Quality of Teaching and Research in Public Higher Education in Poland: Relationship with Financial Indicators and Effciency

• Authors: Kudła Janusz , Stachowiak-Kudła Monika , Figurski Adam
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: The article addressed the problem of relationships between university funding and effciency on the one hand and the quality of teaching and research on the other. Methodology: The measurement of teaching and research quality in Polish universities was derived from two sources: 1) evaluation scores of teaching quality given to universities by the Polish Accreditation Committee, and 2) the research category grades given to university departments or units by the Polish Committee for Evaluation of Scientifc Units. Subsequently, the quality measurements were correlated with fnancial indicators and effciency scores obtained from data envelopment analysis. Findings: The correlation and regression results indicated that public universities that have received higher scores of teaching quality simultaneously have higher average scientifc categories. There was also a substantial relationship between the revenue per student and the revenue per teacher and variables describing quality but the regression analysis exhibited opposite directions regarding the type of quality indicator. Practical implications: The authorities of a university can simultaneously track the improvement of quality or fnancial effciency without losing their interdependence when reforms of HEI operations are conducted. Research limitations/implications: The quality of teaching and research at universities was assessed despite the limited availability of internal information gathered from higher education institutions (HEIs). Originality: The study proposed new measurements of quality derived from external evaluation bodies and investigated the relations of these measures with selected fnancial and effciency indicators

Keywords

EN

higher education; quality evaluation; effciency; performance measurement (quality)

• Publisher: Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
• Journal: Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe
• Year: 2016
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 88-108

Dates

published

2015-12-16

Contributors

author

Kudła Janusz

• University of Warsaw

author

Stachowiak-Kudła Monika

• Lazarski University

author

Figurski Adam

• Lazarski University

References

• 1. Abbott, M. and Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The effciency of Australian universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22: 89–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272¬7757(01)00068¬1
• 2. Agasisti, T. and Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities’ effciency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7): 1237–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801423
• 3. Ahn, T., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1988). Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative effciencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22: 259–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(88)90008-0
• 4. Athanassopoulos, D. and Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative effciency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5: 17–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299700000011
• 5. Avkiran, N.K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale effciencies of Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35: 57–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(00)00010-0
• 6. Banker R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale ineffciencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078–1092, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
• 7. Beck, N.L. and Katz, J.N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89: 634–647, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979
• 8. Bergseth B., Petocz, P. and Dahlgren, M.A. (2014). Ranking quality in higher education: guiding or misleading?, Quality in Higher Education, 20(3): 330–347, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.976419
• 9. Breu, T.M. and Raab, R.L. (1994). Effciency and perceived quality of the nation’s top 25 national universities and national liberal-arts colleges – an application of Data Envelopment Analysis to higher¬education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28: 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(94)90023-X
• 10. Central Statistical Offce (2011). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2010.
• 11. Central Statistical Offce (2012). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2011.
• 12. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the effciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
• 13. Ćwiąkała-Małys, A. (2010). Ustalenie efektywności procesu kształcenia publicznych uczelni akademickich przy wykorzystaniu nieparametrycznej metody analizy nakładów i wyników DEA. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 55: 25–43.
• 14. Dunbar, H. and Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14: 119–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)90393-M
• 15. Jabnoun, N. (2015). The influence of wealth, transparency, and democracy on the number of top ranked universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2): 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0033
• 16. Johnes, J. and Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(3): 301–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272¬7757(95)00008¬8
• 17. Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and its application to the measurement of effciency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25: 273–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.005
• 18. Kmenta, J. (1997). Elements of Econometrics. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.15701
• 19. Leifner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4): 469–489, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977
• 20. Michael, S.O. (2005). The Cost of Excellence: The Financial Implications of Institutional Rankings. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 365–382, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510607716
• 21. Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1): 37–53, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601
• 22. Sav, G.T. (2012). Productivity, effciency, and managerial performance regress and gains in United States universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(3): 13–32.
• 23. Sav, G.T. (2013). Four-stage DEA effciency evaluations: Financial reforms in public university funding. International Journal of Economic & Finance, 5(1): 24–33.
• 24. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016). Kultura akademicka. Koniec utopii? Warszawa.
• 25. Tomkins, C. and Green, R. (1988). An experiment in the use of Data Envelopment for evaluating the effciency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 44: 147–164, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.x
• 26. Worthington, C. and Lee, B.L. (2008). Effciency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27: 285–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012