Innovative Studies: International Journal (ISIJ), Volume (1), Issue (3)

---

Innovative Studies:
International Journal (ISIJ)







Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010









Edited By
Computer Science Journals
www.cscjournals.org

---

Editor in Chief Professor James E. Smith
Innovative Studies: International Journal
(ISIJ)
Book: 2010 Volume 1, Issue 3
Publishing Date: 20-12-2010
Proceedings
ISSN (Online): 2180-2157

This work is subjected to copyright. All rights are reserved whether the whole or
part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
re-use of illusions, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication of parts
thereof is permitted only under the provision of the copyright law 1965, in its
current version, and permission of use must always be obtained from CSC
Publishers. Violations are liable to prosecution under the copyright law.

ISIJ Journal is a part of CSC Publishers
http://www.cscjournals.org

© ISIJ Journal
Published in Malaysia

Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversation by CSC Publishing
Services – CSC Journals, Malaysia


CSC Publishers

---

Editorial Preface

This is the first issue of volume first of The Innovative Studies: International
Journal (ISIJ). The Journal is published bi-monthly, with papers being peer
reviewed to high international standards. The International Journal of
Innovative Studies is not limited to a specific aspect of innovation but it is
devoted to the publication of high quality papers on all division of computer
security in general. ISIJ intends to disseminate knowledge in the various
disciplines of the computer security field from theoretical, practical and
analytical research to physical implications and theoretical or quantitative
discussion intended for academic and industrial progress. In order to position

ISIJ as one of the good journal on Innovative Studies, a group of highly
valuable scholars are serving on the editorial board. The International
Editorial Board ensures that significant developments in computer security
from around the world are reflected in the Journal. Some important topics
covers by journal are Case Studies and Change Management, Innovation in
SME and R&D Management, Technology Strategy and Planning , Project and
Program Management etc.

The coverage of the journal includes all new theoretical and experimental
findings in the fields of computer security which enhance the knowledge of
scientist, industrials, researchers and all those persons who are coupled with
computer security field. ISIJ objective is to publish articles that are not only
technically proficient but also contains information and ideas of fresh interest
for International readership. ISIJ aims to handle submissions courteously and
promptly. ISIJ objectives are to promote and extend the use of all methods
in the principal disciplines of computer security. ISIJ editors understand that
how much it is important for authors and researchers to have their work
published with a minimum delay after submission of their papers. They also
strongly believe that the direct communication between the editors and
authors are important for the welfare, quality and wellbeing of the Journal
and its readers. Therefore, all activities from paper submission to paper
publication are controlled through electronic systems that include electronic
submission, editorial panel and review system that ensures rapid decision
with least delays in the publication processes.

To build its international reputation, we are disseminating the publication
information through Google Books, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ), Open J Gate, ScientificCommons, Docstoc and many more.
Our International Editors are working on establishing ISI listing and a good
impact factor for ISIJ. We would like to remind you that the success of our
journal depends directly on the number of quality articles submitted for
review. Accordingly, we would like to request your participation by
submitting quality manuscripts for review and encouraging your colleagues to
submit quality manuscripts for review. One of the great benefits we can
provide to our prospective authors is the mentoring nature of our review

---

process. ISIJ provides authors with high quality, helpful reviews that are
shaped to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Editorial Board Members
Innovative Studies: International Journal (ISIJ)

---

Editorial Board

Editor-in-Chief (EiC)
Professor. James E. Smith
West Virginia University (United States of America)


Associate Editor-in-Chief (AEiC)
Dr. Dobre Ciprian Mihai
University Politehnica of Bucharest (Romania)

Editorial Board Members (EBMs)
AssociateProfessor. Mamata N. Rao
National Institute of Design, R and D Campus (India)

---

Table of Content




Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2010

Pages

19-27
An exploratory re-search for variables representative of Academic


Quality

Sreekumaran Nair, Seena Biju
28-39
Leadership Driven Innovation: The Role of the Engineer in Our


Future
Emily D. Pertl, James E. Smith



Innovative Studies: International Journal (ISIJ), Volume (1), Issue (3)

---

Seena Biju & Dr. Sreekumaran Nair
An Exploratory Re-Search for Variables Representative Of
Academic Quality


Seena Biju




seena@manipaldubai.com
Dept of Management Studies,
Manipal University, DIAC,
PO Box : 345050, Dubai, UAE

Sreekumaran Nair



nsknairmanipal@gmail.com
Prof & Head, Dept of Statistics
Manipal University, Manipal India

Abstract

Academic institutions have been fundamental contributors of education in the
society. From tapping the talents of potential students to shaping them into
responsible citizens, academic institutions have at all times played a vital role.
This is the reason why quality of academic institutions has been under steady
scrutiny for quality. What an institution of higher studies has to offer to students
seeking to pursue their studies with it then becomes imperative. The purpose of
this study is to provide an insight into the various perceptions as perceived by
individuals with respect to quality of academic institution. The objective of this
paper is to re-present an overview of the variables critical to the quality of an
academic institution of higher studies and to indicate and /or re-emphasize upon
factors that stand out important to quality in this domain. A random sample of 398
graduates from varied areas of work and study expressed their opinion about
factors that they considered was most significant to academic quality.
Interactions, Discussions, interviews, dialogues and questionnaires were used to
consolidate the results. This paper presents a list of most extensively cited
variables perceived as essential to quality education. These variables are
generated from a pilot survey conducted in UAE and is a segment of an ongoing
research in the areas of academic quality.

Keywords: Academic quality, Academic Quality Variables, Definitions of Academic Quality, Perception.


1. INTRODUCTION

Quality in academics is a highly contested concept and has multiple meanings for people who
both are providers and users. Relying on different authors we could divide the definitions of
quality into categories. When defined in terms of excellence, the definition sets a goal for
Universities and academies of higher education to be the best. It can include admitting the best
school leavers according to specific rankings as presumably the higher quality of input affects the
quality of output. (European dimension of institutional quality management 2000) Quality again
is irrefutable: a person recognizes quality instinctively (Harvey, Green, 1993). Traditionally, quality
is synonymous to special (Lomas, 2002). The Goals of higher education is presented by
accreditation councils on a generic note in their mission statements in terms of the program
objectives and expected learning outcomes (NAAC other et al.) i.e. the institution says what it
does and does what it promises (Scott C Burns, 1996). On the contrary some institutions choose
to set a threshold that it proposes to cross in order to certify quality standards (Dill, 2003). Subject
to the limitation that this will vary under rapid changing market circumstances, minimum
standards are often briefly defined in order to ensure the particular minimum quality of higher
education and curricula comparability. Such refinement though excellence stresses academic
freedom and autonomy of university in quality assurance (Westerheijden. D, 1998). Autonomous
Innovative Studies: International Journal (ISIJ), Volume (1): Issue (3) 19

---

Seena Biju & Dr. Sreekumaran Nair
institutions focus on constant development and thereby raising the threshold by adding goals and
increasing the quality by meeting these goals. In higher education the quality of teaching is linked
to the effectiveness and of efficient teaching. Effectiveness is connected with the objectives of
the curse while efficiency is connected with the resources used in order to meet the objectives.
While viewing quality as transformation (Harvey, 1995), the understandings, attitudes and
objectives of the student change and evolve in the course of the study processes. The students
are the focus of attention and so are their educational needs. The better the university, the better
it can meet the goals that include equipping the students with special skills, knowledge and
attitudes that enable them to work and live in the society of knowledge.

1.1 The objective
The purpose of this research is to investigate what individuals seek in terms of quality from an
academic institution. The need to reconfirm on the (changing) expectations from the academia is
the key drive of the study. The variables that flash to the mind instantly, when academic quality is
mentioned were recorded from the participants in the survey. With many of the variables being
re-stated as important, this paper will also make an attempt to understand the citations (by the
participants) as indicators of more fundamental variables. Considering that universities more
often (than not) offer substantially most of what is required, it is interesting to know what parents
and students would consider as important when being provided.

2. THE METHODOLOGY
The study was initialized through dialogues with individuals (on a broader beginning) to gather
generic information. This was followed by both casual dialogues and focused discussions.
Eventually a questionnaire with the fundamental question was distributed and responses
gathered. What an educational institute must offer and what it should be doing is a part of the
nomenclature. An open question as to what comes to a person’s mind when one says ‘quality of
an academic institution’ helped amass an inventory of parameters.

This report is necessarily a part of an ongoing survey of a wider spectrum in the areas of
academic quality. The sample was random and the responses were received through mails and
in written form (Hard copies). 398 individuals were posed with the question “What in their opinion
were the top 5 parameters critical to the quality of an academic institution?” along with a host of
other questions (beyond the scope of this paper). Alternatively when self administered, the
question was also posed as “What are the 5 factors that come instantly to the mind when one
speaks of quality of an academic institution?”. Discussions with members at different levels of the
work-force ranging from Academicians to Physicians, Engineers, Lawyers, working professionals
from various sectors, Parents and students as well, also contributed in a substantial way. Some
participants insisted on suggesting more than five parameters maintaining that these variables
are all bricks of the same wall, even one missing or slightly lesser in quality can make the wall
weak. Individuals from different schools of study (Management / Art / Engineering / Medical
Sciences etc…) mentioned factors prioritized accordingly, however factors generic to an
institution / university was sought for the purpose of this paper.

The population is categorized (not necessarily in any criterion of prominence) as follows; the
number indicates the number of participants from the specified group


Group A:
Students (80)

Group B: Academicians/Researchers/Consultants (58)

Group C:
Managers / Directors / Sr. Administrators (66)
Group D:
Executives (Marketing/Sales/Service)/Team leaders/ Supervisors) (43)

Group E:
Business persons (19)

Group F:
Engineers/ Designers (Technical)/ Architects (42)

Group G:
Physicians (38)
Group H:
Other
Professionals
(Advocates/
Film
makers/
Fashion
Designers/
Writers/Photographers/Event Managers) (12)
Group I:
Miscellaneous (Housewives/ Workers/ Front office executives/ Receptionists/
Personal assistants/ Foremen/ Un-specified) (40)

Innovative Studies: International Journal (ISIJ), Volume (1): Issue (3) 20

---

Seena Biju & Dr. Sreekumaran Nair
All respondents are graduates (presently employed or with work experience) with 249 post
graduates 11 of whom are also Doctorates in their respective fields of specialization. The age-
wise fragmentation of the sample is as follows:

Age
<20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
>60
Number of respondents
7
175
103
75
35
3

TABLE 1

The sample-group classified according to the number of years of work experience is as follows:

Experience in years
0-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
>20
Number of respondents
9
67
54
51
46

TABLE 2

This survey was conducted between July 2009 and May 2010 as a part of a research study as
quoted earlier. The respondents are all expatriates working in the United Arab Emirates.

3. THE SURVEY RESULTS
The respondents listed out a total of 60 factors (each in their own words – see Table. 2), though
many factors were overlapping in definition or as mentioned earlier are indicators of a variable at
a higher echelon. The top 10 mostly quoted parameters are

Sl. No
Factor
%
of
respondents
who
quoted the same
1
Faculty
72%
2
Infrastructure
62%
3
Placement
55%
4
Fee structure
41%
5
Industry Interface
39%
6
Institutional ranking
32%
7
Discipline and culture
28%
8
Research facilities
26%
9
Evaluation methods
24%
10
Admission process
19%

TABLE 3

4. DISCUSSION: (Refer to Table. 4)
4.1 Citation : Faculty Teaching methods, Mentors, Student faculty interaction, Peer
learning, teacher student ratio Efficient head of the institution
With 72% of the respondents stating “FACULTY” as the most important criterion for the good of
an institution, it is once again reinstated that good and effective faculty forms the core of an
academic institution. Other mentions like ‘Mentors”, “Student-faculty interaction”, “Teacher
student ratio” were also used to highlight the importance of faculty. Further, good teachers lead to
good teaching methods. A committed and highly rated faculty is always well prepared, structure
their lectures well and most of all will deliver effectively. As mentors they encourage student
participation in learning and have them actively engaged in proactive thinking towards the subject
matter (Kuh, 2003). The intellectual capital of the institutions is the largest contributor to the
quality of an academic institution, re-emphasizing the ‘Engagement Theory’ (Howorth J.G &
Conrad, 1997) organized around the central idea of faculty involvement in teaching and learning.
Intuitively high quality programs (institutions as well) are those which contribute to the learning
experiences for students by the faculty that have positive effects on their growth and
development.

Innovative Studies: International Journal (ISIJ), Volume (1): Issue (3) 21

---