Factors Inhibiting Quality Higher Education Delivery: Empirical Evidence from the University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana

A good number of scholars have espoused the need for public universities to position themselves strategically to provide quality higher education in the wake of increasing global competition. However, only a few have concerned themselves with managerial challenges encountered in quality higher education delivery, especially in Ghana. The purpose of this study was to examine internal stakeholders’ perspectives on the factors inhibiting quality higher education delivery at the University for Development Studies, Tamale. Questionnaires, interviews, and focus group guides were employed to collect primary data from students, principal officers, and members of staff who were randomly and purposively selected. The findings revealed that from the Internal Stakeholders’ perspective, such challenges as inadequate provision of physical facilities such as lecture halls and hostels, poor communication infrastructure and systems such as internet connectivity, financial constraints, bureaucracy, and unfavorable government policies all inhibit quality service delivery. Appropriate recommendations were made to management as a way of bridging the quality gaps identified by the study.

Introduction

Universities are non-profit making institutions and providers of education, which is seen as a public good. However, in light of the recent wave of public funding cuts and anticipation of future decreases in the number of student applications, universities must consider themselves as commercial concerns, competing for resources and students, locally and globally (Paswan & Ganesh, 2009).

In Ghana, the education sector, which previously was predominantly state-run, especially at the tertiary level, has been liberalized, with a huge influx of privately-owned university colleges, competing favorably with traditional public universities for students (Darbi, 2012).

The implication is for universities to make a conscious effort to find appropriate ways of gaining competitive advantage. It is, therefore, necessary for the higher education sector to offer a high level of quality service to meet the expectations and satisfy its primary stakeholder-students, in order to attain a sustainable advantage in a competitive service environment (DeShieldset al., 2005).

Dobni and Luffman (2003) note that identifying and satisfying the needs of stakeholders are important steps toward gaining a competitive advantage for higher education institutions.

Prof Clifford N. B. Tagoe, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ghana, contributing to the discussion on managerial challenges in public universities, enumerated issues of autonomy, governance, leadership, and management efficiency; students’ and staff issues, and academic matters; funding, world-classness, and ranking as some of the obvious challenges of university administration and management in West Africa (Tagoe, 2013).

The University for Development Studies-UDS was established by PNDCL 279 in 1993 to help develop Northern Ghana in particular and Ghana as a whole. It was, however, established without seed capital despite being in the most deprived part of Ghana (University for Development Studies, 2003). Against this background, the researchers wondered what coping strategies the UDS would have employed since the inception of the university to achieve its mandate and survive the competition. This is even more critical because, as noted by Owolabi (2010), the survival or continuity of the organization and future income depends on stakeholders’ satisfaction, which in turn is derived from the quality of goods and services the organization offers customers.

In light of the foregoing, this study sought to ascertain the challenges faced by the Management of the University for Development Studies in delivering quality higher education. Other aspects of the study include a theoretical framework, literature review, methodology, discussion of findings, and a conclusion.

Theoretical Framework

This study explored the HEdPERF Model postulated by Abdullah (2006) and the Quality gaps revealed by the SERVQUAL Model (Parasuramanet al., 1988), which helped identify causes of poor service quality. HEdPERF, with a perceptions-only approach to measuring service quality, focuses specifically on the quality of service within the higher education context, enabling the whole student experience to be measured. The instrument measures 41 items, each subjected to reliability and validity tests employing factorial, exploratory, and confirmatory analysis (Abdullah, 2006).

Relevant studies confirm that evaluating six dimensions, namely non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, program issues, and understanding, facilitates an appreciation of students’ perception of service quality.

Assessing service quality and appreciating how these dimensions impact the quality of services inform higher education institutions’ design of the service delivery process to achieve efficiency (Abdullah, 2006).

Espousing the view expressed by Parasuramanet al. (1988) concerning the causes of poor service quality, Kasperet al. (2008) identify four gaps as follows within an organization:

1. Consumer expectation—Management perception gap: This gap reveals that management does not correctly perceive or interpret consumer expectations when formulating its service delivery policy.
2. Management perceptions—Service quality specifications gap: Management does not correctly translate the service policy into employee rules and guidelines.
3. Service quality specifications—Service delivery gap: Employees do not correctly translate rules and guidelines into action.
4. Service delivery—External communications gap: External communications promise to customers does not match the service delivered.

Literature Review

Governance of Public Universities

Most, if not all, public universities are the creation of the state either through an Act of Parliament or a Decree (in the case of military regimes). The structure, systems, processes, and procedures that underpin the governance of public universities cut across most institutions of higher learning around the globe (Tagoe, 2013). He asserts that most West African Universities have a dual structure comprising a Governing Council or Board and an Academic Board or Senate. The Governing Board provides strategic direction for the University, while the Academic Board or Senate runs the academic programs. He says that management oversees strategy and formulates policy and objectives for the university in teaching, research, public service, financial and staff matters, and university property.

Management or leadership of universities includes the Vice-Chancellor, who acts as the Chief Executive Officer, the Deputy or Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the University Librarian, and a Finance Director. The Registrar, Provosts, Deans, Heads of Department, and Assistant Registrars play diverse roles in an academic environment/bureaucracy (Tagoe, 2013).

Similarly, the Statutes of the University for Development Studies, for purposes of institutional governance and administration, prescribe the position of Chancellor following the Law establishing the University, and he/she takes precedence over all other members of the University and presides over any ceremony of the university at which he/she is present. It also provides for the positions of Chairperson of Council, Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, University Librarian, Finance Officer, Provosts, Deans, Directors, and Heads of Departments for the effective running of the administrative machinery of the University (University for Development Studies, 1996).

Managerial Challenges in Public Universities

A global phenomenon that has become a key feature of most higher education institutions, especially public universities, is the astronomical increase in tuition fees, public funding cuts, and anticipation of decreasing student numbers. The UK introduced tuition fees for universities (publicly funded ones) in 1998, capping them at £1,000 (Callender & Kemp, 2000). This increased gradually through the years, and by 2012, universities were given the green light to charge £6,000 and, in some cases, £9,000, granting the institution the ability to offer sufficient financial support to students from poorer backgrounds. This was accompanied by funding cuts to £940 in 2011/2012. The largest cuts hit the teaching budget, which was forecast to lose £342 million by July 2012, while the research budget was set to fall by £45 million (Department of Education, 2011). These drastic measures were taken in response to the economic downturn experienced at the time. Notwithstanding tuition fee hikes, student numbers continued to increase steadily yearly, recording a rise of approximately 12.4% between 2006 and 2011 (Sá, 2014). There was, however, a decrease in student applications by 7.4%, which is believed to have been based on students’ reaction to the increase in tuition fees introduced in September 2012 (Sá, 2014).

Contributing to the discussion on managerial challenges in public universities, Prof Clifford N. B. Tagoe, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ghana, posited that institutional autonomy, balance between governance, management and administration, relationship with government through regulatory bodies, and autonomy over financial issues are some of the challenges presented by the governance framework of public universities, (Tagoe, 2013).

He opined further that most of the largest universities in West Africa are publicly funded, and their relationship with the government (through the Ministry of Education and other regulatory bodies) has consequences for institutional autonomy, affecting their ability to organize structure and institutional governance and to decide university leadership. The situation is further exacerbated by bureaucracy, the inadequacy of funding vis-à-vis large numbers of students, administrative inefficiency, poor university ranking (only 14 out of 200 West African universities were found in the top 100 African universities-July 2013 Webometrics), and the increasing pressure to cope with the global academic environment (Ahemba, 2006). Many African universities lack the requisite physical infrastructure, such as internet connectivity, books, laboratory equipment, and lecture halls.

According to UNESCO (1998), quality in higher education is a multi-dimensional concept that should embrace all its roles and activities: teaching and academic programs, research, staffing, students, infrastructure, and the academic environment. These are some of the indicators that will be employed to ascertain the quality of university education. If challenges facing public universities affect any of the above parameters, then quality university administration will be affected. This is against the background that knowledge has become a key area of advantage in the world economy, thus making it imperative for developing countries to pay the required attention to higher education if they are to prosper or survive in an ever-changing environment (UNESCO, 2000). DeShieldset al. (2005) also assert that the higher education sector must offer a high level of quality service to meet the expectations and satisfy its primary stakeholders (i.e., students) to attain sustainable advantage in a competitive service environment.

Methodology

This study employed a mixed study design. Simple random and purposive sampling techniques were used to select samples for the study. Using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) calculation of sample size for the study targeting a population of 17,135 students, with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%, the ideal sample size for student respondents was 374. Six top management personnel were selected for key informant interviews using the purposive sampling method, while focus group discussions (involving 7–12 persons) were held with senior members and senior and junior staff of the university. Questionnaires and interview guides were used to solicit information from the respondents and participants. Secondary sources of information that proved to be relevant to the research included a strategic plan of the UDS as well as the University’s statutes, the Vice-Chancellor’s Report, and the 16th Congregation Basic Statistics.

Maintaining Reliability and Validity

The researchers used a triangulation approach in the collection of data, with a view to enhancing the reliability and validity of the research process. Saunderset al. (2009) posits that triangulation is the combination or use of two or more different data collection techniques within one study of the same phenomenon. This is buttressed by Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010), who opines that when correctness or precision is contemplated, it is logical to collect information using different methods and angles. To this effect, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using such instruments as questionnaires, interviews, and focus group guides.

The questionnaires were tested for reliability, using Cronbach’s Alpha Value analysis, to test how closely the questionnaire measured the variables, while the interview and focus group guides were designed with the objectives of the research in mind and were also subjected to peer review. A Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.585 indicates that the questionnaire measures the Likert scale adequately (see Table I).

Table I. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha based on standardized items	N
0.585	0.498	14

Findings and Discussion

Factors Inhibiting Quality Higher Education Delivery-Students’ Perspective

Empirical evidence from student respondents revealed numerous gaps in quality higher education delivery, broadly categorized into inadequate provision of physical facilities, poor communication infrastructure and systems, and poor management-student relations. When asked to enumerate the gaps that exist in the quality of higher education delivery by the university mana, the majority of student segment mentioned inadequate lectures, which use overcrowding during lecture sessions, negatively impacting the quality of teaching and learning. This problem is further aggravated by the inadequate provision of learning materials, insufficient supply of computers in the ICT labs, and inadequate supply and access to internet services. There is also the perennial problem of inadequate hostel facilities, the high cost of private hostel accommodation, and the widespread exploitation of students by unscrupulous landlords. Lamenting further, a cross-section of students bemoaned the poor management-student relations, which are attributable to inadequate information flow from management to students and the non-existence of a platform for students to engage meaningfully with management. Ahemba (2006) opines that many universities in Africa lack the requisite physical infrastructure, such as internet connectivity, books, laboratory equipment, and lecture halls, thus reaffirming the abovementioned views.

Factors Inhibiting Quality Higher Education Delivery-Management Perspective

From the management’s perspective, factors inhibiting quality higher education delivery can generally be classified into financial constraints, inadequate infrastructural development, bureaucracy and unfavorable government policies, and competition. Almost all members of the interviewed team mentioned financial constraints as the major impediment to quality higher education delivery by UDS management. Interviewee 3 commented that:

“…The management is confronted with the problem of inadequate government subvention for running the university. Management sometimes has to borrow to pay wages and salaries of staff as these funds are inadequate and irregular. Alternative funding sources such as Internally Generated Funds (IGF) have proved unsustainable as the university relies heavily on fees paid by students; the university was hard hit by the recent wave of dwindling student numbers. Other sources of generating funds, such as funds from guest houses, are equally unsustainable, owing to the poor management of such facilities.” (Interviewee 3)

For his part, Interviewee 4 recalled that the:

“University was established without seed money. However, per its mandate, the university runs a multi-campus system. Therefore, infrastructural facilities must be replicated on all campuses, which have financial implications, further compounding management’s financial challenges.” (Interviewee 4)

Inadequate infrastructural facilities also featured prominently in the responses from interviews with management. Management was unanimous on the role of adequate infrastructural facilities such as lecture halls, hostel facilities, and well-equipped laboratories in delivering quality higher education. A cross-section of management blamed the financing authority, Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund), for delaying the release of funds for projects such as lecture halls and hostel facilities, which invariably affected the completion of such projects, thus negatively impacting academic work. Interviewee 5 noted that:

“Inadequate lecture halls, hostel facilities, and laboratories not only hinder the quality of teaching, learning, and research but adversely affect assessment for accreditation of new programs and courses. Where the facilities do not match established standards, accreditation is denied, resulting in delays in the implementation of expansionary programs by management. Inadequate facilities also account for the poor ranking of the university at the regional and global levels.” (Interviewee 5)

Responses elicited from management also strongly indicated the negative effects of bureaucracy and unfavorable government policies on the quality of higher education delivery. As a public service institution, the UDS is bound to face bureaucratic tendencies in the day-to-day running of the University. Expressing frustrations with the inherent weaknesses of a bureaucracy, a member of management observed that:

“Some major decisions, policies, projects, and activities planned by management do not only require approval of key decision-making organs such as the governing council and academic board but are usually vetted by government agencies such as the NCTE, GETFund, and the appropriate Ministry. The effect is that where time is of the essence, projects suffer undue delays or funding cuts, thereby slowing down the overall efficiency of the administrative machinery.” (Interviewee 1)

Another member of the team (Interviewee 3) believed that some policies or government decisions have proved detrimental to the pursuit of academic excellence. He bemoaned the “decision of government to freeze public sector employment in the last three years, which created a shortage of skilled manpower in the UDS and adversely affected the quality of teaching and learning” (Interviewee 3). These views synchronize the assertion made by Tagoe (2013) that issues of autonomy; governance, leadership, and management efficiency; students’ and staff issues, and academic matters; funding, internationalization, world-classness, and ranking are some of the obvious challenges of university administration and management in West Africa.

Empirical data gathered by way of probing university management to ascertain challenges encountered in delivering quality higher education brought to the fore the issue of competition and the increasing desire among universities to attain world-classness. This is based on an observation made by Oldfield and Baron (2000) that the growing trend is for institutions operating in the higher education sector, which previously were not regarded as profit-making organizations, “to attempt to gain a competitive advantage over their competition” (pp. 85). Given this, universities must reposition themselves as a “profit-oriented organization operating in a competitive marketplace” (Oldfield & Baron, 2000). In his submission on whether UDS was competing favorably or not, Interviewee 2 asserted that even though UDS had carved a niche for itself by way of adopting a unique pedagogy and a wide range of unique programs:

“…The competition is still very keen. To be honest, the dwindling student numbers, among other things, can be attributed to the influx of many private universities: about 40 accredited private universities and countless unaccredited ones, not to mention the 9 public universities, all of whom draw from the same pool of qualified applicants.” (Interviewee 2)

Factors Inhibiting Quality Higher Education Delivery-Employee Perspective

The data gathered from the focus group discussions held with different categories of staff revealed that challenges confronting management in delivering quality higher education included inadequate funding, poor marketing of the university, administrative and managerial issues, inadequate innovation, and poor infrastructural development. Nearly all discussants expressed worry about the university’s over-reliance on government subvention and the neglect of exploring non-traditional means of generating funds:

“The University seems to focus on a few non-traditional revenue generation options, such as students’ fees and income from guest houses, whereas other viable options, such as the establishment of basic and senior high schools, hospitals, supermarkets, and vehicle maintenance shops, are either untapped or not properly developed.” (Focus group discussion).

This limits the university’s ability to execute policies, plans, and projects, negatively impacting teaching, learning, and research quality. A good number of participants also decried the ineffectiveness of the university’s publicity drive, which, in their opinion, has not adequately exposed the strengths and capabilities of the university in the execution of its mandate. A participant in the focus group discussion observed that:

“The University’s flagship program, Third Trimester Field Practical Programme-TTFPP, which makes UDS unique, has not been sufficiently marketed. Other ground-breaking initiatives of the university, such as research findings, are not marketed well, either. The result is that the university is unable to source funding support for the TTFPP and other research-related activities.” (Focus group discussions)

Effective marketing and branding enhance visibility and indirectly affect the ranking of institutions of higher learning (for instance, through assessment of web presence). Therefore, the ineffectiveness of its publicity drive, as articulated by participants, could partly be the reason for UDS’ poor ranking regionally and globally. This validates the finding (Tagoe, 2013) that most universities in West Africa are poorly ranked in the African continent; only 14 out of 200 West African universities were found in the top 100 African Universities in 2013 Webometrics. The majority of the participants partly blamed the unsatisfactory quality of service delivery on administrative and managerial matters. These centered on human resource issues such as motivation, career progression matters, inadequate training opportunities, poor remuneration, and bureaucratic tendencies. As noted in the focus group discussion:

“We are not adequately motivated to put in extra effort in the performance of our duties. Apart from our salaries, we don’t earn anything extra; it is only some categories of staff that are paid allowances. Also, when you decide to pursue further studies, you must be prepared to pre-finance your studies, and in most cases, we are not even granted study leave with pay, and this is not fair.” (Focus group discussion)

By revealing these sentiments, this study reinforces the view expressed by Dobni and Luffman (2003) that identifying and satisfying the needs of stakeholders are important steps toward gaining a competitive advantage. Participants in the focus group discussions were unanimous that inadequate infrastructural facilities impeded quality service delivery. The issues discussed pertained to inadequate lecture halls, inadequate student hostels, ill-equipped laboratories, inadequate office space, and inadequate staff accommodation.

Conclusion

Reasonable evidence proved that Management performed unsatisfactorily in some service quality dimensions. In answer to the research question and to address the study’s main objective, it was established that the factors that inhibit quality service delivery are wide and varied. It was evident that the challenges confronting Management in delivering quality higher education from students’ perspective included inadequate provision of physical facilities such as lecture halls and hostels, poor communication infrastructure and systems such as internet connectivity, and poor management-student relations. From the management perspective, financial constraints, inadequate infrastructure development, bureaucracy, and unfavorable government policies inhibit quality service delivery. Finally, from the employees’ perspective, it was established that inadequate funding, poor marketing of the university, administrative and managerial issues, inadequate innovation, and poor infrastructural development impeded quality service delivery. In view of the assertion by Hoffman and Bateson (2016) that organizations that excel in service quality do so by avoiding quality gaps in their delivery system, the study made far-reaching recommendations to Management to enhance quality service delivery.