4.3 The Study Design
4.3.1 Students
A significant number of international students (mostly non-EU students) are studying for HE courses in the UK and overseas. As key stakeholders within the growing collaborative HE provision private college students’ perspectives need to be understood to gain further insights. From my own experience as a lecturer in private colleges of HE, it is clear that these private college students (mostly international students) are bound by the terms and conditions of their student visa status. Moreover under Tier-4 regulations, these students are sponsored by their respective colleges or institutions. In this context, it was felt that focus group studies would better serve the purpose in eliciting views, experiences and opinions as students would feel more comfortable in groups and would be encouraged by peer participation.
Two essential criteria were used to purposively recruit students for the focus groups; (a) they were from private colleges studying for HE courses (b) they were from non-EU destinations. The schedule followed a semi-structured, open - ended format. In total three focus group studies were completed; and each group was asked the following questions;
(1) How did you reach the decision to study in the UK?
(This question focuses on students’ decision making process to see how they eventually decided to pursue their studies in the UK)
(2) How did you choose your course and the college?
(This focuses on students’ decision making process relating to their choice of institution and course(s), and it aims to identify those factors that influence students to choose private providers)
(3) What were your expectations? (4) What are your experiences?
4.3.1 (a) Student Participants (including five graduates)
The participants were recruited from two private for-profit colleges in London and from a college situated in the South East of England (for convenience identified as ‘outside London’). All three colleges had a student population estimated around 350 to 450. I was working in two colleges at the time. After informing the programme leaders, I verbally invited students who met the criteria to participate in the study. Although I had never belonged to management or full time faculty of these respective colleges and had not taught these particular students, I felt that I was still seen by them as one of the academic staff, perhaps not surprising because I was one of the academic staff. Therefore I took particular care and effort during the focus groups to make it clear that this study was conducted as part of my own PhD programme. In total 14 students voluntarily participated in the focus groups (6 females and 8 males).
Table 4A: Focus group participants
Focus group Participants Discipline Demographics Group 1 (FG1) 4 students Business 1 Female 3 Male Group 2 (FG2) 5 students Business 3 Female 2 Male Group 3 (FG3) 5 students Business / H 2 Female and 3 Male
Although initially many students had expressed interest, in practice most did not turn up on the day. The sessions began with a brief introduction and the participants were informed that the sessions would be recorded. Written participant consent was obtained from all.
Table 4B: Participants - by subject, level of study, nationality, gender and interview location Participant ID Subject Study
level
Domicile -
region Gender Interview location Participant SE Business UG Non-EU Female Outside London Participant T Business UG Non-EU Male Outside London Participant SB Business UG Non-EU Male Outside London Participant Y Business UG Non-EU Male Outside London
Participant MU Business UG Non-EU Female London Participant SA Business UG Non-EU Female London Participant ME Business UG Non-EU Female London Participant R Business UG Non-EU Male London Participant M Business UG Non-EU Male London Participant RI Business & Hospitality PG Non-EU Male London Participant S Business & Hospitality PG Non-EU Female London Participant A Business & Hospitality PG Non-EU Female London Participant MA Business & Hospitality PG Non-EU Male London Participant L Business & Hospitality PG Non-EU Male London
In addition to the above focus groups, five graduates (former students) of the private colleges were also recruited purposively and interviewed individually (see table 4C). These interviews were semi-structured and lasted on average 25 to 35 minutes. I felt that the current students might not be ‘free’ to openly
discuss their views while they were still studying in a private institution (or they may be more critical). But, graduates unlike the current students, would have left the institutions and could offer different perspectives retrospectively. Further, such additional perspectives would enrich the study.
Again two essential criteria were used to purposively recruit students for interviews; (a) they were from private colleges with a degree (undergraduate or postgraduate) awarded by a HEI in the UK (b) they were from non-EU countries.
Table 4C: Student (graduates) interview - participants
Participant ID Course
completed Awarding HEI
Private for- profit college by Location Domicile - region Employment status Participant SI1 MBA University W London Non-EU Education Participant SI2 MBA University S London Non-EU Unemployed Participant SI3 MBA University W Outside
London Non-EU Health Care Participant SI4 BA University B London Non-EU Hospitality Participant SI5 MA University MJ Outside
London Non-EU Marketing
The following issues were discussed with each participant: (1) How did they reach the decision to study in the UK?
(This question focuses on students’ decision making process to see how they eventually decided to pursue their studies in the UK)
(This focuses on students’ decision making process relating to their choice of institution and course(s), and it aims to identify those factors that influence students to choose private providers)
(3) Now that they have graduated, how do they feel about their experiences as students?
(4) How useful do they perceive their qualifications to be?
(This aims to understand graduates’ assessment of their UK qualifications)
4.3.1 (b) Management, staff and policy-maker participants in the UK
Undoubtedly this study requires perspectives from other key stakeholders (management and staff from HEIs and private for-profit HE providers and policy makers) who have direct experience within collaborative higher education provision in the UK and overseas. As mentioned earlier, it is evident from the QAA’s overseas collaborative audit reports that many such collaborative arrangements exist not only in the UK but also in overseas locations (QAA, 2006; QAA, 2009; QAA, 2010; QAA, 2011). Although UK participants (especially those from HEIs) were interviewed about overseas collaborative HE provision, I thought that it would be appropriate to incorporate views from the overseas stakeholders too. Therefore, as explained in section 4.3.1 (c) efforts have been made to incorporate views from overseas stakeholders too, Sri Lanka being the chosen country.
The selection of key stakeholders for interviews is based on criteria as presented in the table 4E. In total 13 interviews were conducted in the UK
using a semi-structured interview schedule. These interviews lasted on average 35 to 40 minutes. During these interviews the following topics were discussed:
1.0 Situation analysis
* Stakeholders assessment of the current HE industry
* Challenges faced by HEIs or private for-profit providers
2.0 Collaborative HE: HEI vs. private for-profit
* What are the key motivating factors?
* What are the benefits to the institutions that they represent?
* What are the risks posed by such provision?
* What are the strengths and weaknesses of private for-profit providers?
* Why is such provision attractive to students?
3.0 Future
* How do they see the future based on their experience?
* How is this likely to impact on UK HE?
However access to these respondents (stakeholders) was very difficult as they have busy schedules and often their schedules are managed by gatekeepers. Furthermore the topic under investigation is very contemporary and to a certain extent touches upon information that is sensitive and competitive. However I secured 13 participants (UK) to voluntarily take part in the study. They came from varied backgrounds and institutions (see table 4D for profiles of interviewees).
Table 4D: Other stakeholders – UK participants
* U – University, P – Private for-profit, O – organisations (Policy, Quality and Regulatory)
Participant Type ID Profile Institution type Interview date
Participant (P) R1 Director – Private College (T) private for-profit 12th Jan 2011
Participant (U)
R2
Senior Lecturer with collaborative link responsibility - University (B)
HEI 13th Jan 2011
Participant (U,O & P)
R3
Quality assurance consultant Associate Director - Private College (Q)
private for-profit, Quality
assurance and HEI 4th Feb 2011
Participant (O, P)
R4
CEO, HE monitoring and quality assurance
private HE policy/
monitoring 11th Feb 2011
Participant (O) R5
HE policy HE policy institution 17th Feb 2011
Participant (P)
R6
Senior manager
Courses co-ordinator - Private College (T)
private for-profit 19th May 2011
Participant (U)
R7
Head of School - Management and Law
University (B)
HEI 1st June 2011
Participant (U)
R8
Head - Collaborative Unit - University (G)
HEI 15th June 2011
Participant (U)
R9
HEI overseas, former pro VC HEI in Malaysia
HEI (Asia) 27th July 2011
Participant (U) R10 Director – International HEI 19th Oct 2011
Participant (U, P) R11
Consultant HE (UK & US) HEI and private for-profit 3rd Nov 2011
Participant (U)
R12
Senior Lecturer with collaborative link responsibility - University (W)
HEI 9th Nov 2011
Participant (U)
R13
Principal Lecturer / Director of
widening participation - University (W)
Table 4E: Other stakeholder selection criteria
Sector Criteria
Private: Institution:
(a) provides HE course;
(b) has some form of 'link' with the UK university;
Position / role:
(a) Director / Principal; (b) Academic Director; (c) Head of Department;
(d) Management team member with external relations responsibility; Public: Position / role:
(a) Head / senior academic position with collaborative provision contacts;
(b) Academic staff with collaborative provision management responsibility;
(c) Head of International Office; Quality assurance / Policy: Position / role:
(a) Head of the unit / body;
(b) Quality assurance Auditor / inspector; (c) Advisor / Consultant;
(d) Policy researchers;
4.3.1 (c) Management, staff and policy-maker participants in Sri Lanka
In 2002, I was working for a British international agency in Sri Lanka and was tasked to identify and follow-up on a small number of Sri Lankan private for- profit HE institutions that had collaborative links with UK HEIs. But as evidenced by the QAA’s overseas collaborative audit reports in recent years collaborative provision between the UK HEIs and overseas private for-profit providers tuned into a major pursuit undertaken by many HE institutions (QAA, 2006; QAA, 2009; QAA, 2010; QAA, 2011). During the interviews in the UK, HEI participants discussed at length their experience of working with
private for-profit partner colleges overseas. It was time to get the overseas perspective.
The same criteria used to select participants for UK key stakeholder interviews (see table 4E) were used in the overseas interviews to purposefully select participants; this was to sustain a balanced respondent composition across the study. Overseas interviews formed the last phase of the research and I used a similar interview schedule to that used in the UK interviews with minor adjustments reflecting participants’ contexts.
1.0 Situation analysis
* Stakeholders assessment on the current HE provision in SL
* Challenges faced by HEIs in SL
2.0 Collaborative HE: HEI vs. private for- profit
* What are the key motivating factors?
* What are the benefits to the institutions that they represent?
* What are the risks posed by such provisions? * Why is such provision attractive to students?
3.0 Future
* How do they see the future based on their experience?
* How this will have an impact on the UK and SL HE?
Unlike UK interviews, which were face-to-face, the overseas interviews were conducted via telephone to minimise expense. This served the purposes of the participants also as most wanted to speak from their homes rather than from their place of work.
Table 4F: Other stakeholders – SL participants
Participant Type ID Profile Institution type Interview date
Participant (SL1) SL1 International Collaborations: Consultant University B HEI 27th Jan 2012 Participant (SL2) SL2 Senior Management position UGC
HEI and Policy 29th Jan 2012
Participant (SL3) SL3
Research Fellow HE Policy 13th Feb 2012
Participant (SL4) SL4 Lecturer / Recruitment consultant Private HE 16th April 2012 Participant (SL5) SL5
Lecturer / Co-founder Private HE 1
st
May 2012
Participant (SL6) SL6
Education Manager UK HE Promotions 11
th
May 2012