MASTER THESIS Master of Arts in Business (MA)

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING AND UNIVERSITY SELECTION: WHAT INFLUENCED STUDENTS OF IMC FH KREMS TO CHOOSE THEIR UNIVERSITY

MASTER THESIS submitted at the IMC Fachhochschule Krems (University of Applied Sciences)

Master programme Marketing and Sales by

Matija LOZANČIĆ for the award of the academic degree

Master of Arts in Business (MA) Supervisor: Emil Tsenov, M.A., MBA Submitted on: 15.01.2018

STATUTORY DECLARATION

“I declare in lieu of an oath that I have written this master thesis myself and that I have not used any sources or resources other than stated for its preparation. I further declare that I have clearly indicated all direct and indirect quotations. This master thesis has not been submitted elsewhere for examination purposes.”

Date: 15. 01. 2018 Matija LOZANČIĆ

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Mr. Emil Tsenov for the decision to coach my thesis and the advice, feedback and guidance provided during the critical stages of the thesis creation process. I would also like to thank fellow student colleagues who supported the thesis research by participating in the in-depth interviews as well as those who participated in the survey questionnaires. Similarly, I extend my thanks to the administration of IMC FH Krems for providing me with the information I required during my research. My thanks also go to Goran for the help and advice provided with the inferential statistical analysis. Furthermore, I would like to thank Tina for the emotional and technical support during the creation of this thesis, as well as during the entire time we have been colleagues. I would also like to thank my parents as well as my sister for the continued support throughout the last five years of my study journey. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my partner Ksenija, who supported me with love and patience not only during the past months of working on this thesis but also throughout the last nine wonderful years together.

II

ABSTRACT

The aim of the Master Thesis was to identify the factors that influenced the choice of the university for students at the IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems, as well as observe whether those factors are influenced by students’ sociodemographic and study choice characteristics. To achieve this goal, a three-stage sequential exploratory research approach has been chosen, which included a theoretical overview and selection of the conceptual framework based on the existing consumer behavior and student choice models, qualitative research phase with 17 in-depth interviews with prospective, current and former students of the university as well as quantitative research stage where a 300-participant survey questionnaire was conducted and interpreted with a descriptive as well as inferential analytical methods. Four main groups of factors have been identified as having a statistically significant impact in the decision-making process of students: intrinsic personal factors, tangible and non-tangible infrastructure, socio-cultural influence and career opportunities. Additionally, statistically significant differences in answers have been observed with regards to all the socio-demographic and study factors apart from differences between bachelor and master students of the university.

Keywords: consumer decision-making, student choice, university selection, study decision, university choice

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATUTORY DECLARATION ................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... II ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... IV List of Figures .................................................................................................... VII List of Tables ..................................................................................................... VIII 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1

Background ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Problem Identification and the Purpose of the Research ............................. 3

1.3

Thesis Aim and Thesis Objectives ................................................................. 4

1.4

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................ 4

1.5

Research Methodology.................................................................................... 5

1.5.1

Literature Overview and Creation of Theoretical Framework ................................... 6

1.5.2

Qualitative Collection: Interviews .............................................................................. 6

1.5.3

Quantitative Collection: Survey Questionnaire ......................................................... 7

1.6

2

3

Thesis outline................................................................................................... 8

LITERATURE OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL DISCUSSION .................... 9 2.1

Marketing approach in higher education ..................................................... 10

2.2

Consumer decision making and student choice ......................................... 17

2.2.1

Recognition of needs and motives ..........................................................................21

2.2.2

Gathering information .............................................................................................21

2.2.3

Evaluating Alternatives ...........................................................................................22

2.2.4

Decision and enrolment ..........................................................................................23

2.2.5

Post-purchase evaluation .......................................................................................24

2.3

Factors underlying the student choice ........................................................ 25

2.4

Proposed Conceptual Framework ................................................................ 29

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH – IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS .............................. 30

IV

4

3.1

Interview design ............................................................................................. 31

3.2

Results and analysis ..................................................................................... 32

3.2.1

Background of the participants ...............................................................................32

3.2.2

Needs and Motives .................................................................................................34

3.2.3

Information search ..................................................................................................35

3.2.4

Evaluation of alternatives ........................................................................................36

3.2.5

Purchase decision ...................................................................................................38

3.2.6

Post-purchase behavior ..........................................................................................42

3.2.7

Conclusions and key takeaways .............................................................................45

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE......................... 47 4.1

Overview of survey design choices.............................................................. 47

4.1.1

Composition of the questionnaire ...........................................................................48

4.1.2

Pre-testing the questionnaire ..................................................................................48

4.1.3

Study population .....................................................................................................49

4.1.4

Sampling design......................................................................................................50

4.1.5

Survey distribution method .....................................................................................51

4.1.6

Participation incentive .............................................................................................51

4.1.7

Number of participants and the survey response rate ............................................52

4.1.8

Statistical significance of the sample ......................................................................53

4.2

Attributes of the sample ................................................................................ 55

4.2.1

Country of origin and gender of the participants .....................................................55

4.2.2

Study level, specialization, program, and language ...............................................56

4.2.3

Background of the participants ...............................................................................57

4.3

Presentation and descriptive analysis of the results .................................. 59

4.3.1

Needs and motives .................................................................................................59

4.3.2

Information gathering ..............................................................................................63

4.3.3

Evaluation of alternatives ........................................................................................65

4.3.4

Decision and enrolment ..........................................................................................68

4.3.5

Post-purchase evaluation .......................................................................................70

4.4

Inferential statistical analysis ....................................................................... 73

4.4.1

Principal component analysis .................................................................................74

4.4.2

Pearson correlation coefficient ................................................................................79

4.4.3

Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests .................................................................80

4.5

Interpretation of the results and answers to research questions............... 87 4.5.1

Factors that significantly influenced the study decision of students to choose IMC

FH Krems as their university ....................................................................................................88

V

4.5.2

Differences in motivational factors based on socio-demographic and study

characteristics of students ........................................................................................................90 4.5.3

5

Rejection of the null hypothesis ..............................................................................92

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 93 5.1

Summary of the research .............................................................................. 93

5.2

Practical implications of the findings ........................................................... 94

5.3

Study limitations ............................................................................................ 95

5.4

Recommendations for future research ........................................................ 96

List of References ............................................................................................... 98 ANNEX ............................................................................................................... 104 Annex 1: Printout of a Survey Questionnaire ................................................. 105 Annex 2: In-depth interview questions/topics ................................................ 117

VI

List of Figures Figure 1: Mixed Method Design: Three-stage Sequential Exploratory Approach .... 5 Figure 2: Checklist of Questions for Designing a Survey Method ........................... 7 Figure 3: The 7P Marketing mix for business schools ........................................... 13 Figure 4: Educational 7P marketing-mix model ..................................................... 14 Figure 5: Ingredients to an effective marketing strategy for universities ................ 17 Figure 6: Key elements of the consumer decision-making process ...................... 18 Figure 7: The 5-stage student choice model ......................................................... 20 Figure 8: Interaction of factors influencing student college decision ..................... 27 Figure 9: Student choice of higher education model ............................................. 28 Figure 10: Basic layout of the composition of the questionnaire ........................... 48 Figure 11: Official IMC FH Krems student population data (January 2018) .......... 50 Figure 12: Detailed Statistics About Exit Pages .................................................... 53 Figure 13: Survey sample size calculation formula ............................................... 54 Figure 14: Country of origin of participants by relative percentage ....................... 55 Figure 15: Number of participants per study program ........................................... 57 Figure 16: Number of participants that chose each background option ................ 58 Figure 17: Average (mean) rank for each of the reasons ...................................... 61 Figure 18: Average (mean) grade each statement received from participants ...... 62 Figure 19: Number of students that selected each tool/channel............................ 64 Figure 20: Number of students that selected each reason (another school) ......... 66 Figure 21: Number of students that selected each reason (IMC Krems) ............... 67 Figure 22: Distribution of role importance for each of the identified factors ........... 69 Figure 23: Mean grade students awarded to each school aspect ......................... 71 Figure 24: Number of students per grade for each statement with mean value of all answers in brackets .............................................................................................. 72 Figure 25: Percentage of students that chose each option when asked: “Would you choose IMC Krems again?” ............................................................................ 73 Figure 26: Plotted eigenvalues of each factor (component) .................................. 76 Figure 27: Independent and dependent variables ................................................. 91

VII

List of Tables Table 1: Underlying factors segmented by perspective and focus ........................ 26 Table 2: Distribution of interviewees by study departments and program levels ... 33 Table 3: Relationship of z-scores and desired confidence levels .......................... 54 Table 4: Rational vs. Emotional needs and motives .............................................. 60 Table 5: Rational vs. Emotional reasons ............................................................... 62 Table 6: Frequency and percentage per source of the first contact ...................... 65 Table 7: Communalities ........................................................................................ 74 Table 8: Total Variance Explained ........................................................................ 75 Table 9: Component Matrixa.................................................................................. 77 Table 10: Rotated Component Matrixa .................................................................. 78 Table 11: Pearson correlation coefficient .............................................................. 80 Table 12: Ranks .................................................................................................... 81 Table 13: Test Statisticsa....................................................................................... 81 Table 14: Ranks .................................................................................................... 82 Table 15: Test Statisticsab ..................................................................................... 83 Table 16: Ranks .................................................................................................... 84 Table 17: Test Statisticsa....................................................................................... 84 Table 18: Ranks .................................................................................................... 85 Table 19: Test Statisticsa....................................................................................... 85 Table 20: Ranks .................................................................................................... 86 Table 21: Test Statisticsa....................................................................................... 87

VIII

INTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION The primary aim of this Master Thesis is to provide an answer to the question stated in its title, which is also the primary research question of its underlying research. To achieve that, first part of the thesis will provide an overview of the situational background, define a research aim and purpose, state the research questions it aims to answer and propose the best methodological approach to reach these goals. In the second part of the thesis, an overview of the literature will be conducted, and a conceptual framework will be proposed that will serve as a foundation for the empirical research design. The third part of the thesis will be focused on presenting and analyzing the results of the qualitative and quantitative research that was conducted as part of the thesis research. Finally, a summary of findings will be provided in the last part along with recommendations for future research.

1.1 Background Ever since the adoption of the Bologna process in the early 2000s and the subsequent switch to the three-tiered university system more akin to the Anglo-American university model in most European countries, various authors have identified and discussed the increasing pressure on the universities to move away from the solely academic societal role and adopt a business mindset in attracting prospective students and providing them with tools that will allow them to compete in the job market (Veloutsou et al. 2004, p.164; Schüller and Rasticová, 2011, p.58; Chen, 2016, p.94). While the goal of this significant change in educational framework stated in the Sorbonne Declaration (Group of authors, 1998) was harmonization of the architec-

1

INTRODUCTION

ture of the European Higher Education system, critics of the change noted that the basic idea behind the new educational EU-wide plans was not academic but an economic one – to cut down costs and increase competitiveness (Lorenz 2006, p.137). This process is nothing new, however. Institutions of higher education have been slowly shifting from social institutions to an industry for at least 40 years already (Antcil, 2008, p.21). Some aspects of this transformation have been a decrease of dependency on governmental funding (Maringe, 2006, p.468), as well as intensifying global competition and changes in demand patterns (Veloutsou et al. 2004, p.165). The need to secure alternative sources of funding in an increasingly competitive market has led higher education institutions to start viewing students as consumers and adopt a variety of marketing communication and marketing planning tools to attract prospective students (Kusumawati et al., 2010, p.3). A survey conducted in 2013 by the Hanover Research analyzed financial data of 212 higher education institutions and found that their median marketing spending increased from around $320,000 in 2001 to almost $800,000 in 2009. This significant increase in spending over the relatively short time period demonstrates that educational institutions increasingly view marketing as a critical component of their business and market success. This new marketing orientation has also been attributed to the increase of academic management and the rise of academic consumerism, particularly apparent in the way academic subjects are arranged to primarily provide use-value and exchange value for the consumers, i.e. students (Gumport, 2000, p.78-79). Unsurprisingly, this increased marketing communication has also influenced how students perceive universities, particularly in their university choice decision-making process and factors that influence it (Kusumawati et al., 2010, p.3-6). One more important factor that influenced this change in perception and process of choosing a university (programme) is closely related to the concept of the “knowledge economy” (Stillwell, 2003, p.56). Virtually all first-world countries in the last several decades have transitioned from manufacturing-based economies into service-based ones. This change made skills provided often only by university ed-

2

INTRODUCTION

ucation not only highly desirable but also almost a prerequisite to a high-paying job and good career prospects. This proved to be an ideal situation for universities facing public budget cuts, as they responded by fully embracing the marketing concept, establishing marketing departments to capitalize on these new business opportunities (Svensson and Wood, 2007, p.19).

1.2 Problem Identification and the Purpose of the Research A decision regarding which study program to pursue and university to choose is not only difficult but also one of the most important ones an average person makes in their life. Obtaining a degree requires a significant amount of personal, financial and time commitment as well as various other sacrifices from an individual. Therefore, making a wrong choice can have serious consequences on their career prospects, personal fulfillment as well as expectations and perceptions of other people (Alonderiene and Klimavičiene 2013, p.2). Understanding how students make these decisions and which factors influence their decision-making process the most is not only important for students personally but also crucial for universities in the marketing context described in the previous chapter. To the best of the author’s knowledge at the time of writing this thesis, no similar research regarding this topic has been conducted in Austria nor with students from an Austrian university, despite the fact that Austria has been widely regarded as one of the top countries in the world when it comes to many aspects of its educational system like education for economy (World Competitiveness Yearbook, 2010) and investment in education (OECD, Education at a glance, 2009). IMC University of Applied Sciences is no exception to this. Even though the University owns numerous accreditations (THE-ICE, FIBAA, ASIIN), certifications (IQ Net, Quality Austria, Diploma supplement) and the fact that its staff, students, lecturers and graduates regularly receive awards, prizes and other recognition for outstanding achievements, how much of an influence (or if at all) do those elements have on their current and prospective students’ decision to study there remains unknown.

3

INTRODUCTION

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” is one of the most often repeated marketing maxims which explains the importance of measuring key aspects of the performance and results to an overall organizations effectiveness. In order for IMC FH Krems to steer its marketing efforts and ultimately provide an even better studying experience for their students, it needs to understand what drives those students to choose them in the first place. It is author’s hope that the proposed research will provide clarity and a better understanding of this issue.

1.3 Thesis Aim and Thesis Objectives The aim of the thesis is to identify which factors influenced the choice of the University of students at the IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems, determine how those factors correlate to one another in terms of their relative weight and importance to students’ decisions, as well as whether there exist and significant differences between students of different study choices and socio-demographic characteristics. To achieve this aim, the following objectives are to be reached: ● Create an overview of existing theoretical consumer decision-making process and student choice models based on the currently available academic literature ● Conduct an exploratory qualitative research in the form of in-depth interviews as a precursor to quantitative data collection and analysis in the form of survey questionnaire ● Conduct an overview and descriptive analysis of the survey results, followed by an inferential analysis aimed at providing answers to the research questions ● Summarize key findings and provide recommendations for future research

1.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses Based on the stated background, defined problem, intended purpose and aim of the thesis, the following research question is formulated: “What are the factors that significantly influenced the study decision of students to choose IMC FH Krems as their university?

4

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the primary research question, the following secondary research question is formulated: Are there any statistically significant differences in motivational factors based on socio-demographic and study characteristics of students? Finally, based on the defined research objectives, two hypotheses will be defined and tested empirically: an alternative hypothesis (H1) and a null hypothesis (H0). H0: There exist no statistically significant differences in motivational factors between students based on their gender, study level, country of origin and study program H1: There exist statistically significant differences in motivational factors between students based on their gender, study level, country of origin and study program

1.5 Research Methodology Due to the nature of the proposed research questions and stated research goals, a three-stage sequential exploratory approach (Creswell, 2013, p.44) will be used in order to gather relevant data, analyze it and provide recommendations. Using this common mixed-method approach, once secondary research is completed, quantitative data will be collected and analyzed first, and the results will be used in the design of the subsequent qualitative phase (Figure 4). Figure 1: Mixed Method Design: Three-stage Sequential Exploratory Approach

Literature Overview and Theoretical Framework Creation

Qualitative Collection and Analysis: Interviews

Quantitative Collection and Analysis: Survey Questionnaire

Source: Author’s work, based on Creswell (2013) The main idea behind this approach is to utilize a distinct set of strengths and limitations that are different between the two approaches yet potentially very complimentary at the same time. When conducted before the survey, interviews

5

INTRODUCTION

can be used to facilitate the design of the questionnaire, whether it is formulation whole question categories or just fine-tuning wording of a particular question. Additionally, they can be a good way to anticipate survey non-response or problems of answer refusal, allowing the research author to remove, reword or do something else to change those questions beforehand (Wolff et al., 1993, p.131). 1.5.1 Literature Overview and Creation of Theoretical Framework The first stage of the research process will be marked by secondary research in the form of literature review, focusing mostly on available scientific articles that dealt with similar topics previously. These findings will then be used to create a theoretical and conceptual framework that will be used as a foundation for primary research design. 1.5.2 Qualitative Collection: Interviews The second stage of the research process is meant for qualitative data collection and analysis, acting as a precursor to the large-scale quantitative research that will be conducted in the final stage. In order to successfully achieve this goal one of the common methods of qualitative data collection will be used: in-depth interviews with students. Interviews will be conducted in a semi-structured manner, allowing for a lot of freedom and opportunities for both the interviewer and the interviewees to fully explore the topic while never straying too far away into an unstructured territory and losing focus completely. Insights from these interviews will be used for two main purposes: collecting data and insights as a preparation for the survey questionnaire design that will follow in the next stage, as well as potentially gaining insights into particular opinions of people that might for whatever reason be unavailable or unreachable in the quantitative part of the research.

6

INTRODUCTION

Finally, in order to make the sample as representative as possible, interviewees should ideally be chosen to represent students from different backgrounds when it comes to age, sex, country, educational level and study program. 1.5.3 Quantitative Collection: Survey Questionnaire Once the qualitative part of the research has been contacted, a survey questionnaire will be designed and executed. To achieve this successfully, a standard survey method approach will be used, based on Creswell’s (2013, p.202) Checklist of questions for Designing a Survey Method (as shown in Figure 2). Its most important elements include the purpose of the research, population and sampling, data collection and instrumentation as well as data analysis and interpretation). Figure 2: Checklist of Questions for Designing a Survey Method

Is the purpose of a survey design stated?

Are the reasons for choosing the design mentioned?

Is the nature of the survey (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal) identified?

Is the population and its size mentioned?

Will the population be stratified? If so, how?

How many people will be in the sample? On what basis was this size chosen?

What will be the procedure for sampling these individuals (e.g., random, nonrandom)?

What instrument will be used in the survey? Who developed the instrument?

What are the content areas addressed in the survey? The scales?

What procedure will be used to pilot or field-test the survey?

What is the timeline for administering the survey?

What are the variables in the study?

How do these variables cross-reference with the research questions and items on the survey?

Source: Author’s work, based on Creswell (2013)

7

INTRODUCTION

1.6 Thesis outline The thesis has been divided into five major thematical sections, allowing for an outline that is both logically arranged and easy to follow. The first part of the thesis introduces the topic with an overview of the background, followed by problem identification and stating the purpose of the research. Next, the aim and objectives of the thesis are established, along with research questions and hypotheses. Finally, an overview of the research methodology is presented. In the second part, an overview of the literature is conducted, focusing on three major topics: marketing approach in higher education, consumer decision making and student choice and factors underlying the student choice. In the last section, a conceptual framework is proposed. The third part of the thesis is focused on presenting the design decisions and goals of the qualitative part of the research process, as well as its results and analysis. The last section in this part is aimed at providing conclusions and stating the key takeaways from that part of the research. Fourth major section of the thesis is aimed at providing an overview of the quantitative part of the research process, its design decisions, instrumentation, sample, and sampling process, as well as presenting an analysis of the results, both descriptive and inferential. Finally, last part of this section is focused on interpreting the results and answering the research questions and confirming or rejecting the hypotheses. The final part of the thesis is reserved for a short summary, explaining the practical implications of the findings, noting the study limitations and providing a recommendation for future research projects.

8

LITERATURE OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL DISCUSSION

2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL DISCUSSION The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the most relevant ideas and approaches that will aid the selection of the theoretical framework model, a foundation which the research design choice is based upon. Overview of the available literature on the topic of marketing efforts of institutions of higher education and student choice behavior in the context of consumer decision-making models demonstrates that there is a growing scientific and research interest regarding those issues. The theoretical framework for the thesis will be based on the three main aspects which will aim to provide relevant context for research objectives: 1. Marketing approach in higher education 2. Customer choice models 3. Factors influencing student choice First part will discuss marketing orientation and marketing strategies of universities, model, scope and limits of applying marketing to higher education, as well as challenges of marketing of educational services through the adapted educational 7P marketing mix. The second part will compare different customer decision-making models and their stages, provide an understanding of how they apply to the student choice-making process and lay out some of the limitations and common criticisms of this approach. The third part will explore the most important groups of factors influencing university selection as well as outline the distinction between emotional and rational ones. In the last part, a conceptual framework that will serve as a basis for the qualitative and quantitative research will be proposed.

9


2.1 Marketing approach in higher education Educational institutions have traditionally been product-oriented, perceiving themselves as producers of academic research and educational programs first and foremost, being much less concerned with satisfying the needs of their students (Kalenskaya et al., 2013, p.368). Despite this, the education industry across the globe has undergone extensive changes in recent decades, being forced to deal with ever-increasing pressures of processes like internationalization, decentralization, privatization, and diversification. As a result of these changes, institutions of higher education of today are very different from those in the past, operating as a driving force of the marketization of the education industry (Maringe, 2006, p.469) Kalenskaya et al., (2013, p.370) argue that at no point in history has education been as an important tool for personal utility as it is today, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. That being said, the benefits that people seek from education can still differ significantly. In order for an institution of higher education to conceptualize, design and deliver a service that will be able to satisfy those different needs and wants effectively it is crucial to change the orientation from purely product-based and adopt meaningful marketing approach to their business. While private ownership of the institutions of high education is a common and widespread phenomenon in countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia, tuition fees and the concept of students participating in the cost of their education is becoming more and more common in many European countries as well (Voss, Gruber, Szmigin, 2007, p.952). Kusumawati et al. (2010, p.3-6) indicate the need of the university management to market their institutions in order to achieve a unique difference in the eyes of prospective students, giving them a reason to choose that university. Temple & Shattock, (2007, p.75) assert that marketing theories and concepts, which have hitherto been used effectively primarily in business, have since gradually found their way into being used in marketing strategies of universities as tools to gain competitive advantage. Authors note that the specific nature of higher education sector created unique challenges in successful marketing strategies.

10


This specific nature has three main aspects: •

The first aspect of this specific nature is the fact that higher education is still largely a non-profit enterprise in most countries, creating the need to approach marketing strategy in a manner that must be different from fullblooded for-profit enterprises and organizations. (Temple & Shattock, 2007, p.76)

•

The second aspect lies within the fact that higher education is a service, and as such it inherits all the peculiarities of marketing of services as opposed to physical products. Mazzarol (1998, p.164) notes that higher education possesses all the characteristics of a service industry, putting relationships with customers before all other business aspects. Similarly, Gibbs and Maringe (2008, p.113) describe education as a pure service sector characterized by heterogeneity, perishability, and intangibility, as well as lack of ownership for the buyer of the service. It is a high-contact, consumer, and people-based service. These characteristics also make education service susceptible to variations in quality and consistency, making the job of attracting prospective students with promises of great service an increasingly more challenging and important task (Kalenskaya et al., 2013, p.369).

•

Third and most important aspect is tied to the fact that a large majority of students are one-time consumers, which is in stark contrast to the way most enterprises operate their businesses, where the focus is on repeat purchases and repeat customers. (Temple & Shattock, 2007, p.77)

These three aspects influence consumer behavior in the higher education sector in a rather significant manner, creating the need for researchers on this topic to adopt the classical marketing mix models in order to accommodate for these differences. Nicolescu (2009, p.37) Several authors have addressed the issue to the limited extent the classical marketing mix approach has when applied in the context of higher education. Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006, p.328) discuss the four aspects of the classical marketing 4P model, noting that while pricing and promotion in the context of

11


higher education are used quite often and do not differ significantly from other industries, the situation with other two “Ps” is not as clear. Product policy refers to the services the institution offers, as well as different aspects tied to those services (program portfolio, product quality, and branding). Three main types of services universities offer are teaching, research and various other tertiary sector services. When it comes to pricing policy in higher education, Nicolescu (2009, p.41) notes that its peculiarity stems primarily from the fact that higher education was traditionally funded from state budgets, particularly in the European countries, making the issue of pricing something still very recent. Even after the introduction of tuition fees, government subsidies remained an important factor in the pricing strategies of universities. The third aspect of the 4P model, the distribution policy, is not applicable to this sector and therefore is not considered at all (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006, p.333). Last of the 4P aspects, the promotion policy, relates to the use of various marketing communication tools in order to attract students. Strong promotional activities and open communication towards potential applicants remain the most effective tools of universities’ marketing strategies before the study decision is made. The activities should not stop at that point, however, since good student experience and resulting student satisfaction are crucial for the long-term desirability of a school, having a significant impact on the image and reputation of its brand (Nicolescu (2009, p.42). Besides adapting the classical 4P marketing mix model to fit marketing efforts of universities, several authors have tried to apply other variants of the marketing mix model to achieve the same goals. Ivy and Naude (2004, p.404) suggest additional elements to be added to the educational marketing mix, specifically tailored towards business schools (Figure 3): program, prospectus, price, prominence, people, promotion, and premiums.

12


Figure 3: The 7P Marketing mix for business schools

Premiums

Prospectus

* Accomodation * Modules * Exchange programmes * Computer facilities * Residential requirements * Class sizes

* Hard copy of the prospectus * Direct mail

Price * Payment arrangements * Tuition fees * Flexible tuition approaches * Programme duration

7P Marketing mix Business school Prominence

Programme

* Academic staff reputation * League tables * On-line information

* Range of electives * Range of majors

Promotion * Press advertising

People * Face-to-face tuition

* Publicity * Electronic marketing

* Personal contact * Open days

Source: Author’s work, based on Ivy (2008)

Kotler and Fox (1995, p.134) adapted their 7P marketing-mix model by adding additional elements to fit in an educational context (Figure 4), describing the seven key tools of marketing strategies for universities: program, price, place, promotion, processes, physical activities and people.

13


Figure 4: Educational 7P marketing-mix model

Program

Price

Processes

Place

Physical activities

Promotion

People

Source: Author’s work, based on Kotler and Fox (1995)

Quality and nature of the educational programs form the basis of the university identity and marketing efforts usually start with identifying customer’s needs regarding their type and structure. Quality of the programs also forms the basis for the differentiation in the eyes of prospective students and the public when two or more universities offer similar programs (Filip, 2012, p.915; Kotler and Fox, 1995, p.277). Unlike with most other products, however, students can get a proper insight into the quality of what they’ve purchased only once they’ve started attending the program. Another peculiarity of the program as a product is the fact that it does not exist until the university performs the service (Kotler, Bloom, and Hayes, 2002, p.237). To alleviate this issue somewhat, Hollensen (2003, p.16) suggests that study programs should be designed, developed, tested and refined cooperatively, making this process a part of an effective marketing strategy of the higher education institution. Most commonly associated with tuition fees and related financing options, the importance of pricing cannot be understated for organizations that rely upon revenues to run their operations effectively (Al-Fattal, 2010, p.23). Financial implications of attending the university are a major concern to students and their parents, which influences the marketing strategies of universities, primarily because they are aware that the price of tuition does not necessarily reflect the actual full costs of attending the university and are wary of making such a financial commitment (Pugsley, 2004, p.125). The way for universities to deal with this uneasiness is much more complex than the flat-out reduction of tuition fees, however. Filip (2012, p.915) notes that some people perceive more expensive services to add

14


substantial value, relating higher tuition fees with an overall image of the university. This is the primary reason universities often employ other strategies to offset the higher initial asking price, like discounts and various scholarship offers. Place of an institution is not limited the physical and geographical location of the campus, but can also refer to various aspects of the system of delivery and service distribution (Brassington, 2006, p.31). With the advent of the information technology, the concept of the place in the educational field is constantly evolving and changing. Kotler et al. (2002, p.10) note that a network of an institution which allows students to access information at any given time without the need to be physically present inside the facilities can also be considered its “place”. The increasing flexibility of the idea of the location allows institutions of higher education to target some previously unavailable groups with their products, such as parents with infants or full-time workers with very inflexible schedules. Depending on the customer segment, some of the strategies to attract those particular groups could be distance learning, part-time programs or intensive weekend courses (Al-Fattal, 2010, p.25). Promotion is the ability of an institution to maintain a continuous stream of communication with students, employers, lecturers and all other relevant stakeholders (Filip (2012, p.916). It is a high-profile and pervasive activity, capable of making or breaking a marketing mix, which is why constant analysis, planning, and management are needed to make useful in reaching the goals of the educational institution (Brassington, 2006, p.31). Blumenstyk (2006, p.141) notes various sets of tools that at the disposal of the institution to facilitate communication with its customers, like online ads, search engine optimization, email advertising, exhibits at educational shows, organizing open days as well as conferences. According to Jobber (2004, p.813), the biggest challenge in the promotion of educational services lies with the fact that it is often difficult to showcase the quality of the education in an advertisement, unlike with some other more tangible product. This is why, the author explains, institutions of higher education should use tangible cues in order to help their customers gain a better understanding of their services.

15


Processes describe the manner in which things happen within an organization. A relatively new addition to the marketing mix model, they are nevertheless of a critical importance to the success of the high-contact services like an educational business. Conversely, they are rarely as important for the customers of manufactured products (Palmer, 2001, p.13). Ivy and Naude (2004, p.409) recommend that universities should consider their services and the way they are offered, particularly when it comes to highly observable aspects like teaching methods or the assessment system, both of which are often some of the most important information prospective students want to know about. Kotler and Fox (1995, p.256) refer to all the teaching and administrative staff through which the educational service is delivered as people. Factors like professional approach and teaching skills of lecturers can have a decisive impact on the overall student satisfaction with the study program. Authors like Ivy and Naude (2004, p.413) also include all the current and former students in this group, since they are often points of contact for prospective students when searching for information regarding the educational institution. The final element of the 7P model, the physical facilities, refer to the entirety of the tangible items that are made available to customers (Al-Fattal, 2010, p.27) This is the reason authors like Palmer (2001, p.11) refer to this category as physical evidence. Items in this category can relate to buildings, lecture halls, equipment, technical infrastructure, literature, brochures, furniture and many other similar physical things. Gibbs & Knapp (2002, p.55) note that physical facilities and evidence have a major role in the marketing mix of a university since they are among rare tangible offerings prospective students can inspect prior to making a purchase decision.

16


Figure 5: Ingredients to an effective marketing strategy for universities

Marketing Mix

Student Choice Effective Marketing Strategy

Source: Author’s work, based on Al-Fattal (2010)

In conclusion, there exist many possible models for an educational institution to choose a correct and systematic marketing approach in order to accommodate the needs of its customers. However, in order to achieve a better understanding of the various elements in the marketing mix, it is crucial to understand the needs, preferences and the behavior of the customers, particularly in how they make decisions and what are the factors that influence this behavior. (Figure 5) Those last two aspects will be further discussed in the next two chapters.

2.2 Consumer decision making and student choice People are required to make numerous decisions regarding many different aspects of their lives every day. Being customers in the purchasing process is no exception to this. According to Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel (2009, p.66), when buying products or services, consumers generally follow the consumer decisionmaking processes. Schiffman and Kanuk (2007, p.565) define consumer decision-making as “the process of making a purchase decision based on cognitive and emotional influences

17


such as impulse, family, friends, advertisers, role models, moods, and situation that influences a purchase”. Figure 6: Key elements of the consumer decision-making process

Source: Schiffman and Kanuk (2007)

According to same authors, consumer decision making process consists of three key elements (Figure 6): external influence (marketing and other socio-cultural factors), consumer decision-making process (five stages), and post-decision behavior (post-decision and post-purchase behavior). Akinyode, Khan, and Ahmad (2015, p.59) describe the consumer decision-making model as a roadmap of how consumers make decisions. According to authors, there are two possible angles to approach the consumer decision making from. First one focuses the logic of the decision making which describes the people’s belief, whereas the second one highlights the nature of consumer rationality which is the preferences of the consumer.

18


In literature sometimes referred to as the traditional model, the classical purchase behavior model illustrates the five main stages of the purchase process: problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and post-purchase behavior (Erasmus, A. C., Boshoff, E., and Rousseau, 2001, p.29) It has been derived from the nowadays rarely used grand models, developed in the 1960s as one of the earliest presentations of a cognitive model of consumer choice (Engel, Kollat and Blackwell, 1968, p-512-515). There existed even earlier instances these models (Nicosia, 1966 p.66), but other than putting slightly different emphasis on various variables and the way they’re presented, there existed no major differences between them. There have been various attempts at expanding the number of stages inside the classical model in order to gain a deeper understanding of the decision-making process. For example, Akinyode, Khan, and Ahmad (2015, p.61) discuss the seven decision stages model which includes problem/need recognition and information search (internal and external), evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, consumption, post-purchase evaluation, and divestment. According to the model, the consumer decisions are influenced by stimuli received and processed by the consumer’s memories of previous experiences and influenced by either environmental or individual difference of external variables. Even so, the classical five-stage model remains a standard in consumer behavior research, providing a cornerstone to any study aimed at exploring consumer decision-making process. Despite its widespread use, it has not been without criticisms. Karimi (2013, p.94) notes that the sequential “step by step” structure is the preeminent issue of the model since consumers sometimes skip some of its stages, do not follow them in a straight sequence or sometimes even go back to previous stages before proceeding further down the process. The key challenge remains how the classical five-stage model can adequately be applied to student choice process and whether it requires any fine-tuning in order to provide a full understanding regarding how prospective students make their decisions to study at a certain university.

19


In the last three decades, there have been numerous attempts from different researchers to explain and summarize the process of how prospective students choose their universities and combine them into student choice models. Most of the research conducted by the end of the last century grouped the identified behaviors into one of the three models: status-attainment models, economic models and combined models (Hossler et al, 1999). Kusumawati et al. (2010) compared five widely accepted combined student choice models with four general consumer behavior and decision making models, allowing for better understanding these processes as complicated, lengthy and influenced by a diverse set of factors. Al-Fattal (2010, p.32) adapted the classical general five-stage consumer-decision making model into the student choice model with five distinct phases: Needs and Motives, Information Gathering, Evaluating Alternatives, Decision and Enrolment and Post-purchase Evaluation (Figure 7). Figure 7: The 5-stage student choice model

Needs & Motives

Information Gathering

Evaluating Alternatives

Decision & Enrolment

Postpurchase Evaluation

Source: Author’s work, based on Al-Fattal (2010)

According to the same author, needs and motives are initially triggered on the part of the student. As they realize that they want to pursue higher education, they start searching for information regarding potential providers for those needs. During this process, alternatives are also evaluated and distinction among them is established. Finally, a student makes an enrolment decision and ends up with an evaluation of their study experience.

20


In order to establish a foundation for the theoretical framework, each of the stages will be briefly reviewed in the next part. 2.2.1 Recognition of needs and motives Overview of the literature shows there are many different ways to categorize and characterize needs and motives. One of the most widely used approaches is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943, p.371) which categorizes them into five distinct groups arranged in sequential order, starting with basic needs and moving up to hard-to-satisfy self-actualization needs. Zeithaml and Bitner (2003, p.38) discuss the role of services in fulfilling these needs, noting their increasing importance for the higher-level needs like love/belonging, esteem, and selfactualization. Schiffman & Kanuk (2007, p.97) note that, while all the levels of the below need that is currently dominated motivate the individual’s behavior; the prime motivator is still the lower need that remained unsatisfied in some regard. Van Dam

(1997, p.1271) states a need arises from a perceived lack of something on the part of the customer. Al-Fattal (2010, p.33) describes the student choice decision-making process and asserts that it usually starts with a realization of a need, activated through either internal or external stimuli. This aspiration then solidifies and becomes clearer as they approach the end of their secondary education. Students’ needs and motives vary in nature and they range from personal intrinsic reasons (for example, enjoying the field of study) to instrumental reasons (for example, improving career opportunities). (Collier et al., 2003, p.244). 2.2.2 Gathering information Schiffman & Kanuk (2007, p.533) state that once a consumer realizes that a need could be satisfied by purchasing a product or a service, the second stage of the decision-making process begins. How a consumer acts in this phase depends on whether or not they had any past experiences to rely upon in their decision making. When that is not the case, they often have to embark upon an extensive external search in order to find useful information.

21


Palmer (2001, p.92) expresses similar views regarding students, describing that students usually start the search process from their own memory, experience or knowledge of institutions that might satisfy their needs. The level of information students require to make a decision varies quite a bit, and correlates with the level of involvement they have in the decision process (Menon, 2004, p.709). When internal information is inadequate to base a decision on, the student begins an external search Al-Fattal (2010, p.34). A prospective student, who does not have enough information about service providers, starts an active search through collecting information from several sources. Sources that customers can use to obtain information vary, but are often organized into four distinct categories (Kotler and Armstrong, 2008, p.209): •

Personal – Family, friends, partners, acquaintances

•

Commercial – Advertising, sales promotions, packaging, P-o-P displays

•

Public – Mass media (newspaper, radio, TV), consumer organizations, specialized publications

•

Experiential – Interacting with the product

Despite the complexity, gaining an understanding of the information gathering process has a major importance and reflection for a promotional strategy of the educational institution (Blackwell et al., 2001, p.109). 2.2.3 Evaluating Alternatives Once customers embark upon evaluating potential alternatives, they use two different sets of information (Schiffman and Kanuk 2007, p.534) during this process: 1. List of brands from which they plan on making their selection 2. Set of criteria they plan on using to evaluate each brand option When discussing students as customers in the context of listing and evaluating different universities, Al-Fattal (2010, p.36) describes the elimination process which consists of narrowing down the number of possible choices until only a handful of options remain. Once their limit their choice to one or two options, students often explore them in more depth, either by visiting the campus or via online

22


research. Using their pre-established set of selection criteria, they weigh each of the options against their personal beliefs, values, and priorities. The mix of those three factors is unique to each student since it depends on the intrinsic as well as environmental influences (Blackwell et al., 2001, p.76). 2.2.4 Decision and enrolment Schiffman & Kanuk (2007, p. 545-546) differentiate between three distinct types of purchases: •

Trial purchases – exploratory phase of the purchase behavior, often happens when customers purchase a product for the first time and in smaller quantity than usual in order to evaluate it through direct use

•

Repeat purchases – closely connected to the concept of brand loyalty, signals that the product meets the customer's expectations and they are willing to purchase it more often and in greater quantities

•

Long-term commitment purchases – most commonly related to products that immediately require long-term commitment, often with limited or complete lack of opportunity to perform a trial purchase (for example, household appliances)

As is the case with the general purchasing process, this stage is critical in the process of choosing a university as well. Compared to the previous step, which investigated the reasons student has chosen a particular school, this step tries to answer how the student chose that particular school. (White, 2007, p.24). During this stage, students come to the final decision regarding the university they will enroll in. This fact is not the only reason why this stage is critical to the entire process, however. Al-Fattal (2010, p.37) asserts that the criticality also stems from the possibility of certain factors discouraging students from making a decision, despite the university already meeting their previous criteria. Kotler & Fox (1995, p.262) write about this phenomenon in detail, explaining how students often have a feeling of perceived risk about the decision they are about to make. In order to deal with this feeling, they suddenly try to gather as much data as possible in the

23


short period of time to confirm that the decision they were confident about previously is the right one. 2.2.5 Post-purchase evaluation The last stage of the decision-making process revolves around the evaluation of the purchase decision. In this stage phenomenon of cognitive dissonance commonly occurs, where customers experience concerns after making a decision, questioning whether making an alternative choice would be better or preferable. If this feeling persists, the customer is more likely to switch brands next time they’re making a purchase decision (Gbadamosi, 2013, p.77). Schiffman & Kanuk (2007, p.547) draw the link between expectations and satisfaction, defining three possible outcomes of the process where customers evaluate the performance of the product versus the previous expectations they had regarding it. Those possible outcomes are: •

Neutral outcome – performance of the product exactly or mostly matches the customer’s expectations

•

Positive outcome – performance of the product exceeds the customer’s expectations, resulting in so-called positive disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction

•

Negative outcome - performance of the product is below the customer’s expectations, resulting in so-called negative disconfirmation of expectations and ultimately, dissatisfaction

Applying the concepts to student choice model, Brassington (2006, p.109) notes that after enrolling in the institution of choice and experiencing the service for a period of time, students assess how closely does the service they received as well as their provider (the university) match to their expectations. Kotler & Fox (1995, p.264) stress the importance for the university to produce satisfied students in the context of effective marketing promotion while adding that marketing efforts of the university should never end with enrolment, but continue even afterward.

24


2.3 Factors underlying the student choice There is no shortage of different conceptual models that have been explored and developed in the literature by various authors with the goal of explaining the underlying factors that influence the consumption in higher education. Bhat and Reddy (1998, p.45) separate the factors based on two distinct schools of thought and perspectives: rational and emotional. The rational approach asserts that consumers buy products based on objective criteria, for example, price or its technical features. Ajzen & Fishbein (1980, p.132) detail the choice process within the rational school, identifying its four distinct phases. In the first phase customers decide about the relevance of each attribute of a product. In the second phase, they collect information about the attributes of the products of competitors. Next, they evaluate how those attributes in each product stack against each other. Finally, they choose an optimal product. Contrasting the rational approach, the emotional perspective asserts that the motives of consumers are emotional in their nature. Schiffman & Kanuk (1994) note that individuals use personal or subjective criteria to express themselves and satisfy emotional goals through their consumption. In their cross-literature review, Pergelovaa and Rialpb (2010, p.4) compiled all the underlying factors affecting student choice in higher education that have been identified in the literature, organizing them by perspective (rational versus emotional), focus (university versus individual), underlying factors, country and representative studies. Table 1 shows a summarized overview of their findings. In order to fully understand consumer behavior and use it as a basis for segmentation, both perspectives should be used. While separate, both cognition and emotion are interacting mental functions (Ledoux, 1998, p.69). Menon et al. (2007, p.711) discovered that more than 40% of the survey participants could not be classified as information seekers, concluding that the rationality postulate is not sufficient to fully explain how a large number of individuals behave as individual decision-makers in the context of education. In order to account for this finding, current research is therefore focused on examining both groups of factors and how

25


they interact with each other to gain a better understanding of this complex process, authors claim. Table 1: Underlying factors segmented by perspective and focus

Rational University ▪

▪

Academic

Emotional

Individual and

▪

Duration

University of

pro-

▪

Romantic or exotic qual-

career opportuni-

search

ties

cess

and smells of the traditional institutions

Individual ▪

ity to the sights, sounds,

Sociocultural influence (family, friends, barriers, and supports)

▪

Intrinsic (identity construction,

Quality and high

▪

Choice goals

standard

▪

Vocational

expectations, psychological, re-

interest

laxation and leisure)

▪

Image

▪

Tangible non-tangible

personal values, wishes and

and in-

frastructure ▪

Cost and tuition fees

▪

Scholarship

▪

Selectivity

▪

Distance

from

home

Source: Author’s work, based on Pergelovaa and Rialpb (2010)

In the cross-literature review, Maniu & Maniu (2014 p.38-39) combined diverse sets of circumstances, situations, and contexts that have been identified in the scientific literature since the 1930s until the present day in order to propose nine distinct groups of factors that influence students’ decision-making as they choose their university: •

Reputation of the educational institution

•

Career and employment opportunities

•

Financial costs

•

Sources of information and influence of advertising

•

Facilities, services, and other infrastructure

•

Geographical location

•

Social life on campuses

•

Opinions and recommendations of family members

26


•

Opinions and recommendations of other people

An earlier cross-literature review conducted by Ming (2010, p.55) summarized ten different student choice-influencing factors into two distinct groups as independent variables: fixed college characteristics and college effort to communicate with students. The decision to choose a college as a dependent variable is influenced by all of those factors interacting in a particular way (Figure 8). Figure 8: Interaction of factors influencing student college decision

Source: Ming (2010)

Kusumawati et al. (2010, p.7) identified series of factors that influence the student choice criteria selection, separated into two sets of variables: marketing mix and non-marketing mix variables (Figure 9).

27


Figure 9: Student choice of higher education model

Source: Kusumawati et al. (2010)

Academic marketing mix variables include the product (education), price (tuition and availability of financial aid), place (physical location), promotion, people (HEI representatives), process and physical evidence as well as other marketing mix variables. In conjunction with other non-marketing mix variables, all those factors then influence student choice criteria. Shanka et al. (2006, p.34) found that the most crucial factors influencing student choice of the institution of higher education are academic reputation, quality of education, the location of the campus, costs, number and variety of study programs and opinion of friends and family. Similarly, research conducted by Beneke and Human (2010, p.435) has shown that most important factors are: geographic location, the reputation of the institution, tuition fees, development of various social programs, scholarship opportunities as well as recommendations from family or friends. In another recent research, Moogan (2011, p.573) identified the desire to

28


be awarded a degree, possibility to increase the chances of getting a fulfilling job, possibility of future higher income as well as the location of the university as the most important decision factors.

2.4 Proposed Conceptual Framework Using the literature overview and theoretical discussion conducted in this chapter a preliminary working model of the conceptual framework is proposed. In order to adequately answer the primary research question as well as provide insights into other stated secondary research goals, the approach to research design will be based on modified version of the classical consumer-decision making model, adapted by Al-Fattal (2010, p.32) into a student choice model with five distinct phases. While insights from participants will be probed and collected through each of the five phases, the focus of the research will be on identifying the underlying decision-influencing factors in the first (Needs and Motives) and the fourth (Decision and Enrolment) phases. To achieve that, a model based on cross-literature research of Pergelovaa and Rialpb (2010, p.6) will be used, which identified the underlying factors based on perspective (rational vs emotional) and focus (university versus individual).

29

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH – IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH – IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS For the second part of the planned three-stage mixed-method approach, a series of interviews were conducted. A total of 18 interviews out of planned and scheduled 19 were successfully completed – one preliminary pre-test interview and 17 full interviews. Since the main purpose of the preliminary interview was to improve the effectiveness of questions and efficiency of the flow of conversation, its results will not be included in the analysis. One interview was conducted in person, whereas the rest were taken over Skype. The interviews were conducted over the period of two weeks in June and July of 2017. All interviews were recorded with participants’ knowledge and permission, with one participant noting that the permission to record is granted on the condition that neither the audio nor the transcript will be published or made publicly available. Therefore, the audio and the transcript of the interviews will only be available to the author of the thesis, his supervisor, and the programme director. If a need to share them publicly should arise in the future, the record and transcript of the interview in question where no such permission was given will be omitted from the documentation folder. Participants were briefly introduced to the topic as well as the overall goal of the research in the introductory part of the interview. Besides that, no additional preparation or coaching was done with interviewees to avoid any kind of bias and influence on their answers. Apart from three interviews that were conducted in Croatian, all other interviews were conducted in English. Since neither the interviewer nor any of the participants speak English as their mother tongue, it provided an additional challenge in some cases where further explanation and clarification of the questions and answers were sometimes necessary.

30


3.1 Interview design Interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner. The main idea behind this design choice was to create and foster a conversation on each of the topics, allowing both the interviewer and the interviewee to explore and discuss the matter in a very natural and pressure-free manner. This meant that the questions which were asked served primarily as discussion pointers for participants, giving them the opportunity to expand upon their original answers where necessary and even cover a couple of topics in a single answer without the fear of being interrupted or scolded by the interviewer. One preliminary pre-test interview had been conducted in preparation for the main part of the interview process. In addition to this, the interviewer carefully reviewed the pre-determined set of questions and topics before each interview based on the feedback from the previous ones conducted earlier. As a result, various improvements and optimizations in the interviewing process were made. This resulted in marked improvements in the execution and flow of the interview process during this part of the research. Participants were asked additional follow-up questions when it was deemed necessary, particularly in instances where their original answers were too short, not completely clear or if the interviewer believed it would help achieve the research goal better. As a basis for the interview question design, Student Choice model mentioned previously was used. A set of questions that participants were asked aimed at gathering data about their: •

Background – where they come from and what have they done prior to enrolling at IMC FH Krems

•

Needs and Motives – why did they decide to pursue a university education in the first place

•

Information search – where did they look for information and what tools have they used

31


•

Evaluation of alternatives – have they considered or applied to any other universities or were they considering pursuing a career instead of studying

•

Purchase decision – how important ultimately was each of the (internal and external) factors for them to go through with the decision to choose IMC FH Krems

•

Post-purchase process – (where applicable) whether were they satisfied with their decision and how did their expectations meet the reality

3.2 Results and analysis In this chapter, a descriptive analysis of the interview results broken down into previously mentioned thematic stages will be conducted. 3.2.1 Background of the participants As it was stated earlier, the primary aim of the qualitative (interview) stage of the research process in the selected mixed-method approach in the master thesis is to gather a deeper understanding of the student consumer decision-making process and factors that influenced their decision to choose IMC FH Krems. Achieving this goal influenced the interviewee selection process and criteria, primarily in its aim to make the sample as diverse as possible – choosing students from different backgrounds when it comes to factors like gender, country of origin, study level, study department and study programme as well as professional and educational history. This approach ensured that the data which was collected during the interviews provided as solid a design foundation for the quantitative research stage as possible. Questions that participants were asked in this opening stage of the interview were: •

Where are you from?

•

What are the study level and programme you’re currently enrolled in?

•

What did you do prior to studying at IMC Krems? Have you studied in another programme before coming to IMC Krems? Do you have any work (internship, volunteering) experience?

32


Based on participants’ answers, following is the short breakdown of the most relevant data: Country of Origin - Out of the 17 interviewees, seven were from Austria, three from Croatia and Slovakia, two from Germany, and one from Romania, Serbia, and Spain. Study level and study department - Participation was achieved from both study programme levels (6 Masters and 11 Bachelor level students) as well as all three study departments (10 Business, 2 Health Sciences, 5 Life Sciences), providing insights from at least one representative per category from all combinations of study departments and study levels (Table 2). Table 2: Distribution of interviewees by study departments and program levels

Business

Health Sciences

Life Sciences

Bachelor

5

2

4

Master

5

/

1

Source: Author’s work

The only exception to this were representatives of Master-level Health Sciences students, who proved to be very difficult to find, identify and reach due to the nature of their programme (only one study programme in total, conducted in the German language, exclusively part-time). Gender – A total of 13 female and 4 male participants were interviewed. The gender ratio of interviewees matches the overall gender ratio of IMC Krems students quite closely. Former / Current / Prospective students – At the time of the interviews, three of the interviewees were enrolled to IMC Krems but have not had their first lectures yet. Two interviewees were recent graduates, and one participant was a recent programme dropout, i.e. a former student who did not graduate. All other participants were current students of IMC Krems. Educational/professional history – Out of 11 Bachelor students interviewed, 5 of them did not have any work (volunteering included) experience nor educational

33


background other than high school prior to coming to IMC Krems. Three of them have already been enrolled in another school, whereas five of the bachelor-level participants already had some work or volunteering experience. When it comes to master-level interviewees, all six of them have had some work/internship experience, although only one participant had a substantial amount of it (more than 3 years). 3.2.2 Needs and Motives After the background of the interviewees had been established, the interview process moved into the first stage of the Student Choice process – identifying the needs and motives. The main goal of this stage was to explore the thought process that led the participants to recognize the need to continue their education and not remain content with the one they had hitherto achieved. •

Questions that participants were asked at this stage of the interview process were:

•

Why have you chosen to pursue a university education?

•

Have you considered starting a career after you have completed your previous education? Why or why not?

When it comes to rational factors, career-focused answers were the ones most often cited by the participants as those that led them to pursue a university education. More than half of participants (9 out of 17) mentioned improving their opportunities to have a more fulfilling career, better paying job position or a job position at all as the primary goal they were trying to achieve by committing to further education. Similarly, roughly a third of the interviewees (6 out of 17) stated increasing their professional expertise and gaining deeper insights into their field of study choice as the important factors. Other rational factors that participants mentioned were the fact that companies in these times are expecting it and allowing themselves more time to decide what they really wanted to do in life, essentially postponing this decision for a couple of years. Emotional factors were much more varied and tied to individual participant’s personal situation and context. Emotional reasons that interviewees stated here were

34


that university was located close to their hometown, that Krems overall is a nicer city than Vienna, defying their parents’ expectations, meeting other cultures, learning new languages, living near their boyfriend, caving into the social pressure for obtaining a degree, obtaining more social prestige, going to university because all of their friends went as well, the desire to move to another city and get away from parents and going to university to please the parents. 3.2.3 Information search The second stage of the Consumer Decision Making and Student Choice process follows the initial problem recognition and is aimed at identifying the tools and patterns used to search for information that will help students make an informed decision in the later stages regarding their choice. Questions that participants were asked at this stage of the interview process were: •

How did you search for information regarding university options?

•

Where did you first hear about IMC Krems?

3.2.3.1 Sources of information Only a single interviewee claimed they used the official website as an exclusive source of information. All other interviewees who were asked the first question (this particular question was added later after the first four interviews demonstrated the need to include this topic) said they used a combination of two or more platforms/channels to collect useful data. When looking into particular tools that interviewees utilized to obtain information regarding IMC FH Krems, an overwhelming majority of them (12 out of 17) used the official university website as their primary source of information. Roughly half of the participants (8 out of 17) used some form of social media to gather more information. In their social media search, they commonly checked both the official university profiles (primarily on Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram) as well as the “IMC FH Krems – Ask a Student” student group on Facebook,

35


which serves as the unofficial gathering place for prospective, current and former students to exchange information, experiences and contacts. Three interviewees reported using some variation of university ranking lists that are aimed at aggregating data from as many universities as possible in order to rank them according to certain desired criteria (for example, academic excellence or percentage of graduates who found a job in 6 months after graduating). Similarly, two participants also used online student forum communities in their information gathering process. Other information-gathering channels that were mentioned (each only once, however) were parents and friends, the official website of the city of Krems, the official IMC FH Krems study programs brochure and an agency specialized for matching students with universities. 3.2.3.2 Initial contact with IMC Krems Looking into the answers to the second question, the situations in which interviewees first heard about IMC Krems vary quite a bit, as is to be expected from the sample of participants coming from such different backgrounds. Interestingly, despite only one interviewee mentioning parents and friends as their information-seeking channel in previous chapter, recommendations from people who were already involved with IMC Krems in some regard (friends, partners, family members, professors) were the first point of contact with this university for more than half (8 out of 14 who were asked this question) of the interviewees. Three participants first found IMC Krems online, through search engines based on certain set of criteria they used to narrow their search. For other participants, it was a university comparison website, career day and a study guide in the newspaper that ranked different available programs. 3.2.4 Evaluation of alternatives After establishing the initial contact with IMC Krems as well as the information search process in the previous chapter, the third stage of the Consumer Decision

36


Making and Student Choice process was aimed at finding out whether the participants considered any alternatives to their choice and if so, what was their thought and decision-making process. Questions that participants were asked at this stage of the interview process were: •

Have you considered any other schools/programs? How did they compare to IMC Krems?

•

Why did you decide to ultimately not pursue them?

Data gathered from the interviews suggests that evaluation of alternatives is a crucial decision-making step for prospective students. 16 out of 17 interviewees said they have looked into and considered other programs and schools alongside IMC Krems. Unsurprisingly, the majority (11 out of 17) were considering other schools in Austria (University of Vienna, WU, FH Wien, FH St. Pölten, FH Wiener Neustadt and FH Graz), whereas the others looked into schools in their own countries of origin. Only two participants considered schools that were neither in Austria nor in their countries of origin (programs in Netherlands and Italy). Interviewees pointed to a number of reasons why they decided to ultimately discard the alternatives as their school of choice: •

Very poor integration of theory and practice in the study program compared to what was offered at IMC Krems;

•

Not meeting the administrative requirements (matura, language level);

•

School being too far away from their home and parents;

•

Preferred language of study not being available (most commonly schools not offering lectures in English);

•

High risk of enrolling in the school due to a very strict system that does not allow any tolerance for failing exams.

Finally, two interviewees applied to another school first and did not get accepted, so they chose IMC Krems as an alternative option.

37


3.2.5 Purchase decision The fourth stage of the Consumer Decision Making and Student Choice process is the one in which the student makes the final decision whether to “buy” or “not to buy”, or in the case of university choice the decision whether to choose that particular school as the one that they will enroll with. In order to find out the context and the relative weight and importance of (internal and external) factors that influenced them towards their final decision, the interview process in this stage was aimed at exploring and answering the following questions: •

Have you seen or heard any kind of marketing communication effort (ATL, BTL) from IMC Krems?

•

What does a brand mean to you? Does IMC Krems have a brand? How do you perceive it? What is the brand promise of IMC Krems?

•

What was the deciding factor for you to choose IMC Krems? What mattered to you the most while making this decision?

•

How important were the opinions of friends and family to your decision?

3.2.5.1 Influence of IMC Krems marketing efforts First question/topic of this part was primarily aimed at gauging the effect that marketing efforts of IMC Krems might have had in the decision-making process of the interviewees. Even though the majority of the interviewed students were from Austria, only 5 out of 17 participants in total have seen, heard or experienced some kind of marketing communication effort from IMC Krems, whether it was some kind of advertisement, brochure, presentation or direct marketing. Three students have personally been in touch with marketing communication prior to enrolling – one student saw the name in the university information brochure, another student saw the billboard in Vienna and the third one saw a poster at her school. One student did not experience the marketing communication first-hand but was told about it by a friend who saw the billboard in her hometown. Finally, one inter-

38


viewee has seen the billboards as well, but only after he had already been enrolled for a year, so marketing communication efforts from IMC Krems would have no impact on his decision to study there. 3.2.5.2 Brand perception of IMC FH Krems Next topic in this part of the interview dealt with the brand of IMC Krems and how students perceive it. More than two-thirds of the interviewees (11 out of 15 who were asked to discuss this topic) said they perceived IMC Krems as an international school. Four students also mentioned English language lectures as important part of the internationality and two interviewees noted strong ties with partner universities across Europe. Roughly half of the respondents (8 out of 15) recognized practical focus and result orientation as key values that IMC Krems brand promises alongside its optimized study programs and quality of lecturers. The same number of interviewees highlighted the openness and friendliness of the school, whereas four students also mentioned its relaxed atmosphere, particularly in the context of it being a stark contrast to study experience in Vienna. Given that the interviews were primarily exploratory in their nature and goals, particularly noteworthy for this purpose were the answers from students who managed to conceptualize their perceptions of the IMC Krems brand as either a brand promise or a marketing motto: •

“If you study here, you will succeed later in life”

•

“Come for a nice city, stay for a great school”

•

“Confidently competent without shouting”

•

“IMC Krems graduates – best-kept secret in Austria”

•

“One of best schools in Austria by student satisfaction”

Finally, two interviewees noted they felt that the brand promise of IMC Krems has not been fully delivered, particularly when it comes to achieving true internationali-

39


ty (not enough representation from non-German speaking students as well as lecturers) and the practicality of the curriculums. 3.2.5.3 Deciding factors for choosing IMC Krems After establishing the role branding and marketing of IMC Krems played in the decision-making process, the focus of the interviews shifted to evaluating key emotional and rational factors that influenced participants to ultimately go ahead with the “purchase”, i.e. choose IMC Krems as their educational institution. It should be noted that first two interviewees were not asked to identify the factors themselves, but were rather introduced to a list of different factors that were identified in previous similar research and then asked to evaluate the relative importance of each one on the scale from 1 to 7. This concept was abandoned quickly, however since it was decided that it was unwieldy to use in an interview format and that it should be left for the survey questionnaire part. Similarly, it was decided that the main goal of this part of research would be better served with participants identifying those factors themselves, without any kind of prompting. Therefore, starting with the third interview, participants were asked to explain what influenced them to ultimately choose IMC Krems. Out of 15 interviewees who were asked to identify factors themselves, 14 mentioned at least one rational factor as the primary reason for choosing IMC Krems, often in combination with other rational factors and occasionally an emotional one as well. Only a single interviewee mentioned a single emotional factor (being close to high-school friends) as their main motivator for studying at IMC Krems. Half of the participants (8 out of 15) said their primary motivator was better career opportunities, with four of them adding that IMC Krems is recognized as one of the best schools in Austria in their respective specializations (students of medical & pharmaceutical biotechnology and physiotherapy). Three of those students also specifically pointed out the design of the study programs (PTS/ARTS semester, practical-orientation) as an important aspect of improving their career outlooks in the future.

40


Internationality was also one of the often mentioned factors, with 7 out of 15 interviewees saying it played an important role in their choice. Interestingly, four students mentioned internationality in the context of better international opportunities, whereas three of them primarily considered it from an emotional perspective, as a chance to meet new friends and people from other cultures to enrich their lives. Similarly, six participants (3 Austrian and 3 from other countries) mentioned programs in the English language as a deciding factor for them. Finances were also an important factor for four interviewees, particularly the low tuition fees and the relatively low cost of living in Krems, especially when both are compared to other western countries. Facilities that IMC Krems offers was a crucial factor for three students, particularly the availability of laboratories and other equipment. Finally, quality of lecturers and communication between lecturers and students convinced two interviewees to choose IMC Krems over other schools. 3.2.5.4 Influence of family and friends Last question/topic of this part was aimed at estimating the effect friends and family had in the decision-making process of interviewees. Majority of the participants (9 out of 17) did not feel people around them had an important influence on their decision. Out of 8 students who mentioned some instance of external influence from friends and family, only three of them felt that their study choice decision was directly affected by this. Two said their parents had professional and personal connections to someone with links at IMC Krems who vouched for the quality of the school, which in turn convinced the parents that it was the right choice for their children too. Six students judged this influenced to be positive, i.e. the one which made it more likely for them to choose IMC Krems. In the remaining two instances, interviewees judged the influence to be negative, making them less likely to choose IMC Krems because of it.

41


3.2.6 Post-purchase behavior The fifth and last stage of the Consumer Decision Making and Student Choice process is aimed at estimating how satisfied students were with their decision after a certain amount of time has passed and whether they have any regrets regarding their choice. In order to find out how the students perceive their decision today, the interview process in this stage strived to explore and answer the following questions: •

Did your expectations meet the reality? In what way?

•

Were you happy with your choice? Why or why not?

•

Given the same opportunity, would you repeat the decision?

It should be noted that the questions for this stage were not applicable in two cases, primarily because the interviewees were freshly enrolled students who have not yet had their first lectures and were therefore unable to provide any meaningful post-purchase experiences. Based on the analysis of the results, overall impressions that interviewees demonstrated during the interviews will be grouped into three distinct groups: generally positive, mixed and generally negative, with an almost even number of students split between groups. Only a single interview could be viewed as an exception to this trend, falling into “exclusively positive impressions” category, where the student asserted that all of her expectations have not only been met but exceeded, particularly when it comes to lecturers and colleagues. 3.2.6.1 Students with generally positive impressions Overall positive impressions were expressed by four interviewees. For the purpose of this analysis, the students in this group were the ones that primarily or exclusively pointed out the positive aspects of their decision to study at IMC Krems, stating the factors that contributed to this impression clearly. Some of the aspects that were commonly mentioned as factors that influenced the overall satisfaction were:

42


•

ARTS/PTS semester – opportunity to gain real-life experience in some of the best European companies, domestic and foreign

•

Career center of IMC Krems – very active in offering relevant student job offers

•

Quick and efficient communication – both from administration as well as the professors/lecturers

•

Good preparation for the job market - useful knowledge and skills gained during the lectures

Despite the overwhelmingly positive feedback, there were still certain aspects of the experience that interviewees had problems with or objections to, mostly revolving around the perception that the school is still not as international as they thought it would be when deciding to enroll there. Unsurprisingly, every interviewee in this group answered positively when asked whether they would repeat their decision to choose IMC Krems as their schools of choice. 3.2.6.2 Students with mixed impressions Mixed impressions were expressed by five interviewees. When it comes to positive aspects of their decision, they shared similar sentiments to the students in the first group, noting the internationality and practicality of the study programs, as well as the positive overall atmosphere and friendly lecturers. Unlike the first group, however, they put a lot more emphasis on the things they were disappointed or annoyed with during their study experience: •

Significant amount of “filler” courses – the ones which do not really fit well into the overall concept and stated goals of the study program, but have not yet been removed or changed

•

Structure of student schedules – primarily in the ineffective class schedules that do not allow students to pursue other professional or personal interests/activities

•

English language lectures – not enough native English speakers among lecturers

43


•

Cumbersome administration – lot of complicated administrative procedures that students have to deal with

•

Too many exams and overall stress level – for a school that emphasizes practicality, there should be less theoretical exams and more projects/presentations

Even though the students in this group expressed a lot more critical and sometimes quite negative overall impression regarding their study choice, every interviewee said they would ultimately make the same decision if given the opportunity to choose again. 3.2.6.3 Students with generally negative impressions Generally, negative attitudes about their decision to study at IMC Krems were expressed by six students in total, a narrow plurality of all interviewees. Students in this group were the ones that primarily or exclusively pointed out negative aspects of their overall study experience, explaining the reasons that made them regret their decision in some regard. Some of the factors identified in these interviews were similar to the ones stated in the previous two groups, so this part of the analysis will focus primarily on those criticisms that were unique to this group: •

City and university – Krems is a small and relatively unknown city even in Austria, which created difficulties for some interviewees when trying to explain where they are studying to their friends, family and potential employers

•

Practicality of courses – too few company visits and difficulties transferring what had been learned in lectures to the real-world business problems

•

Lack of exchange opportunities – limited choice of schools that were available for Erasmus student exchange

•

Too much focus on Austria/Germany – particularly in business courses, where most of the practical examples and case studies were from Germanspeaking countries

•

Not enough diversity among students – very few students come from countries outside of Central Europe and Austria’s immediate neighbors

44


•

Very easy exams – the exam process did not provide sufficient challenge, resulting in something of an “inflation” of good grades, devaluing the whole study experience

When it comes to whether they would repeat their decision to study at IMC Krems, answers in this group were much more varied than in previous two groups. Two interviewees said that, despite the negative attitude towards their study choice decision, they would still decide the same. Two students gave a firm “no” as an answer, saying they would choose another school, whereas one student said she was unsure. Finally, one student said she would have chosen her current studies (bachelor level) again, but the overall experience convinced her to pursue her master's degree with another school. 3.2.7 Conclusions and key takeaways As was stated previously, the main goals of the (qualitative) interview part of the mixed-method approach in this Master thesis were: •

To gain a better understanding of the decision-making process students go through when evaluating their university education options;

•

To identify key stages of this process as well as factors that influence it in each stage;

•

To establish a solid empirical basis for the survey questionnaire design decisions in the last stage of the research process and;

•

To obtain qualitative data which will be compared with findings in the quantitative part of the research in order to analyze the similarities and differences

The analysis of the interview results conducted in the previous chapter shows that all of the stated goals have been successfully reached. Interviews showed that there is an observable decision-making process student goes through when trying to decide where and what to study, and that this process has clearly defined stages.

45


While the beginning and end points for those stages differed from student to student, every interviewee started with realizing they have a problem, then moved onto researching the possible solutions for this problem, evaluating them, making a final decision and (where applicable) experienced some sort of mental process where they compared their expectations with the outcome they got. Factors that influence this decision-making process have also been observed and analyzed briefly, both rational (for example career opportunities or finances) as well as the emotional ones (social prestige or being close to friends/partners). The interview process also provided insights into questionnaire design, giving a clear idea, which types of questions should be asked in order to create desired outcomes. Conversely, questions to be avoided or formulated in a different way were also identified. For example, questions which identified that there were multiple factors that influenced a decision student made should probably be formulated as a multiple-choice question in the survey or alternatively as a question where respondents

assign

weights

to

a

pre-determined

set

of

answers.

Possibilities for additional topics and questions in the quantitative stage have been identified. For example, a question regarding whether IMC Krems was the first-choice selection for the student and why (or why not) that was the case. Similarly, questions regarding whether the perception of the IMC brand in the eyes of the student changed (and if yes, in what way) before enrolment and after certain study period will be added as well. Finally, even though only a descriptive analysis of the interview data has been conducted, it will nevertheless allow for data comparison and detecting differences in the results between qualitative and quantitative stages of the research process.

46

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

4 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE The third and final stage of the research process was focused on designing a survey questionnaire and distributing it among the target student population. The first part of this chapter will provide a short overview of the survey design decisions and choices. In the second part characteristics of the sample will be presented and discussed. Results of the survey will be presented in the third part in the form of descriptive analysis of the most interesting survey results. In the fourth and final part, the inferential statistical analysis will be conducted to provide an answer to the research questions.

4.1 Overview of survey design choices Based on the learnings and insights obtained in the second stage of the research process, a survey questionnaire was designed using the soSci Survey online tool. A total of 14 pages and 23 questions were created, with the questionnaire having several filter points where providing a certain answer would land the participants onto a different next page. Besides pages with questions, the survey also included a welcome page with a short introduction regarding the research purpose and objectives, as well as privacy and data protection disclaimer and a warning about target population of the survey. The last page of the survey contained information regarding ways to contact the author in case of further questions or comments. Finally, a page regarding the opportunity to participate in a raffle was also included, which will be discussed in more detail in the participation incentive chapter. The first page after the introduction served as a filter page, where participants were asked whether they were current students or recent graduates of IMC Krems, alongside with another warning that the survey is aimed exclusively at this

47


group of people. In case participants would choose “No” as an answer to the filter question, they would get taken to the last page automatically. The survey was made available online on 21st of December 2017 and was available for one week, closing on 28th of December, when the results were downloaded and exported into the SPSS statistical analysis program. 4.1.1 Composition of the questionnaire Design decisions regarding the composition of the questionnaire, the topics it aimed to cover as well as the order of the questions were heavily influenced by the results of the interviews conducted in the previous part of the research. As was the case in the interview stage, questions in the survey questionnaire followed the Consumer Decision Making and Student Choice process. Therefore, besides already mentioned administration pages, the final version of the questionnaire consisted of following parts (Figure 10): Filter question, background questions, needs and motives, information search, consideration of alternatives, the influence of marketing, purchase decision, post-purchase behavior. Figure 10: Basic layout of the composition of the questionnaire

Filter question

Background questions

Needs and motives

Information search

Search for alternatives

Influence of marketing / branding

Purchase decision factors

Postpurchase behaviour


4.1.2 Pre-testing the questionnaire Before the survey was distributed among the target population, several instances of pretesting were conducted via the soSci Survey pretesting platform. In total, feedback from six different pretesting participants was recorded, with seven more participants who completed the pretest version of the survey but did not leave any

48


additional feedback nor comments. Pre-test feedback generally revolved around minor grammatical or visual improvements or clarifications. Two comments that impacted the final design more substantially were a suggestion to put questions regarding the gender and country of origin at the end of the survey, as well as to provide a „Not applicable for me” option to the question regarding different aspects of the IMC Krems study experience, to avoid forcing participants to rate something they have not had the chance to experience first-hand yet. Both of those suggestions were accepted and made it into the final version. 4.1.3 Study population Given that the research question of the thesis aims to identify the key factors that influenced students of IMC Krems to choose their university and study program, the target population of the research was defined as students who at the time of the survey were enrolled into one of the IMC Krems study programs or have very recently (less than 6 months) graduated from it. There were two reasons behind including fresh graduates into the target population (instead of just current students) - the length of the three-stage research process and fulfilling research purpose by observing post-purchase behavior: •

Longitudinal nature of the research as a whole – While each stage of the research was done in the period spanning not longer than a week, making both the interviews and the questionnaires cross-sectional in type, the time span between the second and third stage was almost six months. This meant that there was a good possibility that some of the students who participated in the qualitative stage graduated in the meantime and would not be eligible for the quantitative part of the research. To avoid this happening, the additional six-month post-graduation period was granted.

•

Research purpose and post-purchase behavior – Last stage of the previously mentioned consumer behavior and decision-making theoretical model that the research was based on aims to find out how students evaluate their study decision after they’ve gained some experience as students/consumers. While it is certainly possible to observe and evaluate

49


those factors at any point during the study process, including students who have fully completed their study program (and thus can have a full picture in mind) added additional value into the insights regarding the study experience at IMC Krems. According to the official student data obtained from the administration of IMC Krems (Figure 11), in January 2018 there are in total N=2649 students enrolled at the university – 1869 female (~70%) and 780 male (~30%). Figure 11: Official IMC FH Krems student population data (January 2018)

Source: IMC Krems Study Services

Around two-thirds of the students (N=1674) are enrolled into one of the business programs, a quarter (N=681) of students in life sciences programs and roughly one in ten students (N=289) was in one of the health sciences programs. Roughly three-quarters of the students (77.7%; N=2059) are enrolled in one of the bachelor-level programs, whereas 590 students are master-level students. Even though it is safe to assume that the number of enrolled students changed somewhat during the course of the study year, the stated number should still be close enough to the actual number for the purpose of identifying the population of the study. 4.1.4 Sampling design Sampling design choice for the target population was a non-probability (also known as a convenience) sample. There were two main reasons behind this choice:

50


•

Study limitations – Technical, financial, human and time constraints posed a significant limitation to the research process. Since convenience sampling is an extremely speedy, easy, cost-effective and readily available research method it provided a great choice to effectively overcome most of those limitations.

•

Size of the population – As was previously stated, the total study population is 2649 individuals, a relatively small number when compared to many other research projects. In a random sample, each individual in the population has an equal probability of being selected. This approach makes a lot of sense when the population sizes are so large that it would be virtually impossible to survey significant portions of the population, let alone everyone. However, that was not the case in this research. Therefore, it was deemed that sufficient representation will primarily be achieved through including as many participants as possible, more so than with a nonprobability sampling approach.

4.1.5 Survey distribution method Once pretesting has been concluded and the questionnaire design has been finalized, the survey link was distributed via an internal IMC Krems student email system. The system allows for sending mass emails to each student cohort stratified by study year, study program and study level. Links to the survey along with the short explanation were sent to every single student with the viable email address (which should account for every student in the target population) via the blind carbon copy option, allowing them to only see themselves as recipients. This was done to ensure as much privacy as possible for the participants. 4.1.6 Participation incentive In order to provide an incentive for students to participate in the survey and thus boost the number of replies in the survey, a monetary incentive was added to the distribution email, as well as within the survey itself.

51


A possibility of winning a €20 coupon for the service of winner’s choice (for example, Amazon, iTunes, Spotify etc.) was promised to one randomly selected survey participant. Information on how to participate in the raffle was provided on the last page of the survey, guaranteeing that only those participants who actually finish it get the chance to participate in the raffle. As a last question in the survey, participants were asked whether they would like to be a part of the raffle. If they answered affirmatively, they would be taken to an additional survey page with the explanation that they need to send an email with the name of the service of their choice in either the subject or the body of the email to an address that was specifically created for this purpose and operated by the survey author. Other than limiting the raffle to full participants only, this approach also ensured a convenient way to decide the winner of the raffle. Each participant was assigned a number based on the order of their email in the inbox and then an online number generator was used to decide the winner. An email with the results of the raffle was sent to all participants who entered it, allowing for transparency and fairness of the process. 4.1.7 Number of participants and the survey response rate As it was previously mentioned, the surveys were sent to virtually every single current student of IMC Krems, as well as those that were still students in the beginning of the study year but have since graduated. A total of 550 questionnaire clicks were recorded, including clicks by mistake or those coming from search engines. Out of them, 410 datasets (Figure 13) with at least some data have been recorded, but only 328 have been fully completed (i.e. the participant reached the last page). Still, 28 of those data sets have reached the end of the survey because they clicked “No” as an answer to the filter question, leaving exactly 300 data sets that can be considered fully viable responses. Therefore, only the data from those 300 surveys will be taken into consideration and analyzed further.

52


Figure 12: Detailed Statistics About Exit Pages

Source: Screenshot of project results page (www.soscisurvey.de)

With this in mind, the survey response rate can, therefore, be calculated at roughly 12%. However, since almost every individual in the population received an invitation to participate, this also means that more than 1 in every 10 students of IMC Krems opinion is represented in the survey results. 4.1.8 Statistical significance of the sample When it comes to determining the adequate sample size, some researchers have previously used sizes based on the fraction of the total population (for example, 10%), previous similar studies or margin of error they were willing to tolerate (Creswell, 2013; p.205). Creswell, however, argues that sample size decisions should consider three factors: •

Tolerable margin of error

•

Confidence level for this margin

•

Estimated percentage of the sample that will respond in a given way

53


Based on these three factors, the following statistically significant sample size calculation formula was crafted (adapted from SurveyMonkey.com, based on Fowler, 2009): Figure 13: Survey sample size calculation formula

where; N = Population Size e = Margin of error z = z-score p = population proportion (assumed to be 50% or 0.5)

Source: Author’s work, based on Fowler (2009)

Z-score is the number of standard deviations a given proportion is away from the mean. The table below shows z-scores for each of the desired confidence levels (adapted from SurveyMonkey.com, based on Fowler, 2009): Table 3: Relationship of z-scores and desired confidence levels

Desired Confidence Level

z-score

80%

1.28

85%

1.44

90%

1.65

95%

1.96

99%

2.58

Source: Author’s work, based on Fowler (2009)

Based on the presented formula, it became clear that in order to achieve the statistical significance of the sample with N=2649, z=1.96 and e=5%, 336 survey questionnaires were required. Given that the total number of viable surveys in the

54


research was 300, adjusting either the confidence interval or the margin of error was necessary. The decision was made to increase the latter rather than decrease the former. Even with this adjustment, there remains 95% confidence that the survey sample of 300 reflects the views of the overall population within 5.3% margin of error, making it highly statistically significant.

4.2 Attributes of the sample The following part will be aimed at presenting the attributes of the sample with regards to gender, country of origin, study program and educational as well as the professional background of the participants. 4.2.1 Country of origin and gender of the participants As is shown in Figure 14, more than three-quarters of respondents chose Austria as their country of origin. A number of students from Germany and Slovakia trail significantly behind in second and third place with a share of 4.7% and 4% respectively. No other country had any kind of significant representation. Figure 14: Country of origin of participants by relative percentage 0%

1%

1% 11%

1%

Austria Germany

4%

Slovakia

5%

Croatia Romania Slovenia 77%

Russia Other


55


Among the countries that were represented with at least 2 students, Hungary stands out with 6 students, followed by Croatia and Italy with 4 students each. Romania, Bulgaria, and Russia were represented with 3 students each, with two students hailing from China and Latvia each. All remaining countries were represented with a single participant. In total, 26 countries have been represented in the survey. When it comes to the gender of participants, roughly 4/5 were female (238 students in total), whereas 20% were male (60 in total). Two participants choose the option to identify as neither. 4.2.2 Study level, specialization, program, and language Representation in the sample was achieved from both study levels, all three study specializations as well as all study programs. There were 207 Bachelor level students and 93 Master level students. When it comes to study specializations, 194 participants come from business programs, 43 from life sciences programs and 63 from one of health sciences programs.

56


Figure 15: Number of participants per study program Export-oriented Management Medical and Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (BA) Tourism and Leisure Management (BA) Business Administration International Business and Export Management Business Administration for the Public Health Sector Marketing and Sales Business Administration and E-Business Management Medical and Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (MA) Occupational Therapy Tourism and Leisure Management (MA) Physiotherapy Environmental and Sustainability Management Advanced Nursing Practice Management General Nursing International Wine Business Management of Health Institutions Midwifery Music Therapy (BA) Music Therapy (MA) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


As is shown in Figure 15, three of the most represented programs were Exportoriented Management, Medical and Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (bachelor level) and Tourism and Leisure Management (bachelor level), accounting together for almost third of total participants. Conversely, three programs with fewest participants were Music Therapy (both bachelor and masters level) as well as Midwifery program. Finally, roughly 2/3 of participants (N=186 students) indicated they the language of instruction of their program was English, whereas 114 students said their study program was primarily conducted in German. 4.2.3 Background of the participants Similar to the variety of different countries and study programs participants were coming from, same could be observed with their educational and professional

57


background. Participants were asked to mark each of the options that were relevant to their professional and educational life prior to enrolling in their current study program. Due to technical issues with the survey platform which did not allow questions to be left unanswered, an option “I have completed high school” was added so that students who did not find any of the other options relevant could choose that one and not be forced to answer something else which did not apply to them. A high school diploma is a requirement to enroll in a university program in Austria and therefore every student needs to obtain it in order to become a student at all. Since this option served primarily as a way to circumvent technical issues, it has been omitted from the final results (as well as the figure below). Figure 16: Number of participants that chose each background option 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Full time Internship / Degree from Degree from employment Volunteering / IMC Krems another Student work school / Part time employment

Pursued a degree at another school, but have not completed it

Other


As is shown in Figure 16, most of the participants (N=243 or 81% of them) have had some educational or professional background prior to becoming current FH Krems students. More than 50% of students in this group reported having some level of work experience, whether as full-time employment or an internship, volunteering, student or part-time work. Additionally, 4 students in the “Other” category indicated that they did an Au Pair abroad, which could be added to this first group.

58


When it comes to educational background, other than previously mentioned high school which is mandatory (and was thus indicated by all participants), 44 students said they previously obtained a degree from IMC Krems (40 of them being master level students and 4 bachelor level), whereas 39 students indicated they have previously obtained a degree from some another school. Finally, 18 students said that they previously also pursued a degree at some point, but have not obtained it. Of the 14 students who chose “Other” category, other than four previously mentioned who did an Au Pair abroad, most other answers involved military service, traveling and taking a gap year.

4.3 Presentation and descriptive analysis of the results The following part will provide an overview as well as a descriptive analysis of the most relevant and interesting survey results, broken down into five chapters that follow the five stages of the Consumer Decision Making and Student Choice process with an additional part focused on the influence of marketing and brand perception of the university. 4.3.1 Needs and motives As was the case with interviews that preceded the survey questionnaires, the main goal of the first stage was to identify the underlying needs and motives participants were trying to accommodate or the goal they were trying to achieve by continuing their education on a university level. In this part of the survey participants were asked to rank various statements in two different tasks – one regarding themselves and their motivation, and the other one regarding what they think regarding the study motivation of students in general, i.e. how they perceive the motivation of their peers and colleagues. In the first task 8 different possible reasons (that were developed based on the feedback from the interview stage) for pursuing a university education in form of various statements were put before the participants and they were asked to organ-

59


ize and rank them from 1 to 8, with first place being the most relevant and last place representing the least relevant reason for them. Each of the statements can be grouped into either emotional or rational motives category (Table 4). Table 4: Rational vs. Emotional needs and motives

Rational needs/motives

Emotional needs/motives

•

To become an expert in my field

•

Because all my friends did it too

•

To get a better-paid job

•

To meet people from other coun-

•

To have a more interesting career

•

To buy more time to decide what

•

To get away from home/parents

to do in life

•

To meet my family's expectations

tries

Source: Own work

As can be seen in Figure 17, students ranked three rational career-oriented reasons as by far the most relevant with average (mean) ranks ranging from 1.96 to 2.84, with the first emotional reason trailing far behind in the fourth position with 4.38 average (mean) rank. Even though pursuing university education as a way of “buying” time to experience carefree student life before committing to a professional and family adult life was something that students in the interviews often mentioned as a factor, survey respondents gave it only an average rank of 5.38.

60


Figure 17: Average (mean) rank for each of the reasons


Statements regarding meeting family expectations, social pressure from friends and obtaining independence from parents scored average ranks between 5.89 and 6.7, positioning them in the bottom three places. In the second task of the first part, students were presented with nine different statements formulated in a very broad and generalized way regarding the study motivation of their colleagues and peers. Students had to grade each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (They did not agree at all) to 5 (They agreed with the statement fully). The idea behind this approach was to compare the answers students gave regarding their own motivation and how they perceive the motivation of other students and see whether there were any significant discrepancies in the distribution of rational and emotional reasons. Again, each of the statements can be grouped into either emotional or rational reason category.

61


Table 5: Rational vs. Emotional reasons

Rational reasons •

Emotional reasons

It’s hard to get a well-paid job

•

without a degree •

Degree is a great way to become

Employees

with

without

degrees

face

judgment •

an expert in a field •

People

People

attend

universities

to

please parents degrees

more career options

have

•

Most people go to university without a clear plan for later


Distribution of average (mean) grades each of the statement received from the participants (Figure 18) shows a similar trend regarding the importance of rational versus emotional factors, with the major exception being the statement regarding students going to a university without a clear idea what they want to do in life. While this particular factor scored quite a low grade in the first task when students had to judge their own motivation, when they had to evaluate the same reason for other people they gave it an average (mean) grade of 3.83, putting it in close second place. Figure 18: Average (mean) grade each statement received from participants


62


Career-oriented statement ranked first with an average grade of 4.06. Other two career-oriented statements ranked 3rd and 4th with average (mean) grades of 3.62 and 3.47 respectively. Remaining two emotional statements ranked in last two positions, with average grades of 2.93 and 2.66 respectively. 4.3.2 Information gathering Following the initial problem recognition, the second part of the survey questionnaire was aimed at identifying the tools and sources participants used to obtain information as a basis for their later study choice decision as well as pinpointing the initial touchpoint students had with the university. Students were presented with multiple different tools and channels (that were compiled based on the feedback from the interview part of the research) and they had the option of choosing as many as applied to them: •

Official website of universities

•

Official social media profiles of universities

•

Unofficial social media groups

•

University ranking lists

•

Online student discussion forums

•

Other official websites (for example, local city or governmental)

•

Friends and acquaintances

•

Parents and family

In addition to tools/channels in the list, students could choose one additional “Other” option and add to this list whatever they thought was relevant to them but was missing. As can be seen from Figure 19, official websites and social circles were two by far most commonly used channels of information. Almost 9 out of 10 respondents (N=274) said they used the official websites of universities to find information regarding their study options, whereas roughly 2/3 of students (N=186) reported referring to their friends and acquaintances.

63


Figure 19: Number of students that selected each tool/channel


Probably the most surprising aspect in this part of the research was the fact that various social media sites and tools (both official and unofficial), as well as other online channels, remained rather underutilized, with less than a quarter of respondents reporting using social media to get information about universities. When it comes to the “Other” category, almost 90% of the 34 answers revolved around various student events and fairs. In hindsight, not including this category into one of the main ones was an omission from the author of the survey. On average, students used 2.84 channels to gather information with the standard deviation of 1.28. Every single respondent reported using at least one tool and no respondents were using more than seven. 89% of the students used 4 or fewer tools in their search. When it comes to the first point of contact students had with IMC Krems (Table 6), for exactly half of the respondents (N=150) this contact was a friend (N=82), family member (N=35), professor/mentor (N=11), partner (N=7) or someone else (N=15). Online contact was the first touch point for roughly a third of the students (31.3%), with most of those students finding the university via search engines (N=85) and a smaller number of them seeing the name of IMC Krems on a university comparison website (N=7).

64


Table 6: Frequency and percentage per source of the first contact

First point of contact with IMC Krems Search Engine Friend Family member School fair University presentation at school Someone else Career day Professor / Mentor University ranking website Partner Newspaper article Billboard

# of students

%

85 82 35 22 16 15 13 11 8 7 4 2

28.3 27.3 11.7 7.3 5.3 5 4.3 3.7 2.7 2.3 1.3 0.7


Informational events were the first point of contact with the university for 16.9% of the students, with the 7.3% of respondents (N=22) first hearing about IMC Krems at a school fair they attended. For 16 students (5.3%) the first touchpoint was at the university presentation that was organized in their school, and 4.3% (N=13) of participants first got in touch with IMC Krems at one of the career days. Finally, other sources of marketing communication were the first point of contact with the school for only 6 students in total (2%), with four students reading about IMC Krems in a newspaper article and two respondents reported seeing it on a billboard. 4.3.3 Evaluation of alternatives The third part of the survey questionnaire was aimed at providing answers to several different questions and topics: 1. Whether the participants had considered any other schools besides IMC Krems; 2. Whether IMC Krems was their first choice and;

65


3. In case IMC Krems was not their first choice, why was that the case and what were the reasons that led them to ultimately choose it over something else in the end? Just over three-quarters of participants (N=226) said they have considered other schools besides IMC Krems, while it was the only choice for 24.7% of students (N=74). Out of the 226 students who stated that they considered alternatives, three quarters (N=173) said that IMC Krems was their first choice. Adding those 173 students to the 74 for whom it was also the only option, it can be inferred that IMC Krems was the school of choice for more than 82% (N=247) of its students. The remaining 53 students (17.7% of total participants) were then presented with further two questions aimed at understanding the reasons why IMC Krems was not their first choice as well as the reasons why, despite it not being the first choice, they still decided to ultimately study there. Looking into the answers presented in Figure 20, the reason that a majority (55%; N=29) of students considered an alternative school was its location, i.e. it was closer to student’s hometown or home country than the IMC Krems is. Figure 20: Number of students that selected each reason (another school)


66


The second most important reason (N=16) students chose were better study programs other schools offered, with lower costs of living (N=10) and other schools having better-integrated theory and practice (N=8) trailing in 4th and 5th place. Roughly a quarter of participants who answered this question (N=14) stated other reasons for considering other schools, mostly revolving around specific individual situations that were related to their private and family life. Identifying the reasons why they ultimately chose to study at IMC Krems in the end (Figure 21), despite it not being their school of (first) choice, almost half of the respondents (47%; N=25) said it was because they did not get accepted into their school of choice. Figure 21: Number of students that selected each reason (IMC Krems)


Other reasons that students also selected were: lectures in English language (N=16), integration of theory and practice (N=15) and IMC Krems having better study programs (N=15). Roughly one-fifth of the students (N=10) stated that the reason they chose Krems over the competition was its closer distance to their home. Less common reasons that participants chose as a foundation for their chose were easier administration procedure, lower costs of living and lower entry requirements.

67


4.3.4 Decision and enrolment The fourth part of the survey questionnaire was aimed at identifying the factors that influenced students to make a final purchase decision, i.e. a decision to study at IMC Krems. Since this question is crucial to providing a satisfying answer to the primary research question, it will be analyzed in two parts. This chapter will provide a brief descriptive analysis of the answers, whereas an in-depth factor analysis will be conducted in the following chapter. Students were presented with a list of 12 different reasons (compiled and selected based on both the feedback from the interview stage as well as analysis of factors identified in previous similar studies) and were tasked with ranking each of them on a 5-point Likert scale. Depending on how much of a role each reason played in their study decision, they could either evaluate it as a 1-No role, 2-Minor role, 3Medium role, 4-Major role and 5-Crucial role. The distribution of grades participants gave to each factor (Figure 22) shows that better career opportunities played an important (major and crucial) role for a vast majority of participants (89%; N=268). Similarly, almost three-quarters of respondents (N=224) found the practical orientation of the IMC Krems curriculum to play either major or crucial role in their study decision. Study programs conducted in the English language played a crucial role for roughly half of the participants (N=148).

68


Figure 22: Distribution of role importance for each of the identified factors Better career opportunities in future English-language programs Practical orientation of curriculum PTS/ARTS semester Expertise of lecturers Meeting people from other countries and cultures Communication between administration and students Low tuition fees Location of Krems (close to Vienna) University facilities (lecture rooms, laboratories,… Being close to my friends, family or partner Making parents happy 0 No role

Minor role

50

Medium role

100

150

Major role

200

250

300

350

Crucial role


Following the trend already observed in previous stages of the research, most emotional factors played little to no role for the majority of the students. Only 10% of the respondents stated satisfying their parents played an important role in their choice of IMC Krems, whereas a quarter of students (N=77) said that staying close to friends, family or partners played a major reason they chose IMC Krems. All other factors had much more even distributions of answers and will be analyzed further in the following chapter. In addition to the presented factors, students were also asked to evaluate the importance of IMC Krems marketing efforts, as well as the influence of their friends and family, had on their decision. When it comes to the influence of marketing efforts of IMC Krems, only 26 percent of the students (N=78) said that they experienced or were exposed to some kind of marketing communication from the university prior to making a decision to study there.

69


For roughly a half of those students (N=44), it was marketing materials they received at the student fair or during the school presentation, whereas 38 participants saw an online ad. One if five respondents (N=16) said they saw an ad for IMC Krems in the newspaper and nine students heard a radio commercial. Parents were the decision influencers for almost 95% of the students (N=284), with an average (mean) grade of 2.77 and the standard deviation of 1.52. Friends influenced 92% (N=277) of respondents with an average (mean) grade of 2.20 and the standard deviation of 1.28. Roughly three-quarters of respondents (N=230) noted that they got influenced by their professors and mentors, with an average (mean) grade of 2.19 and the standard deviation of 1.37. Finally, partners influenced the study decision of 74% (N=222) of respondents, with an average (mean) grade of 2.43 and the standard deviation of 1.46. 4.3.5 Post-purchase evaluation The final part of the survey questionnaire was aimed at estimating how satisfied students were with their study decision after they’ve been studying for some time, how their previous expectation stacked against the reality and whether they would, given the same choice again, repeat their decision. Students were first asked to evaluate how satisfied they were with a particular aspect (12 in total) of the university so far, based on their experiences. The aspects were compiled based on the data gathered during the interview stage as well as previous research done on similar topics. Overall, the average (mean) grade students awarded was 3.87 out of 5, indicating a high satisfaction level with the university.

70


Figure 23: Mean grade students awarded to each school aspect Communication with professors University facilities Location - city and university PTS/ARTS Practicality of curriculum International environment Quality of lecturers Student exchange opportunities Efficient administration Difficulty of exams Career centre Level of stress 0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50


As Figure 23 shows, the aspect that students were most satisfied with was communication with professors (x̅=4.26), followed by university facilities (x̅=4.02) and location of the city and university (x̅=4.01). Conversely, the aspects that students evaluated with the lowest average grade was the level of stress associated with studying (x̅=3.27), performance of the career center (3.42) and the appropriate difficulty of exams (x̅=3.78). After evaluating how satisfied they were with each factor regarding the school itself, participants were presented with six statements that reflected different intrinsic personal achievements and then asked to mark the level of their agreement with each on a 5-point Likert scale. The lead statement in the question included “By becoming a student of IMC Krems...” in order for each of the statement to make sense both logically and linguistically.

71


Figure 24: Number of students per grade for each statement with mean value of all answers in brackets

I met people from different backgrounds (3.59) I increased my chances of getting a good job (4.02) I positively changed my way of thinking (4.09) I gained confidence in speaking foreign language (4.11) I exposed myself to new experiences (4.13) I set good foundations for a fulfilling career (4.33) 0 Fully agree

Agree

Neutral

20

40 Disagree

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fully disagree


Looking at the results displayed in Figure 24, an interesting oddity can be observed. Even though it only received a third largest number of highest grades (N=118), the statement which scored the highest average (mean) score of 4.33 was about setting good foundations for a fulfilling career. Exposure to new experiences was the topic of the second highest rated statement with the mean score of 4.13, which also received the largest amount of highest grade (N=165). With the exception of the lowest rated statements, all other statements received an average (mean) grade over 4.13, indicating high relevance for students in general for each of them. Finally, even though it received the second highest amount of “fully agree” grades (N=146), a statement regarding meeting people from other cultures also received the lowest overall score with a mean grade of 3.59. The spread of standard deviation for each of the statements ranged from 0.85 (lowest) to 1.25 (highest). The last question that students were asked was aimed at finding out whether they would, given the opportunity and with the knowledge and experience they have now, choose IMC Krems as their school of choice again.

72


Figure 25: Percentage of students that chose each option when asked: “Would you choose IMC Krems again?”

Yes, I am happy with my decision.

6%

6%2% Yes, but I would choose another study program. No, I would choose another school with same or similar program.

86%

No, I would choose neither IMC Krems nor the same program again.


An overwhelming majority of the respondents (86.3%; N=259) said that they are happy with their decision and that they would have repeated the same decision again (Figure 25). Another 6% students (N=17) stated that, while they would choose IMC Krems, it would be on a different study program, bringing the total number of students who would repeat their study choice to 92% (N=276). Additional 6% of the students (N=18) said that they would rather decide to enroll with another school that offered the same or similar program to the one they are studying at IMC Krems, whereas 2% of respondents (N=6) stated that they would choose neither IMC Krems nor the same program again.

4.4 Inferential statistical analysis In order to provide an answer to the primary and secondary research question, an inferential statistical analysis has been conducted. While the previous descriptive part of the analysis provided insights into answers pertaining to all five stages of the student choice model, this part of the analysis will focus exclusively on the variables identified within the group of factors in the fourth part (Purchase/Study decision) of the model.

73


4.4.1 Principal component analysis In this chapter the results of the factor analysis for the “How big of a role did the following factors play in your decision to choose IMC Krems?” question will be shown. This analysis will allow for determining the way in which the variables can be grouped, and which factors can be highlighted.

Table 7: Communalities

Initial

Extraction

Better career opportunities in future

1,000

,510

Being close to my friends, family or partner

1,000

,747

PTS/ARTS semester

1,000

,508

Practical orientation of curriculum

1,000

,664

Meeting people from other countries and cultures

1,000

,662

English-language programs

1,000

,745

Low tuition fees

1,000

,357

University facilities (lecture rooms, laboratories,

1,000

,594

Expertise of lecturers

1,000

,717

Communication between administration and stu-

1,000

,603

Making parents happy

1,000

,453

Location of Krems (close to Vienna)

1,000

,619

cantinas etc.)

dents


74


Table 8: Total Variance Explained Component

Initial Eigenvalues

S

V.

C.f.

Extraction Sums of

Rotation Sums of

Squared Loadings

Squared Loadings

S

V.

C.f.

S

V.

C.f.

1

2,505

20,875

20,875

2,505

20,875

20,875

2,127

17,722

17,722

2

2,124

17,699

38,574

2,124

17,699

38,574

1,908

15,903

33,625

3

1,420

11,833

50,408

1,420

11,833

50,408

1,640

13,667

47,292

4

1,131

9,422

59,830

1,131

9,422

59,830

1,505

12,538

59,830

5

,885

7,372

67,203

6

,834

6,948

74,151

7

,682

5,686

79,836

8

,579

4,822

84,658

9

,533

4,441

89,099

10

,503

4,193

93,291

11

,456

3,802

97,093

12

,349

2,907

100,000

S – Sum; v. – % variance; C.f. – Cumulative frequency


According to Kaiser-Gutmann rule (Fabrigar et.al, 1999, p.275), a factor must account for at least as much variance as an individual variable. Therefore, only those factors where S > 1 should be considered when explaining the variance. As is shown in Table 8, this criterion is met with the top four factors, which cumulatively explain 59.830% of the total variance. The factor with the biggest loading accounts for 20.875% of the total variance.

75


Figure 26: Plotted eigenvalues of each factor (component)


Fundamental characteristics of each of the highlighted factors are explained based on the component (factor) matrix. Each variable is defined based on the answers provided in the survey questionnaire. Only variables where an absolute value is larger than 0.3 will be taken into account during the analysis.

76


Table 9: Component Matrixa

Component 1

2

3

4

,424

-,016

-,332

,469

,100

,443

,538

,501

PTS/ARTS semester

,491

-,449

,113

,231


,545

-,043

-,307

,521

,576

-,535

,079

-,193


,476

-,662

,256

-,121

Low tuition fees

,441

-,068

,384

-,101

,536

,391

-,044

-,390

,539

,302

-,564

-,128

,447

,556

-,200

-,233


,436

,205

,433

-,182

Location of Krems (close to Vienna)

,237

,633

,383

,124

Better career opportunities in future Being close to my friends, family or partner

Meeting people from other countries and cultures

University facilities (lecture rooms, laboratories, cantinas etc.) Expertise of lecturers Communication

between

admin-

istration and students


Table 9 shows the factor (component) matrix which will be rotated (varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization, 7 iterations) and the results of the matrix rotation will be displayed in Table 10, after which a factor extraction will be conducted.

77


Table 10: Rotated Component Matrixa

Component 2 3

1 Better career opportunities in fu-

4

,055

,093

,013

,706

-,092

-,130

,838

,140

PTS/ARTS semester

,594

-,123

,016

,375


,149

,112

,059

,791

Meeting people from other coun-

,772

,110

-,198

,121


,844

-,110

-,135

,052

Low tuition fees

,501

,146

,287

-,045

University facilities (lecture rooms,

,161

,739

,147

-,038

Expertise of lecturers

-,044

,719

-,177

,409

Communication between admin-

-,092

,746

,167

,101


,364

,320

,443

-,146

Location of Krems (close to Vien-

-,110

,298

,719

-,013

ture Being close to my friends, family or partner

tries and cultures

laboratories, cantinas etc.)

istration and students

na)


Looking into the factor loading matrix displayed in Table 10, four factors with values over 0.3 can be observed. Therefore, these four factors will be grouped and analyzed further. The first factor is defined by the following variables: PTS/ARTS semester, Meeting people from other countries and cultures, English-language programs, Low tuition fees. This factor will be named Intrinsic factors. The second factor is defined by the following variables: University facilities (lecture rooms, laboratories, cantinas etc.), Expertise of lecturers, Communication between administration and students. This factor was named Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure.

78


The third factor is defined by the following variables: Being close to my friends, family or partner, Making parents happy, Location of Krems (close to Vienna) This factor was named Socio-cultural influence. The fourth factor is defined by the following variables: Better career opportunities in future, the Practical orientation of curriculum. This factor was named career opportunities. 4.4.2 Pearson correlation coefficient In order to test the relationship between the observed variables, a Pearson correlation coefficient will be conducted. Pearson correlation is a measure of the linear correlation between two variables, with values between -1 ≤ r ≤ +1, where 1 is a total positive linear correlation, 0 is no linear correlation, and −1 is a total negative linear correlation. The higher the value of the Pearson coefficient, the stronger (and therefore, more meaningful) the correlation between the variables is. When interpreting the size of the correlation, some authors (Cohen, 1998, p.407408) have offered simple estimation guidelines to use in social sciences: •

r > 0.80 implies a very strong positive correlation

•

0.5 < r ≤ 0.80 implies a medium positive correlation

•

0 < r ≤ 0.5 implies a weak positive correlation

It should be noted, however, that these values are mere suggestions and their usefulness heavily depends upon the context and the purpose they are used for.

79


Table 11: Pearson correlation coefficient

r Intrinsic

Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure

Socio-cultural influence

Career opportunities

Intrinsic

Infrastructure

Socio-

Career op-

factors

and physical

cultural

portunities

facilities

influence

,065

-,003

,246**

,262

,956

,000

1

p N

300

300

300

300

r

,065

1

,248**

,259**

p

,262

,000

,000

N

300

300

300

300

r

-,003

,248**

1

,066

p

,956

,000

N

300

300

300

300

r

,246**

,259**

,066

1

p

,000

,000

,255

300

300

N 300 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

,255

300


Table 11 shows that no correlation of significant intensity has been recorded between the observed groups of variables. Despite this, it can be concluded that the majority of the observed variables show positive correlation coefficient. 4.4.3 Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests In this chapter non-parametric statistical tests will be conducted in order to establish the differences in observed factors with regards to sociodemographic and other variables from the research, with the primary goal of answering the secondary research question. Non-parametric testing is being conducted due to a higher disproportion of observed group sizes and the relatively small number of respondents, which is lower than the required theoretical minimum of 30 per each of the observed group.

80


4.4.3.1 Study level The first group of variables that will be tested for statistically significant differences in factor loadings is the study level. This group consists of two independent variables: bachelor students and master students. Table 12: Ranks Study level

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Bachelor

207

150,56

31166,00

Master

93

150,37

13984,00

Total

300

Bachelor

207

153,84

31845,50

Master

93

143,06

13304,50

Total

300

Bachelor

207

154,14

31908,00

Master

93

142,39

13242,00

Total

300

Bachelor

207

151,42

31344,50

Master Total

93 300

148,45

13805,50

Intrinsic

Infrastructure and physical facilities




Table 13: Test Statisticsa Mann-

Wilcoxon

Z

Asymp. Sig.

Whitney U

W

Intrinsic

9613,000

13984,000

-,018

,986


8933,500

13304,500

-1,002

,316


8871,000

13242,000

-1,094

,274


9434,500

13805,500

-,284

,776

(2-tailed)

a. Grouping Variable: Study level


81


When observing the significance value with regards to the study level, it can be observed that the test signature is higher than 5%, p>0.05 in all observed cases. Therefore, it is possible to infer that study level accounts for no statistically significant difference in the research. 4.4.3.2 Study specialization The second group of variables that will be tested for statistically significant differences in factor loadings is the study specialization of students. This group consists of three independent variables: Business, Life Sciences, and Health Sciences.

Table 14: Ranks Factor

Intrinsic




Specialization

N

Mean Rank

Business

203

163,52

Life Sciences

43

185,58

Health Sciences

54

73,60

Total

300

Business

203

134,91

Life Sciences

43

182,73

Health Sciences

54

183,43

Total

300

Business

203

141,57

Life Sciences

43

149,86

Health Sciences

54

184,59

Total

300

Business

203

146,87

Life Sciences

43

181,16

Health Sciences

54

139,73

Total

300


82


Table 15: Test Statisticsab Factor

Chi-Square

df

Asymp. Sig.

Intrinsic

54,323

2

,000


20,518

2

,000


10,648

2

,005


7,002

2

,030

a. Kruskal Wallis Test; b. Grouping Variable: Specialization


As can be seen from Table 15, the p-value for the Intrinsic factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Specialization. The highest mean rank (the value of the answers is the highest) has been achieved for students who belong to the Life Sciences group, whereas the lowest mean ranks belong to students from the Health Sciences group. The p-value for the Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Specialization. The highest mean rank (the value of the answers is the highest) has been achieved for students who belong to the Health Sciences group, whereas the lowest mean ranks belong to students from the Business group. The p-value for the Socio-cultural influence factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Specialization. The highest mean rank (the value of the answers is the highest) has been achieved for students who belong to the Health Sciences group, whereas the lowest mean ranks belong to students from the Business group. Finally, the p-value for the Career opportunities factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Specialization. The highest mean rank (the value

83


of the answers is the highest) has been achieved for students who belong to the Health Sciences group, whereas the lowest mean ranks belong to students from the Life Sciences group. 4.4.3.3 Gender of participants The third group of variables that will be tested for statistically significant differences in factor loadings is the gender of students. This group consists of two independent variables: Female and Male. Table 16: Ranks Gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Female

238

153,38

36505,50

Male

60

134,09

8045,50

Total

298

Female

238

144,29

34340,50

Male

60

170,18

10210,50

Total

298

Female

238

146,99

34983,00

Male

60

159,47

9568,00

Total

298

Female

238

152,91

36391,50

Male

60

135,99

8159,50

Total

298

Intrinsic




Source: Author’s work Table 17: Test Statisticsa Mann-

Wilcoxon

Whitney U

W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Intrinsic

6215,500

8045,500

-1,554

,120

Tangible and non-tangible infrastruc-

5899,500

34340,500

-2,092

,036


6542,000

34983,000

-1,010

,313


6329,500

8159,500

-1,404

,160

ture

a. Grouping Variable: Gender


84


The p-value for the Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure factor is less than 5% (p=0.036), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Gender. Additionally, higher mean rank) has been achieved for students who belong to the male group. 4.4.3.4 Country of origin The fourth group of variables that will be tested for statistically significant differences in factor loadings is the students’ country of origin. This group consists of two independent variables: Austria and Other countries. Table 18: Ranks

Intrinsic




Country

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Austria

231

130,24

30086,00

Other countries

69

218,32

15064,00

Total

300

Austria

231

147,32

34030,50

Other countries

69

161,15

11119,50

Total

300

Austria

231

148,87

34388,00

Other countries

69

155,97

10762,00

Total

300

Austria

231

147,78

34136,50

Other countries

69

159,62

11013,50

Total

300

Source: Author’s work Table 19: Test Statisticsa Mann-Whitney

Wilcoxon

U

W

Z


Intrinsic

3290,000

30086,000

-7,420

,000

Tangible and non-tangible infra-

7234,500

34030,500

-1,170

,242


7592,000

34388,000

-,601

,548


7340,500

34136,500

-1,028

,304

structure

a. Grouping Variable: Country


85


The p-value for the Intrinsic factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Country. Additionally, higher mean rank has been achieved for students who belong to the Other countries group. 4.4.3.5 Study language The fourth group of variables that will be tested for statistically significant differences in factor loadings is the students’ study language. This group consists of two independent variables: English and German. Table 20: Ranks

Intrinsic




Language

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

English

186

198,15

36855,00

German

114

72,76

8295,00

Total

300

English

186

139,36

25921,50

German

114

168,67

19228,50

Total

300

English

186

141,42

26304,50

German

114

165,31

18845,50

Total

300

English

186

155,34

28892,50

German

114

142,61

16257,50

Total

300


86


Table 21: Test Statisticsa Mann-Whitney

Wilcoxon

U

W

Z


Intrinsic

1740,000

8295,000

-12,183

,000


8530,500

25921,500

-2,858

,004


8913,500

26304,500

-2,332

,020


9702,500

16257,500

-1,274

,203

structure

a. Grouping Variable: Language


The p-value for the Intrinsic factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Language. Additionally, higher mean rank has been achieved for students who belong to the English group. The p-value for the Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Language. Additionally, higher mean rank has been achieved for students who belong to the German group. The p-value for the socio-cultural influence factor is less than 5% (p=0.000), which infers that there is 95% probability that there is a statistically significant difference with regards to variable Language. Additionally, higher mean rank has been achieved for students who belong to the German group.

4.5 Interpretation of the results and answers to research questions The following part will summarize the most important results of the analysis in order to provide answers to both the primary and the secondary research question.

87


4.5.1 Factors that significantly influenced the study decision of students to choose IMC FH Krems as their university The primary research question was aimed at identifying the factors that significantly influenced the study decision of students to choose IMC FH Krems as their university. As the principal component analysis has shown, four groups of variables and their underlying factors have been identified as having the most significant influence on the students in this process: •

Intrinsic factors o PTS/ARTS Semester o Meeting people from other countries o English-language programs o Low tuition fees

•

Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure o University facilities (lecture rooms, laboratories, cantinas) o Expertise of lecturers o Communication between administration and students

•

Socio-cultural influence o Being close to friends, family or partner o Making parents happy o Krems located close to Vienna

•

Career opportunities o Practical orientation of the curriculum o Better career opportunities in the future

4.5.1.1 Intrinsic factors Intrinsic factors reflect an individual’s personal values, wishes, and expectations as well as help them construct their own identity. Out of the four underlying factors that have been identified in this group, the factor with the highest significance proved to be the English-language programs (r=.844), closely followed by Meeting people from other countries and cultures (r=.772). Two other significant factors in

88


this group proved to be PTS/ARTS semester (r=.594) as well as low tuition fees (r=.501). Interpreting these results, it can be inferred that students perceive the choice of IMC Krems as a way of constructing their identity in an international, multicultural, English-speaking environment. Unlike many other competitor schools that offer similar opportunities and advantages, it is not surprising that very low tuition fees of IMC Krems also strongly correlated with other factors in this group. 4.5.1.2 Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure refers to all physical parts of the campus and other physical objects located within it, as well as the other non-tangible aspects of the university that set one school apart from the other. Three underlying factors that have been identified in this group and all three of them achieved very similar levels of significance, with the Communication between administration and students scoring the highest (r=.746), followed by University facilities (r=.739) and finally Expertise of lecturers (r=.719). Interpreting these results, it can be inferred that students value both tangible and non-tangible aspects of the university to a great degree, and their study decision was influenced significantly by both the quality of the physical aspects of IMC Krems like lecture rooms or laboratories as well as the non-tangible ones like the professional background and expertise of lecturers or the way university administration communicates with them. 4.5.1.3 Socio-cultural influence Socio-cultural influence refers to the attitudes, opinions, and desires of the people who belong to the same social circles and social units as students themselves, exerting some level of influence or pressure against them. Three underlying factors have been identified in this group with varying levels of significance. Being close to friends, family or partner factor achieved the highest correlation (.838), followed the Location of Krems (.719). Making parents happy scored the lowest significance for this group (.443).

89


Interpreting these results, it can be inferred that the decision to study at IMC Krems was significantly influenced by students’ desires to stay physically close to their familiar social circles, most probably within the distance that allows going back home on a regular weekly or monthly basis. At the same time, being close to Vienna allows students to enjoy advantages of living and studying in Krems while having the possibility of frequent visits to the capital to satisfy their other social and professional needs. 4.5.1.4 Career opportunities As its name implies, this group of factors refers to various opportunities that students perceive they will acquire or increase regarding employment, job search, job placement or job choices in the future. Two underlying factors have been identified in this group with similar levels of influence: Practical orientation of the curriculum (r=.791) and the Better career opportunities in the future (r=.706). As was the case with the interpretation of the interview results as well as the results from the descriptive analysis of the surveys, it can be inferred that the decision to study at IMC Krems was significantly influenced by the perceived better career and employment opportunities students will have after finishing an education and getting a degree at this school in the context of the practical orientation of its curriculums. 4.5.2 Differences in motivational factors based on socio-demographic and study characteristics of students The secondary research question was aimed at observing whether there exist any statistically significant differences in factors that motivated the study decision between students when it comes to different socio-demographic and study characteristics of students. Independent variables that were defined were: study level, study specialization, country of origin, the gender of participants and study language. Dependent variables that were defined were: intrinsic factors, tangible and nontangible infrastructure, socio-cultural influence and career opportunities (Table 27).

90


Non-parametric testing was conducted with Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Figure 27: Independent and dependent variables

Independent variables

Dependent variables

•

Study level

•

Intrinsic factors

•

Study specialization

•


•

Country of origin

•

Gender of participants

•


•

Study language

•


structure


4.5.2.1 Study level When it comes to study level, no statistically significant difference in factor loadings between any of the dependent variables has been observed, inferring that there was no significant difference in study choice factors between bachelor and master level students. 4.5.2.2 Study specialization When it comes to study specialization, statistically significant differences in factor loadings have been observed between students of different specializations. Life Sciences students ranked highest for the intrinsic factors, whereas they ranked the lowest when it comes to career opportunities. Health Sciences students ranked highest for the infrastructure factors, socio-cultural influence, and career opportunities, whereas they scored the lowest on the intrinsic factor ranks. 4.5.2.3 Country of origin When it comes to the country of origin of students, statistically significant difference in factor loadings has been observed in the variable Intrinsic Factors, which non-Austrian students valued as being much more important to their study decision than students from Austria.

91


4.5.2.4 Gender of participants When it comes to the gender of students, the statistically significant difference in factor loadings has been observed in the variable Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure, which male students valued as being much more important to their study decision than the female students did. 4.5.2.5 Study language Finally, when it comes to the study language of the students, statistically significant differences have been observed with three variables: Intrinsic factors, Tangible and non-tangible infrastructure and Socio-cultural influence. Students who study in the German language valued infrastructure and socio-cultural influence significantly higher than those who study in English. Conversely, students whose study programs are conducted in English valued the identity construction factors significantly higher. 4.5.3 Rejection of the null hypothesis Apart from the study level variable, statistically significant differences in motivational factors between the students based on their study choice and sociodemographic factors were observed. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

92

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The last chapter will attempt to summarize the research process and the research findings, explain the practical implication of the findings for the wider business and marketing strategy of the management of IMC FH Krems, discuss the various limitations of the study that were experienced and provide recommendations for the future research.

5.1 Summary of the research In order to adequately answer the primary research question regarding the factors that influenced students of the IMC Krems to choose their university, a comprehensive research approach was required that combined the strengths and advantages of both the qualitative and quantitative research methods. To achieve this, a three-stage sequential exploratory approach was chosen, starting with a comprehensive overview of the existing research and literature, followed by indepth interviews and ending with the survey questionnaires. The first part of this process has shown that there exists a body of literature and previous research that tackled the same or similar topics, which was then used to establish a preliminary research conceptual framework for the next qualitative empirical stage. Analysis of the results of qualitative research stage of the process conducted in the form of 17 in-depth interviews showed that there exists an observable decision-making process students go through when deciding where to study, and that this process also happens through the clearly defined stages. In addition to this, various emotional and rational factors influencing this decision-making process have been identified: career opportunities, staying close to family, study programs in English, internationality of the school, low tuition fees, quality of the facilities and lecturers as well as the communication between the administration and students. Finally, the in-depth interviews provided the researcher with necessary insights needed to design an effective survey questionnaire instrument, giving a clear idea

93


which types of questions and topics should be brought up (or avoided) with respondents in order to gain valuable insights from them. Final quantitative part of the research process was also the most extensive one in scope, preparation, execution and the level of analysis applied to it. Answers from 300 fully-answered survey questionnaires (or roughly 12% of the total population) were collected and analyzed. The descriptive statistical analysis confirmed that factors which were identified as important in the qualitative part were also proven to be significant in the quantitative part of the research, with factors related to bettering career and employment opportunities as well as those related to personal growth standing out among them. Marketing communication efforts from IMC Krems did not prove to have a significant impact on the decision for most of the respondents, whereas a vast majority of students reported being influenced by either their parents, friends, professors or partners. The inferential statistical analysis identified four significant groups of factors that influenced the study decision: intrinsic factors, tangible and non-tangible infrastructure, socio-cultural influence and career opportunities, with each of the groups having multiple underlying factors within them. Finally, statistically significant differences in answers between the students based on their study choice and socio-demographic factors were observed, with the exception of bachelor and master level students.

5.2 Practical implications of the findings Despite the long-lasting traditional role of the universities as exclusively non-profit educational institutions primarily concerned with scientific research and academic excellence, the reality of today’s times calls for some serious reconsidering of those presuppositions. As previous research conducted in the last couple of decades, as well as the one that was done within this thesis, has clearly shown, the lines between academic societal role of the universities and the necessity to operate as a customer-oriented business with clear marketing, branding and positioning strategies to survive in the cutthroat educational market has never been as blurry as it is today. In the same vein, the lines between “classic” students and fully-fledged consumers of educational products and services have all but vanished.

94


In order to survive in this new reality of market-based educational landscape and successfully deal with the competition (not only in the form of other universities but many other new learning and educational channels like e-learning platforms that are being developed constantly), it is imperative that institutions of higher education adopt a customer-oriented business mindset. To achieve that successfully, however, they first need to really get to know their customers, the way they make decisions and what is it that truly motivates them to choose one school over the other in the times when options are plentiful. The IMC University of Applied Sciences in Krems is no exception to this. Understanding the needs, motives and decisions of its prospective, current and even former students will allow IMC Krems to gain a realistic perspective regarding its positioning in the mind of its customers as well as to identify potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges. Once this is achieved, this information will allow the management of the IMC Krems to form a coherent marketing strategy, focusing its efforts on communicating its advantages via the most effective and efficient marketing channels, ensuring the long-term viability of its business.

5.3 Study limitations Due to the nature of scientific studies, virtually all of them encounter some limitations that ultimately will have an impact on the final results and outcomes. Looking into the study limitations that were stated in the preliminary expose, some of them turned out to be less of a hindrance to the research process than were predicted at the time, whereas others proved to be much more of a challenge to overcome than originally planned. Some of the aspects and areas of the study limitations encountered during the research process were: Relinquishment of focus groups – The original plan laid out in the preliminary research proposal was to include focus group discussions in the qualitative part of the three-stage exploratory research process in addition to in-depth interviews.

95


Organizing two different focus groups with diverse enough groups of participants proved to be a significant technical and financial challenge, however. In lieu of the focus groups, it was decided that more in-depth interviews will be conducted instead, increasing the total number from the six planned originally to ultimately 17. Sampling process and sample size – Even though the number of participants who completed the survey was quite respectable (N=300 or ~12% of the total population!), it nevertheless fell short of the originally planned number (N=336) that would allow for a very high level of statistical significance. Similarly, sampling process was a non-probability sample (i.e. convenience sample), where a truly random sample would be an ideal approach. Possible negative impact of the raffle – While great care was taken to use the €20 voucher raffle only as a gentle and constructive motivational tool, it is still impossible to completely exclude the possibility that part of the participants joined the survey primarily because of the possible reward, skewing their answers in an undesirable way for the overall quality of the final results. Duration of the research project – Even though both the interviews and the survey questionnaire were individually conducted in a short time span (one week), making them cross-sectional in nature, the time span between the two phases as well as the total time it took to complete the whole research was almost six months. Personal biases – Due to the fact that the whole multi-stage research was conducted by a single person (author of the thesis), it is very likely that some aspect of personal biases regarding other people, places, and events might have impacted the decision-making process within the research, despite the care that was taken to mitigate its effects.

5.4 Recommendations for future research As can be seen from the literature overview conducted in the second chapter of the thesis, the topic of marketing orientation of universities and the student decision-making process has already been researched quite extensively. That being

96


said, there are many possible directions this topic could be taken to that still lie inadequately explored. While this research focused exclusively on students of IMC Krems, future research could increase the scope of the study population to include students from different universities inside Austria, or even conduct a cross-country research that would try to identify the study motivation factors of students in various different countries and observe whether there are any significant differences in their answers. Similarly, the scope of the research could also be widened by exploring whether there are any significant differences in motivation between students of public and private schools, as well as the impact that the tuition fees have on those factors. Another possible direction for future research could also be to explore the relationship between the overall satisfaction and the factors that influenced the study choice, to establish whether there is any significant correlation between types of study motivation and the way students deal with (un)fulfilled expectations. Finally, another possible interesting angle to approach this topic could be the effectiveness of the branding or marketing strategies of universities, establishing just how effective they truly are in attracting students. It is the author’s hope that this research will inspire other researchers to further our collective understanding of this challenging yet interesting topic.

97

List of References

List of References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Akinyode, B. F., Khan, T. H., & Ahman, A. S. (2015). Consumer decision making process model for housing demand. Jurnal Teknologi (Science & Enineering), 77(14), 59-69. Al-Fattal, A. (2010). Understanding student choice of university and marketing strategies in Syrian private higher education. University of Leeds Alonderiene, R., & Klimavičiene, A. (2013). Insights into Lithuanian students’ choice

of

university

and

study

program

in

management

and

economics. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 18(1), 122. Anctil, E. (2008). Marketing and advertising higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(2), 19-30. Angulo, F., Pergelova, A., & Rialp, J. (2010). A market segmentation approach for higher education based on rational and emotional factors. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), 1-17. Beneke, J., & Human, G. (2010). Student recruitment marketing in South Africa-An exploratory study into the adoption of a relationship orientation. African Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 435. Bhat, S. & Reddy S. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 32-45 Blackwell, R., Miniard, P., & Engel, J. (2001). Consumer Behavior (9th Ed.), Ft. Worth, Texas: Harcourt College Publishers. Blumenstyk, G. (2006). Marketing, the For-Profit Way. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(15). Brassington, F., & Pettitt, S. (2006). Principles of marketing. Pearson Education.

98

List of References

Chen, Y. C. (2016). The Impact of Marketing Strategies and Satisfaction on Student Loyalty: A Structural Equation Model Approach. International Education Studies, 9(8), 94-104. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Collier, T., Gilchrist, R., & Phillips, D. (2003). Who plans to go to university? Statistical modelling of potential working-class participants. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9(3), 239-263. Declaration, S. J. (1998). Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system. By the four ministers in charge for France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Paris. Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell (1968), Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Erasmus, A. C., Boshoff, E., & Rousseau, G. G. (2001). Consumer decisionmaking models within the discipline of consumer science: a critical approach. Journal of Consumer Sciences, 29(1). Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods , 4, 272-299. Filip, A. (2012). Marketing theory applicability in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 912-916. Gbadamosi, A. (2013). Principles of marketing: A value-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan. Gibbs, P., & Knapp, M. (2002). Marketing higher and further education: An educator's guide to promoting courses, departments and institutions. Psychology Press. Glance, E. (2009). OECD indicators. Paris: OECD, 1995.–373 p. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher education, 39(1), 67-91.

99

List of References

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of public sector management, 19(4), 316-338. Hollensen, S. (2003). Marketing Management: a Relationship Approach, Harlow: Financial Times & Prentice Hall. Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. JHU Press. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (2010). (available on 19.09.2017 from http://www.imd.org/wcc/world-competitiveness-center-rankings/worldcompetitiveness-yearbook-ranking/#/wcy-2010-rankings/) Ivy, J. (2008). A new higher education marketing mix: the 7Ps for MBA marketing. International Journal of educational management, 22(4), 288-299. Ivy, J., & Naude, P. (2004). Succeeding in the MBA marketplace: identifying the underlying factors, Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 26(3), 401417. Kalenskaya, N., Gafurov, I., & Novenkova, A. (2013). Marketing of Educational Services: Research on Service Providers Satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 5, 368-376. Karimi, S. (2013). A purchase decision-making process model of online consumers and its influential factora cross sector analysis. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2008) Principles of Marketing (12th Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kotler, P., Bloom, P., & Hayes, T. (2002). Marketing Professional Services (2nd Ed.), Paramus, N.J. ; London: Prentice Hall.

100

List of References

Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V. K., & Perera, N. (2010). University marketing and consumer behaviour concerns: the shifting preference of university selection criteria in Indonesia. Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. (2009). Essential of Marketing, 6e. United State of America: Nelson Education, Ltd. LeDoux, J. (1998). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon and Schuster. Lorenz, C. F. (2006). Will the Universities Survive the European Integration? Higher Education Policies in the EU and in the Netherlands before and after the Bologna Declaration. Maniu, I., & Maniu, G. C. (2014). EDUCATIONAL MARKETING: FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION OF A UNIVERSITY. SEA: Practical Application of Science, 2(3). Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466-479 Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2008). Marketing higher education: Theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370. Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(4), 163-175. Menon, M. E. (2004). Information search as an indication of rationality in student choice of higher education. Education Economics, 12(3), 267-283. Menon, M. E., Saiti, A., & Socratous, M. (2007). Rationality, information search and choice in higher education: Evidence from Greece. Higher Education, 54(5), 705-721.

101

List of References

Ming, J. S. K. (2010). Institutional factors influencing students' college choice decision in Malaysia: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3). Moogan, Y. J. (2011). Can a higher education institution's marketing strategy improve the student-institution match?. International journal of educational management, 25(6), 570-589. Nicolescu, L. (2009). Applying marketing to higher education: Scope and limits. Management & Marketing, 4(2) Nicosia, F. M. Consumer Decision Processes:Marketing and Advertising Implications Prentice Hall, 1966, pp. 65-75. Palmer, A. (2001). Principles of Services Marketing (3rd Ed.), London: McGrawHill.. Pugsley, L. (2004). The University Challenge: Higher Education Markets and Social Stratification. Aldershot: Ashgate Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (1994). Consumer Behavior, 5rd. NY: McGrawHill. Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. L. (2010). Consumer Behavior, Global Tenth Edition. United State of America: Pearson Education. Schiffman, Leon G.& Kanuk, Leslie Lazar (2007). Consumer behavior (9th ed.) Prentice Hall. UK Schüller, D., & Rasticová, M. (2011). Marketing communications mix of universities-communication with students in an increasing competitive university environment. Journal of competitiveness, 3(3). Shanka, T., Quintal, V., & Taylor, R. (2006). Factors influencing international students' choice of an education destination–A correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 31-46. Stilwell, F. (2003). Higher education, commercial criteria and economic incentives. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 51-61.

102

List of References

Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2007). Are university students really customers? When illusion may lead to delusion for all!. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 17-28. Temple, P., Shattock, M. (2007), What does „Branding” mean in higher education? In Stensaker B. and D’Andrea V. (eds.) Branding in Higher Education. Exploring an Emerging Phenomenon, EAIR Series Research, Policy and Practice in Higher Education, pp. 73-82 Van Dam, Y. (1997). Needs and Motives: An integration of theories with implications for green consumption. the 26th EMAC Conference: Marketing: Progress, Prospects, & Perspectives, 20th-23rd May 1997, Warwick Business School, Warwick Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W., & Paton, R. A. (2004). University selection: information requirements and importance. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(3), 160-171. Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959. White, P. (2007). Education and Career Choice: a New Model of Decision Making. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan. Wolff, B., Knodel, J., & Sittitrai, W. (1993). Focus groups and surveys as complementary research methods. Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, 118-136. Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2003). Services marketing (Vol. 158). New York: McGraw-Hill.

103

Annex

ANNEX

104

Annex

Annex 1: Printout of a Survey Questionnaire

105

Annex

106

Annex

107

Annex

108

Annex

109

Annex

110

Annex

111

Annex

112

Annex

113

Annex

114

Annex

115

Annex

116

Annex

Annex 2: In-depth interview questions/topics

TYPICAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (FINAL VERSION): 1. Where are you from? 2. What is the study level and program you’re currently enrolled in? 3. What did you do prior to studying at IMC Krems? Have you studied in another program before coming to IMC Krems? Do you have any work (internship, volunteering) experience? 4. Why have you chosen to pursue a university education? 5. Have you considered starting a career after you have completed your previous education? Why or why not? 6. How did you search for information regarding university options? 7. Where did you first hear about IMC Krems? 8. Have you considered any other schools/programs? How did they compare to IMC Krems? 9. Why did you decide to ultimately not pursue them? 10. Have you seen or heard any kind of marketing communication effort (ATL, BTL) from IMC Krems? 11. What does a brand mean to you? Does IMC Krems have a brand? How do you perceive it? What is the brand promise of IMC Krems? 12. What was the deciding factor for you to choose IMC Krems? What mattered to you the most while making this decision? 13. How important were the opinions from friends and family to your decision? 14. Did your expectations meet the reality? In what way? 15. Were you happy with your choice? Why or why not? 16. Given the same opportunity, would you repeat the decision?

117