The impact of academic quality on non positive student engagement in higher education

HANOI – 2023 PHAM THI KIM THANH THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC QUALITY ON NON-POSITIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION PHD DISSERTATION IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION... ATDB Attitude tow

HANOI – 2023

PHAM THI KIM THANH

THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC QUALITY ON NON-POSITIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN

HIGHER EDUCATION

PHD DISSERTATION

IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

PHAM THI KIM THANH

THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC QUALITY ON NON-POSITIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN

a degree at this or any other educational institution I also certify that all of the dissertation's references have been properly credited

I have read and comprehended the University's policy on plagiarism and academic integrity violations With my own honor, I certify that this research was carried out by

me and that it does not violate regulations of good academic practice

PhD candidate

TABLE OF CONTENTS II LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES VI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VII

INTRODUCTION 1

1 THE RATIONALE FOR THE RESEARCH TOPIC 1

2 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH 3

3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4

4 RESEARCH METHOD 4

5 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION 6

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 8

1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ON CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN MARKETING 8

1.1.1 The theory of customer engagement 8

1.1.2 The antecedents and outcomes of customer engagement 22

1.2 CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 25

1.2.1 Literature on marketing in higher education 25

1.2.2 Literature on student engagement in higher education 27

1.3 LIMITATIONS AND RESEARCH GAPS 32

1.3.1 In customer engagement in marketing 32

1.3.2 In Customer engagement/ Student engagement in higher education 34

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 1 35

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 37

2.1 THE ACADEMIC QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IN CE VALENCE 37

2.2.2 The moderating effects stemming from school preference and major

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2 54

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 56

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 56

3.1.1 Questionnaire Survey process 56

3.1.2 Development of instrument and questionnaire 58

3.1.3 Data collection and analysis 66

3.2 METHODS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 71

3.2.1 Data Screening 71

3.2.2 Refinement and Validation of Instrument 71

3.2.3 Statistical Procedure 73

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3 77

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH 78

4.1 RESEARCH SAMPLE 78

4.2 MODEL MEASUREMENT 79

4.2.1 Descriptive statistics 79

4.2.2 Factor Analysis and Reliability Test 86

4.3 HYPOTHESES TESTING 92

4.3.1 Evaluation of the Structural Measurement Model 92

4.3.2 Hypotheses testing results 93

4.3.3 The relationship between student disengagement and negative engagement testing results 101

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4 103

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 104

5.1 DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 104

5.1.1 Results of descriptive and path analysis 104

5.1.2 The Moderating Effects of major preference and school preference 108

5.1.3 The relationship between student disengagement and negative engagement intention testing results 109

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5 114

CONCLUSION 115

LIST OF PUBLISHED WORKS 118

REFERENCES 119

APPENDIXES 147

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 147

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 151

APPENDIX C EFA, CFA AND SEM MODEL 156

APPENDIX D MULTIGROUP TESTING 203

Table 1.2: Constructs related to customer engagement 14

Table 1.3: Constructs related to negative engagement 20

Table 2.1: Description of the original HEdPERF scale dimensions 40

Table 2.2: CE manifestation in research 43

Table 3.1: Measurement items for perceived academic quality and student dissatisfaction 61

Table 3.2: Measurement items for Student Disengagement Behavior intention 62

Table 3.3: Measurement items for Negative Engagement Intention 63

Table 3.4: Measurement items for three component factors in TPB 64

Table 4.1: Demographic and Basic Information of Respondents 78

Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics for Measurement Items 80

Table 4.3: KMO and Bartlett's Test 87

Table 4.4: Total Variance Explained 87

Table 4.5: Pattern Matrixa 88

Table 4.6: Results of multiple fit indices 90

Table 4.7: Convergent and Discriminant Validity 91

Table 4.8: Results of Structural Equation Model 93

Table 4.9: Mediation Results for Dissatisfaction 96

Table 4.10: Global Test 2 Results –major_preference 97

Table 4.11: Global Test 1 Results –school_preference 97

Table 4.12: Multigroup Tests Desired_major – Not_desired_major 98

Table 4.13: Multigroup Tests Desired_school – Not_desired_school 99

Table 4.14: Relationship between non-positive engagement behaviors testing results .101

Figure 2.1: The conceptual Framework of CE Valence 42

Figure 2.2: The theoretical framework 54

Figure 3.1: Research Process 57

Figure 4.1: Structural Model Results 102

ATDB Attitude toward student disengagement behavior

ATNEB Attitude toward negative engagement behavior

CE Customer engagement

CEB Customer engagement behavior

CEM Customer engagement marketing

CRM Customer relationship management

DIS Dissatisfaction

eWOM Electronic Word of Mouth

HE Higher education

HEI Higher education institute

NEB Negative customer engagement behavior/ Negative engagement behavior NEBO Actual negative engagement behavior outside HEI

NEBW Actual negative engagement behavior within HEI

NEIO Intention to Negative engagement behavior outside HEI

NEIW Intention to Negative engagement behavior within HEI

PAQ Perceived academic quality

PBNEB Perceived behavioral control toward negative engagement behavior

SD Student disengagement

SDB Student disengagement behavior

SDI Student disengagement intention

SE Student engagement

SEM Structural Equation Model

SET Student Evaluation of Teaching

SNDB Subjective norm toward student disengagement behavior

SNNEB Subjective norm toward negative engagement behavior

SNS Social Networking Site

TPB Theory of Planned Behavior

UA University Autonomy

VNU Vietnam National University

has risen as a phenomenon in marketing and has drawn the attention of a large number

of marketing practitioners and scholars (e.g., Ng et al., 2020; Palmatier et al., 2018) The idea of leveraging customer engagement emerged when the digital age was booming Researchers have been working on CE to deeply understand and clarify the definition, firm-related and customer-related antecedents, the outcomes, and the different contexts

of customer engagement to complete the theory (Brodie et al., 2011; Maslowska et al., 2016; Storbacka et al 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010) Previous research findings reveal that customer engagement's valence includes both positive and non-positive However, the non-positive side of CE which consists of disengagement and negative engagement,

is so far under-discovered in current literature, except for just a few papers addressing these forms of engagement (e.g., Hollebeek & Chen, 2014; Alexander et al., 2018; Naumann et al., 2017) These gaps are calling for research as the fact is that satisfied customers do not necessarily positively engage but customers who experience stressful

or unpleasant service encounters are likely to release their anger and disappointment with a brand as a means of self-preservation through negative engagement (Hollebeek

& Chen, 2014)

In the higher education (HE) sector, the literature seems to draw its own picture of CE

in the theory of CE so far as it was considered a “non-customer” sector (Ng et al., 2020) Research in HE focuses on the term “Student engagement” in learning activities from the perspective of educators and students as the “product” of higher education institutions (HEI) This research direction focuses on identifying antecedents, dimensions, measurements, and outcomes of student engagement (SE) in learning tasks (e.g Chickering & Gamson, 1999; Pike, 2003; Trowler, 2010) As an educator, academia pays attention to SE for quality assurance in HEI, higher retention, and prevention of school dropout However, academic quality issues are their core concern not only for quality assurance but also due to the changes in the labor market and the more and more demanding customers - students

high-skill positions between 2017 and 2019 (Fuller et al., 2022) Employers are abandoning the proxy of degree completion when evaluating job applications in favor

of hiring on the basis of demonstrated skills and capabilities This transition to skills- based hiring will provide possibilities to a sizable community of potential employees who, in recent years, have been labeled "hidden workers" and "stars" but have frequently been overlooked due to degree inflation (Fuller et al., 2021, p.16)

Furthermore, regarding the behavior of Gen Z students, enrolling in HEIs is not the only future path of Gen Z after high school Especially after the Covid 19 pandemic, and the increasingly expensive cost of HE service, there exists a dropping in the university enrollment rate and the tendency to skip the 4-year higher education in developed countries like the US (Jon Marcus 2022; Jessica Dickler 2022) For academic knowledge learning, typical Gen Z students are considered the generation of self-learners who are more comfortable absorbing knowledge online than in traditional institutions of learning (Francis & Hoefel 2018) A variety of online academic sources are free of charge and easy for them to access Hence, once they choose to go to HEI, as they have to pay for the costly services to HEIs, it encompasses high involvement of students and leads to their initiative in making a post-purchase assessment (e.g., Molesworth et al., 2011) based on their experience with the service Their reviews then are a source of reference for prospective students In searching and considering alternatives, they are viewed as the first generation of true digital natives; searching and unveiling the truth behind all things is the root of their behavior (e.g., Francis & Hoefel 2018, Lypnytska, 2019) They search and trust 'reviews' from former customers, they then consider making a review based on self-experience with the service as their responsibility to netizens and other customers

The question is what if students do not satisfy with the academic quality of their HEI? Will they disengage from studying activities when they have to pay quite a large amount for tuition fees? Will they negatively engage with HEI by sharing their negative feedback and/ or reviews about their HEI academic quality, which would affect HEI's reputation, thereby affecting their own image in prospective employers in the labor market? These questions remain unanswered as the current literature in both streams on SE/CE in HE mainly focuses on students' satisfaction and their positive engagement with learning tasks and with the school

being a multi-tasking staff in a service business They are responsible for the quality of academic teaching for quality assurance as educators They are also service staff to serve and satisfy the “customer” for HEI’s objectives in competition and growth by developing new programs and hot courses, other support services, and non-academic jobs when the university autonomy is widely implemented in HEIs Besides, Dr Pham Nhu Nghe, Deputy Director of the Higher Education Department, Ministry of Education and Training, said that although encouraging results have been achieved, the effectiveness of student career orientation and direction is still very modest (Nghiem, 2022) A situation in the past years shows that HEIs try to improve enrollment and training targets based on the school's capacity and growth objectives since UA implementation, but do not pay much attention to whether graduates can get jobs that match their academic major or not Hence, the fierce competition among HEIs in recruiting students brings students more choices but also exists the fact that many of them choose the school or major that does not match their abilities and interests (Tran, 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

Hence, the author considers the context of HE globally and in Vietnam particularly regarding the students’ roles as not only learners but customers of HEI, alongside with the above-identified gaps in CE literature in which the theory of planned behavior (TPB) has not yet been used despite that it is a profound theory well-explaining behavior through the intention under the impact of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived

behavioral control Considering these issues, the author chooses the title “The impact of

academic quality on non-positive student engagement in higher education” for the

dissertation with the purpose and research questions presented in the following sections

2 Purpose of the research

From the behavioral perspective on CE, the author aims at accomplishing the following

- Investigating the interrelation effects between non-positive student engagement

intentions in learning activities and beyond learning activities

3 Research 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?

4 Research method

To complete these dissertation objectives, a quantitative research approach was adopted with an online questionnaire survey designed to collect data from undergraduate students from universities in Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2022 Measurement scales were adopted and developed from previous studies to generate the survey questionnaire

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

4.1 Research subjects

The research subjects are:

- Students’ perception of academic quality and their dissatisfaction with this element, which is under the responsibility of the teaching staff of HEI

- The students' non-positive engagement behavior intentions including

disengagement behavior in academic studying activities in teaching staff-

student interaction in the blended learning environment; and negative

engagement behavior toward HEI objects, other students, and stakeholders

outside HEI

4.2 Research scope

To complete this dissertation, a quantitative research approach was adopted with an online survey design to collect data from undergraduate students from public and private universities under the university autonomy mechanism in Hanoi, Vietnam, from February-March 2022

4.3 Research respondents

Respondents of the research were undergraduate students from the first year to final year

in five public universities that operate under the university autonomy mechanism, one

of which is an international cohort program and one private university They are asked about their perception of the academic teaching quality of their school, their dissatisfaction, and their intention to have non-positive engagement behaviors

Research process

The steps of the research process are illustrated in the following flow chart:

Figure 1: Research design

5 Structure of the dissertation

This dissertation is conducted based on the Conceptual model of Customer engagement valence (Naumann et al., 2017) and HedPerf model (Abdullah, 2005) As the study aims

at examining the students’s intentions, hence, three factors in the theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which is a well-established theory on behavioral intention, are treated as control variables to ascertain the explanation of the changes in students’ intentions Besides the Introduction and Conclusion, this dissertation comprises of five chapters, as follows:

Chapter 1: Literature review

Chapter 1 presents a thorough overview of the existing body of literature related to customer engagement, student engagement, and customer engagement in higher

education, and the main research problems of this dissertation research This chapter further discusses relevant theories that are often applied to address the research matter from other perspectives (relationship marketing, service-dominant (SD) logic, and value co-creation) Based on this systematic review of extant literature regarding CE and SE, several research gaps are identified, establishing the objectives of this present dissertation research

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

Chapter 2 comprehensively describes the theoretical framework developed from the conceptual framework on CE valence and the HedPerf model in HE to investigate the impact of perceived academic quality on student disengagement and negative engagement behaviors All the relevant key terms and concepts incorporated into the conceptual framework to address the hypotheses proposed in the study are explained in detail for clarity and theoretical validity

Chapter 3: Research methods

Chapter 3 clearly describes the research design and methodology applied to investigate the research problem It further explains and discusses research sampling, the development of the survey instruments and questionnaire, and the data collection and analysis methods

Chapter 4: Research results

This chapter is a comprehensive description of the research results and interpretation of key findings First, the demographic profiles of survey respondents are illustrated using descriptive statistics The descriptive and hypothesis testing results are presented in detail Research findings are clearly explained to indicate which constructs facilitate disengagement and negative engagement intention, how these relationships are different under the mediating effects of dissatisfaction and the moderating effects of school preference and major preference, and how different non-positive CE intentions interrelate to each other

Chapter 5: Discussions and Implications

This last chapter of the dissertation discusses the conclusion drawn from key findings,

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Literature review on customer engagement in marketing

1.1.1 The theory of customer engagement

1.1.1.1 What is customer engagement?

Engagement is not a new term For the last century, academia has discussed this term with various interpretations and contexts It is discussed as community engagement, civic engagement, social engagement, etc., in the context of social welfare (Palmatier

et al., 2018) In business, engagement is viewed in the context of a contractual relationship, and as an organizational activity with the internal stakeholders in management In the marketing literature, the concept of engagement was introduced in the early 2000s, and engagement is associated with the level of an active relationship with a firm shared by a customer and is termed customer engagement (CE) (Bowden, 2009; Kumar et al., 2010; Brodie et al., 2011; Palmatier et al., 2018; Van Doorn, 2010) During the theory development on customer engagement in the marketing discipline, various approaches have evolved, leading to the various definitions of CE in many service sectors but excluding the sector of higher education which is considered as the non-customer sector Up to now, there are four main perspectives primarily examining customer engagement: (1) as a behavioral manifestation (Van Doorn et al., 2010); (2) as

a psychological state (e.g., Brodie et al., 2011); (3) as a disposition to act (e.g Storbacka

et al., 2016); and (4) as a process including several steps or stages of the customer decision-making process (e.g Maslowska et al., 2016) Żyminkowska (2019) posits that those perspectives are rather complementary than competitive Each definition of CE proposed within a multidimensional perspective emphasizes cognitive, affective (emotional), and customer attitude–behavioral components

Customer engagement behavior (CEB) is frequently used in literature focusing on behavioral indicators CEB are behaviors that "go beyond transactions and may be properly described as a customer's behavioral manifestations with a brand or company focus, beyond purchase, deriving from motivating motivations," (Van Doorn et al.,

2010, p.254) While Kumar et al (2010) argue that customer engagement should include transactional behaviors, the majority of scholars (e.g., Bijmolt et al 2010; Jaakkola & Alexander 2014; Verhoef et al 2010; Verleye et al 2014) agree with van Doorn et al (2010) that CE merely includes behavior that extends beyond transactions, and thus beyond the buying This approach is frequently used since behaviors are easily observed and measured CE From this approach, CE examples are customer actions such as customer reviews, online word of mouth (eWOM), information sharing, and customer- generated activities with firms (Ng et al., 2020)

According to Brodie et al., CE is a multidimensional construct that includes cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement They define it as a psychological state that arises from interactive and co-creative customer experiences with a focal object in service relationships (2011) Customers' engagement is non-linear, according to Brodie et al (2013), and occurs not in an orderly or sequential succession of stages through time Because CE is context-dependent, the three dimensions of CE might appear in any order (Brodie et al., 2011) Accordingly, as behavior is a critical indication of engagement, it requires the acknowledgment of CE as a multifaceted construct, including cognitive and emotional dimensions, alongside behaviors for a comprehensive understanding of CE (Carvalho & Fernandes, 2018; Heinonen, 2018) However, Abdul-Ghani et al (2019) raised a question on the concept of CE as a psychological state because a state may only

be momentary Hence, that definition may not reflect the enduring concept of engagement which is still implicit in the current research on CE

Besides, some authors, such as Storbacka et al (2016) and Fehrer et al (2018), argue that an engagement disposition is an internal state that indicates a readiness or proclivity

to engage Both express engagement, as this inclination automatically leads to behavioral manifestations Actor engagement is defined by Storbacka et al (2016, p 3009) as "both the disposition of actors to participate, and the activity of engaging in an interactive process of resource integration within the institutional context offered by a service ecosystem." Observable engagement behaviors can be used to evaluate such activities In modelling consumer/actor behaviors or decision-making, several researchers have noticed that engagement is represented by more than one unique concept/stage In addition to the previously mentioned cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components (e.g Brodie et al., 2011), numerous researchers conceptualize engagement as several stages in customer decision-making Hence, adopting a process- type model does not limit CE to one single stage but a set of interactions and experiences with a brand (Maslowska et al., 2016; Ng et al., 2020; Verleye et al., 2014)

Table 1.1: CE definitions in highly ranked and cited articles

rank

Type of engagement

Type of paper

Year Definition Author(s) Journal

rank

Type of engagement

Type of paper

2017 Customer engagement

is defined as “a customer’s voluntary resource contribution to

a firm’s marketing function, going beyond financial patronage”

contribution” cf Kumar

et al (2010)

Pansari and Kumar

A∗ Behavioral Conceptual

2016 Customer engagement

(in social media) is defined as “the extent to which the organisation’s important customers are active in using social media tools”

Guesalaga A∗ Behavioral Empirical

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

Storbacka

et al

B Disposition Conceptual

Year Definition Author(s) Journal

rank

Type of engagement

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)

Verleye, Gemmel and Rangarajan

A∗ Behavioral Empirical

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)

Jaakkola and Alexander

A∗ Behavioral Empirical

2012 Customer engagement

is defined as “turning on customers by building emotional bonds in relational exchanges with them”

Vivek, Beatty and Morgan

B Behavioral/

Emotional

Empirical

Year Definition Author(s) Journal

rank

Type of engagement

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”

a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers”

cf van Doorn et al

(2010)

Verhoef, Reinartz and Krafft

A∗ Behavioral Conceptual

Year Definition Author(s) Journal

rank

Type of engagement

Type of paper

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”

a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers”

by which customer loyalty forms for new customers of a service brand as well as the mechanisms by which loyalty may be

Bowden B Psychological Conceptual

Aside from multiple definitions of engagement, some terms such as customer experience, customer involvement, customer satisfaction, and customer commitment are often misinterpreted as customer engagement Table 1.2 summarizes how these terms are different from but related to CE

Table 1.2: Constructs related to customer engagement

Constructs Definition Relationship to CE

CE research used related constructs

Customer involvement

A person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichowsky

1985, p 342)

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

Bowden (2009) Hollebeek (2011) Vivek et al (2012)

Maslowska et al (2016)

Customer satisfaction

It is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product

or service itself, provides (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under- or over

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)

Hollebeek (2014) Maslowska et al (2016)

Van Doom et al (2010)

Constructs Definition Relationship to CE

CE research used related constructs

fulfillment (Oliver

1997, p 13)

Customer loyalty

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

Bowden (2009)

Maslowska et al (2016)

Customer trust

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

Bowden (2009) Hollebeek (2011)

Van Doom et al (2010)

Customer commitment

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

Bowden (2009) Hollebeek (2014) Maslowska et al (2016)

Van Doom et al (2010)

there exist four main streams of CE conceptualizations in the current literature - CE as

a behavioral manifestation, psychological state, disposition, and 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

"Attracting, sustaining, and in multi-service organizations – improving client connections" is characterized by relationship marketing (Berry, 1983, p 25) Instead of transactional interactions, this refers to the development of prolonged or long-term relationships with customers (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2018) Relationship marketing, in particular, focuses on the micro-level interactions between the client and the company

It provides essential insights into how companies might impact consumers' value co- creation processes through dyadic interactions, such as in buyer-seller partnerships (Grönroos & Voima, 2013) As a result, relationship marketing is precious for describing the micro-level dynamics that underpin consumer engagement, which is the focus of

many current studies on CE Researchers in this stream focus on figuring out how CE

can enhance the firm’s marketing strategy (Jaakkola et al., 2018)

Service-dominant logic

In 2004, Vargo and Lusch originally presented SD logic as a meta-theoretical alternative

to the goods-oriented model of economic interaction In contrast to goods dominating logic, which considers value as being inherent in a product, tangible output, and discrete transactions, SD logic holds that service is the foundation of trade (Vargo & Lusch, 2008) and that providers and customers co-create value (Echeverri & Skalen, 2011) Consequently, customers "engage" by incorporating their own and other resources into the process of value co-creation According to Payne et al (2008) and Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2000), this paradigm views customers as active players who are especially relevant to CE It suggests that clients may obtain greater value from such offerings

In a subsequent study, Vargo and Lusch (2011) expanded the value of co-creators beyond customers to include all actors Therefore, the SD logic approach facilitates a change from dyadic to actor-to-actor (A2A) system perspectives (Jaakkola et al., 2018; Vargo & Lusch, 2014) This approach suggests that practitioners will require more study on the process and effects of engagement across ecosystem levels in order to

build engagement strategies engaging multiple stakeholders across platforms (Brodie

et al., 2019)

Value co-creation

The importance of this concept is emphasized while examining the co-creative process

of value creation Micro-level value can be co-created through a collaborative process This single process of direct contact combines the customer's consumption, the service provider's production process, and the value creation process (Ng et al., 2020) McColl- Kennedy et al (2012) contend that value can also be co-created through the customer's integration of resources via interactions and activities with service network collaborators Utilizing the value co-creation lens within the framework of CE permits researchers to examine interactions not only between customer and company or customer and consumer but also from an ecosystem perspective

In addition to social exchange theory, stimulus organism response, stakeholder theory, and resource exchange theory, the current review also identifies social exchange theory, stimulus organism response, and stakeholder theory as other CE-related theories (Ng et al., 2020) These theories pertain to the roles of actors within an ecosystem and the resources utilized in exchanges between actors

1.1.1.3 Manifestations of customer engagement

The current literature shows that customer engagement can diversify in different situational conditions and times Hence it is necessary to clarify the manifestations of customer engagement (Brodie et al., 2011) It is summarized as follows:

Focal actor (who) The focal actor is the primary subject who engages with the focal

object(s) Most prior study on CE has treated paying customers as the primary focal Nonetheless, another study by Groeger et al (2016) on CEB suggests that non-paying clients based on the use of free offers are equally significant Non-paying customers include prospective clients, prosumers, users of a competing brand of the same product, and participants in consumer trials (2016) In addition, researchers are beginning to examine customer engagement from the firm's perspective, i.e., what enterprises may

do to encourage consumer interaction, a notion known as customer engagement

Focal object(s) (with whom) A focal object is the primary "object(s)" that the focal

actor engages with Brodie et al (2011) explain that focus objects include other customers, businesses, or non-human actors with whom they interact In actuality, CE could be more complex, involving multiple focal objects at once According to Ng et al (2020), there are "layers of engagement" between the consumer and the service offering, such as in the context of financial planning with the provider, their advise, and the service process, and these interactions can take place within or outside the service contract Dessart et al (2016) recognize that consumers can engage with many foci, and that different types of engagement can overlap Engagement with many focal objects in the same consumption-related context is, in fact, advantageous, such as the brand, brand community, and individuals within the community, which have the capability to affect one another

In addition, as illustrated by Storbacka et al (2016), the internet connection and advanced technological interfaces extend engagement to machines or human-machine combinations How organizations may effectively engage customers by leveraging technology or digital interfaces is an emerging field of study, with applications to machine learning and robots (2016) as well as the internet of things (e.g Letheren et al., 2019)

Valence (what) and Intensity (how) CE may be positively, or non-positively valenced

(Van Doorn et al., 2010; Ng et al., 2020) while intensity relates to the level or strength

of CE Not all customers are positively engaged with focal objects Given that much of the existing customer engagement research in marketing has focused on positively valenced CE An emerging stream of research explores other levels of non-positive engagement which are ranging from passive engagement, non-engagement, disengagement and negative engagement (Dutot & Mosconi, 2016; Ng et al., 2020; Quintal et al., 2012; Rissanen et al., 2016)

Passive engagement is a less active form of engagement that reflects a transitory

condition of inactivity or dormancy on the part of customers who were actively engaged with the focus object previously (adapted from Brodie et al., 2013) Malthouse et al (2013) defined it as a lower type of engagement in which customers interact passively with brand material or provide simple feedback, such as clicking "like" on a brand's social media channel Non-engagement refers to the absence of an interactive experience (or interaction) with the company or brand (Brodie et al., 2011), which is the antonym

of "active" engagement

Customer disengagement (CD) is defined as "a customer's physical, cognitive, and

emotional withdrawal from their relationship with a service provider" (Bowden et al., 2015; Dolan et al., 2017; Dutot & Mosconi, 2016; Rissanen et al., 2016) Disengagement

is characterized by cynicism, irritation, disregard, and mistrust according to Naumann

et al., (2017) Active participation with a negative valence can reduce consumers' tolerance for service failures, making them more likely to terminate the connection (Bougie et al., 2003)

Negative customer engagement is defined by Hollebeek and Chen (2014) as

"unfavorable brand-related thoughts, sentiments, and behaviors during focal brand interactions" (p 63) to express rage and dissatisfaction with a brand Customers may view it as a method of self-preservation during stressful or negative service interactions

It is considered a comprehensive portrayal of stakeholders' negative cognitive processes and emotions According to Hollebeek and Chen (2013, p 2), this type of engagement process results in "denial, rejection, avoidance, and unfavorable word-of-mouth" towards the business or brand

Negative engagement has been characterized as an "experience-based set of participative acts where negative concerns concerning an organization or brand are publicly explored" in the public relations literature from the organizational perspective (Lievonen & Luoma-aho, 2015, p 288)

It has been stated that individual engagement is a response to the "threat appraisal" of

an individual stakeholder, encompassing the form of the unpleasant experience and the quantity and intensity of dissonance perceived on an individual level (Hollebeek & Chen, 2014) As a result, negative engagement is regarded as deliberate and emergent

as a focused behavior toward the focal topic In this sense, negative engagement surpasses simple absorption and disengagement, as it involves a distinct target and stimulus, is motivated by anger, and results in purposeful, motivated, and targeted negative behavior (Kuppens, van Mechelen, Smits, & de Boeck, 2003; Lievonen, M., Luoma-aho, V., & Bowden, J., 2018))

Negative CE can appear as sentiments of "anger, hostility, and tension, which manifest

Building on Bowden, Luoma-aho, and Naumann (2016) in the public service context, negative engagement manifests through the active and spirited spread of negative WOM recommendations, co-opting others to adopt a specific attitudinal and/or behavioral position about a provider, the development of deeply negative attitudes, and the potent ial for retaliation and revenge behaviors Negative engagement has a specific objective, making it of vital importance for businesses, organizations, and individuals Table 1.3 presents the concepts that are closely related to the phenomenon of negative engagement

in the academic literature

Table 1.3: Concepts related to negative engagement

Concepts related

negative engagement

Field

Level of focus

as other behaviors such as negative word

of mouth and exit;

Those consumers who find it easier will more likely to complain

Consumer behavior

Lee et al (2008);

Seek remedy and alleviate level of dissatisfaction in online environment, warning others online

Interactive marketing, electronic

Emotions, behavior

Chen & Lurie (2013); advertising,

computer science

to the same set of

Product and brand

management

Emotions, behavior

attitude, the

unfavorable brand-

Product and brand

management

Emotions, messenger, behavior related thoughts, (business and

feelings, and marketing) behaviors during focal

brand interactions”

Source: the author summarized based on Lievonen et al (2018)

Like positive engagement, negative engagement is understood to be a process by nature

In general, similarly to positive forms of engagement, negative engagement is evoked

by individuals’ experiences or other types of triggers (Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012) leading to the actual engagement behaviors (Brodie et al., 2013; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Vivek et al., 2012)

However, few researchers have attempted to comprehend the broad spectrum of CE in terms of its level or intensity with empirical evidence Despite the fact that customers may have negative CE, they may still interact with the core product due to situational constraints, such as brand lock-in or switching prices Although businesses are aware of the possible repercussions of mismanaging non-transactional consumer contacts (Verhoef et al., 2010), far less is known about negatively valenced customer engagement (Heinonen, 2018)

Level of interaction (when) While marketing moves to a service-driven logic, customer

engagement must be included in the service ecosystem, according to Vargo (2009) Commonly, they conceptualize CE at three levels: micro, meso, and macro (Frow et al., 2014; Storbacka et al., 2016) The micro level focuses on interactions between individuals; the meso level considers the focal firm (i.e., an entity governed by a set of regulations); and the macro level considers the market (Frow et al., 2014) Frow et al (2019) have lately urged researchers to examine other layers of the ecosystem and their interactions, such as the larger ecosystem that can be viewed from the meta or mega

websites Customers can physically interact with the servicescape in an offline context via retail attributes, products, service store personnel, and store trials (e.g., Bednall et al., 2018) Nevertheless, both online and offline engagement might occur in the same venue Individuals interacting with brand A in a store, for instance, engage with physical products and service personnel and utilize the store's internet resources for service provision

1.1.2 The antecedents and outcomes of customer engagement

1.1.2.1 The antecedents of customer engagement

Identifying antecedents commonly associated with CE is relevant to delineating CE from other marketing constructs, thereby establishing what is uniquely CE The literature presents two types of antecedents: firm-related and customer-related (substantiated by Ng et al., 2020; Vivek et al., 2012, 2014)

Firm-related antecedents of CE The literature demonstrates that firm-related CE efforts include CEM initiatives and social CRM

CEM initiatives These characteristics pertain to a company's deliberate effort to empower, encourage, and quantify a customer's voluntary commitment to its marketing functions beyond the monetary transaction (Harmeling et al., 2017) As a result, the organization employs CE and attempts to proactively manage the customer experience (Alvarez-Milán, 2018) According to research by Hollebeek et al (2019) and Jaakkola and Alexander (2014), customers can contribute to the company's marketing functions from a CEM perspective Harmeling et al (2017) identify task-based marketing and experience marketing as two forms of CEM projects Customers utilize their resources

to accomplish a predetermined planned job, such as referring a customer, submitting a review, or introducing the service to other customers These activities require physical

or mental exertion and are frequently rewarded with points or discounts In addition, experiential CEM uses experience events to trigger the customer's heightened psychological and emotional ties to the company, brand, or other customers (Harmeling

et al., 2017) These two CEM efforts are used to encourage consumers' active participation in the marketing functions of the company and contribute to the enhancement of the company's performance

Social CRM The advent and popularity of the internet and social media make it easier and more effective for customers and businesses to interact with their extended social networks, including friends, family, and peers (e.g., Choudhury & Harrigan, 2014;

Greenberg, 2010; Kumar et al., 2010) To establish a social CRM strategy, researchers underline that employees should be empowered to participate in other customer touchpoints or interactive channels, such as social media (Malthouse et al., 2013) Customer-related antecedents of CE

Customer capabilities Customer capabilities are the focused actor's operant resources

(i.e., knowledge and skill) that affect his or her capacity to interact and engage with the focal object (Ng et al., 2016) Given his or her ability to comprehend the subject matter,

a customer with greater abilities and knowledge is more likely to interact with the focal items and become involved with them In contrast, a customer's lack of comprehension may impede interaction with a focal object due to insufficient skills and knowledge In other words, the customer's skills influence his or her ability to engage with the focal objects cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally Karpen et al (2012) show how service-dominant capabilities facilitate and reinforce "service-dominant acting" such as engagement Customers' ability to co-create value through interaction is a direct result

of their knowledge and abilities

Situational factors Literature suggests that situational variables, such as perceived

service fairness and service convenience, may influence customer engagement Berry et

al (2002) define service convenience as the amount of time and effort saved by customers while purchasing and utilizing a service In contrast, perceived service fairness is a psychological contract in which customers anticipate that the service provider will meet their demands and treat them fairly (Schneider & Bowen, 1999) It indicates how customers perceive the fairness of a service provider's actions (Seiders & Berry, 1998) Specifically, the research found that these two characteristics have a substantial impact on the behavioral aspect of CE (i.e CEB), such as word-of-mouth and assisting behaviors (other customers and the company) (Roy et al., 2018) According

to Brodie et al (2011), CE is highly context-dependent, and its dimensions can change considerably between settings Therefore, they recommend that future study investigate

CE in a variety of situations with a variety of situational circumstances

Attitudinal factors The customer's feelings toward the target object are reflected through

attitude antecedents Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) identified trust, commitment, and

nature of customer engagement, which does not follow a "orderly, sequential evolution

of phases through time," this is the case (Brodie et al., 2013, p 110) For example, trust, commitment, and satisfaction are drivers of CE for existing/repeat customers, because they have already encountered the focal object and are returning to create a relationship

or establish a deeper and more intimate connection with it (Bowden, 2009)

On the other hand, while connecting with a new focal item, new customers can encounter these same elements According to Maslowska et al (2016), the effects on various engagement-related metrics are not necessarily linear, and system participants may react differently So far, the majority of research analyzing the customer interaction process have not distinguished between new and current clients These findings have significant consequences for the comprehension of causes and the determination of relevant strategies

1.1.2.2 The outcomes of customer engagement

The current review identified several expected marketing outcomes of CE due to CE derived from customers' experiences These outcomes include satisfaction (Carvalho & Fernandes, 2018; Fehrer et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2011; Maslowska et al., 2016), trust (Hollebeek, 2011; So et al., 2016; Vivek et al., 2012), loyalty (Fehrer et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2011; Thakur, 2016; Vivek et al., 2012), and word-of-mouth (WOM) (Carvalho & Fernandes, 2018; Islam & Rahman, 2016; Vivek et al., 2012) Nevertheless, depending on the existing or new customers' experience with the focal object, satisfaction and trust may accordingly act as antecedents or outcomes (Bowden, 2009) Meanwhile, whether in the case of an existing or new customer, the intention to purchase and WOM would be marketing outcomes Referral behavior is viewed as the behavioral engagement in some research, for instance, by Kumar and Pansari (2016), while others conceptualize it as an outcome of engagement (e.g Islam & Rahman, 2016) As a result, it is necessary to clarify such concepts and explanations for theoretical and practical advancement in the CE and CEM

Additionally, a company can profit from customer outcomes such as customer retention and client acquisition, which allow them to enhance their performance Customer interaction can provide four distinct forms of value for a company, which is known as Customer engagement value (CEV) (Kumar et al., 2010) The authors suggest that CEV enables companies to evaluate customers based on their observable and quantifiable interactions with the company Consequently, CEV consists of four parts: customer lifetime value - customer's purchasing behavior; (ii) customer referral value - rewarded referrals of new customers; (iii) customer influencer value - customer's conduct to

influence other customers (e.g word-of-mouth); and (iv) customer knowledge value - customer feedback

1.2 Customer 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 market-type processes have been established in nations traditionally characterized by a substantial degree of government control, signaling a paradigm shift in the governance of the HE system around the world (Jongbloed, 2003)

As a result, higher education has shifted from being viewed as a 'public' good to being viewed as a 'private' one (Dill, 2003; Huisman & Currie, 2004; Jongbloed, 2003; Naidoo

et al., 2011; Pringle & Huisman, 2011; Pringle & Naidoo, 2016) In the face of rising competition for both domestic and international students, HEIs realize the importance

of marketing themselves in an international setting Accordingly, marketing theories and concepts, which have been effective in business, are now being applied gradually by many universities (Hemsley–Brown & Oplatka, 2006; Temple & Shattock, 2007) to gain

a competitive advantage

Since the 1980s, the literature on education marketing has originated in the United Kingdom and the United States and has been theoretically normative and business- sector-oriented (Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2004) Throughout the 1990s until the present, academics have released publications of this type The literature included books and manuals on how to advertise 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 was soon realized that HE's offering was a service, not a product Indeed, the marketing of services differs significantly from the marketing of goods; hence, it is necessary to justify distinct ways to marketing HE (Nicholls et al., 1995) Mazzarol (1998), for example, focused on the nature of services and services marketing in his

From the perspective of HEI as an educator and non-profit service provider, literature shows that the range of definitions for student engagement converges to emphasize three interrelated aspects of student engagement: cognitive, behavioral, and affective (Handelsman et al., 2005) As outlined by Chapman (2003):

- 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

Later on, as mentioned by Kuh et al (2007), student engagement (SE) has two crucial characteristics The first is the amount of time and effort students devote to their academics and other activities with an educational goal The second component is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services to encourage a student to engage in activities that lead to the desired experiences and outcomes, including persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation From this perspective, by identifying the second component

of SE, the literature on SE also viewed students as "customers" rather than "products" and paid attention to their satisfaction with the HEIs' offerings; however, the term

"student engagement" was more commonly used than "customer engagement."

On the other hand, studies on marketing efforts of HEI as a business focus on exploring and examining the impact of HEI marketing practices such as marketing communications, new communication platforms in the digital age like social media (Peruta & Shields, 2017), and strategic marketing (Hemsley‐Brown & Oplatka, 2006)

on “brand engagement”, “customer-brand engagement”, “online brand engagement”, or customer (student) satisfaction and customer advocacy (Abdelmaaboud et al., 2021; Dollinger et al., 2018; Gong, 2017; Martirosyan, 2015; Pringle & Fritz, 2019; Singh & Jasial, 2021; Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013)

Hence, the focal object in student engagement with HEI is not just learning tasks or educational purpose activities but also HEI staff and other stakeholders The current literature from this perspective reveals that marketing initiatives of HEI aim at SE beyond studying behavior which is similar to CE in the business sector HEI's CE

outcomes include students' behaviors to remain affiliated with their individual HEI, such

as enrolling in additional higher education programs at the same HEI, providing positive WOMs and recommendations, and promoting the HEI as alumni (Abdelmaaboud et al., 2021; Dollinger et al., 2018; Pringle & Fritz, 2019; Singh & Jasial, 2021) The term

“SE” and “CE” were used interchangeably in those researches

In this dissertation, the author studies the non-positive valence of student engagement

in higher education from both perspectives: engagement in studying activities and engagement as an HEI customer beyond studying activities

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

& Coates, 2010) (e.g Chickering & Gamson, 1999; Pike et al., 2003) Existing students are recognized as the focal actors in student engagement, which is a buzzword in higher education SE has been intensively studied, theorized, and discussed, with rising evidence of its crucial role in achievement and learning (Bryson & Hand, 2007; Chickering & Gamson, 1999; Gunuc & Kuzu, 2015; Hardy & Bryson, 2016; Kahu, 2013; Pike et al., 2003; Trowler, 2010)

Four major research perspectives on SE are retrieved from the current literature: the behavioral perspective, which emphasizes student behavior and institutional practice; the psychological perspective, which defines engagement as an individual psychosocial process; the socio-cultural perspective, which emphasizes the importance of the socio- political context; and the holistic perspective, which takes a broad view of engagement Behavioral perspective

This viewpoint explains a portion of student engagement's complicated and multifaceted picture, particularly the connections between teaching practice and student behavior Coate's (2007) four-way typology of student engagement types in studying – intensive, collaborative, independent, and passive – is one example of a new engagement model

On the other hand, the behavioral perspective's knowledge of engagement is too limited,

between engagement and its antecedents is a fundamental strength of this approach compared to the behavioral perspective Several overlapping dimensions of engagement have been postulated, including behavior, cognition, emotion, and conation, with older work frequently defining engagement as only one of these and subsequent theories arguing engagement is a combination of these

Newmann et al (1992) define engagement as a student's psychological investment in an endeavor oriented toward learning, comprehending, or mastering knowledge skills or trades exemplifies cognition - the second component As mentioned under the behavioral viewpoint, this cognitive dimension usually refers to students' self-regulation and effective use of deep learning mechanisms (Fredricks et al., 2004) Individual traits such as motivation, self-efficacy, and expectations are also included in cognition from

a psychological standpoint (Jimerson et al., 2003)

Students' characteristics, motivation, and participation in educational activities are connected with their reported levels of service satisfaction, according to research findings (e.g., Kuhet al., 2008; Qureshi et al., 2010; Umbach & Porter, 2002) Environmental factors such as institutional amenities, teacher performance, career- related issues, organizational values, and culture are also highly associated to student satisfaction Considered to be the most influential factor in student happiness is a teacher's performance in the classroom (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005) Particularly, teachers' attitudes are crucial in shaping students' conduct, performance, and contentment (Qureshi et al., 2010; Trivellas & Dargendiou, 2009) They play an essential role in fostering a climate conducive to student engagement and are connected with students' accomplishments, intrinsic motivation, and learning effectiveness (Chang, McKeachie, & Lin, 2010)

Socio-cultural perspective

The sociocultural view on student engagement emphasizes the influence of the larger social context on the student experience Notably, academics have investigated theories for the antithesis of engagement For instance, alienation is defined as a subjectively undesirable separation from something outside oneself (Geyer, 2001), as the powerful barrier from cultural differences causing culture shock (Christie et al., 2008), learning shock (Griffiths et al., 2005), and being like a fish out of water (Griffiths et al., 2005) (Thomas, 2002) In a similar vein, Thomas (2002) contends that institutional habitus results in an inherent social and cultural bias in favor of dominant social groups inside educational institutions, resulting in the poor retention of non-traditional students This

viewpoint on education is also popular in feminist writing exploring women's alienation

in university life (e.g., Grace & Gouthro, 2000; Stalker, 2001)

Holistic perspective

Only a few authors have attempted to bring these disparate strands of theory and research on student engagement with academic staff who are responsible for the academic quality of HEI service They see engagement as a dynamic continuum with multiple locations (task, classroom, course, institution) A significant strength of this perspective, similar to psychological logic, is the acknowledgement of the role of emotion Some research findings emphasize the critical importance of the teacher’s disposition and the need for warmth and respect, particularly in fostering a sense of belonging for the student (Bryson & Hand, 2007; Kember et al.,, 2001) It is suggested that academic staffs consider engagement in three levels – discourse with students, enthusiasm for the subject, and professionalism with the teaching process (Bryson & Hand, 2007) Yet, the authors also state that each staff member is essential, and so is a more comprehensive institutional approach as it is needed to provide the necessary resources and support for students and staff to be engaged (Bryson & Hand, 2007)

In higher education, however, students are adults above the age of 18 and, ideally,

or intermittent, overt or covert, may result in a student dropping out of classes or a program Consequently, this would result in the accumulation of debt or inferior grades with diminished work chances (Bennett, 2007) For HEIs, this may result in a loss of revenue and, if the problem is severe enough, reputational damage Chipchase et al (2017) conducted a literature analysis on SD and classified signs of student academic disengagement into eleven focus areas Although the found indicators are limited to first-year cohort indications of academic disengagement, they are relevant and measurable for all cohorts Additionally, they will identify students for whom disengagement may develop later in their academic program (Chipchase et al., 2017)

1.2.2.2 Student engagement beyond studying activities

As presented previously in marketing for HEI, current literature shows that just a few

HE marketing scholars use the term CE (Kalafatis & Ledden, 2013; Kaushal & Ali, 2019; Peruta & Shields, 2018) Otherwise, terminology like brand engagement, customer-brand engagement, online brand engagement, customer/student satisfaction and customer/ student advocacy is used in related CE research (Abdelmaaboud et al., 2021; Calma & Dickson-Deane, 2020; Dollinger et al., 2018; Martirosyan, 2015; Pringle

& Fritz, 2019, 2018; Singh & Jasial, 2021; Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013) The current literature focuses on the positive valence of student engagement with their school

Emerging areas of study have supported the contention that their concerns and research goals are more comparable to those of industrial/commercial/business and services marketing than to those of higher education institutions and their services According to

a historical chronology, the earliest studies concentrated on marketing communications and customer behavior, as well as strategic marketing challenges (HemsleyBrown & Oplatka, 2006)

Firm-related antecedents of CE

Earlier study themes in marketing communications and customer behavior focused on communicating image, reputation, and consumer behavior concerns (HemsleyBrown & Oplata, 2006) A recent study has focused on emerging digital communication platforms, such as social networking sites (SNS) and social media (Peruta & Shields, 2017) The findings demonstrate that the advantages of a well-maintained social media campaign extend beyond the time of student recruiting Wilson and Gore (2013) demonstrate that social media has enhanced students' feeling of school affiliation In numerous ways, the school benefits from this greater sense of connection Goodenow and Grady (1993) found that students who are more attached to their school tend to have

higher grade point averages and are more likely to graduate and disseminate the positive word of mouth about the institution (Hausmann et al., 2007; Wilson & Gore, 2013)

In addition, there appears to be significant interest among researchers in evaluating the communication between Social Networking Sites (SNS) members and brands on SNS and how it relates to co-creation and its role in establishing consumer relationships (Casaló et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2010) They are two of the three most important foundational notions for the creation of CE theory, as described in section 1.2 SNS have enabled both HEIs and students to effectively connect, communicate, and react Dollinger et al (2018) present the conceptual model of value co-creation in higher education through the lens of co-creation developed in the literature of business and marketing They define value co-creation as the process of merging students' feedback, opinions, and other resources, such as their intellectual ability and personalities, with institutional resources in order to provide reciprocal benefit for students and institutions Nonetheless, empirical research testing this conceptual framework has not yet been conducted

Research findings also identify other firm-related elements, such as a cohesive environment in the university settings, especially concerning task cohesion (Bosselut et al., 2020) of student engagement However, the specific characteristics of the university environment, such as academic major, and time spent in sizeable traditional lecture theatres vs online learning or blended learning environment, have not been identified and suggested for future research (Bosselut et al., 2020)

Regarding strategic marketing, branding is regarded a tool for HEIs to elicit positive brand engagement; branding initiatives of HEIs strive to develop a unique identity and image among key stakeholders such as students and institution partners (Harvey, 1996) Amid the development, competitiveness, and marketization of HEIs (Nedba-lová et al., 2014), maintaining a long-term relationship, such as students' loyalty and engagement beyond graduation (Dado et al., 2012), has become an increasingly expensive investment for colleges and universities around the world (Guilbault, 2016)

Some research findings (e.g., Kalafatis & Ledden, 2013; Kaushal & Ali, 2019) suggest that HEIs must attain brand engagement that potentially exhibits students' engagement