Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The National Student Survey and the ‘customerization’ of university students: a qualitative study of UK higher education

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Has the National Student Survey ‘customerized’ the UK’s university students? This article examines the ‘customerization’ of university students in the UK and the impacts of reciprocity and social exchange behaviour on National Student Survey outcomes. Using a multi-method qualitative approach, the findings suggest that the National Student Survey is an imperfect barometer for measuring teaching quality and academic standards at universities. It finds that students are being treated as customers so they will give their universities positive evaluations in the National Student Survey. The findings also reveal that the discretion and decisions of students are mostly based on reciprocity, according to which students are willing to complete the National Student Survey favourably only if they get good grades and received ‘VIP treatment’. The article concludes by explaining the implications of its findings on practice and recommending an agenda for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnew, S., Cameron-Agnew, T., Lau, A., & Walker, S. (2016). What business school characteristics are correlated with more favourable National Student Survey (NSS) rankings? The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, L. (2020). Evaluating student satisfaction—Restricting lecturer professionalism: Outcomes of using the UK national student survey questionnaire for internal student evaluation of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, M., & Freeman, D. (2011). The assault on universities. Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. D., Comer, D. R., & Martinak, M. L. (2008). All I’m askin’ is for a little respect: How can we promote civility in our classrooms? Organisation Management Journal, 5(2), 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bay, D., & Daniel, H. (2001). The student is not the customer: An alternative perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beech, R., & Wolstencroft, P. (2022). From passivity to partnership: how the student-university relationship has evolved in the era of the National Student Survey. Chartered Association of Business Schools. Available at: https://charteredabs.org/from-passivity-to-partnership-how-the-student-university-relationship-has-evolved-in-the-era-of-the-national-student-survey/. Accessed 30 July 2022

  • Bell, A. R., & Brooks, C. (2018). What makes students satisfied? A discussion and analysis of the UK’s national student survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(8), 1118–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, D. (2016). NSS and teaching excellence: The wrong measure, wrongly analysed. The Times Higher Education. Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/nss-and-teaching-excellence-wrong-measure-wrongly-analysed. Assessed on 20th August 2022.

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, J. C., Gerteis, J., & Moody, J. (2007). Contemporary sociological theory. Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. H. S., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). National Student Survey: Are differences between universities and courses reliable and meaningful? Oxford Review of Education, 36(6), 693–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2005). Marketing models in education: Students as customers, products, or partners. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage Publications.

  • Dearden, J. A., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. L. (2019). Strategic manipulation of university rankings, the prestige effect, and student university choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Docherty, T. (2015). Universities at war. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Y. (2017). Neoliberalism and the value of higher education. In T. Rudd & I. Goodson (Eds.), Negotiating neoliberalism: Developing alternative visions (pp. 59–70). Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edmond, N. (2017). Beyond ‘Entrepreneurialism of the self. In T. Rudd & I. Goodson (Eds.), Negotiating neoliberalism: Developing alternative visions (pp. 71–86). Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, M., Hanna, P., & Walker, C. (2021). The UK higher education senior management survey: A statactivist response to managerialist governance. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2134–2151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassinger, R. E. (2001). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Grounded theory in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, W. P. (2002). Students as junior partners, professors as senior partners, the b-school as the firm: A new model for collegiate business education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz, R. S. (1998). Whatever you do, don’t treat your students like customers! Journal of Management Education, 22(1), 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (2012). Implications of ‘dimensions of quality’ in a market environment. Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilbault, M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: Reframing the debate. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE. (2004). National Student Survey 2005: Outcomes of consultation and guidance on next steps. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120118171947/. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_33. Accessed 19 March, 2022.

  • Higher Education Funding Council for England [HEFCE]. (2008). Count-ingwhatismeasuredormeasuringwhatcounts? (HEFCEReportApril2008/14).

  • Ipsos MORI. (2006). The National Student Survey—About. Available online at: www.thestudentsurvey.com/institutions.php. Accessed 18 March 2022.

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, J. (2017). Academic work and performativity. Higher Education, 74(5), 897–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenings, F., Meo, G. & Ubelmesser, S. (2020). University rankings as information source: do they play a different role for domestic and international students? Applied Economics, 52(59), 1–16

  • Lenton, P. (2015). Determining student satisfaction: An economic analysis of the National Student Survey. Economics of Education Review, 47, 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, L. (2007). Are students’ customers? Perceptions of academic staff. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlantes, L. (2000). Higher institution of learning. What ivory tower? A consumer mentality is boldly reshaping the college. The Christian Science Monitor, 17. Available at https://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0125/p17s1.html. Accessed 18 January 2022.

  • Matzdorf, F., & Greenwood, J. (2015). Student choice, league tables and university facilities. A paper presented at 14th EuroFM Research Symposium. Available at http://shura.shu.ac.uk/10423/1/EuroFM2015_StudentChoicesLeagueTab. Accessed 29 August 2022.

  • Merola, R. H., Coelen, R. J., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2022). What really matters? Factors impacting international student satisfaction: The case of the UK. International Journal of Management in Education, 16(1), 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roxa, T., Ahmad, A., Barrington, J., Van Maaren, J., & Cassidy, R. (2021). Reconceptualizing student ratings of teaching to support quality discourse on student learning: a systems perspective. Higher Education, 83(1), 35–55

  • Murphy, S. (2017). Zombie university: Thinking under control. Repeater Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, S. (2017) ‘Students at top universities snub survey in tuition fees protest’, Financial Times, 8 September. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/4e8ee366-7c50-11e7-ab01-a13271d1ee9c.

  • Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickford, R. (2013). Leadership of the national student survey for enhancement. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(4), 344–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(3), 238–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabri, D. (2011). What’s wrong with ‘the student experience’? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(5), 657–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabri, D. (2013). Student evaluations of teaching as “fact-totems”: The case of the UK National Student Survey. Sociological Research Online, 18(4), 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, J., & Waterfield, J. (2019). Focus group methodology: Some ethical challenges. Quality and Quantity, 53, 3003–3022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skidmore, W. (1975). Theoretical thinking in sociology. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. (2017). The toxic university: Zombie leadership, academic rock stars and neoliberal ideology. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, D., Warwick, P., Anderson, J., & Learmonth, M. (2018). How do quality of teaching, assessment and feedback drive undergraduate course satisfaction in U.K. business schools? A comparative analysis with non-business school courses using the U.K. National Student Survey. Journal of Management Education, 42(5), 618–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, J. (2019). The UK National Student Survey: An amalgam of discipline and neo-liberal governmentality. British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 538–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. (2018). Student engagement in neo-liberal times: What is missing? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 433–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Docks School of Business and Law, University of East London, London, UK

    Toyin Ajibade Adisa, Michael Harrison, Kareem Folohunso Sani, Diliara Mingazova & Jaya Kypuram

Authors
  1. Toyin Ajibade Adisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kareem Folohunso Sani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diliara Mingazova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jaya Kypuram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toyin Ajibade Adisa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Semi-structured and focus group interview questions

General questions

  1. 1.

    What do you think about the NSS?

  2. 2.

    What do you consider when completing the NSS survey?

  3. 3.

    How would you describe the NSS as a barometer for measuring students’ quality of teaching?

Specific questions

  1. 1.

    What do you think about students as assessors of the quality of teaching they receive?

  2. 2.

    Do you expect anything in return for completing the NSS?

  3. 3.

    Do you treat students as ‘students’ or as ‘customers’? and why? And what is the implication of treating them as either of the two?

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adisa, T.A., Harrison, M., Sani, K.F. et al. The National Student Survey and the ‘customerization’ of university students: a qualitative study of UK higher education. High Educ 86, 449–466 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00943-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00943-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation