IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i3p2158244020947440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Standards to Measure the Quality of Higher Education Institutions in Oman: Stakeholders’ Perception

Author

Listed:
  • Amal Said Al-Amri
  • Priya Mathew
  • Yong Zulina Zubairi
  • Rohana Jani

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly being held accountable for maintaining quality in their activities by governments, industry, students, and the community as a whole. Accreditation agencies formulate assessment criteria covering the entire range of HEI activities so that the quality of HEI activities can be measured. However, as the perceptions of stakeholders varies of what makes a good HEI, it is crucial to investigate their opinions about the standards set by these agencies. This study uses focus group discussions involving Omani HEI stakeholders, including students, HEI staff, and employers, to gain insights into their perceptions on the most significant standards set by Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA) in measuring the quality of HEIs. It was found that stakeholders’ views of the key standards that measure HEI quality varies. Students were in favor of the standards related to the quality of teaching and learning. Students also show a good level of awareness about employers’ priorities. Employers were more concerned about the research skills of graduates and their industry and community involvement. There was also some agreement between staff and employers on the importance of governance and management. This study provides HEIs, OAAA, and partner universities insights into stakeholder priorities and concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Amal Said Al-Amri & Priya Mathew & Yong Zulina Zubairi & Rohana Jani, 2020. "Optimal Standards to Measure the Quality of Higher Education Institutions in Oman: Stakeholders’ Perception," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:2158244020947440
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020947440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020947440
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020947440?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vijaya Sunder M., 2016. "Constructs of quality in higher education services," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 65(8), pages 1091-1111, November.
    2. Isidro F. Aguillo & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mark Levene & José Luis Ortega, 2010. "Comparing university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 243-256, October.
    3. Maarten Goos & Anna Salomons, 2017. "Measuring teaching quality in higher education: assessing selection bias in course evaluations," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(4), pages 341-364, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shivangi Dhawan, 2022. "Higher Education Quality and Student Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis, Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression," Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, , vol. 21(1), pages 48-66, June.
    2. Sakir Cinkir & Sevgi Yildiz & Gul Kurum, 2022. "The Effect of Undergraduate Students’ Perceived Service Quality on Student Commitment," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José M. Ramírez-Hurtado & Alfredo G. Hernández-Díaz & Ana D. López-Sánchez & Víctor E. Pérez-León, 2021. "Measuring Online Teaching Service Quality in Higher Education in the COVID-19 Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. F. Cugnata & G. Perucca & S. Salini, 2017. "Bayesian networks and the assessment of universities' value added," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(10), pages 1785-1806, July.
    3. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    4. El Gibari, Samira & Gómez, Trinidad & Ruiz, Francisco, 2018. "Evaluating university performance using reference point based composite indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1235-1250.
    5. Hyejin Park & Han Woo Park, 2018. "Two-side face of knowledge building using scientometric analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 2815-2836, November.
    6. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Judit Bar-Ilan: information scientist, computer scientist, scientometrician," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1235-1244, December.
    7. M. Benito & R. Romera, 2011. "Improving quality assessment of composite indicators in university rankings: a case study of French and German universities of excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 153-176, October.
    8. Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Canan Çilingir, 2015. "A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 813-848, June.
    9. Shahryar Rahnamayan & Sedigheh Mahdavi & Kalyanmoy Deb & Azam Asilian Bidgoli, 2020. "Ranking Multi-Metric Scientific Achievements Using a Concept of Pareto Optimality," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-46, June.
    10. Marco Maciel-Monteon & Jorge Limon-Romero & Carlos Gastelum-Acosta & Yolanda Baez-Lopez & Diego Tlapa & Manuel Iván Rodríguez Borbón, 2020. "Improvement project in higher education institutions: A BPEP-based model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Frank Rijnsoever & Leon Welle & Sjoerd Bakker, 2014. "Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 635-661, August.
    12. Marco Taliento, 2022. "The Triple Mission of the Modern University: Component Interplay and Performance Analysis from Italy," World, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Hui Xuan Tan & Ephrance Abu Ujum & Kwai Fatt Choong & Kuru Ratnavelu, 2015. "Impact analysis of domestic and international research collaborations: a Malaysian case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 885-904, January.
    14. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1ta425q4ev9o6a76uep4hjlunc is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Loutfi Boulahlib & Noor Hazilah Abd Manaf & Izhairi Bt Ismail & Rafikul Islam, 2022. "Exploring Factors Influencing Academic Staff Attitude towards the Implementation of Total Quality Management (TQM) in Higher Education," International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 12(3), pages 98125-98125, December.
    17. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Grisel Zacca-González & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2016. "Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1239-1264, March.
    18. Enar Ruiz-Conde & Aurora Calderón-Martínez, 2014. "University institutional repositories: competitive environment and their role as communication media of scientific knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1283-1299, February.
    19. Hernández-Escobedo, Quetzalcoatl & Perea-Moreno, Alberto-Jesús & Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, 2018. "Wind energy research in Mexico," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 719-729.
    20. Molinos-Senante, María & Delgado-Antequera, Laura & Gómez, Trinidad, 2022. "Measuring the quality of service of water companies: A two-stage goal programming synthetic index proposal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    21. Angelo Antoci & Irene Brunetti & Pierluigi Sacco & Mauro Sodini, 2021. "Student evaluation of teaching, social influence dynamics, and teachers’ choices: An evolutionary model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 325-348, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:2158244020947440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.