This document summarizes a study that examined students' perceptions of the "corporate character" of master's degree programs across different universities. The study surveyed 100 students from 4 Portuguese universities to assess their views on 49 factors related to the personality traits of a hypothetical person representing their master's program. The results found most students viewed their program positively in terms of agreeableness and sophistication. While the study validated most of its hypotheses, it did find differences in perceptions between universities. Overall, the study concluded students generally have a positive view of the corporate character of their master's program that is dominated by traits like agreeableness.

1. The sentiments of Corporate Character Scale among students
from different universities towards to Master program
Project submitted for assessment of the Curricular Unit:
Data Analysis
of the Master Program in Management
Elena Trubacheva (Kuban State Agrarian University, Krasnodar, Russia)
Pratik Iyengar (Instituto Polytechnico De Braganca, Braganca, Portugal)
Salman Khan Raza (Instituto Polytechnico De Braganca, Braganca, Portugal)
2016/2017

2. CONTENT
• Introduction
• Literature review
• Research methodology
• Analysis and results
• Conclusion

3. INTRODUCTION
Higher education has emerged as an indispensable
experience in the life of an individual seeking
knowledge and expertise in today’s world by the
virtue of the versatility necessitated by the
Corporate World from Students who choose a
particular specialization whilst advancing from the
Bachelor level to the Masters level of studies.

4. In order to ensure a detailed
understanding of the relationship
between students and their choices
of Master programs, it is imperative
for Deans or Management Boards of
Higher Education Institutions to be
well aware of all possible sentiments
of the Corporate Character Scale
(CCS) and their significance among
students across different Universities
towards Master programs.
OBJECTIVE

5. 1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Student's roles in the higher education system are the subject of many discussions in the higher
education quality literature. Some authors argue that students are customers, as in other
service industries, because they pay a significant amount for their education (Kanji & Tambi,
2009). Other researchers claim that students are products of the higher education system
(Harris, 1992). Recent studies accept the definition of students-as-a-customers in higher
education, pointing out that students share responsibility for the results they obtain in the
education process (Eagle & Brennan, 2007; Elassy, 2013).

6. 1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Allen Brown (1997) thinks that over the past few years the number of universities the world over has
increased as a result of polytechnics and some colleges of higher education being reclassified as
universities. Consequently there are now considerably more opportunities in all aspects of higher
education, including education to Master’s degree level. There is every indication that this expansion will
continue for foreseeable future.
In order to ensure a detailed understanding of the relationship between students and their choices of
Master programs, it is imperative for Deans or Management Boards of Higher Education Institutions to be
well aware of all possible sentiments of the Corporate Character Scale (CCS) and their significance among
students across different Universities towards Master programs.

7. 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In our study we used empirical data were collected from random 100 students from a total of 139 students
that enrolled in two academic years of four different universities. To collect the data a survey was conducted
applying a questionnaire in the classroom, between September 2016 and January 2017.

8. 2.1. STUDY OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Table 1: Hypothesis tested
№ Research Hypothesis
H1 Students have a positive Corporate Character
H2 There are differences in opinions of students from different specializations about Corporate Character
H3 There are differences between opinions of males and females about Corporate Character
H4 There are differences between opinions of people of different age groups about Corporate Character
H5 There is inequality in the impact of Corporate Character among people from different marital status
H6 There is inequality in the impact of Corporate Character among people from different universities
H7
There is variability in influence of Corporate Character between students from first curricular year and
second curricular year

9. The instruments used in this study
were structured in two parts. The
first part focused on students
profile (gender, age, marital status
and etc.); and the second part
include a group of 49 questions
that will measure Corporate
Character Scale to Assess Master
Program according to significance
of students’ sentiments and the
five point Likert scale from 1
‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly
agree’ was used to measure each
item.
2.2. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

10. Dimension Facet Item
Agreeableness
Warmth Friendly, pleasant, open, straightforward
Empathy Concerned, reassuring, supportive, agreeable
Integrity Honest, sincere, trustworthy, socially responsible
Enterprise Modernity Cool, trendy, young
Adventure Imaginative, up-to-date, exciting, innovative
Boldness Extrovert, daring
Competence Conscientiousness Reliable, secure, hardworking
Drive Ambitious, achievement oriented, leading
Technocracy Technical, corporate
Chic Elegance Charming, stylish, elegant
Prestige Prestigious, exclusive, refined
Snobbery Snobby, elitist
Ruthlessness Egotism Arrogant, aggressive, selfish
Dominance Inward-looking, authoritarian, controlling
Informality None Casual, simple, easy-going
Machismo None Masculine, tough, rugged
Table 2: The Corporate Character Scale: Dimensions, Facets and Items

11. 3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Data were collected from
 Polytechnic Institute of
Braganca
 Polytechnic Institute of
Cavado and Ave
Polytechnic Institute of Porto
Polytechnic Institute of Viana
do Castelo

12. 3.1. STUDENT PROFILE

13. 3.1. STUDENT PROFILE

14. 3.2. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
№ Facets Mean Std. Deviation
If Master Program came to life as a person, it would have the following facets of personality:
1 Warmth 3,62 ,561
2 Empathy 3,60 ,662
3 Integraty 3,63 ,722
4 Modernity 3,43 ,675
5 Adventure 3,43 ,711
6 Boldness 3,10 ,670
7 Conscientiousness 3,69 ,774
8 Drive 3,50 ,703
9 Technocracy 3,68 ,802
10 Elegance 3,25 ,698
11 Prestige 3,29 ,584
12 Dominance 3,73 4,489
13 Egotism 6,07 8,667
14 Snobbery 4,69 8,224
Overall Corporate Character Scale 3,60 ,996
Table 4: Descriptive Analysis that Measure the Corporate Character Scale

15. № Variables Test p-value Results
H1 Corporate Character t-Student p≤0,05 Not Validated
H2
Corporate Character & Master
program
Mann-Whitney U for two independent
samples
p≥0,05 Validated
H3 Corporate Character & Gender
Mann-Whitney U for two independent
samples
p≥0,05 Validated
H4 Corporate Character & Age Kruskal Wallis Test p≥0,05 Validated
H5 Corporate Character & Marital Status Kruskal Wallis Test p≥0,05 Validated
H6
Corporate Character & Higher
education
Kruskal Wallis Test p≤0,05 Not Validated
H7 Corporate Character & Curricular year
Mann-Whitney U for two independent
samples
p≥0,05 Validated
Note: 5% Level of significance assumed (a=0.05).
3.3. Inferential Analysis
Table 5: Validation of hypothesis

16. № Dimensions Correlation coefficient
If Master Program came to life as a person, it would have the following dimensions of personality:
1 Agreeableness ,763
2 Enterprise ,685
3 Competence ,710
4 Chic ,777
5 Ruthlessness ,394
6 Informality ,422
7 Machismo 0,116
3.3. Inferential Analysis
Table 6: Spearman correlation coefficient (n=100)

17. 3.3. Inferential Analysis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Agreeableness
Enterprise
Competence
ChicRuthlessness
Informality
Machismo
Figure 2: Spearman correlation coefficient (n=100) Figure 3: Overall Corporate Character Scale

18. CONCLUSION
It was discovered that the Corporate Character of our respondents is dominated
by positive dimensions of agreeableness and chic, however chic has snobbery as
the only negative facet associated with it and almost dimensions have a positive
and strong relationship with Corporate Character of Master Program.
In this end it is possible to say with
a statistical significance that there
is a positive relationship between
dimensions and Corporate
Character of Master Program.

19. References
• Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction
in Higher Education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
18(5): 571-588.
• Allen Brown (1997). Gaining the Master’s degree: How do invest in your
own future. Student handbooks, 15-16.
• Asif, M., & Searcy; C. (2014). Determining the Key Capabilities Required
for Performance
• Excellence in Higher Education. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 25(1-2): 22-35.
• Clinton Conrad, Jenifer Grant Haworth ,Susan Bolyard Millar (1993). A
Silent Success: Master’s Education in the United States. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 24-25.
• Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979) ‘A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs’, Journal of Marketing Research, 64–73.
• Dave Ellis (2014). Becoming a Master Student . 15th Edition. Cengage
learning, 265-267. Duque, L.C. (2013). A framework for analyzing higher
education performance: Students’ satisfaction, perceived learning
outcomes, and dropout intention. Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 25(1–2), 1–21.

20. References
• Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and
marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44–60.
• Elassy, N. (2013). A model of student involvement in the quality
assurance system at institutional level. Quality Assurance in Education,
21(2), 162–198.
• Kanji, G.K., & Tambi, A.M.A. (1999). Total quality management in UK
higher education institutions. Total Quality Management, 10(1), 129–153.
• Owlia, M.S., & Aspinwall, E.M. (1996). Quality in higher education – a
survey. Total Quality Management, 7(2), 161–171.
• Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., & Johnson, D.M. (2009). Service quality in
higher education. Total Quality Management, 20(2), 139–152.
• Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K., & Karunes, S. (2004). Conceptualizing total
quality management in higher education. The TQM Magazine, 16(2),
145–159.
• Spector, P.E. (1992) ‘Summation Rating Scale Construction: An
Introduction’, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

21. Elena Trubacheva (Kuban State Agrarian University, Krasnodar, Russia)
Pratik Iyengar (Instituto Polytechnico De Braganca, Braganca, Portugal)
Salman Khan Raza (Instituto Polytechnico De Braganca, Braganca, Portugal)
2016/2017