There is a dearth of literature on the relationship between service quality and brand equity in a higher education context. Table 3.6 shows the brand equity empirical studies recorded in the
98 literature, and based on an extensive review of the literature, no relevant South African study can be reported on.
Table 3.6: Relationship between Service Quality and Brand Equity in Higher Education
AUTHOR/S STUDY CONTEXT/AREA MAIN FINDINGS
Mitsis (2007) Emphasis on the creation of Customer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) with postgraduate students in Australian higher education.
Support from the learning environment was an
important influence to brand equity. Course-related perceptions also influenced brand equity.
Kuo and Ye (2009) Vocational Education/Taiwan Service quality and image influence student loyalty indirectly through satisfaction.
Chapleo (2010). Higher education/U.K Qualitative study. Shows that there is a need for a branding model that can be effectively applied to universities in the U.K.
Mourad et al. (2011) Higher Education/Egypt No SERVQUAL/SERVPERF used. No Loyalty measure within brand equity.
Quality issues had a bearing on brand equity. After sales service had a significant but inverse relationship with brand equity.
99
AUTHOR/S STUDY CONTEXT/AREA MAIN FINDINGS
Iqbal et al.(2012) University branding and image. Many different universities throughout the world. Quality was measured in terms of overall
satisfaction and service-based satisfaction, not SERVQUAL dimensions.
Quality followed by prestige is an important influencer of university image.
Jarrel (2012) Online higher education. Service quality is associated with brand equity and loyalty.
Makgosa and Molefhi (2012) Re-branding a
University/Botswana. No service quality studied.
Corporate communication is important in re-branding a university.
Aggarwal et al. (2013) Business schools/India Assesses brand equity at Indian business schools. Does not show the effect of
SERVQUAL on brand equity.
John and Senith (2013) Engineering institutions in India
Amongst other factors, quality was an influencer of brand rating of different universities.
Moghaddam et al. (2013) Designing a brand equity model for select
universities/Iran.
Educational service, amenities, and the physical environment of the
100
AUTHOR/S STUDY CONTEXT/AREA MAIN FINDINGS
universities studied positively and significantly affect brand equity. No evidence of specific SERVQUAL
dimensions used in the study.
Ramli, Othman and Salleh, (2015)
Quality;s influence on loyalty.Malaysia public higher education.
Learning quality affects brand loyalty.
Vukasovič (2015) Select university in Slovenia No relationship explored between service quality (SERVQUAL-based) and brand equity. Instead service quality was one of the components of service attributes that comprised other components. Service attributes were found to be statistically significant and positively related to brand equity.
Source: Researcher’s compilation
It is evident from Table 3.6, there is no study documenting the predictive relationship between service quality and brand equity in a South African higher education context. In addition, regarding the international studies, no predictive study was undertaken based on student demography.
101 Hence, based on the overall dearth of literature pertaining to the relationships between Service Quality, OVERALL STUDENT SATISFACTION (OSS) and Brand Equity, this study hopes to address this gap in knowledge and hypothesizes the following:
H4: Service quality dimensions have a significant positive effect on OVERALL BRAND EQUITY (OBE).
H5: Service quality dimensions have a significant positive effect on the significant predictor dimensions of OVERALL BRAND EQUITY (OBE).
H6: OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY (OSQ) is a significant and positive predictor of OVERALL BRAND EQUITY (OBE).
H7: OVERALL STUDENT SATISFACTION (OSS) is a significant and positive predictor of OVERALL BRAND EQUITY (OBE).
H8: Service Quality, OVERALL STUDENT SATISFACTION (OSS) and Brand Equity are significantly associated
The relationships postulated in the eight hypotheses generated through a critical review of the literature can be conceptualized in the model depicted in Figure 3.2.The arrows represent significant positive hypothesized relationships.
102 Figure 3.2: Conceptual Model
Source: Researcher’s Compilation
3.16. Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to contextualize the important research constructs of the study and put them into perspective. The constructs service quality, satisfaction, and brand equity were discussed in general in chapter two, and in this chapter, these constructs were discussed within a higher education context.
Evident from this chapter is that service quality in the higher education sector is starting to get more attention due to its importance and benefits within a competitive higher education market.
Also evident is that service quality in higher education can be measured in different ways.
However, it was shown, through the literature, that SERVQUAL and SERVPERF were the more popular models used in measuring higher education service quality. The concept of OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY (OSQ) was also discussed.
Student satisfaction was shown to be an issue that is widely emphasized on within the higher education sector particularly internationally. Student satisfaction was shown to be an overall
SERVICE QUALITY Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness
Assurance Empathy
OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY
(
OVERALL STUDENT SATISFAC
TION (OSS) BOTH MEASUR
ES
BRAND EQUITY Loyalty Key Associations and
Differentiation Perceived Quality and
in Innovation Awareness OVERALL
BRAND EQUITY (OBE)
103 measure and measured through one variable. However, another approach to measuring OVERALL STUDENT SATISFACTION (OSS) was through four variables as discussed in the chapter.
Brand equity within the higher education context, although relatively new, is an important area that has many benefits to offer within higher education. Despite there being relatively few models to measure brand equity, Aaker’s (1996) model was shown to be relatively more widely used.
Concerning the relationships between the constructs Service Quality, Student Satisfaction and Brand Equity, the results of relevant empirical studies were documented in this chapter. However, there is a dearth of literature particularly in relation to the relationship between service quality and brand equity, not only internationally, but also in a South African higher education context. In addition, although there have been studies showing the relationship between Service Quality and Student Satisfaction, relatively few exist in South African higher education particularly in terms of demographic issues.
The information provided in this chapter would be helpful in guiding the development of an appropriate data collection instrument (questionnaire) for this study. The next chapter, chapter four, details the research methodology to be undertaken in this study.
104 CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY