Improving Quality Education at Tertiary Level in Pakistan, Role of Different Stakeholders

Home , Education in Lahore, Kishwar Naheed

IMPROVING QUALITY EDUCATION AT TERTIARY LEVEL IN PAKISTAN, ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

By Kishwar Naheed 2012-GCUF-09595

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FAISALABAD

May 2018

DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to all those who are striving hard to make Pakistan prosperous, particularly those who are making relentless efforts to craft its institution / organization into a state of art for the service of humanity progress of the country through quality education and quality research in the field of education.

iii

DECLARATION

The research reported in this thesis was carried out by me under the supervision of

DR. MUHAMMAD NAEEM MOHSIN Associate Professor, Department of Education G

C University Faisalabad Punjab, Pakistan.

I hereby declare that the title of the thesis IMPORVING QUALITY

EDUCATION AT TERTIARY LEVEL IN PAKISTAN, ROLE OF DIFFERENT

STAKEHOLDERS and the contents of the thesis are the product of my own research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the references, standard material or genetic models/ equations/ formulae/ protocol etc.).

I further declare that this work has not been submitted for award of any other degree/diploma. The University may take action if the information provided is found inaccurate at any stage.

Kishwar Naheed 2012-GCUF-09595 Roll No-309

CERTIFICATE BY THE RESEARCH SUPERVISOR

I certify that the contents and form of thesis submitted by Ms. Kishwar Naheed,

Roll No. 309 have been found satisfactory and in accordance with prescribed format. I recommend it to be processed for the evaluation by the external examiner for the award of degree.

Signature. ……………………….

Dr. Muahmmad Naeem Mohsin Associate Professor of Education, GC University Faisalabad

Member of Supervisory Committee Signature. ………………………… Name. …………………………….. Designation with stamp. …..……… Member of Supervisory Committee Signature. ………………………… Name. …………………………….. Designation with stamp. …..……… Chairperson/Dean/Academic Coordinator/Director Signature. ………………………… Name. …………………………….. Designation with stamp. …..………

ACKNOWLEDGEMTS

Words are bound, and knowledge is limited to praise ALLAH, the Omnipotent, the merciful and most compassionate whose bounteous blessing gave me the potential, thoughts and opportunity to complete this research work successfully and timely.

All respects, Darood-O-Salam and blessings of ALLAH, be upon his Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (S.A.W.) the most perfect and best among of ever born on earth, who guided his Ummah to seek knowledge from cradle to grave. I deem utmost pleasure to avail this opportunity to express the heartiest gratitude and deep sense of obligation to my reverend supervisor, Dr. Muhammad Naeem Mohsin Associate Professor of Education/ Director of Distance Learning and all other teachers. Their skilful guidance, learned patronage, entire help at all time, masterly advice and inspiring attitude made it very easy for me to undertake this work. I am also heartily grateful and thankful to my respectable seniors, friends, and colleagues who always encouraged me a lot, who always helped and encouraged me whenever I sought their help. I am also thankful to all my class fellows for the good time we have spent together and respect and regard we have shared with one another. I pay special thanks to team members for collection of data and extending their help for compilation of data analysis. Words are lacking to express my humble obligation to my loving parents, brothers & sisters and my family for their love and wish to see me glittering high on the skies of the success whose prayers enable me to achieve my goal. May “ALLAH” bestow all of my family with a long, happy and healthy life (Ameen).

KISHWAR NAHEED

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER 1 1

INTRODUCTION 1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS 2

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 3

NEED FOR THE PROJECT 3

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4

DELIMITATION 5

OPERATIONAL DEFINATIONS 5

STAKEHOLDERS 5

Regulators 5

Providers 6

Beneficiaries 6

Reasons for stakeholders involvement 8

CHAPTER 2 9

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9

PART-1 TERTIARY LEVEL EDUCATION 9

What is University 10

Teacher’s Quality 11

Student’s Quality 11

Adequate physical facilities Environment 12

Governance 12

General Atmosphere and Environment 12

vii

Research Quality 12

Major Challenges for Tertiary Education 12

Challenging the Challenges 13

Curriculum 14

Teaching Methodology 14

Corruption and Accountability 14

Market Demand 15

Incentive Orientation 15

Political Interference 16

Quality Research 16

Inadequate Funding 16

Student’s Intake 16

Contribution Towards Scio-Economic Development 17

Objectives of Mutual Understanding 17

Successful Partnership between Industry and Education 17

PART-2 ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP 18

History of Education Leadership 18

Leadership Models 19

Individual Model. 20

Transformative Model 20

Collaborative Model 20

Collegial Model. 20

Hierarchical Model. 20

Effective Education Leadership 20

viii

Vision 20

Voices 21

Values 21

Inward Communication. 22

Positive Approach. 22

Adaptation of Technology. 22

Personal Example. 22

Observing and Reflecting. 22

Public Relationing. 23

Mutual Trust and Encouragement. 23

Politeness and Firmness. 23

Leadership in Changed Context 23

Operation Mode 25

Economic Facts 26

Quality Assurance 26

Role of quality assurance in quality teaching 28

Quality assurance agencies help the universities 29

Role of Students 29

Role of HOD’s, Deans and other academic institutional leaders 30

Capabilities of Leadership 31

Teamwork 31

Accounts 32

Miscellaneous capabilities. 32

Quality Student Service. 32

Accountability 33

Fund Raising 33

Internationalization 33

PART -3 QUALITY EDUCATION 33

Concept of Quality Education 33

Definition 34

Quality Indicators 34

Quality Education Indicators 34

Some of the indicators are 35

Dimensions of quality 36

Presage dimension 36

Processes dimension 36

Product dimension 36

Importance of quality in higher education 37

Issues of quality 37

Present state of Education 38

Aims of Higher Education 38

Current Scenario 39

Quality as Culture 40

1st phase 40

2nd phase 41

3rd phase 41

Quality Culture as Tool 41

Developing Quality Culture 42

High Quality Research 43

Measuring High Quality Research 43

High Quality Research Environment 44

How to stimulate high quality research 44

Part-4 STAKEHOLDERS 45

Categories of Stakeholders 45

Stakeholder’s theory 48

Reasons for stakeholder’s involvement 48

Institution 48

Stakeholders 49

Motivating factors 49

Government 50

Industry 50

Human Capital 50

Resources 51

Innovation and product development 51

Reputation and prestige 51

Academe 52

Faculty and Students 52

Public Relations 52

Conclusion 52

Process of Engagement of Stakeholders 52

Development of engagement plan 53

Purpose of engagement activity 53

Identification of relevant stakeholder 54

Method of engagement 54

Evaluation of stakeholders 57

Principles of engagement 57

Respect 58

Trustworthy 58

Commitment 58

Mutual benefit 58

Openness 59

Indigenous stakeholders 59

Diverse communities 59

Youth participation 59

Communication 60

Higher Education and Industry Relations 60

Reasons. - (against) 60

Reasons. - (for) 60

Brief History 61

Why a Triangular Partnership 61

To make it a success 62

CHAPTER III 64

METHOD AND METHODOLOGY 64

PROCEDURE OF STUDY 64

NATURE OF STUDY 64

POPULATION 65

xii

SAMPLE & SAMPLING 65

Vice Chancellors/Deans 66

Administrative/HODs 66

Parents 67

Members from civil societies 67

Representative from Media 67

Principals of affiliated colleges 67

Experts for validation of research instruments 68

INSTRUMENTATION 68

Development of five Questionnaires 68

In depth Interviews 69

VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENTATION 69

PILOT TESTING 70

DATA COLLECTION 70

INTERVIEW RECORDING 70

Data Analysis 70

CHAPTER IV 71

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 71

Brief description of Data Analysis 72

Demographic Profile 72

Descriptive strategies 72

Inferential Statistics 72

Analysis of qualitative data 72

Analysis of participants (N=802) 73

xiii

FOCUSED DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR ACADEMIC 134 LEADERS

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE OF PRINCIPALS OF 135 AFFILIATED COLLEGES

Analysis of Responses of Vice Chancellors and Deans of 137 different Universities

CHAPTER v 146

SUMMARY, FINDING, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND 146 RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING 147

Factor wise comparison of respondents 147

Findings Revealed Through Open Ended Questions 152

Findings Revealed during Focused Discussion in Interview 152 Protocol with Senior Academic Leaders

Principals of affiliated colleges 152

Vice Chancellors and Deans of the Universities 153

CONCLUSIONS 155

DISCUSSION 156

RECOMMENDATIONS 159

References 163

Annex-A 170

NAME OF EVALUATOR OF QUESTIONNAIRE 170

(SUBJECT EXPERTS)

Annex-B 171

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR 171

xiv

HOD, Senior Academia and Administration)

Annex-C 175

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR 175 Parents

Annex-D 179

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR 179 Students)

Annex-E 183

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR 183 Civil Societies, Industrialists, Media, Principal affiliated colleges etc)

Annex-F 187

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR 187 Faculties)

Annex-G 191

Questionnaire for Principals of Affiliated Colleges 191

Annex-H 192

Questionnaire For Vice Chancellors and Deans of the 192 Universities

Annex-I 193 Similarity index Report

LIST OF TABLES Table # Title Page #

1 Categories of the Stakeholders 6 2a Growth of Universities in Pakistan 09 2 b Province wise number of University Students and Teachers 10 during 2012-13 3 Enrollment at universities and affiliated colleges 2003-04 10 4 Distribution of Public and Private Universities each 37 province and capital of Pakistan 5 Showing different categories of Stakeholders 48 46 6 Data of Faculty and Students of each selected university 66 7 The summary of sample is presented below 67 8 Classification of Participants with respect to University 73 9 Classification of Participants (N=802) 74 10 Classification of Participants with respect to Gender 75 11 Classification of participants with respect to Location 75 12 Comparison of Gender with respect to Variables 75 13 Comparison of Gender with respect to Learning 76 Environment 14 Comparison of Gender with respect to Quality Culture 77 15 Comparison of Gender with respect to External Stake 77 holder 16 Comparison of Gender with respect to Good Governess 78 17 Comparison of Gender with respect to Academic 79 leadership 18 Comparison of Gender with respect to External Stake 79 Holder 19 Comparison of Gender with respect to Governess 80 20 Comparison of Gender with respect to Student Supporting 80 Staff 21 Comparison of Gender with respect to Teacher Quality 81 22 Comparison of Gender with respect to Staff Development 81 23 Comparison of Gender with respect to Service Security 82

xvi

24 Comparison of Gender with respect to Society Linkage 82 25 a Participants Satisfactions with Learning Environment 83 25 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Learning 83 Environment 25 c Showing participants Satisfaction with learning 84 Environment 26 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Quality Culture 86 26 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture 87 26 c Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture 88 27 a Showing participants Satisfactions with External Stake 90 Holders 27 b Showing participants Satisfaction with External Stake 91 Holders 28 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Good Governess 91 28 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Good Governess 92 29 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Academic 93 Leadership 29 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Academic 93 Leadership 29 c Showing participants Satisfaction with Academic 94 Leadership 30 a Showing participants Satisfactions with External Stake 96 Holders 30 b Showing participants Satisfaction with External Stake 97 Holders 31 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Governess 97 31 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Governess 98 32 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Students Supports 98 Services 32 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Students Supports 99 Services 32 c Showing participants Satisfaction with Students Supports 99 Services

xvii

33 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Teacher Quality 102 33 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Teacher Quality 102 33 c Showing participants Satisfaction with Teacher Quality 103 34 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Staff Development 105 34 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Staff Development 106 35 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Service Security 106 35 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Service Security 107 35 c Showing participants Satisfaction with Service Security 107 36 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Society Linkage 109 36 b Showing participants Satisfaction with Society Linkage 110 36 c Showing participants Satisfactions with Society Linkage 111 37 a Showing participants Satisfaction with University Learning 113 Environment 37 b Showing participants Satisfaction with University Learning 114 Environment 37 c Showing participants Satisfactions with University 115 Learning Environment 132 38 a Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture 117 38 b Showing participants Satisfactions with Quality Culture 117 38 c Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture 118 39 a Showing participants Satisfaction with University External 120 Stake Holder 39 b Showing participants Satisfaction with University External 121 Stake Holder 39 c Showing participants Satisfaction with University External 122 Stake Holder 40 a Showing participants Satisfaction with University Good 124 Governess 40 b Showing participants Satisfaction with University Good 124 Governess 40 c Showing participants Satisfaction with University Good 125 Governess 41 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Academic 127

xviii

Leadership 41 b Showing participants Satisfaction with University 128 Academic Leadership 41 c Showing participants Satisfaction with University 128 Academic Leadership 42 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Staff Development 131 42 b Showing participants Satisfactions with Staff Development 131 42 c Showing participants Satisfactions with Staff Development 132

xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

1. NTU National Textile University 2. GCWUF Government College for Women University Faisalabad 3. UET University of Engineering and Technology 4. GCUF Government College University Faisalabad 5. FSD Faisalabad 6. Govt. Government 7. GNP Gross National Product 8. UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 9. KPK Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 10. NGOs Non-governmental organization 11. SPSS Statistical Packages of Social Sciences 12. SCC Student Coordinating Council 13. AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir 14. GRE Graduate Record Examination 15. NTS National Testing Service 16. SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test 17. GDP Gross domestic product 18. HOD Head of the Department 19. GATE Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering 20. HEC Higher Education Commission 21. LUMS Lahore University of Management Sciences 22. GIK The Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology 23. VC Vice Chancellor 24. CFA Chartered Financial Analyst 25. IBA Institute of Business Administration 26. TLI Team Leader Index 27. UE University of Education 28. RIU Riphah International University 29. TUF The University of Faisalabad

ABSTRACT

Higher Education is expanding rapidly both in public and private sector. There is growing awareness regarding performance of Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education is a must for accelerating economic development of the country. Universities in collaboration with the society are responsible to offer quality education, result oriented research and service to the community. These institutions are answerable to the stakeholders because these are the stakeholders who provide atmosphere for continued existence of the institutions, their vertical program and horizontal expansion, to make a competition at the International level quality education, result oriented consistent improvement is required which can only be provided through strong funding and performance-oriented accountability. The study aimed at improving quality education and role of stake holder at university level.

Objectives of the study include major challenges, integration of stakeholder’s in higher education setup along with evaluation of quality education coupled with development of academic leadership. Selected universities were included in the population of study. These institutions represented both public and private sector, male and female universities, provincial and federal Universities etc. Sample included students, faculty, parents, civil society and senior academic leaders.

Major conclusion of the study was that majority of the respondents were satisfied regarding recruitment procedure for the teachers, HOD/Senior Academicians were more satisfied regarding learning environment as compared to civil society there was substantial variance in the list of challenges among respondents. The key findings of the study revealed that quality of education at tertiary level needed more efforts to bring it up to international standard and the role of stakeholders needs to be enhanced.

xxi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION Since the creation of mankind emphasis on education has been given and the importance of education in being continuously highlighted since ages, cultural human development’s program in science and other fields of life is attributed to purposeful education. Betterment in human society largely depends upon the behavior and contribution of its educated elite. Recent researchers have amply highlighted the importance of education in economic growth. Significance of education in socio- economic development of countries is of utmost importance. In-spite of all the importance there has been lack of required attention by the Government in Pakistan toward this sensitive subject. No doubt some forward steps have been taken in this direction but of very little consequence. Different educational policies from time to time had come up but with very little outcome because of lack of continuity in the policies and low investment in educational sector without realizing that how much economic growth in the country has suffered. Pakistan is at 31st of 35 Muslim countries in literacy graph and its position is 134 out of 186 countries (World Bank Atlas 1996). Expenditure on education comes to approximately 2.44% of GNP and literacy rate stands at 27.2% (Adult education in a polarizing worlds; education for all students and trends 1997) Government of Pakistan has been focusing on better education and have been fixing targets in every education policy and five-year plan, but those targets were never achieved. In some circles, it is debated that extra vagant resources are allocated to higher education compared to primary education sector where as higher education sector caters for 2.6% of relevant age group and primary sector caters for total population of that age group. Pakistan has very low enrollment of students in higher education. Out of this only 35 to 40 % students pass the exam at graduation/post-graduation level. The quality of education at higher level is also not up-to mark and stands far below than international standards barring three foreign private universities in the country. No doubt the number of private universities is fast growing and quite a few universities in public sector have also come up but the standards of quality of education has gone down and is rapidly declining. It is because of weak regulatory mechanism, non- judicious spending of money allocated, politicization of university atmosphere, incompetent leadership at various levels, poor placement of qualified students, out of money allocated very little portion is spent on research programme at tertiary level.

At tertiary level, there are numerous stakeholders who can play their role in improvement of the product of universities. Students are on priority one as far as stakeholders are concerned because they are the one who are directly or indirectly affected by any policy of the Institution. Followed by this faculty members are also major stake holders. Parents of the student’s, society at large, business sector, intelligentsia, Government and other connected organizations/bodies are part of list of stakeholders. In general, the broader definition of stakeholder includes a group, individual, organization which can contribute towards the betterment of the university, may be these are affected by the policies/achievements of the organization. It is advocated that business sector should be encouraged to take interest in education system because they are the one who absorb their product (student) for employment. Their cooperation may be in the form of information sharing, curriculum development or other activities thereby encouraging programs directed towards integrated educational supply chain. Stakeholders play a definite role in enhancing/streamlining the policy of the institution and can better the quality of education in the institution. There will always be difference in quality institution to institution and within institution from department to department. It is very difficult to qualify the quality in all the dimensions. Some of the dimensions are difficult to measure. Educational purpose is the prerequisite to any consideration of the quality. The purpose of education is to develop desirable qualities in a person. Framework for assessing quality depends on agreed goals, learning, outcomes, curriculum, leadership and teacher development. The best way to improve quality in education is to mobilize public concern and political support to make improvement of education quality a part of policy dialogue.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It is internationally considered that; quality education is imperative for economic growth of any country and the quality comes through leadership responsible to formulate policies. It is not only that quality has to be achieved but then it must be sustained to benefit from it. There is a relation between the leadership, quality and stakeholders. No doubt leaders are also stakeholders; it may be at any level, besides this there are the numerous stakeholders which effects or are affected by the quality of education. Students are the major stakeholders because they are the end product of all this exercise and consumption/placement will directly depend upon quality of education, they receive in an

institution. Faculty is another stakeholder who mainly contributes to the quality of education. Broadly speaking the stakeholders can be divided into internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are regulators, providers and beneficiaries whereas external stakeholders include publishers, media, social networking and civil societies etc. in this study; the role of various stakeholders is to be highlighted.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main objectives of the study were to

1. Identify the major challenges faced by tertiary education in Pakistan and contribution towards socio-economic development of society. 2. Access the services rendered by various categories of stakeholders. 3. Suggest measures and steps to engage stakeholders and to analyze quantum of participation of different types of stakeholders. 4. Discuss the role of academic leadership in raising quality of education in higher education. 5. Access the dimensions of educational leadership in the changed context.

NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The study as is evident from the title entails defining stakeholders/ academic leadership at tertiary level and achievement of quality in education at university level for times to come. There is a requirement to establish relationship between the stakeholders, leadership and quality. For this purpose, this study will encompass historical background of higher education in Pakistan, its progress and present status, in this study effort will be made to define quality as related to higher education. There is no permanent or set definition because this varies from culture to culture, nation to nation, area to area and finally the demand based on aspiration, goal and available resources of the subject state. In this study the quality will be related to the environment of Pakistan in specific and in relevance to other area in general. In this study stakeholder at tertiary level education will be identified along with their suggested responsibilities.

After having dealt with the quality in education, emphasis will be on how stakeholders can contribute to achieve the goals set by an institution of higher education

and how better they can be motivated. The third aspect of the study is the leadership, in which it will be discussed that what leadership is. It will also be analyzed that what role leadership can play in achieving better quality in tertiary education and after having achieved the same, how it can be utilized for the betterment of the society. The purpose of this research will hinge on a single point, that how best relationship between the four can be established to achieve optimum utilization of the stakeholders for benefit of institution. It is mostly argued that whether there has been a betterment in tertiary education or a decline. There is a school of thought that all allocation of resources for higher education is insufficient which directly affects the quality as compared to international level.

The other school of thought believes that in the recent past enough resources were placed at the disposal of higher education authorities but expected results were not achieved. Either the resources were not fully and properly utilized or if utilized, appropriate results were not achieved thus resources wasted. This wastage made our further claims weak for allocation of resources by the state or donor agencies. In this study both aspects will be analyzed, and efforts will be made to bring our factual position as near to originality as possible. Along with all this effort will be made to identify different stakeholders along with their responsibilities and participation in the whole process.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research would be purposeful, and it would address the weak areas of quality higher education. Findings of the research will provide important information base for the improvement of quality education at tertiary level. Study will further enhance academic leadership role in improvement of quality education at higher level. The result of the study may facilitate the policy makers and planners in devising suitable strategies for further plan of action for getting better quality of education at tertiary level, so as to make better contribution towards social economic development of the society. The research will help in manufacturing role of academic leadership in the changing scenario of technical development at national and international level. This research will be beneficial to develop capacity of academic leadership at tertiary level so as to make their role more useful. The study will help in exploring the role of stakeholders thereby increasing their contribution towards betterment of tertiary

level quality education. It will also be helpful in bringing in more and more stakeholders in the loop so as to benefit from their experience and expertise overall. The study will look into the challenges faced by higher education in the country and recommend ways and means of facing those challenges so as to find a solution of the same.

DELIMITATION

1. Higher Education Institutions located in Punjab 2. Institution under federal and provincial government and private sector

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

STAKEHOLDERS

The stakeholders concerning higher education in any country/region can be categorized into external and internal stakeholders. It is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between the two. The internal stake stakeholders no longer confined to Professors. Besides Professors, now it includes other teaching staff researchers, institutional staff and students. External stakeholders include individual/groups, bodies having linkage/interests in higher education institutions, local business people, societies at large, NGO’s or other such bodies like parents having their interests and stakes can be called the external stakeholders. We cannot draw a line/comparison between internal stakeholders and external stakeholders because both are necessary in the changing scenario. In the beginning the internal stakeholders were in lime light, with the emergencse of concepts of good governance came into being which demands competency and delivery. With the finance- oriented regime, the market demand driven approach in higher education, the external stake holders came into being. Broad base categorization of stakeholders as under.- Regulators Governmental bodies comprising of ministries and departmental at federal/provincial levels, these are responsible for policy making, finance, guidelines and legal framework. They decide about opening of institution, workout infrastructure requirements, student’s intake, fee, syllabus, contents, evaluation system, accreditation and faculty appointment etc.

Providers

Public institutions and private institutions, international higher educational institutions and related organizations constitute providers group as far as stakeholders are concerned.

Beneficiaries Society at large, parents (customers), students (user's), job market, teachers and entrepreneurs etc. are part of beneficiaries group. Higher education benefits on individual himself, his/her society, his family and nation. It influences lifestyle, customer preferences and challenges unacceptable social taboos in the society. Higher education should be considered as a tool for societal uplift.

In entire system tutors, higher education consultants/agents, media publishers, and civil society groups can be termed as external stakeholders. Another school of thought categorize stakeholders as under.

Table 1 Categories of stakeholders

Stakeholders Category Constitutive Groups Communities

State and Federal Government/Provincial Government, Governing Bodies, Governing Boards, Governing Entities Board of Trustees, Buffer Organizations, Sponsoring Religions Organizations.

Vice Chancellors, Chancellors and senior Administration Administration

Employees Faculty, Administration, staff, supporting staff.

Students, Parents/Spouse, tuition, reimbursement

Clienteles providers, service/partners, employers, field placement site.

Suppliers Secondary/Higher secondary education providers,

alumni, college and other universities, food purveyors, insurance companies and utilities contracted.

Direct private and public providers of post- Competitors secondary education, potential providers, distance providers and new ventures.

Individuals (include trustees, friends, parents, Donors alumni, employees, industry research council’s foundations.),

Neighbors, School system, Social services, chamber Communities of commerce, special interest groups.

Ministry of Education, buffer organizations, federal Government Regulators and provincial financial aid agencies, research councils, tax authorities and social security.

Non-Government Foundations, institutional and programmatic Regulators accrediting bodies, professional associations.

Financial Intermediaries Bank, fund manager analysts.

Alliances and consortiums, corporate cosponsors of Joint venture partners research and educational services.

Source: Burren 1999 p.9

University success is always dependents on its capacity to harness resources to accomplish their main objectives or mission (Ernst, 2007). In major portion of this is the creation of useful knowledge embedded in people, technologies, books and networks. (Speapen etal 2007 and Margingiwon, 2007). The worth of that knowledge is evaluated by universities, key stakeholders through terms such as quality, utility, relevance. Higher education institutions resources are abundantly dependent on market demand, metric allocations rather than the block grants. Institutions face increasingly complicated choice of stakeholders, interest to priorities and how to reconcile contradictory interests

(slaughter, Leslie 2001 Greenwood 2007) stakeholder management is a means to that end (Jewahar and Machanglin 2001) as university stakeholders place demand or condition on the university in return for their resources.

Reasons for Stakeholders Involvement

There are broadly two reasons, the first one is humanistic or democratic, (Koopman, Wierdsma 1998). According to this people have right to be a part of decision making in the events which effect their life because it is understood that public has the ability and the potential to participate effectively. Second reason is pragmatic or human relation (O’ffair & Reitzing 1997). As per this reason the said management is pathway to achieve productivity efficiency and other goals set by the institution. In the recent past the role of teachers as a stakeholder and their involvement in decision making has been under discussion. Participation in decision making by teachers is considered positive for improvement in quality education. It gives administration access to important decision making through critical information close to source of any problem regarding quality of curricula and instructional methodology. It provides opportunity to utilization of various experts’ knowledge.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into four parts; the first part deals with tertiary level education, second part deals with academic leadership, third part deals with quality education and fourth part concerned with involvement of different stakeholders in education.

PART-1 TERTIARY LEVEL EDUCATION

If we trace back the history, it reveals that Muslims in the Subcontinent were poorly educated as compared to other nations. Many reasons can be given for this, but the fact remains that Muslim nations suffered badly because of lack of education. The area presently known as Pakistan was even more backward as far as education facilities were concerned. At the time of creation of Pakistan there was only one university in the whole country with an intake of 644 students with Hindu as majority of faculty who migrated to India during the partition thus leaving a big gap for the teaching faculty. Besides this university, University of Sindh, was there as an examining body. The picture of Subcontinent expansion of universities is shown in table 2a.

Table 2 a Growth of Universities in Pakistan Universities /DAI Year Public Private 1947 1 0 1960 3 0 1970 6 0 1980 21 0 1990 23 2 2000 37 22 2007 59 55 2018 111 77 Higher Education Commission 2018

The growth of universities was reasonable though not very impressive and adequate because of increase in no. of universities, the student’s intake also increased.

Table 2 b Province-wise number of universities, students and teachers during 2012-2013

Name of Number of Student Enrollment Number of Teachers Province Universities

Punjab 44 260141 11451

Sindh 47 144548 7924

KPK 29 91216 4951

Baluchistan 08 18744 1264

Federal 30 116067 7494

AJK 06 9855 943

GB 01 2506 ------

Total 165 643077 34027 Source: HEC 2015.

Table 3 Enrollment at universities and affiliated colleges 2003-2004 Sector Federal AJK Baluchistan KPK Punjab Sindh Public 31843 2005 5217 30815 86032 46949 Private 4720 379 564 5865 16749 3283 Total 36563 2384 5781 36680 102781 50232 %age of population 5% 16% 55% 23%

The figure of student’s admissions is dismal as compared to the universities of other countries or the neighboring countries. What is University? All nations want that their population must achieve a position among highly educated nations. There are three requirements to achieve this. These are qualified faculty, qualified students and adequate funding. No need to say that universities in the modern age are working as programme of engines for knowledge driven economy. Higher Education needs ideal universities. Ideal university must have first-rate faculty that indulge in high grade research. The reputation

of professors will attract dedicated researchers and eager students from all over the globe. The ideal university transforms a citizen from human to a product which can think independently and scientifically and can express logically. They have understanding of social and political issues. It is difficult to make perfect assessment of any institution. Yet there is a need to judge, assess and it should be done while assessing. Following factors be considered. i. Teachers quality ii. Students quality iii. Adequate physical facilities iv. Standard of Governance v. General atmosphere and environment vi. Research quality

Teacher’s quality

Professors of teaching require high standards of human qualities and adequate knowledge. A system must be devised to select the best. For this, formal qualification is a must as a first step. The degree is judged by the integrity of educational system of the nation. More the integrity better will be standard of degree. Integrity in the system ensures the quantum of knowledge of possessing a degree. The next step is the assessment of the competence of an individual among the available lot and this can be done by standardizing the system of selection through tests or interviews or demonstrations.

Student’s Quality

The system of admission in a university determines the quality of students. Basic is the grade in the examination and ranking of the institution awarding grade. Certain universities depend on GRE/NTS/SAT results for admission and could be a combination of both followed by this is student selection mechanism. Student’s quality will determine the university quality. In case of Pakistan those who qualify 12 years of schooling are eligible for admission in college or universities. Percentage at higher secondary school is as low as 20-30 % and even out of this hardly 1-2 % makes it to university.

Adequate physical facilities environment.

Every institution has a certain infra-structure to fulfill its operational requirements. It includes land/space and building for various segments of the university. Besides this, the institution should have other facilities fulfilling the requirements of the modern day such as laboratories, libraries and internet accommodation etc.

Governance.

For an institution, Governance is must. Credibility of institution depends on good practices of governance and ethical values. Standard of an institution can be judged by academic values it follows. Institutions are also judged and gauged by the laws they frame for themselves. The quality of law determines the quality of the university. Respect and adherence to laws adds to the prestige of the university. No doubt that the laws of institution must be inline and accordance with the laws of the land.

General atmosphere and environment.

General atmosphere and learning environment adds to the respect and dignity of the institution. Physical facilities in the universities have their own role and congenial environment with high values for academic further contributes towards the name of the university.

Research Quality

While assuming the university, the facilities and approval towards quality research must be considered. For quality research, necessary infrastructure for research and quality teachers along-with motivated students are must.

Major Challenges for Tertiary Education Our country has witnessed rapid change and way ahead in higher education system but at the same time tertiary education has not witnessed much change. Focus on tertiary education throughout the globe is under rapid change/progress. In this changing scenario, those institutions not keeping pace with the upcoming change are likely to lag- behind and be a looser. In a knowledge driven economy more and more numbers of

workers need higher level skills. The growing need of continuing education so as to update knowledge and skills on a regular basis is major cause of this evaluation. One time receipt of degree after completion of study is being replaced by a life-long education. Because of this evaluation, the institution is likely to have diversified groups of students coming to the campuses and not only the youngsters as regular students. The variety of students may include working students, private students, weekend students and online students etc. In United States of America 50% of students at tertiary level are part time students as compared to 100% of students are regular in the previous degree. Internationalization in the recent times has grown many folds as compared to the past. The economy and trade has gone independent across the globe, so is the knowledge which knows no boundaries and phenomenon of Internationalization is advantageous but at the same time highly a risky offer. Yet it is unavoidable and nations must join in to benefit from it. Because of this, the increased role of knowledge in today’s economy cannot be overlooked. Along with increased role of knowledge in economy, there is huge amount of growth of the knowledge and the best example is that of computer industry, where the journeys from Intel micro processing chip to Pentium 6was covered in few years. Besides above challenge the next major challenge is the communication revolution. Imagine the journey from private media to satellite technology, where transmission of information capacity has increased manifold with a minimal cost as compared to print media cost, if we see this in the time prospect it reveals that time taken for an information travel has reduced multifold. It has been changed from months to seconds. To say the least now there is hardly any loss of time for information access and communication among various segments of society, the distance does not matter. Challenging the Challenges In the modern era, physical distance has shrunk therefore using new technologies in university at the other edge of the globe can open a branch on the opposite edge of the world, therefore the competition is on the increase and only the best are going to survive. Another problem in our country is that mushroom of foreign programme through distance learning or online learning is affecting the conventional teaching in our universities. Therefore, there is dire requirement to undertake extreme steps to face challenges in our methodology of governance, operation, curricula and structure.

Curriculum.

Curriculum at all levels of education is outdated particularly at higher education and tertiary level. Curriculum mismatches modern day market demand. Our education system has failed to create analytical thinking among our students. Our outdated teaching methodology input knowledge for the sake of degree through rote learning. Through improvement in curriculum we need to meet market demand of knowledge driven economy. We must come out from the phenomenon of rote learning and develop a habit of analytical thinking and reasoning among the students.

Teaching methodology

Our overall education system suffers because of lack of professional teachers with a strong academic specialized background. Teachers in our education system mostly are those for service therefore the standard suffers, besides this, the recruitment procedure of teachers adds to the low quality of teachers. Our system does not cater for brain drainage because it fails to meet the international market as far as emoluments, perks and privileges of teaching staff is concerned. Student teacher’s ratio is another factor for poor quality education. There is a dire need to upgrade prestige of education leaders to attract the elite cream of educated lot towards this profession and also increase the number of qualified quality faculty members, for this the whole system of recruitment, retention, salary package, selection/promotion procedure needs to be revamped.

Corruption and Accountability

It is observed that universities are mainly concerned with the attendance of their employees and have an indifferent attitude towards their problems and difficulties there by making employees unconcerned about institution except taking lectures, effecting the motivation of employees and students. There is no fair transparent system of evaluation of teachers, which discourage talent to join this profession. Corruption in one way or the other has spoiled the governance system in the country and has a trickling effect on educational institutions more so in universities which are autonomous with large chunk of funds at their disposal. Unfortunately, because of rampant corruption individuals have entered into this profession whose aim is to earn money instead of noble cause of teaching. Above all political interference in the educational institution has polluted the

atmosphere in the universities. Induction of low educated political representatives into various governing bodies adds to the miseries of the institution. These all bad practices can be controlled if there is a fair and transparent accountability system in the universities as they are answerable to society, students and lack of proper accountability corruption, misuse of authority and other unethical practices are on the increase.

Market Demand

This aspect is almost not covered/considered while fixing the curriculum or making programmes. Therefore, there is the dearth of qualified well educated persons in the business/industry. The link between academic and industry / market is totally missing. Our curriculum has hardly any linkage with practical life, therefore the placement of the university graduates becomes difficult and it cuts both ways. The industry does not get the required staff thus effecting standards and output of industry and on the other hand graduate with degrees keep looking for job but of no avail. The factors affecting this aspect are faulty policies of the Government. It can be overcome with the enhancement of communication between the industry and educational institutions make market oriented policies by involving the local chamber of industry and commerce. The standards of education shall be raised by making use of latest technology for market oriented learning. To say the least it is the responsibility of industrial setup to give their specific requirement to the educational institution and institution must produce highly capable human resource whose training must be in real practical environment.

Incentive Orientation

It is famous saying “motivated teacher’s produce motivated students”. It has been observed that institutions are mostly unconcerned or indifferent towards problems of teaching faculty or the support staff. This makes teaching a service and not a profession thus affecting the standards. Treating everyone equal is good practice but the performance of each must be evaluated and rewarded accordingly to make a difference between good and bad. Salaries and other financial benefits of teachers are not sufficient to maintain the standards of life when compared to contemporaries in other service. To take the best out of a teacher his performance must be incentivized, different motivational factors should not be lost sight of to get better results.

Political Interference

In Pakistan, education department is considered a soft target and because of its huge public dealing, it attracts maximum political interference and educational crisis in the country have a maximum share of politicization. The governing bodies structure suffers because of induction of political figures rather than accommodating professionals in highest tier. Imagine a political worker with hardly any education background sitting as a member of syndicate of a university and making educational policies. To boost up educational standards, this policy of political interference has to be done away with an iron hand.

Quality Research

Quality Research in our universities is getting lip service and the quality of research is at its lowest ebb. What to talk of enhancement of research facilities are underutilized. Research is not focused because of market-university communication gap. There is no proper methodology to disseminate the results of research to the concerned quarters. To improve research culture in universities we need committed academic leadership and a whole-some strategy plan through better coordination between market and academic institutions.

Inadequate Funding

As far as funding for tertiary education in Pakistan, it is the poorest among developing countries we are hardly spending 1.8% of GDP on education whereas minimum international requirement is to spend of 4% GDP, with this financial gap how can our country compete internationally.

Student’s Intake

The education standards at school level are very poor there by effecting academic performance at university level by these students. To improve tertiary education, we have to improve our baseline education at school/college level.

Contribution towards Socio-Economic Development of Society

It is the need of time to know that how institution of tertiary learning shares responsibilities with industries and business concerns regarding socio-economic uplift of society. Purpose is to exchange views; ways and means through which education and business sectors coordination can lead to produce professionally work ready graduates to meet the market demand. This coordination contributes quality education training programmes. This challenge in today’s global market to national industry and business can only be met through competition by producing quality product at a cheaper rate through skilled persons who are ready to face the challenge of challenging market standards and technologies. It has been recognized worldwide that industry/education partnership requires new mindset and ways of thinking and commitment from both sectors. Partnership demands teachers and senior academic leaders to share contacts of curriculum, internal working of institution with industry, business and other related stakeholders. A good partnership will generate mutual respect and trust thereby the solution of problems. Because of this exercise educational institutions will have increased access to resources and will also help increase quality and efficiency of education for employability programmes.

Objectives of mutual understanding

i. To make academic institution and industry more aware of functioning of educational programmes and purpose behind. ii. Provision of career advice to institutions. iii. To provide a clear picture and structure of industrial life and its opportunities and challenges iv. Mutual support for industry related programmes v. Provision of chances of after study placement of students in industry. vi. Expanding capabilities and opportunities of institution to meet the challenges. vii. Means of contribution towards quality education in institutions. viii. Reducing the cost of liability of doing business for both sides.

Successful partnership between Industry and Education The area needing mutual understanding and cooperation are skill assessment, curriculum contents, resources for acquisition of facilities, provision of qualified and professional instructors and job placement. It requires that educational institution’s vision should cater for firm commitment to serve the business sector and this can be achieved by keeping flexibility in policy planning. The educational institution must customize the industry needs. For convenience of all stakeholders, the company needs to appoint a responsible employee as focal person for coordination of all educational activities with all concerned institutions. Business/industry has a greater role to play in this partnership because they are the one who facilitates the graduates to industrial experience. There should be industrial representation in the institution management bodies to facilitate sharing of facilities so that students acquire specific skills, knowledge and understanding of the industrial requirement to boost up capacity, competency and efficiency. It is observed that students after completion of graduation face difficulties in placement because. i. There is no formal contact between educational institution and industry. ii. Lack of assessment of industry facilities. iii. Educational and industrial programmes are not jointly worked out. iv. Lack of industrial attachment experience. v. Absence of career counseling for students for joining the right type of industry to gain relevant experience. vi. Supervision and periodic guidance of students during training by academic teachers. The requirement of different segments resulted in university business partnership. The university is always looking for additional resources, industrialist always wanted to be at the top with renewed competitive edge and government desire to enhance economic vigor are the key requirements. This partnership will increase socio-economic benefits.

PART-2 ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP

History of Education Leadership Universities have undergone tremendous change with the increased number of students and teaching faculty with ever challenging market demand for various categories

of university graduates and postgraduates. The academic leadership at tertiary level has come under analytical scrutiny because of mode of the funding, increased globalization, complicated marketization and enhanced professional choice. The above-mentioned factors have tremendously contributed towards ways and means to enable adaptation of above changes by academic leaders. Since last century, many philosophers regarding leadership concept have come up. Leaders at tertiary level education have to decide how to better lead their subordinates and the institution. They have to decide most effective leadership approach to achieve optimum results befitting higher education.

Context history of leadership approach is as under.

1. “Command and Control” 19th Century 2. “Behavioral” Theories 1950’s it is built on consideration of human nature and motivation. (McGregor 1957, Herzberg 1976) 3. “Transactional transformational” theory in 1970s (Burns, 1978 Bass 1997). It is based on reinforcement of performance (Transactional behavior) coupled with understanding subordinates and building their self-worth (Peters and Waterman 1982; Konzes and Posner, 2007; Basis 1999,2009) 4. “Transformational Leadership” it has become the sole dominant theory for last quarter of a century.

Leadership role in academic institution is not yet streamlined. Senior Executive role resembles that of executive roles in other sector. The role of deans, heads of departments is extraordinary and is complicated because of transitory nature of role holder.

Traditional in some situations academic leader’s role can be given on an almost honorary basis, “first among equals” to a senior (Davies, Hides, Casey, 2001). Faculty position usually combines the role of teacher, scholar, researcher and institutional citizens (Aston and Aston 2000). All of these have leadership responsibility in one way or the other.

Leadership Models In this modern era and a challenging world various leadership models can be seen across the world.

Individual Model.

It is based on personal status and professional recognition. In this, the competition is regarding more paying which makes partnership and teamwork difficult.

Transformative Model.

This model over ride other models particularly in tertiary education institution. This is based on human interaction facilitating the need of faculty.

Collaborative Model.

This approach is mostly emphasized but the response to this model is slow.

Collegial Model.

This model is mutually supportive among staff. In this model, the academia work together yet maintaining their personal entity.

Hierarchical Model.

In this model, the authority and power is linked with hierarchy. It carries top down autocratic picture of leadership. It is said that this model does not suit academic atmosphere in universities.

Effective Education Leadership There are certain elements which make a professional a successful leader. Leadership qualities have to be seen in wholesome taking care of all aspects.

Vision

A leader must be well verse with the clarity of mission of the institution which will give birth to vision. According to David (2006) the ability to articulate on educational vision “is key to fostering continuous improvement”. “Educational leaders must be the steward in a vision of success for all to achieve” (Knoeppel, p.24). The working relations among students, teachers and administration must be fair and

transparent. Education leadership requires mutual understanding between subordinates, colleagues, seniors and students and the approach should be of a facilitator rather than an authoritarian. Vision development allows individuals to be “empowered, feel committed, take appropriate risks, be imaginative and get involved” (Sousa p.42). “The creation of a clear target is essential because it guides, what is target, and assessed (Knoeppel et al p.25)”. Crum and Sherman (2008) further explains that “clearly communicating the purpose and rational behind decision facilitates success” (p.572)

Voices

Amey (2006) explains that successful leaders at tertiary level education “lead via teams in systems that are web like and non-hierarchical” (p.56). The basic principal of education leadership is “a function of getting good people in place and letting them do what they do best” (Crum and Sherman p.568). Professional learning community that pushes team building and relationship as well as encourages individuals to collectively work towards a common goal. Building the relationship “draws members together to build a culture, they feel secure”. (Mitchell, p.186).

Values

The educational leader needs to “know when to be introspective”. (Sousa p.11) leaders at tertiary level education should make an assessment of outcome of shared vision and see whether the vision meet the students need and as well the requirement of staff or it stayed below expected level. (Amey 2006) explains “Postsecondary leaders need to guide their institutions into future by “critical reflection and deep understanding” of organizational culture and values” (p.58).

Thooven et al (2011) explains that transformational model “aims to foster capacity development and higher level of personal commitment resulting in extra effort and greater productivity (p.507) such type of models makes a binding team to build, learn and reflect on visionary goals.

Inward Communication.

As a leader, the outcome depends on how you establish your rapport with colleagues and how often you interact with your colleagues, your subordinates, your superiors and team members. Leader must have an open-ended response to all, irrespective of any condition or clause. For a successful leader, Gardener (2004) says that the importance of leadership is “interpersonal intelligence” based on theory of having communication with all and fostering on relationship with existing culture. (p.108).

Positive Approach.

To achieve common goal, educational leader should be able to improve creativity so as to achieve good results as per vision to keep the team on one grid, Sousa (2003) says “Leader need to think outside the box by developing their own creative skills and cultivating creativity in other in order to find innovative ways to bring about change”. Myatt (2012) says “the difference between real leaders and leaders by title only is what they do when the creative juices begin to dwindle”.

Adaptation of Technology.

Educational leader should be well aware of latest technology and should be all- time ready to embrace the same by utilizing the same for fulfillment of collective vision. The technology saves time, efforts and also open new vistas for research.

Personal Example.

To build an effective and inspired team, leader must set a personal example so that his subordinate follows him easily. Personal traits of a leader will automatically inspire his team. People normally watch and follow what you do rather doing what you say. Actions are more persuasive than preaching.

Observing and Reflecting.

A good academic leader must be a good observer to watch his surrounding and the development taking place at national and international level. Along with this the work and

research of the academic leader must be reflected. The leader should be mindful of the fact that his relationship with his colleagues is properly meaningful remaining within work ethics. There is no doubt that one can learn a lot from one’s surroundings if one is a good observer. A good listener always benefits better than others.

Public Relationing.

Maintaining and creating relationship with colleagues and society is an important factor for a successful academic leadership. It is a skill which fosters leadership by interpersonal abilities. There are many scholars who fail to be leader only because they fail to create interpersonal relationing.

Mutual Trust and Encouragement.

A successful leader must display mutual trust in his team and encourage his subordinates to come forward without any hesitation or fear/shyness so that mutual relationships are developed on a positive node. In this context, it is necessary to be very meticulous while selecting the team and then handing them over the responsibilities along with resources and proper accountability across the board.

Politeness and Firmness.

For a good leader, it is essential that he is polite, flexible to carry his team towards success. Politeness and flexibility does not at all mean drifting away from vision/goal/achievement. This means that along with politeness and flexibility, the leader has to be firm to achieve the desired result.

Leadership in Changed Context Tertiary Education institution is a complex set of components and mutually dependent segments. These institutions internationally make an effort to improve their capacity and capabilities. Continuous efforts are required for this improvement which will ensure that their product will be able to face the challenging world. In this era globalization is a hard fact not to be overlooked. This phenomenon carries specific problems particularly for under developed countries. The success depends on type of reaction by the educational leaders. Some leaders take it as a challenge and step forward

to embrace the challenge head on. The other type of reaction could be that educational leaders reject the idea of change altogether and build a skill around and get cut off from outside world to avoid any external influence.

Developing countries are aware of modern change where tertiary education institutions are faced with the challenge of transformation from localization to internationalization. In this phenomenon, the universities have to meet the modern world challenges while maintaining their individual entity as to the tradition, moral, ethical values of the institution. The institutions are expected to upgrade their capacity and capability by growing from the good practices of other international institutions through mutual exchange. A balance has to be drawn between localization and globalization. Globalization helps us to function for multiple cultures, whereas, localization keeps us to maintain our own entity through adoption of our local customs and environment. It has to be kept in mind that in pursuit of globalization, we must not lose sight and importance of local requirement and if these are in contrast with each other than priority is to be given to local environment or a blend of the two should be looked for.

Globalization encourages and facilitates attention of foreign students and faculty. It helps in exchange of views on various courses and conferences and other developments. For all this, the institutions need to build their capacity. In today’s world, the requirements of market, students and faculty are fast changing. To coup up with this, the senior academic leaders have to better campus management by improving the infrastructure like modern facilities and latest technology. Globalization of institutions helps the universities for high level research, better training of human resources of universities. Universe is changing fast and if our institutions do not keep pace with the global change, we are likely to lose ground and be the backbenchers.

To meet today’s challenges; a good and effective academic leader must have vision and harmony with teaching staff. Problems can best be solved if a leader can see beyond the immediate problems and can come to know the root cause of the problem. Modern challenges have their implications for tertiary education. To meet the challenges, the institutions will have to build their capacity through training of their staff and will have to prepare for the new competition. For this, you need high level skilled employees. Latest competition trend emphasizes role of continuing education which is must to keep knowledge abreast with latest changes as the changes are very rapid and frequent. The

changes require preparation by the institution to accommodate part time scholars, online students, weekend students, mature and experienced students and many other types of students. There is likely a major shift from the previous practices like regular young students in limited number. The percentage of other types of students than regular young students is likely to increase manifold in the institutions for which these institutions will have to have diversified preparations.

Globalization has attracted internationally recognized degrees and qualifications. Some of the universities have quickly adopted the changing scenarios, whereas some of them are in thinking process and others are not giving any attention to the changes. These institutions are likely to miss the bus and thus will earn a name of backbenchers. One can see the changing trend when we look at the ever-growing numbers of students of common wealth countries seeking appearance in examination conducted by the UK examination board. In other third world countries, American universities consume a high chunk of students interested in US degrees. China is pretty fast to embrace the changes thereby consuming hundreds of thousands of students from all over the world. In other European countries, there is a mushroom growth of private institutions taking care of new programmes. Corporate universities are creating tough competition with traditional universities; there is a considerable mushroom growth of such institutions as compared to a decade before.

Operation Mode As the tertiary education institutions are faced with new trends and requirements. For these, the institutions will have to undertake change in structure and approaches. The universities will have to restructure their programmers to meet the upcoming challenges. Use of modern technology will be replacing frontal teaching. Teachers in their typical conventional role on the restructure may be changed to that of facilitator if properly integrated use of modern technology is undertaken. Teachers of today must educate themselves in the use of new channels and support latest trends in technology to effect the basic structure. Communication revolution has a far-reaching effect on how universities are organized and deliver services. In some countries, the new universities are designed without a library building because the university administration consider that students will be using computer to access online digital libraries and data bases. Virtual libraries may take advantage of well-established online library center at university offering inter library loans of digitized documents on the internet. Even in traditional libraries C-D

Rom’s can replace journal collection. For this, wiring and internet connectivity has become a part and parcel of higher education institutions to make it attractive for the students.

Economic Facts Because of numerous economic factors use of electronic modes for organization and for tertiary education services, and as the cost of living going high and high. Most of the countries are facing problems of funding for conventional higher education institutions. This pushes rich and poor countries alike to use more cost-effective alternatives to the conventional models. It has been worked out that cost of producing a graduate from an open university is approximately 1/3rd as compared to regular university. The cost of Cornell electronic agricultural libraries is about 10,000 dollars as compared to 3,75,000 dollars cost to buy all the scientific Journals included electronic database.

McCollum, K. 1999 Cornell University offers developing nations digital Journals on agriculture. The chromite of Higher Education, 30 Nov 1999.

University while working out financial layout must take care of recurrent expenditure besides capital investment. Recurrent expenditure will include expenses on maintaining of infrastructure, training and technical support, other fees and taxes wherever applicable. Recurrent expenses for a life cycle cost almost as good as capital investment. The cost can be minimized if tertiary education institutions have the capacity to react positively to the changing environment. One must accept the change as it occurs and establish new programmes or rearrange, existing ones and at the same time doing away the redundant and outlined programmes. At times the rigid administrative procedure and bureaucratic barriers create obstacle and delay the change.

Quality Assurance In the modern era, there are heavy expectations from universities and they are expected to deliver more and more with limited resources. Though recently, the tertiary level institutions are being given heavy funds as compared to previous era yet it is considered insufficient to meet the expectations from universities. International competition is on the increase for the universities in a globalized atmosphere keeping with in the restraints of available resources. The number of students seeking admissions in universities is rapidly increasing and the present capacity and capabilities of

institutions is not at par with the ever-increasing demand of the society. This is actually the field where the academic leadership has to work that how to achieve the quality and space to meet the requirements of rapid growth remaining with in financial constraints. In order to streamline the efforts, establishment of higher education commission and its role is very important. To meet national accreditation standards and quality assurance process the role and responsibility of higher education commission is not debatable. Institutional leadership and decision-making leaders have a major contribution in establishing institutional quality culture. Leaders approach effects the result of their initiatives. Permanent and unflinching commitment of academic leadership in an institution is necessary for achieving goal of quality of education. Senior leader needs to motivate the deans and head of the departments which are in second tier of leadership in a university. They are the link between decision making bodies and teaching faculty. They are responsible for implementing, operating, measuring progress and identifying problems. Head of department plays an important role in achieving quality in spite many challenges. Most of head of departments do not have independence of planning and execution. They are bowed by restriction or control of Deans or Vice Chancellors. At time, they are restricted because of professional jealousy or lack of quality assurance training. Tenure as a head of department is also another handicap. Quality education at tertiary level includes quality research. The institution which have a reasonable history regarding major discoveries and quality research display a peculiar style of academic leadership which must take care of following in the institutions.  Creating research environment.  Creating scientific infrastructure.  Designing effective processes for recruitment of researchers.  Attending to the inner life of departments and research groups.  Taking good care of young researchers.  Equip researchers with tools to develop their knowledge.  Ensuring good administrative support and provision of maximum autonomy.  Providing positive academic leadership.  Creating a strong relationship between research and education.  Ensure long term funding of outstanding researchers.  Making a periodical check on progress and take remedial measures in time.

As higher education system is maturing with its diversification, society is getting more and more involved and concerned about the quality of its output. Lot of weight age is being given to its public assessment and ranking of the institution. Mostly the standards of research in the institution is taken as yard stick, whereas this is not the only yardstick, there are many other aspects to be taken care of. Measuring quality in teaching is a gigantic and complicated job. Overall environment in the society about higher education can bring in positive change and enhance quality of teaching and research in the institutions through various means. Quality assurance agencies can steer the universities towards better quality depending on national policies regarding higher education. Salient points to be taken care of while considering quality in tertiary education in the institutions are as under. Quality tracking has to be defined in clear terms.  Quality teaching has to be defined in clear terms.  Varied and diversified ever changing concepts have to be meticulously worked out.  Leadership at all levels particularly at executive level is a big success factor.  Faculty dean and HOD’s work as a linchpin as they are a link between the executives of university and the teaching faculty. They are the encouraging factors for implementing strategic approach and build up good practices and bring about new innovations for improvement in quality teaching and quality research.  Students must be encouraged to provide feedback on curricula and quality teaching and a proper evaluation system be put in place.  Culmination of approaches should be adopted to provide sustainable quality teaching.

Role of quality assurance in quality teaching.

External checks by dedicated bodies like quality assurance committee, accreditation committee or evaluation agencies guide and assist the institution to improve and promote internal quality assurance mechanism through quality teaching. There are two major elements of quality teaching on which the agencies lay their emphasis. Bodies evaluate and recommend internal quality mechanism to modify and promote the teaching process by ensuring proper recruitment process of faculty. Secondly universities are made to ensure coherence of their programmes and curricula within the program along with quality of learning environment.

Quality assurance agencies help the universities.

 Provisions of scheme  Deliver motivational statements  Propose experimental quality assurance schemes  Behave as advisors and partners of institution  Increase the legitimacy of measures taken by the reluctant academics.  Conversion of external review into a collaborative effort to improve the system of quality teaching  Ensures participation of majority and community along with administration staff, students and institutional leaders to improve role of teaching and faculty in the learning process.

Role of Students.

Students can play a major role if this group is given due responsibility and representation in appropriate bodies because they are the users of quality teaching. Student bodies are powerful drivers to ensure success of quality teaching initiatives. Students are the best lot to provide feedback to improve the quality of teaching and quality of curricula and program. Students can help bring new ideas from difficult angles other than the teacher’s side. The role of students on national context than on institutional capacity to mobilize them toward productive achievement. Presently the student’s bodies are in the grip of political parties and they do not realize their strength and contribution towards betterment of the institution in general and quality teaching in particular. They should be encouraged to play their parts to promote and enhance quality teaching by their inclusion in advisory or decision-making bodies. They should be motivated and made aware of their potential impact of their opinions. Some of the institutions have introduced 360-degree evaluation of the teachers which include students as well. Through this method, the institution can get feedback on teaching quality, recruitment procedure, planning and organization of the learning process.

Role of HOD’s, Deans and other academic institutional leaders.

The success of any quality initiatives sponsored by the universities depends mainly on the commitments of departments. A dedicated service could be valuable within the institution. HOD are the man drivers helping quality teaching under the guidance of Deans ensuring operational implementation of the initiatives. Typical top downs approach is gradually being replaced by bottom up approach. Major and large organizations are moving towards decentralized system, so that departments with teaching faculty and the departments may have the ownership of their activities. Basic responsibility of teaching rests with teaching faculty and the departments are made responsible for quality teaching along-with the discipline culture also takes its roots at departmental level and discipline culture is a contributing factor toward quality education. HOD’s provide and practice practical means for operating and measure the chances of their success. HOD’s manage quality teaching at the institutional level by creating organized teamwork. Ensuring productive functioning to meet the expectations of the system. Success of quality teaching depends on the acceptance and the involvement of every segment of the institution. It depends how much weightage is given to quality teaching in the whole scenario. Senior academic leaders get involved once they experience valued return for their involvement. Successful quality teaching policy requires dedicated and high level of commitment. The top hierarchy decides pattern of reforms through the commitment of the staff and removes all obstacles from any quarter. HOD’s are facilitated by provision of support staff by the administration of institution because support staff helps in implementation of the reforms along with its timeline. Capabilities of Leadership The concept of capability is normally misunderstood or not understood. Capability is more important for higher education leadership as compared to management while having talents and capacity required for operating successfully along with others to achieve continuous improvement. The quality of productive work while remain calm and composed is the basic requirement of leadership. Willingness of a leader to take responsibility and making hard decision adds to the capability of a leader. Capacity to inspire subordinates to perform through sound decision making integrity and enthusiasm. A capable leader must have the ability to diagnose solution in a complex situation. The leader should have the capacity to look into the future with a wider vision should be able to react to fastly changing circumstances. A good leader must have the capacity to listen

to criticism and have lesson for history as compared to competence. Capability has more holistic vision and creativity. The team leader index (TLI) 360 degree leadership instrument. (KRG Consultant, 2007) currently being used has 55 items clustered into 11 objects.

 Establishing focus  Influencing others  Drive to achieve  Attention to information  Inter personal awareness  Improving performance  Focusing on customers  Building relationship  Fostering teamwork  Developing others  Empowering others

Besides above general requirements for a good leader following qualities grouped under various heads are also desirable.

 Understanding course design  How various methods of teaching effect students learning outcomes  Complete awareness of institution, its faculty along with policies of the institution.  Capacity to evaluate and review courses and programs  Knowledge about student requirement and their learning styles  Keeping abreast with new teaching styles

Teamwork.

 Capacity to tackle the team member  Creating a cohesive team  Enhance team morale  Creating a congenial atmosphere among the team  Building up culture of reward and award along-with punishment as per circumstances

 Fair evaluation of staff

Accounts

 Capacity to create funds both from external and internal resources  Awareness regarding policies of institution for handling external funding  Knowledge regarding making of budget and managing the same  Handling audit reports

Miscellaneous capabilities.

 Preparedness to handle various situation by being flexible  Decision power to handle unforeseen circumstances  Handling of students and lower staff grievances  Developing a selection procedure, promotion policy and a disciplined parameter

In nut shell “Leadership is not about making clever decisions and doing deals, best of all for personal gain. It is about encouraging the people to make good decision and do other things. In other words, it is about helping release the positive energy that exist naturally within people. Effective leadership inspires more than empowers. It connect more than controls. It demonstrate more than it decides. It does all this by engaging itself above all and consequently others” Mintsberg (2004, P.143). Presently, academic leaders are faced with new challenges and it is their capability and capacity which can be helpful in facing these challenges.

Quality Student Service.

As the students are the end product of quality education therefore quality student’s service takes priority as a responsibility of academic leaders. It includes enhancing academic achievement. It takes care of students’ lifecycle, selecting higher education time frame, relation of students in higher education and keeping a track building lifelong relationship between students and institution to create organization.

Accountability.

A good academic leader stands to accountability to all stakeholders including funding agencies and accrediting bodies. The best accountability is the students bearing outcome. It helps in achieving strategic goals and objectives as per vision of the institution.

Fund Raising.

Quality education requires extra effort including extra funds. Therefore one of the capabilities of good academic leader is to have the capacity to work out ways and means for new funding resources including philanthropies support and funds for research through transparent means.

Internationalization.

Perception of modern world being a global village is getting stronger & stronger and educational institution are highly effected. To achieve and maintain high ranking position, the universities have to be a part of globe and not only the country or region. They have to have eyes upon good practices all over the globe, analyze these and tailor them as per local context to adopt the same. It is only possible if academic leaders have the capacity to keep in touch globally.

It must keep in mind that leadership in tertiary education institution does not mean only the top leadership rather it must be appropriately delegated down below throughout the tiers of the university organogram. This will convey that everyone is a leader at its own place as per expertise and rank. It is important to identify what capabilities count most for effective delivery for each role.

PART -3 QUALITY EDUCATION

Concept of Quality Education Commonly the concept of quality is linked with the idea of provision of product or services which are different in characteristics and are better as compared to other products or services. High standard of products are naturally produced with high cost. The concept

of quality is to bring a product in the market at a compatible rate with a better system of delivery so that the product remains with the reach of majority of population. While applying this concept it is not possible to judge all institutions by same criteria and all institutions can-not achieve same standard of quality because of multiple reasons. In nut shell it will be appropriate to say that specification of a product of various standards set by a competent authority / body and the quality of a product is gauged by the fact that how close the properties of a product are to the subject standards to assess quality in higher education it requires knowledge about different concepts of quality as per priorities and performance of various stake holders.

Definition Quality is a relative term in one case it is linked with terms of users and the circumstances at the time of measurement of quality. There are various bodies' agencies and people attached with higher education. Every one of these have a separate measure to judge quality from one's point of view some people take quality as an absolute phenomenon rather than "relative". This thinking has no compromise whereas relativity does give a space. Quality in education is linked with quality control, quality assurance, management, audit, assessment, policy and funding. Quality is a slippery concept. In brief quality of education may be defined as fulfillment of national education goals and objectives. Their objectives may be social academic and financial.

Quality Indicators There is a range of statistical and non-statistical indicators intended to offer an objectives measures of how a higher education institution is performing some of the indicators are user satisfaction, use of entry qualification, student relation, learning/teaching output, research graduate employment, change in attitude of students (chande, 2006).

Quality Education Indicators These can be divided into three namely inputs, outputs and process. Inputs may exist of financial, physical and human resources. These are all connected with the facilities provided for students at each level. Financial inputs are generally considered as financial expenditure per student. Physical input of physical infrastructure like classroom, laboratories, libraries, and other required materials. Human resource consists of manpower of various types calculating on the basis of ratio per students. Output is considered as a result of educational processes such as knowledge, skills and other values

acquired by the students. Educational processes refer to environment development, admission, teaching and learning. It is difficult and effort consuming processes to the measure the indicators. There are various approaches to the measurement for quality of education. It is necessary to define the quality before any approach is adopted. It is difficult to create a balance between external and internal evaluation. There are mainly two ingredients for quality of education.

That is a quality audit and quality assessment, these both are separate from each other. Quality audit consist of operation at institution level regarding processes, procedure and their operation.

Quality assessment is done by funding agencies. Its purpose is to asses’ social relevance of programs and their consumptions in the market. Global alliance for traditional education (GATE) has laid down certain principles for quality education at university level.

 Evaluation

 Teaching and learning

 Physical and financial resources

 Legal matters

 Human resources

 Student enrollment and admission

 Standards

 Goals and objectives

Some of the indicators are.

 Quality of staff and faculty

 Instructional development

 Training programs of teaching and administrative staff

 Quality of staff

 Quality of curricula

 Quality of infrastructure

 Management and governance

 Accountability

Dimensions of quality

Presage dimension.

 Funding

 Staff student ratio

 Quality of teaching staff

Processes dimension.

 Class size

 Class contact hours

 Self-study hours

 Teaching quality

 Research environment

 National and international challenges

 Assessment and feedback

 Quality assessment / mechanism

Product dimension.

 Student performance

 Degree classification

 Student retention and persistence

 Employability and placement

Importance of quality in higher education It is beyond debate that economic success of any state depends on quality of education in general and that on quality of higher education in particular. Quality of higher education produces highly value added human resources which has the creative abilities and involvement ideas. Knowledge based economies have forced the states to place higher education as nuclear of national competitiveness agenda. Higher education has become of utmost importance for students and his society by having a key for better life. Through quality education society gives birth to useful citizens who keep the society moving forward by remaining productive and peaceful.

A well-educated person is well paid to make his life a fulfilled life. He makes a better partner, better parent, a better employee and employer. Some people think that internet, multimedia and social media has underscored the importance of books, Radio, television and journals etc. have their usefulness as most of the people in the world still need all this and these have their own importance.

Issues of quality Past of higher education in Pakistan is very dismal as it had one university at the time of partition. With the passage of time and till late state is doing well as far as establishing of universities is concerned as per HEC website.

Table 4

Distribution of public and private universities in each province and capital of Pakistan

Region Universities Public Private

AJK 4 2 2

Baluchistan 8 6 2

Islamabad 17 14 3

Northern Areas 1 1 0

KPK 22 13 9

Punjab 38 21 17

Sindh 38 13 25

Total 128 70 58 Source: HEC, online website http.//app.hec.gov.pk/universitiesfinal2/regionuniversities.aspx

With the establishment of the universities, the quality requirement has been partially met but quality falls much short of International standards. The latest ranking shows four universities in first 600 universities of the world. The weakness can be attributed to our system, mismanagement, accountability, political will, and mindset and quality assurance. Major reason for low quality education in universities is low education at school level and the examination system adds misery to the sad situation. Absence of merit based system is another hurdle in achieving quality education.

Present state of Education To gauge the state of education at tertiary level one must keep in mind the national goals and then to weigh the position against those goals. Normally tertiary education takes care.  To produce active and productive members through higher quality education.  To fulfil industry demand by producing competent post graduates.  To achieve international educational standard  To enhance quality of human capital for contribution towards national economic growth. “you know that importance of education and the right type of education can-not be over emphasized. If we were to make real speedy and substantial progress, we must earnestly tackle this question having regard to modern conditions and vast development that have taken place all over the world”. (Quaid-e-Azam november1947) Aims of Higher Education These are multidimensional which include academic, economic, social and personal as well. Expansion in higher education because of international competition, the higher education is supposed to play pivotal role in the development of economic, political, cultural scenario of nation. The nations are spending huge amount of budget to produce highly trained researchers who could work as catalyst for economic regeneration and creativity.

Current Scenario Though with the establishment of the universities in public and private sectors, the problem of quantity has been addressed to some extent yet the quality of higher education in our country is much below, the global standard till 2006 none of Pakistani university was among first 1000 universities of the world. In the international survey of 2009 regarding university ranking four Pakistani universities have been listed in top 600 universities of the world even this state does-not speak good for the quality education at higher education level. There are concerns about the quality of education in tertiary level institution and these concerns relate to the overall system and resources of all kind. Research facilities are not adequate, accountability is not purposeful and wholesome. Quality assurance system though well placed on paper is not visible on ground. Some others factors are. -  Expansion of university network both in public and private sector is without merit.  Proper faculty having appropriate skills and knowledge not available.  Misappropriation and lack of proper use of funds  Absence of coordination between industry and universities.  Examination and evaluation system full of flaws.  Good practices and good governance totally absent in universities.  Mechanism of quality assurance not firm on ground.  Continuity of policies lacking  Inappropriate selection of members in various controlling bodies of universities.  Political will for improvement nonexistent, political interference in full swing.  Absence of wholesome national education policy at country level.  Lack of proper placement and consumption of postgraduate and doctoral students after studies.  Insufficient incentive for qualified human resources.

There can be a sound planning regarding higher education only when there is a clarity in aims of higher education. Our nation has the potential but vision and planning along with attitude and mindset of people concerned requires to be set right. In the last

few years authorities have invested enormously for the improvement of higher education in the country. There has been extensive effort to provide global exposure to the students/faculty in order to broaden their outlook regarding knowledge. As compared to international standard our doctoral students lack research skill, knowledge, creativity, research philosophy, approach of research, methodological vision, conduct of research and approach to data analysis beside English proficiency. No doubt the students of Pakistan have the potential, probably the provision of facilities and guidance lacks. No doubt the budget for higher education has been increased manifold yet enrollment ratio in higher education institution still remains very low. One of the major reasons is the low percentage at graduate and post-graduate level. Another alarming situation is the ratio among arts and science which stands at 70-30 whereas internationally it is 30-70. We have very limited number of research programs as compared to increasing number of institutions. There is some hope as few institutions have appeared on the map of Pakistan which has compatibility with international standard like LUMS, Agha Khan University and GIK. We are experiencing out of proportion growth of universities in private sector which are affiliated with low standard universities abroad. There is a requirement to have a system to properly monitor the affiliation system and mechanism with foreign universities. Quality as Culture “A culture of quality is one in which everybody in the organization not just the quality controllers are responsible for quality”. (Crosly 1986, Harry and Green 1993.16) Quality culture is not very popular in our society and state. Academics have been given a lip service to management schemes and procedures taking these to be bureaucratic. Quality culture is the solution to this problem. This culture is based on the values and practices those are practiced by everyone in the institution and these values and practices are made to grow at all levels by multiple reasons simultaneously. The quality culture was monitored and possessed by European Higher Education institutions in three phases.

1st phase.

Survey was undertaken to ascertain implementation of internal quality assurance practices. Data was collected through a questionnaire.

2nd phase.

Findings through questionnaire were worked out. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders in various universities. The ultimate report gives an insight that how quality culture could be strengthened in the presence of the role of power, ideology and different perception. In demographical variables male and female proportion was 50.50. Respondent belonged to rural as well as urban areas.

3rd phase.

In this phase, practicability of findings and suggestions were considered and finalized. Good practices at various institutions regarding quality culture enhancement were also highlighted and a plan was hatched to finalize the recommendations for strengthening the quality culture in higher education sector.

In this phase, it was discussed that how to make use of findings and work out practicability of recommendations coming out of the research. In this phase, good practices in developing countries regarding improvement in quality culture along with challenges were also brought to limelight.

Quality Culture as Tool There are good and likeable quality cultures which are practicable and at the same time there are bad quality cultures which should be avoided. It is difficult to determine the parameters at international level of good and bad culture because the values are different in different parts of the world. There is a great variation in the national context. The development of institutional quality culture must take into account the culture that is in practice. The existing culture cannot be ignored and development of quality culture in an institution cannot be taken in isolation. A detailed and meaningful planning for developing quality culture is needed. Envisaged outcome and values in practice have to be integrated. It must be made clear by the institution to its all stakeholders that how the university will achieve its mission in an overwhelming complex international scenario. Following steps can help and guide the policy makers of quality culture. The existing practices and practiced values may be used as a starting point for expanding strategic dimension of quality culture in our institutions.

 Measure the gap between reality and practice.

 Values reflected in policy documents of the institution.

 Strategic goals demand improvement of indicators.

 Involvement and acceptability of stakeholders in mission statement.

 Dealing with change of culture and capacity to tackle the unforeseen conflict.

 Strategy to tackle quality assurance through stakeholders both internal and external.

 Priorities between internal and external requirements.

 Tools must be tested for the effectiveness and efficiency.

 Purpose of a tool should be explicitly defined.

 Ideas to be translated in such a manner that they should be workable in various circumstances.

Developing Quality Culture “Developing quality culture takes time and effort. It is closely related to values, beliefs and cultural element which cannot be changed quickly”. (Loukhnla and Zhang 2010.11)

Cultural aspect is linked with political environment. It is essential to concentrate on unquestioned principles and under lying assumptions to build up strategies and instrument. Assumptions are deep rooted and carry weightage as far as quality assurance is concerned. For the purpose of culture, it must be remembered that actions speak louder than words. Under mentioned steps will help us in building foundation of institutional quality culture.

 Principles of quality assurance policy in the institution must be acceptable to all concerned.

 Principles must be spelled out in black and white and practiced in letter and spirit. No lip services.

 Principles must be translated into same meaning by all involved.

 Are the tools for quality assurance developed through consultative process among various groups and concerned implementers?

 Results of quality assurance practices acceptable to all.

 Is Quality Culture in the institution “friction free”.

 Consultative process is open for frank and candid discussions and dialogue.

 Amicable dealing with different opinions and goals.

 Quality assurance practices must be perceived and interpreted in the same manner by all stakeholders.

High Quality Research It is pertinent that while we undertake quality education in Higher Education institutions, we consider high quality research as well because it forms major or the ultimate portion of higher education system. In subsequent para’s food for thought on the problem of quality, research is considered. What are the ways and means to create quality research environment and maintain the same for a purposeful productive research in a university. The ways and means cannot be carried out till the time challenges to the quality research are not identified. After having identified the challenges the university academic leaders must focus on approaches, policies and instruments to be helpful by research management.

Measuring High Quality Research Research always has multipurpose goals and high-quality research stands the test of being scrutinized by high quality professionals in the concerned field. High quality research must have a short/long term impact and contribution on wellbeing of the society. “High quality research is defined as creative ground-breaking research, often as a result of small steps-wise advances that result in a new way of thinking about a problem. (Hollingworth 2008)”.

One of the major problem is the measurement of research quality in a trust worthy manner. Peer review has a strong support in the research community. This method is versatile and flexible. Collegial peer review has limitations as well. This system promotes self-defining protectionist tendencies. Although there are problems with this

system yet there is no other effective method and this system is delivering cogent results. Peer review system is expensive and burdensome.

High Quality Research Environment Through environment in universities and various institutions differ considerably, yet criteria include high quality publications, external funding, major scientific breakthrough and peer reputation. Some of the important major factors influencing high quality research are enumerated below in subsequent paragraphs. Out of these, some are dealt by government, research council and other agencies, whereas others are in domain of institution. Research is a bottom up process for productive results. Researchers must be independent to decide research agenda depending on their experience and field. They should have freedom to communicate with their peers and should have all assistance available in the shape of human resource or funds. Leadership plays an important role in creating positive atmosphere and role as well in routine research process. It is a must for leader to have a farsighted vision and missionary zeal and an eye for selection of new members in the group. The leader works as a coordinator between other sources of knowledge and junior researchers. Researcher should be encouraged to interact with other research groups and knowledge sources. It broadens the vision and adds to the existing knowledge.

The size of group also matters a lot. It has been experienced that small groups in high quality research produces better results. Small groups normally increase in size as their achievements are acknowledged. It must be noted that too small groups are not useful as their sustainability is questionable. No one can deny the importance of funding for research. For high quality research, long term based funding is the basic fundamental for productive research work. The funding must be flexible because it helps the researchers in making independent decisions. It has to be very cautiously decided what portion of research/science needs to be commercialized. There is a need to commercialize science in order to transform knowledge/intellectual property into financial resource. It is to be remembered that long term knowledge based economy growth requires high risk

research.

How to stimulate high quality research  Gaining institutional perspective by evaluating past performance.

 Future strategy should be based as past performance and already collected data.

 Elaborate layout of Scientific infrastructure.

 Formulating sound and professional recruitment process.

 Due attention to working of departments and research group.

 Encouragement to young and new researcher.

 Empowering researchers and facilitating for knowledge thrust.

 Adequate support to researchers in all fields.

 Promotion of good academic leadership.

 Higher education must have relationship with research.

 Creative environment through trust and tolerance with a sense of community having cultural diversity along with curiosity and freedom of spirit.

PART-4 STAKEHOLDERS

Categories of Stakeholders

At present universities are sufficiently funded by the Government from public ex- chequer therefore they stand accountable for the performance and outcomes. Their accountability is toward Government in particular and society in general. The higher administration is accountable for their output keeping in line with “value for money”. Universities are transforming into something similar to social enterprises linking their production of goods and services to a social mission (SEC 2003). The benefit so earned is distributed to stakeholders.

The stakeholders are those who have their stake at risk because they contribute toward institution in one way or the other. They may be in the shape of individuals, groups, organization and their contribution may be direct or indirect. Stakeholders may be passive or active. An active stakeholder may raise his voice for improvement in the system so as to fetch more and more dividends against their shares. A stakeholder of a

university is the one who has link with the university in one way or the other and has shares in the activities of the institution so as to gain or lose from the same. The activities of the university particularly research aspect has a social and financial impact contributing toward economic growth of the society therefore numerable stakeholders have come in the forefront both internally and externally.

University success always depends upon volume of resources to achieve their mission. An important element of this is the creation of useful knowledge embedded in people, technologies, books and networks.

(spaapen ec al. 2007. Marginson 2007)

The volume of that knowledge is defined by universities key stakeholders through term such as quality, utility and relevance. Freeman’s definition of stakeholders (1986 p.46) is very broad, any group or individual who can affect or is effected by the achievements of the organization’s objectives. Universities main stakeholders are including internal scientific community, industry, politics, the public sector and the general public. (Jonkbloed etal 2007)

Table 5

Showing different categories of stakeholders sr. no. stakeholders constitutive group/communities category

1. Government Entities State and federal government, governing boards, board of trustees, buffer organizations, sponsoring religious organizations.

2. Administration President(Vice-Chancellors)Senior Administration.

3. Employees Faculty, administration, staff and support staff.

4. Clientele Students, parents/spouse, tuition reimbursement provider., service partners, employees, field emplacement sites.

5. Suppliers Secondary education provider, alumni, other

colleges and universities, food purveyors.

6. Competitors Direct. private and public providers of postsecondary education. Potential. distance providers and new ventures.

7. Donor’s Individuals (tutors, friends, parents, alumni, employees, industry, research councils and foundation etc.)

8. Communities Neighbors, school system, social service, chamber of commerce, special interested groups.

9. General Regulators Ministry of education, buffer organizations, state and federal financial aid agencies, research councils, federal research support, tax authorities and social security.

10. Non-Government Foundation, institutional and programmatic Regulators accrediting bodies, professional associations.

11. Financial Banks, fund managers, analysts. Intermediaries

12. Joint Venture partners Alliance and consortium, corporate co-sponsors of educational research services. Source. After Burrows (1999).

Universities in future will be dependent on market decisions and will be very difficult for the institution to tackle competing interests of stakeholders. It will be only possible with stakeholder’s management because if university place their demand for increase in resources on stakeholders then stakeholder’s expectations will increase and demand of stakeholders have to be accommodated. Universities have to manage affairs very meticulously as well the stakeholders have their own weightage and influence. While ranking for stakeholders is to be undertaken, the institution will have to assess the impact of weightage and influence of stakeholders over the university. Mitchell et al 1997, distinguished three definite attributes of stakeholder’s influence.

1. Stakeholder’s power to influence the organization.

2. Legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with the organization.

3. The urgency of the stakeholder’s claims on the organization.

Influence of the stakeholders on the university may be taken as a yardstick for prioritizing the claims of various contents. The above three attributes power, legitimacy and urgency are non-static rather dynamics. Under all circumstances Government will remain the major contributors of funds thus the major stakeholder.

Stakeholder’s theory Because of their internal characteristics failed to become salient stakeholders to universities, and universities have paid little attention to valorizing their HASS research base (e.g. designing and exploitability into the work programme of academics, research group and faculties.)

As Jong bloed et al note. “the growing chorus over the role of universities as economic engine has evaluated the debate beyond rhetoric and into the realm of policy action” (2008 p.313).

This is a variation of degree of involvement of external stakeholders in universities particularly research sector. External stakeholders as a part of steering bodies played better role and managed greater influence on research. Still the degree of involvement was decided by the higher administration of the institution. Some administrations would allow deeper involvement while others allowed a restricted involvement.

Reasons for stakeholder’s involvement Importance of internal and external stakeholders is increasing day by day because of competing economic growth. Their productive engagement helps in achieving better planning and more articulated policies regarding research projects/programmes. Their engagement is a two-way traffic as it benefits the institution as well as stakeholders. A stakeholder engaged with the institution benefits as per his expertise. The institution benefits in the way of professional guidance and assistance from experts. Some of the mutual benefits are enumerated below.

Institution.

1. Better consultative discussions.

2. Efficient and professional service delivery.

3. High quality risk management.

4. Cost effectiveness.

5. Précised guided policies.

6. Productive outcomes influencing society oriented requirement.

7. Enriched innovative ideas.

8. Community develops confidence.

Stakeholders.

1. Positive contribution in policy making.

2. Comprehensive contribution in for programmes.

3. Openness in accountability.

4. Development of better communication with higher administration of institution.

5. While interacting with various institutions stakeholders gains wider horizon.

6. Integrated solution to complex problems.

Motivating factors.

Various actors have various reasons to interact with each other thus gaining benefits collectively or from each other. The actors can be.

1. Government

2. Industry

3. Human capital

Government.

Government as beneficiary should aim at promoting relationship between business and higher education institutions. It will help in fostering healthy competition between the industry in the country and thus achieve dominant position at international level. The Government in this way attracts maximum public investment in quality research for fruitful development of commercialized products. Main focus of Government in this case is to remove trade imbalance and enhance productivity by ensuring that research activities at university level are aimed to meet the market demand. The Government can enhance relationship between university and industry through legislation and purpose tailored programmes. This phenomenon will encourage Government to go for new industry with in the country rather than allowing products from other countries to occupy space in the market. The creation of new units also helps the state to achieve goals of economic development through high technology industry. This will create new work force opportunities for young generation, introduce new and cost-effective products so as to compete in international market. The increase in industrial units in the country will help produce technical trained manpower which itself is an asset of a state.

Industry.

The investment in the industry always endeavors to improve its competitive position because it enhances its investment return. Majority of the industry looks towards Higher education institutions for guidance to gain short and long term economic benefits through training of workforce, reduction in manufacturing cost, innovation and betterment in product quality. For these gains the industries feel obliged to invest in the efforts of universities.

Human Capital.

Main attraction for industry to invest in a university is his requirement of that of trained technical manpower, may be in the shape of undergraduate or graduate level human resource who could be part of their workforce in times to come. Expectation from the industry to higher trained technical manpower compatible with industrial standards along-with provision of continuing education for them so as to keep pace with

international development. It must be kept in mind that human development is a long- term proposition as well financially expensive hobby yet its return assets are attractive.

The other subsidiary factors are. 1. Resources 2. Innovation and product development 3. Reputation and prestige 4. Academe 5. Faculty and students 6. Public relations

Resources.

Changes at international level are occurring at a very fast speed because of growth of industry, increase in population, and quest for better to better. This has increased the cost therefore; isolated efforts may not bring out desired results. It has to be combined and cumulative efforts by the industry and state to produce resources for cost effective quality education and quality research. A developed human capital is a major asset and resource which is time consuming and a major portion of finances have to be diverted towards this therefore, forward planning is a must to remain in the race. Basic problem is that quality research is expensive and becomes financial burden on the budget.

Innovation and product development.

Base research and product development are two stages of research. The industry will be more interested in product development to find an appropriate place in the market.

Reputation and prestige.

Business entities always desire and work toward their better reputation which help in better sale of their product in the market. Therefore, they will like to invest in higher education institutions which can provide better services in quality research. In return the educational institutions also desire to enhance their prestige by ensuring that industry has the confidence in their ability and capability. Mutual benefit bring each other closer for end result.

Academe.

Academe derives benefits from relationship of industry and education institutions.

Faculty and Students.

Higher education institutions major asset is the faculty and students performance of these help in ranking of the institution. Partnership of the industry and education institutions help part time/full time faculty as well part time/full time students.

Public Relations.

Responding to social needs make academic institution appear more accountable. By forming partnership with industry to revitalize the economy the college and universities can enhance their public image. (Feller 1988; Giege 1988; Knorr Centa 1981. P76).

Conclusion.

The culture of relationship between industry and educational institutions mainly depends on priorities and visions of the government. If the government gives due importance to stable economy growth in the country then it must create integrated policy for effective and productive partnership between industry and education institution government role should be that of facilitator and promoter. Society at overall must play a role of a monitor to ensure implementation of proper role of government, industry and educational institutions as they will be ultimate major beneficiary of economic growth coming out of this process.

Process of Engagement of Stakeholders There is no set procedure for engaging stakeholders. The process may vary depending upon need, circumstances and situations. For productive engagement of relevant stakeholders, there is a requirement of good expertise and skillful judgment. Results of engagement process will depend that how thorough process was adopted otherwise the exercise can turn futile and harmful which can have adverse effect for future. Following steps need to be undertaken during planning.

1. Think out purpose for engaging a stakeholder.

2. What type of stakeholder is to be engaged?

3. What methodology to be adopted for engaging a stakeholder.

4. Evaluation of engagement process.

Development of engagement plan.

1. Identify stakeholder.

2. Level of engagement required (Consultant and collaborator etc.).

3. Methodology of engagement (workshop and forums etc.).

4. Requirements.

5. Resources required to conduct engagement process.

6. Focal person, responsible for engagement.

7. Key managers.

8. Risk coupled with engagement.

Purpose of engagement activity.

Basic requirement before engagement is the objectives of engagement actually must be spelled out. It must be crystal clear for what purpose the stakeholders are being engaged and what achievement is desired. While working out engagement activity, it must be ensured that the activity process provides the following.

1. Will the process provide quality awareness regarding issues?

2. Will the process provide mechanism for shared responsibility and solution to the problem?

3. Broader understanding of basic issues.

4. Advance information about upcoming problems.

5. Fruitful decision based on local environment.

6. Identification of upcoming problems.

7. Better communication.

8. Better risk management.

9. Long term and trustworthy relationship building.

Identification of relevant stakeholder.

This is the most difficult portion of engagement of stakeholders. The institution may be in contact with numerous stakeholders having varied thinking and interests. The institution must identify relevancy of interest of the stakeholders with the purpose of engagement of stakeholders. There is no set procedure for selection of stakeholders. It is the purpose of engagement which will dictate the types of stakeholders to be selected. The objectives of the project will also have to be kept in mind while making a selection. The institution may create a directory of stakeholders which must be periodically updated to be used as ready reckoner. The directory must indicate the interest and influence of stakeholder to facilitate in early quick selection of relevant stakeholders, while selecting a particular-stakeholder; his expectations must be considered before taking a decision. In other words, a detailed analysis of stakeholder interest and capabilities must be carried out.

Method of engagement. -

After identifying the relevant stakeholders and having developed engagement plan the most important aspect of engagement is the method of engagement of stakeholders. There are various levels of engagement goals of stakeholders. -

a. Inform

b. Consult

c. Involve

d. Collaborate

e. Empower

The method of engagement depends upon engagement goals. For every goal, the engagement method may be different. The method could be as under but this must be remembered that there is no set rule or method for the said purpose. It could be one or more a combination. It will vary as per circumstances.

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

To provide balanced To work directly with objective, accurate To partner with the stakeholders and consistent stakeholders including To obtain feedback throughout the process information to assist the development of To place final decision from stakeholders on to ensure that there is stakeholders to alternatives, making making in the hands analysis/ alternatives their concerns and understand the decisions and the of the stakeholders. and/or outcomes. needs are consistently problem, alternative identification of understood and opportunities and/or preferred solution. considered. solution.

Stakeholders engagement goal  Fact sheet  Web 2.0 tools

 Websites  Facilitation of direct  Reference groups  Open sources  Public comments  Workshop dialogue between  Facilitated consensus  News letter  Focus groups  Deliberative polling stakeholder and building forum for  Bulletins and  Public meetings  Web 2.0 tools government deliberation and circulars  Web 2.0 tools  Forums  Local government decision making.  Websites, external  Joint planning  Experimental projects. and educate

Method of engagement Source: adopted from; international association for public participation (IAP2) spectrum (2007). www.iap2.org

Evaluation of stakeholders. -

Evaluation of stakeholders must be properly and meticulously planned, and this planning must be in place before the start of engagement process. Key question for evaluation should be framed. These questions must be able to measure the outcome of engagement. Types of data to be collected should be determined. Procedure to collect data should be worked out. Responsibility to collect data should be fixed along with timeline and resources. Evaluation could be carried out through interests, through observation, reflections, online surveys and data collection.

It is not a must to engage all stakeholders in all activities. Even different stakeholders could be engaged at various stages of a project. Some stakeholders are more active and responsive. There is a tendency to engage them time and again which is not a good practice. Efforts should be made to bring in loop less active and responsive. There is a tendency to ignore those stakeholders who oppose a project or idea or department. It is advisable to bring such stakeholders into a loop. They will be in a position to bring in limelight the weaknesses and shortcomings which ultimately help in better risk management this will carry a positive message and will create a sense of ownership of the project. A strong working relation between the institutions and stakeholders is a must to derive optimum results by building mutual trust. To attract stakeholders who are hard to reach, use of third party may be considered. Use of third party will facilitate the process.

Principles of engagement.

Principles help any individual or organization to reach to a decision on merit. Stakeholders may be paid in one way or the other or they may be volunteers but all of them are beneficiaries of the system. The basic requirement of stakeholder engagement is respect and ease for the self-esteem by organization and vice versa. Along with the respect the factor of two-way trust has to be embedded on both sides. Stakeholders expect organization to be forthcoming, their process to be transparent and a good reputation of the organization and their members. At the same time organization expect stakeholders to be upright, respectful and committed. Therefore, the main principles for engagement process may be listed as. –

1. Respect

2. Trustworthy

3. Commitment

4. Mutual benefit

5. Openness

Respect.

Stakeholders will expect that their services are given due respect and their inputs be properly acknowledged and valued. They will further want that their problems are properly and appropriately attended, solved and all hiccups removed to facilitate their working. In return, the organization will also expect reciprocal returns from Stakeholders.

Trustworthy.

A meaningful trust has to be developed between stakeholders and the organization. The organization should facilitate passage of required information and time so that there is an effective output by the Stakeholders. Stakeholders in return must share their effort and input with the organization. In short the level of sincerity between the both should be high and mutual.

Commitment.

There has to be a commitment from both sides i.e. stakeholders and organization to foster the efforts and hard work of all those who are putting in their bid to help solve the problem. The organization must be committed to reach up to those who are reluctant or hard to reach because of one reason or the other.

Mutual benefit.

It must be understood that engagement of stakeholders is a two-way traffic because ultimately both sides gain or lose. The organization should encourage the contribution of stakeholders so that the organization can benefit from the outcome of their

effort. At the same time stakeholders must honour the facilities and services being provided by the organization.

Openness.

The organization must ensure that information required by the stakeholders be provided in time and accurately and must be meaningful. Stakeholders should also be responsive to the shortcomings of the organization along with their problems of the institutions.

Indigenous stakeholders.

The organization must endeavor to engage indigenous stakeholders so that this partnership could be meaningful so that fruitful results could be achieved. Indigenous stakeholders will be in a better position to help indigenous people / society for better facilities and opportunities because of indigenous stakeholders. The approach would be regional/local which will help in better planning with proper priorities.

Diverse communities.

Institutions have to be responsive to diverse requirements of society. This can be achieved by engaging diverse communities. This is very much in line with charter of Human Rights and responsibilities Act 2006.

Youth participation.

Youth is an asset of any nation more so of progressing nation. A fruitful engagement of youth as stakeholders can bring numerous gains. It helps in accommodating varied views and diversified expertise. Specific use of differently exposed talent of youth may bring in numerable advantages. The problems through which youth passes through can be conveniently solved because of their first hand personal knowledge. The institution is in a position to engage representative of the majority of society as the youth caters for 60% of the population. By engaging youth, the society will empower them.

Communication.

While communicating with the stakeholders, the organization must ensure that their message is accurately transmitted. The message must be crystal clear and to the point and must be delivered well in time giving sufficient time for their reaction. The purpose of engagement should be clearly spelled out and no false promises or wrong rosy pictures to be built. The wording of the message should be simple, straight and meaningful. The message, before being sent to stakeholders should go through consultative process to the concerned or likely stakeholders.

Higher Education and Industry Relations A new development was experienced in 1980s where education leaders looking for additional resources to keep quality research moving forward contracted with industrialists looking forward for international competitive scenario. This school of thought brought both of these closer to each other and the governments also saw its healthy effects on its economic policies. There are two variant schools of thought still ongoing the usefulness of this trend.

Reasons. - (against)

 Academic freedom endangered. Results of research will come under corporate proprietary secrecy.

 Less developed areas will suffer academically.

 Politically backlash of desired results not achieved.

Reasons. - (for)

 Faculty will be benefitted in the shape of broadened exposure.

 Approach toward latest technology through liaison with industry.

 Revenue of the institution will be increased.

 Industries will take an extra edge being in collaboration with academic institution at international level.

 State will benefit financially and technologically in the shape of economic growth.

Brief History Industries support for research institution started in the beginning of previous century (Hutt 1983, p107). Private contribution to academic research started in 1920s (Dickson 1984, Geiger 1988). Cooperation between industry and higher education was stimulated by Morill act 1862 which created land grant institution to focus on applied research and service to society (Johnson 1984. pp 15-17). The two world wars and the creation of federal agencies like the national services foundation to fund research (Geiger 1988, Jonson 1984).

There are three actors in this liaison and they are. -

 Government

 Academe

 Industry etc.

All the actors gain in this liaison and close support to each other. The universities gain in the shape of additional resources, exposure to market needs which enhance the research scope, Industry gain in the shape of technical graduation and post-graduation with quality education and quality research background providing required market oriented base for commercial technology. The benefits of the two ultimately enhances and strengthen state, knowledge oriented economy and ultimately the security of the country. For this, the academe must have an unflinching belief in the role of economic development of the state. It must be realized that the mission and vision of research institutions should be closely interlinked with the state economy. This can be achieved by giving extraordinary importance to the national and international level market needs and keeping pace with ever-changing scenarios. Some of the industrialists believes on restricted cooperation with universities for their personal gains whereas large number of corporate sector look at it in a wider range, so as to benefit the society and state.

Why a Triangular Partnership The three partners, research institution, industry and the state cooperate with each other for multiple factors. These factors are variable between partners and subscribe to

circumstances. The foremast motivation of the state is to gain a space in the world market through better product and cost-effective process. This ultimately influences the state economy. Through this triangular collaboration government tries to improve trade imbalance in their favour. Creation of new industry is also encouraged because of technical development, which help in job opportunities. Industry looks for enhancement in return for their investment which is ensured through quality development because triangular cooperation by contributing towards universities, the university gains in the shape of value added human resources. Better cost-effective quality product along with enhancement of public image at national and international level. Higher education institutions gain through this triangular partnership in the shape of additional resources, better facilities for students and faculty along with better image and ranking among institution.

To make it a success There is no denying the fact that triangular partnership is the necessity of the time and is likely to bring dividends but to make it a success the concerned partner will have to make a concerted effort and create a resolve to overcome issues coming in the way whether operational, administrative or financial. To resolve a problem, it is necessary to identify the specific problem and then to find a solution to it. There can be numerous hiccups for successful implementations of effective liaison between the partners of the triangle Corporative bodies have their own characteristics and the institutions maintain their own characteristics. At times these could prove to be barriers for liaison between the two for an effective alliance. The geographic location also matters. If the two partners happen to be in the same area then the liaison becomes easy as compared to the two at a farther distance but the technology has squeezed the distances and in this era, the physical distance may not matter. In subsequent paragraphs.

There are certain requirements to be met by the industry to make an effective alliance.

 Size of industry

 Financial capacity

 Product line

 Mindset of the owner

Large size companies are more inclined towards such alliances as compared to small size industry. Large size industry has more potential to benefit from the alliance as these have the capacity to understand the benefits of research and alliance between industry and universities.

Product line is also a major factor in formulating the alliance between the two parties. Industry dealing in chemical and engineering services do look up to assistance by universities dealing with such like researcher.

“Peer collaboration is only possible when the industrial partner has a significant progress in basic research capabilities employing accomplished scientist and engineers with acceptable academic credentials”. (Praeger and Omem 1980)

The size of institution does also matter but the reputation and orientation of the institution is more important as compared to size. The alliance between the two much depends on the requirement of both parties. Government policies as well play important role in initiating alliance between industry and institution. Besides all this, the leadership on both sides plays an important role in formulation of alliance. Mutual understanding of leadership coupled with culture compatibility of both organizations facilitates the alliance. Universities at time have to create a balance in their mission between education, training, research, scholarship and services.

“Universities are more likely to focus on basic research, open publication of research results whereas industry emphasizes product development and propriety rights” (Praeger and Omem 1980)

CHAPTER III

METHOD AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the research method and methodology of the study that includes population of study, sample designs, sampling procedure, development and validation of instrument, data collection and data analysis. A mixed method research work design was adopted for study. The survey questionnaire was used to collect data regarding main variable of the study. In addition, interview protocol was also used for the in-depth investigation.

PROCEDURE OF STUDY Concerned literature was listed through internet and available stock in various libraries. An overview of theory regarding subject research was obtained. Overview of research helped in reaching at research variable, to understand their importance both nationally and internationally. Extensive review of literature empowered the researcher to understand the concept. Theoretical background made the researcher understand characteristics of variables and their multi-dimensional interaction. A detailed up to date viewpoint and discussion have been spelled out in previous chapter with complete references. The items for research instrument were developed after reviewing the previous research findings, discussion and interviews were also made with experts. Questionnaires were designed and developed in the light of identified indicators to measure the attitude and perception of stakeholders.

NATURE OF STUDY

The study was co relational in the nature based on quantitative as well as qualitative data collected through survey for investigation and comparison of relationship of approach toward formulation of alliance between business organization and educational institution and their contribution toward academic economic growth.

POPULATION

All the Vice Chancellors (VC’s) of selected universities, Deans, Heads of Department, Teaching staff, support staff of selected universities, Principals of affiliated colleges, Parents of students, Students of selected universities and representatives of NGO’s/Civil Societies were the population of this study. The following universities(05 public sector and 02 private sector) were selected who having at least five hundred students in respective campus located in Faisalabad District.

1. Government College Women University Faisalabad(GCWUF) 2. Government College University Faisalabad(GCUF) 3. National Textile University Faisalabad(NTU) 4. University of Education, Lahore, Faisalabad campus (UE) 5. University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Faisalabad campus(UET) 6. Riphah International University Faisalabad campus(RIU) 7. The University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad.(TUF) 8. Affiliated colleges of above mentioned universities

SAMPLE & SAMPLING

The sample of 802(404 male) Individuals of different universities have varied roles, designation, professional experience, education and administration experience, thus universities having different statues were selected. Some of these were government and others from private sector. Out of these, only one female and others are co-education institutions. Three universities are technical subjects’ universities i.e. National Textile University, University of Engineering and Technology and University of Education, Lahore.

The detail of sample is as under:

Faculty members and students

Table 6

Data of Faculty and Students of each selected university as under

Sr. University Faculty Students Total No. M F M F M F

1. University of Education 9 6 9 23 18 29

2. GCWUF 3 17 0 64 3 81

3. Riphah Int. University 15 3 18 24 33 27

4. The University of 2 16 9 41 11 57 Faisalabad

5. GCUF 25 7 14 16 39 23

6. NTU 3 0 17 30 20 33

7. UET Lahore 3 0 61 5 64 5

Total 60 49 128 203 188 252

Random sampling technique was used to select the faculty members and students

Vice Chancellors/Deans

Seven Vice Chancellors (06 Male and 01 Female) were interviewed. The age range was 52 to 63 years. The experience range as a Vice Chancellor was 02 to 03 years.

Administrative/HODs

Thirty Seven (37) administrative, HODs, senior academicians were selected randomly from respective universities.

Parents

The sample of Two hundred and fifty (250) parents were selected randomly as a sample for this study

Members from civil societies

Twenty Seven (27) representatives of civil societies were selected randomly.

Representative from Media

Thirty Eight (38) representative were selected randomly from media for data collection

Principals of affiliated colleges

Ten (10) principals of affiliated colleges were selected randomly.

Table 7

The summary of sample is presented below

Type N

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37

Faculty 109

Parents 250

Students 331

Civil society 27

Media 38

Principals of Affiliated College 10

Total 802

Experts for validation of research instruments

Five (05) experts in the field of higher education were selected randomly for validation of research instruments. The age range of experts was 43 to 56. There 03 male and 02 female.

INSTRUMENTATION

The study was carried out using mixed method research design by combining quantitative and qualitative research method. In order to collect quantitative data, survey method was used. Five questionnaires were prepared for various categories of population. The questions were framed based on the objects of the study related literature and due discussion with supervisor and other experts. For qualitative data some open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire. An interview protocol was as well developed for collection of qualitative data.

Development of five Questionnaires

There were five different types of respondents. Following questionnaires were developed and used for data collection

1. Questionnaire for administrators/Deans/HODs/senior academicians 2. Questionnaire for parents 3. Questionnaire for students 4. Questionnaire for representatives for civil societies and Media 5. Questionnaire for faculty

Based on the objectives of the study, each questionnaire was divided into ten different factors. The main purpose of each questionnaire was collect the opinions and views of respondents regarding role of different stakeholders (parents, students, teachers, civil society, media high officials and ect). There were three parts of each questionnaire. First part consisted demographical information about the respondents. Second part consisted of different questions grouped into ten related factors such as administration of the university, relevant curricula, teacher’s quality, students support services, learning environment, quality assurance, staff development, good governance in universities, academic leadership, and role of

stakeholders. There were 80 questions in each questionnaire. The respondents have to respond on five rating scale i.e; Not satisfactory(1), satisfactory (2), good(3), very good(4), and excellent(5). Third part consisted of three descriptive questions regarding major challenges, opinions and reason to prefer the respective university. in order to collect qualitative data. Questionnaires are available at the end. All categories of respondents were supposed to answer all questions. The detail of questionnaire available at the end in annexure.

In depth Interviews

The in-depth interview protocol was designed for VC’s and Deans of the universities included in the population and selected principals of the affiliated colleges. The interview protocol was designed in line with the techniques and procedures elaborated in literature (Silverman 1993; Miles and huberman 1994; Bernard 1995; Denzit and Lincoln 2000). Data regarding academic and professional qualification and administrative experience was collected from the institution of respective interviewees. A list of 10 questions was designed for VC’s and Deans of respective universities. A list of 05 questions was designed for principals. There were some supplementary questions which came out of discussion. The interviewer was assisted by another person during the interview for purpose of recording and taking notes.

VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENTATION

Validity and authenticity are the core issues of any research. The data not catering for objectives of the study is of no value. Designing and construction of instruments is a lengthy and hefty job for a researcher therefore maximum elaborated effort has been put in for designing instruments. So that data so collected through these instruments gives better results. While collecting the data statistical ambiguities have also to be removed. Validity of the instrument was examined through guidance from the relevant expert. The questionnaire and interview protocol documents were examined by five experts who were well experienced in the field of higher education. (List at appendix).

The reviewers were apprised with the purpose and objects of study they checked each item for relationship with the objects. The instrument was improved in the light of suggestions by experts. Items were categorized in different factors in compliance with the

remarks by reviewers. Some irrelevant statements were deleted on the advice of experts. Few grammatical and conceptual amendments were also suggested by experts.

PILOT TESTING

Instruments were tested in a pilot study. Questions were framed in easy understandable language. Five questionnaires were examined by five different experts each. Questionnaires were delivered personally and were later collected back. The data was coded and analyzed statistically. Pilot testing was done to confirm ‘reliability of collected material for research.

DATA COLLECTION

The data was collected on above mentioned instruments through researcher personally by visits. Two research assistants were also involved for the help of researcher in the field. Follow up visits were also arranged to collect the data.

INTERVIEW RECORDING

All interviews from VC’s, Deans and Principals of affiliated colleges were recorded personally by the researcher assisted by an associate. The researcher visited office of each respondent. Prior to the visit, telephonic contact was made at appropriate level to arrange for meeting for interview. Interviews were tailored for duration of 40 to 45 minutes. Arrangement were made to record the interviews and notes were also taken by research associate to facilitate preparation of research report and analysis. It took about three weeks to complete the interviews.

DATA ANALYSIS Available data was statistically analyzed using the computer software SPSS. Analysis of qualitative data related to open ended questions and interview protocol was carried out through step by step process. Raw data was converted into frequencies and placed in identical categories of responses. Data collected through above mentioned instruments was tabulated, analyzed and interpreted by means of suitable descriptive and inferential statistics.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The purpose of this chapter is to present analysis and interpretation of data relating to evaluation of importance of role of stakeholder in education. The data was collected from different universities.

In first section of this chapter, CFA was conducted to test the factor structure of the questionnaires. The internal consistency and criterion validity of the questionnaires were reported. Results of analysis using descriptive statistics to examine participation are presented. Next the findings are reported from an independent t-test, examining gender differences on the participation motives. The results are presented of one-way ANOVA, used to examine differences on the subscales of the questionnaire for different factor which are observed in factor analysis.

Prior to discussing the data analysis and interpretation of results it is necessary that we examine over all data analysis and reporting strategies for questionnaire and interview protocol, brief description of data analysis and overall response rate.

Following aspects were taken into consideration while analyzing and interpreting research data. A systematic procedure was used for this purpose.

 Arrangement of data

 Review of data

 Coding of data

 Data entry

 Data editing in SPSS

 Analysis of data

 Tabulation of data

 Result discussion, finding and conclusion.

 Recommendation

Brief description of Data Analysis Data was collected through different research instruments and was analyzed through various statistical techniques which is presented in subsequent pages in shape of tables and figures along with its presentation.

Demographic Profile Demographic data analysis is based on gender, location, academic, professional qualification, teaching experience and nature of appointment. The results so achieved have been presented in percentage through tables.

Descriptive strategies Descriptive format of analysis of data of quality education and role of stakeholders has been given in the form of mean score as the research instrument (questionnaire) were developed on continuous scale on the pattern of five-point rating scale.

Inferential Statistics Pearson correlation has been used to explain the relationship among different variables and their tendency towards different ends. Relationship among quality education and stakeholders has been investigated through statistical techniques. Independent simple T-test was used to compare the means, and One-way ANOVA for difference of the different categories of stakeholders.

Analysis of qualitative data Analysis of qualitative data related to open ended questions and interview protocol was also performed through step by step process. The purpose of this chapter is to present analysis and interpretation of data related to “Evaluation of Role of Stakeholder in Education.” The data is collected from different universities. The names of the universities are University of Education Lahore, Government College Women University Faisalabad, Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, Government College University Faisalabad, National Textile University, and University of Engineering and Technology Lahore.

The results of analysis using descriptive statistics to examine participation are then presented. Next the findings are reported from an independent t-test, examining gender

differences on the participation motives. Then the results are presented of one-way between groups ANOVA, used to examine differences on the subscales of the questionnaire for different factors which are observed in factor analysis.

Analysis of participants (N=802) This part of the study describes an overview of the data regarding participants of this study. Table 8 Classification of Participants with respect to Universities (N=802)

University N Percentage

University of Education 80 10.0

GCWUF 143 17.8

Riphah Int.University 111 13.8

University of Faisalabad 107 13.3

GCUF 154 19.2 NTU 96 12.0

UET Lahore 111 13.8

Total 802 100.0

Figure 1 Classification of Participants

Table 9 Classification of Participants (N=802)

Type N Percentage

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 4.6

Faculty 109 13.6

Parents 250 31.2

Students 331 41.3

Civil society 27 3.4

Media 38 4.7

Principals of affiliated colleges 10 1.2

Total 802 100.0

Figure 2 distribution of sample

Table 10 Classification of participants with respect to Genders

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 404 50.1

Female 398 49.9

Total 802 100.0

The above table enlightens that the male respondents are 404(50.1%) and female respondents are 398(49.9%).

Table 11 Classification of participants with respect to Location

Location Frequency Percentage

Urban 612 76.3

Rural 190 23.7

Total 802 100.0

Table 12

Gender wise Comparison of Variables

Variables Gender N Mean SD Df t-value p-value Learning Male 404 28.1163 7.21068 800 -3.521 .000 Environment Female 398 29.9332 7.31723 Quality Culture Male 404 31.1407 6.51217 800 -2.510 .012 Female 398 32.3385 6.88303 External Male 404 22.9701 5.26252 800 -4.164 .000 Stakeholders Female 398 24.5232 5.21249 Good Governess Male 404 19.3955 4.53199 800 -4.516 .000 Female 398 20.8432 4.48061

Academic Male 404 17.0642 3.89857 800 -3.671 .000 leadership Female 398 18.0872 3.95769 External Male 404 16.1886 3.85033 800 -2.830 .005 Stakeholders Female 398 16.9948 4.16209 Governess Male 404 9.8685 2.76709 800 -3.872 .000 Female 398 10.6154 2.66092 Students Male 404 13.9679 2.97954 800 -2.257 .024 Supporting Staff Female 398 14.4501 3.04950 Teachers Quality Male 404 10.8988 2.43979 800 -2.079 .038 Female 398 11.2423 2.21710 Staff Development Male 404 6.7086 2.78860 800 -2.230 .026 Female 398 7.0842 1.85692 Service Security Male 404 9.6714 2.63278 800 -4.289 .000 Female 398 10.5141 2.94267 Linkages with Male 404 3.4170 1.06369 800 -1.008 .314 Society Female 398 3.5038 1.35703

Table 13

Comparison of Gender with respect to Learning Environment

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 28.1163 7.21068 800 -3.521 .000 Female 398 29.9332 7.31723

Table 13 elucidates that there is substantial variance between Male (M=28.11, SD=7.21) and Female (M=29.93, SD=7.31), t(800) =-3.521. It is obvious from P-value (.000) that the results are noteworthy. These results indicate females are agreed with the statement that ample material such as books, research papers and journals are accessible in the university to cover the curricula. They were pleased with the quality of research in the institutions. Latest technology is assimilated into the curricula. Sufficient resources are available to meet the essentials of curricula. Learning amenities are adequate in the

university (teaching accommodation, teaching aids, laboratories, computers, field work facilities). There is abundant use of latest technology in teaching and research in the university. Our curriculum accomplishes individualized needs and plans of students. Appropriate funds for seminars, workshops and for conferences are provided. Students have accessibility's to digital libraries in the university, while Males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 14

Comparison of Gender with respect to Quality Culture

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 31.1407 6.51217 800 -2.510 .012 Female 398 32.3385 6.88303

Table 14 enlightens that there is considerable difference between Male (M=31.14, SD=6.51) and Female (M=32.33, SD=6.88), t (800) = -2.510. It is apparent from P-value (.012) that the results are important. These results exhibit that female are satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching staff. They are gratified with the obligation of teaching faculty with the students. Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available in the University. They are contented with standard, knowledge and experience of teaching faculty. They are happy with the Examination system in the University. They are pleased with quality of academic facilities. They are comfortable with learning resources in the university. They are thrilled with teachers training after their selection before joining their duties. The institution staff encounters the necessities of academic standards while Males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 15

Comparison of Gender with respect to External Stakeholders

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 22.9701 5.26252 800 -4.164 .000 Female 398 24.5232 5.21249

Table 15 explicates that there is trivial discrepancy between male (M=22.97, SD=5.26) and Female (M=24.52, SD=5.21), t(800) =-4.164. It is superficial from P-value (.000) that the results are immaterial. These results indicate that females feel that their assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to response to organizational needs is satisfactory. They are pleased with the system of maintaining high degree of contact by the university with students’ parents. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the University for Feedback. They are contented with the system of feedback by the affiliated college to the university. They are pleased with the ability of university staff to convey their specific needs to the university. They are comfortable with the system developed by the university to keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the university. They are gratified with the degree of response to specific needs of the university by Industrialists while Males are less agreed with the statement.

Table. 16

Comparison of Gender with respect to Good Governess

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value Male 404 19.3955 4.53199 800 -4.516 .000 Female 398 20.8432 4.48061

Table 16 clarifies that there is major difference between males (M=19.39, SD=4.53) and females (M=20.84, SD=4.48), t(800) =-4.516. It is apparent from P-value (.000) that the results are vital. These results show that females are satisfied with that there is an effective use of distance learning materials. They are pleased with the ways/procedure to recruit senior administration in the university. They are contented with the procedure of foreign faculty hiring. Society linkage of teaching faculty is acceptable. Accountability procedure in the university is effectively fool proof. There is a strong public financial management in the university while males are less agreed with the above statements.

Table. 17

Comparison of Gender with respect to Academic leadership

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 17.0642 3.89857 800 -3.671 .000 Female 398 18.0872 3.95769

Table 17 describes that there is striking difference between Male (M=17.06, SD=3.89) and Female (M=18.08, SD=3.95), t(800) =-3.671. It seems from P-value (.000) that the results are significant. These results show that females are agreed with that there is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and teaching in their university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the improvement strategy. Their academic leaders refrain from criticizing the mistake so as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Their academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere for students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation while males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 18

Comparison of Gender with respect to External Stakeholders

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 16.1886 3.85033 800 -2.830 .005 Female 398 16.9948 4.16209

Table 18 describes that there is considerable variance between male (M=16.18, SD=3.85) and female (M=16.99, SD=4.16), t(800)=-2.830. It is apparent from P-value (.005) that the results are meaningful. These results display that females are satisfied with the over-all services provided by civil society to the university. They are at ease with the ability of media to understand specific needs of the university. They are happy with individual attention paid to parents in the university. They are pleased with the response of university towards prime needs of students and society. Co-Curricular activities are held on regular basis while Males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 19

Comparison of Gender with respect to Governess

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 9.8685 2.76709 800 -3.872 .000 Female 398 10.6154 2.66092

Table 19 enlightens that there is foremost divergence between Male (M=9.86, SD=2.76) and Female (M=10.61, SD=2.66), t(800)=-3.872. It is ostensible from P-value (.000) that the results are momentous. These results showed that females approved that university has strong linkages with industry/business and society. University has a complete autonomy. Syndicate and other university committees have relevant representation while males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 20

Comparison of Gender with respect to Views regarding students support services Staff

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 13.9679 2.97954 800 -2.257 .024 Female 398 14.4501 3.04950

Table 20 enlightens that there is notable difference between Male (M=13.96, SD=2.97) and Female (M=14.45, SD=3.04), t(800)=-2.257. It is outward from P-value (.024) that the results are considerable. These results showed that females accepted that harsh & exclusionary discipline practices are avoided in the university. Conditions for learning are friendly and conducive in the university. They are satisfied with the standards of discipline in the campuses. They are gratified with contact hours in the university while Males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 21

Comparison of Gender with respect to Teacher Quality

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 10.8988 2.43979 800 -2.079 .038 Female 398 11.2423 2.21710

Table 21 explains that there is meaningful inconsistency between Male (M=10.89, SD=2.43) and Female (M=11.24, SD=2.21), t(800)=-2.079. It is apparent from P-value (.038) that the results were significant. These results show that females have approved the punctuality of teachers. Their teachers strictly follow the time schedule of lectures. Students are taught complete curriculum within the stipulated time frame. University (e.g. Lecture discussions, Practical, Research assignments, case studies, etc). They are contented with the quality of courses, degree and the quality of their delivery. They are delighted with systematic monitoring by academic management. They are happy with evaluation system for student’s outcome in the university while male are less agreed with the statement.

Table 22

Comparison of Gender with respect to Staff Development

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 6.7086 2.78860 800 -2.230 .026 Female 398 7.0842 1.85692

Table 22 expounds that there is ample difference between male (M=6.70, SD=2.78) and female (M=7.08, SD=1.85), t(800)=-2.230. It is obvious from P-value (.026) that the results were substantial. These results show that females have proven that social services including health are available in the campus. They are comfortable with the chances of getting hired /employed after completing studies from the university. Emphasis is given on staff development while males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 23

Comparison of Gender with respect to Service Security

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 9.6714 2.63278 800 -4.289 .000 Female 398 10.5141 2.94267

The above table 23 indicates that there is major difference between male (M=9.67, SD=2.63) and female (M=10.51, SD=2.94), t(800)=-4.289. It is deceptive from P-value (.000) that the results are crucial. These results show that females have shown satisfaction at the Society linkage of university staff while males are less agreed with the statement.

Table 24

Comparison of Gender with respect to Society linkage

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value

Male 404 3.4170 1.06369 800 -1.008 .314 Female 398 3.5038 1.35703

Table 24 spells out that there is remarkable difference between Male (M=3.41, SD=1.06) and Female (M=3.50, SD=1.35), t(800)=-1.008. It is ostensible from P-value (.314) that the results were substantial. These results show that Male and Females are satisfied with the statement.

Table No. 25.a

Participants Satisfactions with Learning Environment

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 32.3514 5.01230

Faculty 109 29.1376 6.64924

Parents 250 29.5600 7.34563

Students 331 28.7008 7.42995

Civil society 27 25.1849 6.48669

Media 38 27.1842 8.15676

Principals of Affiliated College 10 27.5000 7.41245

Total 802 28.9912 7.27976

The table 25 a shows that the respondents of HOD / Senior Academia / Administration are more satisfied with learning environment due to greater mean score (M= 32.35) and minimum standard deviation (S.D = 5.01). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with learning environment due to minimum mean score (M= 25.18) and almost maximum Standard deviation (S.D = 6.48).

Table 25.b.

Showing participants Satisfaction with Learning Environment

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 1066.389 6 177.731

Within Groups 41382.550 795 52.054 3.414 .002

Total 42448.938 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table F (6,801) =3.414, P= .002 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about learning environment of universities. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results indicate that sufficient material such as books, research papers and journals are accessible in the university to cover the curricula. They are pleased with the quality of research in the institution. Latest technology is assimilated into the curricula. Sufficient resources are available to meet the essentials of curricula. Learning amenities are adequate in the university (teaching accommodation, teaching aids, laboratories, computers, field work facilities). There is abundant use of latest technology in teaching and research in the university. Our curriculum accomplishes individualized needs and plans of students. Appropriate funds for seminars, workshops and for conferences are provided.

Table No. 25.c.

Showing participants Satisfaction with learning Environment

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Difference Error Lower (I-J) Bound Upper Bound HOD/Senior Faculty 3.21374* 1.37274 .019 .5191 5.9084 Academia Parents 2.79135* 1.27085 .028 .2967 5.2860 /Administration Students 3.65058* 1.25065 .004 1.1956 6.1055 Civil society 7.16649* 1.82613 .000 3.5819 10.7511 Media 5.16714* 1.66634 .002 1.8962 8.4381 Principals of 4.85135 2.57142 .060 -.1962 9.8989 Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -3.21374* 1.37274 .019 -5.9084 -.5191 Academia/ Administration Parents -.42239 .82811 .610 -2.0479 1.2032 Students .43684 .79675 .584 -1.1271 2.0008 Civil society 3.95276* 1.55096 .011 .9083 6.9972 Media 1.95340 1.35919 .151 -.7146 4.6214 Principals of 1.63761 2.38388 .492 -3.0418 6.3171 Affiliated College Parents HOD/Senior -2.79135* 1.27085 .028 -5.2860 -.2967 Academia/ Administration Faculty .42239 .82811 .610 -1.2032 2.0479

Students .85923 .60455 .156 -.3275 2.0459 Civil society 4.37514* 1.46155 .003 1.5062 7.2441 Media 2.37579 1.25620 .059 -.0901 4.8417 Principals of 2.06000 2.32671 .376 -2.5072 6.6272 Affiliated College Students HOD/Senior -3.65058* 1.25065 .004 -6.1055 -1.1956 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.43684 .79675 .584 -2.0008 1.1271 Parents -.85923 .60455 .156 -2.0459 .3275 Civil society 3.51591* 1.44401 .015 .6814 6.3504 Media 1.51656 1.23576 .220 -.9092 3.9423 Principals of 1.20077 2.31573 .604 -3.3449 5.7464 Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -7.16649* 1.82613 .000 -10.7511 -3.5819 Academia/ Administration Faculty -3.95276* 1.55096 .011 -6.9972 -.9083 Parents -4.37514* 1.46155 .003 -7.2441 -1.5062 Students -3.51591* 1.44401 .015 -6.3504 -.6814 Media -1.99935 1.81597 .271 -5.5640 1.5653 Principals of -2.31514 2.67082 .386 -7.5578 2.9275 Affiliated College Media HOD/Senior -5.16714* 1.66634 .002 -8.4381 -1.8962 Academia/ Administration Faculty -1.95340 1.35919 .151 -4.6214 .7146 Parents -2.37579 1.25620 .059 -4.8417 .0901 Students -1.51656 1.23576 .220 -3.9423 .9092 Civil society 1.99935 1.81597 .271 -1.5653 5.5640 Principals of -.31579 2.56421 .902 -5.3492 4.7176 Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -4.85135 2.57142 .060 -9.8989 .1962 Affiliated Academia/ College Administration Faculty -1.63761 2.38388 .492 -6.3171 3.0418 Parents -2.06000 2.32671 .376 -6.6272 2.5072 Students -1.20077 2.31573 .604 -5.7464 3.3449 Civil society 2.31514 2.67082 .386 -2.9275 7.5578 Media .31579 2.56421 .902 -4.7176 5.3492

The table 25.c shows that the Learning Environment of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration is different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society, Media, Principal of affiliated colleges. Learning Environment for faculty is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Civil society, Media, but not different from Parents, Students, Media, Principal of affiliated College. Learning Environment of Parents is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, faculty, students, Civils society and Principals of affiliated colleges , but not different from Faculty, Students, Principals of affiliated colleges. Learning Environment of students is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Civil society but not different from Faculty, Parents, Media and Principals of affiliated colleges. Learning Environment of Civil Society is different from HOD /Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students and Civil society, but not different from Media and Principals of affiliated colleges. Learning Environment of Media is different from HOD / Senior Academia /Administration, Parents but not different from Faculty, Students, Civil society, Media and Principals of affiliated colleges. Learning Environment of Principals of affiliated colleges is different from HOD /Senior Academia /Administration but not different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society and Media.

Table 26.a.

Showing participants Satisfactions with Quality Culture

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 40.9189 5.04633

Faculty 109 40.4025 6.48547

Parents 250 39.0070 8.26373

Students 331 38.6347 8.65605

Civil society 27 32.2867 8.40375

Media 38 38.3947 9.14903

Principals of Affiliated College 10 38.6000 6.97933

Total 802 38.8709 8.22399

The table 26.a shows that the respondents of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with Quality Culture due to greater mean score (M=40.91) and minimum standard deviation (S.D=5.04). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Quality Culture due to minimum mean score (M= 32.28).

Table 26.b.

Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 1613.803 6 268.967 Within Groups 52561.027 795 66.114 4.068 .001 Total 54174.830 801 (p<0.05), (p<0.01) According to results of table F (6, 801) =4.068, P= .001 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about Quality Culture. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results exhibit that the recruitment procedure of the teaching staff. They are gratified with the obligation of teaching faculty with the students. Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available in the University. They are contented with standard, knowledge and experience of teaching faculty. They are happy with the Examination system in the University. They are pleased with quality of academic facilities. They are comfortable with learning resources in the university.

They are thrilled with teachers training after their selection before joining their duties. The institution staff encounters the necessities of academic standards.

Table No. 26.c.

Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Difference Error Lower (I-J) Bound Upper Bound HOD/Senior Faculty .51643 1.54707 .739 -2.5204 3.5533 Academia/ Parents 1.91195 1.43225 .182 -.8995 4.7234 Administration Students 2.28419 1.40948 .106 -.4825 5.0509 Civil society 8.63219* 2.05805 .000 4.5923 12.6720 Media 2.52418 1.87796 .179 -1.1622 6.2105 Principals of 2.31892 2.89799 .424 -3.3697 8.0075 Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -.51643 1.54707 .739 -3.5533 2.5204 Academia/ Administration Parents 1.39552 .93328 .135 -.4365 3.2275 Students 1.76775* .89794 .049 .0051 3.5304 Civil society 8.11575* 1.74792 .000 4.6847 11.5468 Media 2.00775 1.53180 .190 -.9991 5.0146 Principals of 1.80249 2.68663 .502 -3.4713 7.0762 Affiliated College Parents HOD/Senior -1.91195 1.43225 .182 -4.7234 .8995 Academia/ Administration Faculty -1.39552 .93328 .135 -3.2275 .4365 Students .37224 .68132 .585 -.9652 1.7096 Civil society 6.72023* 1.64716 .000 3.4869 9.9535 Media .61223 1.41574 .666 -2.1668 3.3913 Principals of .40697 2.62220 .877 -4.7403 5.5542 Affiliated College Students HOD/Senior -2.28419 1.40948 .106 -5.0509 .4825 Academia/ Administration Faculty -1.76775* .89794 .049 -3.5304 -.0051 Parents -.37224 .68132 .585 -1.7096 .9652 Civil society 6.34800* 1.62740 .000 3.1535 9.5425 Media .23999 1.39269 .863 -2.4938 2.9738

Principals of .03473 2.60983 .989 -5.0882 5.1577 Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -8.63219* 2.05805 .000 - -4.5923 Academia/ 12.6720 Administration Faculty -8.11575* 1.74792 .000 - -4.6847 11.5468 Parents -6.72023* 1.64716 .000 -9.9535 -3.4869 Students -6.34800* 1.62740 .000 -9.5425 -3.1535 Media -6.10800* 2.04659 .003 - -2.0906 10.1254 Principals of -6.31327* 3.01001 .036 - -.4048 Affiliated 12.2218 College Media HOD/Senior -2.52418 1.87796 .179 -6.2105 1.1622 Academia/ Administration Faculty -2.00775 1.53180 .190 -5.0146 .9991 Parents -.61223 1.41574 .666 -3.3913 2.1668 Students -.23999 1.39269 .863 -2.9738 2.4938 Civil society 6.10800* 2.04659 .003 2.0906 10.1254 Principals of -.20526 2.88986 .943 -5.8779 5.4674 Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -2.31892 2.89799 .424 -8.0075 3.3697 affiliated colleges Academia/Adm inist Faculty -1.80249 2.68663 .502 -7.0762 3.4713 Parents -.40697 2.62220 .877 -5.5542 4.7403 Students -.03473 2.60983 .989 -5.1577 5.0882 Civil society 6.31327* 3.01001 .036 .4048 12.2218 Media .20526 2.88986 .943 -5.4674 5.8779

In table 26 c shows that the quality culture of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration is different from Civil society but not different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Quality Culture of faculty is different from Students, Civil society, College but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Parents, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Quality Culture of Parents is different from Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Quality Culture of Students is different from Faculty, Students, Civil society, but not

different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Parents, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Quality Culture of Civil Society is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges.

Quality Culture of Media is different from, Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Principals of affiliated colleges. Quality Culture of Principals of affiliated colleges is different from Civil society, but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students and Media.

Table 27.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with External Stakeholders

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 23.2162 5.10520

Faculty 109 23.8073 4.36416

Parents 250 24.2538 5.17875

Students 331 23.6914 5.52105

Civil society 27 21.1481 5.62073

Media 38 23.2368 5.21658

Principals of Affiliated College 10 21.8000 5.32917

Total 802 23.7298 5.25530

The table 27 a shows that the respondents of Parents are more satisfied with External Stakeholders due to greater mean score (M=24.25) and almost minimum standard deviation (S.D=5.17). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with External Stakeholders due to minimum mean score (M= 21.14).

Table 27.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with External Stakeholders

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 305.987 6 50.998

Within Groups 21816.190 795 27.442 1.858 .085

Total 22122.177 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table, F(6,801)=1.858, P=.085 indicate that the participants showed insignificant result regarding External Stakeholders of universities. It means that no fluctuation lies between the universities stakeholders. They are pleased with the system of maintaining high degree of contact by the university with parents of students. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the University for Feedback. They are satisfied with the system of feedback by the affiliated college to the university. They are pleased with the ability of university staff to convey their specific needs to the university. They are comfortable with the system developed by the university to keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the university.

Table 28.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Good Governess

Type N Mean SD HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 19.8919 3.25563 Faculty 109 19.9550 4.51006 Parents 250 20.5408 4.55573 Students 331 20.1317 4.52177 Civil society 27 18.4815 5.16922 Media 38 19.2105 4.86109 Principals of Affiliated College 10 17.9000 4.90918 Total 802 20.0971 4.53610

The table 28 a shows that the respondents of Parents are more satisfied with Good Governess due to greater mean score (M=20.54). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Good Governess due to minimum mean score (M= 18.48).

Table 28.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Good Governess

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 201.983 6 33.664

Within Groups 16279.540 795 20.477 1.644 .132

Total 16481.523 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table, F (6,801) =1.644, P= .132 indicate that the participants showed a insignificant result about Good Governess. It means that no fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. They are pleased with the ways/procedure to recruit senior administration in the university. They are satisfied with the procedure of foreign faculty hiring. Society linkage with teaching faculty is acceptable. Accountability procedure in the university is effectively fool proof. There is a strong public financial management in the university.

Table 29.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Academic Leadership

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 18.8108 2.97058

Faculty 109 18.0826 3.66194

Parents 250 17.3223 4.07182

Students 331 17.5731 3.90813

Civil society 27 15.2593 5.00456

Media 38 18.2368 3.85854

Principals of Affiliated College 10 16.9000 3.66515

Total 802 17.5664 3.95417

The table 29.a shows that the respondents of HOD/Senior Academia /Administration are more satisfied with Academic leadership due to greater mean score (M=18.81). The mean score (M=15.25) indicates that civil society respondents were less satisfied with Academic Leadership.

Table 29.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Academic Leadership

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 266.493 6 44.415

Within Groups 12257.487 795 15.418 2.881 .009

Total 12523.980 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of table 29 b, The F value is 2.881 and P=.009 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about Academic leadership of universities. It

means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results show that there is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and teaching in their university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the improvement strategy. Their academic leaders refrain from criticizing the stakeholders so as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation.

Table 29.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Academic Leadership

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Difference Error Interval (I-J) Lower Upper Bound Bound HOD/Senior Faculty .72824 .74710 .330 -.7383 2.1948 Academia/ Parents 1.48855* .69165 .032 .1309 2.8462 Administration Students 1.23770 .68065 .069 -.0984 2.5738 Civil society 3.55155* .99386 .000 1.6007 5.5024 Media .57397 .90689 .527 -1.2062 2.3542 Principals of 1.91081 1.39948 .173 -.8363 4.6579 Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -.72824 .74710 .330 -2.1948 .7383 Academia/Ad ministration Parents .76030 .45069 .092 -.1244 1.6450 Students .50946 .43363 .240 -.3417 1.3606 Civil society 2.82331* .84410 .001 1.1664 4.4802 Media -.15427 .73973 .835 -1.6063 1.2978 Principals of 1.18257 1.29741 .362 -1.3642 3.7293 Affiliated College Parents HOD/Senior -1.48855* .69165 .032 -2.8462 -.1309 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.76030 .45069 .092 -1.6450 .1244 Students -.25084 .32902 .446 -.8967 .3950 Civil society 2.06301* .79544 .010 .5016 3.6244 Media -.91458 .68368 .181 -2.2566 .4275 Principals of .42227 1.26629 .739 -2.0634 2.9079 Affiliated College

Students HOD/Senior -1.23770 .68065 .069 -2.5738 .0984 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.50946 .43363 .240 -1.3606 .3417 Parents .25084 .32902 .446 -.3950 .8967 Civil society 2.31385* .78589 .003 .7712 3.8565 Media -.66373 .67255 .324 -1.9839 .6565 Principals of .67311 1.26032 .593 -1.8008 3.1471 Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -3.55155* .99386 .000 -5.5024 -1.6007 Academia/ Administration Faculty -2.82331* .84410 .001 -4.4802 -1.1664 Parents -2.06301* .79544 .010 -3.6244 -.5016 Students -2.31385* .78589 .003 -3.8565 -.7712 Media -2.97758* .98833 .003 -4.9176 -1.0375 Principals of -1.64074 1.45357 .259 -4.4940 1.2125 Affiliated College Media HOD/Senior -.57397 .90689 .527 -2.3542 1.2062 Academia/ Administration Faculty .15427 .73973 .835 -1.2978 1.6063 Parents .91458 .68368 .181 -.4275 2.2566 Students .66373 .67255 .324 -.6565 1.9839 Civil society 2.97758* .98833 .003 1.0375 4.9176 Principals of 1.33684 1.39555 .338 -1.4026 4.0762 Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -1.91081 1.39948 .173 -4.6579 .8363 affiliated colleges Academia/ Administration Faculty -1.18257 1.29741 .362 -3.7293 1.3642 Parents -.42227 1.26629 .739 -2.9079 2.0634 Students -.67311 1.26032 .593 -3.1471 1.8008 Civil society 1.64074 1.45357 .259 -1.2125 4.4940 Media -1.33684 1.39555 .338 -4.0762 1.4026

In table 29.c shows that the of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration is different from Parents, Students, Civil society, but not different from Faculty, Media and Principals of affiliated colleges . Academic Leadership of Faculty is different from Parents, Civil society, but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Students, Media,

Principals of affiliated colleges . Academic Leadership of Parents is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Civil society, but not different from Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges Academic Leadership of Students is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Civil society, but not different from Faculty, Parents, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Academic Leadership of Civil Society is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges but not different from Principals of affiliated colleges. Academic Leadership of Media is different from Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Principals of affiliated colleges. Academic Leadership of Principals of affiliated colleges are not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society and Media.

Table 30. a

Showing participants Satisfactions with External Stakeholders

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 17.2973 2.62324

Faculty 109 17.3736 3.01743

Parents 250 16.4383 4.42669

Students 331 16.4135 4.07916

Civil society 27 15.4815 3.32092

Media 38 16.9737 4.19451

Principals of Affiliated College 10 15.4000 3.74759

Total 802 16.5750 4.00059

The table 30.a shows that the respondents of faculty are more satisfied with External Stakeholders due to greater mean score (M= 17.37). The Principal of affiliated colleges respondents were less satisfied with External Stakeholders due to minimum mean score (M= 15.40).

Table 30.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with External Stakeholders Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 154.259 6 25.710 Within Groups 12665.527 795 15.931 1.614 .140 Total 12819.786 801 (p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table, F(6, 801) =1.614 , P= .140 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about External Stakeholders. It means that no fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. They are at ease with the ability of media to understand specific needs of the university. They are happy with individual attention paid to parents in the university. They are pleased with the response of university towards prime needs of students and society. Co-Curricular activities are held on regular basis.

Table 31.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Governess

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 10.7027 2.18409

Faculty 109 10.6697 2.16904

Parents 250 10.2489 2.96334

Students 331 10.0519 2.75207

Civil society 27 9.5556 2.59190

Media 38 10.5526 2.71828

Principals of Affiliated College 10 10.2000 2.93636

Total 802 10.2362 2.72492

The table 31 a show that the respondents of HOD/Senior Academia /Administration are more satisfied with Governess due to greater mean score (M=10.70).

The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Governess due to minimum mean score (M= 9.55).

Table No. 31.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Governess

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 56.147 6 9.358

Within Groups 5891.451 795 7.411 1.263 .272

Total 5947.598 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of table F(6,801)=1.263, P= .272 indicate that the participants showed an insignificant result about Governess. It means that no fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results showed that University has linkage with industry/business and society. University has a complete autonomy. Syndicate and other university committees have relevant representation.

Table 32.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Students Supports Services

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 15.7838 2.41678 Faculty 109 14.6147 2.42635 Parents 250 14.0568 3.22094 Students 331 13.9438 3.09743 Civil society 27 13.3704 2.76166 Media 38 15.0000 2.65085 Principals of Affiliated College 10 15.5000 1.35401 Total 802 14.2053 3.01232

The table 32.a shows that the respondents of HOD/Senior Academia /Administration are more satisfied with Students Supports Services due to greater mean score (M=15.58). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Students Supports Services due to minimum mean score (M= 13.37).

Table 32.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Students Supports Services

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 198.180 6 33.030

Within Groups 7070.158 795 8.893 3.714 .001

Total 7268.338 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table, the value F (6, 801) =3.714, P= .001 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about Students Supports Services of universities. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results showed that harsh & exclusionary discipline practices are avoided in the university. Conditions for learning are friendly and conducive in the university. They are satisfied with the standards of discipline in the campuses. They are gratified with contact hours in the university.

Table 32.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Students Support Services

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Difference Error Lower (I-J) Bound Upper Bound HOD/Senior Faculty 1.16910* .56741 .040 .0553 2.2829 Academia/ Parents 1.72696* .52529 .001 .6958 2.7581 Administration Students 1.83995* .51694 .000 .8252 2.8547 Civil society 2.41341* .75481 .001 .9318 3.8951 Media .78378 .68876 .255 -.5682 2.1358

Principals of .28378 1.06287 .790 -1.8026 2.3701 Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -1.16910* .56741 .040 -2.2829 -.0553 Academia/ Administration Parents .55786 .34229 .104 -.1140 1.2298 Students .67084* .32933 .042 .0244 1.3173 Civil society 1.24431 .64107 .053 -.0141 2.5027 Media -.38532 .56180 .493 -1.4881 .7175 Principals of -.88532 .98535 .369 -2.8195 1.0489 Affiliated College Parents HOD/Senior -1.72696* .52529 .001 -2.7581 -.6958 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.55786 .34229 .104 -1.2298 .1140 Students .11298 .24988 .651 -.3775 .6035 Civil society .68645 .60411 .256 -.4994 1.8723 Media -.94318 .51924 .070 -1.9624 .0761 Principals of -1.44318 .96172 .134 -3.3310 .4446 Affiliated College Students HOD/Senior -1.83995* .51694 .000 -2.8547 -.8252 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.67084* .32933 .042 -1.3173 -.0244 Parents -.11298 .24988 .651 -.6035 .3775 Civil society .57347 .59687 .337 -.5982 1.7451 Media -1.05616* .51079 .039 -2.0588 -.0535 Principals of -1.55616 .95718 .104 -3.4351 .3227 Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -2.41341* .75481 .001 -3.8951 -.9318 Academia/ Administration Faculty -1.24431 .64107 .053 -2.5027 .0141 Parents -.68645 .60411 .256 -1.8723 .4994 Students -.57347 .59687 .337 -1.7451 .5982 Media -1.62963* .75061 .030 -3.1030 -.1562 Principals of -2.12963 1.10395 .054 -4.2966 .0374 Affiliated College

100

Media HOD/Senior -.78378 .68876 .255 -2.1358 .5682 Academia/ Administration Faculty .38532 .56180 .493 -.7175 1.4881 Parents .94318 .51924 .070 -.0761 1.9624 Students 1.05616* .51079 .039 .0535 2.0588 Civil society 1.62963* .75061 .030 .1562 3.1030 Principals of -.50000 1.05989 .637 -2.5805 1.5805 Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -.28378 1.06287 .790 -2.3701 1.8026 affiliated colleges Academia/ Administration Faculty .88532 .98535 .369 -1.0489 2.8195 Parents 1.44318 .96172 .134 -.4446 3.3310 Students 1.55616 .95718 .104 -.3227 3.4351 Civil society 2.12963 1.10395 .054 -.0374 4.2966 Media .50000 1.05989 .637 -1.5805 2.5805

In table 32 c shows that the Views regarding students support services of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration is different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society, Principals of affiliated colleges but not different from Media. Views regarding students support services of Faculty is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Students, Civil society, but not different from Parents, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Views regarding students support services of Parents are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Media but not different from faculty, Students, Civil society and Principals of affiliated colleges. Views regarding students support services of Students are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Media, but not different from Parents, Civil society and Principals of affiliated colleges. Views regarding students support services is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Civil society, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges but not different from Parents, Students and Civil society. Views regarding students support services of Media is different from Parents, Students, Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. Views regarding students support services of Principals of affiliated colleges is different from Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students and Media.

101

Table 33.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Teacher Quality

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 11.8649 2.27501

Faculty 109 11.3945 2.14743

Parents 250 11.0680 2.31621

Students 331 11.0785 2.28298

Civil society 27 8.6345 2.17444

Media 38 11.0526 2.52498

Principals of Affiliated College 10 10.7000 2.86938

Total 802 11.0663 2.33560

The table 33.a shows that HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with Teacher Quality due to greater mean score (M=11.86). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Teacher Quality due to minimum mean score (M= 8.63).

Table 33.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Teacher Quality

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 196.399 6 32.733

Within Groups 4173.090 795 5.249 6.236 .000

Total 4369.489 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

102

According to results of table 33 b, the F (6, 801) =6.236, P= .000 indicate that the participants showed significant result about Teacher Quality in universities. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. Their teachers strictly follow the time schedule of lectures. Students are taught complete curriculum within the stipulated time frame. University (e.g. Lecture discussions, Practical, Research assignments, case studies, etc). They are contented with the quality of courses, degree and the quality of their delivery. They are satisfied with systematic monitoring by academic management. They are happy with evaluation system for student’s outcome in the university.

Table No. 33.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Teacher Quality

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Difference Error Lower (I-J) Bound Upper Bound HOD/Senior Faculty .47037 .43592 .281 -.3853 1.3261 Academia/ Parents .79686* .40357 .049 .0047 1.5890 Administration Students .78632* .39715 .048 .0067 1.5659 Civil society 3.23033* .57990 .000 2.0920 4.3686 Media .81223 .52916 .125 -.2265 1.8509 Principals of 1.16486 .81657 .154 -.4380 2.7678 Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -.47037 .43592 .281 -1.3261 .3853 Academia/ Administration Parents .32650 .26297 .215 -.1897 .8427 Students .31595 .25301 .212 -.1807 .8126 Civil society 2.75996* .49252 .000 1.7932 3.7267 Media .34186 .43162 .429 -.5054 1.1891 Principals of .69450 .75702 .359 -.7915 2.1805 Affiliated College Parents HOD/Senior -.79686* .40357 .049 -1.5890 -.0047 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.32650 .26297 .215 -.8427 .1897 Students -.01055 .19198 .956 -.3874 .3663 Civil society 2.43346* .46412 .000 1.5224 3.3445 Media .01537 .39891 .969 -.7677 .7984

103

Principals of .36800 .73886 .619 -1.0823 1.8183 Affiliated College Students HOD/Senior -.78632* .39715 .048 -1.5659 -.0067 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.31595 .25301 .212 -.8126 .1807 Parents .01055 .19198 .956 -.3663 .3874 Civil society 2.44401* .45855 .000 1.5439 3.3441 Media .02592 .39242 .947 -.7444 .7962 Principals of .37855 .73537 .607 -1.0650 1.8221 Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -3.23033* .57990 .000 -4.3686 -2.0920 Academia/ Administration Faculty -2.75996* .49252 .000 -3.7267 -1.7932 Parents -2.43346* .46412 .000 -3.3445 -1.5224 Students -2.44401* .45855 .000 -3.3441 -1.5439 Media -2.41809* .57667 .000 -3.5501 -1.2861 Principals of -2.06546* .84813 .015 -3.7303 -.4006 Affiliated College Media HOD/Senior -.81223 .52916 .125 -1.8509 .2265 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.34186 .43162 .429 -1.1891 .5054 Parents -.01537 .39891 .969 -.7984 .7677 Students -.02592 .39242 .947 -.7962 .7444 Civil society 2.41809* .57667 .000 1.2861 3.5501 Principals of .35263 .81428 .665 -1.2458 1.9510 Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -1.16486 .81657 .154 -2.7678 .4380 affiliated Academia/ colleges Administration Faculty -.69450 .75702 .359 -2.1805 .7915 Parents -.36800 .73886 .619 -1.8183 1.0823 Students -.37855 .73537 .607 -1.8221 1.0650 Civil society 2.06546* .84813 .015 .4006 3.7303 Media -.35263 .81428 .665 -1.9510 1.2458

Table 33 c shows that the views regarding teachers quality of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, is different from Parents, Students, Civil society, but not

104

different from, Faculty, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. views regarding teachers quality of Faculty is different from Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Parents, Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. The views regarding teachers quality of Parents is different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Civil society, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges but not different from Faculty, Students, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. The views regarding teachers quality of Students is different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Civil society, but not different from Faculty, Parents, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. The views regarding teachers quality in Civil Society is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. The views regarding teachers quality in Media and Civil society is not different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Principals of affiliated colleges. The views regarding teachers quality asessed bys Principals of affiliated colleges is different from civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students and Media.

Table 34.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Staff Development

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 7.1351 1.49373

Faculty 109 7.0000 1.82574

Parents 250 6.8560 1.94380

Students 331 6.9359 2.95197

Civil society 27 6.0741 1.54237

Media 38 6.8947 2.05057

Principals of Affiliated College 10 6.6000 1.57762

Total 802 6.8938 2.37548

105

The table 34.a shows that the HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with Staff Development due to greater mean score (M=7.13). The Civil society were less satisfied with Staff Development due to minimum mean score (M= 6.07).

Table .34 b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Staff Development

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 23.334 6 3.889

Within Groups 4496.634 795 5.656 .688 .660

Total 4519.969 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table, F (6, 801)=.688, P=.660 indicate that the participants showed insignificant result about Staff Development of universities. It means that no fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results show that social services including health are available in the campus. They are comfortable with the chances of getting hired /employed after completing studies from the university. Emphasis is placed on staff development.

Table. 35 a Showing participants Satisfactions with Security services Type N Mean SD HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 10.4595 2.15503 Faculty 109 10.2018 2.57042 Parents 250 10.2520 2.49910 Students 331 10.0403 3.16156 Civil society 27 8.2222 3.05505 Media 38 10.1053 2.39131 Principals of Affiliated College 10 9.9000 2.76687 Total 802 10.0877 2.81911

The table 35.a shows that the HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with security services due to greater mean score (M=10.45). The representatives of civil society were less satisfied with security services due to minimum mean score (M= 8.2).

106

Table 35.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Service Security

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 108.349 6 18.058

Within Groups 6257.511 795 7.871 2.294 .033

Total 6365.860 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

In above table 35 b, the value F (6, 801)=2.294, P= .033 indicate that the participants showed significant results about service security of universities. There is difference available in the views of stakeholders.

Table 35.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Security services

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound HOD/Senior Faculty .25762 .53380 .629 -.7902 1.3055 Academia/ Parents .20746 .49418 .675 -.7626 1.1775 Administration Students .41912 .48632 .389 -.5355 1.3738 Civil society 2.23724* .71011 .002 .8433 3.6311 Media .35420 .64797 .585 -.9177 1.6261 Principals of .55946 .99992 .576 -1.4033 2.5223 Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -.25762 .53380 .629 -1.3055 .7902 Academia/ Administration Parents -.05017 .32202 .876 -.6823 .5819 Students .16150 .30982 .602 -.4467 .7697 Civil society 1.97961* .60310 .001 .7957 3.1635 Media .09657 .52853 .855 -.9409 1.1341 Principals of .30183 .92700 .745 -1.5178 2.1215 Affiliated College

107

Parents HOD/Senior -.20746 .49418 .675 -1.1775 .7626 Academia/ Administration Faculty .05017 .32202 .876 -.5819 .6823 Students .21167 .23508 .368 -.2498 .6731 Civil society 2.02978* .56834 .000 .9142 3.1454 Media .14674 .48849 .764 -.8121 1.1056 Principals of .35200 .90476 .697 -1.4240 2.1280 Affiliated College Students HOD/Senior -.41912 .48632 .389 -1.3738 .5355 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.16150 .30982 .602 -.7697 .4467 Parents -.21167 .23508 .368 -.6731 .2498 Civil society 1.81811* .56152 .001 .7159 2.9203 Media -.06493 .48053 .893 -1.0082 .8783 Principals of .14033 .90049 .876 -1.6273 1.9080 Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -2.23724* .71011 .002 -3.6311 -.8433 Academia/ Administration Faculty -1.97961* .60310 .001 -3.1635 -.7957 Parents -2.02978* .56834 .000 -3.1454 -.9142 Students -1.81811* .56152 .001 -2.9203 -.7159 Media -1.88304* .70616 .008 -3.2692 -.4969 Principals of -1.67778 1.03857 .107 -3.7164 .3609 Affiliated College Media HOD/Senior -.35420 .64797 .585 -1.6261 .9177 Academia/ Administration Faculty -.09657 .52853 .855 -1.1341 .9409 Parents -.14674 .48849 .764 -1.1056 .8121 Students .06493 .48053 .893 -.8783 1.0082 Civil society 1.88304* .70616 .008 .4969 3.2692 Principals of .20526 .99712 .837 -1.7520 2.1626 Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -.55946 .99992 .576 -2.5223 1.4033 affiliated Academia/ colleges Administration Faculty -.30183 .92700 .745 -2.1215 1.5178

108

Parents -.35200 .90476 .697 -2.1280 1.4240 Students -.14033 .90049 .876 -1.9080 1.6273 Civil society 1.67778 1.03857 .107 -.3609 3.7164 Media -.20526 .99712 .837 -2.1626 1.7520

Table 35 c shows that the views of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration regarding security services are different from civil society but not different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges. The views regarding security services of Faculty are different from civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Parents, Students, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding security services of Parents is different from Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Students, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding security services by Students are different from civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Parents, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding security services by civil society are different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Media, but not different from Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding security services by Media is different from Civil Society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding security services by Principals of affiliated colleges are not different from HOD/Senior Academia /Administration, Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society and Media.

Table 36.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Society linkage

Type N Mean SD

HOD/Senior Academia/Administration 37 3.8919 .65760

Faculty 109 3.6972 .91797

Parents 250 3.4098 1.00245

Students 331 3.4260 1.46571

109

Civil society 27 3.0741 1.17427

Media 38 3.3684 1.19506

Principals of Affiliated College 10 3.1000 1.19722

Total 802 3.4607 1.21734

The table 36.a shows that the responses of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with Society linkage due to greater mean score (M=3.89). The responses of civil society were less satisfied with Society linkage due to minimum mean score (M= 3.07).

Table 36. b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Society linkage

Type Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 19.685 6 3.281

Within Groups 1167.327 795 1.468 2.234 .038

Total 1187.011 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table, The values F (6, 801) =2.234, P= .038 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about Society linkage of universities. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders.

110

Table 36. c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Society linkage

(I) Type (J) Type Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound HOD/Senior Faculty .19464 .23056 .399 -.2579 .6472 Academia/ Parents .48205* .21344 .024 .0631 .9010 Administration Students .46591* .21005 .027 .0536 .8782 Civil .81782* .30670 .008 .2158 1.4199 society Media .52347 .27987 .062 -.0259 1.0728 Principals .79189 .43188 .067 -.0559 1.6396 of Affiliated College Faculty HOD/Senior -.19464 .23056 .399 -.6472 .2579 Academia/ Administrati on Parents .28741* .13908 .039 .0144 .5604 Students .27127* .13382 .043 .0086 .5339 Civil .62317* .26049 .017 .1118 1.1345 society Media .32883 .22828 .150 -.1193 .7769 Principals .59725 .40038 .136 -.1887 1.3832 of Affiliated College Parents HOD/Senior -.48205* .21344 .024 -.9010 -.0631 Academia/ Administrati on Faculty -.28741* .13908 .039 -.5604 -.0144 Students -.01614 .10154 .874 -.2154 .1832 Civil .33577 .24547 .172 -.1461 .8176 society Media .04142 .21098 .844 -.3727 .4556 Principals .30984 .39078 .428 -.4572 1.0769 of Affiliated College Students HOD/Senior -.46591* .21005 .027 -.8782 -.0536 Academia/ Administrati on Faculty -.27127* .13382 .043 -.5339 -.0086

111

Parents .01614 .10154 .874 -.1832 .2154 Civil .35191 .24253 .147 -.1242 .8280 society Media .05756 .20755 .782 -.3498 .4650 Principals .32598 .38893 .402 -.4375 1.0894 of Affiliated College Civil society HOD/Senior -.81782* .30670 .008 -1.4199 -.2158 Academia/ Administrati on Faculty -.62317* .26049 .017 -1.1345 -.1118 Parents -.33577 .24547 .172 -.8176 .1461 Students -.35191 .24253 .147 -.8280 .1242 Media -.29435 .30500 .335 -.8930 .3043 Principals -.02593 .44857 .954 -.9065 .8546 of Affiliated College Media HOD/Senior -.52347 .27987 .062 -1.0728 .0259 Academia/ Administrati on Faculty -.32883 .22828 .150 -.7769 .1193 Parents -.04142 .21098 .844 -.4556 .3727 Students -.05756 .20755 .782 -.4650 .3498 Civil .29435 .30500 .335 -.3043 .8930 society Principals .26842 .43067 .533 -.5770 1.1138 of Affiliated College Principals of HOD/Senior -.79189 .43188 .067 -1.6396 .0559 affiliated colleges Academia/ Administrati on Faculty -.59725 .40038 .136 -1.3832 .1887 Parents -.30984 .39078 .428 -1.0769 .4572 Students -.32598 .38893 .402 -1.0894 .4375 Civil .02593 .44857 .954 -.8546 .9065 society Media -.26842 .43067 .533 -1.1138 .5770

In table 36.c shows that the responses regarding society linkages of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are different from Parents, Students, civil society but not different from Parents, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses

112

regarding society linkages of faculty are different from parents, Students, civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding society linkages by parents are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, but not different from Students, Civil society, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding society linkages by Students are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty but not different from Parents, Civil society, Media, Principals of affiliated colleges. The responses regarding society linkages by civil society are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, but not different from Parents, Students, Media, and Principals of affiliated colleges.

The responses regarding society linkages by Media are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration but not different from other participants. The responses regarding society linkages by principals of affiliated colleges are different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, but not different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society, and Media.

Table 37.a

Showing partpants Satisfactions with University Learning Environment

University N Mean SD

University of Education 80 30.5000 6.68268

GCWUF 143 25.6084 7.10389

Riphah University 111 29.8197 7.12513

University of Faisalabad 107 36.1775 4.57408

GCUF 154 28.1363 5.93435

NTU 96 28.7396 6.46813

UET Lahore 111 25.9098 7.38364

Total 802 28.9912 7.27976

113

The above table displays that the respondents from university of Faisalabad are more satisfied with learning environment due to greater mean score (M=36.24) and minimum standard deviation (S.D=4.54). The GCWUF respondents were less satisfied with learning environment due to minimum mean score (M= 25.60) and almost maximum standard deviation (S.D=7.10).

Table 37.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with University Learning Environment

University Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 8593.089 6 1432.182

Within Groups 33855.849 795 42.586 33.630 .000

Total 42448.938 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

Results of table 37b, F (6, 801)=33.63, P=.000 indicate that the participants showed considerable results about learning environment of all the universities. It means that the fluctuation lies between the universities. There is variation from university to university. These results indicate that females are agreed with the statement that ample material such as books, research papers and journals are accessible in the university to cover the curricula. They are satisfied with the quality of research in the institution. Latest technology is assimilated into the curricula. Sufficient resources are available to meet the essentials of curricula. Learning amenities are adequate in the university (teaching accommodation, teaching aids, laboratories, computers, field work facilities).

There is abundant use of latest technology in teaching and research in the university. Our curriculum accomplishes individualized needs and plans of students. Appropriate funds for seminars, workshops and for conferences are provided. Students have access to digital libraries in the university, while males are less agreed with the statement.

114

Table 37.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with University Learning Environment

(I) University (J) University Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Name Name Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound University of GCWUF 4.89161* .91358 .000 3.0983 6.6849 Education Riphah .66514 .96334 .490 -1.2259 2.5561 University University of -5.74528* .96909 .000 -7.6476 -3.8430 Faisalabad GCUF 2.36928* .90280 .009 .5971 4.1415 NTU 1.76042 .99056 .076 -.1840 3.7049 UET Lahore 4.64679* .96334 .000 2.7558 6.5378 GCWUF University of -4.89161* .91358 .000 -6.6849 -3.0983 Education Riphah -4.22647* .83200 .000 -5.8597 -2.5933 University University of -10.63689* .83866 .000 -12.2832 -8.9906 Faisalabad GCUF -2.52233* .76109 .001 -4.0163 -1.0283 NTU -3.13119* .86338 .000 -4.8260 -1.4364 UET Lahore -.24482 .83200 .769 -1.8780 1.8004 Riphah University of -.66514 .96334 .490 -2.5561 1.2259 University Education GCWUF 4.22647* .83200 .000 2.5933 5.8597 University of -6.41042* .89260 .000 -8.1626 -4.6583 Faisalabad GCUF 1.70414* .82016 .038 .0942 3.3141 NTU 1.09528 .91587 .232 -.7026 2.8931 UET Lahore 3.98190* .88635 .000 2.2418 5.7215 University ozf University of 5.74528* .96909 .000 3.8430 7.6476 Faisalabad Education GCWUF 10.63689* .83866 .000 8.9906 12.2832 Riphah 6.41042* .89260 .000 4.6583 8.1626 University GCUF 8.11456* .82691 .000 6.4914 9.7378 NTU 7.50570* .92192 .000 5.6960 9.3154 UET Lahore 10.39207* .89260 .000 8.6399 12.1442 GCUF University of -2.36928* .90280 .009 -4.1415 -.5971 Education GCWUF 2.52233* .76109 .001 1.0283 4.0163

115

Riphah -1.70414* .82016 .038 -3.3141 -.0942 University University of -8.11456* .82691 .000 -9.7378 -6.4914 Faisalabad NTU -.60886 .85197 .475 -2.2813 1.0635 UET Lahore 2.27751* .82016 .006 .6676 3.8875 NTU University of -1.76042 .99056 .076 -3.7049 .1840 Education GCWUF 3.13119* .86338 .000 1.4364 4.8260 Riphahint -1.09528 .91587 .232 -2.8931 .7026 University University of -7.50570* .92192 .000 -9.3154 -5.6960 Faisalabad GCUF .60886 .85197 .475 -1.0635 2.2813 UET Lahore 2.88637* .91587 .002 1.0885 4.6842 UET Lahore University of -4.64679* .96334 .000 -6.5378 -2.7558 Education GCWUF .24482 .83200 .769 -1.8004 1.8780 Riphahint -3.98190* .88635 .000 -5.7215 -2.2418 University University of -10.39207* .89260 .000 -12.1442 -8.6399 Faisalabad GCUF -2.27751* .82016 .006 -3.8875 -.6676 NTU -2.88637* .91587 .002 -4.6842 -1.0885

Table-37.c shows that the learning environment in University of Education are different to that of GCWUF and Riphah University and Learning Environment of UE is also different to that of University of Faisalabad and GCUF. Learning Environment of UE are similar to NTU and UET. Similarly, the Learning Environment of GCWUF are different to that of University of education, Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, GCUF and NTU but are not different from UET Lahore.

Learning Environment of Riphah University are different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, GCUF and UET Lahore but are not varied from UE and NTU. Learning Environment of University of Faisalabad differ from all other universities. Learning Environment of GCUF are different to that of UE, GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, but are not different from Riphah and GCUF.

Learning Environment of NTU are different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad and UET are not different from UE, Riphah and GCUF. Learning

116

Environment of UET, are different from UE, Riphah, University of Faisalabad, GCUF and NTU but are not different from GCWUF.

Table 38.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Quality Culture

University N Mean SD

University of Education 80 40.5750 7.04017

GCWUF 143 37.6503 8.07470

Riphah University 111 41.3522 9.11740

University of Faisalabad 107 43.4673 4.30734

GCUF 154 38.0178 6.99975

NTU 96 36.1771 10.32115

UET Lahore 111 35.8163 7.99999

Total 802 38.8709 8.22399

This above table shows that the respondents from University of Faisalabad are more satisfied with quality culture due to greater mean score (M=43.46) and minimum standard deviation (S.D=4.30). The UET, Lahore are less satisfied with quality culture due to minimum mean score (M=35.81) and almost maximum standard deviation (S.D=7.99).

Table 38.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture

University Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 5233.727 6 872.288 Within Groups 48941.104 795 61.561 14.169 .000 Total 54174.830 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

117

Results of above table F (6, 801)=14.16, P= .000 indicates that the participants shows a major result about university quality culture. It means that the fluctuations lies between the faculties or mean scores. There is no difference from one faculty to another faculty.

These results exhibit that respondents are satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching staff. They are satisfied with the obligation of teaching faculty with the students. Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available in the Universities. They are contented with standard, knowledge and experience of teaching faculty. They are happy with the Examination system in the Universities.

They are pleased with quality of academic facilities. They are comfortable with learning resources in the universities. They are thrilled with teachers training after their selection before joining their duties.

Table 38.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Quality Culture

(I) University (J) University Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Name Name Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound University of GCWUF 2.37587* .88826 .008 .6322 4.1195 Education Riphah -.65476 .94416 .488 -2.5082 1.1986 University University of -2.34813* .94034 .013 -4.1940 -.5022 Faisalabad GCUF 2.25000* .87878 .011 .5250 3.9750 NTU 4.13542* .96311 .000 2.2448 6.0260 UET Lahore 4.09259* .93848 .000 2.2504 5.9348 GCWUF University of -2.37587* .88826 .008 -4.1195 -.6322 Education Riphah -3.03064* .81764 .000 -4.6357 -1.4256 University University of -4.72400* .81323 .000 -6.3204 -3.1276 Faisalabad GCUF -.12587 .74118 .865 -1.5808 1.3291 NTU 1.75954* .83945 .036 .1117 3.4074 UET Lahore 1.71672* .81107 .035 .1246 3.3088 Riphah University of .65476 .94416 .488 -1.1986 2.5082 University Education GCWUF 3.03064* .81764 .000 1.4256 4.6357

118

University of -1.69337 .87394 .053 -3.4089 .0222 Faisalabad GCUF 2.90476* .80733 .000 1.3200 4.4895 NTU 4.79018* .89840 .000 3.0266 6.5537 UET Lahore 4.74735* .87194 .000 3.0357 6.4590 University of University of 2.34813* .94034 .013 .5022 4.1940 Faisalabad Education GCWUF 4.72400* .81323 .000 3.1276 6.3204 Riphah 1.69337 .87394 .053 -.0222 3.4089 University GCUF 4.59813* .80286 .000 3.0221 6.1741 NTU 6.48355* .89438 .000 4.7279 8.2392 UET Lahore 6.44072* .86779 .000 4.7372 8.1442 GCUF University of -2.25000* .87878 .011 -3.9750 -.5250 Education GCWUF .12587 .74118 .865 -1.3291 1.5808 Riphah -2.90476* .80733 .000 -4.4895 -1.3200 University University of -4.59813* .80286 .000 -6.1741 -3.0221 Faisalabad NTU 1.88542* .82941 .023 .2573 3.5135 UET Lahore 1.84259* .80067 .022 .2709 3.4143 NTU University of -4.13542* .96311 .000 -6.0260 -2.2448 Education GCWUF -1.75954* .83945 .036 -3.4074 -.1117 Riphah -4.79018* .89840 .000 -6.5537 -3.0266 University University of -6.48355* .89438 .000 -8.2392 -4.7279 Faisalabad GCUF -1.88542* .82941 .023 -3.5135 -.2573 UET Lahore -.04282 .89242 .962 -1.7946 1.7090 UET Lahore University of -4.09259* .93848 .000 -5.9348 -2.2504 Education GCWUF -1.71672* .81107 .035 -3.3088 -.1246 Riphah -4.74735* .87194 .000 -6.4590 -3.0357 University University of -6.44072* .86779 .000 -8.1442 -4.7372 Faisalabad GCUF -1.84259* .80067 .022 -3.4143 -.2709 NTU .04282 .89242 .962 -1.7090 1.7946

Table 38.c, shows that the Quality Culture of University of Education differs from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, GCUF, UE, NTU, and UET but Quality Culture of

119

UE is not different to Riphah University. Similarly, the Quality Culture of GCWUF is dissimilar to that of university of Education, Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, UET, LHR and NTU but is not dissimilar to GCUF. Quality Culture of Riphah University is different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, GCUF, NTU and UET, Lahore but is not different from UOE. Quality Culture of University of Faisalabad is varied from all other universities. Quality Culture of GCUF is different to UE, GCUF, University of Faisalabad, Riphah and is not like to GCWUF. Quality Culture of NTU is different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, UE, Riphah, and GCUF, and is not different from UET, Lahore. Quality Culture of UET, Lahore, is assorted from UE, Riphah university and University of Faisalabad, GCUF and GCWUF and is not assorted from NTU.

Table 39.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with External Stakeholders

University N Mean SD

University of Education 80 24.3750 4.75574

GCWUF 143 22.6923 4.67120

Riphah University 111 24.2131 5.39219

University of Faisalabad 107 28.0629 4.05017

GCUF 154 23.5390 4.43712

NTU 96 22.3646 5.34518

UET Lahore 111 21.3867 5.68668

Total 802 23.7298 5.25530

The table 39 a shows that the respondents from University of Faisalabad are more satisfied with External Stakeholder due to greater mean score (M=28.06).

The senior staff, administrators, and supporting staff of UET Lahore are less satisfied with External Stakeholders due to minimum mean score (M=21.38).

120

Table 39.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with University External Stakeholders

University Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 3016.109 6 502.685

Within Groups 19106.067 795 24.033 20.917 .000

Total 22122.177 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

The results of above table F (6, 801) =20.91, P= .000 indicate that the participants showed significant result about university External Stakeholders. It means that the fluctuations lies between the faculties or means scores. There is no effect of one faculty to another faculty. These results indicate that their assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to response to organizational needs is satisfactory. They are satisfied with the system of maintaining high degree of contact by the university with parents of students.

There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the University for Feedback. They are contented with the system of feedback by the affiliated college to the university. They are satisfied with the ability of university staff to convey their specific needs to the university. They are comfortable with the system developed by the university to keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the university. They are gratified with the degree of response to specific needs of the university by Industrialists.

121

Table 39.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with University External Stakeholders

(I) University (J) University Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Name Name Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound University of GCWUF 1.68269* .68445 .014 .3392 3.0262 Education Riphah .16195 .71897 .822 -1.2494 1.5733 University University of -3.68790* .72458 .000 -5.1102 -2.2656 Faisalabad GCUF .83604 .67562 .216 -.4902 2.1623 NTU 2.01042* .74213 .007 .5537 3.4672 UET Lahore 2.98834* .71897 .000 1.5770 4.3996 GCWUF University of -1.68269* .68445 .014 -3.0262 -.3392 Education Riphah -1.52075* .62014 .014 -2.7381 -.3034 University University of -5.37059* .62663 .000 -6.6006 -4.1405 Faisalabad GCUF -.84665 .56931 .137 -1.9642 .2709 NTU .32772 .64684 .613 -.9420 1.5974 UET Lahore 1.30565* .62014 .036 .0883 2.5230 Riphah University of -.16195 .71897 .822 -1.5733 1.2494 University Education GCWUF 1.52075* .62014 .014 .3034 2.7381 University of -3.84984* .66417 .000 -5.1536 -2.5461 Faisalabad GCUF .67409 .61038 .270 -.5241 1.8722 NTU 1.84847* .68327 .007 .5073 3.1897 UET Lahore 2.82639* .65805 .000 1.5347 4.1181 University of University of 3.68790* .72458 .000 2.2656 5.1102 Faisalabad Education GCWUF 5.37059* .62663 .000 4.1405 6.6006 Riphah 3.84984* .66417 .000 2.5461 5.1536 University GCUF 4.52393* .61698 .000 3.3128 5.7350 NTU 5.69831* .68916 .000 4.3455 7.0511 UET Lahore 6.67624* .66417 .000 5.3725 7.9800 GCUF University of -.83604 .67562 .216 -2.1623 .4902 Education GCWUF .84665 .56931 .137 -.2709 1.9642

122

Riphah -.67409 .61038 .270 -1.8722 .5241 University University of -4.52393* .61698 .000 -5.7350 -3.3128 Faisalabad NTU 1.17438 .63749 .066 -.0770 2.4257 UET Lahore 2.15230* .61038 .000 .9541 3.3505 NTU University of -2.01042* .74213 .007 -3.4672 -.5537 Education GCWUF -.32772 .64684 .613 -1.5974 .9420 Riphah -1.84847* .68327 .007 -3.1897 -.5073 University University of -5.69831* .68916 .000 -7.0511 -4.3455 Faisalabad GCUF -1.17438 .63749 .066 -2.4257 .0770 UET Lahore .97792 .68327 .153 -.3633 2.3191 UET Lahore University of -2.98834* .71897 .000 -4.3996 -1.5770 Education GCWUF -1.30565* .62014 .036 -2.5230 -.0883 Riphah -2.82639* .65805 .000 -4.1181 -1.5347 University University of -6.67624* .66417 .000 -7.9800 -5.3725 Faisalabad GCUF -2.15230* .61038 .000 -3.3505 -.9541 NTU -.97792 .68327 .153 -2.3191 .3633

Table 39.c shows that the external stakeholders of University of Education are different to GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, NTU and UET, however, external stakeholders of UE are not different from Riphah University and GCUF. Similarly, the external stakeholders of GCWUF are divergent from university of Education, Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, UET but are not divergent from GCUF and NTU. External stakeholders of Riphah University are different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, NTU and UET Lahore but are not different from UE and GCUF. External stakeholders of University of Faisalabad are different from all other universities. External Stakeholders of GCUF are dissimilar from, University of Faisalabad, and UET, but is not dissimilar from GCWUF UE, GCUF and Riphah University. External Stakeholders of NTU is assorted from University of Faisalabad, UE and Riphah University and is not assorted from GCWUF, GCUF, and UET, Lahore.

123

Table 40.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Good Governess

University N Mean SD

University of Education 80 20.0250 4.18549

GCWUF 143 18.9860 4.09222

Riphah University 111 20.6161 4.25751

University of Faisalabad 107 24.1131 3.14712

GCUF 154 19.6039 4.53226

NTU 96 19.5948 4.46418

UET Lahore 111 18.3089 4.56329

Total 802 20.0971 4.53610

The table 40 a shows that the respondents from University of Faisalabad are more satisfied with Good Governess due to greater mean score (M=24.11). The UET Lahore are less satisfied with Good Governess university atmosphere due to minimum mean score (M=18.30).

Table 40.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with University Good Governess

University Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 2349.152 6 391.525

Within Groups 14132.372 795 17.777 22.025 .000

Total 16481.523 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table 40 b, the value F(6, 801)=22.025, and P=.000 the participants showed significant result about university Good Governess. It means that

124

the fluctuations lies between the faculties or means scores. There is no effect of each faculty to another faculty. These results show that there is an effective use of distance learning materials. They are satisfied with the ways/procedure for recruitment of senior administration in the university. They are contented with the procedure of foreign faculty hiring. Society linkage of teaching faculty is acceptable. Accountability procedure in the university is effective.

Table 40.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with University Good Governess

(I) University (J) University Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Name Name Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound University of GCWUF 1.03899 .58866 .078 -.1165 2.1945 Education Riphah -.59111 .61835 .339 -1.8049 .6227 University University of -4.08806* .62317 .000 -5.3113 -2.8648 Faisalabad GCUF .42110 .58107 .469 -.7195 1.5617 NTU .43024 .63826 .500 -.8226 1.6831 UET Lahore 1.71607* .61835 .006 .5023 2.9299 GCWUF University of -1.03899 .58866 .078 -2.1945 .1165 Education Riphah -1.63010* .53335 .002 -2.6770 -.5832 University University of -5.12704* .53893 .000 -6.1849 -4.0691 Faisalabad GCUF -.61788 .48964 .207 -1.5790 .3433 NTU -.60875 .55631 .274 -1.7008 .4833 UET Lahore .67708 .53335 .205 -.3699 1.7240 Riphah University of .59111 .61835 .339 -.6227 1.8049 University Education GCWUF 1.63010* .53335 .002 .5832 2.6770 University of -3.49695* .57121 .000 -4.6182 -2.3757 Faisalabad GCUF 1.01222 .52496 .054 -.0183 2.0427 NTU 1.02135 .58764 .083 -.1322 2.1749 UET Lahore 2.30718* .56595 .000 1.1962 3.4181 University of University of 4.08806* .62317 .000 2.8648 5.3113 Faisalabad Education GCWUF 5.12704* .53893 .000 4.0691 6.1849

125

Riphah 3.49695* .57121 .000 2.3757 4.6182 University GCUF 4.50916* .53063 .000 3.4676 5.5508 NTU 4.51830* .59271 .000 3.3548 5.6818 UET Lahore 5.80413* .57121 .000 4.6829 6.9254 GCUF University of -.42110 .58107 .469 -1.5617 .7195 Education GCWUF .61788 .48964 .207 -.3433 1.5790 Riphah -1.01222 .52496 .054 -2.0427 .0183 University University of -4.50916* .53063 .000 -5.5508 -3.4676 Faisalabad NTU .00913 .54827 .987 -1.0671 1.0854 UET Lahore 1.29497* .52496 .014 .2645 2.3254 NTU University of -.43024 .63826 .500 -1.6831 .8226 Education GCWUF .60875 .55631 .274 -.4833 1.7008 Riphah -1.02135 .58764 .083 -2.1749 .1322 University University of -4.51830* .59271 .000 -5.6818 -3.3548 Faisalabad GCUF -.00913 .54827 .987 -1.0854 1.0671 UET Lahore 1.28583* .58764 .029 .1323 2.4393 UET Lahore University of -1.71607* .61835 .006 -2.9299 -.5023 Education GCWUF -.67708 .53335 .205 -1.7240 .3699 Riphah -2.30718* .56595 .000 -3.4181 -1.1962 University University of -5.80413* .57121 .000 -6.9254 -4.6829 Faisalabad GCUF -1.29497* .52496 .014 -2.3254 -.2645 NTU -1.28583* .58764 .029 -2.4393 -.1323

Table 40 c shows that the Good Governess of University of Education is not different from GCWUF and Riphah University, GCUF and NTU. Good Governess of UOE is different from University of Faisalabad and UET, Lahore. Similarly, the Good Governess of GCWUF is different from Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, but is not different from University of Education, UET, LHR GCUF and NTU.

Good Governess of Riphah University is different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad and UET Lahore but is not different from UE, NTU and GCUF. Good Governess of University of Faisalabad is different from all other universities. Good

126

Governess of GCUF is different from University of Faisalabad and UET, LHR and is not different from GCWUF, UE, GCUF and Riphah University. Good Governess of NTU is different from University of Faisalabad, GCWUF, UE and Riphah and is not different with GCUF, UET, and Lahore. Good Governess of UET Lahore is different from UE, Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, GCUF and NTU and is not different from GCWUF.

Table 41.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Academic Leadership

University N Mean SD

University of Education 80 17.8500 3.69433

GCWUF 143 17.0979 3.74977

Riphah University 111 18.3847 3.68059

University of Faisalabad 107 20.8037 2.47417

GCUF 154 16.9286 3.76448

NTU 96 16.2292 4.03792

UET Lahore 111 16.0682 4.12965

Total 802 17.5664 3.95417

Table 41. a shows that the respondents from University of Faisalabad are more satisfied with Academic leadership due to greater mean score (M=20.80). The GCUF are less satisfied with Academic leadership university atmosphere due to minimum mean score (M=16.06).

127

Table 41.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with University Academic Leadership

University Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square

Between Groups 1717.023 6 286.171

Within Groups 10806.957 795 13.594 21.052 .000

Total 12523.980 801

(p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table F(6,801)=21.052, P=.000 indicates that the participants showed significant result about university Academic Leadership. It means that the fluctuations lies between the faculties or means scores. There is no effect of each faculty to another faculty. These results show that there is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and teaching in their university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the improvement strategy. Their academic leaders refrain from criticizing the mistakes so as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Their academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere with students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation.

Table 41.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with University Academic Leadership

(I) University (J) University Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Name Name Difference Error Lower Upper Bound (I-J) Bound University of GCWUF .75210 .51476 .144 -.2584 1.7626 Education Riphah -.53468 .54073 .323 -1.5961 .5267 University University of -2.95374* .54494 .000 -4.0234 -1.8840 Faisalabad GCUF .92143 .50813 .070 -.0760 1.9189 NTU 1.62083* .55814 .004 .5252 2.7164 UET Lahore 1.78183* .54073 .001 .7204 2.8433 GCWUF University of -.75210 .51476 .144 -1.7626 .2584 Education

128

Riphah -1.28678* .46640 .006 -2.2023 -.3713 University University of -3.70584* .47128 .000 -4.6309 -2.7807 Faisalabad GCUF .16933 .42817 .693 -.6712 1.0098 NTU .86874 .48648 .075 -.0862 1.8237 UET Lahore 1.02974* .46640 .028 .1142 1.9453 Riphah University of .53468 .54073 .323 -.5267 1.5961 University Education GCWUF 1.28678* .46640 .006 .3713 2.2023 University of -2.41906* .49951 .000 -3.3996 -1.4385 Faisalabad GCUF 1.45611* .45906 .002 .5550 2.3572 NTU 2.15551* .51387 .000 1.1468 3.1642 UET Lahore 2.31651* .49490 .000 1.3450 3.2880 University of University of 2.95374* .54494 .000 1.8840 4.0234 Faisalabad Education GCWUF 3.70584* .47128 .000 2.7807 4.6309 Riphah 2.41906* .49951 .000 1.4385 3.3996 University GCUF 3.87517* .46402 .000 2.9643 4.7860 NTU 4.57457* .51831 .000 3.5572 5.5920 UET Lahore 4.73557* .49951 .000 3.7551 5.7161 GCUF University of -.92143 .50813 .070 -1.9189 .0760 Education GCWUF -.16933 .42817 .693 -1.0098 .6712 Riphah -1.45611* .45906 .002 -2.3572 -.5550 University University of -3.87517* .46402 .000 -4.7860 -2.9643 Faisalabad NTU .69940 .47945 .145 -.2417 1.6405 UET Lahore .86041 .45906 .061 -.0407 1.7615 NTU University of -1.62083* .55814 .004 -2.7164 -.5252 Education GCWUF -.86874 .48648 .075 -1.8237 .0862 Riphah -2.15551* .51387 .000 -3.1642 -1.1468 University University of -4.57457* .51831 .000 -5.5920 -3.5572 Faisalabad GCUF -.69940 .47945 .145 -1.6405 .2417 UET Lahore .16100 .51387 .754 -.8477 1.1697 UET Lahore University of -1.78183* .54073 .001 -2.8433 -.7204 Education

129

GCWUF -1.02974* .46640 .028 -1.9453 -.1142 Riphah -2.31651* .49490 .000 -3.2880 -1.3450 University University of -4.73557* .49951 .000 -5.7161 -3.7551 Faisalabad GCUF -.86041 .45906 .061 -1.7615 .0407 NTU -.16100 .51387 .754 -1.1697 .8477

Table 41.c shows that the Academic leadership of University of Education is not different from GCWUF, Riphah University and GCUF”. Academic leadership of UOE is different from University of Faisalabad, NTU, and UET, Lahore. Similarly, the Academic leadership of GCWUF is different from Riphah University, University of Faisalabad and UET but is not different from University of Education, GCUF and NTU. Academic leadership of Riphah University is different from GCWUF, University of Faisalabad, NTU, GCUF and UET, Lahore but is not different from UOE. Academic leadership of University of Faisalabad is different from all other universities. Academic leadership of GCUF is different from University of Faisalabad, UOE, and Riphah University and is not different from GCWUF, GCUF and University of Faisalabad. Academic leadership of NTU is different from University of Education and Riphah University and is not different from GCUF, GCWUF, UET Lahore. Academic leadership of UET Lahore is different with UE, Riphah University, University of Faisalabad, and GCUWF, and is not different from GCUF and NTU.

130

Table 42.a

Showing participants Satisfactions with Staff Development

University N Mean SD

University of Education 80 7.0250 1.81398

GCWUF 143 6.5035 1.95324

Riphah University 111 7.0721 1.80762

University of Faisalabad 107 8.2056 1.21110

GCUF 154 6.8701 3.70603

NTU 96 6.3333 2.00875

UET Lahore 111 6.3765 2.01780

Total 802 6.8938 2.37548

The table 42.a shows that the respondents from University of Faisalabad are more satisfied with Staff Development due to greater mean score (M=8.20). The NTU are less satisfied with Staff Development due to minimum mean score (M=6.33).

Table 42.b

Showing participants Satisfaction with Staff Development

University Sum of DF Mean F P squares Square Between Groups 270.768 6 45.128 Within Groups 4249.200 795 5.345 8.443 .000 Total 4519.969 801 (p<0.05), (p<0.01)

According to results of above table F(6,801)=8.443, P=.000 the participants showed significant result about university Staff Development. It means that the fluctuations lies between the faculties or means scores. There is no effect of each faculty to another faculty. These results show that social services including health are available in

131

the campus. They are comfortable with the chances of getting hired /employed after completing studies from the university. Emphasis is placed on staff development. Table 42.c

Showing participants Satisfaction with Staff Development

(I) University (J) University Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Name Name Difference Error (I-J) Lower Upper Bound Bound

University of GCWUF .52150 .32278 .107 -.1121 1.1551 Education Riphah -.04707 .33906 .890 -.7126 .6185 University

University of -1.18061* .34171 .001 -1.8514 -.5099 Faisalabad

GCUF .15487 .31862 .627 -.4706 .7803

NTU .69167* .34998 .048 .0047 1.3787

UET Lahore .64854 .33906 .056 -.0170 1.3141

GCWUF University of -.52150 .32278 .107 -1.1551 .1121 Education

Riphah -.56858 .29245 .052 -1.1426 .0055 University

University of -1.70211* .29552 .000 -2.2822 -1.1220 Faisalabad

GCUF -.36663 .26848 .172 -.8937 .1604

NTU .17016 .30505 .577 -.4286 .7690

UET Lahore .12703 .29245 .664 -.4470 .7011

Riphah University of .04707 .33906 .890 -.6185 .7126 University Education

GCWUF .56858 .29245 .052 -.0055 1.1426

University of -1.13354* .31322 .000 -1.7484 -.5187 Faisalabad

GCUF .20194 .28785 .483 -.3631 .7670

NTU .73874* .32222 .022 .1062 1.3712

132

UET Lahore .69561* .31033 .025 .0864 1.3048

University of University of 1.18061* .34171 .001 .5099 1.8514 Faisalabad Education

GCWUF 1.70211* .29552 .000 1.1220 2.2822

Riphah 1.13354* .31322 .000 .5187 1.7484 University

GCUF 1.33548* .29096 .000 .7643 1.9066

NTU 1.87227* .32501 .000 1.2343 2.5102

UET Lahore 1.82914* .31322 .000 1.2143 2.4440

GCUF University of -.15487 .31862 .627 -.7803 .4706 Education

GCWUF .36663 .26848 .172 -.1604 .8937

Riphah -.20194 .28785 .483 -.7670 .3631 University

University of -1.33548* .29096 .000 -1.9066 -.7643 Faisalabad

NTU .53680 .30064 .075 -.0533 1.1269

UET Lahore .49367 .28785 .087 -.0714 1.0587

NTU University of -.69167* .34998 .048 -1.3787 -.0047 Education

GCWUF -.17016 .30505 .577 -.7690 .4286

Riphah -.73874* .32222 .022 -1.3712 -.1062 University

University of -1.87227* .32501 .000 -2.5102 -1.2343 Faisalabad

GCUF -.53680 .30064 .075 -1.1269 .0533

UET Lahore -.04313 .32222 .894 -.6756 .5894

UET Lahore University of -.64854 .33906 .056 -1.3141 .0170 Education

GCWUF -.12703 .29245 .664 -.7011 .4470

Riphah -.69561* .31033 .025 -1.3048 -.0864 University

133

University of -1.82914* .31322 .000 -2.4440 -1.2143 Faisalabad

GCUF -.49367 .28785 .087 -1.0587 .0714

NTU .04313 .32222 .894 -.5894 .6756

Table shows that the responses regarding staff development of University of Education is different from University of Faisalabad, NTU but not different from GCWUF, Riphah University, GCUF and UET Lahore. The responses regarding staff development GCWUF is different from University of Faisalabad, but not different from University of Education, Riphah University, GCUF, NTU and UET Lahore.

The responses regarding staff development of Riphah University is different from University of Faisalabad, NTU and UET Lahore but not different from University of Education, GCWUF, GCUF. The responses regarding staff development of University of Faisalabad is different from University of Education, GCWUF, Riphah University, GCUF, NTU and UET Lahore.

Staff Development of GCUF is different from University of Faisalabad but not different from University of Education, GCWUF, Riphah University, NTU and UET Lahore.

FOCUSED DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR ACADEMIC LEADERS

Seven principals, seven University Vice Chancellors and 07 Deans were selected randomly for interviews.

Seven principals included four male, 03 females from Govt. institutions, 05 colleges were urban whereas 02 colleges were from rural area. The main purpose of discussion was to collect information and views from senior academic leaders with meritorious services thus it was thought that they will help in formulation of better opinion and streamlining the thoughts which will be an addition to the knowledge already achieved through questionnaires from different stakeholders. The mixture proved to be quite beneficial having views from both giving and taking ends.

Proper protocol for interviews was worked out. List of expected respondents was prepared and keeping in mind the gender and location factor in mind. Telephonic contact

134

was established with interviewees. Date, time and place for interviews were mutually decided and the topic of research was conveyed to them well in time so that they could carry out self-brain storming in their own time. Having reached on the given date and time at the already decided place, the researcher received a friendly welcome from all which amply helped in creating a healthy and pleasant atmosphere for discussion. First few minutes were spent to improve upon already existing rapport with the interviewee by exchanging pleasantries and asking introductory questions. The interview lasted for 40 to 45 minutes in each case. Question wise response was as under.

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE OF PRINCIPALS OF AFFILIATED COLLEGES Question 1. Are you satisfied with the services being provided to you by the university with whom your college is affiliated?

Summary of Responses:

Majority of the principals were not satisfied with the services being provided by the concerned universities. They were of the opinion that affiliation is only for the taking exams by the university and later awarding degree to students and pointed out that fee charged for this purpose are on the higher side which students feels difficult to pay. After the exam, degree awarding process is delayed unnecessarily which create problems for placement of students. At times delay is prolonged to years. Except the above no other facility is provided by the universities. There is no help desk in the universities to guide the students and teachers of the affiliated colleges. Majority of the respondents complained that they were ignored as a stakeholder and universities are mostly concerned with collection of money. Some respondents suggested that universities should provide better services and guidance to improve the quality of education and quality research in affiliated colleges. There should be frequent interaction between senior academic leaders and the teaching staff of the affiliated colleges. Services of the libraries of universities be opened for students of affiliated colleges as they are the major stakeholder.

Question 2.What will you say about the examination methodology and examination system?

135

Summary of Responses:

Majority of the respondents had the opinion that there are two parallel systems going on in the universities. Majority of the affiliated colleges have annual system whereas some universities have semester system examination. This dual system carries multiple problems, but the good thing is that Higher Education department is alive to the problem and is taking appropriate steps to overcome this issue. At time the results are unnecessarily delayed particularly in cases of later results students’ faces lot of difficulties in this situation. Fee structure for examination varies university to university. Private universities are charging very exuberant fees as compared to public sector universities. Even among public sector universities there is a lot of difference. There is no proper system of regular meetings between the concerned university staff and staff of Public Sector University. Timely passing on of required information are also lacking.

Question 3. Does the institution has a feedback system from students taking admission in universities after qualifying from college?

Summary of Responses:

Almost all the principals declared that there is no system prevalent in the institution. It does exist at individual and personalized level but not institutionalized. They agreed to the benefits of the system to create regimentation. The system will prove better for quality education and for further improvement by plugging in deficiencies and weaknesses.

Question 4. Does the institution have a placement record of old students or has the institution created alumni?

Summary of Responses:

Almost all the respondents agreed that there is no such system in the institution few old institutions except all of them agreed with the benefits of the system particularly in this era of globalization of education. The system can help raise the quality of education in the institution and good practices at other places can be replicated. After qualifying students get spread all over the world and can prove to be the link between the institution and rest of the world. Some of the old institutions are benefitting from the system in the shape of fund raising, exchange of views and news and help by the senior alumni to junior alumni.

136

Question 5. Are you satisfied with the standard of education and its outcome?

Summary of Responses:

Majority of the respondents stressed that the standard of education in universities is not up to mark and much more has to be done to come upto international standards. There are various reasons for this. Standard of education at lower level is not upto mark because of which the base and individual education is weak that make it difficult to grasp the concept at higher level. Besides this, there is no mechanism of guidance or counseling for students. Policy of admission at university and college level is another major reason for poor standard of education at tertiary level. Political interference in matters of admission and recruitment of staff in educational institutions is another major reason for low standards of education. Policy for ranking of university is also to be blamed for this as the universities lay more stress on quantity of no. of students, programmes and not the quality. Mechanism of monitoring and evaluation of mushroom growth of private universities is also not up to mark. Some of the respondents pointed out curriculum both at lower and higher level of education for decline in standards of quality education. They argue that our curriculum does not meet the market demand and is not demand oriented. Methodology of teaching and pattern of examination also come under criticism by some of the respondents. Few of the respondents pointed out that we do have some institutions in our country like LUMS, GIK, IBA, Agha Khan University which conveniently match international standards. Government should get their help and follow their pattern to improve upon the quality of education at higher level. Curriculum should be standardized for the whole country and should be tailored as per market demand.

Analysis of Responses of Vice Chancellors and Deans of different Universities Question 01. Are you satisfied with the overall Government policy regarding quality education at tertiary level in the country?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the respondents were of the opinion that the present policy regarding quality education at tertiary level in the country is not up to mark. They pointed out that first of all the concept regarding quality education is not clear. Everyone has his own views regarding quality education. Some scholars think that quality is about getting good

137

marks, some considers learning outcomes to be the sign of quality education, some considers good buildings, good infrastructure as a standard of quality education. In short judging, quality is always controversial. Comparison between the universities at national and international level is very difficult and tedious job.

Various governments in the country have been preparing and announcing educational plans including that for tertiary education but these were never implemented or implemented half-heartedly in bits and pieces. There has never been one solid plan which got fully implemented with continuity. There is a requirement of quality assurance after having attained quality. Higher Education Commission has worked on this to some extent and have issued Quality Assurance Manual for all universities but that is also not exhaustive and up to mark because before going after quality assurance Higher Education Commission must ensure achievement of proper quality. Some of the respondents were partially satisfied with the standard of quality education at tertiary level because they claimed that the quality is improving with the passage of time. They were of the view that quality is not static or absolute. This is ever progressing phenomenon and comparative term. They compared the quality of tertiary education in the past as it existed at the time of creation of Pakistan and in the present as today. They claimed that we have gone a long way in improving quality and will continue doing so. They were of the opinion that quality in higher education is an intricate and complicated phenomenon. Quality education at tertiary level is dependent on multiple factors such as quality of faculty and students coupled with curriculum and infrastructure including learning environment and so many others factors. These all needs time and resources along with the political will which are not available.

Question 02. Are you satisfied with your role regarding formulation of syndicate and other statutory bodies of the University?

Summary of Responses:

Syndicate and other statutory bodies of the university are very good tools for oversight & regulation and good governance. Governing Bodies must be result oriented and professional entities. Majority of the respondents pointed out that because of variance in Acts under which a university is raised, there are some universities where Vice Chancellor heads the syndicate and in other universities it is either Education Minister or somebody else. This difference should be removed, where Vice Chancellor head the

138

regulatory body there it becomes one man show. The purpose of oversight is defeated and a monopoly is created. There is a practice that in syndicate and other regulatory bodies political representatives are made members. Though this practice is covered under the act but such like practice is counterproductive. It opens corridors for political involvement. Moreover no criteria is laid down for such like representation. The nomination of members so selected for regulatory bodies must pass through certain procedure and criteria be fixed so that these regulatory bodies could be profession oriented. Quite a few respondents were satisfied with the existing practice. Some of the respondents suggested that syndicate and the other regulatory bodies of the university be headed by the some professional other than Vice Chancellor or Minister for a better oversight and there should be a proper evaluation system for each body and each member regarding their contribution. Few respondents suggested that in order to provide continuity to the policies, the syndicate structure should be on the lines of senate where half of the members should be replaced at one time and not the whole body.

Question 03. What problems you face in contacting various stakeholders getting their input, standards of their knowledge, expertise and experience?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the respondents were of the opinion that there is not much of awareness among stakeholders regarding their responsibilities toward educational institution as this is not practicable extensively in our country. Even the university authorities does not have a clear cut mechanism to engage different type of stakeholders, may be internal or external stakeholders. The society at large is not aware of their responsibilities whereas the society as whole is the largest stakeholder in educational institution particularly in universities. These external stakeholders who are involved in the university activities give comparatively slow response and their input is minimal. Stakeholders having requisite expertise and experience also either over busy or not inclined to offer their services. This might be because of laziness or materialistic approach or ignorance. The university also does not take much of pain to activate Stakeholders because they also consider it to be an extra headache. The university authorities also wish to live in their own shell and do not encourage outside interference. HEC is required to streamline the policy regarding involvement of Stakeholders particularly the external Stakeholders. HEC should undertake an awareness campaign at national level for prospective Stakeholders. Input by

139

Stakeholders at university level and handling of Stakeholders by university authorities should be considered while evaluating the ranking of universities.

Question 04. What you have to say about the standard of knowledge of intake of students at initial stage?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the respondents were of the opinion that standard of knowledge of new intake in university vary depending on the university itself and the institution from where students are coming. It is mainly because there is no one system of education in the country. Curriculum is not standardized nationally. Universities having better reputation attract better students. The intake is different at different level, some of the universities have started programmes for secondary school certificate pass students and second level for intake is FA/F.Sc qualified students. Third level is after graduation and last level of intake is post graduate level. Standard of knowledge are varying at all levels. Some of the respondents also blamed the examination system for variance in educational standards of student intake. Educational standard varies from district to district. There is a clear-cut demarcation of standards between backward and advanced districts. There is a variance in educational standard between public and private institution. Teaching styles and knowledge of teachers at lower level institutions is another contributing factor towards poor standards of knowledge in the new intake. Until and unless the base of knowledge is not strong, it is difficult to build a strong building on a weak base, therefore to improve educational standard of knowledge at university level it is must to develop strong base knowledge at lower level institution.

Question 5. You may like to comment on the quality of research in the universities and opportunities available?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the respondents were keen to first spell out quality research and according to them major ingredient in quality research is that how much useful contribution is provided to the society by a particular research work, may be in long or short term. They further opined that there is no fixed or uniform method to measure research quality in a reliable way. There is no fixed way to ensure high quality research. Most of the interviewees were of the opinion that research in our universities need more efforts to

140

make it a quality research. It needs much more efforts through considerate and deliberate approach at all levels in tertiary level education institutions. Government and HEC together have to identify the strategic goals to be achieved through research work. Based on this strategic requirement the planning is to be done by the university top management in consultation with Deans and department heads. Some of the respondents were of the view that required autonomy is not available to the researchers. At time paucity of funds became a major hurdle for research work. Lack of good scientific infrastructure with regard to technical and intellectual resources is a major weakness responsible for poor research work. Few of the interviewees pointed out that young researchers should be encouraged and monopoly of seniors in this field should be avoided. Until and unless proper tools are not provided to the researchers, it is difficult to get good results from research groups. The researchers must be provided proper tools so as to develop and improve their knowledge and skills to the international level. Research team always require good and efficient administration support. At initial level experimental methodology is poorly taught even where adequate resources exist. In Pakistan, education institution research has not been properly understood and criteria for its assessment is most of the time not exhaustive. Most of the respondents were of the opinion that research projects should be evaluated meticulously under set criteria rather than shooting in the dark.

Question 06. Are you satisfied with the amount of funds available and policy to spend the same?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the interviewees were of the opinion that funds are sufficient. Most of the universities received funds through various sources. Main sources are HEC, Federal and provincial governments, donor agencies, local fund generation, scholarships and stipends. They raised a main question that utilization of funds is major problem rather than availability of funds. With the passage of time sufficient funds are being given to the universities that but their spending is not rationalized and properly channelized. Its improper use leads to poor outcome of quality education and quality research. It is a common practice that the universities spend large amounts on purchases of costly equipment without much purpose. Unnecessary money is spent on administrative aspects and collection of database. Some of the respondents also pointed out that huge expenses

141

is made on publication to augment publication numbers of individual teachers. Few of the interviewees suggested that there is requirement to prioritize the spending of funds reserved for research.

Question 07. What are your views regarding monetary contribution by stakeholders?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the interviewees were of the opinion that in this case we will have to categorize the stakeholders. Students are the main stakeholders. They contribute monetarily in the shape of tuition fees and other subscriptions. It varies from university to university even in public universities. Some of the public universities charge heavy fees whereas the other charge normal. The case of private universities stands almost different. Besides students as stakeholders the industry also contribute the share of money as stakeholders. They may bring about a project for which they want research work against payment. The next category of stakeholder contributing monetarily is Alumni. In some of the universities particularly old universities Alumni meets on yearly basis and contribute monetarily to the institution. Civil society as a stakeholder have a lesser tendency regarding monitory contribution but they do contribute in term of their expertise, time and consultation. Some of the respondents were of the opinion that there is a need to make society aware of their responsibilities towards education of their next generation.

Question 08. What have you to say about mushroom growth of universities in public sector, particularly their standards of outcome both in the education and research?

Summary of Responses:

The answer to the question differed reasonably and most of the respondents had varied opinion. Some of the interviewees were of the opinion that the growth in private sector is very much required whereas the others were critical that growth of universities in private sector turning education into business which is very harmful for quality education. Few of the respondents had a midway approach and they were appreciative of contribution of some of the private sector universities and at the some critical of the other private universities where tuition fee is higher, but the education standard was low. Some of the respondents suggested that there is a dire requirement for growth of universities in private sector so as to fill the gap not covered by public universities. With the rapid

142

increase of population and awareness regarding education the private sector will have to put in a bigger share to meet the deficiency and to occupy space not covered by public sector. At the same time government have to strengthen regulatory system to ensure that private sector does not exploit the situation through the existing regulatory mechanism even now exist which is not very effective because of which education system is being commercialized gradually. Most of the universities have entered in the field in order to make money. If this trend is not checked, it is feared that our education system will further derail bringing in national disaster.

Question 09. Do you have placement record system of your students?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the interviewees told that there is no regular or institutionalized system to maintain to placement record in the institutions. Some of the respondent explained that at time some sort of gathering of old students does take place at department level. They all agreed that this should be done, and all educational institutions should have a proper and institutionalized system to maintain placement record. It has numerous advantages. The university will have an opportunity to remain in touch with their old students and students will as well remain in touch with their old institutions thus creating a regimentation between the two. After having completed their studies, students get job opportunities in all corners of the country and internationally. They become the representatives / ambassadors of their institution at that place where they are working. This helps build images of the institutions in the area. They can be of great help for the new graduates of their universities for their placement in the area. Some of these rise to great heights in their fields. These can be a source of pride for their institution and inspiration for new students. It helps create proper Alumni which can be considered as a very good stakeholder.

Placement record will help construct an alumni for the institution. Members of the alumni can always provide feedback to their institutions which may prove useful for improvement in existing practices in the university. They may pass on good practices being followed at various places. Exchange of information benefits both sides. Most of the respondents were aware of the advantages of the system but were not sensitized toward that.

143

Question 10. Are you satisfied with existing overall standard of quality of teachers and their teaching?

Summary of Responses:

Most of the respondents agreed that there is no perfect yardstick to measure the quality of a teacher and their teaching. Basic yardstick is the qualification of a teacher and the results, his students produces in the examination. It is presumed that a person with PhD degree will be better equipped with knowledge as compared to graduate/post graduate person. In other case, a teacher whose class produces better results in examination will be considered better than the teacher whose class does not produces a good result. Having said that it is clarified that this yardstick does not hold good every time everywhere. There are two main branches i.e. science, social science (humanities). Both have to be treated differently. Our standards of teachers can be judged from a fact that in our teaching styles and methodology rote learning dominate at lower level of education rather even at times at university level. Some of the respondents explained that one of the factors associated with poor performance of the teachers is that they only rely on books read during their studentship or even their notes taken during their student’s days. Most of the teachers are not interested to keep their knowledge updated. Few of the interviewees pointed out that as the pay of teaching staff is insufficient to maintain their normal domestic expenses, therefore they resort to other activities like part time business, academy or private institution. Where they exhaust their energies more as compared to their job in government institution. The conversion from annual system (British style) to semester system. American style has also contributed towards difference in performance of teachers. Some of the respondents suggested that the system of counseling/guidance regarding solving the papers should be devised in all colleges and universities particularly where semester system is followed. Teachers must show them marked answer sheets to the students and discuss. Many foreign scholarships are offered to university faculty members.

Many scholarships go unutilized because the applicants do not achieve the required scores in graduate record exam (GRE). Weaknesses in answering question. Teachers must suggest ways and means to improve the style of answering the question. It was further pointed out that use of library/internet for enhancing knowledge is not up to mark. The use of libraries has to be created, enhanced and library service for each college

144

and university has to be brought up to international standard. Most of the libraries are closed as per college/university timings whereas maximum use of libraries should be made by the students after college/university official timings particularly at night. Libraries should be made attractive by provision of better services and better study atmosphere. These should be equipped with latest edition of the publications and master of art internet service. One of the interviewee summed up argument by saying “ignorant must not teach the ignorant”. This is only possible if the best material in the nation is attracted towards teaching profession in the society. Maximum concentration on selection and training of the teachers are required. Integrity and dignity should be hallmark of a good teacher. It is only possible once highest priority is allocated to this profession.

145

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDING, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The prime objective of this study was to explore the role of various stakeholders in relation to improve quality in educational institutions at tertiary level in Pakistan for this purpose there was a necessity to define stakeholder and categories of the stakeholders. Along with this concept of quality education at tertiary level was to be highlighted. Role of stakeholders could not be defined until and unless the responsibilities of the academic leadership were discussed. Results of analysis using descriptive statistics to examine participation have been worked out and the finding are reported through use of an independent test. Results are presented of and between groups using ANOVA, used to examine difference on such scales of questionnaire for different factors. The study basically carried mixed design approach i.e. quantitative cum qualitative. Quantitative data was collected from the random accessible population selected through a questionnaire containing 72 questions. For qualitative data open ended questions were framed and an interview protocol was designed for senior academic leaders. The questionnaire designed for quantitative discussion consisted of three sections i.e. section A for demographic information, section B consisted of 72 questions under 10 factors. Section C consisted of 3 open ended questions. The questions based on five-point rating ranging between strongly disagree to strongly agree. Open ended questions invited comments and suggestions from the respondents. The instrument was validated through expert opinion.

The questionnaires were piloted on a sample basis. Data was collected at places in person by the researcher and at places through a team of facilitators. Available data was analyzed using computer software SPSS. Analysis of quantitative data was carried out through step by step process. Raw data was converted into frequencies and placed in identical categories. Validity of instrument was examined through guidance from relevant experts. The questionnaire and interview protocol documents were examined by experts who were well experienced in the field of higher education. The key findings of the study revealed that quality of education at tertiary level needed more efforts to bring it to international standard whereas the stakeholders were satisfied with the progress made in

146

the previous year's regarding intake of students in tertiary level educational institutions and the growth of numbers of universities both in public and private sector.

The result indicates satisfaction of female with recruitment procedure of teaching staff whereas the males are less satisfied and so is the case regarding results about academic leadership and good governance in the universities. HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied regarding learning environment as compared to civil society. Parents are more satisfied as far as input of stakeholders are concerned as compared to civil society. Principals of affiliated colleges were less satisfied as regards role of external stakeholders as compared to faculty of tertiary education institutions. HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied regarding student support service as compared to civil society respondents. As regards to teachers’ quality HOD/Senior Academia/Administration were more satisfied as compared to civil society. Objectives of the study were kept in mind while formulating the questions to be asked from various respondents. Response to questionnaire by various respondents should be able to provide important information base for improvement of quality education at tertiary level. Study aimed at enhancing academic leadership role in improvement of quality at tertiary education. Main purpose of study aimed at facilitating the policy makers in deriving suitable strategies for further plans of getting better quality by enhancing the role of stakeholders both internal and external.

FINDING

Factor wise comparison of respondents

1. Majority of females are agreed that ample material such as books, research papers and journals are accessible in the university to cover the curricula. Latest technology is assimilated into the curricula. Sufficient resources are available to meet the essentials of curricula. Learning amenities are adequate in the university (teaching accommodation, teaching aids, laboratories, computers, field work facilities). There is abundant use of latest technology in teaching and research in the university.

2. The majority of female respondents (M=32.33, SD=6.88) agreed to quality of culture in their university. They are comfortable with learning resources in the university. They are thrilled with teachers training after their selection before undertakings their

147

duties. The institution staff encounters the necessities of academic standards while Males are less agreed with the statement.

3. Female ((M=24.52, SD=5.21)feels that their assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to response to organizational needs is satisfactory. They are pleased with the system of maintaining high degree of contact by the university with parents of students. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the University for Feedback.

4. There is major difference between Male (M=19.39, SD=4.53) and Female (M=20.84, SD=4.48), It is apparent from P-value (.000) that the results are vital. These results show that female are stable with that there is an effective use of distance learning materials.

5. The majority of female (M=18.08, SD=3.95 were agreed with that there is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and teaching in their university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the improvement strategy.

6. There is considerable variance between Male (M=16.18, SD=3.85) and Female (M=16.99, SD=4.16), t(800)=-2.830. It is apparent from P-value (.005) that the results are meaningful. These results display that Female are settled with the over-all services by civil society to the university. They are at ease with the ability of media to understand specific needs of the university.

7. These results showed that Females approved that University has strong linkage with industry/business and society. University has a complete autonomy. Syndicate and other university committees have relevant representation while Males are less agreed with the statement.

8. There is notable difference between Male (M=13.96, SD=2.97) and Female (M=14.45, SD=3.04), t(800)=-2.257. It is outward from P-value (.024) that the results are considerable. These results showed that Female accepted that harsh & exclusionary discipline practices are avoided in the university.

9. There is meaningful inconsistency between Male (M=10.89, SD=2.43) and Female (M=11.24, SD=2.21), t(800)=-2.079. It is apparent from P-value (.038) that the results were significant. These results show that Females have approved the punctuality of teachers. Their teachers strictly follow the time schedule of lectures. Students are

148

taught complete curriculum within the stipulated time frame. University (e.g. Lecture discussions, Practical, Research assignments, case studies, etc).

10. There is ample difference between Male (M=6.70, SD=2.78) and Female (M=7.08, SD=1.85), t(800)=-2.230. It is obvious from P-value (.026) that the results were substantial. These results show that females have proven that social services including health are available in the campus.

11. There is major difference between Male (M=9.67, SD=2.63) and Female (M=10.51, SD=2.94), t(800)=-4.289. It is deceptive from P-value (.000) that the results are crucial. These results show that Females have shown satisfaction at the Society linkage of university staff while Males are less agreed with the statement.

12. It is ostensible from P-value (.314) that the results were substantial. These results show that Male and Females are satisfied with linkage of the society.

13. Head of Departments/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with learning environment due to greater mean score (M=32.35) and minimum standard deviation (S.D=5.01). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with learning environment due to minimum mean score (M= 25.18) and almost maximum Standard deviation (S.D=6.48).

14. The P= .002 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about learning environment of universities. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders.

15. Learning Environment of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration is different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Civil society, Media, Principle of Affiliated College but not different from Principle of Affiliated College.

16. Learning Environment of Faculty is different is different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Civil society, Media, but not different from Parents, Students, Media, Principle of Affiliated College.

17. HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with Quality Culture due to greater mean score (M=40.91) and minimum standard deviation (S.D=5.04). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Quality Culture due to minimum mean score (M= 32.28).

149

18. The value F (6, 801) =4.068, P= .000 indicate that the participants showed a significant result about Quality Culture. It means that the fluctuation lies between the Stakeholders. These results exhibit that the recruitment procedure of the teaching staff is satisfactory. They are gratified with the obligation of teaching faculty with the students. Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are accessible in the University.

19. The quality culture of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration is different from Civil society but not different from Faculty, Parents, Students, Media, Principle of Affiliated College. quality culture of Faculty is different from Students, Civil society, College but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Parents, Media, Principle of Affiliated College. Quality culture of Parents is different from Civil society but not different from HOD/Senior Academia/Administration, Faculty, Students, Media, Principle of Affiliated College.

20. Parents are more satisfied with External Stakeholders due to greater mean score (M=24.25) and almost minimum standard deviation (S.D=5.17). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with External Stakeholders due to minimum mean score (M= 21.14).

21. No fluctuation lies between the universities Stakeholders. They are pleased with the system of maintaining high degree of contact by the university with parents of students. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the University for Feedback.

22. Parents are more satisfied with Good Governess due to greater mean score (M=20.54).

23. There is no fluctuation between the Stakeholder. They are pleased with the ways/procedure to recruit senior administration in the university.

24. The respondents of HOD/Senior Academia/Administration are more satisfied with Academic Leadership due to greater mean score (M=18.81). The Civil society respondents were less satisfied with Academic Leadership due to minimum mean score (M= 15.25).

150

25. The respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with learning environment whereas respondents from Government College Women University Faisalabad were indecisive about same.

26. Respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with the statement regarding quality culture whereas respondents from university of Engineering & Technology were indecisive about the same.

27. Respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with statement concerning role of external stakeholders and respondents from university of Engineering & Technology were indecisive about the same.

28. As regards good governance the respondents from the University of Faisalabad seem to agree with the statement whereas respondents from the University of Engineering & Technology remain indecisive.

29. Respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with the statement concerning academic leadership whereas respondents from the University of Engineering & Technology remain indecisive about the same.

30. While concerning role of stakeholder’s respondents from university of Faisalabad agreed with the statement while respondents from University of Engineering & Technology remained indecisive.

31. Respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with the statement concerning Governance whereas the respondents from University of Engineering & Technology remain indecisive regarding the same.

32. As regards student support service Respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with the statement whereas respondents from Government College Women University Faisalabad remain indecisive about the same.

33. Respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with the statement concerning teacher’s quality whereas respondents from National Textile University remain indecisive about the statement.

34. As regards staff development respondents from the University of Faisalabad are agreed with the concerned statement whereas respondents from National Textile University remain indecisive about the same.

151

35. Concerning service security on the contrary respondents from University of Engineering & Technology remain indecisive.

Findings Revealed Through Open Ended Questions 1. There is substantial variance in the list of challenges among respondents. 2. Higher percentage believed that job opportunities for qualified scholars were scanty. 3. Majority of the respondents were of the view curriculum that followed in most of the institutions did not meet international standards and was not market demand driven. 4. Lack of appropriate priorities of the Government was a concern of majority of the respondents. 5. Almost all of the respondents were of the view that quality of education in most of the universities contributed maximum towards the failure of education system in the country. 6. Majority of the respondents agreed that political interference particularly in public education institutions causes hurdles in improvement of quality education. 7. Non-standardization of educational system in the country was considered as one of the major problem in education sector by substantial number of respondents. 8. Inappropriate selection of members of regulatory bodies of university causes deterioration in standards was considered as one of the major problem in quality education.

FINDINGS REVEALED DURING FOCUSED DISCUSSION IN INTERVIEW PROTOCOL WITH SENIOR ACADEMIC LEADERS

Principals of affiliated colleges 1. Majority of the respondents were not satisfied with the provision of services. Most of the respondents pointed out that they were ignored as a stakeholder.

2. Majority of the respondents showed their dissatisfaction with the prevalent examination system in the country as there were parallel system of examination in the country covering multiple problems. Most of the respondents were not satisfied even with the methodology of examination particularly regarding delay in conduct in exam and announcement of results.

152

3. All the respondents opined that there was no such institutionalized system in the institution.

4. Majority of the interviewees stressed that standard educational system is not up to mark. Outcome of education was also not appropriate. Few of the respondents pointed out that lack of good infrastructure with regard to technical and intellectual resources is another contributing factor towards low quality research. Young researchers are not encouraged as the senior few in the field enjoy monopoly over research work. Some of the respondents pointed out that research project evaluation is not up to mark thus effecting quality research.

Vice Chancellors and Deans of the Universities 1. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that the present policy regarding quality education at tertiary level is not up to international standard. Concept regarding quality education is not properly clear in spite of the fact that many times national policies in this regard were framed. Some of the respondents were satisfied, they were of the opinion that the quality of education is getting better with the passage of the time.

2. Majority of the respondents pointed out that there is a variance in Act of universities because of this the formulation of regulatory bodies differs. Political interference in nomination of members create problems and is counterproductive. Few of the respondents were satisfied with the procedure of nomination in regulatory bodies.

3. Most of the respondents were of the opinion that there is not much of awareness among stakeholders regarding their responsibilities towards educational institutions. There is no clear-cut mechanism to engage different categories of stakeholders. Stakeholders having requisite experience and expertise are either over busy or not inclined towards giving their share. The institutions as well do not take pain to attract the stakeholders. External stakeholders at times indulge themselves into daily routine and minor administration problems of the institutions.

4. Majority of the respondents responded that the standards of knowledge of intake vary depending on the university itself and the institution from where students are coming. Majority of the students do not have adequate knowledge. There is a clear- cut variance in standards of knowledge between backward districts and advanced

153

districts. Teaching style and teacher’s knowledge at lower level institutions is another contributing factor towards poor standard of knowledge of new intake in the universities.

5. Most of the respondents revealed that there are no fixed or uniform methods to measure research quality in a reliable way. They further added that research in universities needed more efforts to make it a quality research. Policy of achieving strategic goals from research is altogether absent. Paucity of funds for research is another hardship towards quality research.

6. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that funding for research work is insufficient. Besides this, the utilization of available funds also remains debatable.

7. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that students as stakeholders are the major contributors in shape of fee and other subscriptions. Some portion of industry is also a contributor in the shape of research project, but this tendency is very limited. Civil society has the least tendency in this respect. Some of the interviewees were of the opinion that universities must evolve methodology to attract society and Alumni to come forward in this field.

8. Respondents had varied views in this respect. Most of the interviewees opined that participation of private sector in higher education is a must as the public sector alone cannot meet the ever-increasing requirement of the society. Some of the respondents were of the view that private sector turning education into business is a very dangerous trend in absence of proper effective regulatory system by the government. While encouraging private entity into education sector it must be ensured that quality of education is not compromised for the sake of quantity.

9. Most of the respondents expressed that they do not have any such institutionalized system in their organization. Some of the institution had this system on individual based system in some of the institutions. They agreed with the value of this system to generate regimentation and attract ex-student of the institution as stakeholders.

10. Most of the interviewees agreed that there is no foolproof system to gauge the quality of teachers except for his qualification, experience and results of his students. Some of the respondents viewed that our education system doesn’t attract the cream of the society as teachers. Inconsistent policies of the government also

154

affect the quality of education. Our examination system is also a contributing factor towards the ultimate standards.

CONCLUSIONS The main purpose of this study was to look into quality education at tertiary level and role of stakeholders in that context, so that universities could play a better role in the society. There are certain expectations concerning commercial and economic needs. Universities depend upon the relationship with the society through stakeholders for conducive environment to achieve high quality research and teachings. The ample material such as books, research papers and journals are accessible in the university to cover the curricula. There is abundant use of newest technology in teaching and research in the university. In majority of institutions quality culture is available. The institution staff encounters the necessities of academic standards while Males are less agreed with the statement. Majority were pleased with the system of maintaining high degree of contact by the university with parents of students. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the University for Feedback. There is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and teaching in university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the improvement strategy. Female are settled with the over-all services by civil society to the university. They are at ease with the ability of media to understand specific needs of the university. Majority of Universities have strong linkage with industry/business and society. University has a complete autonomy. Female accepted that harsh & exclusionary discipline practices are avoided in the university. Females have approved the punctuality of teachers. Their teachers strictly follow the time schedule of lectures. Students are taught complete curriculum within the stipulated time frame. University (e.g. Lecture discussions, Practical, Research assignments, case studies, etc). Females have proven that social services including health are available in the campus. Females have shown satisfaction at the Society linkage of university staff while Males are less agreed with the statement. Higher education institute needs cooperation with market and industry as fundamental part of their mission and should adopt their structure of courses and qualification and method of course delivery to support this cooperation. This is possible by developing appropriate structure for interaction with industry at a business level which could take care of external market for training and other higher education

155

services. This research catered for collection of views from various segments of society, analyses of the same to reach to certain findings, draw conclusive, ground based recommendations. Participation varied from university to university. Gender participation was almost balanced. Participation based on location ratio almost 1:3. As regards factor wise response, female in general agreed to various statements whereas male respondents less agreed. Response from stakeholders was mixed. Respondents have substantially varied views as regards to major challenges to the universities. Majority of the respondents agreed that the curriculum followed in the institutions did not meet international standards and the local market demand. Priorities of Government regarding education also perturbed the respondents. Majority of the respondents criticized the educational system and the outcome of education in the country. Almost all the senior academic leaders were not satisfied with the role being played by various stakeholders for universities. It is accepted that both sides failed to respond to their responsibilities in this regard. It has also been identified that there is no long term national policy on education and if at all there was some it was given lip service. Universities need to streamline fruitful mechanism. For involving various types of stakeholders into the activities in the institution. In nut shell the best way to improve quality in education is to mobilize public concern and political support to make improvement in education a part of policy dialogue. It is an accepted fact that quality education is imperative for economic growth of any country and the quality comes through leadership responsible to formulate policies. Role of stakeholders is to be seen in context of quality education and its sustainability. The research was purposeful as it did address the grey areas in quality education at tertiary level. Findings have provided important information base for improvement of quality education at tertiary level. Recommendation based on findings will facilitate the policy makers and planners in formulating policies at various levels for quality education through enhanced role of stakeholders. The research will also contribute towards developing capacity of academic leadership. The study has also looked into challenges faced by higher education in the country. Based on finding, recommendations have been made to find solution for the same.

DISCUSSION

Higher Education system exist in almost all countries, thus every country needs universities and more the better. Along with the quantity, quality is more important

156

because mere education without quality is of no use rather education without quality is very dangerous for the society. Higher Education needs much more than just the buildings. It is essential to have proper definition of “quality” depending upon requirement of the society. No doubt judging quality is a tedious issue. There is no doubt any good university must be free from political influence and should have a first-class faculty doing first rate research. It is suggested that quality should be reflected in numbers because numbers reflect sufficient measures of the truth. Which help better in decision making? Quality of teachers and their teaching is one of the basic key for quality education. Where the quality of teachers is highly essential there the quality of students is fundamental to the quality of education. Demographic variables as shown in literature may have some interesting relation with conceptual variables. In the study, impact of gender and location has been explored. As regard overview of data regarding participants of this study in respect of universities, types of appointment, gender and location has been analyzed. Demographic information in respect of universities have also been discussed in the study.

While discussing comparison of respondents it is revealed that female respondents have shown agreement in most of the factors whereas majority of male respondents have shown less agreement. While discussing stakeholders, senior academic leadership showed their agreement while civil society less agreed. Parents as well showed agreement with the role of stakeholders while the civil society was indecisive. Parents seemed to be more satisfied as regards to input of stakeholders as compared to principals of affiliated colleges. As regards teacher’s quality HOD/Senior Academia/administration were more satisfied as compared to civil society. Major focus of study was-to assess the role of stakeholders for quality education at tertiary level. The study was descriptive in nature. The results of study showed that lot of room existed for input by stakeholders regarding quality education at tertiary level. The first and foremost aim of tertiary education is to meet the demands of the market to enhance contribution towards economy of the country .The study showed that for this, senior academic leadership played a pivotal role and stakeholders could be of immense use for this purpose if utilized properly. Though the researcher made an effort to get the views of the mostly concerned quarters regarding quality education and role of stakeholders by framing a comprehensive questionnaire and interview protocol. Some of the respondents did not give adequate time for answering the questionnaire or concealed true opinion about truth due to variety of own reasons. They

157

only tended to tick the column without giving much reflection and consideration to the statement. In addition to the above other probable shortcoming of the study might be inadequate sample of the study. Effort were made to select the sample from various types of universities i.e. public private, male/female provincial/federal/general/technical etc. were the consideration while making a selection. More such research may be needed at broader level to achieve more valuable results It is further argued that relationship between universities of Pakistan and industry in Pakistan have not matured thus lacking fruitful result as the industry has not been properly apprised of benefits of good and secured mutual relationship between industry and universities. This relationship will help enhance quality research thus improving quality of product and lowering production cost which will ultimately effect product acceptance in international market. Presently, industry is shy of investing in research and the universities do not have proper research infrastructure. Curriculum at school and college level doesn’t fulfill latest international standards which ultimately effects the standards of quality education at tertiary level. Same holds good for universities. Some of the universities are still tacking up subjects which have no demand in the market. There are so many new subjects introduced at international level. Which have not been taken up by universities in Pakistan. There is a requirement to carryout research for inclusion of new subjects as per demand based requirement of Pakistan. During research most of the respondents raised questions regarding non existance of national education policy. Different policies had been prepared but never effectively implemented fully. Thus there has been no continuity of policy. In order to better the quality of education, there is a need for a permanent education policy duly updated as per changes in line with international requirement. Irrespective of change of Government, the policy must have continuity. In Pakistan, the policy change with the change of Government which is harmful for quality and progress. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that there should be a comprehensive national education policy framed by experts with consultation of stakeholders duly monitored and regulated by a body of think-tank on education. Any change or updating of the same should rest with the think- tank and implementation of policy should be done by the Government. Most of the respondents were critical of Government priorities. The perks and privileges of teachers at all levels were far below than the privileged class in the Government service because of which the cream of the nation is not attracted towards teaching profession. This aspect badly effects the quality education and also causes brain drainage.

158

No effort on part of Government is evident to stop/reduce brain drainage as most of talent move out of Pakistan to other countries. There is a requirement to attract Pakistani scholars serving abroad back to Pakistan and further efforts to stop further brain drain. Cadre of teachers must be elevated so that the cream of the nation is attracted towards the profession. While interviewing the parents and students, it revealed that their first choice was always for administration, medical or engineering, which is an indicator of the trend in the nation. Most of the senior academic leaders pointed out that our end product is reciprocal to the standard of intake at initial level in the university. This observation is an indicator of standard of education at lower level. i.e. schools and colleges. It also speaks volume, regarding our examination system. Lots of efforts required to improve the quality at school and college level for which separate research work is required.

RECOMMENDATIONS Keeping in view the research findings and conclusion of this study, following recommendations are proposed for the review of policy makers and all other connected agencies, groups or individuals :-

1. There should be a proper and comprehensive long term national education policy by a national think tank covering all aspects.

2. Based on a national education policy universities should chalk out result oriented policies/procedures for recruitment development and performance assessment of faculty, staff and students.

3. Identify/determine job description, role, assignment with their priorities for faculty and staff.

4. Based on national education policy curriculum committee may tailor the curriculum for all education stages.

5. Senior academic leaders may create supportive, productive work environment/ culture in the institutions along with provision of feedback and performance evaluation system for faculty and staff.

6. Senior education leaders should create shared vision setting goals and develop unit plans in consultation with the stake holders.

159

7. Senior academic leaders should manage budget and create opportunities for fund raising utilizing the services of stake holders while enhancing relationship with external constituencies.

8. The executive head may serve as an advocate for the departments interest while disseminating/sharing department information and dealing with media.

9. The executive head should encourage service while fostering scholarly activities, by managing Space and facilities.

10. Proper methodology should be worked out for regular liaison/inter action with all types of stake holders.

11. Exam system needs to be streamlined. There should be one type of exam for all to do away with the dichotomy in the exam system in the country.

12. Proper annual calendar may be made well in advance for holding exams and announcement of results by education institutions.

13. The education institutions may create a follow up system for outgoing students to keep a track for their ultimate placement which will help in creating regimentations.

14. Proper institutional mechanism be placed in all educational institutions for creation of alumni and their regular get-togethers.

15. A good infrastructure having technical and intellectual resources for quality research work should be placed on ground in all universities so as to facilitate all researchers for quality research work.

16. Funding for quality education and quality research should be given top priority and its proper utilization of the same must be ensured through very strict accountability measures.

17. Executive head of institution may lay down mechanism for inter action with society and other stake holders so as to encourage them to participate national activities.

160

18. Opening of universities in private sector should be encouraged after having placed a ruthless regulatory mechanism and their subsequent operation should be channelized through an effective monitoring and mentoring systems.

19. More universities in public sector need to be established as per requirement of the area.

20. Preference should be given to establish specialized universities as compared to general universities.

21. Proper induction system for faculty should be laid down which should be free from political interference. Promotion of faculty members should be based on their research work and their update knowledge in his/her subject besides other requirements.

22. Teaching cadre may be given top priority as far as their status, pay, perks and privilege are concerned to attract the cream of the nation towards this profession.

23. Proper academies may be established by the Govt. to train the members of faculty after their induction, before taking up their duties in the field of human resource, accounts and administration etc.

24. Political interference in the administration of institutions should not be allowed at any cost.

25. Each educational institution must lay down proper mechanism for engaging all types of stake holders and create awareness in the society in this regard.

26. Educational institutions should identify and categorize all stake holders to make maximum utilization of their services.

27. All heads of universities may establish goals with a view to educate the youth to become productive members of society seeking to meet industry/ market demand and lastly to achieve global education standards.

28. Teaching educational institution may be established in Govt. sector so that they fulfill vital role in global education community by utilizing potential to bring challenges within educational system which should shape the knowledge and skills of future generation.

161

29. Executive heads of public and private universities may ensure that they are not competing with each other rather complementing each other.

30. Each university should have a dedicated committee to identify stake holders along with their relevancy of interest and the purpose of engagement. Committee should appoint a focal person for the purpose so as to facilitate stakeholders.

31. Each university may create a directory of stake holders which should be periodically updated.

32. Most important in this whole exercise is to measure risk level of engaging stake holders. Policy of engaging stake holders may have measures to minimize risk factor.

162

REFERENCES

A Aascu, (2012). Top 10 higher education state policy issues for 2012”, the AASCU State Relations and Policy Analysis Team, 1-6.

Abdul R. (2008). Continuous improvement of higher education quality 2nd international conference on assessing quality in higher education in Lahore Pakistan.

Ackoff, R.L. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future, John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Ahmed, N., S. (2008). ‘The Role of Governance and Its Influence on Quality Enhancing Mechanisms in Higher Education,’ Business Review, Research Journal of Institute of Business Administration Karachi-Pakistan, 31,145-151.

Alderman, G. (1996). Self-regulation v. Inspection, the quality debate in British higher education Quality World Technical Report IQA Bedford.

Alexander, F. (2000). The changing Face of Accountability. Monitoring & Assessing Institutional performance in Higher Education, The Journal Higher Education, 71,411-431.

Altbach, P.G.,&Salmi, J.(2011). The past present & Futures of the Research University. The Road to Academic Excellence,Washington DC. The World Bank. 286-341.

Altbach. P. G., & Knight. J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education. Motivation & realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3.4), 274- 290.

Alvi N A, Alam A (2004) Pakistan Institute of Quality Control. Quality Review, J Ibrahim Publisher, Lahore: 1.

Amey, M. J. (2006). Leadership in Higher Education. Change. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38, 55-58.

Anwar, K. M. S., & Kamran, A. (2011). Business education in Pakistan growth, problems & prospects, I-8.

Arseault, P. M. (2007). A case study of a university leadership seminar. Journal of leadership Education, 6, 14-24.

Arshad, M. (2003). Attitude of teachers of higher education towards their profession. AIOU, Islamabad, 23-45.

Asif, N. (2010). Analysis of utilization of available research facilities in the public sector universities of Pakistan. International conference on assessing quality in higher education,23-31.

Association of American University (1986). Trends in Technology Transfer at Universities. Washungton. D. C.

163

Astln, A., & Lewis, C. S. (1979). Measuring Academic Quality. An Interim Report. Change, 11(6). 48-51.

Avdjieva, M., & Wilson. M. (2002). Exploring the development of quality in higher education. Managing Service Quality, 12(6), 372-383.

Azaroff, L. V., (1982).Industry-University Collaborations. How to Make It Work. Research Management, 25(3), 31-34.

Baldon, D., & James G. (1984-85). University, Industry: A Review of the lecture. Journal of the society of Research Administrator, 4, 5-1.

Barnett, R. (1992) Improving Higher Education Total Quality Care OUP Buckingham, 230-240.

Becket. N., & Brookes, M. (2006). Evaluating quality management in university departments. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(2), 123-142.

BIS (2009). Higher Ambitions. the future of universities in a knowledge economy. Department for Business Innovation & skills,116-119.

Blackmore, L., & Kenway, I. (eds) (1993). Gender matter in Educational Administration & policy. London. France Press,18(5), 433-66.

Bleakly, L., & Kogan, M. (2207). Organization & Government of Universities. Higher Education Policy, 20, 477-93.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research in Education. An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Third Edition, 276.

Bourke, P. (1986). Quality Measures in Universities. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Canberra, Journal Quality of Higher Education Volume 3, 51-61. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education, Journal studies in Higher Education, 32, 693-710.

Burrows, A., & Harvey, L. (1992). Defining Quality in Higher Education. the stakeholder approach’, AETT conference on Quality in Education University of York, 6-8.

Clegg. S., & McCauley, J. (2005). Conceptualizing Middle Management in Higher Education. A Multifaceted Discourse. Journal of Higher Education Policy &Management, 27.9-34.

Cullen, J., Hassal, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: from monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5-14.

DART Newsletter, (2011). Keeping a watch on economy industry & trade.A DARTWAYS (SMA-PVT.) LTD, Islamabad, 1-16.

164

Davvies. J., Hides, M. T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in Higher Education. Total Quality Management, 12, 1025-1030, http.//4Mx.doi.org/10.1080/09544120

Department of Trade & Industry, (2000). Excellence & opportunity -A science & Technology policy for the 21st century. London.

Dorman, M. S. (2011). A new lean paradigm in higher education.A case study Quality Assurance in Education 19(3).

Editorial, (2011). Times Higher Educational Supplement 30 March 2018.

Ehlers, U. D. (2009) Understanding quality culture.Quality Assurance in Education 17 (4), Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ehlers, U. D. (2009). Understanding quality culture. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 343-363. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ellis, R. (1993). The management of quality at the university in higher education. Ulster, Higher Education,volume 25, Issue 3, pp 239-257.

Elmuti, D., Minnis, W., & Abebe, M. (2005). Does education have a role in developing leadership skills?, Management Decision, 43, 1018-1031.

Fincher, C. (1991), Assessment, Improvement & cooperation, the challenge of reform in higher education. Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia.

Finkle, B. S. (1985). Industry, University, Partners in Myth and Realty,. American Journal of pharmaceutical Education, 49(4), 378-80.

Floyd, A. (2012). Turning Points. The personal & professional Circumstances that Lead Academics to Become Middle Managers. Educational management. Administration & Leadership, 40(2) 272-284.

Foster, B. (1986). The Relationship between Corporate & Higher Education, Journal of Cooperative Education, 22(2), 48-53.

Fowler, D. (1982-1983). University- Industry Research Relationships. The Research Agreement. Journal of College & University Law, 9(4). 515-32.

Freeman. R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A Stakeholder approach. Boston. Pitman,Darden Graduate School of Business Administration University of Virginia, 1-2.

Ghufran A. K., Awais, E. S., & Aneela, S. (2010). Constraints of management dynamics of higher education in Pakistan, 10(9).

Gibbs, G. (1995). The Relationship between Quality Research & Quality in Teaching.

165

Quality in Higher Education, 1, No 2.

Gibbs, G. C., & Knapper, P. (2007). Departmental Leadership for Quality Teaching - an International Comparative Study of Effective Practice. University of Oxford.

Gordon, G. (2002). The roles of leadership & ownership in building & effective quality Higher Education, 8(I), PP 97-106.

Hackett, L. (2011). The Big picture show Times Higher Education 30 July.

Hafeez, A. (2008). A conceptual framework for developing strategic partnership between university & industry in Pakistan with particular reference of NWFP.International conference on assessing quality in higher education.

Haller. H. (1984). Examples of University-Industry (Government) Collaboration. Unpublished manuscript. Office of the vice President of Research & Advanced Studies. Cornell University.

Hamid U., Ajmal, M., & Rehman, F (2012). Analysis of quality indicator of higher education in Pakistan.

Harrison, D. (1991). Challenges & opportunities for institutions.Paper to the CBI Conference on Higher Education.

Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what? Teaching in Higher Education, 7 (3) , Taylor &Francis Online.

Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture understanding boundaries & linkages. European journal of Education, 43(4), 427-441.

Harvey. L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality assessment & evaluation in higher education. 18(1), London.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life Cycle Theory of Leadership. Training Development, 23, 26-34, Washington DC,America.

Iqbal, A. (2004). Problems & prospects of higher education in Pakistan (unpublished Ph. D thesis). University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi.

Iqbal, M., & Zafar I. (2011). Educational Leadership for Managing Quality.Problems issues, & Ethical Behavior, ICQI-Lahore.

Isani, U.A.(2001). Higher education in Pakistan. A historical- futuristic perspective.Unpublished PhD thesis. The National University of Modern Languages. The Pakistan Futuristic Institute. Online. http 77 prr.hec.gov,pk/Chapters/233-0.pdf

Javed, H. A. (2007). Education in Pakistan. document to debate & finalize the national education policy.

166

Kalam, A. (2003). Attempting for excellence in higher education. Paper presented at National Conference on Quality, Assurance in Education in Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of Quality Control. Lahore.

Khawaja, A. H. (1996). Difficulties & possibilities in university. Pakistan perspective, University of Karachi, Karachi.

Khurshid, A. (1998). The Role of university in preparation of individuals of career in management & business.

Knight, P., & Trawler, P. (2001) Departmental Leadership in Higher Education. Buckingham. SRHE & Open University Press.

Kogan, M. (1986). Evaluating Higher Education. Papers from the Journal of Institutional management in Higher Education, London, Jessica Kingsley.

Leithwood, K. A., & Hallinger, P. (2002) Second International H&book of Educational Leadership & Administration. Dordrecht. Kulwer Academic.

Lemaitre, M. J. (2009). Quality Assurance in a Changing World. INQAAHE Conference. Abu Dhabi, March 2009.

Levidow, L. (2000). Marketization of Higher Education. Neo-liberal strategic & counter Strategies.Knowledge, Markets and Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 227–248.

Liefner. I. (2003). Funding, Resource Allocation, & Performance. In Higher Education Systems. Higher http.//dx.doi.org/10.1027381906977 Education, 46, 469-489.

Lim, D. (2001). Quality assurance in higher education: A study of developing countries Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Linke, R. Q. (1985). Developing Measures of Quality & Efficiency in Australian Higher Education.

Lodhi, A. S. (2011). A pilot study of researching the research culture in Pakistan Public universities, the academics’ perspective,Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 31, 473 – 479.

Lyon, R. E. J. (1982). A Bridge Reconnecting Universities & Industry through Base Research. Franken Institute Press.

Mackenzie, I., & Roderick, R. J. (1985). Universities & Industry:New opportunities for collaboration with UK Universities & Polytechnics. Special Report No 213, London. Economist Intelligence Unit.

Mai, K. L. (1984). University & Industry-A Productive Relationship. American Education, 20(6), 2-4.

McMullen, H. G. (1984). An Essential Industry Development Linkage,Community

167

College Business & Industry Educational Partnership:. ED 244 709. 10pp. MF- SI. 07. PC-53.85. Mcmurtry. J. (1991). Education & the Marker Model. Philosophy of Education, 25, 209,Richard Smith.

McNaughton. T. (2008). Technology commercialist ion & universities in Canada. In OECD (ED.), Organist ion for Economic Cooperation & Development Paris.

Meek, V. L., Goedegebuure, R., & Santiago, L. (Eds.) (2010). The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management. Dordrecht. Springer.

Mikas, C. S. (1992). Higher education & the new international order, London, France printer publisher.

Moodie, G. C. (1988). The debates about higher education quality in Britain & the USA. Studies in Higher Education, 13, 5-13.

Mose, K. 1986. Business- Industry Linkages with Postsecondary Institutions. Implications for Building Successful partnerships. Lifelong Learning, 9(7), 4-5.

Murphy, J. (ed.) (2002).The Educational Leadership Challenge. Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, University of Chicago Press.

Olayo, J.O. (2005). The Impact of Employee Empowerment on work performance. Case study of selected Universities in Kenya. Unpublished MBA Thesis. Kenyatta University.

Osseo-Assare, A. E. (2005). Leadership best practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective,Quality Assurance in Education, 13 (2), 148-170.

Propper, M. O., & Gluskions, U. M. (1992). The Israeli defense forces. An example of transformational leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 13, 3-8,MCB UP Ltd.

Raza, S. A. N. (2011). Quality of Pakistan University graduates as perceived by employer, Journal of Quality and Technology Management7(I), 57-72.

Reed. H., & Stanley. K. (2005). Co-operation social enterprise & its potential in public service delivery, London. Institute for public policy Research,22 (4) 706-730.

Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2003). The special challenges of academic leadership. Management Decision, 41, 1058-1063.

Rusinko, C. A. (2010). Integrating sustainability in higher education. a generic matrix. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(3), 250-259.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture & Leadership 3rd edition, San Francisco. Jossey. Bass,1-7.

168

SChwartzman, S. (2003). Quality, Standards & Globalization in Higher Education. Dublile Castle,1-10.

Shahid, H. M., Nasim, G. M., & Solangi, S. F. (2011). Promoting Education for sustainable Development. Challenges & Issue for Higher Education Institution’s in Pakistan, I, 2164-4063.

Shahid, H. Mughal, Nasiiti Qaisrani, Ghulam, M. Solangi, Sumaira Faiz, (2011) “promoting Education for sustainable Development. challenges & Issue for Higher Education institutions in Pakistan” Vol. I No. ISSN. 2164-4063.

Spendlove, M. (2007). Competencies for Effective Leadership in Higher Education. International Journal of Education Management Vol.21(5), pp 407-417.

Stankiewicz, R. (1986). Academics & entrepreneurs Developing University - Industry Relations. London. Frances Pinter.

Stech, E. (2008). Leadership education, training & development. What should we be doing & can we be doing? Journal of Leadership Education, 7(1), 43-46.

Sursock, A. (2011). Examining Quality Culture II. Processes & Tools - participation, Ownership & Bureaucracy. Brussels. European University Association asbl, Avenue de l’Yser 24 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality & performance in Higher Education. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 47-54.

UNESCO (2000). Higher Education in Developing Countries. Peril & promise, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

Van Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (1993). Quality management and quality assurance in European higher education: Methods and mechanisms. Luxemburg: Commission of the European Community.

Weese, W. J. (1996). Do leadership & organizational culture really matter? Journal for sport Management, 10(2), 197-206, Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Wenger,G.V.(2008). Engaging higher education in the social challenges of the 21st century, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,152 North Third Street Suite 705, San Jose, CA 95112.

Widrick, W. M., & Grant, D. (2002). Measuring the dimensions of quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 123-131.

Wilson,K. (2008). Entrepreneurship & higher education Paris. Organization for Economic Cot-operation & Development, 2 (5), 1-20.

169

Annex-A NAME OF EVALUATOR OF QUESTIONNAIRE (SUBJECT EXPERTS)

Sr. No. Name Designation University

Department of Education 1 Dr. Ayoub Buzdar Assistant Professor Govt. College University, Faisalabad

Sheikh Professor of University of Agriculture, 2 Muhammad Statistics (R) Faisalabad Akram

Department of Education 3 Dr. Asif Ali Assistant Professor University of Education (Faisalabad Campus

Department of Education 4 Dr. Shabbir Ali Assistant Professor University of Education (Faisalabad Campus

Department of Education Dr. Shafqat 5 Associate Professor Govt. College University, Hussain Faisalabad

170

Annex-B ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR HOD, Senior Academia and Administration) Section A Name(Not mandatory): Male: Female: Age: Qualification: Subject: Job Experience: Location: Urban: Rural: University Name: Government: Private: INSTRUCTION: - This questionnaire asks you about “Role of stakeholders in improving quality education at tertiary level.”Please tick the option, you think appropriate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree (SDA) (DA) (U) (A) (SA) Section B Sr. # Statements SDA DA U A SA

Administration I am satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching 1. staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the commitment of teaching faculty with 2. the students 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am satisfied with service security of university staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with environment for teaching staff in 4. university. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I am satisfied with the quality of research in the institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am satisfied with the examination system in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am satisfied with teacher student ratio. 1 2 3 4 5 Curriculum I am satisfied with the curricula of the university as regards 8. to market demand. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient resources are available to meet the needs of 9. curricula. 1 2 3 4 5 Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available 10. 1 2 3 4 5 in the university. Our curriculum fulfills individualized needs and plans of 11. students. 1 2 3 4 5 Latest technology is incorporated into the curricula. 12. 1 2 3 4 5 Students are taught complete curriculum within the 13. stipulated time frame. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Sufficient material such as books, research papers and 1 2 3 4 5

171

journals are available in the university to cover the curricula. Curricula reflects values, norms and needs that are actual for 15. society. 1 2 3 4 5

Teacher’s Quality 16. I am satisfied with quality of academic facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I am satisfied with learning resources in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with standard, knowledge and experience of 18. teaching faculty. 1 2 3 4 5 19. My teachers are optimistic to solve academic problems. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I am satisfied with the punctuality of teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 21. My teachers strictly follow the time schedule of lectures. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Emphasis is placed on staff development. 1 2 3 4 5 Student Support Service Harsh & exclusionary discipline practices are avoided in the 23. 1 2 3 4 5 university. Conditions for learning are friendly and conducive in the 24. 1 2 3 4 5 university. I am satisfied with the standards of discipline in the 25. 1 2 3 4 5 campuses. There is ample use of latest technology in teaching and 26. 1 2 3 4 5 research in the university. 27. Social services including health are available in the campus. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the chances of getting hired/employed 28. 1 2 3 4 5 after completing studies from the university. 29. Co-Curricular activities are held on regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5 Learning Environment The facilities for learning in the university are sufficient and 30. 1 2 3 4 5 used effectively. The institution staff meets the requirements of academic 31. 1 2 3 4 5 standards. I am satisfied with the Learning methods used in the 32. university (e.g. Lecture discussions, Practical, Research 1 2 3 4 5 assignments, case studies, etc.). Learning facilities are adequate in the university (teaching 33. accommodation, teaching aids, laboratories, computers, field 1 2 3 4 5 work facilities). 34. Students have access to digital libraries in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient funds for seminars, workshops and for 35. 1 2 3 4 5 conferences are provided. Quality Assurance I am satisfied with the response of university towards prime 36. needs of students and society. 1 2 3 4 5

37. I am satisfied with contact hours in the university. 1 2 3 4 5

172

I am satisfied with quality enhancement procedure in the 38. university. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with systematic monitoring by academic 39. management. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with evaluation system for student’s outcome 40. in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 Satisfied with student’s feedback system to facilitate 1 2 3 4 5 41. enhancements in teaching and learning performance. I am satisfied with the quality of courses, degree and the 42. quality of their delivery. 1 2 3 4 5 Staff Development I am satisfied with teachers training after their selection 43. 1 2 3 4 5 before commencing their duties. Our teachers are equipped to teach through concepts rather 44. 1 2 3 4 5 than rote learning. 45. There is an effective use of distance learning materials. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the ways/procedure to recruit senior 46. 1 2 3 4 5 administration in the university. 47. I am satisfied with the procedure of foreign faculty hiring. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Service security of teaching faculty is satisfactory. 1 2 3 4 5 Governance : University has strong linkage with industry/business and 49. 1 2 3 4 5 society. 50. University has a complete autonomy. 1 2 3 4 5 Syndicate and other university committees have relevant 51. 1 2 3 4 5 representation. Accountability procedure in the university is effectively fool 52. 1 2 3 4 5 proof. There is a strong commitment to integrity, ethical values and 53. 1 2 3 4 5 rule of law in the university. There is a strong public financial management in the 54. 1 2 3 4 5 university. Academic Leadership 55. I am motivated in the university by the academic leaders. 1 2 3 4 5 Our university has an elaborate system of knowledge 56. 1 2 3 4 5 exchange with other institutions. There is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and 57. 1 2 3 4 5 teaching in my university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the 58. 1 2 3 4 5 improvement strategy. Our academic leaders encourage students to try out new 59. 1 2 3 4 5 ideas and develop new approaches. 60. Our academic leaders refrain from criticizing the mistakes so 1 2 3 4 5

173

as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Our academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere with 61. 1 2 3 4 5 students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation. Stakeholders : 62. I am satisfied with the over-all services by civil society to 1 2 3 4 5 the university. 63. I am satisfied with the ability of media to understand specific 1 2 3 4 5 needs of the university. 64. I am satisfied with individual attention paid to parents in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 65. My assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to 1 2 3 4 5 response to organizational needs is satisfactory. 66. I am satisfied with the system of maintaining high degree of 1 2 3 4 5 contact by the university with parents of students. 67. I am satisfied with the level of response by the university 1 2 3 4 5 towards student’s queries. 68. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the 1 2 3 4 5 university for feedback. 69. I am satisfied with the system of feedback by the affiliated 1 2 3 4 5 college to the university. 70. I am satisfied with the ability of university staff to convey 1 2 3 4 5 their specific needs to the university. I am satisfied with the system developed by the university to 71. keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 72. I am satisfied with the degree of response to specific needs 1 2 3 4 5 of the university by Industrialists. Section C 1. What are three major challenges for tertiary education in Pakistan? (in order of priority) a. ______a. ______b. ______2. Give three suggestions for improvement in universities. a. ______b. ______c. ______3. What inspired you to join/affiliate this university? a. ______b. ______c. ______Thank you for participation. Please sign up if you would like the findings of the study to be shared with you. Name: Designation: Phone: Email:

174

Annex-C ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR Parents) Section A Name(Not mandatory): Male: Female: Age: Qualification: Designation: Job Experience: Location: Urban: Rural: University Name: Government: Private: INSTRUCTION: - This questionnaire asks you about “Role of stakeholders in improving quality education at tertiary level.”Please tick the option, you think appropriate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree (SDA) (DA) (U) (A) (SA) Section B Sr. # Statements SDA DA U A SA

Administration I am satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching 1. staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the commitment of teaching faculty with 2. 1 2 3 4 5 the students 3. I am satisfied with service security of university staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with environment for teaching staff in 4. university. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I am satisfied with the quality of research in the institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am satisfied with the examination system in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am satisfied with teacher student ratio. 1 2 3 4 5 Curriculum I am satisfied with the curricula of the university as regards 8. to market demand. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient resources are available to meet the needs of 9. curricula. 1 2 3 4 5 Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available 10. 1 2 3 4 5 in the university. Our curriculum fulfills individualized needs and plans of 11. students. 1 2 3 4 5 Latest technology is incorporated into the curricula. 12. 1 2 3 4 5 Students are taught complete curriculum within the 13. stipulated time frame. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient material such as books, research papers and 1 2 3 4 5 14. journals are available in the university to cover the curricula.

175

Curricula reflects values, norms and needs that are actual for 15. society. 1 2 3 4 5

37. I am satisfied with contact hours in the university. 1 2 3 4 5

176

177

as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Our academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere with 61. 1 2 3 4 5 students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation. Stakeholders : 62. I am satisfied with the over-all services by civil society to 1 2 3 4 5 the university. 63. I am satisfied with the ability of media to understand specific 1 2 3 4 5 needs of the university. 64. I am satisfied with individual attention paid to parents in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 65. My assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to 1 2 3 4 5 response to organizational needs is satisfactory. 66. I am satisfied with the system of maintaining high degree of 1 2 3 4 5 contact by the university with parents of students. 67. I am satisfied with the level of response by the university 1 2 3 4 5 towards student’s queries. 68. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the 1 2 3 4 5 university for feedback. 69. I am satisfied with the system of feedback by the affiliated 1 2 3 4 5 college to the university. 70. I am satisfied with the ability of university staff to convey 1 2 3 4 5 their specific needs to the university. I am satisfied with the system developed by the university to 71. keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 72. I am satisfied with the degree of response to specific needs 1 2 3 4 5 of the university by Industrialists. Section C 1. What are three major challenges for tertiary education in Pakistan? (in order of priority) a. ______b. ______c. ______2. Give three suggestions for improvement in universities. a. ______b. ______c. ______3. What inspired you to join/affiliate this university? a. ______b. ______c. ______Thank you for participation. Please sign up if you would like the findings of the study to be shared with you. Name: Designation: Phone: Email:

178

Annex-D ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR Students) Section A Name(Not mandatory): Male: Female: Age: Qualification: Subject: Semester: Location: Urban: Rural: University Name: Government: Private:

INSTRUCTION: - This questionnaire asks you about “Role of stakeholders in improving quality education at tertiary level.”Please tick the option, you think appropriate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree (SDA) (DA) (U) (A) (SA) Section B Sr. # Statements SDA DA U A SA

Administration I am satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching 1. staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the commitment of teaching faculty with 2. 1 2 3 4 5 the students 3. I am satisfied with service security of university staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with environment for teaching staff in 4. 1 2 3 4 5 university. 5. I am satisfied with the quality of research in the institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am satisfied with the examination system in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am satisfied with teacher student ratio. 1 2 3 4 5 Curriculum I am satisfied with the curricula of the university as regards 8. to market demand. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient resources are available to meet the needs of 9. curricula. 1 2 3 4 5 Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available 10. 1 2 3 4 5 in the university. Our curriculum fulfills individualized needs and plans of 11. students. 1 2 3 4 5 Latest technology is incorporated into the curricula. 12. 1 2 3 4 5 Students are taught complete curriculum within the 13. stipulated time frame. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient material such as books, research papers and 1 2 3 4 5 14. journals are available in the university to cover the curricula.

179

Curricula reflects values, norms and needs that are actual for 15. society. 1 2 3 4 5

37. I am satisfied with contact hours in the university. 1 2 3 4 5

180

181

as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Our academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere with 61. 1 2 3 4 5 students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation. Stakeholders : 62. I am satisfied with the over-all services by civil society to 1 2 3 4 5 the university. 63. I am satisfied with the ability of media to understand specific 1 2 3 4 5 needs of the university. 64. I am satisfied with individual attention paid to parents in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 65. My assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to 1 2 3 4 5 response to organizational needs is satisfactory. 66. I am satisfied with the system of maintaining high degree of 1 2 3 4 5 contact by the university with parents of students. 67. I am satisfied with the level of response by the university 1 2 3 4 5 towards student’s queries. 68. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the 1 2 3 4 5 university for feedback. 69. I am satisfied with the system of feedback by the affiliated 1 2 3 4 5 college to the university. 70. I am satisfied with the ability of university staff to convey 1 2 3 4 5 their specific needs to the university. I am satisfied with the system developed by the university to 71. keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 72. I am satisfied with the degree of response to specific needs 1 2 3 4 5 of the university by Industrialists. Section C 1. What are three major challenges for tertiary education in Pakistan? (in order of priority) a. ______b. ______c. ______2. Give three suggestions for improvement in universities. a. ______b. ______c. ______3. What inspired you to join/affiliate this university? a. ______b. ______c. ______Thank you for participation. Please sign up if you would like the findings of the study to be shared with you. Name: Designation: Phone: Email:

182

Annex-E ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR Civil Societies, Industrialists, Media, Principal affiliated colleges etc) Section A Name(Not mandatory): Male: Female: Age: Qualification: Designation: Job Experience: Location: Urban: Rural: University Name: Government: Private:

INSTRUCTION: - This questionnaire asks you about “Role of stakeholders in improving quality education at tertiary level.”Please tick the option, you think appropriate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree (SDA) (DA) (U) (A) (SA) Section B Sr. # Statements SDA DA U A SA

Administration I am satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching 1. staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the commitment of teaching faculty with 2. 1 2 3 4 5 the students 3. I am satisfied with service security of university staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with environment for teaching staff in 4. 1 2 3 4 5 university. 5. I am satisfied with the quality of research in the institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am satisfied with the examination system in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am satisfied with teacher student ratio. 1 2 3 4 5 Curriculum I am satisfied with the curricula of the university as regards 8. to market demand. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient resources are available to meet the needs of 9. curricula. 1 2 3 4 5 Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available 10. 1 2 3 4 5 in the university. Our curriculum fulfills individualized needs and plans of 11. students. 1 2 3 4 5 Latest technology is incorporated into the curricula. 12. 1 2 3 4 5 Students are taught complete curriculum within the 13. stipulated time frame. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient material such as books, research papers and 1 2 3 4 5 14. journals are available in the university to cover the curricula.

183

Curricula reflects values, norms and needs that are actual for 15. society. 1 2 3 4 5

37. I am satisfied with contact hours in the university. 1 2 3 4 5

184

185

as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Our academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere with 61. 1 2 3 4 5 students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation. Stakeholders : 62. I am satisfied with the over-all services by civil society to 1 2 3 4 5 the university. 63. I am satisfied with the ability of media to understand specific 1 2 3 4 5 needs of the university. 64. I am satisfied with individual attention paid to parents in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 65. My assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to 1 2 3 4 5 response to organizational needs is satisfactory. 66. I am satisfied with the system of maintaining high degree of 1 2 3 4 5 contact by the university with parents of students. 67. I am satisfied with the level of response by the university 1 2 3 4 5 towards student’s queries. 68. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the 1 2 3 4 5 university for feedback. 69. I am satisfied with the system of feedback by the affiliated 1 2 3 4 5 college to the university. 70. I am satisfied with the ability of university staff to convey 1 2 3 4 5 their specific needs to the university. I am satisfied with the system developed by the university to 71. keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 72. I am satisfied with the degree of response to specific needs 1 2 3 4 5 of the university by Industrialists. Section C 1. What are three major challenges for tertiary education in Pakistan? (in order of priority) a. ______b. ______c. ______2. Give three suggestions for improvement in universities. a. ______b. ______c. ______3. What inspired you to join/affiliate this university? a. ______b. ______c. ______Thank you for participation. Please sign up if you would like the findings of the study to be shared with you. Name: Designation: Phone: Email:

186

Annex-F ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN EDUCATION (ROSE) (FOR Faculties) Section A Name(Not mandatory): Male: Female: Age: Qualification: Subject: Job Experience: Location: Urban: Rural: University Name: Government: Private:

INSTRUCTION: - This questionnaire asks you about “Role of stakeholders in improving quality education at tertiary level.”Please tick the option, you think appropriate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree (SDA) (DA) (U) (A) (SA) Section B Sr. # Statements SDA DA U A SA

Administration I am satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the teaching 1. staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the commitment of teaching faculty with 2. the students 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am satisfied with service security of university staff. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with environment for teaching staff in 4. 1 2 3 4 5 university. 5. I am satisfied with the quality of research in the institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am satisfied with the examination system in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am satisfied with teacher student ratio. 1 2 3 4 5 Curriculum I am satisfied with the curricula of the university as regards 8. to market demand. 1 2 3 4 5 Sufficient resources are available to meet the needs of 9. curricula. 1 2 3 4 5 Proper qualified teachers to teach the curricula are available 10. 1 2 3 4 5 in the university. Our curriculum fulfills individualized needs and plans of 11. students. 1 2 3 4 5 Latest technology is incorporated into the curricula. 12. 1 2 3 4 5 Students are taught complete curriculum within the 13. stipulated time frame. 1 2 3 4 5

187

Sufficient material such as books, research papers and 1 2 3 4 5 14. journals are available in the university to cover the curricula. Curricula reflects values, norms and needs that are actual for 15. society. 1 2 3 4 5

188

37. I am satisfied with contact hours in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with quality enhancement procedure in the 38. university. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with systematic monitoring by academic 39. management. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with evaluation system for student’s outcome 40. in the university. 1 2 3 4 5 Satisfied with student’s feedback system to facilitate 1 2 3 4 5 41. enhancements in teaching and learning performance. I am satisfied with the quality of courses, degree and the 42. quality of their delivery. 1 2 3 4 5 Staff Development I am satisfied with teachers training after their selection 43. 1 2 3 4 5 before commencing their duties. Our teachers are equipped to teach through concepts rather 44. 1 2 3 4 5 than rote learning. 45. There is an effective use of distance learning materials. 1 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the ways/procedure to recruit senior 46. 1 2 3 4 5 administration in the university. 47. I am satisfied with the procedure of foreign faculty hiring. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Service security of teaching faculty is satisfactory. 1 2 3 4 5 Governance : University has strong linkage with industry/business and 49. 1 2 3 4 5 society. 50. University has a complete autonomy. 1 2 3 4 5 Syndicate and other university committees have relevant 51. 1 2 3 4 5 representation. Accountability procedure in the university is effectively fool 52. 1 2 3 4 5 proof. There is a strong commitment to integrity, ethical values and 53. 1 2 3 4 5 rule of law in the university. There is a strong public financial management in the 54. 1 2 3 4 5 university. Academic Leadership 55. I am motivated in the university by the academic leaders. 1 2 3 4 5 Our university has an elaborate system of knowledge 56. 1 2 3 4 5 exchange with other institutions. There is a clear and unambiguous focus on learning and 57. 1 2 3 4 5 teaching in my university. Everyone is clear about his role in implementing the 58. 1 2 3 4 5 improvement strategy. Our academic leaders encourage students to try out new 59. 1 2 3 4 5 ideas and develop new approaches.

189

Our academic leaders refrain from criticizing the mistakes so 60. 1 2 3 4 5 as to encourage fearless experimentation and innovation. Our academic leaders create a conducive atmosphere with 61. 1 2 3 4 5 students and others to come-up with ideas and innovation. Stakeholders : 62. I am satisfied with the over-all services by civil society to 1 2 3 4 5 the university. 63. I am satisfied with the ability of media to understand specific 1 2 3 4 5 needs of the university. 64. I am satisfied with individual attention paid to parents in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 65. My assessment about ability of Industrialists in order to 1 2 3 4 5 response to organizational needs is satisfactory. 66. I am satisfied with the system of maintaining high degree of 1 2 3 4 5 contact by the university with parents of students. 67. I am satisfied with the level of response by the university 1 2 3 4 5 towards student’s queries. 68. There are reasonable efforts to approach civil society by the 1 2 3 4 5 university for feedback. 69. I am satisfied with the system of feedback by the affiliated 1 2 3 4 5 college to the university. 70. I am satisfied with the ability of university staff to convey 1 2 3 4 5 their specific needs to the university. I am satisfied with the system developed by the university to 71. keep affiliated colleges updated regarding activities in the 1 2 3 4 5 university. 72. I am satisfied with the degree of response to specific needs 1 2 3 4 5 of the university by Industrialists. Section C 1. What are three major challenges for tertiary education in Pakistan? (in order of priority) a. ______b. ______c. ______2. Give three suggestions for improvement in universities. a. ______b. ______c. ______3. What inspired you to join/affiliate this university? a. ______b. ______c. ______Thank you for participation.

Please sign up if you would like the findings of the study to be shared with you. Name: Designation: Phone: Email:

190

Annex-G Questionnaire for Principals of Affiliated Colleges

Question 1. Are you satisfied with the services being provided to you by the university with whom your college is affiliated?

Question 2. What will you say about the examination methodology and examination system?

Question 3. Has the institution s a feedback system from students taking admission in universities after qualifying from college?

Question 4. Does the institution have a placement record of old students or has the institution created alumni?

Question 5. Are you satisfied with the standard of education and its outcome?

191

Annex-H Questionnaire For Vice Chancellors and Deans of the Universities

Question 01. Are you satisfied with the overall Government policy regarding quality education at tertiary level in the country?