The Effect of COVID-19 on Service Quality in Higher Education in Egypt.

• Author: Khouly, Sayed El Sayed El

INTRODUCTION

The higher education sector is currently facing new challenges that have never been previously experienced, arising from increased global competitiveness, advances in technology, and the rise in the numbers of universities that offer students a broader range of courses to choose from. This has led universities and higher education centers to ponder how they can improve the service quality they offer their students. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid decline in face-to-face teaching and learning since 2020, with the closure of campuses, schools, and other education centers, which observed on-site teaching shift rapidly to online. In the higher educational context, there are several stakeholders, including the students, their employers, as well as the government. These stakeholders are often considered as consumers of universities and colleges (Raaper, 2019). Since students are the clients in higher education, they are continuously evaluating the service quality of their higher education institution (HEI) (Sultan & Wong, 2013). They assess the HEIs in terms of tuition fees, educational services, facilities, including the technical and functional quality of their infrastructure, interactions with academic and administrative employees, as well as corporate image and reputation, among other issues (Ozkan & Koseler, 2009; Clemes et al., 2008; Hill, 1995; as cited in Camilleri, 2021). These dimensions construct the service quality measures that have been studied by a considerable body of research.

Service quality (SQ) is one of the important dimensions of competitiveness and has widely been studied in the marketing literature (Ali et al., 2016). It is one of the most important pillars of HEIs and has a lot of significance for HEIs and students, so many researchers have analyzed SQ from different perspectives. It is important to define service quality and the dimensions that the term encompasses since it is seen as an elusive construct and is a challenge to define, limit, and measure within an educational setting (Silva et al., 2017).

Service Quality

In the service industry, definitions of service quality tend to focus on meeting customers' needs and requirements and how well the service delivered meets their expectations (Lewis & Booms, 1983). To deliver and maintain service quality, an organization must first identify what it is that constitutes quality to those whom it serves (Gronroos, 1984). Gronroos (1984) classified service quality into two categories: technical quality, which primarily focuses on what consumers receive from the service; and functional quality, which focuses on the process of service delivery. Perceptions of quality by those who provide services and those who consume them have been defined as the outcome of comparison between expectations of a service and what is perceived to be received (Czepiel et al.,1985; Parasuraman et al., 1985). The service quality construct is measured through five different dimensions initially originated by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1994).

Tangibility

Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1994) identify tangibles as physical facilities (equipment, personnel, and communications materials). It is the physical image of the service that customers will use to assess quality. Tangibles are associated with the physical facilities, tools, and machines used to provide the service, as well as representations of the services. Several privileges are included in tangibles, such as external appearance, modern equipment, facilities, opening hours, and speed and efficiency of service. Parasuraman et al. (1988) stated that tangibles have the same importance as empathy. The authors argued that it is advisable to consider including opening hours of operations under the empathy dimension. Furthermore, Sharmin et al. (2016) consider tangibles as a distinct element, showing consistency across cultures.

Reliability

Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1994) found that reliability means organizations perform a service correctly the first time. Moreover, it shows that organizations strive to fulfill promises and pay attention to the results. Reliability has been classed as the first dimension of the SERVQUAL service quality model. Studies by Lam (2002) ranked reliability as first in the dimensions of the service quality model.

Responsiveness

Parasuraman et al. (1994) highlighted that the responsiveness of willing employees involves telling customers exactly when things will be done, giving them undivided attention, promoting services, and responding in accordance with their requests. Responsiveness was ranked as the third dimension in SERVQUAL (1994).

Assurance

Assurance has been defined as employees' courtesy and knowledge and their capacity to transfer confidence and trust to customers (Parasuraman et al., 1994). The opinions of researchers on the ranking of assurance among service quality dimensions is varied. Assurance is ranked first according to Gronroos (1988), while Parasuraman et al. (1994) ranked it in fourth place. Assurance means keeping customers informed in their native language and listening to them, regardless of their educational level, age, and nationality. Parasuraman et al. (1994) state that assurance indicates the attitudes of the employees and their behavior, and the staff's ability to provide friendly, confidential, courteous, and competent services.

Empathy

Customers need to feel that they are made a priority by the organization providing services. Empathy means caring, paying personal attention, and providing services to customers (Parasuraman et al, 1994). The core of empathy is conveying the feeling that the customer is unique and special. Parasuraman et al. (1994) stated that quantitative studies that have identified service quality model dimensions have used security, credibility, and access to measure empathy.

There have been insufficient publications of research measuring service quality in HEIs in Egypt during the COVID-19 crisis despite the need for all educational sectors to find viable alternatives in effort to continue the learning process. Furthermore, while much research has focused on measuring service quality from different stakeholders' perspectives, such as management, leadership, and teachers' perspectives, insufficient attention has been given to the perception of students of SQ in HEIs. Quality in service is defined by customers not by the organization itself (Giannakis & Bullivant, 2016). Students are the customers and main stakeholders in HEIs (Abbas, 2020). Hence, it is essential to investigate student perceptions of SQ in HEIs. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the SQ in HEIs in Egypt from students' perspective through the following research question: Has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the different dimensions of service quality in higher educational institutions? The paper aims to shed light on the impact of an unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic on higher education services, as it deliberates on the challenges and responses in the short/medium term through customers' or students' perspectives as the main stakeholders of the educational process. The question that the paper addresses is accompanied by several hypotheses that test the influence of COVID-19 on different dimensions of service quality in the learning context.

Hypotheses:

[H.sub.0] There is no effect of COVID-19 pandemic on service quality in higher education

[H.sub.1] There is an effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the Empathy dimension of service quality in higher education

[H.sub.2] There is an effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the Responsiveness dimension of service quality in higher education

[H.sub.3] There is an effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the Reliability dimension of service quality in higher education

[H.sub.4] There is an effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the Assurance dimension of service quality in higher education

[H.sub.5] There is an effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the Tangibility dimension of service quality in higher education

LITERATURE REVIEW

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have encountered a major challenge over the past few decades, which is the rapid increase of undergraduate populations applying for college resulting in the inability of public HEIs to accommodate all the students. This inability has encouraged the private sector to expand into this field and, as a result, hundreds, and thousands of new private HEIs have been established across the world (Silva et al., 2017). The enormous and perpetuating increase in the number of institutions is considered a serious threat to quality (van Schalkwyk & Steenkamp, 2016). The sharp expansion in HEI setup has raised the issue of quality in HEIs (Liu, 2016).

Service Quality in Higher Education Institutions

Dynamic regional, national, and global developments have forced HEs to transform rapidly, and these modifications have received increasing attention during the past two decades (deJager & Gbadamosi, 2013). Globalization in education has made it imperative for HE institutions to enhance their level of service quality, which has given them impetus to engage in more competitive educational practices based on quality assessment (Kristoffersen & Woodhouse, 2005). Such a competitive edge requires the HE sector to brand itself with unique services to attract customers and help attain profitability (Yeo, 2008). Service quality in the education sector differs from that in the manufacturing sector, since there is no real product involved. The only competitive differentiator is through creation and provision of unique service experiences (Khodayari & Khodayari, 2011). Continuous improvement for HE institutions can only be implemented by triggering the deficiencies through appropriate measurement of service quality (Zakariah et al., 2016).

Service Quality and the Learning Experience

The purpose of assessing service quality in education is to...