Service quality in higher education is of paramount importance worldwide. However, this issue has not been adequately addressed within the Iranian academia. Considering PhD programs, service quality is of enormous significance since candidates get prepared for their future careers as prospective faculty members. The current study thus seeks to explore the perceptions and expectations of Iranian academics on the quality of both academic and non-academic services they receive and the challenges they face. A number of Iranian TEFL-major professors and PhD students/candidates participated in this study. The SERVQUAL questionnaire, a validated and reliable instrument, was initially employed to quantitatively measure the five service quality dimensions (i.e., tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy). Following that, in-depth interviews were conducted to qualitatively uncover the hidden stories behind the perceptions and expectations of the participants. The participants generally perceived the service quality of their higher education institutions to be unsatisfactory and far from their expectations. They were confronted with a set of challenges which can be categorized as the following: educational, bureaucratic, economic, and socio-cultural. Finally, some solutions were suggested to alleviate the obstacles standing in the way of Iranian academics.

1. Perception of Service Quality in Higher
Education:
The Untold Stories of Iranian
Academics
Presented by:
Parisa Mehran Mehrasa Alizadeh
JALT 2015
Shizuoka, Japan
November 20-23

2. The Story behind Our Research
1

3. Definition of Service Quality
Service quality is a measure of how well the
service level delivered matches customer
expectations. Delivering quality service means
conforming to customer expectations on a
consistent basis (Lewis & Booms, 1983).
2

4. Service Quality in Higher Education
The importance of service quality in higher
education:
Development, change, and overall success
of an institution
Preparation for future careers
Globalization
3

5. Higher Education in Iran
 Over 2500 universities and institutions of higher
education in Iran
 Total enrolment of more than 4,000,000 students
(undergraduate and postgraduate)
Two major university types:
1. National
2. Non-national universities (e.g., Islamic Azad University)
(Ministry of Science, Research & Technology, 2015) 4

6. Purpose of the Study
The current study thus
seeks to explore the
perceptions and
expectations of Iranian
academics on the
quality of both academic
and non-academic
services they receive
and the challenges they
face.
5

7. Instruments
• Adaptation of the SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et
al., 1991)
 Tangibles
 Reliability
 Responsiveness
 Assurance
 Empathy
• In-depth interviews
6

8. Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of
personnel
Tangibles
1. Excellent higher education institutions should have modem-
looking equipment.
2. The physical facilities at excellent higher education institutions
should be visually appealing.
3. The students/teachers of excellent higher education institutions
should be neat-appearing.
4. Materials associated with the service provided in excellent higher
education institutions (such as journals and printed matter) should be
visually appealing.
7

9. Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably
and accurately
Reliability
5. When excellent higher education institutions promise to do
something by a certain time, they should do so.
6. When the teachers/students have a problem, excellent higher
education institutions should show a sincere interest in solving
it.
7. Excellent higher education institutions should perform the
service right the first time.
8. Excellent higher education institutions should provide their
services at the time they promise to do so.
9. Excellent higher education institutions should insist on error-free
records.
8

10. Responsiveness: Willingness to help and to provide prompt
service
Responsiveness
10. The staff of excellent higher education institutions should
tell teachers/students exactly when services will be
performed.
11. The staff of excellent higher education institutions should
give prompt service to teachers/students.
12. The staff of excellent higher education institutions should
always be willing to help teachers/students.
13. The staff of excellent higher education institutions should
never be too busy to respond to teachers’/students’
requests.
9

11. Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their
ability to inspire trust and confidence
Assurance
14. The behavior of the staff at excellent higher education
institutions should instill confidence in teachers/students.
15. Teachers/students of excellent higher education institutions
should feel safe in their transactions.
16. The students (teachers) of excellent higher education
institutions should be consistently courteous with teachers
(students).
17. The staff of excellent higher education institutions should
have the knowledge to answer teachers’/students’
questions.
10

12. Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the institution provides
its members with
Empathy
18. Excellent higher education institutions should give
teachers/students individual attention.
19. Excellent higher education institutions should have
operating hours convenient to all their teachers/students.
20. Excellent higher education institutions should have staff
who give teachers/students personal attention.
21. Excellent higher education institutions should have the
teachers’/students’ best interests at heart.
22. The staff of excellent higher education institutions should
understand the specific needs of their teachers/students.
11

13. Participants
10 TEFL-major professors
32 PhD students/candidates
12

14. Results
13

15. Questionnaire Responses
Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Total
Expectation
101.00 154.00 130.33 18.18
Total
Perception
68.00 129.00 90.22 19.59
Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Total
Expectation
99.00 154.00 133.90 12.90
Total
Perception
23.00 130.00 83.50 26.84
Professors
Students
14

16. Challenges
Two types of challenges:
1) General to the educational system
2) Specific to Applied Linguistics
15

17. Educational Challenges
1. Admission process
2. Number of students
3. PhD=MA
4. Conferences
5. T-S relationship
16

18. Educational Challenges (cont.)
“I don’t enjoy my research. It is sheer
torture.”
17

19. Educational Challenges (cont.)
Internet access
18

20. Bureaucratic Challenges
1. Academic staff recruitment
2. Faculty member promotion
3. Entropy
4. Red tape
19

21. Economic Challenges
20

22. Socio-cultural Challenges
• “PhD Tsunami”: unemployment, fashion, prestige
• Credentialism and educational inflation 
over-qualification
• Job insecurity
21

23. Strengths
• Knowledgeable professors
• Good and up-to-date syllabi
• Hard working students
• Proliferation
22

24. Solutions
“The system is the solution!”
• Several sub-divisions for Applied Linguistics
• Interdisciplinary approach to Applied Linguistics
• Less students
• Creating power-free community
• Academic freedom
“Regardless of political reservations, broadband Internet access should
be regulated as a utility at least within academic settings” (Mehran &
Alizadeh, 2015, Proceedings of EUROCALL Conference)
23

25. Limitations
Generalizability:
 Field of Study (TEFL)
 Location (Tehran)
 Type of University (national)
24

26. Further Research
Stapleton, P. (2011). Japanese universities:
Change or risk marginalization. The Language
Teacher, 35(5), 37-41.
Lebowitz, A. (2012). A response to Paul
Stapleton’s “Japanese universities: Change or
risk marginalization”. The Language Teacher,
36(1), 23-27. 25