Comparing Deemed and State Universities on Perception of Educational Offerings Using Factorial MANOVA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2020/v13i2/150563Keywords:
Academic Excellence
, Career Aspirations, Factorial MANOVA, Fee Perception, Infrastructure, Quality, Skills Acquired.JEL Classification
, C1, I2, M1.Paper Submission Date, September 9, 2019, Paper Sent Back for Revision, January 9, 2020, Paper Acceptance Date, January 15, 2020.Abstract
Purpose: The study intended to offer evidence for three propositions: whether deemed and state universities differ in their educational offerings; whether the worth of educational offerings depends on the appropriateness of fee perception by students; and whether the relationship between the "perception of fee appropriateness" and "education offerings" is dependent on the type of university. Design: Experimental design was adopted to address the research concern - "appropriateness of fee charged will stimulate value proposition in management education." We used factorial MANOVA to explore three effects (Main Effect 1: it is hypothesized that deemed and state universities differ in their educational offerings; Main Effect 2: Worth of educational offerings depends on the appropriateness of fee perception by students; Interaction Effect: Relationship between "perception of fee appropriateness" and "education offerings" is dependent on the type of university [interaction effect is not zero]). Findings: The results of factorial MANOVA revealed a major finding that if students feel they are charged appropriately, they will rate educational offerings, academic excellence, infrastructure, career aspirations, and skills acquired, as superior. Research Limitations: The study did not include management students of private universities and autonomous colleges. The study was cross-sectional in time dimension and not longitudinal, and hence, a causal relationship could not be established. Originality/Value: It is the first study to use factorial MANOVA to test two main effects and one interaction effect with respect to educational offerings of deemed and state universities.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
References
Afgan, N. H., & Carvalho, M. G. (2010). The knowledge society : A sustainability paradigm. Cadmus, 1(1), 28-41.
Aggarwal, R. (2017). Economics of e-learning in higher education: The Indian case. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(6), 40-48. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374
Bohra, N. S. (2013). Enhancing quality of management education in the average Indian business school through shared responsibility. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 6(2), 32-39. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2013/v6i2/59972
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kajaste, M., Prades, A., & Scheuthle, H. (2015). Impact evaluation from quality assurance agencies’ perspectives: Methodological approaches, experiences and expectations. Quality in Higher Education, 21(3), 270-287.
Kaul, N. (2011). Management education in India-A case study. Asian Journal of Management Research, 2(1), 533-552.
Khatri, P., & Raina, K. (2019). Education, state, and psychology: A study of students’ pre- and post-perceptions of training intervention. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 12(12), 38-48. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2019/v12i12/149271
Kulkarni, M. N. (2010), Management education in India-Need for quality standards. Retrieved from http://www.iodonline.com/Articles/Designteaching%202%20SIT.pdf
Kumar, A. A., & Shekhar, V. (2017). Invigorating knowledge sharing in higher education: Indian initiatives. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(9), 7-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i9/118235
Ladd, T. D., Jelezko, F., Laflamme, R., Nakamura, Y., Monroe, C., & O’Brien, J. L. (2010). Quantum computers. Nature, 464(7285), 45-53.
Leiber, T. (2018). Impact evaluation of quality management in higher education: A contribution to sustainable quality development in knowledge societies. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 235-248.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Palety, P. (2009, October 7). India’s B-schools : Growth in quantity, not quality. Wall Street Journal India. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125481622759367069
Porter, T., & Córdoba, J. (2009). Three views of systems theories and their implications for sustainability education. Journal of Management Education, 33(3), 323-347.
Rao, P. S., & Hans, K. (2011). Comparative analysis of accreditation systems in management education in India (NBA AND SAQS). Aweshkar Research Journal, 12(2), 17-30.
Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA ? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 208-224. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788843
Seyfried, M., & Pohlenz, P. (2018). Assessing quality assurance in higher education : Quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 258-271.
Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1542-1571.