Педагогические науки/4. Стратегические направления реформирования системы образования

Sarseke G.A.

PhD in Kazakh Language, MA in Education Management

Kazakh University of Economics, Finance and International Trade, Kazakhstan

‘The Student as Customer’ Perspective in Higher Education

Many educational institutions have reviewed their relationship with students to correspond with principles of total quality management (TQM). TQM is ‘a management approach to long-term success through customer satisfaction’ (American Society for Quality n.d.). The causes of this remarkable shift result from global factors such as the decrease in government funding, expansion and diversification of higher education, and the increasing competition (Driscoll & Wicks, 1998; Maringe & Gibbs, 2009). One feature of this management conception that transfers to education is to represent students as customers and treat them accordingly. ‘The student as customer’ concept identifies the place of students in the educational process and places them at the centre of this process. This benefit, however, is controversial because of the difference in context between business and education. The transformation of term customer from commercial theory raises several issues regarding how total quality management concepts adapt and are practiced in education.

The customer metaphor has had both its supporters and critics over the years. Advocates welcome modern twenty-first-century higher education management, and believe that this concept has emphasised the central position of students in an educational system and has changed universities’ attitudes to students. On the other hand, critics claim that education is a completely different paradigm and that the implementation of market-place metaphors can do nothing but harm to the educational process. The purpose of this study is to review the key arguments for and against the customer concept in higher education. The advantages that the commercialisation of higher education defines students’ central place in the educational process and enhances service sectors at universities are highlighted. The debates centred on the notion of student as customer are examined. However, first, this study clarifies the notion of the customer idea in the fields of business and education.

A customer is usually defined as a person who buys a product or service. The term customer found in education literature has more than one meaning. Maringe’s (2009) study focuses on three terms: client, customer and consumer, and underlines the differences between them in terms of ‘context of use’, ‘nature of people association’, ‘length of relationship’ and ‘product or service orientations’ (pp. 143-147). However, within the constraints of the word limit, this work does not consider these notions in depth. Whilst some in academia use other terms on the subject, this study will apply the term customer, because this notion is used most frequently in both business and education literature, and is a more appropriate concept in the education context.

In any market the customer plays a crucial role to develop business and enhance the production of companies. ‘Delight customers’, ‘customer-defined quality’ and ‘customer is always right’ are key concepts of management theory. ‘The customer is always right’ belief highlights the place of the customer in decisions regarding products, especially the quality (Maringe & Gibbs, 2009, p. 35). The most valuable view in business about a product or service is a customer’s view. These key features of total quality management, especially the view that ‘the customer is always right’ are the most debatable topics amongst academics. Many fear that the adoption of the customer idea in higher education means universities have to comply with students’ wishes and demands (Scott, 1999, p. 195). Students probably demand from their universities such things as flexible timetables, high grades for less work, or being able to retake exams. Thus, according to critics, customer-oriented concepts do not seem appropriate in an education system.

The marketing of higher education does have advantages however. The most important benefit is that this market-oriented management recognises students as the main figures in the educational process and as active participants instead of passive recipients in the learning process. The role of students as partners and collaborators in the learning process is becoming more valued. Sharrock (2000) states:

‘They (students) don’t passively consume their education: they actively co-produce it. Staff don’t just feed them information. They challenge their thinking, engage them with ideas, assess their understanding, and ultimately decide whether to pass or fail them’ (p. 150).

Students have a choice in their academic courses or modules, consequently, universities can offer them the most advantageous courses by analysing which were most popular among students in previous years. This is a significant difference between the market-oriented and the traditional education where students have had to study what universities offer.

Additionally, total quality management can improve service sectors in education. Services, such as student services, food services, maintenance and registration, in educational institutions are more business-oriented. Hence, they may be assessable according the principles of management (Schwartzman, 1998). It is evident that due to the transformation of the total quality management concept to education the quality of these services is improving, according to rates of student satisfaction. However, to refer to student as customer is not a simplistic proposition. When management principles are introduced in teaching and learning, customary business-oriented understanding becomes controversial. One view is that there is a need to treat students as customers. The main argument is that students are paying considerably high tuition fees for their higher education; they therefore, should be treated in the same way as any other purchaser of goods or services (Randal, 1998; Cooper, 2002; Halbesleben, Becker, & Buckley, 2003). However, the weakness of this argument is that not only the students pay for their education. Thus, even if it were accepted that students are customers because they pay tuition fees for their education, they are not the only customers. Other stakeholders such as government, future employers, families, and, in general, society are customers in education. Chapman and Cowdell (1998) name many other markets in higher education, including ‘prospective employers, internal markets recruiting staff and allocating resources, and the political market controlling funding’ (as cited in Scott, 1999, p. 196). Therefore, critics may oppose this argument because of the shared tuition cost (Boria, 2004; Svensson & Wood, 2007; Eagle & Brennan, 2007; Dimen & Ludusan, 2009; Molesworth, Scullion, & Nixon, 2011). It is possible that every stakeholder can say that they too are customers in educational institutions.

In addition, the payment transaction in education differs from business. The commercial transaction by which customers simply paying money can buy a product or service does not equate to the transaction by which students pay fees. Students cannot buy a university degree by just simply paying the cost of their tuition fees. Universities have their regulations and standards which students should follow and meet requirements, including any student failing academic exams not being allowed to graduate. The important fact is, as Halbesleben, Becker and Buckley (2003) note, that students should understand that ‘tuition “facilitates education but does not” cause it’ (Halbesleben et al., 2003, p. 256).

When ‘the student as customer’ concept turns to learning and teaching aspects, it also seems to be problematic. Critics argue that the use of the customer concept in higher education leads to declining academic standards and substantial grade inflation. Universities’ academic standards consist of several main rules such as enrolment procedures, policies concerning exams and grades and curricular specialisations (Summary of academic standards and related procedures for the 2012-2013 school year, 2012). When student customers may rule at will these regulations, there probably raise a problem with the decline in academic standards. Randal (1998) indicates the causes of grade inflation are that academics must do what students want and delight them because the customer is always right (p. 15). Student customers may blame academics as service providers if their grades fall short of their expectations. They probably do not want to take responsibility for their own learning. On the other hand, students should understand that academics are powerless if the student does not make every effort to succeed in their studies. Eagle and Brennan (2007) point out that ‘the power to achieve the goal lies in the hands of the “customer” and the only feasible role of the “service provider” is to facilitate the achievement of the goal’ (p. 54). This study underlines that students probably cannot behave as customers in the academic field. They are not customers in learning and teaching processes, they are co-producers through their own efforts and contributions.

‘The customer concept’ may better adapt and practice in education if the positions of students are clarified in terms of the exact situation of the educational process. Students can be considered customers in those situations where students’ opinions, student satisfactions and views are necessary. This work agrees with Maringe’s and Gibbs’s (2009) points of view, claiming that in different situations students can wear the four different hats: ‘client’, ‘customer’, ‘citizen’ and ‘subject’. When students make ‘enquiries about enrolment’, ‘seek advice and guidance about course or subject choices’ and ‘receive tutorial guidance from their tutors’, they are clients. While students criticise teaching methods, insufficient facilities and ‘poor or unresponsive administrative service’, they are customers. ‘Citizen’ students are those who have responsibilities and rights. Finally, students can be as ‘subjects’ when they are fined for late return of library books or must re-sit their exams (Maringe & Gibbs, 2009, p. 34). These different positions of students in various situations may help understand obviously the customer concept in an educational context. It would be wrong to collect all of aspects of education in one view, and try to relate it to the customer context.

Additionally, this study points out that most education literature regarding the customer concept focus on only academics’ opinions. There is little concerning students’ attitudes. It seems that the debate about whether or not to treat students as customers occurs only among educators; students who should be the main figures in this topic are excluded. Saunders’ (2011) empirical study has reported interesting results from his survey of students. This survey shows that students may not demonstrate a customer orientation towards education. Only 87,7 per cent of students disagreed with the item that university will owe them a degree because they have paid fees (ibid, p. 143). Thus, there is a contradiction between academics papers and students’ opinions. In addition, students’ responses varied in terms of different situations and relationships. For example, students may behave like customers in dining services or parking services, however, students may not feel like customers in class when they ‘engage with faculty members’ or ‘engage in extracurricular activities’ (Saunders, 2011, p. 144). It seems likely that students are not customers in all areas of education; they can be customers in those areas where the customer orientation is more acceptable.

In conclusion, the commercialisation of education is a worldwide trend that results from main global factors such as the shortage of government funding and expansion of higher institutions. ‘The student as customer’ idea is an ongoing topic amongst educators. The arguments for and against based on both theoretical and empirical studies. However, most focus on academics’ points of view, while students’ attitudes do not seem to be taken into account. This study highlights that there is a little contradiction between the literature claims and students’ survey results. It concludes that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of students as customers. If the student as customer concept is to be used, it should be clarified in terms of what type of customer is considered. Students are not simply purchasers of products or services; they are co-producers and active collaborators in the complex educational process. Students need to understand that it is through their sustained effort and hardworking they can complete their academic study successfully.

References:

American Society for Quality (ASQ). (n.d.). Total Quality Management. Retrieved from http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/total-quality-management/overview/overview

Boria, S. (2004). Students as “customers”. On the Horison, 12 (4), 158-160.

Cooper, T. (2002). Concepts of quality: And the problem of ‘customers’, ‘products’ and purpose in
higher education, HERDSA, 144-151.

Dimen, L. & Ludusan, N. (2009). TQM and marketing perspectives for surveying education and
training. Professional Education, FIG International Workshop Vienna. Retrieved from http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/home?lang=eng

Driscoll, C. & Wicks, D. (1998). The customer-driven approach in business education: a possible
danger? Journal of Education for Business, 74 (1), 58-61.

Eagle, L & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives.
Quality Assurance in Education, 15 (1), 44-60.

Maringe, F. (2009). The student as consumer: affordances and constraints in a transforming higher education environment. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer (pp. 142-154). London: Routledge.

Maringe, F. & Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing higher education: Theory and Practice. London: Open University Press.

Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. (2011). The marketisation of higher education and student as consumer. London: Routledge.

Randal, S.F. (1998). Whatever you do, don't treat your students like customers! Journal of
Management Education, 22 (1), 63-69.

Saunders, D.B. (2011). Students as customers: the influence of neoliberal ideology and free-market
logic on entering first-year college students, (PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst). Retrieved from http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/home?lang=eng

Schwartzman, R. (1998). Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between management
and education. Education, 116 (2), 215-222.

Scott, S.V. (1999). The academic as service provider: is the customer ‘always right? Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 21 (2), 193-202.

Sharrock, G. (2000). Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on Life After
George). Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22 (2), 149-164.

Summary of academic standards and related procedures for the 2012-2013 school year 2012. Retrieved from http://cdn.law.ucla.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Records%202/Summary

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.