The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education. The impact of academic quality on nonpositive student engagement in higher education.
T HE RATIONALE FOR THE RESEARCH TOPIC
Over the past two decades, the concept of "customer engagement" (CE) has gained significant traction in marketing, attracting the interest of numerous practitioners and scholars This phenomenon emerged alongside the digital age, prompting researchers to explore its definition, antecedents, outcomes, and various contexts While previous studies have highlighted both positive and non-positive aspects of CE, the latter—encompassing disengagement and negative engagement—remains underexplored in the literature Notably, satisfied customers do not always engage positively, and those facing negative service experiences may express their frustration through negative engagement as a form of self-preservation This gap in research underscores the need for further investigation into the complexities of customer engagement.
In the higher education (HE) sector, the concept of customer engagement (CE) has been traditionally overlooked, as it is often viewed as a “non-customer” sector (Ng et al., 2020) Current research emphasizes “student engagement” (SE) in learning activities, examining it from both educators' and students' perspectives as a key outcome of higher education institutions (HEIs) This research aims to identify the antecedents, dimensions, measurements, and outcomes of SE in learning tasks (e.g., Chickering & Gamson, 1999; Pike, 2003; Trowler, 2010) Educators prioritize SE to ensure quality assurance in HEIs, enhance student retention, and reduce dropout rates However, the primary focus remains on academic quality, driven by evolving labor market demands and increasingly discerning students.
Skills-based hiring is gaining traction among employers, with a noticeable shift away from degree requirements (Fuller et al., 2022) Despite job roles remaining unchanged over the past two decades, employers began imposing degree prerequisites in job listings However, following the Great Recession, many companies started to relax these rules, particularly during the tight labor market of the late 2010s Between 2017 and 2019, degree requirements were reduced for 46% of middle-skill and 31% of high-skill positions (Fuller et al., 2022) This shift indicates that employers are prioritizing demonstrated skills and capabilities over degree completion, opening doors for a significant pool of "hidden workers" and "stars" who have been overlooked due to degree inflation (Fuller et al., 2021, p.16).
Gen Z students are increasingly opting for alternative paths after high school, particularly in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and rising higher education costs, leading to a decline in university enrollment rates in developed countries like the US (Jon Marcus 2022; Jessica Dickler 2022) This generation is characterized as self-learners who prefer online knowledge acquisition over traditional educational settings (Francis & Hoefel 2018) With access to a plethora of free online academic resources, their decision to enroll in higher education institutions (HEIs) involves significant financial commitment, prompting them to engage in post-purchase assessments of their experiences (Molesworth et al., 2011) Their reviews serve as valuable references for prospective students As true digital natives, Gen Z actively seeks out information and relies on reviews from previous customers, feeling a sense of responsibility to share their own experiences to assist others in their decision-making process (Francis & Hoefel 2018, Lypnytska, 2019).
What happens when students are dissatisfied with the academic quality of their Higher Education Institution (HEI)? Will they disengage from their studies despite paying high tuition fees? Furthermore, could their negative experiences lead them to share unfavorable feedback about their HEI, potentially harming its reputation and, in turn, their own prospects with future employers? These critical questions remain largely unexplored, as existing literature primarily emphasizes student satisfaction and positive engagement with learning and their institutions.
In Vietnam's higher education (HE) landscape, competition among domestic and international higher education institutions (HEIs) is intensifying, leading to a challenging environment for teaching staff These educators face the dual responsibility of ensuring high-quality academic instruction while also fulfilling service roles to meet the needs of students and enhance institutional competitiveness As HEIs increasingly adopt autonomy, faculty members are tasked with developing innovative programs and support services, alongside their academic duties Despite some progress, Dr Pham Nhu Nghe from the Ministry of Education and Training notes that the effectiveness of student career orientation remains limited.
In recent years, higher education institutions (HEIs) have focused on enhancing enrollment and training targets aligned with their growth objectives following the implementation of UA However, there is a notable lack of emphasis on ensuring that graduates secure jobs relevant to their academic majors This competitive landscape among HEIs offers students a wider array of choices, yet many still opt for schools or majors that do not align with their skills and interests.
2022) because of following their parents’ direction, or trends Those students' disengagement and negative engagement are under-covered and need to be clarified with empirical evidence
The author examines the global context of higher education (HE), with a specific focus on Vietnam, highlighting the dual role of students as both learners and customers of higher education institutions (HEIs) Notably, there are gaps in current consumer engagement (CE) literature, particularly the underutilization of the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which effectively explains behavior through the influences of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control To address these issues, the author has titled the dissertation “The Impact of Academic Quality on Non-Positive Student Engagement in Higher Education,” outlining the purpose and research questions in subsequent sections.
P URPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
From the behavioral perspective on CE, the author aims at accomplishing the following research objectives:
- Investigating the influences of student academic quality perception on their intention of non-positive engagement behavior directly and under the mediation of dissatisfaction
- Investigating the moderating effects of major preference and school preference on the relationship between perceived academic quality, dissatisfaction and non- positive engagement intentions
- Investigating the interrelation effects between non-positive student engagement intentions in learning activities and beyond learning activities.
R ESEARCH QUESTIONS
In response to the above theoretical gaps in the current literature of CE and SE in HEI, and to justify research objectives, four main research questions are raised:
- RQ1: Does perceived academic quality relate to student dissatisfaction and their intention to non-positive engagement behavior?
- RQ2: Does students' dissatisfaction mediate the impact of perceived academic quality on their non-positive engagement intention?
- RQ3: How do major preference and school preference moderate the relationship between students’ perceived academic quality, dissatisfaction and students' non- positive engagement intentions?
- RQ4: Whether different non-positive engagement intentions of students interrelate with each other?
R ESEARCH METHOD
In 2022, a quantitative research approach was utilized to achieve the dissertation objectives, employing an online questionnaire survey to gather data from undergraduate students at universities in Hanoi, Vietnam The survey questionnaire was created using established measurement scales derived from prior studies.
The researcher collected data in an online survey based on convenient random sampling Collected data were analyzed with statistical software of SPSS version 26.0 and AMOS version 24.0
- Students’ perception of academic quality and their dissatisfaction with this element, which is under the responsibility of the teaching staff of HEI
Students exhibit non-positive engagement behaviors, including disengagement in academic activities and negative interactions with teaching staff in a blended learning environment This disengagement extends to their attitudes towards higher education institutions, fellow students, and external stakeholders.
This dissertation utilized a quantitative research approach, employing an online survey to gather data from undergraduate students at both public and private universities operating under the university autonomy mechanism in Hanoi, Vietnam, during February and March 2022.
The research surveyed undergraduate students from first to final year across five public universities operating under the university autonomy mechanism, including one with an international cohort program, as well as one private university Participants were asked to share their perceptions of the academic teaching quality at their institutions, their levels of dissatisfaction, and their intentions regarding non-positive engagement behaviors.
The steps of the research process are illustrated in the following flow chart:
S TRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
This dissertation utilizes the Conceptual model of Customer engagement valence (Naumann et al., 2017) and the HedPerf model (Abdullah, 2005) to explore students' intentions It incorporates three factors from the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as control variables to analyze changes in these intentions The structure of the dissertation includes an Introduction, Conclusion, and five additional chapters.
Chapter 1 provides a comprehensive review of the literature on customer engagement (CE), student engagement (SE), and their implications in higher education, highlighting the primary research issues addressed in this dissertation It also explores relevant theories such as relationship marketing, service-dominant (SD) logic, and value co-creation, which offer diverse perspectives on the research topic Through this systematic literature review, several research gaps are identified, which help to define the objectives of the current dissertation research.
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework and hypothesis development
Chapter 2 outlines the theoretical framework derived from the conceptual framework on CE valence and the HedPerf model in higher education, focusing on how perceived academic quality influences student disengagement and negative engagement behaviors It provides a detailed explanation of all key terms and concepts included in the framework to ensure clarity and theoretical validity for the proposed hypotheses.
Chapter 3 outlines the research design and methodology used to address the research problem, detailing the sampling process, the creation of survey instruments and questionnaires, as well as the methods for data collection and analysis.
This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the research findings, beginning with the demographic profiles of survey respondents through descriptive statistics It thoroughly presents the results of both descriptive and hypothesis testing The findings clarify the constructs that contribute to disengagement and negative engagement intentions, highlighting the differences in these relationships influenced by dissatisfaction as a mediating factor and school and major preferences as moderating factors Additionally, it explores the interrelations among various non-positive customer engagement intentions.
The final chapter of the dissertation summarizes the conclusions based on significant findings, emphasizing both theoretical contributions and practical implications It also addresses the limitations of the current research and offers recommendations for future studies in related areas.
LITERATURE REVIEW
L ITERATURE REVIEW ON CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN MARKETING
1.1.1 The theory of customer engagement
Engagement has been a topic of discussion in academia for over a century, encompassing various interpretations such as community, civic, and social engagement within the realm of social welfare (Palmatier et al., 2018) In the business sector, it is viewed as a contractual relationship and an organizational activity involving internal stakeholders The marketing literature introduced the concept of engagement in the early 2000s, linking it to the active relationship between customers and firms, which is referred to as customer engagement (CE) (Bowden, 2009; Kumar et al., 2010; Brodie et al., 2011; Palmatier et al., 2018; Van Doorn, 2010).
The development of customer engagement (CE) theory in marketing has led to various definitions across service sectors, yet higher education remains largely unaddressed as a non-customer sector Four primary perspectives on CE have emerged: (1) behavioral manifestation (Van Doorn et al., 2010); (2) psychological state (Brodie et al., 2011); (3) disposition to act (Storbacka et al., 2016); and (4) a process involving multiple stages of the customer decision-making journey (Maslowska et al., 2016) Żyminkowska (2019) argues that these perspectives are complementary rather than competitive, with each definition highlighting cognitive, affective (emotional), and attitude–behavioral components of customer engagement.
Customer engagement behavior (CEB) refers to actions that extend beyond mere transactions, encompassing a customer's interactions and emotional connections with a brand or company These behaviors are driven by underlying motivations and reflect a deeper relationship with the brand, as highlighted in the literature by Van Doorn et al.
In 2010, Kumar et al emphasized the importance of incorporating transactional behaviors into customer engagement However, a consensus among scholars such as Bijmolt et al (2010), Jaakkola & Alexander (2014), Verhoef et al (2010), and Verleye et al (2014) aligns with the views presented by van Doorn et al.
Customer engagement (CE) encompasses behaviors that go beyond mere transactions, focusing on actions that extend past the point of purchase This perspective is commonly adopted because such behaviors are easily observable and measurable Examples of CE include customer reviews, online word of mouth (eWOM), information sharing, and activities generated by customers in collaboration with firms (Ng et al., 2020).
Customer engagement (CE) is a complex concept that encompasses cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, as defined by Brodie et al (2011) It represents a psychological state that emerges from interactive and co-creative experiences between customers and a focal object within service relationships Additionally, Brodie et al emphasize that customer engagement is a non-linear process.
Customer engagement (CE) is a complex and context-dependent construct that does not follow a linear progression over time It encompasses cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, highlighting the importance of behavior as a key indicator of engagement However, some researchers, like Abdul-Ghani et al (2019), question whether CE can be considered a psychological state, as such states may be transient and fail to capture the enduring nature of engagement that is often implied in current CE research.
Some researchers, including Storbacka et al (2016) and Fehrer et al (2018), suggest that engagement disposition is an internal state reflecting a readiness to engage This inclination towards engagement naturally results in observable behaviors According to Storbacka et al (2016), actor engagement is characterized by these behavioral expressions.
Engagement in a service ecosystem involves both the willingness of actors to participate and the active process of resource integration within an institutional context Observable engagement behaviors serve as indicators for evaluating these activities Research indicates that consumer engagement encompasses multiple concepts and stages, including cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components This perspective suggests that customer engagement (CE) should be viewed as a process rather than a single stage, highlighting the importance of various interactions and experiences with a brand.
Table 1.1: CE definitions in highly ranked and cited articles
Year Definition Author(s) Journal rank
2018 Customer engagement is defined as “the connection between the customer and retailer”
Year Definition Author(s) Journal rank
2017 Customer engagement is defined as “a customer’s voluntary resource contribution to a firm’s marketing function, going beyond financial patronage”
2017 Customer engagement is defined as “the mechanics of a customer’s value addition to the firm, either through director/and indirect contribution” cf Kumar et al (2010)
(in social media) is defined as “the extent to which the organisation’s important customers are active in using social media tools”
2016 Actor engagement is defined as “both the disposition of actors to engage, and the activity of engaging in an interactive process of resource integration within the institutional
Year Definition Author(s) Journal rank
Type of paper context provided by a service ecosystem”
2014 Customer engagement is defined as
“behavioral manifestations of customer engagement toward a firm, after and beyond purchase” cf van Doorn et al (2010)
2014 Customer engagement is defined as “is a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive customer experiences with a focal agent/object such as a firm or brand cf Brodie et al (2011)
2012 Customer engagement is defined as “turning on customers by building emotional bonds in relational exchanges with them”
2012 Customer engagement is defined as “the intensity of an individual’s participation in and connection with an organisation’s offerings
Year Definition Author(s) Journal rank
Type of paper or organisational activities, which either the customer or the organisation initiates”
2011 Customer engagement is defined as “a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, cocreative customer experiences with a focal agent/object
(e.g., a brand) in focal service relationships”
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “the behavioral manifestation from a customer toward a brand or a firm which goes beyond purchase behavior” cf van
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “a customer’s behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers” cf van Doorn et al
Year Definition Author(s) Journal rank
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “active interactions of a customer with a firm, with prospects and with other customers, whether they are transactional or non- transactional in nature”
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “a customer’s behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers”
Customer engagement is a psychological process that explains how customer loyalty develops among new clients of a service brand and how it can be sustained for repeat customers.
Source: the author summarized based on Ng et al (2020)
Customer engagement is often confused with terms like customer experience, customer involvement, customer satisfaction, and customer commitment These concepts, while related, have distinct meanings Table 1.2 provides a summary of the differences between these terms and customer engagement.
Table 1.2: Constructs related to customer engagement
Constructs Definition Relationship to CE
CE research used related constructs
A person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichowsky
Involvement is the customer’s action in seeking information that may be used to manage any potential risk in their buying process
(Delgado- Ballester and Munuera-Aleman 2001)
This would occur before the customer makes a purchase; hence, it is the antecendent of CE as CE includes customer purchases
A product or service feature is evaluated based on its ability to deliver a satisfying level of consumption-related fulfillment, which encompasses both under- and over-fulfillment experiences.
If a customer is satisfied with a product or service, then he/she may buy the product/service again
Satisfaction is the antecedent of CE, and also consequence of CE (Maslowska et al ,2016)
Constructs Definition Relationship to CE
CE research used related constructs fulfillment (Oliver
It is a favorable attitude toward a brand resulting in the consistent purchase of the brand over time (Assael 1992)
Loyalty measures only repeat purchase transactions of the customer and focuses only on the revenue of the firm CE goes beyond purchases and includes referrals, influence, and feedback
Willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence (Moorman et al 1993, p 82)
Trust is the breadth of the attitude toward the brand which is embedded in CE
An enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship (Moorman et al 1992, p 316)
Commitment is the depth of the attitude toward a brand which is embedded in the CE framework
Source: the author summarized based on Palmatier et al (2018)
In conclusion, recent engagement research highlights that customer engagement (CE) does not have a singular definition Instead, the literature identifies four primary conceptualizations of CE: as a behavioral manifestation, a psychological state, a disposition, and a process.
1.1.1.2 Theories underlying the development of customer engagement
The current literature emerges three interrelated core theories considered as CE theory foundation: relationship marketing, service-dominant (SD) logic, and value co-creation (Ng et al., 2020)
"Relationship marketing, as defined by Berry (1983), emphasizes the importance of attracting and maintaining long-term connections with clients in multi-service organizations This approach prioritizes sustained relationships over transactional interactions, highlighting the significance of micro-level interactions between customers and companies (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2018)."
Companies significantly influence consumers' value co-creation through buyer-seller interactions, highlighting the importance of relationship marketing in understanding the dynamics of consumer engagement This area of study is crucial for current research on customer experience (CE), as it explores how CE can improve a firm's marketing strategy.
C USTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
As CE is a term used in marketing, it is necessary to discuss marketing and practice and scholars in higher education
1.2.1 Literature on marketing in higher education
Marketization policies and processes are emerging in countries that have historically experienced significant government control, indicating a transformative change in the governance of higher education systems globally (Jongbloed, 2003).
Higher education has increasingly been perceived as a 'private' good rather than a 'public' one, prompting higher education institutions (HEIs) to recognize the necessity of marketing themselves in a competitive international landscape To attract both domestic and international students, many universities are gradually adopting marketing theories and concepts that have proven successful in the business sector, aiming to secure a competitive advantage.
Since the 1980s, education marketing literature has primarily emerged from the United Kingdom and the United States, focusing on theoretical norms and business-oriented approaches (Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2004) From the 1990s to the present, numerous academic publications have been released, including books and manuals that provide guidance on marketing educational institutions (e.g., Gibbs & Knapp, 2001; Kotler & Fox).
1985) as well as how to adapt well-established above-the-line and below-the-line communication strategies typically utilized in the corporate sector to HE (e.g Davies & Scribbins, 1985; Keen & Warner, 1989)
It became clear that HE's offering is a service rather than a product, highlighting the significant differences in marketing strategies between services and goods Therefore, it is essential to adopt unique marketing approaches for HE (Nicholls et al., 1995).
In 1998, a study highlighted the importance of services and services marketing, emphasizing the "people-centered" nature of education and the critical role of customer relationships.
Customer engagement (CE) or Student engagement (SE)
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role as educators and non-profit service providers, with literature indicating that student engagement encompasses three interconnected dimensions: cognitive, behavioral, and affective (Handelsman et al., 2005) According to Chapman (2003), these aspects are essential for fostering a comprehensive understanding of student engagement.
- cognitive criteria - indicating the extent to which students are participating and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered;
- behavioral criteria - indicating the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented; and
- affective criteria - indexing the level of students' investment and emotional reactions to the learning tasks
From this approach, research on student engagement focuses on discovering the causes, dimensions, metrics, and results of student participation in learning tasks
According to Kuh et al (2007), student engagement (SE) encompasses two key characteristics: the time and effort students invest in their academic pursuits and the way institutions utilize resources and structure their curriculum to foster engagement This approach emphasizes the importance of creating supportive learning environments that promote persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation By focusing on these aspects, the literature on SE shifts the perspective of students from being viewed as "products" to being seen as "customers," highlighting the significance of their satisfaction with higher education institutions' offerings.
"student engagement" was more commonly used than "customer engagement."
Research on the marketing strategies of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) focuses on the effects of marketing communications and the use of digital platforms, such as social media, on brand engagement and customer satisfaction Studies highlight the significance of strategic marketing in enhancing student advocacy and online brand engagement, emphasizing the importance of adapting to modern communication trends to foster positive relationships with students.
Student engagement in higher education institutions (HEIs) extends beyond academic tasks to include interactions with staff and stakeholders Current literature indicates that HEI marketing initiatives focus on student engagement (SE) that parallels customer engagement (CE) in the business sector Outcomes of CE in HEIs involve students maintaining their affiliation, such as enrolling in further programs, sharing positive word-of-mouth recommendations, and promoting their institution as alumni.
“SE” and “CE” were used interchangeably in those researches
This dissertation explores the non-positive valence of student engagement in higher education, examining both engagement in academic activities and the role of students as customers of higher education institutions beyond their studies.
1.2.2 Literature on student engagement in higher education
1.2.2.1 Student engagement in studying activities
HEI has long been interested with student engagement from the perspective that defines it as "time and effort students dedicate to educationally intentional activities" (Radloff
Student engagement (SE) is a key concept in higher education, with existing students serving as the primary focus Extensive research has highlighted the significant impact of SE on academic achievement and learning outcomes Numerous studies have underscored its importance, demonstrating that effective engagement strategies can enhance the educational experience.
Current literature identifies four key research perspectives on student engagement (SE): the behavioral perspective, focusing on student behavior and institutional practices; the psychological perspective, which views engagement as an individual psychosocial process; the socio-cultural perspective, highlighting the significance of the socio-political context; and the holistic perspective, which adopts a comprehensive view of engagement.
This perspective highlights the complex relationship between teaching practices and student behavior in the context of student engagement Coate's (2007) four-way typology categorizes student engagement into four types: intensive, collaborative, independent, and passive, offering a fresh model for understanding how students interact with their studies.
On the other hand, the behavioral perspective's knowledge of engagement is too limited, which is a problem addressed by the psychological perspective
This perspective on student engagement (SE) is commonly found in educational literature, viewing engagement as a dynamic internal psychosocial process that evolves in intensity over time A key advantage of this approach is its clear differentiation between engagement and its antecedents, unlike the behavioral perspective Various overlapping dimensions of engagement have been identified, including behavior, cognition, emotion, and conation Earlier research often defined engagement in terms of a single dimension, while more recent theories emphasize that engagement is a multifaceted combination of these elements.
Engagement is defined as a student's psychological investment in learning, comprehension, or mastery of knowledge and skills (Newmann et al., 1992) This cognitive dimension, as highlighted in the behavioral perspective, relates to self-regulation and the effective use of deep learning strategies (Fredricks et al., 2004) Additionally, individual traits such as motivation, self-efficacy, and expectations play a crucial role in the cognitive aspect of engagement from a psychological viewpoint (Jimerson et al., 2003).
L IMITATIONS AND RESEARCH GAPS
1.3.1 In customer engagement in marketing
The systematic review indicates that many research papers have inadequately defined engagement, resulting in a lack of a clear conceptual and operational framework for Customer Engagement (CE) Additionally, several limitations are identified in the review.
Limitations in understanding the non-positive forms of engagement
Despite the identification of non-positive engagement types such as passive engagement, non-engagement, and disengagement, research on these areas remains limited Naumann et al (2017) emphasize the importance of understanding customer disengagement (CD), as it can lead to a negative confirmation bias that is challenging to reverse By uncovering the causes and characteristics of CD, service managers can develop strategies to prevent consumer disengagement and potentially restore positive engagement.
As a result, further research needs to uncover its drivers, hallmarks, and outcomes and their implications for service organizations (Brodie & Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek & Chen, 2014; Van Doorn et al., 2010)
Service relationships are complex, with customers engaging both positively and negatively across various aspects (Bowden et al., 2017; Rissanen et al., 2016) To fully understand customer engagement (CE) in all its intricacies and dynamics, there is a pressing need for more conceptual and empirical research focused on non-positive CE.
Limitations in perspective and methodological approaches of CE
The systematic review highlights an increasing awareness of the importance of examining engagement within ecosystems rather than solely focusing on dyadic interactions It points out the limitations of a methodological approach that predominantly relies on surveys The review advocates for the adoption of diverse methodologies and advanced technologies for data collection and measuring engagement in consumer engagement (CE) research.
A critical urging theme in CE research is the need for a broader, interdisciplinary approach to engagement due to current limitations of inconsistent conceptualization of
To effectively address the negative aspects of Circular Economy (CE), it is essential to adopt a comprehensive approach that incorporates new data, methodologies, and analytical techniques Researchers must transcend disciplinary boundaries and broaden their theoretical perspectives to enhance CE theory (Ng et al., 2020) In the context of higher education services, further investigation is needed to understand the evolving roles of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as both educators and businesses This research should be supported by innovative viewpoints and empirical evidence to integrate the two research streams on CE, focusing on both academic learning activities and the broader human elements involved.
1.3.2 In Customer engagement/ Student engagement in higher education
1.3.2.1 Limitations of research on SE in academic studying tasks
Research indicates that students' perceived academic quality and satisfaction significantly influence student engagement (SE) in higher education Conversely, the effects of perceived inadequate academic quality and dissatisfaction on student disengagement remain under-explored While the conceptual framework of student disengagement by Chipchase et al (2017) and limited studies, such as Bennett (2007), address this negative aspect of SE, further investigation is needed to enhance the theoretical framework of student disengagement (SD).
HE and empirical research to examine the framework are still in need and waiting for the attention of researchers
1.3.2.2 Limitation in HEI marketing research related to CE
Current literature primarily views higher education institutions (HEIs) through a business lens, emphasizing the antecedents and outcomes of student engagement as customers to support HEI marketing objectives This perspective largely overlooks student engagement in educationally purposeful activities, with notable exceptions including studies by Goodenow and Grady (1993), Hausmann et al (2007), Wilson and Gore (2013), and Bosselut et al (2020).
Research has established a strong link between the marketing efforts of higher education institutions (HEIs) and service quality, including academic standards, as key factors influencing customer experience (CE) and yielding positive outcomes for both students and HEIs (Bosselut et al., 2020) Studies on student satisfaction have effectively identified the determinants that impact satisfaction levels in higher education, highlighting its significance as a crucial element of university performance Enhanced student satisfaction can lead to improved perceptions of service efficiency and increased brand engagement (Abdelmaaboud et al., 2021; Abdullah, 2005; Dollinger et al., 2018; Karna & Julin, 2015; Martirosyan, 2015; Pringle & Fritz, 2019; Singh & Jasial, 2021; Weerasinghe et al., 2017; Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013).
Research indicates a strong correlation between student satisfaction and positive engagement in school However, it remains unclear whether students will engage negatively when they perceive inadequate academic quality or only when such quality exceeds their tolerance levels Current literature primarily addresses the positive aspects of student engagement, leaving these critical questions unanswered (Naumann et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2020).
The existing literature highlights a significant gap in the cross-disciplinary approach to studying Circular Economy (CE) within various service sectors, particularly in higher education Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) face the challenge of balancing competitive business objectives with the need for academic quality assurance Furthermore, the connections between student disengagement in academic activities and negative behaviors outside of these activities remain largely unexplored.
The behavioral perspective on customer engagement (CE) and service engagement (SE) is commonly utilized due to the observable nature of behaviors While the theory of planned behavior, which explains behavior through intention influenced by attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, has not been previously applied to CE/SE, this study represents a pioneering effort to do so It focuses on student intentions regarding non-positive engagement behaviors, balancing their roles as learners who respect teachers and schools with their rights as customers to respond to perceived service quality from higher education institutions (HEIs) This research aims to address the limitations of existing CE theories in marketing and SE/CE in higher education.
This study explores the negative emotional responses of students, specifically disengagement and negative engagement intentions, in relation to their perceptions of academic quality at higher education institutions (HEIs) and their overall dissatisfaction.
This study aims to merge two distinct research streams on student engagement (SE) by quantitatively examining the relationship between disengagement in academic activities and negative engagement behaviors among students It focuses on the influence of a critical aspect of higher education services—academic quality as perceived by undergraduate students.
This chapter provides a thorough review of the literature on customer engagement in marketing and student engagement in higher education, highlighting key research gaps that this dissertation aims to address Notably, the limited understanding of the non-positive valence of customer engagement in marketing and student engagement in higher education is emphasized Additionally, it remains uncertain whether the primary factors influencing customer engagement, such as academic quality and teaching quality, also contribute to customer disengagement and negative engagement Furthermore, the specific characteristics of these effects are not clearly defined.
Current literature suggests that negative customer engagement (CE) and customer dissatisfaction (CD) should be analyzed alongside positive CE within complex service relationships Customers can interact with various facets of a service both positively and negatively However, there is a significant need for more conceptual and empirical research on non-positive CE to fully develop the theory, capturing its complexities and dynamism.