The EVLN framework in the context of higher education

As noted above, limited empirical research has been conducted into the use of psychological contract theory in an educational context, whilst even rarer is the application of the EVLN framework within this setting. The fact that researchers have applied the construct in a variety of environments, as presented earlier, suggests its wide-ranging applicability (for example, Hagedoorn et al., 1999, midwifery nurses; Clark et al., 2016, politics; Rusbult et al., 1982, romantic involvements.

Those who have demonstrated the model’s applicability within an educational environment include Itzkovich and Alt (2015); Lovitts (1996); and Mahaffey et al. (1991). Mahaffey et al. (1991) sought to evaluate the semantic validity of the EVLN constructs and how far they were distinct from one another. They hypothesised that the concepts are, in some way, interrelated and state that previous studies have not helped researchers to understand why, when faced with similar sources of dissatisfaction, some students choose to leave the institution, some

70

complain to their tutor, others avoid coming to class, while some quietly tolerate the situation, hoping that things would improve. Their study indicates that the responses for each of the constructs are largely distinguishable from one another. However, other than overtly quitting the institution, the majority of the exit acts are regarded as being more typical of neglect behaviours rather than those of exit. This mirrors the overlap of the concepts within organisational studies but, as Mahaffey et al. (1991) suggest, students are not simply customers of a service who can readily go elsewhere and, hence, the interrelation of exit and neglect might reflect ‘the angst many students experience when contemplating withdrawal’ (Mahaffey et al., 1991: 82). Their study was conducted in three phases within a Canadian higher education institution. In phase one, a group of 30 individuals incorporating undergraduates, postgraduates, faculty and support staff were asked to ‘try to think of some students you have known. With these individuals in mind, please describe five (or more) acts or behaviors that they engaged in when they were dissatisfied’ (Mahaffey et al., 1991: 76). In phase two, a separate panel of judges was provided with definitions of the EVLN categories and asked to rate the responses generated in phase one, from the best to the worst examples of each category. Once the top 25 most prototypical acts for each category had been established, they were combined, randomised and given to a sample of 86 undergraduates to allocate to the four EVLN constructs in phase three. The top two responses for each category are presented in Table 3.4 below, along with similarly classified responses generated by Lovitts (1996) and Itzkovich & Alt (2015).

Table 3.4 below shows that the item descriptors generated in each of the three studies bear some similarities to one another. However, there are also marked differences. For example, within the voice category, the decisions to ‘verbally confront others’ or ‘complain to the department head’ (Mahaffey et al., 1991: 81) contrast with respondents who chose to ‘talk to faculty and try to make things better’ and ‘seek help or advice from other graduate students’ (Lovitts,1996: 12). This difference appears to support Hagedoorn et al.’s (1999) stance that the voice option can be separated into two distinct forms: aggressive and considerate voice.

71

Table 3.4 The two principal item descriptors for each of the EVLN components from three separate studies

Item Descriptor Author(s)

Exit

1. Quit School

2. Decide to quit school

1. Explore other graduate schools or graduate programs 2. Start looking for a job

1. I will take a different course instead 2. I will change the study track

Mahaffey et al. (1991: 81)

Lovitts (1996: 12)

Itzkovich & Alt (2015: 10)

Voice

1. Verbally confront others 2. Complain to department head

1. Talk to faculty and try to make things better 2. Seek help or advice from other graduate students 1. I will personally talk to the lecturer

2. I will talk to other students about this lecturer

Mahaffey et al. (1991: 81)

Lovitts (1996: 12)

Itzkovich & Alt (2015: 10)

Loyalty

1. Wear clothing with university emblem 2. Publicly support the school

1. Wait and hope the problem would solve itself

2. Say nothing to others and assume things would work out 1. I will wait until the course is over

2. I will try not to stand out during the course

Mahaffey et al. (1991: 81)

Lovitts (1996: 12)

Itzkovich & Alt (2015: 10)

Neglect

1. Skip group meetings with classmates

2. Hand in assignments without proof reading them 1. Miss classes and stay away from the department 2. Stop doing readings, research or other graduate work 1. I will write a complaint letter to the management

2. I will initiate a shared complaint letter to the management (petition)

Mahaffey et al. (1991: 81)

Lovitts (1996: 13)

Itzkovich & Alt (2015: 10)

72

Relatedly, within the loyalty category, ‘wear clothing with university emblem’ and ‘publicly support the school’ (Mahaffey et al., 1991: 81) feel very different from ‘wait and hope the problem would solve itself’ and ‘say nothing to others and assume things would work out’ (Lovitts,1996: 12). The first example would seem to be a much more active display of loyalty, while the second demonstrates a more passive approach which corresponds to the ‘passive- constructive’ viewpoints of both Farrell (1983) and Rousseau (1995). Furthermore, Itzkovich and Alt’s (2015) neglect behaviours are inconsistent with the EVLN literature which conceptualises neglect as ‘inactivity and silence’ Kolarska and Aldridge (1980: 41), or ‘just letting things fall apart’ (Rusbult et al., 1982: 1231); in other words, passive reactions. In contrast, Itzkovich and Alt’s (2015) neglect behaviours are active and correspond more closely with voice behaviours. Framing neglect as an active response is in line with Rousseau’s (1995) reasoning, but differs to Farrell’s (1983) findings which present neglect as a passive-destructive reaction. Itzkovich and Alt’s (2015) exploration centred on three institutions in Israel and studied students’ reactions to faculty incivility, that is, incidents where the staff were the perpetrators of uncivil behaviour towards their students. The recorded incidents were divided into ‘active incivility’, for example when ‘the teacher yells at you as a response to misunderstanding’ and ‘passive incivility’, when ‘the teacher ignores students’ questions during lectures’ (Itzkovich & Alt, 2015: 6). Participants were asked to recall an incident that they had either personally been involved in, or they had witnessed and asked to describe either their own response, or that of their fellow student. The response statements were then condensed into shorter versions by two ‘experts’ and categorised in accordance with the four EVLN constructs. The statements were formulated into a questionnaire and distributed to 744 undergraduate students who provided their own likely reaction to each statement and indicated their level of agreement on a five-point, Likert-type scale (1= strongly agree, to 5= strongly disagree) (Itzkovich and Alt, 2015:8). Overall, their study makes a number of overarching assumptions about the transactional nature of the student-faculty relationship as well as muddying the waters by bringing in elements such as the students’ social status, personality traits and religious affiliations in order to support their conclusions.

Lovitts’ (1996) study, conducted in America and focusing on Doctoral students, was largely theoretical in nature, although she drew on data from the investigations of other writers spanning more than 30 years. Her goal was to examine the reasons and perspectives of those students who had completed their studies, compared with students who had decided to leave their institution. She supplemented the existing data with those generated from 30, hour-long, semi-structured telephone interviews. She wanted to reveal and contrast the students’ prior expectations against their perceptions of lived reality in order to ascertain the extent to which they themselves felt to be at blame, as opposed to failings on the part of their institutions. During the telephone interviews, she found that more than a third of those questioned

73

unfavourably compared their undergraduate and Doctoral experiences without being prompted to do so. Their spontaneous statements clearly indicated that their expectations had been unmet. Interestingly, however, the students placed the blame squarely on themselves rather than on ‘the system in which they were embedded’ (Lovitts,1996: 12). They stated that ‘they should have had more knowledge about the program before they enrolled’, or that they ‘should have been more forceful or assertive’ when dealing with their tutors and in admitting that they did not understand things (1996: 12). Lovitts (1996: 13) suggests that ‘this self-blame… prevents them from voicing their discontent because they have internalized the locus of responsibility’. She goes on to assert that in so doing, they are leaving their studies without ever voicing their concerns, meaning that their institutions are powerless to take corrective measures. Ultimately, Lovitts’ (1996: 15) findings indicated that those who had completed their studies were students who had voiced their concerns and discontent in order to seek restitution, rather than non- completers who had exited ‘silently and alone’.