Independent-samples t-test: ‘about business’ between young and experienced lecturers
123
Table 5.10 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between young and experienced lecturers
124
Table 5.11 Independent-samples t-test: ‘about business’ between better and weaker students
124
Table 5.12 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between better and weaker students
125
Table 5.13 Correlation: ‘about business’ and stakeholders (lecturers and alumni)
126
Table 5.14 Correlation: ‘for business’ and stakeholders (lecturers and alumni)
127
Table 5.15 Curriculum gaps – ‘about business’
129
Table 5.16 Curriculum gaps – ‘for business’
129
Table 5.17 Mean differences for ‘about business’: the lecturers and the alumni
130
Table 5.18 Mean differences for ‘about business’: the lecturers and the students
131
vii
Table 5.19 Mean differences for ‘for business’: the lecturers and the alumni
132
Table 5.20 Mean differences for ‘for business’: the lecturers and the students
133
Table 5.21 Mean differences for ‘about business’: the alumni and the students
134
Table 5.22 Mean differences for ‘for business’: the alumni and the students
135
Table 5.23 Betas (standardized coefficients) of the units for ‘about business’
136
Table 5.24 Rank correlations: ‘about business’
137
Table 5.25 Betas (standardized coefficients) of units for ‘for business’
139
Table 5.26 Rank correlations: ‘for business’
140
Table 5.27 Correlation table
141
Table 5.28 Extract descriptions and sub-themes for the lecturers
145
Table 5.29 Extract descriptions and sub-themes for the alumni
146
Table 5.30 Extract descriptions and sub-themes for the lecturers
149
APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D (SPSS File)
viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION In 2004, the Statistics Department of Malaysia reported that 66,000 Malaysian university graduates were unable to find employment within a year of their graduation (Annual Book of Statistics Malaysia, 2004). Of the 66,000 unemployed graduates, about 30% (that is, about 19,900) of them were business graduates. These figures aroused concerns not only of the Malaysian government but also the parents and the business educators. The general contention was that business graduates from Malaysian universities lacked the necessary knowledge and skills required to be employed (Graduan, 2006). Public debates on graduate employability consistently questioned the growing mismatch between the qualifications of graduates and the essential requirements of the jobs (Ambigapathy, 2005). The Human Resource Ministry of Malaysia acknowledged the weaknesses of the graduates and took action to implement the Graduates Training Scheme (GTS) to retrain and prepare the graduates for employment (Graduan, 2006).
In an effort to understand the problem, the Malaysian government appointed a committee ‘to study, review and make recommendations concerning the development and direction of higher education’ (The Zahid Report, 2005, p. 17). The key objectives were to examine the status of higher education in Malaysia and to prepare a report with recommendations for the Ministry of Higher Education with the target to make Malaysia the acknowledged centre of excellence for higher education (ibid). Accordingly, the Committee submitted the Zahid Report which comprised 138 recommendations. The Committee reported that they understood ‘the concern to upgrade the market value of graduates has become more pressing with the increase in the number of unemployed graduates’ (ibid, p. 25). But they disagreed that education should be viewed solely from the utilitarian perspective and argued for a balanced and holistic education (ibid).
According to the Zahid Report (2005), business educators should not only be concerned with equipping students with specific skills so that they could find employment, but also to teach transferable skills such as independence, creativity, flexibility and critical
1
thinking so that they could develop themselves holistically into better persons in the future. Knight and Trowler (2001) remark that ‘the conventional approach to planning for better learning’ (p. 111) based on learning outcomes alone will not achieve the dual purpose of business education. They suggest that ‘the best way to plan for good learning is to base curriculum on the concept of student entitlement to learning experiences that are embedded in their programmes of study’ (p. 111).
Nevertheless the unemployed graduate issue highlighted the fact that business is a dynamic discipline and is in constant need for reassessment (Denton et al., 2005; Gill & Hu, 1999; Lee, Trauth, and Farwell, 1995). A few pertinent questions are raised: Is the role of the business educators solely to prepare business graduates for employment? Seen from the view of teaching and learning practice, are there problems with the business curriculum, the students, or the academics? How do business educators make sure that their business curriculum is appropriate and up-to-date for teaching by the lecturers and learning by the business students? These are big questions that need to be answered.
Many authors agree that business education has to adapt to changes to meet the needs of the customers such as the industry, the students, and the academic community in order to remain relevant (for example, Ferrin, Landeros, and Reck, 2001; Laughton and Ottewill, 2000; Johns and Teare, 1995; Walker and Black, 2000; Thacker, 2002). Structural changes within the industry have brought a need for new skills, students wishing to be prepared efficiently for employment, and the academic community edging towards new service-related disciplines (Johns and Teare, 1995). And to meet these needs, ‘the focal point seems to be the curriculum’ (Johns and Teare, 1995, p. 4). Thacker (2002) complains that ‘the world of academia is often accused of living in an ivory tower, teaching students in ways that lack relevance in the world of work’ (p. 31). The result is ‘the problem often arises in college curricula’ (ibid).
In Malaysia, the Zahid Report (2006) recommends ‘that institutions of higher education continually review and update the curriculum and incorporate current development’ (p. 64). The report also recommends that the academia work closely with professionals
2
outside universities ‘in the development of relevant curricula and evaluation procedures’ (p. 28). Thus literature review suggests that the problem of providing relevant business education is often the problem of delivering relevant business curriculum to the students so that they can acquire the knowledge and skills required by the employers.
Many educational authors support the notion that the business curriculum should be industry-led (for example, Ferrin, Landeros, and Reck, 2001; Thacker, 2002; Trauth, Farwell, and Lee, 1993). The Zahid Report (2005) also supports the notion by recommending ‘representatives from the corporate and industrial sectors be involved in the curriculum development process especially for professional and science-based disciplines’ (p. 66). However, Burke (2005) advises that there are tensions between the three primary constituents of higher education: state priorities, academic concerns, and market forces, and higher educational institutions (HEIs) ‘should serve all while submitting to none’ (p. 23). Tolley (1983) also notices the tension and laments that ‘it is not clear whether the underlying concern of staff and students in these courses [i.e. Business Studies degree] is a study of business or a study for business’ (p. 5). Lucas and Milford (2003) explain that a study for business recognizes that business education is vocational and prepares students for employment in business. And a study about business offers a wider role for business education that ‘of allowing students to study the role of business in society’ (p. 392). This ‘for-about spectrum’ of educational objectives ‘goes back a long way and reflects the contrasting values of a vocational and liberal education’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 392).
Lucas and Milford (2003) remark that the complex and dynamic situation within business education is brought about by business educators responding to the competing demands: from government, employers, professional bodies and students. While the government and employers are noted for supporting a more vocational approach to business education, the academic and research tradition generally support a more liberal approach (ibid). These contrasting values have implications for curriculum design. Thus a shift to vocational approach will drive the business curriculum to increase the focus on transferable and technical subject-specific skills. On the contrary, a shift to a more liberal
3
approach will require the curriculum to increase the focus on critical thinking and reflective skills (Lucas and Milford, 2003).
Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000) contend that ‘the curriculum is ideologically contestable terrain’ (p. 33). As ‘the curriculum is a selection of what is deemed to be worthwhile knowledge’, the ‘justification for that selection reviews the ideologies and power in decision-making in society’ (ibid). In terms of business curriculum, the terrain is traditionally contested by the government, employers, professional bodies, and students; and the academia along the ‘for-about spectrum’ mentioned earlier. The business educators have to consider the demands of the players, identify the equilibrium point, and deliver a balanced business curriculum in order to be seen to have provided relevant business education.
Lightfoot (1999) agrees that the problem with business curriculum is one of balance between the dual purpose of business education: to give students the necessary skills to satisfy requirements for an entry level position, and to provide students with the abilities to learn new skills throughout their careers. These purposes ‘are often in conflict because of limited class time, limited number of courses allowed’ (p. 43).
It follows that there are different perceptions about what the business curriculum should be: the government, the employers, the professional bodies, the students, and the business faculty. For the business educators to remain accountable, balance the response and to meet the demands of these stakeholders, a study is required to understand and to identify the similarities and differences between these perspectives. Therefore, this study attempts to examine the problem of business education and curriculum in Malaysia. The study attempts to lay out the problem from the perspectives of the stakeholders to the dilemma. Following this, the perspectives are compared and analyzed to understand the intricacies of the problem. Armed with a better understanding, business educators can then try to balance the business curriculum and respond appropriately to the demands of these stakeholders.
4
CONTEXT The higher education sector throughout the world is facing increasing pressure on shrinking resources and increasing demands from the constituents (World Bank, 1994). By the late 1980s, many governments of developed countries felt the burden of heavy educational expenditure and would prefer to transfer the responsibility of education direct to the schools and universities. They advocated institutional self-management and transferring the responsibility of the management to schools and colleges (Bell and Bush, 2002). This convergent trend in policy is evident in higher educational reforms in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and in some European countries. This trend is also shown in the privatization of tertiary education and in calls for education to be driven by the market rather than by social forces. The trend can also be found in budget cutting in public universities and allowing competition to drive efficiency (Tan, 2002). In the UK, the higher education (HE) sector has been encouraged to develop greater differentiation as a potential solution for under-funding (King, 1995). This strategy results in new products and attracts new student groups. It also serves as a stimulus to new relevant curriculum design to maintain a competitive edge in the academic world (Roffe, 1997).
Recent worldwide debate has been concerned with changes in the direction and role of university education, in particular with regard to the effectiveness of business and management education provided by business schools (Dodd et al., 2002; Kinman and Kinman, 2001; Longenecker and Ariss, 2002; Monks and Walsh, 2001; Moratis and van Baalen, 2002; Ottewill, 2003; Watson and Temkin, 2000). Marginson (2000) describes a stand-off and unequal balance between corporate and academic purposes. This leads to academics “legitimizing their own irrelevance and marginalization” (Conger and Carter, 2002). There have been calls for new models of curricula and a different type of faculty member in business and management education (Conger and Xin, 2000).
In Australia, the Karpin Report recommends that tertiary education improves business and management education to meet the needs of industry better. Suggestions included ‘an
5
increasing emphasis on soft skills, internationalization and cross-functional integration, diversity, and links to industry’ (Karpin, 1995, Report Ch. 11, p. 300). In the United States, business schools are criticized as being unresponsive to the needs of the business community with faculty teaching obsolete notions about business practice (Pelton, 1996). The bulk of the criticisms centre on business educators’ irrelevance, cost, delivery method, timeliness, and value (Pearce II, 1999). The prevalent issue lies in the ability of business schools to have up-to-date curricula and thus equip business graduates with the knowledge and skills employers want business graduates to have (ibid). In UK, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) subject benchmark statements claim that one of the purposes of general and business programmes is to adequately prepare students for employment in business (QAA, 2000a).
Business education in Malaysia follows the convergent trend of the developed countries. There was a structural shift in the Malaysian economy from 1988 to 1991. The economy shifted from an agriculture-based economy to an industrial-based economy. This eventually led to an increasing demand for a skilled workforce (Tan, 2002). The private higher education institutions rose to the occasion and contributed by producing the semiprofessional and managerial personnel needed to meet the demands of the changing economy (Lee, 1999; Noran and Ahmad, 1997). By contrast, the public universities have been accused of being slow to respond to these changes. There were calls urging a realignment of the public universities to become more relevant to the changing environment (Najib, 1996). This is further confirmed by the Deputy Minister of Human Resource who claims that ‘our public universities are not sensitive to the needs of business. In fact, graduates from public universities seem to be suited only for work in the civil service’ (Graduan, 2006, p. 33). Because of this, the government ‘is keen that the private sector plays an active part in supplementing the provision of higher education, especially in technical and vocational education’ (Lee, 1999, p. 95).
Thus in Malaysia, the public universities and the private higher educational institutions (PHEIs) are under different pressures to a balanced business curriculum. The public universities are funded by the government and there is no concern for student enrolment.
6
Therefore these universities mainly cater to the needs and demands of the government and the seemingly academically independent academy. The curriculum will be comfortable with a liberal curriculum and will emphasize on critical thinking and reflective skills (Lucas and Milford, 2003). But this state will not remain for long. The unemployed graduates issue coupled with the ‘increasing criticisms from politicians, government officials, and others about the time we spend in the classroom, the value of our research, the quality and preparedness of our students’ (Rowley, et al., 1997, p. 4) will force changes to the business curriculum.
By contrast, the PHEIs are privately owned and student enrolment fees are the only source of income and sustenance. Thus customer satisfaction is a top priority (Tan, 2002). The business curriculum is heavily skewed to the demands of the employers and students (Lightfoot, 1999) and is vocational in nature (Lucas and Milford, 2003). The business environment is fast changing and the private business educators are expected to prepare future business professionals for the dynamic environment of the 21st century. Thus ‘the temptation is to overemphasize the current, trendy topics at the expense of more mundane, fundamental-based curriculum’ that will help students to ‘learn new skills throughout their career’ (Lightfoot, 1999, p. 43).
Against the backdrop of the high unemployment rate of Malaysian university graduates, Ambigapathy (2005) found that there were mismatches in the qualifications of the graduates and the types of jobs available in the market. For example, there were too many graduates with law degrees and too few vacancies for lawyers. In addition, he found ‘that employers were complaining that graduates lack personal qualities, communication skills, and people skills’ (Ambigapathy, 2005, p. 25). This again leads to questioning the balance between the liberal and the vocational stance of business education in Malaysia. It is within this context that the search for a balanced business curriculum is conducted.
LITERATURE Knight and Trowler (2001) define curriculum as ‘an account of the content to be studied, its organization, the learning and teaching methods and the arrangements for evaluating
7
student learning’ (p. 111). They prefer to refer curriculum to programmes and syllabus to the individual modules within the programmes. Lucas and Milford (2003) advise that the business curriculum is complex and should include not only the content and learning outcomes of the programme but also the learning, teaching and assessment strategies. By contrast, Cheng (1994) offers to define curriculum narrowly as ‘a specific set of knowledge, skills and activities delivered to students’ (p. 26). In addition, he proposes a structure of curriculum effectiveness and mentions that ‘a curriculum is effective if it can help students gain learning experiences which fit their characteristics and produce expected educational outcomes’ (p. 27) and ‘the variables which can be manipulated, changed, or developed to improve teacher performance and student learning experience and outcomes, are curriculum and teacher competence’ (ibid).
The tensions produced by the demands of the stakeholders mentioned earlier have substantial influence over the business curriculum design. It is unlikely that business degree programmes can be identical for all institutions. The Quality Authority Agency (QAA) subject benchmark statements (QAA, 2000a) need not be viewed as a form of national curriculum (Lucas and Milford, 2003). The diversity of students, stakeholders and educators ensures that each institution can make its own response along the ‘forabout spectrum’. ‘The challenge for business educators lies not in resolving such tensions but in acknowledging their nature in their own particular institutional context and in responding to these tensions creatively as they decide on their own particular approach’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 411). The problem of the business curriculum is not solely about relevance but a problem of responding to the tensions and power influence of the stakeholders. As each institution has its unique set of stakeholders, the responses to these tensions are also unique to the particular institution.
The complexity of the business curriculum is made worse by the challenge to the academic legitimacy of business education by the wider academic community of higher education (Macfarlane, 1995). In terms of epistemological identity, Macfarlane (1995) states that ‘it is clear that business and management studies, as a amalgam of disciplines taught within an applied framework, is perceived as a subject area of limited academic
8
status’ (p. 4). The business lecturers also suffer from academic identity (Macfarlane, 1995). The business curriculum derives largely from other inter-disciplinary subjects such as sociology, economics, accountancy, statistics, etc; and ‘there are very few academics in such departments with a first degree in business studies’ (p. 5). It is quite normal to find two types of business staff: academics applying specific disciplines to the study of business and practitioners who have switched to teaching after management or professional experience (Forrester, 1986). Bolton (1993) describes the diversity of the roles of business and management lecturers: ‘to teach diverse audiences including undergraduates, MBAs and businessmen; to improve their institution’s research profile; to demonstrate the “real world” relevance of the material they teach’ (p. 23). Faced with these role conflicts, the academic lecturers often ‘retreat into their familiar territory of research and publication in their first degree specialisms such as economics and psychology’ (Macfarlane, 1995, p. 5). This makes it very difficult for business ‘faculties to deliver the real flexibility required by companies’ (Warner, 1990 as cited by Macfarlane, 1995, p. 6).
Lightfoot (1999) suggests that ‘the curriculum design process has four primary stakeholders: educators, business, students and tax-paying public (represented by the legislature: each with a unique perspective on the curriculum problem’ (p. 43-44). Lucas and Milford (2003) generally agree that the stakeholders to the business curriculum are the lecturers, students, the institutional framework, and the funding agencies, the government and the employers. They suggest the nature of the perspectives of these stakeholders has paramount influence on the nature of the business curriculum design.
Concerning the lecturers’ perspective, those lecturers who come through a traditional higher educational route of doctoral specialism tend to support a liberal view of business curriculum (Lucas and Milford, 2003). By contrast, those lecturers who ‘have entered higher education after substantial professional and business experience tend to take to a vocational view of business’ (p. 393). In addition, the business student population is becoming more diverse. Generally there are three categories: part-time students who combine employment with study, students who undertake some form of placement, and
9
the full-time undergraduate students at the age 18-21 (Lucas and Milford, 2003). Mature part-time students bring along contextual perspectives to their studies that are quite different from those who enter full-time undergraduate education at a younger age. This diversity of the students’ perspective has implications for curriculum design, teaching methods, and approaches to learning and assessment (ibid).
The institutional framework such as the QAA subject benchmark statements within which courses are designed have substantial influence on the business curriculum too (Lucas and Milford, 2003). ‘The tendency within a modular structure can be towards a multidisciplinary approach within which the subjects become insular and specialist’ (ibid, p.394). Such approach lacks integration and students fail to see the connections between the subjects as the business curriculum is not cohesive and integrative. Concerning the perspective from the funding agencies, government, and employers, they ‘emphasize the need for business graduates to be employable by the end of their studies, requiring business-related knowledge and skills’ (ibid, p. 394). They tend to encourage a vocational business curriculum. Thus these diverse perspectives constantly shift the focus of the business curriculum along the ‘liberal-vocational spectrum’ (ibid) and it would be elusive to pin-point the equilibrium point.
Lightfoot (1999) has devised an extremely useful framework to map the stakeholders’ perspectives so that ‘they have common attributes that allow comparison’ (p. 43). He has created a four-quadrant matrix comprising the design scope (ranging from private interest to public interest) and planning horizon (ranging from short term to long term). The perspectives can be plotted on the matrix based on their attributes. According to Lightfoot (1999), the educators’ perspective is mid-range between private interest and public interest and long term; the students’ perspective is private interest and short term; the business (or employers) perspective is nearer to public interest and short term; and the legislature perspective is public interest and middle term. The matrix is shown in Figure 1.1.
10
Educators * Long-term
Legislature *
Short-term * Students Private Interest
Business * Public Interest
Figure 1.1 Combined Curriculum Design Perspectives (adapted from Lightfoot, 1999) There is wide variability among the four stakeholders in relation to the common factors of design scope and planning horizon. Because of this variability, it is not surprising that agreement on common goals for curriculum design is difficult (Lightfoot, 1999). Add to this ‘the business stakeholder has a very short planning horizon and yet commands considerable influence in the curriculum design process. The group doing long range planning (educators) is forced to cater to the group with short-term goals’ (ibid, p. 45). Interestingly the matrix can be read from another perspective. The educators and the students are found within the campus environment and are internal stakeholders; and the business and legislature are forces from the external environment and are external stakeholders. Balancing the perspectives of the business curriculum between the internal and external stakeholders is expected to be difficult (Lightfoot, 1999). However, it is easier to create a balanced business curriculum among the internal stakeholders as both the educators (the lecturers) and the students are internal forces enclosed within the controllable internal campus environment.
11
The internal stakeholders to the business curriculum are the lecturers and the students. Both groups of stakeholders are diverse and heterogenous (Macfarlane, 1995; Lucas and Milford, 2003). As mentioned earlier, the business lecturers comprise the academics with traditional doctoral specialisms; and the business practitioners who have wide business and management experience. Thus ‘within one institution there are likely to be differing perspectives about the role of business education’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 393). Investigating these differing perspectives adds spice to the research problem. There is diversity with the business student population as well. Business students not only comprise part-time and full-time students but ‘also vary according to the extent of their vocational interest: ranging from those who wish to obtain a broad specialism in business and management to those who ultimately wish to gain a professional qualification within a specialized area such as accounting’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 394).
The external stakeholders to the business curriculum are the governing authority (represented by the legislature) and the business community. With the publication of the Zahid Report (2005), the position taken by the Malaysian government is known, that is, higher education (higher business education included) should not be viewed from the utilitarian perspective alone but also from the holistic perspective. This position is in agreement to the one taken by the Quality Authority Agency (QAA) which is expressed by their subject benchmark statements that the business curriculum should have dual roles; teaching employable skills and also developing human resource (QAA, 2000). Because the perspectives of the legislature on the business curriculum are known, this study does not include them in the investigation.
The business community has a significant influence on the business curriculum (Lightfoot, 1999). Primarily they are the end-users of the products (graduates) of business education as they give the graduates employment. So in attempting to meet the demands of the business curriculum stakeholders, the voice of the business community is probably the first to be heard. Understanding their perspectives of the business curriculum will contribute considerably to business curriculum design. It will also help in highlighting
12
the expectations of the business community of business graduates and designing industryrelevant business programmes.
RESEARCH STATEMENT AND QUESTIONS The main purpose of this study is to examine the problem of business curriculum in business education in Malaysia. The study attempts to understand the problem by laying out the perspectives of the key stakeholders, namely the business educators, the business graduates or alumni, and the business students, to the business curriculum. (The justification for the choice of the business alumni in lieu of the business community and employers is presented under the Sampling and Fieldwork section in the Research Methods chapter.)
By synthesizing the related literature, both of context and content, the research questions of this study are: 1. What do business educators expect of the business curriculum? 2. What do business alumni expect of the business curriculum? 3. What do business students expect of the business curriculum? 4. What are the key differences and similarities between these perspectives?
RESEARCH METHODS Mertens (2005) suggests that a way to assist in choosing the appropriate research methodology is to review the nature of the research questions. The philosophical and epistemological orientation of the research questions of the study are underpinned by the post-positivist paradigm. The key objectives of the study are to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders on business education, and to determine the differences and similarities between these perspectives objectively. These clearly exemplified postpositivism.
This study adopts the case study as the research approach and strategy. Some authors view the case study as one type of ethnographic research that involves intensive and detailed study of an individual or of a group (Langenbach, Vaughn, and Aagaard, 1994;
13
Tesch, 1990). However, Yin (2003b) points out that case study research is not identical to ethnographic research and can be designed to yield valuable contributions to knowledge development. Lucas and Milford (2003) advise that there is unlikely to be a ‘uniform national business curriculum’ that fits every institution. This means that each institution will seek its own unique response to resolve the tensions brought about by the demands of the stakeholders. Add to this, each institution has its unique sets of stakeholders, so the business curriculum acceptable to these stakeholders is only appropriate for that particular institution. In such situation, the most appropriate research approach is the case study.
The case selected bears the common characteristics and attributes of private business education in Malaysia. It is one of the departments of the business faculty of a private university. The faculty comprises five departments of which one of them is the Department of Management. The department handles the delivery and award of the business degree programme. There are sixty (60) lecturers in the department with enrolments of about two thousand five hundred (2,500) students. These lecturers and the students are the internal stakeholders and constitute the target respondents for data collection. The business alumni are also target respondents. These past business graduates from the business faculty are good representatives of the business community. This is because they graduated from the business degree programme and know the business curriculum quite well. In addition, they have been working in the industry and understand the expectations of the business community of an employable business graduate.
The study uses the questionnaire survey as the data collection method. Yin (2003b) calls this ‘a survey within a case study’ (p. 9). The survey collects data via self-administered questionnaires. A measuring instrument or questionnaire was constructed and pilot-tested to ensure reliable data are gathered for the study. (The construction and pilot testing of the questionnaire was described in detail in the Research Methods chapter.)
14
Data collected via the questionnaire were quantitative in nature and were entered into the computer statistical software, Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 12. They were analysed statistically with descriptive and inferential statistics including comparisons and correlations. Results were deduced from data analysis and the findings.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Although there are a number of empirical studies on educational quality (for examples, Cuthbert, 1996b; Galloway, 1998; Kwan and Ng, 1998; Pariseau and McDaniel, 1997; Soutar and McNeil, 1996 ), there is yet an empirical study in Malaysia that focuses on the business curriculum. By understanding the nature of the perspectives of the stakeholders on the business curriculum and the influence they have over the content and learning outcomes of the business courses, curriculum designers can creatively respond with a curriculum that satisfies diverse goals and demands of the stakeholders. This also constitutes a benchmark whereby the business curriculum could be revised and improved to meet future challenges of the business environment.
The approaches, processes and know-how of designing the business curriculum to resolve the tensions between the stakeholders could provide a framework that could be instituted into standard operating procedures (SOPs). This improves the practice of curriculum design. Apart from enhancing the practice of curriculum designers, the results of the study on teaching, learning and assessment strategies are likely to support those business lecturers seeking to enhance their teaching practice, having understood and acknowledged the preferences of teaching and learning strategies of the varied business lecturers and the diverse business student enrolments.
Having introduced the study and presented the research problem and questions, the literature related to business curriculum, design, delivery and development, both in terms of context and content, are examined and discussed in detail in the Literature Review chapter.
15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION This chapter reviews the key literature related to the research problem of delivering relevant business education and curriculum by higher educational institutions. The literature review serves both to inform the study of the works that have already been done and to assist in the construction of the research framework. It begins by outlining the conflicting perspectives of business education before presenting an overview of the state of higher education that has implications for the development of business education and curriculum. Then the review focuses specifically on the distinctive aspects of business education in key developed countries. Next, the diversities of the stakeholders of business education are examined in order to understand and appreciate the complexities and difficulties involved in designing and delivering relevant business curriculum to meet the demands and requirements of the key stakeholders.
CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES OF BUSINESS EDUCATION There is nothing wrong with business education per se. Many authors remark that business education has responded and developed according the needs and requirements of the times (Aronowitz, 2000; Lechuga, 2006; Mintzberg, 2004). Often there were periods of flux and uncertainty but there were always turning points and business education returned to academic respectability (Gleeson et al., 1993). Mintzberg (2004) describes the phenomena of ‘pendulum swinging’ in business education, from ‘learning by doing’ to scholarship, then from ‘serious academic work’ to meeting the needs of the business community. According to Lightfoot (1999), the problem with business education comes about when the stakeholders have conflicting and uncompromising perspectives of business education. The problem is made worse when the stakeholders each vie for their perspectives to be included in the business curriculum when there is limited class time and limited number of courses allowed in a business programme (Lightfoot, 1999).
To understand the conflicting perspectives of the stakeholders, one must be aware of the distinctive aspects of business education. Business and management studies are
16
amalgams of disciplines taught within an applied framework and are perceived to be lacking in academic status (Macfarlane, 1995). Macfarlane (1995) points out that economics, in particular, play a central role in shaping the modern business curriculum. In fact many business and management departments originally emerged out of economics departments (Healey, 1993). Mintzberg (2004) using the Graduate School of Industrial Administration (GSIA) model of business curriculum provides a more detail framework of the business curriculum. He contends that the business curriculum comprises both disciplines and functions. The disciplines are psychology, sociology, economics, mathematics, anthropology, etc. and form the roots of the business education. The functions are the branches fed by the roots and comprise finance, strategy, information technology, marketing, accounting, organizational behavior, operations management, and management science.
The distinction between a business education ‘for’ and ‘about’ business was originally made by Tolley in 1983 in the context of the overall aim of a business studies degree (Macfarlane and Perkins, 1999). Grey and French (1996) recommend a parallel dichotomy for management studies: ‘critical’ and ‘managerialist’ perspectives. ‘Critical’ programmes promote a critical conception of management while ‘managerialist’ programmes focus on organizational functions such as accountancy and marketing (Macfarlane and Perkins, 1999).
Lucas and Milford (2003: 391) explain comprehensively that:
A study “for business” recognizes that there is a vocational aspect to business education. Students should be adequately prepared for employment in business. A study “about business” recognizes that business education can fulfill a wide role, that of allowing students to study the role of business in society incorporating sociology, legal, economics or ethical aspects.
Therefore, a study ‘for business’ will have a vocational curriculum and focuses on teaching and allowing the students to learn the skills necessary for employment while a
17
study ‘about business’ will have a liberal curriculum and focuses on allowing the students to learn the fundamental knowledge so that they may become critical members of the business community when they graduate (Lucas and Milford, 2003).
According to Lucas and Milford (2003), the focus of business education moves and shifts along a continuum much like the business education pendulum suggested by Mintzberg (2004). The different stakeholders have their perspectives about business education whether ‘for business’ or ‘about business’. These perspectives are quite different and are often in conflict with one another. These conflicts produce ‘tension that are not easily resolved and creates a complex and challenging environment for the educators’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 391). The problem of business education is due largely to these tensions and complexities brought about by the conflicting perspectives of the key stakeholders (Lightfoot, 1999).
The conflicting perspectives (i.e. ‘about business’ and ‘for business) of the diversity of stakeholders are not unique to business education. They have their ‘roots’ in the debate about a liberal or a vocational curriculum in higher education (Lechuga, 2006). Therefore to understand the complex nature of the much contested business curriculum, it is imperative to reflect on the historical development of higher education. This is because the historical context is the key to uncover the original intent of business education and how the changes in the environment result in changes in the landscape of higher business education.
I shall commence the discussion with the problem of business education starting from the US primarily because business education originated from the US. Traditionally, universities subscribe to the objectives of:
‘to preserve and transmit liberal culture; to share useful knowledge with the populace at large; to serve as an agent of beneficial social change in a burgeoning industrial and commercial order; and to service as a center for disinterested
18
inquiry and the production of new knowledge through research and scholarly writing.’ (Lucas, 1994, p. 86)
The earliest colleges such as Harvard and Columbia were organized as Protestant denominations with the role of teaching religious doctrine and to prepare an educated clergy (Nuss, 1996). It was only at the turn of the twentieth century that ‘the emerging industrial business class began to send their male progeny to college in order to acquire some cultural polish before bringing them into the family business or into the task of managing its fortune’ (Aronowitz, 2000, p. 16). At the dawn of the industrializing era, higher education tended to serve the emerging requirements of industry for trained personnel and for new scientific knowledge. By 1900, the universities had adopted the business ethic and more directly serve business by training cadres for industry as well. During this period, Veblen criticized the vocationalization of education and the transformation of universities into teaching machines and signaled the departure of the American university model from the fundamental respects from that of Europe (Aronowitz, 2000). For Veblen, the true function of higher education should be higher learning embodied in the work of research and scholarship. Rather, he observed that most professors were engaged in transmitting knowledge of all sorts and more particularly in training young people for specialized occupations for the corporate job markets (Veblen, 1918 as cited by Aronowitz, 2000). Veblen’s prescription for overcoming this sad state of affairs was to rigorously separate graduate schools from undergraduate schools and vocational programs. His argument was disregarded leading him to declare that ‘the hand of business control dominating every aspect of the modern university’ (Veblen, 1918, p. 192 as cited by Aronowitz, 2000). Given that the manufacturing capitalists continued to provide the essential flow of money to the universities, it was understandable why Veblen’s notion of critical education was disregarded and the critical role of higher education continued to erode. Therefore, the tension between liberal or vocational education has always existed between the educators and the business community. The situation higher education currently faces is the results of the myriads of influences that have interacted through the times.
19
From mid-1970s to early 1990s, many institutions faced declining state appropriations and budget cuts. These institutions resorted to part-time faculty appointments to cushion the budgetary constraints (Lechuga, 2006). During this time, the educational institutions redefined the academy by treating education as a commodity, offering programs that focused specifically on job training. Still a common complaint of employers was that nearly all those entering the workplace with a liberal arts degree and most who had graduated with specialized degrees in the sciences and technical fields were not jobready; they required on-the-job training (Aronowitz, 2000).
Aronowitz (2000: 29) comments:
Even the best laid plans of educators and planners to transform the curriculum from a general liberal arts model to one that may require the student to perform an internship in real world settings have not overcome the imperfect fit between school and work.
That was the situation in non-profit public higher education where the trend was to prepare students for employment rather than to educate students for life.
The last decade has seen tremendous growth of the for-profit higher education in the United States. Unlike the traditional non-profit institutions, degree programs offered by for-profit private institutions are ‘designed to follow the current trends in the job market and fulfill employers’ needs’ (Lechuga, 2006, p. 10). They believe that education is considered a private, rather than a public good (Pusser and Doane, 2001). These institutions focus on enhancing an individual’s employment opportunities by providing the education and skills required to compete in the job market. Without a doubt, the focus of such higher education is highly vocational with an emphasis on employable skills rather than critical thinking (Lechuga, 2006).
20
Mintzberg (2004) provides a brief history of business education in the United States comparing two models of business education. The formative years of business education can be traced back to 1881, the year that the University of Pennsylvania set up a bachelors programme in business by a businessman named Joseph Wharton. Wharton insisted that the business curriculum should not focus on ‘learning by doing’ but should include subjects such as accounting, mercantile law, economics, finance, and statistics. Harvard University started their Master of Business Administration (MBA) programme in 1908 and used the case study as teaching method. So ‘the stage was set for the great debate of business education: the theory of the original Wharton, rooted in scholarship, versus the practice of Harvard, rooted in experience and “learning by doing”’ (Mintzberg, 2004, p. 24). But the situation was not static and the emphasis shifted over the years.
Academic quality did not follow and most business schools descended into a dark age of business education. Gleeson et al. (1993) recorded that by the end of 1930s, much of business graduate programmes was very close to undergraduate studies. The return to academic respectability for business education started with the turning point of 1959 when two major studies were commissioned to arrest the declining state of American business schools: one by the Ford Foundation (Gordon and Howell, 1959), and the other by the Carnegie Corporation (Pierson 1959).
Gordon and Howell (1959) reported that business education was ‘gnawed by doubts and harassed by the bards of unfriendly critics’ and found ‘ itself at the foot of the academic table … They search for academic respectability, while most of them continue to engage in unrespectable vocational training’ (p. 4). In addition, they urged business schools to adopt ‘a sophisticated command of analytical and research tools derived from fundamental disciplines and trained the students in the physical and social sciences and mathematics and statistics, combined with the ability to apply these tools to business problems’ (p. 100). The Pierson Report (1959) conveyed the same message, talking of increased ‘academic standards’, ‘serious academic work’ (p. ix) and ‘the role of research’ (p. xv). Their recommendations were widely accepted by the business schools across the United Sates and then around the world. ‘The pendulum thus swings with a vengeance,
21
from the practical to the academic’ (Mintzberg, 2004, p. 28) and claimed new academic respectability on campus (Cheit, 1985). Mintzberg (2004) noted that ‘the business school pendulum has been stuck in one direction for almost half a century’ (p. 30).
By early 1980s, when universities were asked to do more without increased resources, the business pendulum was set to swing again. Business schools were criticized as being unresponsive to the needs of the business community and it was claimed that the faculty was teaching obsolete notions about business practice (Pelton, 1996). The bulk of the criticism centred on business educators’ irrelevance, cost, delivery method, timeliness, and value (Pearce II, 1999). For example, Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb (1995) criticized that the traditional business education was organized around specialized courses such as finance and production. They remark that such discipline-based division of courses is convenient from the faculty perspective but organizational real-life problems are not so neatly compartmentalized. In other words, the traditional discipline-based approach meets the needs of the faculty members rather than focusing on the learning of the students. In addition, they advise the faculty members to link to various external stakeholders including employers and alumni, so that the curriculum remains aligned to the changes in the external environment.
Business and management education programmes grew rapidly in the 1980s in the UK. Macfarlane (1995) offers two reasons for this phenomenon. One reason was that the decline in the UK economy was alleged to be due to managerial amateurism and therefore business managers required training. Another was the creation of competitive market conditions in higher education by the Conservative Government forcing universities to look to income-generating activities (Macfarlane, 1995). Coupled with the ‘user pays’ commercial concept applied to higher education, the stakeholders of higher education are demanding accountability from the universities (Cuthbert, 1996). The business educators are pressured to respond to the demands of the stakeholders and the trend of business curriculum tends to include more skill training.
22
Garneau and Brennan (1999) did an investigation into the basic purpose of business education in the UK. If the main purpose of business education is to engage students in a rigorous process of intellectual development, the curricular emphasis would lie in abstract theory, with limited place for practical skill development. If the main purpose is to prepare students for work, then the emphasis would lie more with skill development and less with abstract theory. They found that the employers have a relatively narrow perspective with an emphasis on generic skills and attitudes, and less emphasis on scientific and general knowledge. The academic staff have a broader view – while they agree that generic skills and practical knowledge are important, they aspire to provide an ‘education for life’ rather than simply an ‘education for work’ (Garneau and Brennan, 1999). In contrast, business programmes in Germany tend to emphasize scientific and general knowledge first, followed by work-related and social skills (Feuerhake, 1994).
Business education in Australia is not much different from the United States. The debate is the same, that is, should the emphasis in business education be placed on ‘theory’ or ‘practice’ (Bain, 1993; Phillips and Zuber-Skerritt, 1993; Raelin, 1993). The industry criticizes the business curricula for being too heavily theory-based and taught by academics with too little exposure to the real world of business (Boyatzis et al., 1995; Porter and McKibbin, 1998; Watson, 1993). Elliott and Glaser (1998) feel that the debate will not be resolved to the complete satisfaction of the universities and industry but the ‘balance of power’ will tend towards more closely reflecting the interests of industry.
The main objective of education in Malaysia, as outlined in the Education Act, 1961 was to achieve national unity and development (Rahimah, 1998). However, in the 1980s, the emphasis shifted towards building a truly Malaysian society of the future. With the passing of the Education Act, 1996, the emphasis is on ‘tertiary and higher, particularly private tertiary education and private education in general’ (Rahimah, 1998, p. 471). Due to the change in the objective of education, the emphasis is on science and technology areas and not on business education. The business education pendulum swing phenomenon mentioned by Mintzberg (2004) has not occurred in Malaysia. Even in tertiary business programmes offered by the public government-sponsored institutions,
23
the programmes incline toward providing a theoretical business education rather than an applied based (Tan, 2002). However, twinning programmes using borrowed foreign curricula offered by the private higher education institutions (PHEIs) in collaboration with foreign institutions are seen to be more practical and relevant to the needs of the industry (Tan, 2002).
The education policy in Malaysia allows a dual higher education system to meet the demands of the rapidly changing economy: public government-owned institutions and private higher educational institutions (Tan, 2002). The private institutions, most running foreign curricula, have been acknowledged as producing semi-professional and managerial personnel needed by the changing economy whilst the public institutions have been accused of being slow to respond to these changes (Lee, 1999; Noran and Ahmad, 1997).
The unemployed graduate issue reported in 2004 aroused the concerns of the Malaysian government and the business education providers to the general weakness of business education. The general contention was that business students from public universities were not taught and therefore lacked the necessary knowledge and skills to be employed (Graduan, 2006). In addition, the business programmes were accused of being too theoretical and of having lost touch with the real needs of the industry. The Malaysian government appointed a committee ‘to study, review and make recommendations concerning the development and direction of higher education’ (The Zahid Report, 2005, p. 17). The Committee reported that they understood ‘the concern to upgrade the market value of graduates has become more pressing with the increase in the number of unemployed graduates’ (ibid, p. 25) But they disagreed that education should be viewed solely from the utilitarian perspective and argued for a balanced and holistic education (ibid). Their position is in line with the stance taken by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of UK who advocate that the purpose of general and business management programmes should incorporate both theoretical and applied aspects (Lucas and Milford, 2003). That means that business educators should not only be concerned with equipping students with specific skills so that they could find employment, but should also to teach
24
transferable skills such as independence, creativity, flexibility and critical thinking so that students can develop themselves holistically into better productive persons in the future (The Zahid Report, 2005).
Khor and Malek (2008) remark that higher education in Malaysia has changed rapidly due to rapidly growing demand so much so that ‘a serious and deliberate discussion about the place, nature, and virtue of different types of education – be it vocational, professional or academic – seems to have been lost in the pursuit of ever greater number of degree holders’ (The STAR, 31 August 2008, p. SM8). In addition, business education is not spared the critical issue of the competing claims of liberal and professional education.
In summary, the conflicting perspectives of business education by the stakeholders are largely inherited from the traditional debate of a liberal versus a vocational curriculum in higher education. In the case of business education, the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ curricula focus on producing different types of skills: ‘about business’ focuses on soft skills, and ‘for business’ focuses on technical skills. However, the rapid pace of economic and technological changes has resulted in shortened life cycle in almost everything – of useful information, of technologies, and of special skills (Kennedy, 2008). ‘Particular skills will lose their utility fast but the ability to reason, to think and analyze well will be more durable’ (Kennedy , 2008 as cited by Khor and Malek, 2008, p. SM9). So is the ‘about business’ focus of business education more relevant or the ‘for business’ focus more relevant to meet the demands and expectations of the stakeholders?
THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS Cuthbert (1996a) has problems identifying the primary customers of education. Are the customers the Government who provides the funding or the parents who send their children to the universities? Are the students who consume the service the real customers? One thing is sure; to identify the stakeholders of education is easier than to identify the customers (as in the business management model). Lightfoot (1999) remarks that there are four primary stakeholders to the curriculum design process: educators,
25
business, students, and the tax-paying public (represented by the legislature). Lucas and Milford (2003) contend that there are five basic stakeholders to business education, namely the educators, government, employers, professional bodies, and the students. Brennan and Skaates (2005) only named three stakeholders in their study: employers, lecturers, and students. In Malaysia, the stakeholders to business education are deemed to be: the business educators, the business community, the government, and the students (Tan, 2002).
A number of authors suggest that of the four stakeholders, the educators and the business community are the more complicated groups because of the diversity of constituents within the two groups (Lightfoot, 1999; Lucas and Milford, 2003; Mintzberg, 2004). The students are normally a homogenous group until in recent years there are reports of large number of mature students who study part-time. The government’s perspective of business education is straightforward as their views are laid down in the education policy. For example, in the UK, the QAA subject benchmark statements show that the government is looking to a balanced business curriculum, that is, a business curriculum that incorporates both the ‘for business’ and the ‘about business’ aspects (Lucas and Milford, 2003).
Generally speaking, the educators comprising the administrators and the academics look forward to provide a critical curriculum to the students. They are the ‘gate-keepers’ of academic knowledge and intend to ‘feed’ the students with the necessary fundamental knowledge in the hope that the students can develop their repertoire of skills further. Their perspectives on the business curriculum are highly ‘about business’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003). The business community has a relatively narrow perspective of business curriculum and requires the universities to provide business graduates with the necessary knowledge and skills that match those of the workplace (Brennan and Skaates, 2005). They are extreme ‘for business’ in their perspective. The students also have a narrow perspective of business curriculum: they are ‘to learn how to do things when we work for a company’ (Brennan and Skaates, 2005, p. 79). The government as mentioned earlier
26
prefers a balanced business curriculum. The perspectives of the four stakeholders are represented graphically in Figure 2.1.
Employers Professional bodies
Accreditation bodies and
Academic and
education policy
research tradition
Students
‘about business’
‘for business’
_______________________________________________________ Education for business views management as a set of competences
Education about business views management as a practice
Figure 2.1 The ‘for-about’ spectrum of business education (adapted from Lucas and Milford, 2003)
Lucas and Milford (2003) advise that the trend of business education in recent years has been a shift towards ‘for business’. This is due to the pressures of demands from the government, employers, professional bodies, and the students. However, they point out two key forces that are supporting a shift towards ‘about business’. One is the changing view of the meaning of vocationalism to the business professionals. Another is the more formal approach to business programme design and the emphasis on pedagogy.
There is a perception amongst employers that managers should be able to work independently and thinking critically (Lucas and Milford, 2003). This is especially so when managers are based far away from the central office and are authorized to decide autonomously. Lucas and Milford (2003) provide an example of this when in the 1990s, the US-based Accounting Education Change Commission worked to incorporate liberal subjects into the accounting curriculum. This shifting view of vocationalism involves not only what is studied in business but also how it is studied.
27
Lucas and Milford (2003) further advise that regulatory bodies such as the QAA requires programme specifications for each degree course. Programme designers have to demonstrate how the learning objectives and the learning outcomes of the degree programmes are to be achieved across the subject units of the whole programme. This requires a clear statement of learning outcomes for each course and a description of how knowledge and skills are developed and assessed. This formality coupled with the emphasis on pedagogy (not only on what is studied but also on how to study) provides the drive to force business educators to think about the learning and teaching strategies to cover comprehensively the necessary curriculum to produce the holistic business professionals.
The Educators’ Perspective The academic and research tradition in which the educators are involved generally favours an ‘about business’ perspective. Brennan and Skaates (2005) contend that academic staff have a broader view of business education. They support their contention by qualifying that academic staff would agree that generic skills and practical knowledge are important but they would ‘aspire to provide an “education for life” rather than simply an “education’ for work”’ (p.79). Feuerhake (1994) and Shuptrine and Willenborg (1998) reported similar findings in Germany and the U.S. respectively. Howard and Ryans (1993) and Howard et al. (1991) found that business educators in Europe and the Pacific Rim have a more ‘about business’ perspective than their counterparts in the U.S.
Business educators have a long term perspective of the business curriculum (Lightfoot, 1999). The educators want to help the students to develop a deep understanding of business. A key part to develop this understanding is to provide ‘a framework of background knowledge and concepts so that facts and experiences have a context’ (p. 44). Therefore the educators are concerned with providing the students with the fundamental knowledge upon which long term learning can take place after they graduate. Lucas and Milford (2003) while maintaining that the business lecturers should have an ‘about business’ perspective, are aware of the influences that complicate the perspective of the educators. They identify the influences as: the benchmark statements,
28
the compelling and competing demands of the stakeholders, the tradition and culture of higher education.
The seemingly simplistic perspective of the business educators is complicated by the heterogeneity of the sub-groups that make up the educators. Mintzberg (2004) refers to Gleeson et al. (1993) to set the stage for the great debate of business education: the theory of the original Wharton, rooted in scholarship, versus the practice of Harvard, rooted in experience. Lucas and Milford (2003) prefer to refer the debate to as the shift along the ‘for-about’ spectrum of business education. Gleeson et al. (1993) suggest that there are three groups involved. They are the industry specialists, often prominent businessmen; the functional specialists in areas such as marketing, finance, and production; and the ‘homegrown’ faculty. In a similar classification of the educators, Lucas and Milford (2003) contend that some lecturers ‘come through a traditional higher education route of doctoral specialism’ (p. 393). They tend to ‘view business education as being about business’ (ditto). Other lecturers entered higher education with substantial professional and business experience and they tend to ‘view business education as being for business’ (p. 393). Therefore ‘even within one institution there are likely to be differing perspectives about the role of business education’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003). The dominant perspective depends on the proportion of practitioners to the academics in the composition of the faculty.
Macfarlane (1995) and Mintzberg (2004) point out that the business discipline lacks academic legitimacy. It is clear that the business discipline is ‘an amalgam of disciplines taught within an applied framework’ and ‘is perceived as a subject area of limited academic status’ (Macfarlane, 1995, p. 4). The business curriculum derives largely from soft pure subjects such as sociology and psychology and hard applied subjects such as accountancy and statistics (Mintzberg, 2004). As was mentioned earlier, Forrester (1986) identifies two types of lecturers in the business faculty: academics applying specific disciplines to the study of business and management and practitioners who switched to teaching after management or professional experience. Very few of these lecturers have a first degree in business or management studies (Macfarlane, 1995). Most graduated from
29
traditional academic disciplines such as sociology, economics, psychology, etc. In addition, these lecturers are selected and employed under traditional academic criteria, that is, based on research expertise (Murphy, 1992). Therefore, it is not surprising that many lecturers especially the academics ‘will retreat into the familiar territory of research and publication in their first degree specialisms such as economics or psychology’ (Macfarlane, 1995, p. 5). This trend tends to drive the business lecturers to focus on developing new knowledge and understanding about their specializations and less emphasis on teaching vocational skills to the students. This explains why the perspective of the educators is predominantly ‘about business’ along the ‘for-about’ spectrum of business education.
Brennan and Skaates (2005) and Lightfoot (1999) remark that the academics are in a better position than the practitioners to identify the long-term needs of business education. There are concerns that if the business curriculum is based around the perception of the practitioners, then that might lead to a narrow and short-term orientation (Mason, 1990; Meffert, 2000).
Lightfoot (1999) suggests to leave the strategic
curriculum planning to the educators because they have the longest term perspective. This places the educators as the gate-keepers and monitors of business education and would eventually usher the educators towards the ‘about business’ perspective.
The Business Perspective According to Lightfoot (1999), the perspective of the business community on the business curriculum is rather short term. But they exert considerable influence over the business curriculum. Garneau and Brennan (1999) identified a relatively narrow perspective among the employers, with an emphasis on generic skills, attitudes and least emphasis on scientific and general knowledge. Lucas and Milford (2003) remark that employers ‘emphasize the need for business graduates to be employable by the end of their studies and equipped with business-related knowledge and skills’ (p. 394). Therefore, literature review suggests that the business perspective is pragmatic and highly ‘for business’.
30
Macfarlane (1995) remarks that the ‘business community is skeptical of the value of academic management research’ (p. 6). He adds that they want ‘prescriptive statements and actionable advice’ (p. 6) and ‘rapid diagnosis and problem resolution’ (p. 7). All these requirements are action oriented and practical aligned. Research based on theoretical principles is less likely to meet this perceived need. It is the view of the business community that the academics are more interested in ‘pure’ research rather than ‘applied’ research (Orpen, 1993). This renders the business community suspecting the academics living in ‘ivory towers’ and not relevant to the real business world. Thus is the ambivalent relationship between business and education (Wiener, 1980).
Although the business community wants colleges ‘to provide a finished, immediately usable product (i.e. the graduates)’ (Lighfoot, 1999, p. 44), they also require business graduates to have good learning skills and be life-long learners (Lucas and Milford, 2003). The graduates are required to have the ability to think critically and strategically and also the ability to act autonomously. This part of the perspective of the business community pushes the employers towards ‘about business’ end of the continuum.
At this point, it is timely to define the meaning of ‘graduateness’ in relation to business education. ‘Graduateness’ includes ‘subject knowledge and capabilities that are potentially useful in future employment’ (Association of Graduate Recruiters, 1995 as cited by Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 394). These capabilities include both attributes, such as self-reliance and skills. The latter include specific related skills such as business problem-solving and generic skills, such as communication skills (Lucas and Milford, 2003). This emergent concept of ‘graduateness’ is another factor that drives the perspective of the business community from pre-dominantly ‘for business’ to accommodate the ‘about business’ orientation.
Lightfoot (1999) laments that although the business community has a short term perspective of business education, they are ‘in the unique position of being an external party that drive curriculum design’ (p. 44). This is because of their purchasing power in the sense that they ‘buy the graduates (by hiring them) and can voice their displeasure
31
with the “product” by buying elsewhere’ (p. 44). It is in the best interest of the business schools to produce the ‘products’ the businesses want.
Holian (2004) points out the emergence of corporate universities (for examples, Motorola University, and Hamburger University in the United States). These universities provide corporate management training and development programmes that emphasize on the needs and requirements of the organization that are not met by the traditional formal university programmes. Some of these universities also utilize innovative partnerships with the formal universities. This goes to show that the business community is frustrated with the theoretical business education provided by the traditional universities and has taken steps to ensure that their managers have avenues to receive practical training that can enhance their lacking business skills. The Students’ perspective Lightfoot (1999) remarks that business students have ‘a short-term strategy with the dual goals of graduating in a reasonable time and immediately securing a job’ (p. 44). They are rarely concerned with the long-term prospects of what they will be doing five years after graduation. In other words, they have a ‘for business’ perspective. In addition, Lightfoot (1999) explains how the business community can influence the perspective of the students. He remarks that business students are aware of the knowledge and skills employers expect them to have. When trade publications report that graduates with certain skills are sought after, the students will flock to those courses and learn the skills so that they will not miss being employed. In this way, the business community has significant control over the students’ perspective.
Garneau and Brennan (1999) investigated the views of three stakeholder groups: employers, lecturers, and the students. They detected that the students have a narrow perspective and instrumental attitudes towards business education. This perspective is exemplified by the focus group response “we’re here to get an edge – not the textbook stuff, but to learn how to do things when we work for a company” (Garneau and Brennan, 1999 as cited in Brennan and Skaates, 2005, p. 79). Aronowitz (2000) put it aptly that ‘most students had no idea why they are in college’ (p. 10) and that ‘they have little idea
32
what they want to study. In most cases, their choices of major and minor fields are informed by a rudimentary understanding of the nature of the job market rather than by intellectual curiosity, let alone intellectual passion’ (p. 10).
Lucas and Milford (2003) remark that two factors would complicate the students’ perspective: the diversity of the student population and motivation for studying business. The massification of higher education has brought in students not only in large numbers but also in great diversity. While most of the students are full-time undergraduates at the age of 18, some 22 per cent are more mature part-time students. Mature students normally have some working experience and they prefer experiential learning. They prefer a practical business curriculum – ‘for business’ curriculum. However, young undergraduate students would prefer to adapt to the perspective of the lecturers – ‘about business’.
The business students also have different vocational interests and motivations for studying business: ‘ranging from those who wish to obtain a broad specialism in management to those who ultimately wish to gain a professional qualification within a specialist area such as accounting, marketing, human resource, etc.’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 394). Students that prefer a general business education would have a liberal perspective of business. Students who prefer a vocational specialism would opt for a more practical perspective of business.
The Legislator’s perspective Lightfoot (1999) suggests that the legislator’s perspective should be able to represent that of the public. The public stakeholders include the government, the public agencies, the accreditation agencies, etc. They have emphasized that business graduates should have employable knowledge and skills by the end of their studies (Lucas and Milford, 2003). Their perspective is deemed ‘for business’.
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) subject benchmark statements identify the purposes of general and business management programmes as;
33
•
The study of organizations, their management and the changing external environment in which they operate.
•
Preparation for and development of a career in business and management.
•
Enhancement of lifelong learning skills and personal development to contribute to society at large. (QAA, 2000)
It is apparent from the benchmark statements that business education is seen by the QAA to include both aspects: ‘for business’ as well as ‘about business’. And this should also represent the perspective of the government authorities. The Zahid Report (2005) representing the Malaysian educational authorities also took a similar position. The Committee reported that they understand ‘the concern to upgrade the market value of graduates has become more pressing with the increase in the number of unemployed graduates’ (ibid, p. 25). But they disagree that education should be viewed solely from the utilitarian perspective and argue for a balanced and holistic education (ibid).
To summarize, it becomes apparent that the problem of providing irrelevant business curriculum is not solely about providing out-dated curriculum design that is out-of-touch with the progressive development of the business environment. Rather it is a problem of understanding the perspectives of the stakeholders and responding appropriately to the demands of the stakeholders. It is the responsibility of the educators to respond and cater to the expectations of the other stakeholders (Lightfoot, 1999).
The business curriculum is a hotly contested terrain (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2000) not only among the educators but also among the other stakeholders (the business community, the authorities, and the students included). Each group of stakeholders brings into the arena a particular dominant perspective about the business curriculum. To illustrate the contrast, the educators aligned themselves with the ‘about business’ perspective and the business community is all for ‘for business’ and there is a big gap between the perspectives. The problem is magnified when both group of stakeholders insist their respective perspective will lead to the correct direction for the future of
34
business education. Thus it is timely to study their perspectives and to examine the gaps between these perspectives.
However, recent developments in business education appear to have pulled the gap closer. Two notable events are worth mentioning: the unemployed business graduates (Graduan, 2006) and the need to have strategic thinking managers (Lucas and Milford, 2003). The unemployment phenomenon has created ripples among the educators causing them to re-think the objectives of business education. Generally, the educators are willing to listen to the voice of the employers due to two reasons: research funds and employment provided by business organizations. These two factors have caused the educators to accept the dual purpose of business education: the academic tradition of educating the person, and the teaching of vocational skills. Moreover, the dynamic business environment calls for innovative thinking managers. Employers have accepted the fact that managers are developed and require life-long learning. This theme suggests that the employers are ready to shift from the extremely ‘for business’ perspective to a more moderate perspective. As both stakeholders begin to shift to more moderate positions, an amicable solution to the problem is possible.
CONCEPTION OF THE BUSINESS CURRICULUM At this point, we know the research problem and that the cause of the problem is due to the diversity of perspectives of the stakeholders on business education. But we do not know what are the specific problem areas and the ways to identify them.
Macfarlane and Perkins (1999) argue that although Tolley’s (1983) dichotomy of ‘for business’ and ‘about business’ was originally made in the context of the overall aim of a business studies degree, it can be ‘equally applied in relation to the aims of individual components within the degree’ (p. 21). The authors suggest that the dichotomy can be applied to the individual subject components of the business curriculum. For example, Macfarlane and Perkins (1999) consider the Corporate Strategy (CS) subject as ‘for business’ due to the fact that it belongs to the group of subjects which mirror organizational functions such as accountancy and marketing.
35
Macfarlane and Perkins (1999) continue to state that the Tolley’s dichotomy parallels the Grey and French’s (1996) dichotomy between “critical” and “manageralist” perspectives in management education. They explain that subjects “about” business are more likely to promote a critical and theoretical conception of business while subjects “for” business will tend to be allied to a “manageralist” perspective. Therefore, Macfarlane and Perkins’s suggestion provides a workable way to classify the subjects that are included in a business curriculum. They can be classified as “for business” subjects or “about business” subjects.
In a similar manner, Brennan and Skaates (2005) in their investigation on how marketing educators sought to strike the right balance between theory and practice, and between skills and knowledge, in the design of the marketing curriculum use the classification of curriculum elements to find the results. Using the method, the authors identified that ‘courses in business marketing are taught largely from an explicitly “managerial” perspective, with the aim of providing students with immediately useful knowledge and skills for the work place’ (p. 88). They concluded that there is no single accepted ‘core curriculum’ and that the balance between academic knowledge and practical skills is influenced by institutional mission, competitive conditions, and local educational policy and culture.
Bush (2003) remarks that the issue of culture has become increasingly important to the practice of educational management and curriculum management. Moreover, the influence is even more significant when the educational reforms of the 1980s drove educational institutions into ‘self management’ (Bush, 2003). This ‘culture of self management’ (Caldwell and Spinks, 1992, p. 74) reinforces ‘the notion of schools and colleges as unique entities’ (Bush, 2003, p. 157) and ‘it is likely that self-management will be accompanied by greater diversity’ (ibid) in their cultures.
Many authors relate culture in education to organizational or institutional culture. Dimmock and Walker (2002a, p. 3) claim that ‘the field of educational administration …
36
has largely ignored the influence of societal culture’. They are not alone as Crossley and Broadfoot (1992, p. 100) say that ‘policies and practice cannot be translated intact from one culture to another since the mediation of different cultural contexts can quite transform the latter’s salience’. Thus, the issue of societal culture can have significant influence on the focus of business education and curriculum. Dimmock and Walker (2002b, p. 71) provide a helpful distinction between societal and organizational culture:
Societal cultures differ mostly at the level of basic values, while organizational cultures differ mostly at the level of more superficial practices, as reflected in the recognition of particular symbols, heroes and rituals. This allows organizational cultures to be deliberately managed and changed, whereas societal or national cultures are more enduring and change only gradually over longer time periods.
As far as my study of business education in Malaysia is concerned, considering the context of business education in Malaysia, the impact of institutional culture is likely to be greater than that of societal culture. This is because institutional culture and not societal culture has significant influence on the strategic mission and purpose of educational institutions (Tan, 2002; Noran and Ahmad, 1997; Lee, 1999). Due to the change in the objective of education in Malaysia; from achieving national unity and development to building a truly Malaysian society (Rahimah, 1998), the Malaysian educational system allows a dual higher education system: public government-owned institutions and private higher educational institutions (Tan, 2002). The strategic intent and culture of the public government-owned institutions is to achieve a learned society and therefore the programmes they offer incline toward providing a theoretical education (Tan, 2002). The private institutions, operating with the business management model, are relatively more responsive to the needs of the industry and aim to produce the professional and managerial personnel needed by the changing economy of Malaysia (Lee, 1999; Noran and Ahmad, 1997).
Lechuga (2006) draws a parallel with the dual higher education system in the United States: the traditional non-profit institutions and the for-profit institutions. The traditional
37
non-profit institutions consider higher education as a public good (Pusser and Turner, 2004). By contrast, the for-profit institutions see their role as serving the public by educating students to enter the workforce and therefore they ‘focus on enhancing an individual’s employment opportunities by providing the education and skills required to compete in the job market’ (Lechuga, 2006, p. 10).
The impact of cultural issues on the business curriculum is complex and difficult to determine. McCaffery (2004) provides an interesting dichotomy of the role and culture of the university: either a ‘community of scholars’ or a ‘degree factory’. He explains:
The ‘community of scholars’, and its depiction of autonomous professionals pursuing knowledge for its own sake within a collegial academy, where authority is derived from academic expertise, has always been, and still is, a powerful and evocative ideal for most academics. The ‘degree factory’, by contrast, conjures up an image of the university as a large corporate identity where the functions and resources are consciously ‘managed’, and where the concepts of relevance and service have primacy. (ibid, p. 29)
Therefore, within the Malaysian context, the public government-owned universities are managed as ‘communities of scholars’ and focus on a liberal, theoretical curriculum. The private-owned higher educational institutions are organized as managed ‘degree factories’ and focus on providing a more practical and applied curriculum, relevant to the needs of the industry (Tan, 2002).
The cultural and strategic issues discussed earlier have significant influence on the constituents of educational institutions (Bush, 2003). In other words, the perspectives of the stakeholders (namely the educators, the business community, the students, and the legislators) of the particular institutions are somewhat influenced by whether the institutions are public government-owned universities or private-owned institutions (Lechuga, 2006). The academics who design and deliver the curriculum are the
38
stakeholders most directly under the influence of the culture and mission of the educational institutions (ibid).
Trauth, Farwell, and Lee (1993) conducted empirical research to identify the curriculum gaps of Information Sysytems (IS) curricula. ‘A curriculum gap is defined as “the difference between what is being taught in degree programs and what practitioners or recruiters require”’ (Trauth et al. (1993) as cited in Tang et al., 2000, p. 77). In that research, a questionnaire was mailed to three key stakeholders of the IS curriculum: IS managers, IS consultants, and IS professors. The questionnaire had three sections: (1) tasks IS professionals perform; (2) technical skill requirements; and (3) interpersonal and business skill requirements. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of the items (describing the knowledge and skills) to the needs of the industry. The curriculum gaps were revealed by comparing the mean score rankings on the items by the respondents. It was found that the mean score rankings on the tasks, technical skills, and business skills were significantly different among the stakeholders. The research design was found to be appropriate to identify the curriculum gaps of specific tasks and skills between the stakeholders.
Tang, Lee, and Koh (2000) replicated Trauth et al.’s (1993) curriculum gap research. Their research differed in that the emphasis was on the curriculum delivery of the schools. The purpose of the research was to test whether there was any difference between
required
IS
knowledge/skill
and
achieved
IS
knowledge/skill.
The
questionnaires that were sent to the schools had four sections covering four categories of knowledge/skills: IS technology; Organization and society; Interpersonal; and Personal traits. Using the design, they were able to identify curriculum gaps in eight knowledge/skills: two in Interpersonal skill category; three in Personal traits category; and three in the IS technology category.
Knight and Trowler (2001) define curriculum as ‘an account of the content to be studied, its organization, the learning and teaching methods and the arrangements for evaluating student learning’ (p. 111). In addition, they remark that there are distinctions between the
39
three types of curriculum: the planned curriculum, the ‘delivered curriculum’, and the ‘received’ curriculum. Also they explain that ‘curriculum intentions become changed as they are created in teaching and learning situations and assessment regularly shows that what learners understand is different from what was planned and created’ (ibid). Therefore, they acknowledge that there are ‘“slippages” between the three’ (ibid). Trauth, Farwell, and Lee (1993) refer to these ‘slippages’ as curriculum gaps.
Preedy (2002) in describing the curriculum management process identifies three stages of the curriculum: the intended curriculum – what is planned; the offered curriculum – what teachers teach; and the received curriculum – what students actually experienced in the classroom. She remarks that a major task is to ensure the three stages ‘are in harmony’ and integrated appropriately.
Nitko (2004) advocates that before teachers can craft their assessment procedures, they need to know the student outcomes clearly. These learning outcomes are derived from subject matter areas such as economics and accounting. In recent years, the regulatory bodies of business education such as the accreditation agencies in US, and the QAA in UK begin to emphasize that business education providers should have learning outcomes for the subject units of their degree programmes (Lucas and Milford, 2003; Tippins, 2004). These learning outcomes are to be guides to business lecturers for curriculum design and delivery. Thacker (2002) describes the re-design process of the Human Resource Management (HRM) curriculum. An advisory board comprising of HRM practitioners was convened with the purpose of drawing up (1) a list of broad, general learning goals; (2) a list of learning outcomes; and (3) a set of competencies that graduates should possess upon graduation. The lists were integrated to form the HRM curriculum. Ferrin, Landeros, and Reck (2001) describe the design process of the supply matrix management (SMM) curriculum. They conducted a Delphi study focused on identifying “the skills and competencies needed by graduates being hired for entry level positions in purchasing and materials management positions” (Reck et al., 1992). They successfully identified 266 purchasing and materials management skills of which 89 were considered salient. These ‘89 skills and competencies were arranged into 17 groups and
40
seven general categories, including: contracting, materials specification, inventory management, transportation, quality assurance, manufacturing systems and production management’ (Ferrin et al., 2001, p. 527). These skills form the SMM curriculum.
Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb (1995) describe their attempt to formulate a new MBA programme for Weatherhead School of Management (WSOM). Learning outcomes were collected from all stakeholders. These included student studies on abilities related to management jobs, outside stakeholders’ views, and interviews with faculties. They realized that managing an organization is complex as it requires a myriad of abilities and perspectives. They concluded that twenty-two abilities such as planning, negotiating, and using technology and eleven knowledge areas like banking, marketing, and policy are essentials that should be included into the curriculum of the new MBA.
APPROACHES TO BUSINESS CURRICULUM DESIGN The research problem comes about due to the different perspectives and demands by the stakeholders (Lightfoot, 1999; Lucas and Milford, 2003). The literature review shows that there are diverse approaches to resolve the problem. Some researchers are of the opinion that education should take the business management model and the business curriculum designers should listen to the customers (i.e. the students) (Galloway, 1998; Cuthbert, 1996; Sahney, 2003). There are others who think that the business curriculum should be industry-led (Thacker, 2002; Ferrin et al., 2001; Ellen and Pilling, 2002). Brennan and Skaates (2005) advise the use of an international review of curriculum designs and come with understanding the balance between skills and knowledge. Lucas and Milford (2003) advise the use of the QAA’s benchmark subject statements to guide business curriculum design to provide quality business education. Lightfoot (1999) suggests to allow business educators to be responsible for strategic curriculum planning with the business and legislative stakeholders giving tactical inputs.
Gill and Lashine (2003) remark that different countries have different levels of success meeting the challenges facing business education. They comment ‘the issue is hard to manage and very complex, consisting of different economic, cultural and lingual aspects’
41
(p. 188). Some researchers propose another approach to resolve the business education problem based on the total quality management (TQM) concept. Owlia and Aspinwall (1979) explore the application of TQM to higher education. Higgins and Messer (1990) make use of statistical process control techniques for improving the quality of instruction. Harris (1992) utilizes the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model for course improvements. Chizmar (1994) demonstrates how the attributes of the TQM model could be successfully applied to manage the teaching and learning process. Yousef et al. (1998) discuss commonly cited barriers that face educators in implementing continuous programmes in higher education, three prominent ones being: the nature of academic work, the typical management structure of the colleges and universities, and the variety and role of customers served.
Denton, Kleist, and Surendra (2005) propose the technique of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in curriculum and course design. They contend that the technique can help to maintain an up-to-date curriculum that can ‘keep up with the needs of corporate employers of the students’ (p. 111). A graphical tool that comes along with the QFD technique is the House of Quality (HoQ). ‘The HoQ offers a convenient method for translating customer requirements into product specifications’ (Denton et al., 2005, p. 112). In the academic setting, the HoQ becomes ‘a map for translating the expected capabilities of graduating students into course and curriculum content’ (p. 112). However, the QFD technique looks doubtful for designing the business curriculum for two reasons. Firstly, it does not take into consideration the complexity and diversity of the perspectives of the stakeholders (Lucas and Milford, 2003). Secondly, it assumes the curriculum design process is a linear process not realizing that the curriculum is a politically contested domain (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2000).
Walker and Black (2000) present a process-centered model of undergraduate business education for the core business curriculum and business school management. They argue that the traditional business curriculum is taught as discrete activities and there is a need to “break the silos” by integrating traditional courses in the business curriculum. Traditionally, ‘business schools are organized into functional departments of accounting,
42
finance, marketing, management and so forth, under the assumption that delivery of business education can be best accomplished by dividing the effort according to areas of specialty’ (p. 96). In order to respond to a marketplace that demands flexibility and customer responsiveness, they propose to organize, deliver and manage business education using the concept of business process. Thus undergraduate students are taught the first four process-centered core courses: capital resources acquisition process course; human resources acquisition process course; conversion/service process course; and sales/collection/customer service process course. Thereafter, the specific discipline or major courses such as marketing, management, accounting, finance, operations management, etc. can be taught in the traditional or an integrated approach. While the authors claim the benefits of this approach include cross-functional thinking, an effective and efficient education process, organizational benefits, they also doubt the approach can be implemented in the near future stating the obstacles to the approach as faculty resistance to change and the financial costs of change.
Ellen and Pilling (2002) describe the process of a survey and discuss how the results could be applied to the curriculum development process. The employers of business graduates were surveyed on the core skills necessary for effectiveness in their companies and the type of training that would provide the best preparation for their work. The findings were matched with the current curriculum to discover gaps and subsequent curriculum development was based on this assessment. This approach solicits inputs from only one group of stakeholders: the employers and would lack a balanced perspective. It would be desirable to include inputs from other stakeholders to ensure a more comprehensive view of the business curriculum.
Wilson (2001) proposes a mapping model that ‘may be useful when thinking about the curriculum and the relationships among courses’ (p. 436). He advises that the mapping model may be applied ‘to identify curriculum areas that may be important in the construction of a degree programme’ (p. 438). Another application is to use ‘the map to examine existing curricula, to discover how courses are distributed over the “fundamental fields” and to decide whether other fundamental areas are needed for a full description of
43
the field and or a specific curriculum’ (p. 440). While the model helps me to think about problems, it is a thinking tool and not a suggested method to resolve my current curriculum problem.
Roggena-van Heusden (2004) describes the process of developing an integrative framework for a competence-oriented curriculum. Six schools in the Netherlands were requested to set up a list of professional competences which was to form the basis for the training of the students. The starting point for the design of the framework is the listing of the ‘core tasks’ of organizations. Then ‘there is a list that represents the behavioral repertoire’ (p. 100). Cross-tabulating the two lists produced the framework. This framework helps to the school to design integrated projects for the students. The focus of these integrated projects is ‘not on the acquisition of “factual” knowledge, but rather on teaching the students how to solve problems’ (p. 98). Clearly this project is not a comprehensive approach to resolve the business curriculum problem but it sheds new light on integrative holistic learning.
Lucas and Milford (2003) highlight the issue of a national curriculum for business education. They stated that the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has subject benchmark statements to guide curriculum designers and these statements normally require the business curriculum to include both aspects of the Tolley’s (1983) dichotomy (i.e. ‘for business’ and ‘about business’). The accreditation bodies of business studies in the US, both the America Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) have guidelines for the design of business degree programmes. Tippins (2004) comments that under both these bodies, business schools directly control at least 40 percent and at most 60 percent of the classes that their students take. While business schools can have additional courses, ‘the outline of curriculum has remained remarkably similar’ (p. 321). He laments that ‘every individual course is a silo of material that is presented to the student as independent knowledge with little interrelationship with other silos (courses)’ (ibid). The Zahid Report (2006) in Malaysia advocates dualism in business education. But the authors disagree that education should be viewed solely from the utilitarian perspective
44
and argue for a balanced and holistic education (The Zahid Report, 2006). In addition, the Report also recommends that the academia work closely with professionals outside universities ‘in the development of relevant curricula and evaluation procedures’ (ibid, p. 28).
Some business authors point to the case of integration of the business curriculum and that business should not be taught as discreet activities (Bain, 1992; Boyd and Halford, 2001; Daniel and Pugh, 1975; Mutch, 1997; Tippins, 2004; Walker and Black, 2000). To address this lack of integration, various prescriptions are suggested, for examples, capstone courses (Perotti et al., 1998; Watkins et al., 1998), group projects, case studies and problem-based learning (Macfarlane and Ottewill, 2001; Stinson and Milter, 1996). Management has to be seen holistically rather than as a series of discrete activities (Hamilton et al., 2000).
Formal CurriculumTaught Integrated Provision
1 • • • •
Differentiated Provision
• •
Figure 2.2
2 Problem-based learning Capstone courses Integrative themes Group projects
3 •
Hidden Curriculum Not Taught
•
• • • •
Plurality of discourses + nonzero sum approach to curriculum design Values of a ‘task culture’ Team approach Conflict resolution mechanisms Strategic planning of course provision
4 Unitization/modularizatio n Flexibility and choice for students Pre-eminence of functional specialisms
• • • •
Disciplinary exclusivity/functional silos Over-specialisation Zero-sum approach to design of formal curriculum Separate strategies for learning and teaching and for research
Curriculum Types
45
Ottewill, McKenzie, and Leah (2005) propose a distinction between ‘the formal or taught curriculum and the hidden curriculum’ in business education (p. 90). They define hidden curriculum by quoting Rowntree (1981, p. 115): “All the beliefs and values and understandings that are passed on to the student in an educational institution, not through formal teaching but, unconsciously, through what the institution implicitly demands of the students”. A relevant business curriculum can be achieved by ‘ensuring “coherence” between the explicit course goals as expressed through formal curriculum, and messages emanating from the organizational setting, the hidden curriculum’ (Ottewill et al., 2005, p. 90). They present a four-cell matrix of different curriculum types as shown in Figure 2.2. They suggest that the ideal business curriculum ‘would be a student experience in which cells 1 and 2 are closely aligned’ (p. 91). Yet they warn that the pursuit of the goal of the ideal business curriculum could be particularly challenging. Perhaps, combining the formal curriculum and the hidden curriculum offers a workable approach to business curriculum design. The hidden curriculum has to be made into a conscious and explicit effort. This is to translate the hidden curriculum into the open and thus measurable against the learning outcomes of the business curriculum. The business educators will then have ‘their hands full’ to embed these intended learning objectives into the content and syllabi of the courses (Ottewill et al., 2005).
Thomas (1976) suggests five basic styles for dealing with conflicts: avoidance, accommodation, compromise, competing, and collaboration. He further defines the conflict handling styles as follows:
•
Avoidance – a reaction to conflict that involves ignoring the problem by doing nothing at all.
•
Accommodation – a style of dealing with conflict involving cooperation on behalf of the other party but not being assertive about one’s own interest.
•
Compromise – a style of dealing with conflict involving moderate attention to both parties’ concerns.
•
Competing – a style of dealing with conflict involving strong focus on one’s own goals and little or no concern for other person’s goals.
46
•
Collaboration – a style of dealing with conflict emphasizing both cooperation and assertiveness to maximize both parties’
(Thomas, 1976 cited in Bateman and Snell, 2007, p. 524)
The literature review on the approaches to business curriculum design points out that there are many approaches to curriculum design. However, none of the approaches is based on the avoidance and the competing style, outlined by Thomas (1976) above. Some are based on the accommodation style (for example, Ellen and Pilling, 2002; Ferrin et al., 2001; Thacker, 2002). Some are based on the total quality management (TQM) concept and are of the compromise style. When Lightfoot (1999) suggests that the educators should be allowed to drive the strategic curriculum design but that the design should accept tactical and operational inputs from the business and student stakeholders, he is proposing to handle the conflicting perspectives by the collaboration style. In other words, the better conflict handling style is to encourage cooperation between the stakeholders with the objective that the business curriculum can maximize the satisfaction of the key parties. The ideal curriculum design suggested by Ottewill et al. (2005) probably does not exist. What is relevant business curriculum probably is a ‘satisficing’ business curriculum – a curriculum that is acceptable or adequate to meet the objectives and requirements of the key stakeholders (Bateman and Snell, 2007) taking into consideration the institutional mission, competitive conditions, local educational policy and culture (Brennan and Skaates, 2005).
PRESENTING THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK The literature review uncovers the undesirable state of the business curriculum and business education at large. However, to treat this problem as a problem of irrelevant curriculum design and delivery is superficial. The root cause of the research problem is due to the complexities and influences that have caused the marked differences in the perspectives of the stakeholders of business education (Macfarlane, 1995; Lucas and Milford, 2003; Lightfoot, 1999; Brennan and Skaates, 2005). The situation is made worse by the claims and demands on the design and delivery of the business curriculum when
47
the curriculum has limited time and space to accommodate these demands (Lightfoot, 1999).
To consider and accommodate the demands of the stakeholders equitably, the primary task is to understand the complexities and influences that cause the differences in perspectives of the stakeholders. No single stakeholder can expect to have all their demands met in full (Lightfoot, 1999). A collaborative mode for resolving the problem is a probable approach. The research design (describe and documented in detail in the Research Methods chapter) works towards capturing the perspectives of the stakeholders along the ‘for-about’ spectrum of the business curriculum. Identifying the similarities and the differences (or gaps) between the perspectives of the stakeholders will make pinpointing the ‘equilibrium point’ easier.
Perhaps, a way to make the literature review clearer is to present the key themes graphically as shown in Figure 2.3 and 2.4.
Liberal Education
Vocational Education Aronowitz, 2000
‘about business’
‘for business’ Tolley (1983)
‘critical perspective’
‘managerialist perspective’ Macfarlane and Perkins (1999) and Grey and French (1996)
‘education for life’
‘education for work’ Garneau and Brennan, 1999
‘public education’
“private education’ Tan (2002)
Figure 2.3 Continuum of business curriculum
48
Figure 2.3 summarizes the various continuums of business curriculum discussed in the literature review and is useful for thinking about the conception of business education and the ‘about business’-‘for business’ continuum forms the basis of the research framework.
Figure 2.4 presents the research framework in graphical form. It attempts to lay out the perspectives of three stakeholders: the academics, the students, and the business community and the relations between these perspectives along the ‘about business’-‘for business’ continuum.
Due to the academic and research tradition, the perspective of the academics favours an ‘about business’ orientation. However, this perspective is complicated by the heterogeneity of the sub-groups that make up the academics. Academics with a doctoral orientation tend to have an ‘about business’ orientation, whereas academics who have substantial pre-academic career in business before switching to teaching tend to focus vocational skills in their teaching. The pressures exerted by the regulatory bodies and the customers, coupled with the prospects of unemployment of the business graduates, drive the academics to allocate time-table to allow the students to inculcate relevant business skills.
The business community comprises the employers, the business professionals, and the business graduates and alumni. Their perspective of the business curriculum is rather short-term and they tend to have a ‘for business’ orientation. But they are aware of the need for critical thinking, creativity, and life-long learning in order to excel in the dynamic business environment. This force drives the business community to a more ‘about business’ orientation.
The students generally consist of two groups. The first group comprises younger, fulltime students who are influenced by their years of studies with the academic environment. This group tends to have an ‘about business’ orientation. The second group comprises mature, part-time students who are influenced by the expectations of the
49
business community. They are aware of the knowledge and skills the employers expect them to have and they tend to have a more ‘for business’ orientation.
Academics With a doctoral specialism in business With substantial preacademic career in business
GAP
Students Younger, full-time students influenced by lecturers Older, part-time students influenced by employers GAP
Business Community Employers Professionals Working Graduates, alumni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Academics being driven to a more ‘for business’ orientation because of the unemployment of their graduates
‘about business’
Employers being driven to a more ‘about business’ orientation because of the need for critical thinking skills, creativity, and lifelong learning to excel in the dynamic business environment
‘for business’
Figure 2.4 The Research Framework 50
According to Knight and Trowler (2001), the perspective of the business educators is the ‘planned or intended curriculum’ (p. 111). The perspectives of the business community and the business students are their expected curricula. Many authors remark that there are curriculum gaps between the intended curriculum of the educators and the expected curricula of the business alumni and the students (Knight and Trowler, 2001; Tang, Lee, and Koh, 2000; Trauth, Farwell, and Lee, 1993). But the curriculum gaps are particularly acute in business education because not only are the stakeholders diverse, they have divergent perspectives about business education. Identifying these curriculum gaps not only helps us to understand the perspectives of the stakeholders better, it also enables us to highlight the differences between the perspectives of the stakeholders. This, in turn, enlightens us on the correct approach to curriculum design in a collaborative effort to maximize the satisfaction of the key stakeholders.
Therefore this research attempts to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders: the educators; the business alumni; and the students. Another key objective is to determine the differences and similarities of their perspectives of the business curriculum. In other words, this study also attempts to identify the curriculum gaps between the perspectives of the stakeholders. The research questions are therefore refined accordingly to:
1. What do business educators intend of the business curriculum? Do they intend the business curriculum to be ‘about business’ focused or ‘for business’ focused? 2. What do business community expect of the business curriculum? Do they expect the business curriculum to be ‘about business’ focused or ‘for business’ focused? 3. What do business students expect of the business curriculum? Do they expect the business curriculum to be ‘about business’ focused or ‘for business’ focused? 4. What are the key curriculum gaps between these perspectives?
Having presented and discussed the related literature, the research methods and the research design including the design of the survey questionnaire are described and discussed in the next chapter.
51
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS
INTRODUCTION My investigation seeks to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders: the educators, the business community, the students, and the legislature, on the business curriculum and their implications on the focus of business education in Malaysia. This chapter discusses the research paradigms, approach, data collection methods, and the research design that were chosen after due consideration.
RESEARCH PARADIGM Education researchers such as Guba and Lincoln (1994) insist that when choosing the research methods for a study, the research paradigm or philosophical orientation should be seriously considered. This is because the research paradigm informs the chosen methods and should have a dominant influence on design:
… both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used appropriately with any research paradigm. Questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways. (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 105)
Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000) agree with the suggestion of Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) that:
‘… ontological assumptions give rise to epistemological assumptions; these, in turn, give rise to methodological considerations; and these, in turn, give rise to issues of instrumentation and data collection. This view moves us beyond regarding research methods as simply a technical exercise; it recognizes that research is concerned with understanding the world and that this is informed by
52
how we view our world(s), what we take understanding to be, and what we see as the purposes of understanding. (p. 3)
While most of the educational research community agrees with the primacy of the research paradigm, the position of Brown and Dowling (1998: 57) is less strident:
We have chosen not to present the choice of a particular way of collecting data as indicating a strong affiliation to a specific epistemological position. In our view these associations are commonly post-hoc and are of limited help in either the design or interrogation of research. It is of greater importance in deciding how to collect your data that the methods are consistent with the theoretical framework in which you are working.
Nevertheless, the issue of research paradigm is considered so that the research methods and design for this study are supported and are appropriate. Morrison (2002) laments that ‘disputes about forms of enquiry appear to be conducted at the level of method or technique, with relatively little attention paid to issues of epistemology, ontology, or methodology.’ (p. 10). She adds that ontology, epistemology, and methodology are related and ‘methodology provides a rationale for the ways in which researchers conduct research activities.’ (p. 11).
Paradigms may be defined as the worldviews or belief systems that guide researchers (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Mertens (2005) defines ‘paradigm as a way of looking at the world. It is composed of certain philosophical assumptions that guide and direct thinking and action’ (p. 7). Similarly, Usher (1996) defines paradigms as ‘frameworks that function as maps or guides for scientific communities, determining important problems or issues for its members to address and defining acceptable theories or explanations, methods and techniques to solve defined problems’ (p. 15). In other words, the research paradigm reflects how the researcher looks at the world. Within the social science disciplines there are two distinct paradigms. One is based on the scientific method that ‘aims at objectivity, standard procedures, and replicability’ (Johnson, 1994, p. 7). This is
53
known as positivism. The other is known as constructivism or interpretivism and is based on the idea that there is no single reality, and that ‘all human life is experienced and indeed constructed from a subjective point of view, and that social research should seek to elicit the “meaning” of events and phenomena from the point of view of participants” (Johnson, 1994, p. 7).
Lincoln and Guba (2000) identify three basic questions that help to distinguish the two paradigms: 1. The ontological question – What is the nature of reality? 2. The epistemological question – What is the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the would-be known? 3. The methodological question – How can the knower go about obtaining the desired knowledge and understandings?
Will reflections on the ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues contribute value to a study? Morrison (2002), however, insists that there is much to be gained in research by paying attention to these issues. She remarks that the ontological and epistemological positions of a research study affect ‘the methodology that underpins the researchers’ work; crucially, methodology provides a rationale for the ways in which researchers conduct research activities’ (p. 11).
A key underlying assumption of positivism is the belief that the social world can be studied in the same ways as natural sciences. On the ontological question, the logical positivist holds that only one reality exists and it is the job of the researcher to find that reality. The less strident post-positivist accepts that a reality does exist but that it can only be known imperfectly due to human limitations. Therefore, the researcher can discover reality within a spectrum of probability. By constrast, the basic assumptions of the constructivist paradigm (or interpretivism) are that ‘knowledge is socially constructed by people active in the research process, and that researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it’ ( Schwandt, 2000 as in Mertens, 2005, p. 13). In addition, ‘the constructivist paradigm
54
emphasizes that research is a product of the values of researchers and cannot be independent of them’ (Mertens, 2005, p. 13). Thus for research conducted within the constructivist paradigm, the researcher and the subject are inseparable as the results of the research are the interactive meanings and understanding by the researcher of the subject.
Saunders et al. (2007) remark that there are two aspects of ontology: objectivism and subjectivism. They explain that objectivism ‘portrays the position that social entities exist in reality external to social actors’ (p. 108). As for subjectivism, they contend that:
… social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors, what is more, this is a continual process in that through the process of social interaction these social phenomena are in constant state of revision. (ibid)
Mertens (2005) explains that although the post-positivist researchers can accept multiple realities due to human limitations, the constructivist ontological position rejects the notion of a knowable objective reality and instead contends that ‘the researcher’s goal is to understand the multiple social constructions of meaning and knowledge’ (p. 14)
The fact that I am trying to develop a list of variables and concepts to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders on business education and expecting the results to uncover the multiple perspectives of the stakeholders objectively clearly exemplified the post-positivist paradigm. Moreover, these perspectives are presumed to be able to be identified discreetly as ‘social entities ….. in reality external’ (Saunders, et al., 2007, p. 108) to the stakeholders fit the post-positivist ontology. In addition, the fact that the concepts are presented to the respondents in a structured manner and no new concepts are allowed to emerge during the research process effectively exclude the constructivist ontology for this study.
On the issue of epistemology, the positivist ‘paradigm holds that objectivity is the standard to strive for in research; thus the researcher should remain neutral to prevent
55
values or biases from influencing the work by following prescribed procedures rigorously’ (Mertens, 2005, p. 11). In addition, although post-positivists recognize that theories and background knowledge held by the investigator can strongly influence what is observed (Reichandt and Rallis, 1994), ‘objectivity is still the standard’ to be pursued (Mertens, 2005, p. 11). On the contrary, constructivists think that reality is socially constructed. Therefore, multiple realities could possibly be constructed and these constructions may be in conflict with each other. In addition, these perceptions of reality may change throughout the process of the research (Mertens, 2005).
Remenyi et al. (1998) contend that the positivist position to the development of knowledge prefer ‘working with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be law-like generalizations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists’ (p. 32). Very often, positivist research utilizes deductive reasoning to ‘develop a theory and hypothesis (or hypotheses) and design a research strategy to test the hypotheses’ (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 117).
Saunders et al. (2007) defines interpretivism (or constructivism) as ‘an epistemology that advocates that it is necessary for the researcher to understand the differences between humans in our role as social actors’ (p. 106). They continue to explain that for the interpretivist researcher, the objective is to understand the social phenomena and generalisability is not of crucial importance. Interpretivist research employs inductive reasoning, ‘in which you would collect data and develop theory as a result of your data analysis’ (p. 117).
My investigation about the perspectives of the stakeholders on business education includes identifying the differences and similarities between these perceptions. The objective is to understand how and why the perspectives have developed as such. The epistemological stance of this post-positivist study is exemplified by purporting to collect data objectively using the same procedures and a fixed-response format for the questions on the measuring instrument.
56
On methodology, Cohen et al. (2000: 6) advise that:
Investigators adopting an objectivist (or positivist) approach to the social world and who treat it like the world of natural phenomena as being hard, real and external to the individual will choose from a range of traditional options – surveys, experiment, and the like.
Morrison (2002: 11) provides an explanation about methodology in relation to ontology and epistemology:
From this perspective, methodology is much more than methods or techniques or tools for research like ‘conducting an interview’ or ‘keeping a research diary’. The methodology rationale provides researchers with the underlying reasons for ‘conducting an interview’; as importantly, in choosing to conduct serial life history interviews with a secondary school head of science, for example, rather than a questionnaire survey with a number of heads of science, the researcher is arguing that interviews provide a ‘more informed’ way of claiming knowledge than a questionnaire could provide in order to address one or more of his/her specific research questions.
To say that there is a link between the research paradigm and the research methodology is an over-statement. Saunders et al. (2007) remark that although it can be generally held that ‘deduction owes more to positivism and induction to interpretivism … such labeling is potentially misleading and of no real practical value’ (p. 117). While many researchers agree that the positivist paradigm underlines quantitative methods while the constructivist paradigm underlines qualitative methods (e.g. Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Howe, 1988; Lincoln and Guba, 1985), there is no definite rule to say that a particular paradigm must lead to certain research methods. However, the ontological and epistemological positions of the investigation do provide the methodological rationale to consider certain research methods as being a ‘more informed way of claiming knowledge’ (Morrison, 2002, p. 11).
57
Due to the central focus of the positivist researcher to seek out ‘the reality out there’, there is a requirement to form concepts and measure them (Morrison, 2002). Coupled with the epistemological position of positivism to hypothesis testing and to generate lawlike generalizations, the research inevitably collects data in quantitative terms and the application of the scientific method. Therefore, quantitative research is a more informed way of seeking knowledge in positivist terms (Morrison, 2002).
From the epistemological perspective, the constructivist researcher and the subject ‘are interlocked in an interactive process; each influences the other’ (Mertens, 2005, p. 14). The research depends on the interactions between the researcher and the subject. Without the interactions, knowledge and meaning could not be constructed. That is why constructivist research can be accused of subjectivism and bias. To eliminate bias, the values that influence the investigator have to be made explicit. Even then, hardly eliminated.
Constructivists normally conduct qualitative research and use qualitative methods (Morrison, 2002). In-depth interviews, observations, and document reviews are predominant in this paradigm. These methods correspond ‘with the assumption about social construction of reality in that research can be conducted only through interaction between and among investigator and respondents’ (Lincoln and Guba, 2000 as in Mertens, 2005, p. 15). These interactive methods could be used ‘to obtain multiple perspectives that yield better interpretations of meanings that are compared and contrasted through a dialectical interchange involving juxtaposition of conflicting ideas, forcing reconsideration of previous positions” (Mertens, 2005, p. 15).
As mentioned earlier, constructivism believes that reality is constructed within the social context. To understand these social phenomena the constructivist researcher is required to interact with the subjects in order to yield better interpretations and explanations. Thus, the viable data collection methods are participative observations, in-depth interview, life
58
history, and case study. The data collected are normally in textual and qualitative form such as words, transcripts, and descriptions.
The ontological and epistemological positions of this study were earlier shown to exemplify the post-positivist paradigm. Mertens (2005) remarks that quantitative methods tend to be predominant within the post-positivist paradigm. The study is to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders on business education, and following Morrison’s (2002) rationale, quantitative research is a more informed way of seeking knowledge to address the research questions. Thus the quantitative methodology of this study is justified.
Zikmund (2003) contends that researchers operate ‘at two levels: on the abstract level of concepts (and propositions) and on the empirical level of variables (and hypotheses)’ (p. 42). Hair et al. (2007) explain that ‘variables are the observable and measurable characteristics in a conceptual model’ (p. 144) and ‘when several questions/statements are used in combination to represent a characteristic/concept we often call them a construct’ (ibid). The perspectives of the stakeholders of this study are taken to have been constructed and the objective of the study is to understand the different perspectives of the ‘social actors’, the conception of the business curriculum has matured into two main concepts: ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. These two key concepts of the study can be operationally defined by specifying the activities in order to measure them. In fact, these two concepts can be measured indirectly by variables and when combined become constructs (Hair et al., 2007). The methodological rationale in this study is to adopt quantitative research methods as they are more informed ways to acquire knowledge concerning the research constructs.
This research design is not without precedent. Several previous studies about curriculum design employ quantitative methods to collect information, including Ferrin et al., (2001); Tang, Lee, and Koh (2000); Trauth, Farwell, and Lee (1993). Ferrin et al. (2001) conducted a study to identify the skills and competencies needed by graduates to be hired at entry level positions. They used a structured questionnaire designed based on the fivepoint Likert scale for the participants to rate the relative importance of the skills. Tang,
59
Lee, and Koh (2000) investigate possible curriculum gaps between required skills and achieved skills as perceived by the educators. They used a structured questionnaire to collect quantitative information and data for calculating the curriculum gaps. Trauth, Farwell, and Lee (1993) conducted a study to determine the ‘expectation gaps’ between the needs of the industry and the academic preparation of the students. Although phase one of the study involved a ‘brain storming’ where qualitative data are collected, phase two used a structured questionnaire survey to collect quantitative data where the ‘expectation gaps’ can be determined. All the three studies mentioned above collect quantitative data to provide answers to their research questions. Therefore the research paradigm and methods adopted for this study are supported, justified and precedential.
By matching the research paradigms mentioned earlier and the nature of the research questions, it is clear that the research philosophy of this study falls within the postpositivist paradigm and quantitative research methods are employed to collect primary information and data to answer the research questions. As one of the key research objectives is to determine the curriculum gaps, quantitative and numerical data are needed to calculate the differences between the perspectives of the stakeholders.
RESEARCH APPROACH/STRATEGY Given that this study falls within the post-positivist research paradigm and that there is a strong rationale for using quantitative methods, it follows that the research approach or strategy could be selected from a range of quantitative research approaches such as surveys and experiments. For this investigation, the survey is deemed to be the appropriate choice as it offers a variety of flexibilities in research execution.
Cohen et al. (2000: 169) while commenting on the ease of use of the survey approach wrote:
Typically, surveys gather data at a particular point in time with the intention of describing the nature of existing conditions, or identifying standards against which existing conditions can be compared, or determining the relationships that
60
exist between specific events. Thus, surveys may vary in their levels of complexity from those which provide single frequency counts to those which present relational analysis.
Denscombe (1998) considers the survey approach as a research strategy rather than a research method. Saunders et al. (2007) agree with the assertion and consider the survey strategy usually associated with deductive reasoning. Fogelman (2002) comments that surveys could either use preformulated questions in a structured questionnaire which collects quantitative numerical data or interviews which may be semi-structured or unstructured to collect qualitative data. Thus the survey approach offers a good deal of research flexibility. For this study, it was decided that the structured questionnaire survey is the most appropriate approach to collect quantitative numerical data. These data can be analyzed statistically so that the perspectives of the stakeholders can be identified and understood, and the curriculum gaps determined.
Fogelman (2002: 96) further wrote:
Thus, because of the variety of methods and design that the survey or a research method encompasses, it is an approach which can be used to investigate a wide range of research questions. In broad terms, it is the appropriate method when systematic and comparable data are needed, and can be obtained directly from a relatively large number of individuals.
But can the survey strategy be used within a case study? According to Fogelman (2002), a survey can be conducted ‘within a case study of a single institution’ (p. 94). Yin (2003b) advises that multiple strategies may be used in any given study ‘e.g. a survey within a case study or a case study within a survey)’ (p. 9). He adds ‘that the form of the question can provide an important clue regarding the appropriate research strategy to be used’ (p. 7) and ‘be sure to create the form of the study question best matching the strategy you were inclined to pursue’ (ibid).
61
Yin (2003b) laments that many ‘social scientists still deeply believe that case studies are only appropriate for the exploratory phase of an investigation’ (p. 3). He objects to the fact that case studies are ethnographies or mainly associated with participant-observation as a data collection technique. In fact, he remarks that ‘case studies can include and even be limited to quantitative evidence’ (Yin, 2003b, p. 14). Thus, the usage of quantitative survey within this case study is supported.
Punch (2003) sympathizes with graduate students who have limited time, cost, and access resources: ‘graduate students in a research training environment where very often only small-scale surveys are possible’ (p. 1). He explains:
Small-scale means that I want to focus on situations where researchers have limited resources, and are therefore restricted in the size and scope of the survey they can conduct. A typical example of this is the dissertation or project of a student working in an area of social science. (Punch, 2003, p. 3)
The advice by Punch (2003) is appropriate for this study. Although he has not defined what he considers ‘small-scale’, but for me there is a need to narrow the survey to a case; an educational institution, so that the survey is ‘small-scale’. This ensures the survey can be conducted with a high probability of success. I am a part-time EdD student teaching full-time in a private university in Malaysia. With my limited time, cost, and access resources, it is not feasible to conduct surveys in ‘multiple-case studies’ (Yin, 2003a). On the contrary, to conduct surveys within the university environment where I am teaching and working is a good option. Bush (2002) supports this position and considers that ‘membership of institutions gave privileged access to data that an external researcher may never have gained’ (p. 80). The responses from the surveys would have biases but such biases can be eliminated by a well-designed questionnaire.
A pertinent area of concern with single-case research is the validity of inferences. Kratochwill (1992) reviewed a number of research characteristics that help to improve
62
the validity of inferences from single-case research. Two characteristics are applicable to this study: the use of objective data, and providing repeated measurements across all phases of the research. The use of self-administrative questionnaire in this study to collect data generates objective data. And by including the stakeholders of business education as respondents to the surveys not only provides measurements across the surveys but also provides triangulation for the data collected. This type of triangulation is provided by multiple sources of data from the diverse stakeholders of the case institution. This method of achieving triangulation is supported by Bush (2002) – one of the two main types of triangulation is ‘to ask the same questions of many different participants (respondent triangulation)’ (p. 68).
DATA COLLECTION METHOD Although the research method was decided to be of the quantitative type, there are many quantitative data collection methods whose outcomes are numerical data. Structured interviewing, self-administered questionnaire survey, and telephone interviewing with structured questionnaires are quantitative data collection methods. In-depth interviewing, participative observations, and life diaries are generally qualitative data collection methods. This study comes under the post-positivist paradigm and the quantitative research methods (justifications were presented earlier). To select the appropriate method, a few factors have to be considered. The primary consideration is the availability of and access to respondents. Another consideration is the availability of time and financial resources. The final factor is the availability of the relevant level of research skills. This way to select the data collection method found support in Fogelman (2002). He suggests that the most important criterion for deciding which method to use to collect data is the ‘appropriateness for answering the research question(s)’ (p.96). He adds that the other criteria are resource issues and those issues relating to access and consent of the respondents.
A popular and convenient method for curriculum measurement is the structured questionnaire survey. Ferrin et al. (2001) used a Likert-scaled questionnaire successfully to collect data for their curriculum design project. In their study to identify critical skills
63
and knowledge requirements of information system (IS) professionals, Lee, Trauth, and Farwell (1995) also used a fixed-response questionnaire to survey IS managers and consultants. Tang, Lee, and Koh (2000) in their efforts to identify educational gaps as perceived by IS educators chose a fixed-response questionnaire as the data collection tool. The latter two studies were quite similar to this investigation in that they attempt to determine the gaps between the perceptions of the respondents. Their research objectives were duly met by analyzing the numerical data collected. These two studies became appropriate examples for this ‘curriculum gap’ study.
There are four groups of target respondents in this study. The target respondents are the educators, the business community, the students, and the legislature. As they are stakeholders of business education in the case institution, permission from the Dean of the business faculty had to be obtained before the respondents could be approached to respond to the survey. (Consent was given verbally in March 2007.) With the Dean’s consent, access to the educators (fellow colleagues) was obtained. It was the same for access to the students. Access to the business community and the authorities was a more difficult task. The lists of working graduates and employers were kept in the database of the Alumini and Placement Office (APO), a branch of the President’s Office. Although the request for the lists required formal application, the APO was supportive of educational research and granted the lists accordingly.
With the measuring instrument issue and the access to the target respondents largely settled, the next question is whether to use self-administered questionnaires or face-toface questionnaires to collect the required data. Hair et al. (2007) call them selfcompletion and interviewer-completion surveys. In addition, they explain that ‘selfcompletion methods include mail surveys, Internet/electronic surveys, drop-off/pick up’ (p. 204) and interviewer-completed methods involve direct contact with the respondents through personal interviews either face-to-face or via telephone’ (p. 204). Selfadministered or self-completion questionnaires are easier to execute than the face-to-face questionnaires. In addition, self-administered questionnaires can be administered flexibly either via the post, drop-and-pick, or via e-mail. Respondents are also more willing to fill
64
up questionnaires in their own times. In contrast, face-to-face questionnaires normally take longer time to administer than self-administered questionnaires. A well-designed and well-executed questionnaire survey can collect data as comprehensively and reliably as interview survey (Zikmund, 2003). Having considered the above issues, it was decided that the survey approach using self-administered questionnaires was the appropriate method to collect the research data for this investigation.
The self-administered questionnaire survey also was the preferred choice in terms of time and budget constraints. As I was and am still working full time with a full academic load in the case institution, it was not viable to arrange for interviews with the respondents. The self-administered questionnaire survey was the pragmatic option to collect data within a short duration. In addition, with the research being self-financed, the cost effectiveness of the questionnaire survey renders the method as the obvious choice for the study.
Another factor supporting the choice of self-administered questionnaires as the data collecting technique was the availability of relevant research skills. The questionnaires were sent to the targeted participants to respond and return and there was no personal contact with the participants. The research skills required were in areas such as sample selection, computing skills, and data analysis and interpretative skills. Research activities such as starting and guiding the conversation, questioning and probing, and terminating the interview were not required. As I am more competent with quantitative research and possess the required quantitative analytical skills, the self-administered questionnaire method was preferred over the interviewer-completed technique for data collection.
As was mentioned earlier, the self-administered questionnaire is a flexible data collection technique. Researchers have a wide number of ways or modes to execute the questionnaires. Research questionnaires may be posted to the respondents with selfaddressed return envelopes. Advanced computing technology has enabled the questionnaires to be sent through the internet. Questionnaires can also be administered through the drop-and-pick technique where the respondents are told to respond to the
65
questionnaires and that these questionnaires will be collected from them later. The selection of the execution modes depends on the types of respondents and the respective conditions. The selection process is discussed in the next section.
RESEARCH DESIGN Zikmund (2003) describes research design as ‘a master plan specifying the methods and procedures for collecting and analyzing the needed information’ (p. 65). Hair et al. (2007) consider research design to provide the direction for carrying out the research. Following the principle of parsimony, the design has to be carefully considered so that the data collected will be appropriate for answering the research questions.
Hair et al. (2007) group research designs into three types: exploratory, descriptive and causal design. Exploratory research is used to develop a better understanding of a research problem when there is little theory available to guide the research framework. Descriptive research describes some situations by providing measures of an event or activity. Causal designs are the most complex. They are designed to test whether one event causes another. Applying the above to my case study, I consider my investigation to be of the descriptive type. The main purpose of my study is to identify and describe the perspectives of the stakeholders. It is imperative that data have to be collected to generate frequency counts, measures of central tendency (mean, median, and mode), measures of dispersion such as standard deviation. These descriptive statistics can be used to describe and explain the phenomenon.
Punch (2003) warns of the danger of being unable to establish internal validity for the survey research design. He considers the design has internal validity when there is ‘internal coherence and consistent logic running through our decisions’ (p. 23) on the key elements of the survey: what the purposes or objectives are, how the variables will be measured, from whom the data will be collected, and how to analyze the data in order to answer the questions. The decisions made for this study were coherent and consistent. These included the purpose (to identify the perspectives of the stakeholders), the measurement of the variables (in terms of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’), the
66
respondents (the stakeholders), and the methods to analyze the data (statistical analysis). According to Punch (2003), the research design would then has consistency and internal validity.
The research method used for this study is the questionnaire survey. The design of the measuring questionnaire to measure the perspectives of the stakeholders is of prime importance. The survey questionnaire was tested for reliability to ensure valid responses from the respondents (see below). The tested and self-administered questionnaires were sent to the four groups of target respondents selected. Quantitative data were collected upon the return of the questionnaires by the respondents.
According to Zikmund (2003), there are many ways to distribute the questionnaires to the selected samples: personal, mail, telephone, fax, e-mail, and internet. As I am teaching full-time in the case institution, the questionnaires can be distributed to the educators personally during their office hours. The questionnaires to the students can be distributed personally in the lecture halls during their classes. The survey for the business alumini (representing the business community) is an internet survey through an internet survey consultant. (The inclusion of the business alumni in lieu of the business employers as target respondents is explained later in the Sampling and Fieldwork section of this chapter.)
Data collected from the different groups of respondents through the three surveys are to be analyzed on a single-group basis and then from the inter-group perspective. Whether the perspectives of the groups are ‘for-business’ or ‘about-business’ can be identified from the statistical analyses on single-group basis. The identification of curriculum gaps can be obtained from the inter-group analysis.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN The questionnaire is the most frequently used data collection tool or instrument for quantitative studies especially surveys. Each respondent is required to answer the same set of questions that are pre-set in a particular order. Thus it is an efficient way of
67
collecting data from a large sample. It also enables data to be analyzed easily and in a structured manner. The questionnaire technique is flexible and could be used in structured interviews, telephone interviews or could be self-administered where the interviewer is not present. If well-planned, the questionnaire technique is also cost efficient and a good way to reach the target respondents within a short period of time. As all the respondents answer the same set of questions, the responses collected would be deemed objective.
However, the questionnaire technique should be used with caution. It should not be used in exploratory studies where the researchers do not know the exact issues. This means that it would only benefit when the researchers have prior knowledge of the exact data that need to be collected to answer the research questions. (In this respect, I have prior knowledge of what data to collect for the study.) Further, it is quite difficult to produce a good and reliable questionnaire. A good questionnaire should not only comprise questions that cover comprehensively the issues related to the research topic but ensure that data collected are relevant, reliable and valid. Thus great care has to be taken when designing the questions or items that would be interpreted the same way by all the respondents.
Basically, a good questionnaire should satisfy two criteria – relevancy and accuracy (Zikmund, 2003). A questionnaire is relevant when no unnecessary information is collected and sufficient data are collected to answer the research questions. A questionnaire is accurate when the responses are reliable as well as valid. To have accurate responses depends a lot on whether the questionnaire is able to facilitate recall and motivate cooperation from the respondents. In addition, the questionnaire designer is required to make decisions on a few questions such as: ‘What should be asked? How should the questions be phrased? How should the sequence of the questioning be? What is the most appropriate layout?’ (Zikmund 2003, p. 330).
Cooper and Schindler (2006) contend that a questionnaire should comprise three types of questions: administrative, classification and target questions. Administrative questions
68
are there to identify the interviewer, the respondent, the interview location and conditions where the questionnaires are administered. These types of question are not necessary for the present study as the respondents prefer to be anonymous. Classification questions collect information on the demographics such as age, race, income, etc. of the respondents. The target questions are the most important questions because the resulting responses could provide answers to the research questions.
Saunders et al. (2007) suggest three ways to design target questions – adopt questions used in other established questionnaires, adapt questions used in other questionnaires, and design new questions. They advise that adopting or adapting questions from other questionnaires would allow reliability to be assessed but warn that each question should be examined carefully before use as some questions are poorly worded. Adopting and adapting questions also ensure high probability that the terms used in the questions are familiar, easy to understand and respond to. This would help to improve the validity of the questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2007).
The target questions are the key measuring questions of the questionnaire. These question items collect data to measure the constructs or variables of the research. The key constructs of this investigation are the intended curriculum by the educators, and the expected curriculum by the business community and the students. Therefore the learning outcomes of the component courses of the business degree programme become the items or target questions for the questionnaire. But what should be the unit measure of the expected curriculum of business education? Ferrin, Landeros and Reck (2001) think that faculty intent is the skills, competencies, and learning outcomes that the lecturers intend to teach and impart to those students taking the courses. Boyatzis, Cowen and Kolb (1995) contend that the skills and competencies of a business degree programme can be classified into abilities and knowledge areas.
It is a good idea to adopt the above techniques for designing the questionnaire. Syllabi of all the constituent units of the business degree programme offered by the case institution were downloaded from the University’s website. The content of the syllabi was analysed
69
and classified into the knowledge and skills intended by the syllabi. This is a type of content analysis. The objective was to draw out the intended curriculum, that is, the knowledge and competencies the educators intend to teach the students. The knowledge and skills were categorized into abilities and knowledge areas according to Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb (1995). It was found that the business degree programme could be classified into fourteen knowledge areas. This was then followed with interviews with the lecturers concerned. Zikmund (2003) refers these interviews as experience survey. The objective was to triangulate with the results of the content analysis conducted earlier. The lecturers were asked to confirm the key learning outcomes of their respective subjects and how they deliver soft skills to the students.
The content analysis of the syllabi and experience survey with the lecturers had resulted a list of skills, competencies, and learning outcomes. They were categorized into the relevant abilities and the respective knowledge areas. This compilation of skills and knowledge became the items and target questions of the questionnaire.
Soft skills also form part of the intended curriculum. The literature review (for examples, Rowntree, 1981; Margolis, 2001; Ottewill at el., 2005) points out that soft skills are normally not taught formally but are delivered through the “hidden curriculum” (Ottewill, McKenzie, and Leah, 2005). Educational researchers propose many categories and dimensions of soft skills. The most comprehensive list is Boyatzis and Kolb’s (1995) Executive Skill Profile (ESP). In addition, the ESP was also empirically test-retested for reliability and validity. Therefore, it was decided to include the ESP list of soft skills into the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then structured accordingly to include all the skills and knowledge deemed necessary for graduates to be employed at entry level. This questionnaire was pilot-tested for reliability and validity before being used for the survey stage. (See the Pilot Study section below.)
The procedures described above generated a total of 94 items of knowledge and skills categorized into 14 knowledge areas. They were enlisted as items of the questionnaire. A further number of 31 soft skills (adopted from Boyatzis and Kolb, 1995) were added on
70
to the questionnaire. As a result, the final number of target questions in the questionnaire is 125. (See Appendix A.)
The survey questionnaire comprised four sections. Section A comprised classification questions. They were questions that collect demographical information about the respondents. The questions were different for different groups of target respondents. This was because the target respondents had different related demographical information. There were three versions of Section A: one version for each respective group of respondents, namely the faculties, the graduating students, and the alumni.
Section B comprised the target questions on knowledge and skills of the knowledge areas. The 14 knowledge areas were Accounting (denoted K1), Information System (K2), Quantitative Techniques (K3), Strategic Management (K4), Business Research (K5), Entrepreneurial skills & Ethics (K6), Economics (K7), Communication in English (K8), OB and Human Resource (K9), Finance (K10), Marketing (K11), Operations Management (K12), Legal Aspects of Business (K13), and International Perspectives (K14). Each knowledge areas comprised items representing the knowledge and skills of the respective knowledge area. For example, there were 9 items under the Accounting knowledge areas. They were: 1. Understand the basic principles of financial statements 2. Record and summarise business transactions 3. Prepare financial accounts of limited companies 4. Analyse and interpret financial accounts 5. Analyse and interpret company reports 6. Understand the role of cost accounting and costing principles 7. Understand management accounting, its procedures & techniques 8. Prepare tax statements of employment income for individuals 9. Prepare tax statements of business income for companies
The list of items under the respective knowledge areas is included in Appendix A. A summary of the number of items under the knowledge areas is given below in Table 3.1:
71
Table 3.1: Number of items under the Knowledge areas Knowledge Area
No. of items
K1
Accounting
9
K2
Information System
8
K3
Quantitative Techniques
5
K4
Strategic Management
7
K5
Business Research
6
K6
Entrepreneurial Kills & Ethics
3
K7
Economics
5
K8
Communication in English
8
K9
OB and Human Resource
7
K10 Finance
6
K11 Marketing
7
K12 Operations Management
6
K13 Legal Aspects of Business
10
K14 International Perspectives
7
The question items were provided with fixed alternative answers, graded from 1 to 5 on a Likert scale: 1 Not at all necessary, 2 Slightly necessary, 3 Necessary, 4 Very necessary, 5 Extremely necessary.
Section C comprised the target questions on soft skills. The items for these soft skills were adopted from Boyatzis and Kolb’s (1995) Executive Skill Profile (ESP). They were categorized into four main areas: Analytical skills (S1), Information gathering skills (S2), Interpersonal skills (S3), and Behavioral skills (S4). There were 31 items in Section C and they can be found in Appendix A. A summary of the number of items under their respective soft skill areas is given in Table 3.2:
72
Table 3.2 Number of items under the soft skill areas Soft skill Areas
No. of Items
S1
Analytical skills
8
S2
Information gathering skills
7
S3
Interpersonal skills
6
S4
Behavioral skills
10
Similar to Section B, all the question items were provided with fixed alternative answers on a Likert scale: 1 Not at all necessary, 2 Slightly necessary, 3 Necessary, 4 Very necessary, 5 Extremely necessary.
Section D comprised two questions to act as closing questions. Question 1 was intended to capture the overall view and perspective of the respondents: whether they perceive the business degree programme is too general or too specific. Literature review points out that employers in Western countries generally prefer to hire graduates with general business education (Ferrin et al., 2003). The question will collect data to confirm the preference in Malaysia. Question 2 was an open-ended question requesting comments concerning the state and quality of business education in Malaysia. Zikmund (2003) advises to include an open-ended question at the end of a questionnaire to allow the respondents to express their views on related issues not already covered by the questionnaire. The question was intended to serve this purpose.
PILOT STUDY Most research authors advocate piloting questionnaires (for example, Saunders, 2007; Sekaran, 2003; Zikmund, 2003). The primary purpose is to check the reliability of the questionnaires designed. The reliability of the measuring instrument is the ability of the instrument to measure the variables consistently. It can be assessed in terms of the stability and the consistency of the instrument. However, I preferred to conduct a more comprehensive but exploratory pilot study. The pilot study had the following objectives:
1. To test the coding system and the keying in process of the data collected 2. To check the reliability of the instrument or questionnaire
73
3. To test the workability and viability of the research framework 4. To check the appropriateness of the intended data analysis techniques 5. To determine the sample sizes of the target respondents
To pilot test the questionnaire designed, copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the target respondents: seven copies to the academics and lecturers, five copies to students who were graduating, and five copies to the human resource departments of business organizations that employ business graduates. All the seventeen copies of the questionnaires were distributed to the respondents and were collected within one week. Measures were taken to ensure these respondents were excluded from the subsequent main surveys of the study.
The questionnaires collected were checked for errors and completeness. All the question items in the questionnaires were completely answered. The question items of the questionnaires were given codes from 1 to 5 according to the pre-designed coding system. In a similar manner, the variables were defined according to the coding system. The data collected by the questionnaires were then entered into the statistical analytical software. No significant problem was encountered during the keying in process. The coding system was found to be able to accept and accommodate the responses provided by the respondents in the pilot test.
The target questions were checked for reliability by calculating the Cronbach Alpha (or reliability coefficient) by using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 12.0. The reliability checking process was conducted on all the three groups of respondents: the lecturers, the students, and the employers representing the business community. The Alpha coefficient for the fourteen knowledge areas in Section B and four skill areas in Section C were tabulated and laid out according to the three target groups. The column listed as ‘Alpha if item deleted’ found in the SPSS outputs was found to be particularly useful. As a rule of thumb, only Alpha > 0.7 will be accepted as reliable (Sekaran, 2003). For example, for K2-Information system and among the lecturers, items k2.2, k2.8, and k2.6 had to be deleted in order to achieve 0.7057. While
74
for the students, only item k2.5 was deleted to achieve 0.8, and for the employers, only item k2.5 was deleted to achieve 0.7257. The concluding decision was to delete items k2.2, k2.5, k2.6, and k2.8 from the questionnaire in order to satisfy all the three groups and to achieve a reliability coefficient of more than 0.7. This process was conducted repeatedly on all the fourteen knowledge areas (K1 to K14) in Section B and the four skill areas (S1 to S4) in Section C, and for all the three groups of respondents. The results of the process were tabulated and is found in Appendix B. The reliability coefficients of the knowledge areas and the skills areas are presented in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3 Pilot study: Alpha coefficients of variables Variable
No. of items
Alpha
K1 Accounting
9
0.8496
K2 Information system
5
0.7013
K3 Management
3
0.7324
K4 Quantitative techniques
5
0.6734
K5 Business research
6
0.9565
K6 Communication in English
8
0.7088
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
2
0.6927
K8 Economics
2
0.8577
K9 Organization behavior & HR
7
0.7326
K10 Marketing
7
0.8542
K11 Finance
6
0.7326
K12 Operations Management
6
0.7165
K13 Legal aspects of business
10
0.8796
K14 International perspectives
7
0.8179
S1 Analytical skills
4
0.8735
S2 Information gathering skills
7
0.8259
S3 Interpersonal skills
6
0.7701
S4 Behavioral skills
10
0.7701
In this way, the reliabilities of all the items were checked and the unreliable items were deleted from the questionnaire. Based on Table 3.3, the reliability coefficients of two variables, namely K4 Quantitative techniques (Alpha=0.6734) and K7 Entrepreneurial skills (Alpha=0.6927) were found to be lowest and just below 0.7. Hair et al. (2007)
75
contend that Alpha coefficient that is less than 0.6 is considered poor, Alpha that is in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 is considered moderate, Alpha that is in the range of 0.7 to 0.8 is considered good, Alpha that is in the range of 0.8 to 0.9 is considered very good, and Alpha that is more than 0.9 is considered excellent. Using Hair’s et al. (2007) rule of thumb, the reliabilities of the variables range from moderate to excellent and are therefore acceptable. The amended questionnaire (with the unreliable items deleted) was accepted to be the measuring instrument used for the self-administered surveys of this case study and is attached as Appendix C. Nevertheless, the reliability of the questionnaire has to be re-checked with the data collected for the main surveys before any statistical analysis can be conducted.
The primary objective of this study is to determine the perspectives of the stakeholders on the business curriculum. The perspectives are to be determined and measured in terms of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. Macfarlane and Perkins (1999) suggest to use the ‘about business-for business’ dichotomy to classify the subjects in the business curriculum. The 14 knowledge areas included in the questionnaire comprise ‘about business’ subjects and ‘for business’ subjects. Examples of ‘about business’ subjects are K8 Economics, and K9 Organizational behavior. Examples of ‘for business’ subjects are K1 Accounting, and K2 Information systems. In addition, these 14 knowledge areas can be classified into ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ by a statistical technique called factor analysis. As the analysis is complex and comprehensive, it was not carried out for the pilot test. Another alternative to check the workability and viability of the research framework is by calculating the total mean score of all the 14 knowledge areas and all the 4 skill areas for the three groups of stakeholders. The results are presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Total summated means: Lecturers, employers, and students Stakeholders
Mean (∑K1 to K14)
Mean (∑S1 to S4)
Lecturers
3.80
4.05
Employers
3.65
3.85
Students
3.60
3.50
76
As it was possible to calculate the total summated mean scores for the three groups of stakeholders from the data collected by the pilot study, the research framework was considered to be workable and viable. It should be able to yield results that are useful to determine the perspectives of the stakeholders on the business curriculum.
The fourth objective of the pilot study was to conduct a general check on the appropriateness of the intended statistical analysis techniques. Among the statistical techniques intended for the study were correlation analysis and the t-test technique. The ttest can be used to identify significant differences between two independent groups of respondents (Hair et al. (2007); Zikmund, 2003). To check the appropriateness of using the t-test in this study, the procedure was applied to the data collected by the pilot test and to check whether the t-test technique could identify whether there was any significant difference in the total mean scores between the lecturers and the employers, and between the students and the employers. Table 3.5 and 3.6 shows the results of the t-tests.
Table 3.5 t-test (Pilot test): Lecturers and employers Stakeholder Lecturers Employers
Mean 3.80 3.65
S.D. 0.39
t
Sig (2-tail)
0.62
0.55
0.31
Table 3.5 shows the t-test results between the lecturers and the employers of the pilot test. The t-value was 0.62 and the p-value was 0.55. As the p-value at 0.55 was more than 0.05, there was no significant difference in the mean scores for knowledge between the lecturers and the employers.
Table 3.6 t-test (Pilot test): Students and employers Stakeholder Students
Mean 3.60
S.D. 0.21
Employers
3.65
0.31
t
Sig (2-tail)
-0.30
0.77
77
Table 3.6 shows the t-test results between the students and the employers. The t-value was -0.30 and the p-value was 0.77. As the p-value was more than 0.05, there was no significant difference in the mean scores for knowledge between the students and the employers. The pilot test results showed that t-tests can be used to generate useful results for the study.
Zikmund (2003) contends that there are three factors that determine the sample sizes of the target respondents: variance or heterogeneity of the population, magnitude of acceptable error and confidence level. The formula for calculating sample size is: ZS n = ( ----------- )² E where Z = standardized value corresponding to a confidence level S = sample standard deviation E = acceptable magnitude of error or standard error (Zikmund, 2003, p. 426)
Applying the formula to calculate the sample sizes:
For lecturers; 1.96 x 0.39 n = (----------------)² 0.17 = 19.98 say 20
For employers; 1.96 x 0.31 n = ( --------------------)² 0.15 = 16.54 say 17
78
For students; 1.96 x 0.21 n = (---------------------)² 0.09 = 20.75 say 21 Therefore, using the results from the pilot test, the adequate sample sizes for the target respondents were: Lecturers – 20; Employers – 17; Students – 21. However, this study followed the advice of Salkind (2000) who advocates ‘the general magic number of how many participants should be in each group is 30’ (p. 96).
SAMPLING AND FIELDWORK This section describes the sampling of the target respondents and the fieldwork activities carried out to collect data from the three groups of stakeholders: the business lecturers, the employers, and the business students.
The method for collecting data from the target respondents was the self-completion questionnaire survey of the case institution. The target respondents comprise of three groups of stakeholders. Hair et al. (2007) remark that ‘self-completion methods include mail surveys, Internet/electronic surveys, drop off/pick up, and other similar approaches’ (p. 204).
The targeted respondents of the lecturers were those business lecturers who worked and lectured the business degree programme. There were sixty (60) business lecturers in the department and there was no attempt to sample them. The structured questionnaires were distributed to all of them by hand using the drop off/pick up method. When the questionnaires were handed to them personally, the lecturers were briefed on the research objectives and explanations were given on how to respond to the questions. They were given two weeks to respond. By the end of the two-week period, the researcher went around collecting the completed questionnaires, and mixed them up in a box. This is to ensure anonymity of the lecturers. A total of thirty-six (36) completed questionnaires
79
were collected from the lecturer respondents which was more than thirty (30) suggested by Salkind (2000) and the calculated sample size of twenty (20).
Data collection from the employer stakeholders representing the business community was expected to be difficult. The main difficulty was the non-availability of access to the key personnel of the business organizations. An opportunity came in May 2007. The case educational institution organizes career fairs for the graduates every year. In 2007, fortytwo (42) business organizations including banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers were invited to participate in the May 2007 Career Fair. I took the opportunity to deliver the questionnaires to the participating organizations by hand at the exhibiting venue. I also included a self-addressed return envelope to increase response rate. After the two-week deadline, only one (1) response was received. The selfcompletion survey with the employers was not successful.
An alternative way to collect data was to survey the business employees instead. The appropriate target respondents of the business employees would be the business alumni who had graduated from the case institution and were now employed and working for business organizations. They could provide appropriate feedback on the business curriculum from the business community point-of-view. However, on further thought, the business alumni are not a key constituent of the business community and they can not represent the business community as a whole. However, they may be regarded as business employees and feedback from this group can be relevant and contribute to the study. To make it clear that they are not representative of the business community as a whole, the label for the business community was changed to business alumni.
A check with the Alumni and Placement Office (APO) of the case institution revealed that there were almost 1200 business alumni in the list with e-mail addresses. I then thought of delivering the structured questionnaire of the study to these alumni members via the Internet and e-mails. But the questionnaire had to be formatted into the interactive format so that the respondents could answer conveniently by just clicking the fixed responses
and
send
back
the
completed
questionnaires.
I
subscribed
to
80
www.surveyshare.com for a month with the appropriate payment. The on-line service undertook to convert the hard copy of the questionnaire into electronic interactive form, deliver the questionnaires in electronic form to the list of business alumni via their e-mail addresses, and record the responses in a folder. The folder could be accessed over the Internet by a user name and a password. The subscription lasted from June 2007 to July 2007. By the end of July 2007, a total of 33 responses were received from the business alumni. The responses were downloaded from the folder into my personal computer. Subsequent checking and editing of the responses are described in the Findings chapter.
The responses from the business students were the easiest to obtain. Initially it was thought that random sampling of the graduating students would the most appropriate sampling technique to ensure a representative sample of the business students. However, locating the randomly selected students to complete the questionnaires could pose a serious problem. The graduating business students were sitting for their final examinations in April 2007. These students were given random index numbers and assigned to their respective examination venues. By just requesting the candidates of one particular venue to complete the survey questionnaires would have ensured randomness. A check was made on the final examination of these business students. These candidates were taking their final examinations in six venues. The venue for conducting the survey was randomly picked and comprised ninety-one (91) candidates. The invigilators of the venue were informed of the survey. Immediately the final examinations ended, and before the students leave the venue, they were requested to remain behind to complete the structured questionnaires. They were ensured that their participation in the survey was voluntary and that their identity would not disclosed and remained anonymous. At the end of the survey, fifty-three (53) completed questionnaires were collected.
I have described the fieldwork and the care taken to ensure that the target respondents were randomly selected so as to ensure that the samples were probability samples and that the data collected were metric data. This is important because the statistical techniques used on the data such as t-test and Pearson correlations analysis assume metric data. A total of one hundred and twenty-two (122) responses were collected from the
81
three groups of target respondents: thirty-six (36) lecturers, thirty-three (33) alumni, and fifty-three (53) students. The number of responses for all the groups exceeded Salkind’s (2000) magic number of 30. The checking and editing of the completed questionnaires and the analysis of the data collected are described and discussed in the Findings chapter.
82
CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS INTRODUCTION This chapter begins by describing the procedures and treatment undertaken to convert raw data collected via the self-administered questionnaire surveys into useful statistical information. The second part of the chapter presents the findings and results of the surveys conducted with the three groups of respondents: the educators, the business alumni, and the students with the help of statistical software, Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 12.
EDITING AND CODING Zikmund (2003) defines editing as ‘the process of making data ready for coding and transfer to data storage’ (p. 454). The purpose is to ensure that the responses to the questionnaires are consistent, complete, and readable. Therefore, the survey questionnaires completed by the three groups of respondents of the case institution: the business lecturers, the business alumni, and the business students were checked and edited one by one.
The questionnaires received were marked with reference numbers. For example, the 36 responses from the lecturers (or educators) were marked E1 to E36. In the same manner, responses from the business alumni were marked B1 to B33. Similarly, the 53 responses from the business students were marked S1 to S53. Upon checking and editing the responses from the lecturers, three questionnaires were found to be more than 50% incomplete. They were E14, E25, and E25. They were not discarded because they contributed valid and insightful responses to those items they responded to. (The unresponded items in these three questionnaires were treated as missing values and coded as ‘99’). All the responses from the business alumni were found to be valid responses. The responses from the business students were also checked and edited. A response (S45) was found to show acquiescence bias where the respondent showed the tendency to agree to all the questions. The key reason to invalidate the response was the respondent commented that ‘Survey questions too long! Make me boring to understand all the questions’. As the results of editing and checking, the numbers of respondents for the
83
survey were: 36 from the lecturers, 33 from the business alumni, and 52 from the business students.
Coding in quantitative research is assigning numerical scores to the responses (Zikmund, 2003). In this way, the numerical scores are entered into the computer accordingly and are processed by SPSS. In the case of this study, apart from questions that collected information on demographics, the rest of the items of the measuring instrument had fixed alternative answers with Likert scales and had been pre-coded. For example, Not necessary at all was coded as 1, Slightly necessary was 2, Necessary was 3, Very necessary was 4, and Extremely necessary was 5.
Coding for the demographic items was slightly complicated because these items had different variations in the answers. The coding for Gender was simple; Male was coded as 1, and Female was 2. For Areas of Core Business; Banking & Finance was coded as 1, Construction was 2, Property was 3 and so on until Trading was 13, and Others was 14. As for Expected CGPA; 2.00-2.50 was coded as 1, 2.50-3.00 was 2, 3.00-3.50 was 3, and 3.50-4.00 was 4.
The last question of the questionnaire was an open-ended question. The purpose of the question was draw and attract numerous and varied responses that could provide new insights concerning business education. However, the coding of open-ended responses was more difficult than coding fixed alternative responses. Zikmund (2003) advises to perform a test tabulation to identify verbatim responses and then to construct coding categories according to the themes reflected by the verbatim responses. From the test tabulation it was found that three main themes could be grouped from the responses. They were termed as curriculum design, curriculum delivery, and curriculum development. Curriculum design had three sub-themes; overlapping content, ‘about business’, and ‘for business’. Curriculum delivery had four sub-themes; practical, teaching strategy, generic skills, and assessment strategy. Curriculum development had two sub-themes; quality, and feedback. By grouping and categorizing the varied responses into themes and sub-themes, coding the responses to the open-ended question
84
was possible. The qualitative analysis is discussed in detail in the Data analysis and Discussion chapter.
RE-CHECKING THE RELIABILITY OF THE ITEMS After setting the coding system for the variables, the data from the questionnaires were entered into the software accordingly. However, before attempting to put the data into statistical analysis, it is a good idea to re-check and confirm the reliability and consistency of the responses to the item questions of the measuring instrument. The Alpha coefficients for the variables are tabulated below according to the constituent groups; business lecturers, business alumni, and business students. The SPSS Outputs are included in Appendix D (SPSS file).
Table 4.1 Business lecturers – Alpha coefficients Variable
No. of items
Alpha
K1 Accounting
9
0.8484
K2 Information system
5
0.7808
K3 Management
3
0.8138
K4 Quantitative techniques
5
0.9119
K5 Business research
6
0.9484
K6 Communication in English
8
0.9247
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
2
0.8835
K8 Economics
2
0.8642
K9 Organization behavior & HR
7
0.8616
K10 Marketing
7
0.8851
K11 Finance
6
0.9203
K12 Operations Management
6
0.9595
K13 Legal aspects of business
10
0.9338
K14 International perspectives
7
0.9565
S1 Analytical skills
4
0.8965
S2 Information gathering skills
7
0.9203
S3 Interpersonal skills
6
0.9754
S4 Behavioral skills
10
0.9586
85
George and Mallery (2006) advise that ‘there is no set interpretation as to what is an acceptable alpha value’ (p. 231). However, traditionally a rule of thumb that applies to most situations is: α > 0.9 is excellent; α > 0.8 is good; α > 0.7 is acceptable; α > 0.6 is questionable; α > 0.5 is poor; α < 0.5 is unacceptable. Following the rule of thumb, all the Alpha coefficients for the business lecturers are more than 0.8 and therefore range from good to excellent. It can be concluded that the items of the measuring instrument were capable to collect reliable data from the business lecturers.
Table 4.2 Business alumni – Alpha coefficients Variable
No. of items
Alpha
K1 Accounting
9
0.9370
K2 Information system
5
0.8429
K3 Management
3
0.8510
K4 Quantitative techniques
5
0.8988
K5 Business research
6
0.9228
K6 Communication in English
8
0.8803
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
2
0.8429
K8 Economics
2
0.8770
K9 Organization behavior & HR
7
0.9098
K10 Marketing
7
0.8957
K11 Finance
6
0.9485
K12 Operations Management
6
0.9139
K13 Legal aspects of business
10
0.9360
K14 International perspectives
7
0.9393
S1 Analytical skills
4
0.7932
S2 Information gathering skills
7
0.8731
S3 Interpersonal skills
6
0.8295
S4 Behavioral skills
10
0.8364
For the business alumni, except for S1 Analytical skills which had an acceptable Alpha coefficient of 0.7932, the rest of the 17 Alpha coefficients were more than 0.8, pointing out that the coefficients ranged from good to excellent. It can be concluded that the data collected by the measuring instrument were reliable and consistent.
86
For the business students, although K2 Information system, K4 Quantitative techniques, and K7 Entrepreneurial skills had Alpha coefficients of 0.6865, 0.7727, and 0.7194 respectively, the rest of the 15 Alpha coefficients were more than 0.8 pointing out that the coefficients ranged from good to excellent. The reliability coefficients for K4, and K7 were in the acceptable range and for K2, the coefficient was 0.685 which was very close to 0.7 and could be accepted as reliable (Sekaran, 2003). Therefore it can be concluded that the data collected by the measuring instrument from the target group, i.e. the business students were reliable and consistent.
Table 4.3 Business students – Alpha coefficients Variable
No. of items
Alpha
K1 Accounting
9
0.8847
K2 Information system
5
0.6865
K3 Management
3
0.8329
K4 Quantitative techniques
5
0.7727
K5 Business research
6
0.8730
K6 Communication in English
8
0.8905
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
2
0.7194
K8 Economics
2
0.9526
K9 Organization behavior & HR
7
0.8845
K10 Marketing
7
0.8843
K11 Finance
6
0.9179
K12 Operations Management
6
0.8153
K13 Legal aspects of business
10
0.9107
K14 International perspectives
7
0.8445
S1 Analytical skills
4
0.8741
S2 Information gathering skills
7
0.8971
S3 Interpersonal skills
6
0.8663
S4 Behavioral skills
10
0.9124
CREATING NEW VARIABLES Even if the measuring questionnaire was able to collect reliable and consistent data from the target respondents, further treatments to the data set were necessary before
87
meaningful data analysis could commence. The average scores for the fourteen constructs (knowledge areas) of the business curriculum were computed and new variables created and added to the data set. For example, the scores for the measuring items such as k1.1 – ‘Understand the basic principles of financial statements’, k1.2 – ‘Record and summarise business transactions’, k1.3, k1.4 and up to k1.9 were all added up and the sum divided by nine to create a new variable known as K1 (summated mean score of construct K1 – Accounting). Therefore K1 is the summated average measure of construct K1 – Accounting. The new variable creation process was repeated for K2 – Information system, K3 – Management and so on until the summated average measure of the fourteen constructs (knowledge areas) were created. Similarly, four new variables were created for the constructs of the four skill areas. In this way, the means and standard deviations for the fourteen knowledge areas (K1 to K14) and the four skill areas (S1 to S4) for the groups of respondents were computed. The results are presented in the Findings section of this chapter.
FACTOR ANALYSIS The research questions call for the determination of the perspectives of the stakeholders of the case institution on business education. To answer these questions, it was necessary to identify the scores of the respondents on ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ (Tolley, 1983). (The concepts of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ were described in the Literature Review chapter.) Macfarlane and Perkins (1999) suggest the application of the dichotomy of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ to the subject components of the business curriculum. They suggest that subjects ‘about’ business are more likely to promote a critical and theoretical conception of business while subjects ‘for’ business will tend to be allied to a ‘managerialist’ perspective. For example, they consider the Corporate Strategy unit to be ‘for business’ due to the fact that it belongs to the group of subjects which mirror organizational functions such as accountancy and human resource (ibid).
However, this way of assigning labels to the subjects of the business curriculum can be subjective at times. For example, while the economics subject can be labeled as ‘about
88
business’, and the accounting subject ‘for business’, subjects such business research and management can be either ‘about business’ or ‘for business’. An objective method to overcome this difficulty is to allow the SPSS software to classify the subjects of the curriculum according to factor analysis.
The means calculated for the fourteen constructs were keyed into the SPSS for analysis with rotation. Factor analysis identified two factors: Component 1 and Component 2. The results fit into the ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ dichotomy. The Rotated Component Matrix is shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Rotated Component Matrix Component K10 Marketing K14 International perspectives K9 Organizational behavior & HR K6 Communication in English K8 Economics K13 Legal aspects of business K3 Management K12 Operations management K7 Entrepreneurial skills and ethics K2 Information system K1 Accounting K4 Quantitative techniques K5 Business research K11 Finance
1 0.811 0.803 0.703 0.671 0.666 0.652 0.614
2
0.394 0.307 0.834 0.808 0.671 0.655 0.610
Accordingly, Component 1 comprising K10, K14, K9, K6, K8, K13, and K3. This group consisted fundamental subjects such as Organizational behavior, Economics, and Communication in English and was named ‘about business’. Component 2 comprising K12, K7, K2, K1, K4, K5, and K11. This group consisted of ‘managerialist’ subjects such as Entrepreneurial skills, Accounting, and Finance and was named ‘for business’. The means of the seven ‘about business’ subjects were added up and divided by seven to create a new variable defined as ‘about business’. Similarly, the means of the seven ‘for
89
business’ subjects were summed and divided by seven to create a new variable defined as ‘for business’.
The concept of ‘graduateness’ was used to classify the four skills areas (Lucas and Milford, 2003). ‘Graduateness’ includes subject knowledge and ‘capabilities’ that are potentially useful in future employment (Association of Graduate Recruiters, 1995). The issue of subject knowledge was dealt with in the previous section. ‘These capabilities include both attributes, such as self-reliance, and skills. The latter include skills directly related to business and accounting practice, such as business problem-solving, and generic skills such as numeracy, communication and team working’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 394). S1 – Analytical skills and S2 – Information gathering skills are skills directly related to business practice and were classified as specific business skills. S3 – Interpersonal skills are generic skills or sometimes called soft skills or transferable skills. S4 – Behavioral skills are personal attributes and skills. A new variable defined as specific business skill was created by adding the means of S1 and S2, then divided by two. No new variable was necessary for generic skills and personal attributes as S3 – Interpersonal skills are generic skills and S4 – Behavioral skills are personal attributes.
FINDINGS This section presents the findings, descriptive statistics, and interpretations of the results of data analysis of the study.
Characteristics of the respondents (a)
Lecturers
(i)
Gender
Table 4.5 Gender Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
12
33.3
Female
24
66.7
Total
36
100.0
90
A total of 36 lecturers responded to the questionnaire survey. Up to 33% (12) of them were male lecturers, and two-thirds (66.7%) were female lecturers.
(ii)
Subject taught
Table 4.6 Subject taught Subject taught
Frequency
Percent
Business research
2
5.6
International business
3
8.3
Information system
2
5.6
Strategic management
4
11.1
OB & Human resource
14
38.9
Marketing
1
2.8
Legal aspects
5
13.9
Economics
1
2.8
Operations management
2
5.6
Missing
2
5.6
Total
36
100.0
Up to 38.9% (14) of the lecturers surveyed taught Organizational behavior and Human resource. They formed the largest group of lecturers who responded to the survey. The second largest group of lecturers taught law – 13.9% (5) followed by those who taught Strategic management – 11.1% (4). 8.3 % (3) of the lecturers taught International business, 5.6% (2) taught Business research, and another 5.6% (2) taught Information system. There was a lecturer each who taught Marketing and Economics. In addition, there were two respondents who did not indicate the subject taught in the case institution.
(iii)
Years in education
Up to 50 % (18) of the lecturers were young lecturers having taught in the case institution for 1-3 years, 25% (9) had taught for 4-6 years, and 11.1% had taught for 7-9 years. 5 lecturers had taught for more than 10 years: 5.6% (2) for 10-12 years, 2.8% (1) for 12-15
91
years, and 5.6% (2) were very experienced lecturers having taught for more than 15 years. Table 4.7 Years in education Years in education
Frequency
Percent
1-3
18
50.0
4-6
9
25.0
7-9
4
11.1
10-12
2
5.6
12-15
1
2.8
< 15
2
5.6
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
15
41.7
Female
21
58.3
Total
36
100.0
(b)
Business alumni
(i)
Gender
Table 4.8 Gender
The respondents were the working business graduates of the case institution. Out of 36 alumni, 15 (41.7%) of them were males, and 21 (58.3%) were females.
(ii)
Core business of the employers
The business graduates who responded to the survey were employed in various sectors of the business community. Up to 19.4% (7) of the respondents worked in the manufacturing sector and 13.9 % (5) of them were employed by the banking institutions. 11.1 % (4) of them worked in the education line, with the same percentages (11.1%) working in the business services and retail sectors. Some 8.3% (3) of the graduates were working in the logistics field with 2.8% (1) each employed in the hotel and trading sectors. 16.7% (6) of these graduates worked in other fields.
92
Table 4.9 Core business of the employers Core business
Frequency
Percent
Banking
5
13.9
Research & Consultancy
1
2.8
Manufacturing
7
19.4
Education
4
11.1
Hotel
1
2.8
Business services
4
11.1
Logistics
3
8.3
Retail
4
11.1
Trading
1
2.8
Others
6
16.7
Total
36
100.0
(iii)
Departments where they worked
Table 4.10 Departments where they worked Department
Frequency
Percent
Accounting
3
8.3
Sales
7
19.4
Human resource
1
2.8
Finance
1
2.8
Marketing
4
11.1
Operations
5
13.9
General management
6
16.7
Business development
2
5.6
Others
7
19.4
Total
36
100.0
The graduates that responded to the survey worked in various departments of their organizations. Majority of them worked in the sales (19.4%) and general management
93
(16.7%) departments. Up to 13.9% (5) of them worked in the operations department, and 11.1% (4) were in the marketing department. Some 8.3% of these graduates worked in the accounting department. Minorities of them worked in the business development (5.6%), human resource (2.8%), and finance (2.8%) departments. Still 19.4% (7) of them worked in other departments.
(c)
Students
(i)
Gender
Table 4.11 Gender Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
13
25.0
Female
39
75.0
Total
52
100.0
Up to 25.0% (13) male students responded to the survey. The remaining three quarters (39) of the respondents were female students.
(ii)
Business sectors preferred
Table 4.12 Business sectors preferred Preferred business sector
Frequency
Percent
Banking
14
26.9
Construction
1
1.9
Research & Consultancy
2
3.8
Manufacturing
1
1.9
Education
3
5.8
Hotel
5
9.6
Business services
15
28.8
Retail
1
1.9
Trading
6
11.5
Others
4
7.7
Total
52
100.0
94
A majority of the students preferred to work in the business services and banking sectors. Up to 28.8% (15) of them preferred to serve in the business services sector with 26.9% of them preferred the banking sector. 11.5% (6) of them preferred to involve in the trading sector with 9.6% (5) preferred the hotel line. A further 5.8% (3) of the student respondents preferred the education sector. Minorities preferred the research & consultancy (3.8%), the construction (1.9%), and the retail (1.9%) sectors. Still there were 7.7% (4) who preferred to work in other fields.
(iii)
Expected Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) (Table 4.13)
Table 4.13 CGPA CGPA
Frequency
Percent
2.00 -2.50
3
5.8
2.50 – 3.00
20
38.5
3.00 – 3.50
27
51.9
3.50 – 4.00
2
3.8
Total
52
100.0
The student respondents were made up of both better and weaker students. Up to 51.9% (27) of them were expecting to graduate with Second Class Upper (3.00 – 3.50) business degrees. Another 38.5% (20) were expecting to graduate with CGPA of 2.50 – 3.00. It was found that 5.8% (3) were expecting Third Class degrees. Some 3.8% (2) were expecting to achieve First Class Honours degrees.
95
Perspectives of the stakeholders The perspectives of the stakeholders on business education were measured in terms of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. The results are summarized in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14 Perspectives of the stakeholders “About business” Lecturers Business Alumni Students
Mean 4.25 3.70 3.71
S.D. 0.47 0.51 0.57
“For business’ Mean 3.88 3.35 3.39
S.D. 0.55 0.59 0.49
I have mentioned that the concept of ‘about business’ conveys that business education focuses on ‘allowing students to study the role of business in society’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 392). The concept of ‘for business’ recognizes ‘the vocational aspect of business’ (ibid). The mean and standard deviation of ‘about business’ for the lecturers is 4.25 and 0.47 meaning that the lecturers perceived that the business curriculum should teach students the wider role of business to society. This is reinforced with a relatively lower mean of 3.88 for ‘for business’. As the mean score for ‘about business’ at 4.25 is higher than 3.88, the lecturers appeared to perceive that the business curriculum should be long term, liberal, and educating students for life. A mean of 3.88 indicates that the lecturers also tried to accommodate the demands by equipping the students with the necessary knowledge to enter employment. The results indicate that the lecturers intended to provide a liberal business education but at the same time trying to equip the students with the vocational skills.
According to some educational researchers, the strategic focus and culture of an educational institution can have significant impact on the perspectives of its lecturers: public government-owned universities offer programmes that incline toward providing a theoretical education, while private-owned institutions focus on enhancing the employability of their graduates (Lechuga, 2006; Noran and Ahmad, 1997; Tan, 2002). The case institution is a private-owned university and it might therefore be expected to deliver a business curriculum focused on business and vocational skill-building. The
96
results, however, are in contrary to this expectation in that lecturers gave the ‘about business’ orientation a rating of 4.25 and the ‘for business’ orientation a rating of 3.88. They considered the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum ‘very necessary’ and the ‘for business’ focus of the curriculum ‘necessary’ for the students. This shows that the culture of the institution had minimal effect on the perspectives of the lecturers who were traditionally ‘about business’ oriented.
The business alumni and the students had almost identical expectations of business education. Their means and standard deviations for ‘about business’ are 3.70 ± 0.51 and 3.71 ± 0.57 respectively. In addition, their means and standard deviations for ‘for business’ are 3.35 ± 0.59 and 3.39 ± 0.49 respectively. The means for ‘about business’ at 3.70 and 3.71 are slightly greater than the means for ‘for business’ at 3.35 and 3.39 indicating that although they are known to prefer a more practical curriculum (Lightfoot, 1999; Lucas and Milford, 2003), they also respect the fact that knowledge needs to be learnt and the business curriculum should provide the fundamentals so that further knowledge can be enhanced.
5 Lecturers x (4.25, 3.88) Alumni (3.70, 3.35) xx Students ( 3.71, 3.39)
4 ‘AboutBusiness’ 3
2
1 1
2
3
4
5
‘For Business’ Figure 4.1 ‘About-business’-‘For-Business’ Matrix
97
A four-quadrant matrix was drawn using ‘About-business’ as the y-axis and ‘Forbusiness’ as the x-axis. This is shown as Figure 4.1. It was found that all the perspectives of the stakeholders (that is, the educators, the business community, and the students) of the study were found located at the top right-hand quadrant of the matrix.
Descriptive Statistics: Lecturers It could be seen from the discussions above that the perspective of the lecturers as a group was heavily aligned to ‘about business’ (mean is 4.25±0.47). However, it would be beneficial to take a closer look at the characteristics of the distribution such as skewness of the distribution, in order to understand the perspective better. The frequency table for ‘about business’ for the educators is presented in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15 Frequency table for ‘about business’: Lecturers Class
Frequency
Percent
3.00-4.00
11
34.4
4.00-5.00
21
65.8
Total
32
100.0
Skewness = -0.691 The responses were based on 5-point Likert scale: 1 being Not necessary at all, 2 being Slightly necessary, 3 being Necessary, 4 being Very necessary, and 5 being Extremely necessary. Table 4.15 shows that all the lecturers perceived that the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum was necessary for the students. Up to 65.8% (21) of the lecturers thought that the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum was very necessary. The remaining 34.4% (11) of the lecturers thought that the ‘about business’ focus was necessary. The results indicate that the lecturers were concerned with the focus of providing far-sighted and liberal business education so that business students became aware of the role of business in the society and equipped with the fundamentals to develop their knowledge and skills as they serve the society later. This was further confirmed with the negative skewness of the distribution (Skewness = 0.691) indicating a greater number of larger values (where values of more than 3 indicate ‘Necessary’ and ‘Very Necessary’).
98
Table 4.16 Frequency table for ‘for business’: Lecturers Class
Frequency
Percent
2.00-3.00
2
6.5
3.00-4.00
18
58.1
4.00-5.00
11
35.5
Total
31
100.0
Skewness = -0.141 Table 4.16 shows the frequency distribution of the lecturers for ‘for business’. Up to 58.1% (18) of the lecturers perceived the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum to be necessary. 35.5% (11) of them perceived the ‘for business’ focus as very necessary. A minority, that is, 6.5% (2) of them responded slightly necessary. The distribution was negatively skewed indicating a greater number of larger values. Although the results for ‘for business’ show that the lecturers were supportive of the ‘for business’ focus, the results were not as strong as that for ‘about business’ mentioned earlier. This could be seen from the skewness figure of -0.141 for ‘for business’ as against the skewness figure of -0.691 for ‘about business’. The lesser skewness of ‘for business’ indicated lesser number of larger values than that of ‘about business’. The lecturers were more concerned for ‘about business’ than ‘for business’.
Cross-tabulation procedures were applied to the categorical variables of the lecturers with the intention to identify possible relationships between the variables. ‘Gender’, ‘Subject taught’, and ‘Years in education’ were cross-tabulated with ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. As none of the results were statistically significant, they have not been presented.
99
Descriptive Statistics: Alumni The alumni as a group perceived both the ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ focus to be necessary. The mean and standard deviation for ‘about business’ were 3.70 and 0.51. The frequency table for ‘about business’ for the alumni is presented in Table 4.17. Table 4.17 Frequency table for ‘about business’: Alumni ‘about business’
Frequency
Percent
2.00-3.00
4
12.5
3.00-4.00
20
62.5
4.00-5.00
8
25.0
Total
32
100.0
Skewness = -0.057 Table 4.17 shows the frequencies of the level of perceptions of the alumni. Most of the alumni members (62.5%) perceived the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum necessary (3.00-4.00). 25% (8) of them perceived the ‘about business’ focus to be very necessary (4.00-5.00). Only a minority (12.5%) perceived the ‘about business’ focus slightly necessary (2.00-3.00). The distribution was negatively skewed but only slightly skewed to the right (skewness = -0.057). The skewness might be deemed negligible and the distribution considered normal. It can be said that the alumni generally perceived the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum to be necessary for the business students. Table 4.18 shows the frequency distribution of the alumni for the ‘for business’ focus. The median of the distribution was necessary (3.00-4.00). 58.8% (20) of the alumni perceived the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum to be necessary (3.00-4.00). Another 11.8 % (4) of them perceived the ‘for business’ focus very necessary (4.005.00). 29.4% (10) of them perceived the ‘for business’ focus as slightly necessary (2.003.00) and not necessary at all (1.00-2.00). The scores for the ‘for business’ focus by the alumni were not as high as the scores for the ‘about business’ focus. However, the distribution was more negatively skewed to the right. The greater skew to the right could
100
be noted by the skewness value (-0.308). This indicates that there were a greater number of larger values in the distribution. The alumni thought a ‘for business’ curriculum was not just necessary, but very necessary. Table 4.18 Frequency table for ‘for business’: Alumni ‘for business’
Frequency
Percent
1.00-2.00
1
2.9
2.00-3.00
9
26.5
3.00-4.00
20
58.8
4.00-5.00
4
11.8
Total
34
100.0
Skewness = -0.308 Cross-tabulation procedures were applied to the categorical variables of the alumni. ‘Gender’, ‘Core business’, and ‘Department worked’ were cross-tabulated with ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. As none of the results were statistically significant, they have not been presented.
Descriptive statistics: Students Table 4.19 shows the frequency distribution of the business students for the ‘about business’ construct. 88% (44) of the students considered the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum necessary (3.00-4.00) and very necessary (4.00-5.00) for them. Only 12.0% (6) of them considered the ‘about business’ focus slightly necessary (2.00-3.00). The distribution skewed negatively to the right (skewness = -0.293) indicating a greater number of large values in the frequency distribution.
101
Table 4.19 Frequency table for ‘about business’: Students ‘about business’
Frequency
Percent
2.00-3.00
6
12.0
3.00-4.00
26
52.0
4.00-5.00
18
36.0
Total
50
100.0
Skewness = -0.293 Table 4.20 Frequency table for ‘for business’: Students ‘for business’
Frequency
Percent
2.00-3.00
10
23.8
3.00-4.00
28
66.7
4.00-5.00
4
9.5
Total
42
100.0
Skewness = -0.035
Table 4.20 shows the frequency distribution of the business students for the ‘for business’ construct. 76.2% (32) of the students considered the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum necessary (3.00-4.00) and very necessary (4.00-5.00). However, a substantial group amounting to 23.8% (10) of them considered the ‘for business’ focus slightly necessary (2.00-3.00). Comparing the ‘for business’ distribution with the ‘about business’ distribution, the ‘for business’ distribution was a broader distribution. This is noted from the small skewness figure (skewness = -0.035) indicating a near normal distribution.
102
Generally, the students were more concerned for the ‘about business’ focus than the ‘for business’ focus.
Cross-tabulation procedures were applied to the categorical variables of the students. ‘Gender’, and ‘CGPA’ were cross-tabulated with ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. As none of the results were statistically significant, they have not been presented.
Descriptive Statistics: Variables of the ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ constructs Factor analysis conducted earlier on the fourteen (14) knowledge areas resulted in two distinct components or constructs named ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. The definitions of these two constructs were given earlier in Data Preparation. The ‘about business’ construct comprised seven variables: K3 Management; K6 Communication in English; K8 Economics; K9 OB and Human resource; K10 Marketing; K13 Legal aspects of business; and K14 international perspectives. The ‘for business’ construct also comprised seven variables: K1 Accounting; K2 Information system; K4 Quantitative techniques; K5 Business research; K7 Entrepreneurial skills; K11 Finance; and K12 Operations management. This section presents the descriptive statistics of these variables in relations to the educators, the alumni, and the business students. A more detailed investigation into the descriptive statistics is to tabulate the frequencies of the variables and comment on the frequency distributions. This was deemed to be not necessary as the procedures would be too tedious and time consuming at the variable level. Besides, the frequency distributions of the variables would not be telling us significant insights or influence the results of the constructs. Therefore, a summary of the means and standard deviations was deemed sufficient to capture the meanings of the descriptive statistics. Table 4.21 summarizes the means and standard deviations of the variables of the ‘about business’ construct. All the means are within the 4.00-5.00 range meaning that the lecturers perceived the knowledge and skills of the variables or knowledge areas are necessary and very necessary for the students. The knowledge area with the highest mean was K6 Communication in English (4.52±0.53), followed by K3 Management
103
(4.50±0.62). These two knowledge areas were considered by the lecturers to be very necessary for the business curriculum. K10 Marketing had a mean and standard deviation of 4.29 and 1.10 respectively and was followed by K14 International aspects (4.22±0.49). The lecturers also considered these two knowledge areas to be very necessary for the students. In terms of ranking by the means, K13 Legal aspects was fifth (4.10±0.65); K8 Economics was sixth (4.09±0.68); and K9 OB and Human resource was seventh (4.07±0.57) and least necessary among the knowledge areas. These three knowledge areas laid in the ‘Necessary’ range of the scale and were considered necessary to be included in the business curriculum. Table 4.21 Means and SDs of the ‘about business’ variables: Lecturers Variables
Means
Standard deviation
K3 Management
4.50
0.62
K6 Communication in Eng.
4.52
0.53
K8 Economics
4.09
0.68
K9 OB and Human resource
4.07
0.57
K10 Marketing
4.29
1.10
K13 Legal aspects
4.10
0.65
K14 International aspects
4.22
0.69
Table 4.22 shows the means and standard deviations of the knowledge areas of the ‘for business’ construct. Apart from K5 Business research, the remaining knowledge areas had means that range from 3.00 to 4.00 of the 5-point measuring scale. This means that the lecturers considered the knowledge areas of the ‘for business’ construct necessary for the students. Compared to the ‘about business’ construct, the means of the variables of the ‘for business’ construct were relatively lower. This indicates that the lecturers were 104
more concerned for the knowledge and skills of the ‘about business’ construct. The knowledge area with the highest mean was K5 Business research (4.10±0.71), followed by K7 Entrepreneurial skills (3.98±0.78). In terms of ranking by the means, K4 Quantitative techniques ranked third (3.91±0.76); K12 Operations management was fourth (3.85±0.83); and K2 Information system was fifth (3.81±0.54). The last two knowledge areas were K1 Accounting (3.78±0.61) and K11 Finance (3.77±0.71). Table 4.22 Means and S.D.s of the ‘for business’ variables: Lecturers Variables
Means
Standard deviation
K1 Accounting
3.78
0.61
K2 Information system
3.81
0.54
K4 Quantitative techniques
3.91
0.76
K5 Business research
4.10
0.71
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
3.98
0.78
K11 Finance
3.77
0.71
K12 Operations management
3.85
0.83
Table 4.23 tabulates the means and standard deviations of the ‘about business’ construct provided by the business alumni. Apart from K3 Management (4.10±0.73) and K6 Communication in English (4.15±0.61) whose means were in the range of 4.00-5.00, the remaining five variables had means between 3.00 and 4.00. The alumni considered the knowledge and skills from K3 Management and K6 Communication in English very necessary for the business students. They considered the knowledge and skills of K8 Economics, K9 OB and Human resource, K10 Marketing, K13 Legal aspects, and K14 International aspects at the ‘necessary’ level. In terms of ranking by the means, K6 Communication in English ranked first (4.15±0.61); K3 Management was second (4.10±0.73); K10 Marketing was third (3.88±0.73); K9 OB and Human resource was fourth (3.56±0.70); K14 International aspects was fifth (3.51±0.82); K8 Economics was sixth (3.43±0.91; and K13 Legal aspects was last (3.25±0.83). 105
Table 4.23 Means and SDs of the ‘about business’ variables: Alumni Variables
Means
Standard deviation
K3 Management
4.10
0.73
K6 Communication in Eng.
4.15
0.61
K8 Economics
3.43
0.91
K9 OB and Human resource
3.56
0.70
K10 Marketing
3.88
0.73
K13 Legal aspects
3.25
0.83
K14 International aspects
3.51
0.82
Table 4.24 Means and SDs of the ‘for business’ variables: Alumni Variables
Means
Standard deviation
K1 Accounting
3.14
0.87
K2 Information system
3.26
0.73
K4 Quantitative techniques
3.30
1.00
K5 Business research
3.34
0.82
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
3.58
0.84
K11 Finance
3.29
0.94
K12 Operations management
3.54
0.78
Table 4.24 tabulates the means and standard deviations of the variables for the ‘for business construct. None of the variables had a mean of more than 4.00 in the 5-point measurement scale. All the variables had means within the range of 3.00 to 4.00. The alumni considered all the knowledge areas of the ‘for business’ construct necessary for the students. In terms of ranking using the means, K7 Entrepreneurial skills was first (3.58±0.84); K12 Operations management was second (3.54±0.78); K5 Business research
106
was third (3.34±0.82); K4 Quantitative techniques was fourth (3.30±1.00); K11 Finance was fifth (3.29±0.94); K2 Information system was sixth (3.26±0.73); and K1 Accounting was least necessary (3.14±0.87) as far as the alumni were concerned. Table 4.25 Means and SDs of the ‘about business’ variables: Students Variables
Means
Standard deviation
K3 Management
4.01
0.75
K6 Communication in Eng.
3.73
0.74
K8 Economics
3.43
0.96
K9 OB and Human resource
3.71
0.69
K10 Marketing
3.79
0.71
K13 Legal aspects
3.69
0.69
K14 International aspects
3.63
0.64
Table 4.25 shows the means and standard deviations of the variables for the ‘about business’ construct. Except for K3 Management with a mean of 4.01, all the remaining variables had means of below 4.00 and laid in the range 3.00-4.00. This means that the business students generally considered the knowledge areas of the ‘about business’ construct necessary when seeking for employment. In terms of ranking by the means, K3 Management was first (4.01±0.75) followed by K10 Marketing (3.79±0.71). K6 Communication in English was third (3.73±0.74); K9 OB and Human resource was fourth (3.71±0.69); K13 Legal aspects was fifth (3.69±0.69); K14 International aspects was sixth (3.63±0.64); and K8 Economics was seventh and last (3.43±0.96). It is noted that the rank orders were different for the respective stakeholders: the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. The differences are not discussed here but in the Data Analysis and Discussion chapter.
107
Table 4.26 shows the means and standard deviations of the variables for the ‘for business’ construct. Except for K12 Operations management whose mean was 3.58, none of the means was higher than 3.50, the mid-point between 3.00 (Necessary) and 4.00 (Very Necessary). This is to say that the students considered the knowledge areas of the ‘for business’ necessary for themselves. In terms of ranking by the means, K12 Operations management was first (3.58±0.66) followed by K7 Entrepreneurial skills in the second place (3.45±0.88). K5 Business research was third (3.42±0.73). Both K1 Accounting and K11 Finance had means of 3.38 and were in the fourth and fifth place. K2 Information system was sixth (3.34±0.59) while K4 Quantitative techniques was in the last place (3.13±0.66). Table 4.26 Means and SDs of the ‘for business’ variables: Students Variables
Means
Standard deviation
K1 Accounting
3.38
0.69
K2 Information system
3.34
0.59
K4 Quantitative techniques
3.13
0.66
K5 Business research
3.42
0.73
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
3.45
0.88
K11 Finance
3.38
0.83
K12 Operations management
3.58
0.66
Descriptive statistics: Skill sets as perceived to be required This study also attempts to determine the skill sets perceived to be required of the business graduates for employment at entry level. It is therefore necessary to investigate the perspectives in terms of skill sets of the surveyed stakeholders: the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. Table 4.27 shows the means of specific skills, soft skills, and personal attributes of the stakeholders: the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. Data were collected in a 5-point
108
measurement scale: 1 was ‘Not necessary at all; 2 was ‘Slightly necessary’; 3 was ‘Necessary’; 4 was ‘Very necessary’; and 5 was ‘Extremely necessary’. Table 4.27 Means of skill sets by the stakeholders Specific skills
Soft skills
Personal attributes
Stakeholders
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Lecturers
4.32
0.53
4.44
0.57
4.28
0.61
Alumni
3.95
0.53
4.14
0.51
3.98
0.50
Students
3.68
0.65
3.84
0.66
3.88
0.68
The mean and standard deviation of specific skills for the lecturers were 4.32 and 0.53 respectively. This means that the lecturers considered specific skills very necessary for the business graduates to seek employment. The mean and standard deviation of soft skills for the lecturers were 4.44 and 0.57 respectively. This means that the lecturers also considered soft skills to be very necessary. The mean and standard deviation of personal attributes for the lecturers were 4.28 and 0.61 respectively. The lecturers also considered the personal attributes of the students to be very necessary. In terms of ranking by the means; soft skills ranked first; specific skills was second; and personal attributes was third. The mean and standard deviation of specific business skills for the alumni were 3.95 and 0.53 respectively. This means that the alumni considered specific skills necessary for business graduates to seek employment. The mean and standard deviation of soft skills were 4.14 and 0.51 respectively. This means that the alumni considered soft skills to be very necessary. The mean and standard deviation of personal attributes for the alumni were 3.98 and 0.50 respectively. This means that the alumni perceived business graduates should have good personal attributes and employers look for good personal attributes of job seekers. In terms of ranking the type of skills by their means, soft skills was first, followed by personal attributes in second, and specific business skills was third.
109
The mean and standard deviation of specific business skills for the business students were 3.68 and 0.65 respectively. The graduating students perceived specific skills necessary for them to seek employment. For soft skills, the mean and standard deviation were 3.84 and 0.66. The graduating students considered soft skills necessary. For personal attributes, the mean and standard deviation were 3.88 and 0.68. The students knew that good personal attributes were necessary for them to find employment. In terms of rank order by the use of their means, for the students, personal attributes was ranked first, followed by soft skills in second, and specific skills in third. It can be noted that generally, the scores by the lecturers on all the skills, whether specific business skills (4.32), soft skills (4.44), or personal attributes (4.28), were higher than by the alumni and students. The alumni in turn scored higher than the students (3.95, 4.14, and 3.98 for the alumni and 3.68, 3.84, and 3.88 for the students). These indicate that the lecturers considered all the skills, whether specific skills, soft skills, or personal attributes to be very necessary. Both the alumni and the students considered these skills necessary with the alumni perceiving these skills to be more necessary than the students.
This chapter is primarily to present the findings and descriptive statistics of the study. The data are analyzed and discussed in relations to the research questions and objectives in the next chapter, Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Discussions.
110
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS
INTRODUCTION The previous chapter presented the descriptive statistics and findings of the data collected from the three groups of stakeholders of the business curriculum, namely, the lecturers, the business alumni, and the business students of the case institution. This chapter presents the analysis of the data (through inferential statistics) and discussions related to the objectives of the study. As the data were collected from related stakeholders of a case institution, there is no attempt to test any hypothesis statistically. However, statistical analytical techniques are used to analyze the data so that the objectives of the study can be met accordingly and the research framework can be understood and explained in clarity with the help of these analytical tools.
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ‘ABOUT BUSINESS’ AND ‘FOR BUSINESS’ CONSTRUCTS Lucas and Milford (2003) suggest that the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs exist on the opposite poles of a continuum. Lucas and Milford (2003) explain that: ‘A study “for business” recognizes that there is a vocational aspect to business education. Students should be adequately prepared for employment in business. A study “about business” recognizes that business education can fulfill a wide role, that of allowing students to study the role of business in society incorporating sociology, legal, economics or ethical aspects’ (p. 391). Following Lucas and Milford’s (2003) conception, the focus of business education tends to move and shift along a continuum and that the constructs are bi-polar on the opposite poles of a continuum.
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model (Kolb, 1974; Kolb and Fry, 1975; Kolb, Rubin and McIntyre, 1971) also faces similar psychometric problems (De Ciantis and Kirton, 1996; Loo, 1996). The model proposes that there are four learning styles along two independent dimensions: Concrete Experience (CE)-Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and Active Experimentation (AE)-Reflective Observation (RO). De Ciantis and Kirton (1996) suggest
that
to
show
bi-polarity
along
the
Concrete
Experience-Abstract
111
Conceptualization dimension, the correlation between the CE scores and the AC scores should show substantial negative correlation. Similarly, to show bi-polarity along the Active Experimental-Reflective Observation dimension, the AE scores should show substantial negative correlation with the RO scores. Following De Ciantis and Kirton’s (1996) suggestion, to show bi-polarity of the ‘about business’ construct and the ‘for business’ construct, the ‘about business’ scores have to show substantial negative correlation with the ‘for business’ scores. Table 5.1 shows the correlation matrix between the ‘about business’ scores and the ‘for business’ scores.
Table 5.1 Correlation matrix between ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ ‘for business’ ‘about business’
Pearson Correlation
0.731
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.001
N
114
The correlation matrix shows that the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ is 0.731 and p-value is 0.001. This indicates that ‘about business’ is significantly, substantially and positively correlated with ‘for business’ and not negatively correlated. The correlation results do not support Lucas and Milford’s (2003) proposition, that ‘about business’ construct and ‘for business’ construct exist at the opposite pole of the ‘for-about business’ spectrum. In fact, the results show that the ‘about business’ construct and the ‘for business’ construct are two independent dimensions and their relationship is strong and significant (r=0.731; p=0.001). Thus, the stakeholders can score high for ‘about business’ and not necessary score low for ‘for business’ as in the case of a bi-polar dimension. The scoring patterns and their differences are discussed in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY Apart from examining the psychometric properties of the constructs, establishing the construct validity of the constructs provides a sound theoretical platform for meaningful discussions to take place. Bryant (2000) defines construct validity as ‘the degree to which
112
an instrument actually measures the underlying concept or behaviour it is intended to measure’ (p.112). He further contends that there are two main forms of construct validity: convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is ‘the degree to which multiple measures of the same construct demonstrate agreement or convergence’ (Bryant, 2000, p. 113). Discriminant validity is ‘the degree to which multiple measures of different concepts are distinct’ (ibid). Perhaps Hair et al. (2007) are more procedural in establishing construct validity. They consider ‘convergent validity is the extent to which the construct is positively correlated with other measures of the same construct’ (p. 246). Thus to establish construct validity for this study, one must attempt to correlate the ‘about business’ measure with the ‘personal attributes’ measure and look for convergent validity. This is because the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum emphasizes “education for life” which is quite similar to the ‘personal attributes’ construct which is concerned with ‘life span development’ (Whetton and Cameron, 2004). Table 5.2 presents the correlation matrix between ‘about business’ and ‘personal attributes’.
Table 5.2 Correlation matrix between ‘about business’ and ‘personal attributes’ ‘personal attributes’ ‘about business’
Pearson Correlation
0.673
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.001
N ‘for business’
112
Pearson Correlation
0.317
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.001
N
105
Table 5.2 shows that ‘about business’ and ‘personal attributes’ are significantly related to one another (r=0.673; p=0.001). The relationship between the two similar constructs is positive and strong. The ‘about business’ construct is positively correlated with the ‘personal attributes’ construct, another measure of the same construct. Therefore, the convergent validity of the ‘about business’ is evident. In another correlation, ‘for business’ is also significantly related to ‘personal attributes’ but the relationship is low
113
(r=0.317; p=0.001) when compared to the ‘about business’-‘personal attributes’ relationship. Hair et al. (2007) contend that ‘if the correlation is low then … the construct exhibits discriminant validity’ (p. 247). As the correlation coefficient between ‘for business’ and ‘personal attributes’ is low, the ‘for business’-‘personal attributes’ correlation indicates discriminant validity. As for the reason why there is still a relationship between ‘for business’ and ‘personal attributes’ when they are different constructs, it is partly due to the two constructs; ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ not at opposite poles on a continuum but are two independent dimensions related to one another (r=0.731, p=0.001). Nevertheless, their strong and low relationships with ‘personal attributes’ separate them as two distinct constructs.
CURRICULUM GAPS BETWEEN THE STAKEHOLDERS Trauth, Farwell, and Lee (1993) define ‘a curriculum gap as “the difference between what is being taught in degree programs and what practitioners or recruiters require”’ (Trauth et al. (1993) as cited in Tang et al., 2000, p. 77). This study has taken the curriculum gaps as the differences between the focus of the business curriculum intended by the academics and the emphasis of the business curriculum expected by the alumni and the students. According to Lightfoot (1999), and Lucas and Milford (2003), the academics and lecturers take a long term perspective of business education and their perspectives of the business curriculum are highly ‘about business’. These authors also suggest that, notwithstanding the requirement of managers to be life-long learners, the business community (of which the alumni are a constituent) have a short-term perspective and they expect a high ‘for business’ emphasis in the business curriculum. Garneau and Brennan (1999) detected that the students have a narrow perspective and instrumental attitudes towards business education. Accordingly, they would be expected to score high in the ‘for business’ construct.
114
Table 5.3 Independent-samples t-test: Lecturers and alumni
‘about business’
Lecturers
Alumni
Mean
SD
4.25
0.47
3.70
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
4.47
0.001
0.51
Table 5.3 shows independent-samples t-test results between the lecturers and the alumni. The mean score for ‘about business’ of the lecturers is 4.25 and the standard deviation is 0.47 whereas the mean score for the business alumni is 3.70 with a standard deviation of 0.51. The t-value is 4.47 and is highly significant at 0.001. It can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the ‘about business’ focus between the lecturers and the alumni. This means that the curriculum gap in terms of ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the alumni is significant. The mean score for the lecturers is significantly higher at 4.25 than the mean score for the alumni at 3.70. The lecturers are more ‘about business’ than the alumni. They are concerned to provide a business curriculum that allows ‘students to study the role of business in society’ (Lucas and Milford, 2003, p. 391). The lecturers intend to provide a liberal education for the business students so that they are ‘educated for life’ rather just to be ‘educated for employment’.
The results confirm the nature of the perspectives of the lecturers and educators suggested by Lightfoot (1999), Lucas and Milford (2003), and also Brenan and Skaates (2005). These authors agree that the perspectives of the lecturers and educators on the business curriculum are for the long term and that their primary intention is to help the business students to develop a deep understanding of business. Other specific business skills necessary for their performance in their jobs can be developed after they graduate and in their future workplace.
The mean score for ‘about business’ of the alumni is 3.70 with a standard deviation of 0.51. The measurement scale used in the survey is 1 for ‘Not necessary’; 2 for ‘Slightly necessary’; 3 for ‘Necessary’; 4 for ‘Very necessary’; and 5 for ‘Extremely necessary’. A mean of 3.70 indicates that the alumni perceive the ‘about business’ focus of the business
115
curriculum to be necessary (3.00) to very necessary (4.00). The alumni expect some theoretical grounding in the business curriculum and deem this particular aspect of the business curriculum to be very necessary for the students to progress in the business career in the future. Although the score by the alumni (at 3.70) is quite high, the score is still substantially lower than that by the lecturers (4.25). The perspective of the lecturers is at a longer term than the alumni. This finding confirms Macfarlane’s (1995) contention that the business lecturers tend to focus on developing new knowledge and understanding about their specializations and less emphasis on teaching vocational skills to the students. The alumni on the other hand having experienced the actual workplace realities remain supportive of a fundamentally sound business education but also value the vocational skills that are useful in their workplace.
Table 5.4 Independent-samples t-test: Lecturers and students
‘about business’
Lecturers
Students
Mean
SD
4.25
0.47
3.71
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
4.45
0.001
0.57
Table 5.4 shows independent-samples t-test results between the lecturers and the students. The mean score for ‘about business’ of the lecturers is 4.25 and the standard deviation is 0.47 whereas the mean score for the business students is 3.71 with a standard deviation of 0.57. The t-value is 4.45 and is highly significant at 0.001. It can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the ‘about business’ focus between the lecturers and the students. This means that the curriculum gap in terms of ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the students is significant and substantial. The mean score for the lecturers is significantly higher at 4.25 than the mean score for the students at 3.71. The lecturers perceive the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum very necessary for the students while the students perceive the ‘about business’ focus only at the ‘necessary’ level. The results for the lecturers were discussed in the earlier section. The results for the students (3.71±0.51) were quite similar to those for the alumni (3.70
116
±0.57). The students expect the business curriculum to be theoretically based so that they can have the fundamentals to understand and develop their repertoire of skills later.
Both t-test results between the lecturers versus the alumni and the lecturers versus the students yield similar results. The curriculum gap in term of ‘about business’ between the lecturers versus the alumni is 0.55 (4.25-3.70) which represents 55% of a class interval. Similarly, the curriculum gap in term of ‘about business’ between the lecturers versus the students is 0.54 (4.25-3.71) which represents 54% of a class interval, which is only 1% less than that for lecturers versus the alumni. Therefore, it can be taken that the gaps are similar. The t-values for both tests are also similar (4.47 for lecturers vs alumni and 4.45 for lecturers vs students) thus confirming that both the alumni and the students have similar perspectives and expectations about the business curriculum delivered by the case institution. A comparison of the perspectives of the alumni and the students is presented below.
Table 5.5 Independent-samples t-test: Alumni and students
‘about business’
Alumni
Students
Mean
SD
3.70
0.51
3.71
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
-0.05
0.961
0.57
Table 5.5 tabulates the t-test results between the alumni and the students. The mean score for ‘about business’ of the alumni is 3.70 and the standard deviation is 0.51 whereas the mean score for the business students is 3.71 with a standard deviation of 0.57. The t-value is -0.05 and is insignificant at 0.981. It can be concluded that there is no significant difference in the ‘about business’ focus between the alumni and the students. This means that in term of ‘about business’ there is no curriculum gap between the alumni and the students. In fact, the results show that the perspectives of both the alumni and the students are almost statistically identical.
117
It is surprising to find that the perspectives and expectations of the alumni are so similar to those of the students. The alumni being former business students have working experience in the business community for at least a year. Their expectations of the business curriculum remain the same as when they were still students. And they are expected to take on a short term perspective of the business curriculum as they join the business community (Lightfoot, 1999). In contrary to the accusation that the business people always want ‘prescriptive statements and actionable advice’ (Macfarlene, 1999, p. 6) and ‘rapid diagnosis and problem resolution’ (ibid, p. 7), the results indicate that the alumni (a subset of the business community) prefer a theoretically sound business curriculum. This confirms that the alumni know that employers require business graduates to have good learning skills and the ability to think critically and strategically (Lucas and Milford, 2003).
The expectations of the students also show that they prefer a theoretically sound business education. At a mean of 3.71, they indicate that the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum is necessary for their future career development. This again is in contrary to literature review that suggests that business students have a narrow perspective and instrumental attitudes towards business education (Garneau and Brennan, 1999). Lucas and Milford (2003) remark that the diversity of the student population would complicate the students’ perspectives; mature part-time students prefer a practical business curriculum while young undergraduate students prefer to adapt to the perspective of the lecturers – ‘about business’ This then can explain why the students of the case institution is generally ‘about business’. As most of the business students studying for their business degree are young undergraduates who have no working experience, it is not surprising that they are for ‘about business’. As commented by Lucas and Milford (2003), they adapt to the perspective of the lecturers and consider the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum necessary for their future development into better business managers.
118
Table 5.6 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between lecturers and alumni
‘for business’
Lecturers
Alumni
Mean
SD
3.88
0.55
3.35
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
3.80
0.001
0.59
Table 5.6 shows the t-test results for the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum between the lecturers and the alumni. The mean score of the lecturers is 3.88 with a standard deviation of 0.55 while the mean score of the alumni is 3.35 with a standard deviation of 0.59. The t-value is 3.80 and the p-value is 0.001 indicating that there is significant difference in the ‘for business’ construct between the lecturers and the alumni. The lecturers’ mean score (3.88) is significantly higher than the mean score (3.35) of the alumni. This means that the lecturers are more concerned for a vocational focus in the business curriculum than the alumni. The literature previously cited suggests that the alumni, a sub-set of the business community would score higher than the lecturers in the ‘for business’ construct. In addition, this finding is in contrary with the writings of Macfarlane (1995), Garneau and Brennan (1999), Lightfoot (1999), Lucas and Milford (2003).
Macfarlane (1995) criticizes the business community for being skeptical of the value of ‘pure’ management research conducted by the academics. Garneau and Brennan (1999) identified the employers’ emphasis on the business graduates possessing generic skills and attitudes and not on scientific and general knowledge. Lightfoot (1999) regards the business community’s perspective on business education to be short term. Lucas and Milford (2003) consider the employers’ insistence on the business graduates to be equipped with business-related knowledge and skills. Considering the above literature, the business alumni of this case institution should have scored high on the ‘for business’ construct. Yet their mean score (3.35) is lower than that of the lecturers. The expectations of the alumni on the business curriculum being vocational and technical are therefore not high.
119
The mean score of the lecturers is rather high. With a mean score of 3.88, the lecturers consider the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum almost ‘very necessary’ (4.00) for the students. The lecturers being the ‘gate-keeper’ of knowledge are expected to emphasize the ‘about business’ focus and not the ‘for business’ focus. As was discussed in the earlier sections, the mean score of the lecturers on the ‘about business’ construct is 4.25 which is in the range between ‘very necessary’ and ‘extremely necessary’. This means that the lecturers score high on both the constructs. This is possible because the ‘about business’ construct and the ‘for business’ construct are two distinctive constructs and are scored and measured separately. (The discussion on the psychometric properties of the two constructs was presented earlier.) Therefore, the lecturers have intentions to design and deliver a critical and theoretical business curriculum but at the same time they also intend to include practical and vocational aspects of business into the curriculum. The question is determining the appropriate approach to include both aspects of the business curriculum into the programme.
The results of the study confirm that the lecturers and academics have a broad and long term perspective on business education and intend to provide a liberal curriculum so that business students can acquire fundamental skills and develop specific business skills when working in the industry. At the same time, they are also concerned with providing a practical business curriculum so that the demands of the business stakeholders might be met. As expected, the business alumni of the case institution have a practical perspective of business education but at the same time they understand the importance of critical thinking skills that can only be developed with a liberal business education.
The curriculum gaps between the academics and the business alumni are significant and positive. As both the curriculum gaps are positive, that is, the lecturers scoring higher than the alumni on both counts, there is no cause for concern that the lecturers would provide an irrelevant business curriculum for the business students. At the end, as the ‘gate-keepers’ of knowledge, the academics will be held responsible for the design, development, and delivery of the business curriculum. As such, they should be given the authority, responsibility, and support as they thrive to balance the business curriculum so
120
that the demands and needs of the diverse stakeholders can be met accordingly (Lightfoot, 1999).
Table 5.7 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between lecturers and students
‘for business’
Lecturers
Students
Mean
SD
3.88
0.55
3.39
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
4.06
0.001
0.49
Table 5.7 shows the t-test results for the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum between the lecturers and the students. The mean score of the lecturers is 3.88 with a standard deviation of 0.55 while the mean score of the students is 3.39 with a standard deviation of 0.49. The t-value is 4.06 and the p-value is 0.001 indicating that there is significant difference in the ‘for business’ construct between the lecturers and the students. The lecturers’ mean score (3.88) is significantly higher than the mean score (3.39) of the students. The results mean that the lecturers consider the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum ‘very necessary’ for the students while the students themselves consider the ‘for business’ focus only at the ‘necessary’ level. This is no surprise considering the fact that almost all the business students studying in the case institution are young undergraduates and they tend to adapt to the perspective of their lecturers (Lucas and Milford, 2003).
The curriculum gap in terms of ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the students is 0.49 (3.88-3.39) which is half the class interval of 1.00. This gap is considered substantial. The students are expected to score higher than the lecturers as they are in the business course ‘to learn how to do things when we work for a company’ (Garneau and Brennan, 1999 as cited in Brennan and Skaates, 2005, p. 79) and not theories from textbooks (ibid). The results reveal that the scores of the lecturers are higher than the scores of the students. This shows that the lecturers are more concerned to impart practical working skills to the students and this concern is higher than what the students expect. The lecturers generally intend to equip the students with the necessary skill sets
121
that the employers expect from the business graduates. The allegation that the lecturers in the case institution are teaching irrelevant knowledge and skills to the students are not statistically substantiated.
Table 5.8 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between alumni and students
‘for business’
Alumni
Students
Mean
SD
3.35
0.59
3.39
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
-0.36
0.723
0.49
Table 5.8 shows the t-test results for the ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum between the alumni and the students. The mean score of the alumni is 3.35 with a standard deviation of 0.59 while the mean score of the students is 3.39 with a standard deviation of 0.49. The t-value is -0.36 and the p-value is 0.723 indicating that there is no significant difference in the ‘for business’ construct between the alumni and the students. In fact, the mean scores for both the stakeholders of the business curriculum are almost similar. Lightfoot (1999) suggests that the business community has significant control over the students’ perspective of business education. The point to note is that the students are aware of knowledge and skills that the employers expect them to have when they graduate (Lucas and Milford, 2003). This fact tends to explain why the mean scores of the alumni and the students are so close.
Another reason why the scores are so similar is due to the fact that the business alumni are former students of the case institution who have graduated and are employed by the industry. Their perspective of the business curriculum and education have not changed much or influenced by the working environment.
DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE LECTURERS Perhaps at this stage it is worthwhile to investigate the difference in ‘about business’ and the difference in ‘for business’ amongst the lecturers. Two independent samples t-tests
122
were conducted to two groups of lecturers: the young lecturers and the experienced lecturers. The results were presented in Table 5.9 and 5.10.
Table 5.9 Independent-samples t-test: ‘about business’ between young and experienced lecturers
‘about business’
Young lecturers
Exp. lecturers
Mean
SD
4.29
0.38
4.19
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.59
0.563
0.56
Table 5.9 shows the t-test results in ‘about business’ between the young and experienced lecturers. The mean score for the young lecturers (1-3 years lecturing experience) is 4.29 with a standard deviation of 0.38. The mean score for the experienced lecturers (4-15 years of lecturing experience) is 4.19 with a standard deviation of 0.56. The t-value is 0.59 and the p-value is 0.563. This shows that the difference in ‘about business’ between the young and experienced lecturers is trivial and not significant. This finding is in contrary to the writings of Forrester (1986) who identifies two types of lecturers: academics and practitioners who switched to teaching and that they should have different perspectives of the business curriculum. However, the above results indicate that there is no significant difference in ‘about business’ between the two groups of lecturers. Both groups of lecturers, whether they are young or experienced, feel that providing the students with a liberal business education is very necessary. The results, however, confirm the observation of Macfarlane (1995) who remarks that most business lecturers graduated from traditional academic disciplines and tend to focus on developing new knowledge and less emphasis on teaching vocational skills to the students.
123
Table 5.10 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between young and experienced lecturers
‘for business’
Young lecturers
Exp. lecturers
Mean
SD
3.86
0.53
3.91
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
-0.24
0.813
0.58
Table 5.10 shows the t-test results in ‘for business’ between the young and experienced lecturers. The mean score for the young lecturers (1-3 years lecturing experience) is 3.86 with a standard deviation of 0.53. The mean score for the experienced lecturers (4-15 years of lecturing experience) is 3.91 with a standard deviation of 0.58. The t-value is 0.24 and the p-value is 0.813. This shows that the difference in ‘for business’ between the young and experienced lecturers is trivial and not significant.
Table 5.11 Independent-samples t-test: ‘about business’ between better and weaker students
‘about business’
Better students
Weaker students
Mean
SD
3.81
0.55
3.58
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
-1.46
0.152
0.59
Table 5.11 shows the t-test results in ‘about business’ between the better students (CGPA between 3.00-4.00) and the weaker students (CGPA between 2.00-3.00). The mean score for better students is 3.81 and the mean score for weaker students is 3.58. This appears to indicate that the better students prefer a more theoretical curriculum than the weaker students. However, the difference in this perspective is not significant statistically (p=0.152).
124
Table 5.12 Independent-samples t-test: ‘for business’ between better and weaker students
‘for business’
Better students
Weaker students
Mean
SD
3.43
0.47
3.33
t-value
Sig. (2-tailed)
-0.673
0.505
0.52
Table 5.12 shows the t-test results in ‘for business’ between the better students and the weaker students. The mean score for the better students is 3.43 and the mean score for the weaker students is 3.33. Although there is a difference in the mean score, the difference is trivial and not significant (p=0.505). All the students from the case institution consider a vocational business curriculum ‘necessary’.
IDENTIFYING RELATIONSHIPS Punch (2003) remarks that identifying relationships in a study is generally more acceptable than just studying the distribution of variables. He adds that ‘two variables are related if there is a difference on the continuous variable between the categories (or groups)’ (p. 20). In addition, Punch (2003) advises that studying relationships between variables enables prediction and ‘lead naturally to the central explanatory question: Why?’ (p. 21).
Perhaps it is good to start by identifying the relationship between ‘about business’ and the stakeholders (the lecturers, the alumni, and the students). The Spearman’s rho correlation technique was selected to identify the relationship. This is because while ‘about business’ is a continuous variable, the stakeholders are categorical variables and a non-parametric correlation technique such as the Spearman’s rho correlation is more appropriate for such types of variables (George and Mallery, 2006).
125
Table 5.13 Correlation: ‘about business’ and stakeholders (lecturers and alumni) ‘about business’ Spearman’s rho
Correlation coefficient
-0.50
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.01
N
64
Table 5.13 shows the Spearman’s rho correlation results between ‘about business’ and stakeholders (with the students’ data filtered). The rank correlation coefficient is -0.50 and p-value is 0.01. The results indicate that there is a significant negative relationship between ‘about business’ and stakeholders (lecturers and alumni) of the case institution. The negative relationship means as the value of ‘about business’ increases, the value of the stakeholders tends to decrease. As the coding system codes ‘the lecturers’ as 1, and ‘the alumni’ as 2, the lecturers tend to be associated with the higher value of ‘about business’. The ‘about business’ construct measures the extent of the stakeholders’ emphasis of providing a liberal business education. The higher the value of ‘about business’ means the higher the stakeholders’ emphasis to provide a liberal business education. As the lecturers tend to be associated to the higher value of ‘about business’, the tendency is that the lecturers’ emphasis on the business curriculum is fundamental and liberal. Therefore, it can be concluded that as far as the case institution is concerned, the lecturers support and will continue to support a liberal business curriculum. The reasons for this phenomenon are: most of the business lecturers are young junior lecturers, and the traditional career development of the business academics, and are explained below.
As reported in the previous chapter, 50% of the lecturers surveyed are young junior lecturers. They join the case institution just after they graduate from tertiary studies and have not worked in the industry before. Their knowledge and skills concerning business are obtained during their post-graduate university days and therefore they do not place too much importance on vocational skills required by the business community. They are naturally pro-‘about business’ (Forrester, 1986). The other reason is due to research tradition of the academics. Macfarlane (1995) remarks that most business academics have
126
not graduate in business but from traditional disciplines such economics and psychology. And they are selected and employed under traditional academic criteria including research expertise. To develop their academic career, they ‘will retreat into their familiar territory of research and publication in their first degree specialisms’ (ibid, p. 5). This tends to push them to focus on developing knowledge in their specialized disciplines and less emphasis on teaching vocational skills to the students. This explains why the lecturers have high ‘about business’ orientation and emphasize on theoretical knowledge in the business curriculum.
The correlation coefficient determined is -0.50. According to the rule of thumb provided by Hair et al. (2007), the strength of the relationship is considered moderate. ‘A moderate or strong association means there is a consistent and systematic relationship’ (Hair et al., 2007, p. 357). It follows that there is a consistent and systematic relationship between the ‘about business’ construct and the stakeholders (the lecturers and the alumni). The lecturers consistently and systematically score high in ‘about business’ while the alumni consistently and systematically score lower in ‘about business’ than the lecturers.
Table 5.14 Correlation: ‘for business’ and stakeholders (lecturers and alumni) ‘for business’ Spearman’s rho
Correlation coefficient
-0.46
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.01
N
65
Table 5.14 shows the Spearman’s rho correlation results between ‘for business’ and the stakeholders (with the students’ data filtered). The rank correlation coefficient is -0.46 and the p-value is 0.01. The results indicate that there is a significant negative association between the two variables, that is, ‘for business’ and the stakeholders (lecturers and alumni only). As the lecturers are coded as 1 (a lower value) and the alumni are coded as 2 (a higher value), it can be said that the lecturers consistently associate with high ‘for business’ scores. Integrating the results for ‘about business’ in the previous section, it can be said that the lecturers are supportive of both theoretical and vocational content in the
127
business curriculum. Although the relationship with ‘about business’ is slightly stronger than that with ‘for business’, there is no evidence in the data to suggest that the lecturers ‘live in ivory towers’. The dilemma is the difficulties faced by the lecturers when trying to include a good balance of both theoretical and vocational contents into the business curriculum.
GAP ANALYSIS This section analyzes and discusses the curriculum gaps between the stakeholders of the business curriculum of the case institution. As was presented in the earlier sections, there are gaps in terms of ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ between the key stakeholders, namely, the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. For the purpose of determining and addressing the gaps, Gap 1 is the mean difference in ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the alumni; Gap 2 is the mean difference in ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the students; Gap 3 is the mean difference in ‘about business’ between the alumni and the students; Gap 4 is the mean difference in ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the alumni; Gap 5 is the mean difference in ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the students; and Gap 6 is the mean difference in ‘for business’ between the alumni and the students. Table 5.17 and Table 5.18 show the gaps in tabulated form.
From Table 5.15, it can be seen that Gap 1 and Gap 2 are relatively greater than Gap 3. And from Table 5.16, it can be seen that Gap 4 and Gap 5 are relatively greater than Gap 6. Generally, the mean differences in both ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the other two groups of stakeholders (the alumni and the students) are big. This means the lecturers scored relatively higher than the two other groups of stakeholders. Gap 3 and Gap 6 are very small and almost negligible and nearing to zero. This means the alumni and the students scored almost the same in ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ and the mean scores are relatively lower than those of the lecturers. What contributes to these big gaps between the lecturers and the two other groups of stakeholders? Which elements of ‘about business’ contribute the most to the gaps? Which elements of ‘for business’ have resulted in the gaps?
128
Table 5.15 Curriculum gaps –‘about business’ Stakeholders
Gap 1
Gap 2
Gap 3
Lecturers
4.25
4.25
-
Alumni
3.70
-
3.70
Students
-
3.71
3.71
Gap 1= 0.55
Gap 2=0.54
Gap 3 = 0.01
Gap 4
Gap 5
Gap 6
Lecturers
3.88
3.88
-
Alumni
3.35
-
3.35
Students
-
3.39
3.39
Table 5.16 Curriculum gaps – ‘for business’ Stakeholders
Gap 4= 0.53
Gap 5=0.49
Gap 6 = 0.04
Table 5.17 shows the means and mean differences of the individual units of ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the alumni. The units are Marketing, International aspects, Organizational behavior, Communication in English, Economics, Legal aspects, and Management. The three highest mean differences are from Legal aspects (0.84), International aspects (0.71), and Economics (0.66). The three lowest mean differences are from Marketing (0.41), Management (0.40), and Communication in English (0.37). Therefore Gap 1 (0.55) is contributed largely by the mean differences of Legal aspects, International aspects, Economics units. These are the units where the perspectives of the lecturers and the alumni differ the greatest. On the contrary, the units that the perspectives of the lecturers and the alumni differ the least are the Marketing, Management, and the Communication in English units. But what contribute to Gap 2 (0.54) between the lecturers and the students? Are the units having the highest mean differences the same as for Gap 1?
129
Table 5.17 Mean differences for ‘about business’: the lecturers and the alumni Curriculum Unit
Stakeholders
Mean
Mean difference
K10 Marketing
K14 International aspects
Lecturers
4.29
Alumni
3.88
Lecturers
4.22
Alumni
3.51
K9 Organizational Behavior Lecturers
4.07
Alumni
3.56
K6 Communication in
Lecturers
4.51
English
Alumni
4.15
K8 Economics
Lecturers
4.09
Alumni
3.43
Lecturers
4.10
Alumni
3.25
Lecturers
4.50
Alumni
4.10
K13 Legal aspects
K3 Management
0.40
0.71
0.51
0.37
0.66
0.84
0.40
Table 5.18 shows the means and mean differences of the individual units of ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the students. The three highest mean differences are from Communication in English (0.78), Economics (0.66), and International aspects (0.58). The three lowest mean differences are from Management (0.49), Legal aspects (0.41), and Organizational behavior (0.36). Therefore Gap 2 (0.54) is contributed largely by the mean differences of the Communication in English, Economics, and International aspects units. These are the units where the perspectives of the lecturers and the students differ the most. Therefore, except for the Communication in English unit, the other two units; International aspects, and Economics are common units that contribute to Gap 1 and Gap 2. While the lecturers view the International aspects and Economics units ‘very necessary’ for the business curriculum, both the alumni and the students differ in their perspectives with the lecturers concerning the two units. Except for the Management unit, there is no common unit contributing the lowest mean difference to the gaps.
130
Table 5.18 Mean differences for ‘about business’: the lecturers and the students Curriculum Unit
Stakeholders
Mean
Mean difference
K10 Marketing
K14 International aspects
Lecturers
4.29
Students
3.79
Lecturers
4.22
Students
3.63
K9 Organizational Behavior Lecturers
4.07
Students
3.71
K6 Communication in
Lecturers
4.51
English
Students
3.73
K8 Economics
Lecturers
4.09
Students
3.43
Lecturers
4.10
Students
3.69
Lecturers
4.50
Students
4.01
K13 Legal aspects
K3 Management
0.50
0.58
0.36
0.78
0.66
0.41
0.49
Table 5.19 shows the means and mean differences of the individual units of ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the alumni. The units are Operations management, Entrepreneurial skills, Information systems, Accounting, Quantitative techniques, Business research, and Finance. The three highest mean differences are from Business research (0.76), Accounting (0.63), and Quantitative techniques (0.61). The three lowest mean differences are from Finance (0.48), Entrepreneurial skills (0.40), and Operations management (0.31). Therefore Gap 4 (0.53) is contributed largely by the mean differences of Business research, Accounting, and Quantitative techniques units. These are the units where the perspectives of the lecturers and the alumni differ the greatest. On the contrary, the units that the perspectives of the lecturers and the students differ the
131
least are the Finance, Entrepreneurial skills, and Operations management units. But what contribute to Gap 5 (0.49) between the lecturers and the students? Are the units having the highest mean differences the same as for Gap 4?
Table 5.19 Mean differences for ‘for business’: the lecturers and the alumni Curriculum Unit
Stakeholders
Mean
Mean difference
K12 Operations
Lecturers
3.85
management
Alumni
3.54
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
Lecturers
3.98
Alumni
3.58
Lecturers
3.82
Alumni
3.26
Lecturers
3.78
Alumni
3.15
Lecturers
3.91
Alumni
3.30
Lecturers
4.10
Alumni
3.34
Lecturers
3.77
Alumni
3.29
K2 Information systems
K1 Accounting
K4 Quantitative techniques
K5 Business research
K11 Finance
0.31
0.40
0.56
0.63
0.61
0.76
0.48
Table 5.20 shows the means and mean differences of the individual units of ‘for business’ between the lecturers and the students. The three highest mean differences are from Quantitative techniques (0.77), Business research (0.67), and Entrepreneurial skills (0.53). The three lowest mean differences are from Accounting (0.40), Finance (0.39), and Operations management (0.27). Therefore Gap 5 (0.49) is contributed largely by the mean differences of the Quantitative techniques, Business research, and Entrepreneurial skills units. When compared with the three highest mean differences of Gap 4, it is found that the two common units that contribute the most to Gap 4 and Gap 5 are the Quantitative techniques and Business research units. Based on mean differences, the
132
alumni and the students appear to be scoring in the same pattern for ‘for business’ construct. In addition, the two common units that the perspectives of the lecturers and the students differ the least are the Finance and Operations management units.
Table 5.20 Mean differences for ‘for business’: the lecturers and the students Curriculum Unit
Stakeholders
Mean
Mean difference
K12 Operations
Lecturers
3.85
management
Students
3.58
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
Lecturers
3.98
Students
3.43
Lecturers
3.82
Students
3.34
Lecturers
3.78
Students
3.38
Lecturers
3.91
Students
3.13
Lecturers
4.10
Students
3.42
Lecturers
3.77
Students
3.38
K2 Information systems
K1 Accounting
K4 Quantitative techniques
K5 Business research
K11 Finance
0.27
0.53
0.48
0.40
0.77
0.67
0.39
Table 5.21 shows the means and mean differences of the individual units of ‘about business’ between the alumni and the students. Referring to Table 5.17, the curriculum gap, Gap 3, is minimal at 0.01. This means that the means of the individual units should be almost similar. A detailed analysis of the mean differences reveals Gap 3 is small because the positive mean differences (when the mean scores of the alumni is greater than those of the students) nullify or cancel off the negative mean differences (when the mean scores of the alumni is lesser than those of the students). This distorts the actual situation and gives a false impression that the stakeholders (the alumni and the students) have similar scoring patterns for ‘about business’. In actual fact, two units have
133
substantially large mean differences. The Communication in English unit has a mean difference of 0.42 whereas that for the Legal aspects unit is -0.44. The rest of the mean differences are relatively smaller (ranges from -0.15 to 0.09). However, the mean score for the Economics unit is identical. Further statistical treatment is necessary to identify the relationship between the scoring patterns of the two stakeholders.
Table 5.21 Mean differences for ‘about business’: the alumni and the students Curriculum Unit
Stakeholders
Mean
Mean difference
K10 Marketing
K14 International aspects
Alumni
3.88
Students
3.79
Alumni
3.51
Students
3.63
K9 Organizational Behavior Alumni
3.56
Students
3.71
K6 Communication in
Alumni
4.15
English
Students
3.73
K8 Economics
Alumni
3.43
Students
3.43
Alumni
3.25
Students
3.69
Alumni
4.10
Students
4.01
K13 Legal aspects
K3 Management
0.09
-0.12
-0.15
0.42
0.00
-0.44
0.09
Table 5.22 shows the means and mean differences of the individual units of ‘for business’ between the alumni and the students. Table 5.18 shows Gap 6 to be 0.04. Apart from the Accounting unit (mean difference = -0.24), the mean differences for the ‘for business’ units are relatively small and range from -0.04 to 0.17. This indicates that the scoring patterns of the alumni and the students for ‘for business’ are quite similar. However, a more advanced statistical technique such as rank correlation is required to detect and identify the relationship of the scoring patterns between the stakeholders.
134
Table 5.22 Mean differences for ‘for business’: the alumni and the students Curriculum Unit
Stakeholders
Mean
Mean difference
K12 Operations
Alumni
3.53
management
Students
3.58
K7 Entrepreneurial skills
Alumni
3.58
Students
3.45
Alumni
3.26
Students
3.34
Alumni
3.15
Students
3.38
Alumni
3.30
Students
3.13
Alumni
3.34
Students
3.43
Alumni
3.29
Students
3.38
K2 Information systems
K1 Accounting
K4 Quantitative techniques
K5 Business research
K11 Finance
-0.04
0.13
-0.08
-0.24
0.17
-0.09
-0.09
RANK CORRELATIONS The data for conducting the rank correlation, that is, Spearman’s rho correlation technique were obtained using the multiple regression analysis technique. The means of the individual units of the ‘about business’ construct served as the independent variables and the mean of ‘about business’ served as the dependent variable. The independent variables of the lecturers, the alumni, and the students were regressed on the dependent variables. The results, that is, the betas (standardized coefficients) give indications of the relative importance of the independent variables to the dependent variables. The results for all the stakeholders were integrated, ranked and tabulated in Table 5.23.
135
Table 5.23 Betas (standardized coefficients) of the units for ‘about business’ Units
Beta
Rank
(Lecturers)
Beta
Rank
(Alumni)
Beta
Rank
(Students)
Marketing
0.340
1
0.192
5
0.177
4
International aspects
0.210
2
0.234
2
0.162
7
Organization
0.183
6
0.200
4
0.174
6
0.161
7
0.167
7
0.187
3
Economics
0.204
3
0.265
1
0.242
1
Legal aspects
0.198
4
0.233
3
0.175
5
Management
0.195
5
0.183
6
0.189
2
behavior Communication in Eng.
Table 5.23 shows the ranking of the units of ‘about business’ to the stakeholders of the case institution. To the lecturers, the most important units are the Marketing, International aspects, and Economics units. These are followed by the Legal aspects, Management, Organizational behavior, and Communication in English units. To the alumni, the most important units are the Economics, International aspects, and Legal aspects units. These are then followed by the Organizational behavior, Marketing, Management, and Communication in English units. To the students, the most important units are the Economics, Management, and Communication in English units, followed by the Marketing, Legal aspects, Organizational behavior, and International aspects units. The rankings are raw data and unable to show the relationships of the scoring patterns of the stakeholders. What can be noted are that between the lecturers and the alumni, the common rankings are Rank 2 (International aspects) and Rank 7 (Communication in English); and between the alumni and the students, the common ranking is Rank 1 (Economics); and between the lecturers and the students, the common ranking is Rank 6 (Organizational behavior). Therefore, no conclusion can be made on the scoring patterns
136
of the stakeholders. It follows that Spearman’s rho rank correlation technique was applied to the ranking data and the results were tabulated in Table 5.24.
Table 5.24 Rank correlations: ‘about business’
Spearman’s rho
Lecturers
Alumni
Alumni
Students
Corr. Coefficient
0.536
-0.143
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.215
0.760
Corr. Coefficient
1.000
-0.179
-
0.702
Sig. (2-tailed)
Table 5.24 shows the rank correlations of ‘about business’ between the stakeholders: the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. The results indicate the relationships of the scoring patterns in ‘about business’ between the three groups of stakeholders of the case institution. As mentioned earlier, to know whether the scoring patterns of the stakeholders are related, one has to use Spearman’s rank correlation technique. This is because the rankings are non-parametric data.
The results show that the rankings of the ‘about business’ elements between the lecturers and the alumni is not significantly related (ρ=0.536, p=0.215). As the p-value is 0.215 and is more than 0.05, the relationship is not significant. But the Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient between the lecturers and the students is also not significant (ρ=0.143, p=0.760). However, by comparing the correlation coefficient between the lecturers and the alumni (ρ1=0.536) and the correlation coefficient between the lecturers and the students (ρ2=-0.143), it is found that ρ1 is positive and the relationship is moderately strong while ρ2 is negative and is weak and trivial. Therefore, this indicates that the scoring pattern of the lecturers is relatively more related to the scoring pattern of the alumni than the students’. In other words, the perspective of the lecturers on ‘about business’ is substantially closer to the perspective of the alumni than that of the students. This is further confirmed by the correlation coefficient between the alumni and the students (ρ=-0.179, p=0.702) indicating that the relationship between the alumni and the students is weak and not significant.
137
Although the curriculum gap in term of ‘about business’ between the lecturers and the alumni (Gap 1 =0.55) is almost similar to Gap 2 (0.54), with the use of rank correlation, it is shown that the perspective of the alumni on ‘about business’ is closer to the perspective of the lecturers than the students. It follows that the ranking patterns of the lecturers are relatively related to the ranking patterns of the alumni than the students’. Lightfoot (1999) remarks that the lecturers are ‘gate-keepers’ of the business curriculum and they have long term view of business education. The alumni, having been working and involved in the industry after they graduated, are also likely be able to see the future trend of business. That is why the results show the relationship of the rankings and the scoring patterns between the lecturers and the alumni is positive. The perspective of the students is short term and coupled with their inexperience, they are unable to foresee the future trend of business. Therefore the relationship of the scoring patterns between the lecturers and the students is negative.
The primary purpose of this study is to identify the curriculum gaps between the stakeholders of the case institution. By knowing the gaps and understanding the nature and characteristics of the gaps, it is possible to determine whether these gaps can be pulled closer together. The results show that although the quantum of the gap (Gap 1=0.55) of ‘about business’ is wide, the scoring patterns of the lecturers and the alumni is related. Therefore, in the event of updating the business curriculum design and development, the lecturers and the alumni can very well be able to work together to ensure the curriculum design is relevant and contemporary. Ferrin et al. (2002) when designing their human resource development course seek valuable inputs from human resource practitioners who are human resource graduates. However, this method may not work with the students as they are probably unable to provide useful inputs due to their short term perspective of the business curriculum. They remain the receiving end of the curriculum.
Spearman’s rho correlation technique can equally be applied to the ‘for business’ rankings of the stakeholders.
In the same way, the ‘for business’ units (such as
138
Operations management, Entrepreneurial skills, Information systems, Accounting, Quantitative techniques, Business research, Finance) being the independent variables are regressed against the summated mean of the ‘for business’ construct which act as the dependent variable. The results, that is, the beta (standardized coefficients) give indications of the relative importance of the independent variables to the dependent variables. The results for all the stakeholders were integrated, ranked and tabulated in Table 5.25.
Table 5.25 Betas (standardized coefficients) of the units for ‘for business’ Units
Beta
Rank
(Lecturers)
Beta
Rank
(Alumni)
Beta
Rank
(Students)
Operations mgmt.
0.211
1
0.192
6
0.202
4
Entrepreneurial skills
0.202
2
0.209
4
0.277
1
Information systems
0.145
7
0.177
7
0.183
7
Accounting
0.163
6
0.214
3
0.212
3
Quantitative technique
0.202
2
0.245
1
0.190
6
Business research
0.190
4
0.197
5
0.196
5
Finance
0.184
5
0.229
2
0.237
2
Table 5.25 shows the ranking of the units of ‘for business’ by the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. To the lecturers, the most important units are the Operations management (1), Entrepreneurial skills (2), and Quantitative technique (2) units. The least important units are the Finance (5), Accounting (6), and Information systems (7) units. To the alumni, the most important units are the Quantitative technique (1), Finance (2), and the Accounting (3) units. The least important units are the Business research (5), Operations management (6), and Information systems (7) units. To the students, the most important units are the Entrepreneurial skills (1), Finance (2), and Accounting (3) units. The least important units are the Business research (5), Quantitative technique (6), Information systems (7). Merely by inspection with the naked eye, it can be noted that the ranking patterns of the alumni and the students are somewhat related. For example, both the Finance and Accounting units were ranked the most important units by both the
139
alumni and the students. In addition, both stakeholders also ranked the Business research, and Information systems units among the least important units. However, statistical treatment to the data can provide conclusive results to confirm the observation.
Similar to the ‘about business’ construct, Spearman’s rho rank correlation technique was applied to the ranking data and the results were tabulated in Table 5.28.
Table 5.26 Rank correlations: ‘for’ business’
Spearman’s rho
Lecturers
Alumni
Alumni
Students
Corr. Coefficient
0.126
0.234
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.788
0.613
Corr. Coefficient
1.000
0.321
-
0.482
Sig. (2-tailed)
Table 5.26 shows the rank correlations of ‘for business’ between the stakeholders: the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. The results indicate the relationships of the scoring patterns in ‘for business’ between the three groups of stakeholders of the case institution. There is no significant relationship in the ranking patterns between the lecturers and the alumni (ρ=0.126, p=0.788). There is no significant relationship in the ranking patterns between the lecturers and the students (ρ=0.234, p=0.613). There is also no significant relationship in the ranking patterns between the alumni and the students (ρ=0.321, p=0.482). Thus, although visual inspection suggests that the ranking patterns of the alumni and the students are related, the statistical results show that the relationship is not significant.
However, by comparing the rho (ρ=0.126) between the lecturers and the alumni and the rho (ρ=0.321) between the alumni and the students, it can be seen that the relationship in the ranking pattern between the alumni and the students appears to be stronger than the relationship between the lecturers and the alumni. It follows that the scoring pattern of the alumni is closer to the scoring pattern of the students than to that of the lecturers. Therefore, the correlation results of the ranking patterns for ‘for business’ is different
140
from the results for ‘about business’. But, since the correlations are not significant, the results are not conclusive statistically.
ANCILLARY RELATIONSHIPS Boyatzis and Kolb (1995) propose the Executive Skills Profile (ESP) Model to capture the relevant skills required by managers to carry out their jobs. These skills can be classified into specific business skills, soft skills, and personal attributes. This study attempts to understand the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs. The ‘about business’ focus refers to the focus of the business curriculum to provide fundamental business knowledge to the students so that they eventually become critical thinkers. The ‘for business’ focus of the business curriculum refers to the lecturers’ intention to teach the business students technical vocational skills and is ‘education for employment’ rather than ‘education for life’. It follows that the ‘about business’ construct is related to soft skills + personal attributes. The ‘for business’ construct is related to specific business skills.
The Pearson’s correlation technique was applied to the four variables; ‘about business’, ‘for business’, specific business skills, and soft skills + personal attributes. The results are presented in Table 5.27.
Table 5.27 Correlation table Specific business
Soft skills + Personal
skills
attributes
0.679
0.773
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.001
0.001
Pearson Coefficient
0.451
0.448
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.001
0.001
‘about business’ Pearson Coefficient
‘for business’
Table 5.27 shows the correlation coefficients between the four variables mentioned. The results show that ‘about business’ is significantly related to specific business skills (r=0.679, p=0.001) and ‘soft skills + personal attributes’ (r=0.773, p=0.001). However,
141
the relationship between ‘about business’ and ‘soft skills + personal attributes’ is stronger than the relationship between ‘about business’ and specific business skills. This indicates that the ‘about business’ construct is more related to ‘soft skills + personal attributes’ than to ‘specific business skills’. This finding confirms the ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum is about providing fundamental and liberal business education to the students. At times, the students learn knowledge and skills unconsciously while in the education process via the ‘hidden curriculum’ (Ottewill, et al., 2005). Rowntree (1981) defines the ‘hidden curriculum’ as those understandings and skills learned in an educational institution but not through formal teaching. The students acquire these skills unconsciously as the institution implicitly demands the students acquired them (Rowntree, 1981 as cited in Ottewill, et al., 2005). Thus the stakeholders of the case institution agree that a liberal focused curriculum is related to the acquisition of soft skills and developing the appropriate personal attributes to contribute to a better society.
Table 5.27 also shows the correlation coefficients between the ‘for business’ construct and ‘specific business skills’ (r=0.451, p=0.01) and the ‘for business’ construct and ‘soft skills + personal attributes’ (r=0.448, p=0.01). Both the correlation coefficients are significant (p-values are less than 0.05). The correlation coefficient (0.451) for ‘for business’ and ‘specific business skills’ is slightly higher than the coefficient (0.448) for ‘for business’ and ‘soft skills + personal attributes’. Based on the literature, one would expect the relationship between ‘for business’ and ‘specific business skills’ to be stronger than the relationship between ‘for business’ and ‘soft skills + personal attributes’. However, the results are not conclusive. To determine why the correlation coefficients are similar and not different as expected may require another study.
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS The research questionnaire ended with an open question to draw qualitative responses. The respondents were encouraged to suggest ways to improve the business curriculum. As the question is open-ended, responses and data collected were qualitative in nature. Thus, the data have to be analyzed qualitatively. Creswall (2003) prescribes an effective procedure to analyze qualitative data including first, tabulating the data, and then
142
identifying the themes and sub-themes of the data and subsequently coding the themes and sub-themes.
The qualitative responses collected were answers to the open-ended question in Section D of the survey questionnaire: ‘Any other comments concerning the state and quality of business education that needs improvements?’
Before I continue with further discussions, in line with ethical research practices, I wish to mention the key limitations of this qualitative analysis. First, the coding of themes and sub-themes was dependent upon to my understanding and interpretations of the ‘verbatim’ responses. Another researcher might have coded the responses in very different ways. Second, only 46 out of the 122 respondents answered the open-ended question, and therefore the responses cannot be taken as representatives of the complete sample. Last but not least, the responses were not collected from multiple sources so that the data cannot be confirmed or triangulated. The analysis therefore lacked validity. Because of these limitations, readers must decide for themselves how best to use this analysis, if at all.
12 (about 33.3%) of the 36 lecturers answered the open-ended question. 14 (38.9%) out of the 36 alumni and 20 (37.7%) out of the 53 students responded to it. These qualitative responses were tabulated according to the lecturers, the alumni, and the students and the tables are presented below.
The tabulated responses were analyzed and it was found that the responses can be categorized into three main themes: curriculum design, curriculum delivery, and curriculum development. For example, Lecturer E1 responded: ‘The assessment and examinations do not reflect the curriculum expectations’ was categorized under curriculum delivery. And E2 responded: ‘Certain subjects offered are repeated and need not to be included such as International Business Environment and International Business’ was categorized under curriculum design. In addition, E3 responded: ‘Ensure no duplication of subject learned’ was categorized under curriculum design. Then the
143
actual response was shortened to the key idea the response wanted to convey. For example, ‘The assessment and examinations do not reflect the curriculum expectations’ was extracted and shortened to ‘examination oriented’ to convey the key idea. Another example, ‘Certain subjects offered are repeated and need not to be included such as International Business Environment and International Business’ was extracted and shortened to ‘subject repeated’.
The extract descriptions were then further sub-themed. For example, E2: ‘subject repeated’ and E3: ‘subject duplication’ were sub-themed as ‘overlapping design’. E10: ‘specific major’, and E29: ‘too much focus on 1 discipline’ were sub-themed as ‘for business’. E11: ‘liberal subjects’, and E14: ‘too general and lack of focus’ were subthemed as ‘about business’. Table 5.30 presents the extract descriptions and sub-themes for the lecturers.
Based on Table 5.28, 6 (46%) of the lecturers’ responses were about curriculum design. The rest of the responses, that is, 7 (54%) were about curriculum delivery. There was no response for curriculum development. As for curriculum design, 2 (33.3%) responses were on ‘overlapping design’, another 2 (33.3%) were on ‘about business’, and 2 (33.3%) on ‘for business’. This means that the sub-themes for curriculum design are evenly distributed. As far as curriculum design is concerned, the lecturers are concerned with the overlapping content of the syllabi of the courses. There are, however, concerns about the business curriculum being too liberal and at the same time too vocational and specialized.
As for curriculum delivery, sub-themes ‘exam-oriented’ and ‘generic skills’ constituted one response each. Up to 2 (28.8%) responses were on ‘teaching skills’ and 3 (42.9%) responses were on the sub-theme ‘practical’. This means that lecturers are aware of the theoretical nature of the business curriculum and intend to overcome this ‘about business’ focus of the business curriculum by employing new pedagogical delivery methods that make learning easier and practical for the students. This intention exists even realizing that the business curriculum has to include fundamental principles so that students can build on this foundation further with practical knowledge. Related to the practical
144
teaching methods mentioned above, the lecturers feel that the teaching strategy should include role play and presentation so that the students are not bored with learning theories from text books but made to realize that classroom learning can be challenging and interesting. There are also concerns among the lecturers that the assessment of the business programme is too exam-oriented and the performance of the students can be evaluated via other more action-oriented methods.
Table 5.28 Extract descriptions and sub-themes for the lecturers Theme
Extract descriptions
Sub-themes
E2
Subject repeat
Overlapping design
E3
Subject duplication
Overlapping design
E10
Specific major
‘for business’
E11
Liberal subjects
‘about business’
E14
Too general and lack of focus
‘about business’
E29
Too much focus on 1 discipline
‘for business’
Curriculum
E1
Examination oriented
Exam-oriented
delivery
E4
Industry and experience
Practical
E5
Practical
Practical
E6
Practical and professional
Practical
E14
Generic skills
Generic skills
E24
Teaching strategy-role play
Teaching strategy
E25
Bored not challenging
Teaching strategy
Curriculum design
Ref. No.
Summarizing the above discussions, it is noted that the lecturers are concerned with curriculum design and curriculum delivery. What is surprising is that there is no mention of curriculum development in their comments. This does not seem to align with the perspectives of the lecturers which are generally taken to be long-term and ‘about business’ focus. The lecturers as ‘gate-keeper’ of the business curriculum are expected to monitor the business environment and include contemporary issues and business developmental trends into new curriculum design. Nevertheless, based on the qualitative
145
analysis, the lecturers are particularly concerned with delivering the business curriculum with teaching strategies and methods to ensure the business students enjoy the practical and hands-on learning process and not being discouraged with rote learning of business and management theories. These concerns arise even with the awareness that theories and concepts are necessary fundamentals to build knowledge and skills of the business students.
Table 5.29 Extract descriptions and sub-themes for the alumni Theme Curriculum design
Curriculum delivery
Ref. No.
Extract descriptions
Sub-themes
B1
Content – broad and general
Content
B8
Content - theoretical
Content
B31
Content – current events
Content
B19
Specific industrial content
Content
B3
Skills
Skills
B4
industrial, not theory
Practical
B5
Industrial training
Practical
B7
Practical, industrial training
Practical
B8
Work experience, apprentice
Practical
B16
Teach knowledge but not Teaching strategy understanding,
teaching
strategy – case studies & scenario B22
Practices and experiences, Practical industry training
B32
Real thing
B35
Train,
Practical
skills,
personal Skills
thinking Curriculum development
B33
Please improve it
(Comment too general)
146
The coding and theme identification process was also applied to the alumni’s qualitative comments. Table 5.29 tabulates the themes, extract descriptions, and sub-themes of the alumni.
Based on Table 5.29, 4 (28.6%) of the alumni’s responses were about curriculum design, 9 (64.3%) of the responses were on curriculum delivery, and only 1 (7.1%) response was about curriculum development. It can be seen that the alumni are very concerned about the teaching methods and strategies used by the lecturers to deliver the content of the curriculum. They are also concerned with the business curriculum being too ‘about business’ and theoretical. There was a response on curriculum development but obviously did not know what to suggest to improve the business programme.
All the four responses on curriculum design were about the content of the business curriculum. The alumni were concerned that the content of the curriculum was broad and general and not industry-specific enough. There were also concerns that the business curriculum was too theoretical. The alumni have commented on the curriculum design without knowing that the business programme is to be general so that graduates from the programme can be employed across a broad spectrum of industries. Generally, the alumni perceive that the business curriculum has an ‘about business’ focus and steps to improve it by including current events and knowledge and skills required by specific industries.
There were 9 responses on curriculum delivery. Three sub-themes can be extracted from the descriptions: ‘skills’, ‘practical’, and ‘teaching strategy’. Of the 9 responses, 2 (22.2%) responses were on ‘skills’, 1 (11.1%) response on ‘teaching strategy’, and 6 (66.7%) responses were on ‘practical’. The alumni are concerned that the business curriculum is not delivered in a practical manner and there should be hands-on practical and industrial training so that the graduates are prepared for entry into gainful employment. This may be due to the alumni being working graduates experience a period of ‘helplessness’ when they were initially employed.
147
The only response on curriculum development was ‘please improve it’. The comment is too general to analyze. But it does show that the alumni are concerned with the future development and growth of the business programme and feel that there are weaknesses in the programme but do not have the skills to pin-point and direct the future direction. Thus the comment - ‘please improve it’.
The coding and theme identification process was also applied to the students’ qualitative comments. Table 5.30 tabulates the themes, extract descriptions, and sub-themes of the students. Based on Table 5.30, there were 19 qualitative responses recorded from the students. Of these 19 responses, none was on curriculum design, 16 (84.2%) of them were on curriculum delivery, and 3 (15.8%) were on curriculum development. This shows that when it comes to improving the business programme, the students suggest that the lecturers consider changes to curriculum delivery. There are also concerns about the future direction of the business programme.
Although the students had no comment on the curriculum design, there were 16 responses on improvements to curriculum delivery. The suggested improvements could be themed as ‘skills’, ‘practical’, ‘teaching strategy’, and ‘facilities’. Like the alumni, the majority of the students (43.7%) would like practical training be included into the business programme. Out of the 16 responses, 6 (37.5%) of the students would like the teaching strategies such as role play, project, and examples to be used to deliver the curriculum. 2 (12.5%) of the responses were concerns about the facilities such as library resources, and only 1 (6.25%) wanted skills to be taught in the courses. Therefore, as far as curriculum delivery is concerned, the students would like practical training to be included and more varied teaching strategies to be used to deliver the business curriculum.
There were 3 responses on curriculum development. All the responses were about the various aspects of quality management. They were: ‘improve on continuous basis’, ‘need more feedback’, and ‘better quality’. The students would like quality management to be implemented to the business programme so that the programme will be responsive to
148
changes to the business environment and remain relevant and up-to-date to the latest business technologies.
Table 5.30 Extract descriptions and sub-themes for the students Theme Curriculum design
Ref. No. -
Extract descriptions
Sub-themes
-
Curriculum
S1
Actual practice
Practical
delivery
S2
Internship training
Practical
S5
Exam-oriented
Teaching strategy
S12
Lecturers no passion to teach
Teaching strategy
S14
Study environment (facilities),
Teaching
attitudes of teachers Working situations S15
Teaching strategy – role play
Practical
S18
Teaching strategy - project
Teaching strategy
S21
Training or industry practice
Teaching strategy
S30
Industry training, practical
Practical
S32
Practical
Practical
S36
Practical
Practical
S37
Teaching strategy – examples
Practical
S43
Skills
Teaching strategy
S49
Resources (facilities)
Skills
S50
References & library
Facilities
S52
Library
Facilities
Curriculum
S4
Improve on continuous basis
TQM
development
S8
Need more feedback
TQM
S17
Better quality
TQM
Integrating the qualitative comments from the three stakeholders has resulted the following results. To improve the business programme, the lecturers have recommended
149
changes to the curriculum design and curriculum delivery. The alumni also have recommended changes to the curriculum design and curriculum delivery, but their comments emphasize on curriculum delivery. The students, however, are not concerned about the curriculum design but more on curriculum delivery and curriculum development. A possible explanation is that the perspective of the lecturers on the business curriculum is long term and aligned more to ‘about business’ than the two other stakeholders. Therefore, they are concerned with providing a liberal business education to the students and the direct way to ensure the intended emphasis is to design the curriculum with the ‘about business’ focus. The alumni and the students’ perspectives of business education are short term and aligned more to the ‘for business’ curriculum. While they accept the fact that the business curriculum is theoretical in order to build the foundation to increase further understanding, they point to the possibility of delivering the business curriculum via hands-on practical methods of teaching and learning.
As was mentioned earlier, only the lecturers and the alumni are concerned about the curriculum design. For the lecturers, apart from the comments on ‘overlapping design’, the rest of the 4 comments were about the content of the business curriculum. The comments by the alumni were also about the content of the curriculum, meaning that both the lecturers and the alumni agree that changes are required to be made to the content of the curriculum. All three stakeholders are concerned about the curriculum delivery – the operations part of the business curriculum. Surprisingly, the sub-themes coded on the extracted descriptions are about the same: ‘skills’, ‘practical’, and ‘teaching strategy’. This highlighted the fact that the three groups of stakeholders have ‘common grounds’ in curriculum delivery. Only the alumni and the students mentioned curriculum development. The students particularly point out the necessity of establishing quality management system to monitor the nature and direction of the business programme to reflect its’ relevancy.
Cross-matching the themes of the qualitative data collected from the stakeholders, it is noted that the common theme is curriculum delivery. Lightfoot (1999) suggests that the problem of business education is a question of balance to accommodate the demands and
150
requirements of the stakeholders of business education. In addition, he recommends that the lecturers be given the responsibility to manage this curriculum balance. Following this path of reasoning, and coupled with the qualitative analysis of the data, the ‘balancing solution’ lies in curriculum delivery rather than curriculum design. Initiatives to incorporate new teaching and learning methods and techniques appear to be a viable approach to balance the unequal perspectives of the stakeholders. However, the search for the right balance and the ‘equilibrium point’ using the ‘curriculum delivery’ approach is beyond the scope of this study and should be left to further research.
CHAPTER SUMMARY This section attempts to group the discussions of the chapter. Statistical analysis conducted on the data collected from the stakeholders of business education appear to suggest that the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ concepts are not at extreme poles of the same continuum and dimension as suggested by Lucas and Milford (2003). In fact, the two constructs are positively correlated to each other and are two independent dimensions of the business curriculum.
There is significant difference in the ‘about business’ construct between the lecturers and the alumni and also between the lecturers and the students. There is, however, no significant different in ‘about business’ between the alumni and the students. This suggests that the perspective of the alumni and that of the students are relatively close to each other but are significantly different from the perspective of the lecturers. In term of ‘for business’, the t-test results indicate that there are significant differences between the lecturers and the alumni and also between the lecturers and the students. There is, however, no significant difference between the alumni and the students. In similar manner like for ‘about business’, the perspective of the alumni is relatively closer to that of the students than to the perspective of the lecturers. In both ‘about business’ and ‘for business’, the lecturers score significantly higher than the alumni and the students. Therefore, there is no cause for concern of irrelevant business curriculum even though there are significant curriculum gaps between the lecturers (the providers), and the alumni and the students (the receivers). The results show that the lecturers are equally
151
concerned to provide a liberal (‘about business’) and vocational (‘for business’) business curriculum.
Data mining conducted on the curriculum gaps reveals an important result. The t-test results mentioned earlier have indicated that the perspective of the alumni is relatively closer to the students’ than to the lecturers’. However, using gap analysis and rank correlation technique, it is found that in terms of ‘about business’, the scoring patterns of the alumni is closer to the lecturers’ than that of the students’. (The scoring patterns, due to thinking patterns, provide an insight into the perspectives of the stakeholders.) The gap analysis results indicate that although the curriculum gap in term of ‘about business’ is wide, the alumni’s thinking patterns and scoring patterns are closer to the lecturers’ than to the students’. However, in term of ‘for business’, the scoring patterns of the alumni is closer to the students than to the lecturers’.
Qualitative analysis including coding and theme assigning of the qualitative data indicates that to improve the business programme, the lecturers suggest changes to curriculum design and curriculum delivery. The alumni and the students suggest the same themes in addition to curriculum development. The theme that is common to all the three stakeholders is curriculum delivery. Thus, to provide a balanced business curriculum, the most probable approach is to review the present pedagogical methods that are used to deliver the theoretical business curriculum. New approaches and learning and teaching methods such as case studies, practical training, internship, web-based learning environment (WBLE) are expected to benefit and improve the understanding, knowledge and practical skills of the business students.
The conclusion, implications of the results, and recommendations for further research are presented in the next chapter.
152
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION This study is a response to the allegations by the business community that the business academics of the universities are living in ‘ivory towers’, out of touch with the business environment, and are teaching students irrelevant and out-dated business knowledge and skills. As a result, they assume that the business graduates are not equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills and remain unemployed by the employers. So this study takes up the challenge and investigates these allegations. The study is a small scale survey of the stakeholders of a case educational institution. Although it is a case study, great care was taken to ensure that the investigation is only of the common characteristics and variables that are readily found among the private educational institutions of Malaysia.
The primary purpose of this study is to identify the perspectives of the key stakeholders of the case institution on business education. The stakeholders are the business lecturers, the business alumni, and the business students. By identifying the perspectives and determining the differences between the perspectives, the allegations leveled at the academics and lecturers can be investigated and options proposed to resolve the conflict.
The theoretical framework adopted for the study is Lucas and Milford’s (2003) ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ model of business curriculum. In the attempt to measure and determine the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs, a survey questionnaire was developed using the learning outcomes of the study units of the business degree programme of the case institution. Factor analysis has helped to determine the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ subjects accordingly. The ‘about business’ subjects are liberal and fundamental learning units and they are Marketing, International aspects, Organizational behavior, Communication in English, Economics, Legal aspects, and Management. The ‘for business’ subjects are vocational and managerial learning units. They are Operations management, Entrepreneurial skills, Information systems,
153
Accounting, Quantitative techniques, Business research, and Finance. All the measuring items of the learning units of the survey questionnaire were found to be reliable and valid.
Notwithstanding the validity of Lucas and Milford’s (2003) model of business education, the results of the data analysis indicate that the psychometric properties of the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs are clearly independent dimensions of business education. This is in contrary to Lucas and Milford’s (2003) model which proposes that the ‘about business’ concept and the ‘for business’ concept exist at opposite ends of the business education continuum (refer to Figure 2.1, p. 27). As the two constructs are independent dimensions, then the stakeholders can have a high ‘about business’ orientation and a high ‘for business’ orientation at one and the same time.
The results confirm the perspective of the lecturers as highly ‘about business’ (4.25 out of 5.00). Business education authors such as Lightfoot (1999), Macfarlane (1995), and Brennan and Skaates (2005) have supported the notion that the lecturers have a long-term perspective of business education and have defended the useful purpose of providing and delivering fundamental and theoretical business curriculum. What is not expected is that the lecturers also score high on ‘for business’ (3.88 out of 5.00), although the mean score for ‘for business’ is not as high as for ‘about business’ This confirms the psychometric properties of the two constructs that the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs are two independent dimensions of business education. Therefore, the lecturers can score high in ‘about business’ as well as in ‘for business’. In addition, the influence of culture on the perspective of the lecturers was found to be minimal. This finding contradicts the commonly-held notion that lecturers working in private-owned educational institutions tend to deliver vocational, ‘for business’-focused curricula (Lechuga, 2006).
The alumni have quite a high mean score on ‘about business’ (3.70 out of 5.00) too. This is unexpected because the alumni are business graduates who are under employment in business organizations and, according to the literature they should value ‘for business’ knowledge and skills more highly than fundamental theoretical subjects. The results of this study show the opposite. The alumni appreciate and know the value of a sound and
154
fundamental business education. The mean score for ‘for business’ is also quite high (3.35 out of 5.00) but is lower than the mean score for ‘about business’. An explanation for this phenomenon is that the alumni expect some theoretical grounding in the business curriculum but also desire more hands-on and practical methods to develop their business knowledge and skills.
The results of the business students are quite similar to the alumni. They score high in ‘about business’ (3.71 out of 5.00) and also moderately high in ‘for business’ (3.39 out of 5.00). This contradicts the work of Garneau and Brennan (1999) who claim that students have a narrow perspective and instrumental attitudes towards business education. The students studying in the case institution prefer a theoretically sound business education but also desire a more practical approach to acquire business skills. However, as young business undergraduates, they appear to be adapting to the perspective of the lecturers as suggested by Lucas and Milford (2003).
Concerning the curriculum gaps between the lecturers and the alumni, it was found that the lecturers score significantly higher than the alumni in ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. This confirms that the lecturers are more concerned than the alumni to bring about a fundamental business curriculum. At the same time the lecturers are also attempting to deliver relevant business knowledge and skills to the students through the business curriculum. Regarding the curriculum gaps between the lecturers and the students, it is concluded that the lecturers score significantly higher than the students in ‘about business’ and ‘for business’. However, the curriculum gaps between the alumni and the students are not significant and the scores in ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ are almost identical.
It was found that the lecturers score significantly higher in ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ than the alumni and the students. This indicates that the academics are equally concerned with providing a liberal business curriculum as well as a vocational one. They are working hard on a business curriculum that provides ‘education for life’ as well as ‘education for work’ (Brennan and Skaates, 2005) to fulfill the dual purpose of business
155
education. But by virtue of the strategic nature of the academics, they are more inclined to ‘about business’ (4.25) than ‘for business’ (3.88). In addition, the curriculum gaps between the lecturers and the alumni, and the students are quite wide and positive. If the gaps were negative, there would be cause for concern. As both the curriculum gaps are positive in favour of the academics, there is no cause for concern in terms of curriculum design and curriculum delivery. And the concern is not with the curriculum gaps but with the issue of how to keep the business curriculum in balance so that the demands and needs of all the stakeholders can be met. A viable solution is to heed Lightfoot’s (1999) suggestion, which is, to allow the business educators to be responsible for the longer term strategic curriculum planning with the significant other business stakeholders giving tactical inputs to the design of the business curriculum. Results from qualitative analysis highlight the appropriateness of treating the problem from the curriculum delivery perspective.
Although the ‘about business’ and ‘for business’ perspectives of the alumni and the students are almost identical, upon in-depth analysis using Spearman’s rank correlation, it was found that in term of ‘about business’, the thinking and scoring patterns of the alumni are more related to the thinking patterns of the lecturers. However, in term of ‘for business’, the thinking and scoring patterns of the alumni are more related to the scoring patterns of the students than to the lecturers. However, in both instances, the correlations are not significant. Further analyses are likely to be inconclusive and were therefore not pursued.
This study is primarily quantitative in nature and data were collected via a survey questionnaire. As with most quantitative questionnaire, there was an open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire eliciting opinions from the three stakeholders on the means to improve the business curriculum. The responses to the question provide qualitative data. Based on the responses and analysis, the main themes extracted are curriculum design, curriculum delivery, and curriculum development. On how to improve the business programme, the common theme among the stakeholders is curriculum delivery. Even the sub-themes (of curriculum delivery) are the same: ‘skills’, ‘practical’, and
156
‘teaching strategies’. The agreement among the stakeholders is that the ‘balancing solution’ of the research problem lies in curriculum delivery rather than curriculum design. This points out that the conflicting perspectives of the stakeholders can be made equitable by incorporating new teaching and learning methods, techniques, and tools such as practical training, role play, and interactive case study into the business curriculum.
Finally, all stakeholders agree that the academics and lecturers are held accountable for the future development of the business programme. This is due to the fact that the lecturers have a long-term perspective of the curriculum and are in constant contact with the dynamic business environment. As they are keen to provide a sound fundamental business curriculum to the business students, while simultaneously appeasing the other stakeholders by incorporating specific business skills into the business curriculum, they are in a strong position to lead and deliver relevant business education. Therefore for the sake of better quality business education, the academics and lecturers should be given the responsibility coupled with the authority and support to direct the strategic future of business education. Knowing that the lecturers are not able to act alone, the significant other stakeholders are expected, in collaborations with the academics to provide relevant inputs to the design of the business curriculum to ensure that the curriculum design and delivery are up-to-date and effective in order to produce skilful business graduates that meet the requirements of the business community especially the employers.
LIMITATIONS This study adopted the case study approach to collect primary data which is generally perceived to have a number of inherent weaknesses, including the uniqueness of the nature and characteristics of the case institution selected, the subjectivity that underpin the approach, and the confidence level of research users to generalize the results.
While it is not the intention of this study to claim that the results and findings are applicable to other educational institutions, great care is taken to ensure that only common variables pertaining to the business curriculum issue are investigated. Thus the onus and responsibilities lay with the information users who must check for themselves
157
to confirm the appropriateness for applications of the results to their particular institutions, situations and environmental characteristics.
While it is agreed that the case institution’s uniqueness is a hindrance to validity, it cannot be denied that insights and understandings have nonetheless been uncovered. An example is the discovery that the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs are two independent dimensions of business education. Hopefully, this finding can be confirmed by further research with other institutions. The subjective nature of the case is an element of the case study approach that cannot be avoided. However, the research content and issues investigated are not subjective but objective concepts constructed through rigorous research procedures to ensure reliability and validity. Care was taken to ensure the subjective influences of the case have no part to play in the research design. This includes the using of quantitative measures and tools to eliminate the subjective nature of observation and qualitative interviewing.
The justifications of using the case study approach were presented in the Methods chapter of this thesis. However, it is still worthwhile to reiterate that this study is the work of a single researcher who is a doctoral research student with no external funds and resources to rely on. In such case, a small scale study is the only viable option (Punch, 2003) and the ‘survey within a case study’ (Yin, 2003, p. 4) just fits the research condition and requirements.
Another key limitation and criticism is the relatively small sample sizes of the survey. Again the justifications for the small sample sizes were presented in the Methods chapter. Zikmund (2003) advises the sample size of a survey depends on three factors: heterogeneity of the population, magnitude of acceptable error, and the confidence level. The total number of respondents for this study amounts to 122 respondents comprising three groups of stakeholders: 36 lecturers, 33 alumni, and 53 students. Within the groups, the populations are generally homogeneous, the standard errors are small (obtained from the pilot tests) and the confidence levels are set at 95%. Calculations using the sample size formulae with data from the pilot test have resulted in small sizes, for example, for
158
the lecturers, sample size was 20, for the alumni, sample size was 17, and for the students, sample size was 21 (refer to the Research Methods chapter, p. 76). The respondents of the groups were all more than 30 (the magic number for minimum sample size suggested by Salkind, 2003) and more than the calculated sample sizes. Thus, care was taken to overcome the weakness of having small samples in the study. However, the perception is always ‘the larger the sample, the more accurate the research’ (Zikmund, 2003, p. 423).
Finally, there are criticisms that the study is too narrow and did not cover adequately areas of related interest such as pedagogy, teaching methods and techniques, learning styles, etc. This is undoubtedly true but the EdD thesis is limited to 55,000 words and therefore the scope cannot be so broad. In order to produce meaningful results, within the space available, the research questions have to be tightly-focused. This renders the scope of the study narrow, but detailed. Besides, related content areas not visited by this study can be investigated by further and future research.
IMPLICATIONS The results have particular implications for the stakeholders of the case institution. First, to the lecturers, the results confirm that the contributions and hard work of the academics and lecturers are not in vain. The intention of the lecturers to provide a sound and fundamental business education to the students is well acknowledged and received. The inclusion of specific business skills into the curriculum design is valued by other stakeholders. The problem is how and how much of these expected skills are to be included into the curriculum. Again there is a problem of time and space of the curriculum to allow these expected curriculum elements to be delivered within a short span of 120 credit hours. Such demands and expectations require careful consideration and strategic planning. The responsibilities of providing an all-encompassing curriculum could stretch beyond the capacities of the operational academics of the university.
The results of the study should vindicate the lecturers of the allegations of ‘living in ivory towers’ and ‘out-of-touch’ with the external business environment. The results show that
159
the lecturers are aware of the changing dynamics of business and are on top of the perceived problems of business education. From the qualitative analysis, the approach adopted by the lecturers to ensure quality of the business programme has two prongs: from the perspective of curriculum design that forms the intended curriculum (Knight and Trowler, 2001), and also from the perspective of curriculum delivery through which they aspire to deliver the intended curriculum. Nonetheless, the lecturers should have the commitment to ‘prepare the students for employment’ as well as to ‘educate them for life’.
The thrust for academic accountability by the authorities is still prevalent and relevant for the lecturers. The academics and lecturers are aware of the burdens and responsibilities on their shoulders to provide a balanced and holistic business education (The Zahid Report, 2005) to meet the demands of the various stakeholders. The students, as customers of the university, pay for their business education and have the legitimate right to receive goods worthy of their investments (tuition fees). Still the lecturers are expected to continuously improve the quality of the business programme in the various aspects. The lecturers, being professional educators, are granted with liberties such as selfregulation and academic freedom by the management of the university. It is expected they will not take this trust by the management for granted but to show initiatives and drives to continuously upgrade their professional performance and also to increase the outputs of the business programme. Broad controls comprising key performance indices (KPIs) which they have committed to would eventually be used to appraise their performance and contributions as academics.
Whether the business curriculum is industry-led or academic-led is not the key issue. Inputs from both stakeholders are necessary to bring added value to the students. Not discounting the values of the inputs from both the lecturers and the business community, both stakeholders might not know what knowledge and skills will be needed by the business graduates to be employed in the future. They can only make guesses and at best informed guesses about the future direction of the business trend (Lightfoot, 1999). Perhaps, the new solution proposal by Lightfoot (1999) should be given due
160
consideration. The lecturers as a group should be responsible for all strategic curriculum planning as they have the longest-term perspective about the business curriculum. The business and governing authorities should be concerned with tactical curriculum concerns while the students should provide inputs that concern with short term operational issues. By distributing these responsibilities to the respective stakeholders a situation is created where all the demands of all key stakeholders can be considered and met. The immediate action plan is to establish a strategic curriculum design committee where dialogue between the stakeholders can be regularly held and inputs whether they are strategic, tactical, or operational can be included into the business curriculum.
The allegations against the academics are largely brought about by the business community (Pelton, 1996) including the employers, the working people, the professional bodies, and the alumni. Lightfoot (1999) remarks that the business community is the unique external party that drives curriculum design. By virtue of the accusations levelled against the academics, the employers are taking a confrontational stand and creating adversarial relationships with the education providers. This stance do not auger well for arriving at an amicable solution. The research results, however, have helped to refute the allegations that the business curriculum is irrelevant and the business academics out-oftouch with business realities. They re-affirm the intentions of the lecturers to provide a balance and holistic business education. The key implication for the employers is for them to change the confrontational approach and instead adopt a collaborative relationship with the academics. Both stakeholders do not have negative intentions to hinder the education process of the business students. Ultimately, the purpose is to create a pool of talented, competent, and adaptive business executives and professionals to support the dynamic and competitive marketplace.
The students remain the weakest stakeholders in the business curriculum design process (Lightfoot, 1999). However, as the immediate customers and end-users of the business curriculum, their voices are too important to be left unheard and unheeded. Certain comments and suggestions made by the students to improve business education should be included in the curriculum. For example, when students suggest practical training and
161
internship to be included into the business programme, their intentions are to gain working experience and enlarge their choices of their future work options. It is advisable then to include the suggested learning strategy as an elective in the Final Year of the business degree.
The results indicate that there is no serious problem with the business curriculum of the case institution. However, that does not mean that the curriculum can remain static for long periods of time. Business dynamics and environmental changes could render the curriculum dated if there is no effort to keep up with business trends and market dynamisms. Thus, the immediate suggestion is to call for the formation of an academic curriculum development committee with the purpose of consistently monitoring and systematically evaluating the curriculum against the constant and sudden changes to the business environment. This committee can meet regularly and as and when the need to meet arises. The membership of this committee should comprise subject specialists of the various disciplines that contribute to and amalgamate into the business curriculum. The tasks of the committee members include suggestions of amendments to the current curriculum, discussions of contemporary issues related to the business disciplines, documentation of changes to be made to the curriculum with the reasons clearly stated.
Another suggestion is to call for the construction of a curriculum matrix showing the progressive routes to the business degree. This matrix should start from the fundamental level of knowledge areas, comprise the objectives and learning outcomes of the individual units, and provide a rationale as to how the learning outcomes are built over the units until how the objectives of the business degree are to be achieved.
As a result of the findings, it is suggested that a team or task force be set up to investigate the availability and suitability of the abundance of curriculum delivery strategies and techniques to deliver and transfer intended learning to the business students. New learning and teaching techniques such as interactive video presentation, role play and management games allow the students to learn the fine intricacies of real business that cannot be learned from formal classroom lectures and text books. They also present
162
opportunities to the students to indulge in critical and constructive debates thus preparing the graduates to be thinking managers and leaders. Implementing such new strategies and techniques are expensive but the outputs and improved performance of the students should justify the investments.
Business education is a long term industry that requires strategic long term planning. It is recommended to set up an academic-industry forum and platform that leads toward collaborations between the academics and the business leaders. The academics are the gate-keepers of the field but they require inputs and information from the business frontiers to continuously updating the learning and teaching materials. Periodic dialogues with the industry are required to promote mutual understanding and relationship. Many curriculum designers conduct surveys with the business professionals to gauge new requirements and demands of the society (Ferrin et al., 2001; Lee et al., 1995; Thacker, 2002). For certain business disciplines such as Human Resource Management (HRM), Customer Relations Management (CRM), Supply Chain Management (SCM), their subject scopes are always changing and expanding to include new knowledge domains. Meetings with the business professionals in these areas are certainly helpful to update and improve the syllabi of these subjects. These inputs need to be recorded and the decisions to include these new inputs into the curriculum are required to be archived. Therefore, a faculty level committee is suggested to be set up to plan and organize such forum, dialogues, meetings, and surveys. It would even be sensible to allow some of these professionals to sit in this committee. These professionals would have a platform to contribute towards the curriculum design, delivery and development of the business degree programme.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The survey questionnaire used in this case study is a proprietary questionnaire although it was proven to be reliable. Thus to establish its use as a measuring instrument in other institutions or studies, more reliability and validity tests have to be conducted. Established measuring instruments such as Kolb’s (1976, 1985) Learning Style Inventory (LSI), and Parasuraman et al.’s (1981) Service Quality Questionnaire (SERVQUAL)
163
were test-retested thousands of time to gain acceptance as a stable measuring instrument. Unlike the two established questionnaires mentioned above, this business curriculum questionnaire is based on the learning outcomes of the business degree programme of an educational institution. As different educational institutions have different curriculum design frameworks, the questionnaire cannot be used to collect data from stakeholders of other institutions. New questionnaires have to be constructed for other institutions based on the learning outcomes of their curriculum designs.
It is further recommended that longitudinal studies be conducted with the lecturers, the alumni, and the students. These studies are considered to be follow-up studies to track the changes or differences in the perspectives of these stakeholders over periods of time. They can also act as checks to determine the stability of the measured perspectives of the stakeholders over time. For example, a number of studies were conducted to check the stability of the learning styles of the students over a few years. In addition, these studies can include investigating the impact of institutional culture on the perspectives of the stakeholders of business education.
Further studies using the same research design could also be conducted with other institutions. One of the limitations of this study is that it collects data from just one case institution. The findings, therefore, are only relevant to the particular institution and may not be generalized to other institutions. This recommendation follows the research design of Lechuga (2006) where he investigated the working conditions and the academic landscape of the academics of four private universities in the United States. Such research design will bring credibility to the research topic (business curriculum) and the results of this study. However, access to these other institutions has to be negotiated and research grants have to be solicited to cover the financial expenditure of these studies. A more ambitious project is to bring the research design to another country such as China to determine whether there are differences in the perspectives of the academics and the business community there. At the same time, the study can determine the approach and focus of the business degree programmes in that particular country.
164
Finally, to expand the scope of this study, it is recommended that further research on the research topic should include the concept of curriculum delivery. The scope boundary of this study encompasses the concept of curriculum design only. This is to ensure the study remains focus on the business curriculum concept. Towards the end of the study, it was discovered that curriculum delivery also can play a balancing role in curriculum planning. The results highlighted the fact that the intended curriculum provided by the academics is balanced and holistic. The strategies used to deliver the curriculum often make great differences in the learning experiences of the students. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of curriculum delivery vis-a-vis curriculum design and content.
CONCLUSION Perhaps it is fitting to conclude by reflecting on the significance of this study. Considering the limitations and constraints of the study, I would not be honest to claim that this study has made large and outstanding contributions to the knowledge and practice in the field of business education. However, a few new contributions are worthy of mention. First, by identifying the perspectives of the stakeholders and the curriculum gaps that exist between them, the perceptions of the stakeholders can be understood more clearly. By understanding the nature of the perspectives, business curriculum designers are more informed of the expectations of the stakeholders, and the process of curriculum design to satisfy the needs and requirements of the stakeholders is made easier and more effective.
This study used the ‘surveys within a case study’ approach to research. The study falls within the post-positivist paradigm. Most studies using the case study approach are qualitative research. However, this study, although using the case study approach, collected mostly numerical and quantitative data from the respondents (although qualitative information was collected through the last and open-ended question in the questionnaire). It took on a unique but straight-forward approach to collect data to answer the research questions with the questions answered empirically.
165
Another contribution of this study is the construction of a reliable questionnaire as the measuring instrument. Some questionnaire surveys adopt established questionnaires as measuring instruments (for example, Cuthbert, 1996a; Galloway 1998; Kwan and Ng, 1999). I took the challenge to design a new questionnaire to measure the perspectives of the stakeholders on the ‘about business’ – ‘for business’ continuum. This was not done before and the questionnaire remains a new measuring tool for business education. In addition, the data collected by the questionnaire managed to determine the psychometric properties of the ‘about business’ and the ‘for business’ constructs, leading to the proposition that the ‘about business’ construct and the ‘for business’ construct are two dimensions of business education.
The business discipline is almost 130 years old. Myriads of problems cropped up and were put down. It is not expected that this small scale study can solve any of these problems, but merely to understand certain aspects of the problem. Thus, I will be glad if this study has indeed made some small but original contributions, both in terms of knowledge and methodology to the field of business education.
166
REFERENCES Ambigapathy, P., et al. (2005). University curriculum: An evaluation on preparing graduates for employment. Bulletin of Higher Education Research, No. 5, p. 1 and p. 7. Annual Book of Statistics Malaysia. (2004). Aronowitz, S. (2000). The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Learning. Boston: Beacon Press. Bain, G. S. (1993). The Blackette memorial lecture: The future of management education. Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 557-561. Bain, G. S. (1992). The future of management education. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 557-561. Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Management: Lending & Collaborating in the Competitive World, 8th Ed. NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Bell, L., & Bush, T. (2002). The policy context. In The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, eds. T. Bush and L. Bell, pp. 3-14. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Bolton, A. (1993). Token gestures. Times Higher Education Supplement, 30 April 1993, p. 23. Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). From learning styles to learning skills: the executive skills profile. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 317. Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1991). Assessing individuality in learning: the learning skills profile. Educational Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, pp. 279-295. Boyatzis R. E, Cowen, S. S., & Kolb D. A. (1995). Innovation in Professional Education: Steps on a Journey from Teaching to Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boyd, D., & Halford, J. (2001). Business education: real time or semester time? International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 14, pp. 247-257. Brennan, R., & Skaates, M. A. (2005). An international review of the business-tobusiness marketing curriculum. Marketing Education Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 77-89.
167
Brown, A., & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing Research. Reading Research. A Mode of Interrogation for Education. London: Falmer Press. Bryant, F. B. (2000). Assessing the validity of measurement. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics (pp. 99114). Washington D. C.: American Psychological Association. Burke J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands, eds. J. C. Burke and Associates, pp. 1-24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bush, T. (2002). Authenticity – reliability, validity and triangulation. In M. Coleman & A.R.J. Briggs (Eds. pp. 59-72), Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Bush, T. (2003). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. 3rd Ed. London: Sage Publications. Caldwell, B., & Spinks, J. (1992). Leading the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press. Cheng, Y.C. (1994). Effectiveness of curriculum change in school: an organizational perspective, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 26-34. Chiet, E. F. (1985). Business schools and their critics. California Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 43-62. Chizmar, J. F. (1994). Total quality management (TQM) of teaching and learning. Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 179-190. Cohen L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education, 5th Ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Conger, J., & Xin, K. (2000). Executive education in the 21st century. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 73-101. Cooper, D. R., & Schlindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods, 9th Ed. NY: McGraw-Hill. Crossley, M., & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Comparative and international research in education: scope, problems and potential. British Educational Research Journal,18: 99-112.
168
Crowther, D., & Carter, C. (2002). Legitimating irrelevance: management education in higher education institutions. The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 268-278. Cuthbert, P. F. (1996a). Managing service quality in HE: Is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 1. Managing Service quality, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 11-16. Cuthbert, P. F. (1996b). Managing service quality in HE: Is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 2. Managing Service quality, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 31-35. Daniel, W., & Pugh, H. (1975). Sandwich Courses in Higher education, London: Political and Economic Planning. Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guide. Buckingham: Open University Press. Denton, J. W., Kleist, V. F., & Surendra, N. (2005). Curriculum and course design: a new approach using quality function deployment, Journal of Education for Business, November/December 2005, pp. 111-117. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2002a). An international view of the principalship and its development: allowing for cultural context – no one ‘best practice’ model. Paper presented at the National College for school Leadership International Conference, Nottingham, October 2002. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2002b). School leadership in context – societal and organizational cultures. In T. Bush & L. Bell (eds.), The Principles and Practice of Educational Management. London: paul Chapman Publishing. Dodd, N. G., Brown, F. W., & Benham, H. (2002). Learning to manage while learning about management: a transition to a competency-based management curriculum. Journal of Education in Business, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 189-192. Ellen, P. S., & Pilling, B. K. (2002). Using employer input to assess graduate marketing education effectiveness: A working example of curriculum development. Marketing Education Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 31-40. Elliot, G., & Glaser, S. (1998). Australian management education at the cusp, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 121-130. Ferrin, B. G., Landeros, R., & Reck, R. F. (2001). Integrated supply matrix management: a TQM approach for curriculum development, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics, Vol. 31, No. 7/8, pp. 520-536.
169
Fogelman, K. (2002). Surveys and sampling. In M. Coleman & A. R. J. Briggs, (Eds.) Research methods in Educational Leadership and Management, pp. 213-232. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Forrester, P. G. (1986). The British MBA. Cranfield: Cranfield Press. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative Research in Education: Interaction and Practice. London: Sage. Galloway, L. (1998). Quality perceptions of internal and external customers: a case study in educational administration. The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 20-26. Garneau, P., & Brennan, R. (1999). New relevance in the marketing curriculum: Stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness of marketing education. In McAuley, Andrew, and Leigh Sparks, eds. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Conference, Stirling, U.K.: University of Stirling. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Pearson Education: Boston, MA. Gill, A., & Lashine, S. (2003). Business education: a strategic market-oriented focus. The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 188-194. Gill, T., & Hu, Q. (1999). The evolving under-graduate information systems education: A survey of U. S. institutions. Journal of Education for Business, 77, pp. 289-295. Gleeson, R. E., Schlossman, S., & Allen, D. G. (1993). Uncertain ventures: The origins of graduate management education at Harvard and Stanford, 1908-1939. Selections: The magazine of the Graduate Management Admission Council, pp. 915. Gordon, R. A. & Howell, J. A. (1959). Higher Education for Business. New York: Columbia University Press. Graduan. (2006). Making graduates more employable, Biz:Connexion. pp. 29-33. Grey, C., & French, R. (1996). Rethinking management education: An introduction. In R. French and C. Grey, (eds.) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
170
Hair, J. F., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research Methods for Business. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Hamilton, D., Mcfarland, D., & Mirchandani, D. (2000). A decision model for integration across the business curriculum. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 102-126. Harris, J. W. (1992). Key concepts of quality improvement for higher education. In W. Harris and Bagget (eds.) Quality Quest in the Academic Process, Birmingham, AL:Samford University Press. Healey, N. (1993). What role for economics in business and management education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 34-39. Higgins, R. C., & Messer, G. H. (1990). Improving instruction using statistical process control. Journal of Engineering Education, May-June, pp. 466-469. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the Teacher, 2nd Ed. London: Routledge. Holian, R. (2004). ‘The practice of management education in Australian universities’, Management Decision, Vol. 42, No. ¾, pp. 396-405. Howard, D. G. (1991). The evolution of marketing theory in the United States and Europe. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, pp. 7-16. Howard, D. G., & Ryans, J. K. (1993). What role should marketing theory play in marketing education: A cross-national comparison of marketing educators. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 5, pp. 29-43. Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the qualitative-quantitative incompatibility thesis or dogma die hard. Educational Researcher, Vol. 17, pp. 10-16. Johns, N., & Teare, R. (1995). Change, opportunity and the new operations management curriculum, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 4-8. Johnson, D. (1994). Research Methods in Educational Management. London: Pitman Publishing. Karpin, D., Chair of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and management skills (1995). Enterprising Nation, (report published in four parts, and Executive Summary, and 3 volumes: (i) Task force report, (ii) Research Report Volume 1,
171
(iii) Research Report Volume 2), Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. King, R. (1995). What is higher education? Strategic dilemmas for the twenty-first century university. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 14-20. Kinman, G., & Kinman, R. (2001). The role of motivation to learn in management education. Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13, No. ¾, pp. 132-143. Knight, P. T. & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Departmental leadership in higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Kratochwill, T. R. (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: An overview. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis (pp. 1-12). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kwan, Y.K., & Ng, W. K. (1999). Quality indicators in higher education – comparing Hong Kong and China’s students. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1/2, pp. 20-27. Langenbach, M., Vaughn, C., & Aagaard, L. (1994). An introduction to educational research. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Laughton, D., & Ottewill, R. (2000). Developing cross-cultural capability in undergraduate business education: implications for the student experience, Education + Training, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 378-386. Lechuga, V. M. (2006). The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities. New York: Routledge. Lee, D., Trauth, E. M., & Farwell, D. (1995). ‘Critical skills and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: a joint academic/industry investigation’, MIS Quarterly, September 1995, pp. 313-340. Lee, D., Trauth, E. M., & Farwell, D. (1995). Critical skills and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: a joint academic/industry investigation, MIS Quarterly, September 1995, pp. 313-340. Lee, M. N. N. (1999). Private higher education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
172
Lightfoot, J. M. (1999). Fads versus fundamentals: The dilemma for information systems curriculum design. Journal of Education for Business, September/October 1999, pp. 43-50. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Ed., pp. 163-188. Longenecker, C. & Ariss, S. (2002). Creating competitive advantage through effective management education. The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21, No. 9/10, pp. 640-654. Lucas C. (1994). American Higher Education: A History. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Lucas, U., & Milford, P. (2003). Key aspects of teaching and learning in accounting, business, and management. In A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, 2nd Edition, eds. H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, and S. Marshall, pp. 391-412. Oxon: Routledge. Macfarlane, B. (1995). Business and management studies in higher education: the challenge of academic legitimacy, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 4-9. Macfarlane, B., & Perkins, A. (1999). Reconceptualising corporate strategy in business and management education, Education + Training, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 20-26. Macfarlane, B., & Ottewill, R. (2001). Integration. In B. Macfarlane, and R. Ottewill (Eds.), Effective Learning and Teaching in Business and Management, London: Kogan Page, pp. 59-66. Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher education Policy and Management, Vol. 13, No. 3/4, pp. 132-143. Margolis, E. (Ed.). (2001). The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education, New York, NY: Routledge. Mason, J. B. (1990). Improving marketing education in the 1990s: A Dean’s perspective. Marketing Education Review, Vol. 1, pp. 10-22. McCaffery, P. (2004). The Higher Education Manager’s Handbook: Effective leadership and management in universities and colleges. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.
173
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Franscisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Monks, K., & Walsh, J. (2001). The role of postgraduate education in management development. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 25, No. 2-4, pp. 148156. Moratis, L., & van Baalen, P. (2002). The radicalization of the multiversity: the case of the networked business school. The International Journal of educational Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 160-168. Morrison, M. (2002). Using diaries in research. In M. Coleman & A. R. J. Briggs, (Eds.) Research methods in Educational Leadership and Management, pp. 213-232. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Mutch, A. (1997). Rethinking undergraduate business education: a critical perspective. Management Learning, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 301-312. Najib Tun Razak (1996). Malaysia as a regional centre of educational excellence: The challenge of globalization. Public speech delivered by Education Minister, Malaysia, at 1996 Regional Conference of Harvard Clubs of Asia, Hilton, Kuala Lumpur, 14 August. Nitko, A. J. (2004). Educational Assessment of Students, 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill Prentice Hall. Noran Fauziah & Ahmad Mahdzan (1997). Privatisation of higher education in Malaysia and its implication for industrialization. Paper presented at Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Nuss, E. M. (1996). The development of student affairs. In Students services: A handbook for the profession, 3rd ed. (eds.) S.R. Komives, D.B. Woodward Jr., & Associates, pp. 22-42. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publications. Orpen, C. (1993). On the practical nature of management research. Journal of European Business Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 119-126.
174
Ottewill, R. (2003). What’s wrong with instrumental learning? The case of business and management. Education + Training, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 189-196. Ottewill, R., McKenzie, G., & Leah, J. (2005). Integration and the hidden curriculum in business education. Education + Training, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 89-97. Owlia, W.S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1979). TQM in higher education – a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 145, pp. 527534. Pariseau, S. E., & McDaniel, J. R. (1997). Assessing service quality in schools of business. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 204-218. Pearce II, J. A. (1999). Faculty survey on business education reform, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13, Issue 2, pp. 1-7. Pelton, J. N. (1996). Cyberlearning vs. The university: An irresistible force meets an immovable object. Electronic Library. Perotti, V. S., Gunn, P. C., Day, J. C., & Coombs, G. (1998). Business 20/20: Ohio University’s integrated business core. In R.G. Milter, J.E. Stinson, & W.H. Gijselaers (eds.), Education Innovation in Economics and Business III: Innovative Practices in Business Education, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 169-188. Phillips, E. M., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1993). Perceptions of educators and potential employers of the research training needs of postgraduates in business and management. Journal of Management development, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 12-20. Pierson, F. C. (1959). The Education of American Businessman: A Study of UniversityCollege Programs in Business Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1998). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st Century? New York: McGraw-Hill. Preedy, M. (2002). Managing the curriculum for student learning. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.), The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, (pp. 153-169). London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Punch, K. F. (2003). Survey Research: The Basics. London: Sage.
175
Pusser, B., & Doane, D. J. (2001). Public purpose and private enterprise: The contemporary organization of postsecondary education. Change, 33(1), pp. 18-22. Pusser, B., & Turner, S.T. (2004). Non-profit and for-profit governance in higher education. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Governance academia (pp. 235-257). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2000a). Benchmark Statement for General Business and Management, (Online), http:www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/business.pdf. Raelin, J. A., (1993). Theory and practice: Their roles, relationship and limitations in advanced management education. Business Horizons, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 85-89. Rahimah, A. (1998). ‘Educational development and reformation in Malaysia: past, present and future’, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 462-475. Reck, R. F., Landeros, R. & Lyth, D. M. (1992). Integrated supply management: the basis for professional development. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 12-18. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: Sage. Roffe, I. (1997). Developing a dynamic in a learning innovation, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 90-96. Roggema-van Heusdan, M. (2004). The challenge of developing a competence-oriented curriculum: an integrative framework. LibraryReview, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 98103. Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (1997). Strategic change in colleges and universities: Planning to survive and prosper. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass. Rowntree, D. (1981). A Dictionary of Education. London: Harper & Row. Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K., & Karunes, S. (2003). Enhancing quality in education: application of quality function deployment – an industry perspective. Work Study, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 297-309. Salkind, N. J. (2000). Exploring Research, 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
176
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A.
(2007). Research methods for business
students, 4th Ed. Essex: FT-Prentice Hall. Schwandt, T. (2000).
Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:
Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed, pp. 189-214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sekaran, U. (2003). Business methods for business: A skill building approach, 4th Ed. Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Shuptrine, F. K., & Willenborg, J. F. (1998). Job experiences for marketing graduates – implications for university education. Marketing Education Review, Vol. 8, pp. 111. Soutar, G., & McNeil, M. (1996). Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 72-82. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based & responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stinson, J., & Milter, R. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education: curriculum design and implementation issues. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Vol. 68, pp. 33-42. Tan, A. M. (2002). Malaysian Private Higher Education: Globalisation, Privatisation, Transformation and Marketplaces. London: Asean Academic Press. Tang, H. L., Lee, S., & Koh, S. (2001), Educational gaps as perceived by IS educators: A survey of knowledge and skill requirements. Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 41, Issue 2, pp. 76-85. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer. Thacker, R. A. (2002). Revising the HR curriculum: an academic/practitioner partnership, Education + Training, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 31-39. Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. The Zahid Report. (2005). Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
177
Tippins, S. (2004). Business school curriculum: can we learn from quantum physics? The Journal of American Academy of Business, March 2004, pp. 320-322. Tolley, G. (1983). Foreword. In D. Graves, (Ed.), The Hidden Curriculum in Business Studies: Proceedings of a conference on values in business education, p. 5, Higher Education Foundation, Chichester. Trauth, E. M., Farwell, D. W., & Lee, D. (1993). ‘The IS expectation gap: industry expectations versus academic preparation’, MIS Quarterly, September 1993, pp. 293-307. Usher, R. (1996). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumption of educational research. In D. Scott & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding Educational Research. London: Routledge. Veblen, T. (1918). The Higher Learning in America. (reprint with new introduction by Ivar Berg). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Walker, K. B. & Black, E. L. (2000). Reengineering the undergraduate business core curriculum: aligning business schools with business for improved performance, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 194-213. Warner, A. (1990). Where business schools fail to meet business needs. Personnel Management, July 1990, pp. 52-56. Watkins, T. A., Ochs, J. B., & Beam, H. (1998). Learning across functional silos. In R.G. Milter, J.E. Stinson, and W.H. Gijselaers (eds.), Education Innovation in Economics and Business III: Innovative Practices in Business Education, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 169-188. Watson, C., & Temkin, S. (2000). Just-in-time teaching: balancing the competing demand of corporate America and academe in the delivery of management education. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 763-778. Watson, S. R. (1993). The place for universities in management education. Journal of general Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 14-42. Wiener, M. J. (1980). English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wilson, T.D. (2001). Mapping the curriculum in information studies.
New Library
World, Vol. 102, No. 1170/1171, pp. 436-442.
178
World Bank (1994). Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience. Washington DC. Yin, R. K. (2003a). Applications of case study research, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003b). Case study research: Design and methods, (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yousef, M. A., Libby, P., Al Khafaji, & Sawyer, G. Jr. (1998). TQM implementation barriers in academe: A framework for further investigation. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 16, pp. 584-594. Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business Research Methods, 7th Ed. Mason, Ohio: ThomsonSouth-Western.
179
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Research Brief The purpose of this survey is to find out your opinion on the knowledge and skills deemed necessary for business graduates to be employed by business organizations at entry level. Your answers will be taken into considerations and will enable the University to improve the business curriculum and deliver up-to-date and relevant business education. Please be assured that all answers are kept confidential and will only be used for data analysis in combination with those from other respondents including business organizations, faculty members, working business graduates, and graduating business students. This questionnaire comprises 4 sections and may take about 20 minutes to complete. There is no right or wrong answers. Please answer the questions truthfully and return the completed questionnaire with the self-addressed envelope enclosed at your earliest convenience. Should you have any queries concerning the survey please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Section A Please mark or specify accordingly: 1.
2.
What is the nature of your business? _________ Banking & Finance
________ Education
________ Retail
_________ Construction
________ Hotel
________ F & B
_________ Property
________ Business Services
________ Research & Consultancy
_________ Logistics/Transportation
________ Trading
________ Manufacturing/Production
_________ Computer & I T
________ Others (Please specify) ____________________________
How many university business graduates are presently working in your organization?
_________ 1 – 5 Section B
________ 6 – 10
________ 11 – 15
________ 16 – 20
________ More than 20
1
Please indicate below how necessary it is for business graduates to possess the following knowledge and skills in order to be employed by your company at entry level. 1 – Not at all Necessary 2 – Slightly Necessary 3 – Necessary 4 – Very Necessary 5 – Extremely Necessary
Not at all Necessary Accounting (K1): • Understand the role and the basic principles of financial statements • Record and summarise business transactions • Prepare financial accounts of limited companies • Analyse and interprete financial accounts • Analyse and interpret company reports and accounts • Understand the role of cost accounting and costing principles • Understand management accounting, its procedures and techniques • Prepare tax statements of employment income for individuals • Prepare tax statements of business income for companies Information system (K2): • Understand the concepts and practices of information systems • Appreciate the systematic approach on the use of computers in organizations • Understand the technical environment that supports information provision and use • Recognize the information technology components, i.e. computer hardware, • software, network, data communication, and database • Evaluate and apply the relevant methodologies, tools and techniques for developing information systems • Understand the concepts of e-commerce and its infrastructure • Recognize the tools and software for e-commerce • Understand the business models such as B2B and B2C
Extremely Necessary
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
2
Not at all Necessary Quantitative techniques (K3): • Understand the mathematical techniques applicable in business • Understand the statistical techniques applicable in business • Understand the basic concepts of data collection and probability distribution • Conduct hypothesis testing with ANOVA, chi-square, non-parametric tests • Apply simple and multiple regression to solve business problems
Extremely Necessary
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Business Research (K5): • Understand the purpose and process of business research • Formulate a research proposal and design • Evaluate alternative research methods to collect data • Apply the appropriate techniques for data analysis • Conduct an independent enquiry of a substantial topic • Draw conclusion and recommend appropriate actions
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5
Economics (K6): • Understand demand and supply, and cost and production • Understand market structure and the theory of distribution • Understand national income, income determination and fiscal policies • Understand money and banking, and international economics • Understand the Malaysian economy
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Strategic Management/Policy (K4): • Understand the principles and concepts of modern management • Appreciate the management functions such as planning, organizing, leading and control • Appreciate the importance of decision-making and communication • Understand the nature of business planning • Analyze the external environment using strategic tools and techniques • Identify the key internal resources • Formulate appropriate strategies for effective implementation
3
Not at all Necessary Communication in English (K7): • Analyze and discuss business-related texts • Interpret diagrams such as charts and graphs • Write business memos, review and letters using the correct format/conventions • Give oral presentation • Examine different types of business documents e.g. reports, memos • Introduce the employment process eg writing cover letter, resume, preparation for and attending job interviews • Plan and organize a speech with delivery and visual aids • Understand the effective management of and participation in meetings OB and Human Resource (K8): • Understand the different aspects of managing human resources • Develop knowledge on recruitment and selection process • Understand the importance of retaining talented and competent human resource • Recognize that individual behaviour can affect the performance of the organization • Understand the characteristics of group dynamics, power, and politics • Understand the concepts, techniques and skills of organization development (OD) • Design and plan the appropriate OD interventions Enterpreneurial Skills & Ethics (K9): • Prepare a business plan for starting up a business venture • Understand the role of an entreprenuer from the impetus of a business idea to the forming, operation and expansion of the business • Relate with the ethical issues faced by an entreprenuer and business Organization
Extremely Necessary
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
4
Not at all Necessary Finance (K10): • Understand the theory of finance • Plan, operate, and monitor the finance function • Understand and apply the concepts of risk and return, and capital market theory • Understand and apply market efficiency, and portfolio diversification • Understand and apply fixed income and equity securities, option and future market • Manage investment portfolio and their performance measurement Marketing (K11): • Understand the function of marketing in business organizations • Understand the basic market analysis and marketing information systems • Understand buyer behaviour • Understand the 4 Ps of marketing • Understand international marketing • Understand marketing research • Understand the role of marketing in society Operations Management (K12): • Understand how operations management contributes to strategic competitive edge • Differentiate between goods and service products • Understand the planning process of start-up operations • Apply the tools and techniques of project management • Monitor to maintain the efficiency of on-going production • Appreciate the principles and practices of continuous improvement
Extremely Necessary
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
5
Not at all Necessary Legal Aspects of Business (K13): • Understand the laws regarding business environment • Understand the burdens upon which the businessman operates • Understand the principles of company and business laws • Understand the principles and practices on how companies are to be governed and managed • Understand the role and functions of a corporate secretary • Understand the law and practices pertaining to meetings in order to ensure corporate compliance • Understand the need for effective communication, i.e. dissemination of internal and external information from the Secretary to the Board • Aware of the Secretary's continuous responsibility as an independent professional within the company • Understand the law and practice of industrial relations in Malaysia • Understand the various issues affecting the employer, the employee and the trade union in the work environment International Perspectives (K14) • Understand the rationale for "going international" • Understand the external environmental factors influencing international business • Select a suitable method of market entry • Appreciate the major issues concerning multinational companies • Aware the current trends in international business • Appreciate the existence of regional trade blocs • Aware of cultural differences across national boundaries
Extremely Necessary
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6
Section C Please indicate below how necessary it is for business graduates to possess the following knowledge and skills in order to be employed by your company at entry level. 1 – Not at all Necessary 2 – Slightly Necessary 3 – Necessary 4 – Very Necessary 5 – Extremely Necessary Not at all Extremely Necessary Necessary Analytical skills (S1): • The ability to adopt a larger perspective 1 2 3 4 5 • The ability to conceptualize 1 2 3 4 5 • The ability to integrate ideas into systems or theories 1 2 3 4 5 • The ability to use models or theories to forecast trends 1 2 3 4 5 • The ability to use quantitative tools to analyze and solve problems 1 2 3 4 5 • The ability to derive meaning from quantitative reports 1 2 3 4 5 • The ability to use computers and computer networks to analyze data 1 2 3 4 5 and organize information • The ability to build computer models or simulations 1 2 3 4 5
Information gathering skills (S2): • • • • • • •
The ability to be sensitive to and aware of organizational events The ability to listen with an open mind The ability to develop and use various sources for receiving and sharing information The ability to adapt, change, and deal with new situations The ability to define new strategies and solutions The ability to assimilate information from various sources The ability to derive meaning and to translate specialized information for general communication and use
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
Interpersonal skills (S3): • • • •
The ability to be sensitive to others in gaining opportunities to grow The ability to inspire and motivate others The ability to sell your ideas to others The ability to negotiate and build team spirit
7
• •
The ability to establish trusting relationships with others The ability to facilitate communication and cooperation
1 1 Not at all Necessary
2 2
3 3
4 4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 Extremely Necessary
Behavioral skills (S4): • • • • • • • • • •
The ability to establish work standards The ability to monitor and evaluate progress toward goals The ability to make decisions based on cost-benefits The ability to commit to objectives The ability to meet deadlines The ability to be persistent The ability to be efficient The ability to seek out and take advantage of opportunities The ability to take risk The ability to make things happen
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Section D (Optional) 1.
Any other comments concerning the state and quality of business education in Malaysia? __________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
- Thank you for completing the survey This questionnaire is prepared by: Dr. Wong Kee Luen Assistant Professor Faculty of Accountancy and Management Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman e-mail:
[email protected] Hand phone No.: 012-263907
8
APPENDIX B Reliability Test
K&S k1 k2
k3 k4
k5 k6 k7
Faculty Items delete k2.2 k2.8 k2.6 k4.1 k4.2
k6.1 -
Students Alpha 0.7285
0.7057 0.8853
K&S k1 k2
Items delete k2.5
Alpha 0.7500 0.8000
K&S k1 k2
Items delete k2.5
Alpha 0.9313 0.7257
K&S k1 k2
k3 k4
k4.1
0.7237 0.6818
k3 k4
k4.4 k4.6
0.9140
k3 k4
k6.1 k7.2 k7.3
0.9612 0.7407
0.7000
0.9644 0.7901 0.7664
k5 k6 k7
k7.1 k7.2
0.9417 0.7200
k5 k6 k7
0.7941
k8
-
0.9143
k8
-
0.7151
k8
k9
-
0.9562
k9
k9.5
0.6977
k9
k10 k11
-
0.8897 0.8426
k10 k11
-
0.8602 0.7754
k10 k11
k12
k12.4 k12.3 -
k12
k12.2
0.8430
k12
k13 k14
-
0.7786 0.7754
k13 k14
s1
s1.1 s1.2
k13 k14 s1
s1.5 s1.6
0.7500 0.9080 0.9267
All respondents
Employers
s1
k8.3 k8.4 k9.5 k9.6 k9.7 k11.5 k11.6 k11.7 k13.6 k14.4 k14.7 s1.4 s1.7
Alpha 0.8496
k8
Items delete k2.5 k2.6 k2.7 k4.4 k4.5 k4.6 k4.7 k6.1 k7.1 k7.2 k7.5 -
k9
-
0.7326
k10 k11
-
0.8542 0.7326
k12
-
0.7165
k13 k14
-
0.8796 0.8179
s1
s1.3 s1.4
0.7534
k5 k6 k7
0.8889
0.7013 0.7324
0.6738 0.9565 0.7088
0.6927 0.8577
0.7518
0.6889 0.7370
0.7306 0.7696 0.7039 0.7075 0.7521
1
s2 s3 s4
s1.7 s1.8
0.7738
-
0.8468 0.8522 0.8723
12
s2 s3 s4
s1.3 s1.8
0.9000
-
0.8343 0.8409 0.7946
10
s2 s3 s4
s4.1 s4.3 s4.4 s4.7 s4.8 24
0.7409 0.7692
s2 s3 s4
s1.5 s1.6 s1.7 s1.8 -
0.8735 0.8259 0.7701 0.7701
0.7143 17
2
APPENDIX C
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Research Brief The purpose of this survey is to find out your opinion on the knowledge and skills deemed necessary for business graduates to be employed by business organizations at entry level. Your answers will be taken into considerations and will enable the University to improve the business curriculum and deliver up-to-date and relevant business education. Please be assured that all answers are kept confidential and will only be used for data analysis in combination with those from other respondents including business organizations, faculty members, working business graduates, and graduating business students. This questionnaire comprises 4 sections and may take about 15-20 minutes to complete. There is no right or wrong answers. Please answer the questions truthfully and return the completed questionnaire with the self-addressed envelope enclosed at your earliest convenience. Should you have any queries concerning the survey please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Section A Please mark or specify accordingly: 1. What is your core business? (Please mark (√) only one (1) answer.) [ ] Banking & Finance [ ] Education [ ] Construction [ ] Hotel [ ] Property [ ] Business Services [ ] Research & Consultancy [ ] Logistics/Transportation [ ] Manufacturing/Production [ ] Computer & I T [ ] Others (Please specify) _______________________
[ ] Retail []F&B [ ] Trading
2. How many employees are presently working in your organization? [ ] 1 – 10 [ ] 11 – 50 [ ] 51 – 100 [ ] 101 – 200 [ ] More than 200 3. Which department in your organization can generally be staffed with business graduates? [ ] Accounting [ ] Human Resource [ ] Marketing [ ] General Management [ ] Sales [ ] Finance [ ] Operations [ ] Business Development [ ] Others (Please specify) _______________________
1
Section B Please indicate below how necessary it is for business graduates to possess the following knowledge and skills in order to be employed by your company at entry level. 1 – Not at all Necessary 2 – Slightly Necessary 3 – Necessary 4 – Very Necessary 5 – Extremely Necessary Accounting (K1) 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. Understand the basic principles of financial statements 2. Record and summarise business transactions 3. Prepare financial accounts of limited companies 4. Analyse and interpret financial accounts 5. Analyse and interpret company reports 6. Understand the role of cost accounting and costing principals 7. Understand management accounting, its procedures & techniques 8. Prepare tax statements of employment income for individuals 9. Prepare tax statements of business income for companies
Information system (K2) 1. Understand the concepts and practices of information systems 2. Appreciate the systematic approach on the use of computers 3. Understand the technical environment that supports information 4. Recognise the information technology components i.e. computer hardware, software, network, data communication, and database
5. Evaluate and apply the relevant methodologies, tools and techniques for developing information systems
Management (K3) 1. Understand the principles and concepts of modern management 2. Appreciate the management functions such planning, organizing, leading and control 3. Appreciate the importance of decision-making and
2
communication
Quantitative techniques (K4) 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. Understand the mathematical techniques applicable in business 2. Understand the statistical techniques applicable in business 3. Understand the basic concepts of data collection and probability distribution 4. Conduct hypothesis testing with ANOVA, Chi-square, and other tests 5. Apply simple and multiple regression to solve business problems
Business Research (K5) 1. Understand the purpose and process of business research 2. Formulate a research proposal and design 3. Evaluate alternative research methods to collect data 4. Apply the appropriate techniques for data analysis 5. Conduct an independent enquiry of a business topic 6. Draw conclusion and recommend appropriate actions
Communication in English (K6) 1. Analyse and discuss business-related texts 2. Interpret diagrams such as charts and graphs 3. Write business memos, review and letters using the correct format 4. Give oral presentations 5. Examine different types of business documents e.g. reports 6. Introduce the employment process e.g. writing cover letter, resume, preparation for and attending job interviews 7. Plan and organize a speech with delivery and visual aids 8. Understand the effective management of business meetings
3
Entrepreneurial Skills & Ethics (K7) 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. Understand the role of an entrepreneur from the business idea to the forming, operation and expansion of the business
2. Relate with the ethical issues faced by an entrepreneur
Economics (K8) 1. Understand national income, income determination and fiscal policies 2. Understand money and banking, and international economics
OB and Human Resource (K9) 1. Understand the different aspects of managing human resources 2. Develop knowledge on recruitment and selection process 3. Understand the importance of retaining talented and competent human resource 4. Recognise the individual behaviour can affect the performance of the organization 5. Understand the characteristics of group dynamics, power, and politics 6. Understand the concepts, techniques, and skills of organization development (OD) 7. Design and plan the appropriate interventions
Marketing (K10) 1. Understand the function of marketing in business organizations 2. Understand the basic market analysis and marketing information systems 3. Understand buyer behaviour 4. Understand the 4 Ps of marketing 5. Understand international marketing 6. Understand marketing research 7. Understand the role of marketing in society
4
Finance (K11) 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. Understand the theory of finance 2. Plan, operate, and monitor the finance function 3. Understand and apply the concepts of risk and return, and capital market theory 4. Understand and apply market efficiency, and portfolio diversification 5. Understand and apply fixed income and equity securities, option and future market 6. Manage investment portfolio and their performance measurement
Operations Management (K12) 1. Understand how operations management contributes to strategic competitive edge 2. Differentiate between goods and service products 3. Understand the planning process of start-up operations 4. Apply the tools and techniques of project management 5. Monitor to maintain the efficiency of on-going production 6. Appreciate the principles and practices of continuous improvement and quality management
Legal Aspects of Business (K13) 1. Understand the laws regarding business environment 2. Understand the burdens upon which the businessman operates 3. Understand the principles of company and business laws 4. Understand the principles and practices on how companies are to be governed and managed 5. Understand the role and functions of a corporate secretary 6. Understand the law and practices pertaining to meetings in order to ensure corporate compliance 7. Understand the need for effective communication, i.e. dissemination of internal and external information from the Secretary to the Board 8. Aware of the Secretary's continuous responsibility as an independent professional within the company
5
9. Understand the law and practice of industrial relations in Malaysia 10. Understand the various issues affecting the employer, the employee and the trade union in the work environment
International Perspectives (K14) 1
2
3
4
5
1. Understand the rationale for going international 2. Understand the external environmental factors influencing international business 3. Select a suitable method of market entry 4. Appreciate the major issues concerning multinational companies 5. Aware the current trends in international business 6. Appreciate the existence of regional trade blocs 7. Aware of cultural differences across national boundaries
Section C Please indicate below how necessary it is for business graduates to possess the following soft skills in order to be employed by your company at entry level. 1 – Not at all Necessary 2 – Slightly Necessary 3 – Necessary 4 – Very Necessary 5 – Extremely Necessary Analytical skills (S1) 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. The ability to adopt a larger perspective 2. The ability to conceptualize 3. The ability to use quantitative tools to analyze and solve problems 4. The ability to derive meaning from quantitative reports
Information gathering skills (S2) 1. The ability to be sensitive to and aware of organizational events 2. The ability to listen with an open mind 3. The ability to develop and use various sources for receiving and sharing information
6
4. The ability to adapt, change, and deal with new situation 5. The ability to define new strategies and solutions 6. The ability to assimilate information from various sources 7. The ability to derive meaning and to translate specialized information for general communication use
Interpersonal skills (S3) 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. The ability to be sensitive to others in gaining opportunities to grow 2. The ability to inspire and motivate others 3. The ability to sell your ideas to others 4. The ability to negotiate and build team spirit 5. The ability to establish trusting relationships with others 6. The ability to facilitate communication and cooperation
Behavioral skills (S4) 1. The ability to establish work standards 2. The ability to monitor and evaluate progress toward goals 3. The ability to make decisions based on cost-benefits 4. The ability to commit to objectives 5. The ability to meet deadlines 6. The ability to be persistent 7. The ability to be efficient 8. The ability to seek out and take advantage of opportunities 9. The ability to take risk 10. The ability to make things happen
7
Section D Please indicate below your agreement to the following statements. 1 – Strongly Disagree 4 – Agree
2 – Disagree 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 – Strongly Agree
1. The curriculum of an undergraduate business programme should be broad and general. 2. The subject areas of an undergraduate business programme should be inter-linked (or integrated) to one another.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3. Any other comments concerning the state and quality of business education that needs improvements? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
- Thank you for completing the survey -
This questionnaire is prepared by: Dr. Wong Kee Luen Assistant Professor Faculty of Accountancy and Management Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman e-mail:
[email protected] Hand phone No.: 012-2639076
8
