Introduction

Previous research has suggested that while quality is a term that is frequently used, its meaning is unclear (Francis et al., 2021). A similar lack of clarity is evident in relation to the meaning of value (Francis et al., 2014). This lack of clarity exists in the higher education (HE) domain (Fisher et al., 2017) where its importance has increased as HE has moved towards student-centric education. In the commodified marketplace, quality has gained increasing importance with universities being ranked, offerings reviewed and outcomes such as graduate salaries compared (e.g. ARWU, 2019; Sunday Times, 2021). In the business education domain, business schools are evaluated and accredited using global criteria of quality (e.g. AACSB, 2020; EFMD, 2021; SBC, 2022). Concomitantly, the ways in which key stakeholders value university offerings have become increasingly important with HE institutions (HEIs) entering the market to produce and provide knowledge as a commodity (Kauppinen, 2014). Quality and value are important issues for all stakeholders involved in the supply of and demand for HE, yet there is limited prior research that considers the relationship between conceptions of quality and value in the HE domain.

This research is part of a larger study of stakeholders’ conceptions of quality and value in HE. It is the relational aspects of quality and value that we aim to understand rather than determining the nature of either concept. We investigate the relationships between quality and value as experienced by prospective employers of graduates. Employers are an important stakeholder group on the demand side of HE, while quality and value are important issues for all stakeholders in achieving successful educational outcomes.

Using a qualitative approach and a phenomenographic method, the research aims to address the question: What are the relationships between conceptions of quality and value associated with HE as experienced by prospective employers of business graduates? The term ‘prospective’ is used as while participants in the research regularly employ graduates, they may not be in the process of doing this currently.

Literature review

Quality in consumer markets

Although the notion of quality has existed for many years, it achieved renewed prominence in manufacturing industries in the 1950s mainly through the work of Deming (1986) and Juran (1989). During this period, quality was presented as a basis for achieving customer satisfaction through dynamic, continuous improvement (Deming, 1986) and in terms of fitness for use through design, conformance, reliability and availability (Juran, 1989). A link between quality and the customer was reinforced by the notion that the customer is not just a passive recipient of quality, but rather that quality is defined by him or her (Feigenbaum, 1951). The notion of meeting customer requirements was extended to include exceeding expectations and providing superior value (Deming, 1986, 1993). A later study by Zeithaml et al. (1996) determined that service quality influences consumer intentions such as word of mouth recommendations, future business and sensitivity to higher prices. Service quality was also found to be an important determinant of long-term customer relationships through its effect on consumers’ intentions and behaviours (Venetis & Ghauri, 2004).

In more recent research, Anttila and Jussila (2017) argued that current understandings of quality are superficial and not soundly based. Consequently, attempts to apply quality concepts are fragmented and vague. In an attempt to clarify the nature of quality, Francis et al. (2021) proposed conceptualizing quality in terms of family resemblances, where some facets of a phenomenon may resemble others but without the presence of an essence or necessary condition. Considering quality in terms of family membership allows for an individual, experiential perspective that informs the nature of quality in a given context.

Value in consumer markets

As with quality, research into value has noted its ubiquitous nature and the many attempts to define it (e.g. Fisher et al., 2016, 2017; Francis et al., 2014; Smith, 1993). The indistinct and elusive nature of value was also discussed by Zeithaml (1988, p. 2) who argued that consumers use the term in ways that are ‘highly personal and idiosyncratic’. Consumer value has been associated with excellence, usefulness or desirability and has been used as a starting point for discussions of value theory (Baier & Rescher, 1969). However, there is no agreement over the nature of value. There does not appear to be an essence, something that is common to all instances of value. Instead, what is evident is that value means different things to different people.

What people value has a direct impact on attitudes and an indirect influence on behaviours through attitudes. Personally held values suggest that it is not possible to determine a priori which global values will be aligned with which domain-specific values, with linkages only being determined by empirical research (Xie et al., 2008). Since Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) seminal article proposing an evolution towards a new service dominant logic of marketing, value has achieved a new prominence in service research, particularly in the area of the creation and co-creation of value at the nexus of the producer and the consumer.

Along similar lines to the research of Francis et al. (2021) into quality, Fisher et al. (2016) have proposed conceptualizing value in terms of family resemblances, where some facets may resemble others but without the presence of an essence or necessary condition. As with quality, considering value in terms of family membership allows for an individual, experiential perspective that informs the nature of value in a given context.

In summary, while much research effort has focused on attempting to explain how value is created or co-created, most research (with the notable exception of Grönroos (2008, 2011), Grönroos and Voima (2013), Fisher et al. (2016) and Francis et al. (2021)) has failed to advance understanding of the properties or characteristics of value. The indistinct and elusive nature of value was also highlighted by Woodall et al. (2014, p. 48) who described it as a ‘slippery concept that is problematic in terms of conceptualization and measurement’.

Quality and value in higher education

Research in the HE domain conducted by Biggs (2001) identified three aspects of quality: (a) value for money; (b) fit for purpose; and (c) transforming. Value for money is retrospective; the other two aspects are prospective. Retrospective quality is a deficit model based on accounting measures that militate against learning. Prospective quality involves aligning a system with what we know about best practice. Biggs’ (2001) definition showed, at least in part, a link between quality and value.

In a Swedish study of quality in (HEIs), Dwaikat (2021) found that despite pressures to improve performance and program quality, there was no consensus on how this could be achieved. Measuring quality has proved difficult (Carnerud, 2018; Weckenmann et al., 2015) and this has been exacerbated by the interactive nature of quality and the involvement of multiple stakeholders (Dwaikat, 2021). Dwaikat (2021) argued that there have been three main approaches used to understand quality in HEIs: (a) an input perspective focused on resources, infrastructure, students and academic staff (usually adopted by accreditation bodies) (Beeg, 2003); (b) an output perspective focused on graduate skills, ability, competencies and employability (adopted by international ranking bodies) (Fairweather & Brown, 1991); and (c) a process perspective with a focus on examinations; teaching approaches; and policies and procedures (usually adopted by HEIs themselves) (Chen et al., 2014). However, there is limited previous research that has focused on all approaches.

The meaning of quality varies from a notion of value for money to self-actualization from HE. Tomlinson (2018) argued there is a strong link between the quality of teaching and outcomes, with a focus on the value of qualifications in the marketplace. However, the relationship between supply and demand is not straightforward with varying conditions impacting both sides. Both value and quality in HE have been used as measures of institutional activities in the areas of service improvement and efficiency (Tomlinson, 2018). Quality in an HE context is related to the notion that the student is a consumer with an expected level of service. The student consumer expects a service that is responsive to demands and provides value for money, particularly in a climate of increasing student fees. Recent frameworks suggest quality, employability and competitiveness are inter-linked. Quality is the driving goal for HE, for students as an economic investment in their future and for employers in terms of the supply of graduates with economically valuable knowledge and skills (Tomlinson, 2018).

Pencarelli et al. (2013) reviewed the concepts of quality and value in an HE context through the lens of value creation for university stakeholders. They argued that value is the perceived gap between benefits and sacrifices of suppliers and customers, where value is co-created by all stakeholders across the customer–supplier interaction, as advocated by Grönroos and Strandvik (2008). Quality and value are strongly linked yet are conceptually different. Quality exists when internal and external customer expectations are met. Value derives from long-term comparison between benefits (functional, symbolic, temporal, economic, relational, psychological) and sacrifices connected to them. Quality, like value, depends on not just the offer, but also on demand behaviour. Price characteristics of value in HE interact with perceptions of quality and they operate interdependently (Baishya & Kakati, 2019). Price is perceived in economic terms as what a consumer sacrifices in order to purchase a product or service. However, in behavioural terms, price is not seen as a sacrifice but as an indicator of quality, where higher price leads to higher quality product or service (Baishya & Kakati, 2019).

Ledden et al. (2011) also examined the relationship between service quality and value in HE. The research found that value is how consumers perceive the outcomes of their consumption experiences, with service quality being treated as an antecedent of value. They described the relationship as idiosyncratic. A key finding of the research confirmed the impact of service quality on the formation of perceptions of value for cohorts of postgraduate students (Ledden et al., 2011). Value is something that is perceived by consumers rather than being objectively determined by sellers. The notion that quality is a condition for producing or driving value was also advanced by Mella (2018) who proposed three forms of quality that should be considered in the value creation process: first, functional quality based on the product or service meeting the needs of the consumer; second, design-based quality based on the product meeting or conforming to a design, prototype or standard; and third, environmental quality that satisfies consumers while meeting environmental expectations (Mella, 2018).

Commenting on the changing role of HE, Tomlinson (2018) suggested that conceptions of value arising from HE have moved from an intent to enrich society and individuals through knowledge, to an educative value based on providing a measurable, marketable commodity focused mainly on issues associated with employment. This led to the notion that value is based on its worth in trade or exchange within relationships between individuals and institutions in HE. Value is also regarded as a commodity where the roles and responsibilities of actors are redefined. Value itself is defined in terms of perceptions of usefulness, with students making informed choices as they consume and invest in HE. Value is associated with economic outcomes, including employability and the market value of qualifications, which are key drivers that underpin the notion of value for money (Tomlinson, 2018).

The involvement of all actors at all stages of the relationship and at all stages of the HE delivery process is crucial for maximizing value creation. Value creation can be observed in interactions between customers and suppliers and to other HE stakeholders not directly involved in the supply and demand relationship. In the latter case, the university becomes a facilitator of value creation, playing the role of technology and human interface in the network (Pencarelli et al., 2013). Babin and James (2010) had earlier argued that in HE, value exists not in the product but in the service that the product renders to the customer, that is, products only have value when they can be used. In this way, value emerges through use or consumption and the emphasis shifts from the supplier to the consumer (Babin & James, 2010) as the co-creator of value (Grönroos, 2006; Holbrook, 1994; Ng & Forbes, 2009). Babin and James (2010, p. 477) also argued that the process of value creation is one that creates value from service.

Tomlinson (2018) suggested that further research to understand students’ and graduates’ conceptions of value is needed, in particular how students as consumers of HE connect value with the labour market. Greater understanding is also needed of how competition within the sector operates and its impact on perceived quality and graduate outcomes and, also, on the focus of institutions on perceptions of quality to enhance their standing. In later research, Tomlinson (2022) reinforced that understanding the value of HE is critical. In this research, he critiqued the dominant approaches to understanding value based on performance and measurement.

From the literature reviewed, the relationship between quality and value is unclear. In this research, we investigate the relationships as experienced by prospective employers of graduates who are an important stakeholder group. In particular, the research aims to investigate whether quality is an antecedent of value (Ledden et al., 2011; Mella, 2018; Tomlinson, 2018) and is a response to Tomlinson’s (2018, 2022) call for further research into perceived quality and value.

Stakeholders

Research into stakeholders in HE is limited although it has attracted some interest in recent years. In early research into the nature of quality in HE, Harvey and Green (1993) proposed that stakeholders have different conceptions of quality at different times. They argued that this is not different conceptions of the same thing but different conceptions of different things with the same identifier. Harvey and Green (1993) suggested stakeholders experience five main conceptions of quality related to HE: (a) as being exceptional, the best, the gold standard; (b) as being consistent, meeting specifications exactly; (c) as being fit for purpose, meeting the stated purposes of student and/or institution; (d) as providing value for money, meeting accounting and cost-effectiveness measures; and (e) as being transforming, a process of changing and enhancing the focus of students’ self-actualization, empowerment and autonomy. Of interest to the current research is the link Harvey and Green (1993) make with value in defining quality. Other research that studied university administrators in Canada (Goff, 2017) found support for some of the findings of Harvey and Green (1993) but not for quality meeting specifications. The research also proposed modifying Biggs’ (2001) model to show quality as defending quality, demonstrating quality and enhancing quality.

More recent research suggested that in HE, quality sets the scene for the co-creation of value between HEIs and business stakeholders (Cavallone et al., 2021). The ways in which business stakeholders, as prospective employers of graduates, understand value influence their quality perceptions about the educational services designed and delivered by HEIs. Cavallone et al. (2021) further argued that value is co-created by the interactions of the whole network of stakeholders involved in HE. In the past, the focus has been mainly on students with other stakeholders not being considered to any significant extent with Cavallone et al.’s (2021) research noting the scarcity of empirical studies involving value creation between HEIs and employers.

In framing our study, we also considered earlier research involving stakeholders where Cho and Palmer (2013) defined them as ‘government, employers, students, academic and administrative staff, institutional managers, prospective students and their parents, and taxpayers who believe that higher education institutions and polices are accountable to them’ (Cho & Palmer, 2013, p. 290). We argue that this definition is too broad as in this study we aim to study conceptions of quality and value as experienced by stakeholder groups directly involved in the supply of and demand for HE. We initially identified stakeholder groups using Mitchell et al. (1997) salience model, with research outcomes modified by Shivakumar’s (2014) framework to differentiate between HEI staff at the strategic and operational levels. The final stakeholder groups comprised (a) university strategic level; (b) university operational level; (c) university student-facing support staff; (d) university non student-facing support staff; (e) first-year undergraduate business students; (f) third-year undergraduate business students; and (g) prospective employers. Stakeholder groups not directly involved in the supply of and demand for HE (e.g. government, society, alumni) were not included in order to provide a manageable scope for the study. The research presented here involves conceptions of quality and value as experienced by prospective employers and as foreshadowed above is part of a larger study considering the conceptions of quality and value of stakeholders in HE.

Methodology

Conceptions of quality and value

Research into the nature of quality and value has failed to find an essence or necessary condition that is present in all instances of the phenomena (Fisher et al., 2016; Francis et al., 2021). We argue that attempts to understand quality and value through critical realism, as proposed by Anttila and Jussila (2017), are flawed due to use of a dualistic ontology that excludes the individualistic natures of the phenomena. Quality and value appear to differ between persons, places and times, and the need for an alternative approach is indicated. The alternative requires a focus on the qualitatively different ways people experience phenomena rather than the search for essences. Following the approach of recent research into quality (Francis et al., 2021) and value (Fisher et al., 2016), conceptualizing quality and value as experiential and idiosyncratic is the first stage of our research.

Conceptualizing quality and value as experiential and idiosyncratic

Before settling on a methodological approach to adopt in attempting to understand actors’ conceptions of quality and value, we reviewed the three main interpretive methodologies: grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology. We discounted positivism due to its failure to provide an understanding of quality and value in past research based on its use of a dualistic ontology and positivistic epistemology. We then considered grounded theory, which was originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in an attempt to move beyond their perceptions of the limitations imposed by positivism. Despite interesting and insightful research by Christiansen (2011), using a classic grounded theory approach, we found that it had little scope to understand the different ways in which actors experience phenomena. Its aim of generating a substantive or formal theory was also inconsistent with the experiential objectives of our research. We next considered ethnography, which has its roots in anthropology and places an emphasis on studying the culture of an organization or entity (Geertz, 1973). A major feature of ethnography is participant observation while embedded in the culture of an enterprise, which was not appropriate for a study of quality and value based on the experiences of actors. Finally, we turned to phenomenology with its focus on human experience (Husserl, 1936; Kobayashi, 2009). However, as we identified when we were reviewing recent research into quality and value, the primary purpose of phenomenological research is to identify the essence of individual experiences as described by research participants, a first-order perspective based on characteristics of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). As an extensive body of research has failed to identify an essence of quality or value, we rejected phenomenology as a research approach, looking instead for one that could accommodate the different ways in which actors experience phenomena. In order to identify all possible ways of experiencing quality from the viewpoint of actors, an innovative methodology based on phenomenography was selected (Marton, 1981, 1986).

Phenomenography is ‘about making sense of how people make sense of particular phenomena’ (Billsberry et al., 2019, p. 268), with a focus on the relationships between the phenomenon under investigation and the actors experiencing it. Phenomenography uses a second-order perspective by seeing the world through the eyes of people experiencing it, as opposed to the first-person perspective of phenomenology. A second-order perspective allows the researcher to reach new understandings within the context in which the study is being conducted (Marton & Booth, 1997). It accommodates understanding relationships through family resemblances by focusing on the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand phenomena.

Family resemblances

Wittgenstein (1969, 2000, 2006) challenged the notion that a concept must be expressed in terms of a necessary condition, or essence. He argued that phenomena may have no single thing in common, no essence that ‘makes us use one word for all’. Yet despite the absence of an essence, phenomena may be related in ‘many different ways’. He went on to provide an explanation by showing that there is no common factor or essence in a game or games, instead what we see is ‘…a complicated network of overlapping similarities’ (Wittgenstein, 2000, p. 65–67). Wittgenstein expressed these similarities as ‘family resemblances’ where ‘… the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, color of eyes, gait, temperament etc. overlap and criss-cross’ (2000, p. 65–67). Wittgenstein used the example of a game to illustrate that there is no necessary condition or essence common to all games, just sets of attributes that may or may not be present from one game to another. Previous research by Fisher et al. (2016) and Francis et al. (Francis et al., 2021) argued that concepts such as value and quality should also be conceptualized based on family resemblances, in the same way as Wittgenstein’s example of a game. These researchers also advocated phenomenography as an appropriate method (2016). In this research, we view the relationships between value and quality in terms of family membership and adopt phenomenography as a method to guide data generation and analysis.

Data generation and analysis

We generated data by means of semi-structured interviews with 10 participants using a purposive sample of actors from a range of businesses in South Wales, UK. Details of the interviewees are shown in Table 1. Interviewees were selected on the basis they had employed HE graduates in the past from universities in the region. The number of interviews is consistent with previous phenomenographic research (Stenfors-Hayes et al., 2013; Trigwell, 2000). The first six interviews were conducted in 2019 prior to the pandemic with the remainder being conducted in 2022. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed before being analysed using a phenomenographic approach (Marton, 1986). In previous research, a focus on differences has suggested that both quality and value are idiosyncratic and experiential (Fisher et al., 2014, 2016, 2021). As part of a larger interview guide that focussed on a range of issues relating to value in higher education, participants were asked ‘From your personal experience can you explain the relationship between quality and value in higher education’. Participants were asked to elaborate on their responses by further questions, such as ‘can you explain that further’ and ‘what do you mean by that’ and other probing questions using mainly using ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions as advocated by Bowden (2000, p. 10) and Åkerlind (2005, p. 65). Analysis followed the five steps proposed by Sandberg (1995) for phenomenographic analysis, where the phenomenon under investigation in this research was the relationship between quality and value in HE: (a) becoming familiar with the transcripts; (b) search for how statements in the text were related to the context of the description (i.e. the aspects of the phenomenon which appeared in the interviewee’s conceptions); (c) identify the interviewees perspective of the phenomenon (i.e. the interviewee’s focus on the phenomenon); (d) ‘collapsing’ what the interviewee conceived the phenomenon to be by simultaneously focusing on the act of conception and the phenomenon itself; and (e) establishing an outcome space (i.e. a space containing variations of the conceptions of the phenomenon).

Table 1 Interviewees
Full size table

First, all transcripts were read through to provide an overview of actors’ conceptions of what quality and value in HE and how they conceived these. Second, a researcher read each transcript individually on a line-by-line basis in order to identify differences in actors’ conceptions of the phenomenon (what the phenomenon was as conceived by the interviewee). This stage assisted in understanding the relationship between conceptions of quality and value in the HE context. The third stage confirmed the interviewee’s perspective of the phenomenon. Fourth, the researcher consolidated conceptions of the links between quality and value in HE into one description of what quality and value represented and how they were linked. Finally, the meaning structures of actors’ conceptions of quality and value in HE established in the preceding steps were described and relationships between them identified. A clear focus on trustworthiness through credibility, conformability, dependability and transferability as advocated by Lincoln and Guba (1985) was followed throughout the research.

Research outcomes

When analysing phenomenographic data, researchers should focus on two main goals (Marton, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997). First, the qualitatively different ways in which employers experience the relationships between quality and value in HE should be established. For each conception, there is an internal horizon where phenomena become apprehensible to participants. Second, conceptions occur in the context of an external horizon or background against which each conceived meaning (conception) appears. This shows the different ways in which the conceptions are related to each other. The meanings attributed to each conception and the relationships between conceptions are shown in Table 2 and are discussed further below.

Table 2 Meanings and relationships within and between conceptions
Full size table

In our study, prospective employers of HE graduates experienced three conceptions relating to the relationship between quality and value in HE. Conceptions were as follows: (a) quality is an antecedent of value; (b) quality is simple; value is complex; and (c) quality is internal to HE while value is created in the customer domain. Each of the conceptions of quality and value is discussed next, including the verbatim comments of participants.

Conception 1: quality is an antecedent of value

The first conception related to which conception precedes the other. Prior research had shown mixed outcomes with some studies showing that quality leads value (e.g. Ledden et al., 2011; Mella, 2018) and others that value leads quality (e.g. Pencarelli et al., 2013). This conception showed that quality preceded value, with all participants confirming the relationship. Participants also suggested that value varied positively with quality, with higher quality leading to higher value. The relationship where quality is a precursor to value was at odds with the findings of Pencarelli et al. (2013) who argued that value is a trade-off between benefits and sacrifices while quality exists when internal and external customers’ expectations are met. However, this conception supported Ledden et al.’s (2011) research where quality was found to be an antecedent of value. It strongly supported Mella’s (2018) research where quality was regarded as a condition for producing or driving value. Respondent’s comments supporting quality leading value included:

The higher the quality the more value is added (Interviewee 4)

Low quality destroys value (Interviewee 8)

High quality adds high value (Interviewee 8)

Other respondents confirmed that they experienced quality as an antecedent of value, with value varying as quality varied, saying:

High quality in one area and mixed bag (i.e. lower quality) in another area, your overall value output can be variable (Interviewee 4)

There is a positive correlation between the higher quality of someone as a deliverer and would mean that they’re adding more value (Interviewee 9)

Speaking about quality and the impact of HE quality in the workplace, one participant said:

(Quality experienced as) good attitudes, positive attitudes. Enthusiastic about their job. Adds value to our products (Interviewee 1)

This aspect of conception 1 linked with conception 3, which the researchers took as an example of family resemblances overlapping or criss-crossing as described by Wittgenstein (2000).

Conception 2: quality is simple while value is complex

Respondents noted the complex nature of value compared to that of quality. Most participants spoke of quality being a single or relatively simple entity when compared to value, which they regarded as comprising multiple components. Based on participants’ comments, we have described quality and value using the terms ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ respectively, where simple relates to a limited number of components and complex to many. Most participants said that quality was provided by HEIs without specifying just what the nature of quality was. The view expressed by many participants was that HE’s job was to provide a quality product, which some expressed as a job-ready graduate, who was educated to a standard and could achieve a range of value outcomes. As noted in conception 3, one participant linked quality with excellence in teaching and (job placement) experiences. No participant mentioned HEI quality standards or accreditation in connection with conceptions of quality. Participant comments included:

Value is cost, lead time while quality is about specifics (Interviewee 2)

Value is ability to bring solutions, it’s an attitudinal thing (Interviewee 1)

Obviously, the commodity supplied has to be very specific, so like I say, quality is high up there and of course lead times and delivering on time is very important (Interviewee 2)

Value is making sure you consider everything, so that’s the cost, the lead time you get it, getting what you want, quality to me is actually the specifics of what you’re providing Interviewee (8)

Our ability to deliver quality service is driven by aligning or trying to use supply chain and the manufacturers available to us… to assist them in terms of achieving that value (Interviewee 10)

Conception 3: quality is internal to HE while value is created in the employer domain

The third conception suggested that quality exists in the HE domain leading to value creation in the employer domain or workplace. Respondents suggested that quality provided by HE induces or pulls value to the employer domain, saying:

Quality is internal (in the HE domain) value is in the customer domain (Interviewee 7)

Quality to me is more internal, value is pulled (Interviewee 6)

The relationship was elaborated on by one respondent who discussed quality in HE in terms of quality of teaching and experiences. Graduate attributes such as problem solving, ability to work to deadlines and personal organization were articulated as values. An omission noted by the research team was the absence of any reference to HE quality assurance or accreditation as being relevant to either quality or value.

Quite a key relationship really, you need to have high quality teaching and high-quality experiences for the students in order for them to come out and feel like they have something to offer the industry (Interviewee 7)

When there is a problem they don’t always see it as a problem, they see it as, what are our solutions. That’s what I feel value is (Interviewee 5)

To be organised, to put effort in, work to deadlines, think outside the box, can articulate well Interviewee (9)

What employers did highlight was the importance of strong links with industry. Also reinforced was the need to understand issues from an industry perspective.

Quality is more about making sure they’ve got strong links with industry and understand what the relevant issues are and the important issues are in the sector and prepare the student for that (Interviewee 2)

Quality to understand and to be able to capture the voice of the customer (Interviewee 3)

Relationships between conceptions

The conceptions identified reflect three ways of understanding quality and value in HE as conceived by prospective employers. Each conception has variations in meaning that can be hierarchically organized with other conceptions. In conception 1, quality and value are linked through a clear order of precedence with quality leading to value. Conception 2 extends the hierarchical relationship by showing that, in addition to quality leading to value, the attributes of quality are simple while those of value are complex. In this context, simple is used to mean having few elements while complex means having many. In conception 3, the relationship is further extended to include both the higher education environment and the workplace, placing quality in the higher education domain while creating value in the workplace. In conception 3, quality leads to value, quality is simple while value is complex, and quality is internal to HE while value is created in the employer domain.

In summary, the meanings of quality and value associated with each conception can be viewed hierarchically and as partially overlapping. Higher order conceptions subsume lower order ones.

Discussion and conclusion

This study makes a significant and original contribution to the international higher education literature in three main ways. First, in the area of published research, the study supports the findings of Ledden et al.’s (2011) research where quality was found to be an antecedent of value. Also, it strongly supports and extends Mella’s (2018) research where quality was regarded as a condition for producing or driving value, extending this by the finding that increased quality leads to increased value. This study also provides a new finding that quality has few components while value comprises multiple components. The simple-complex finding is important particularly when associated with a further finding that quality exists in the HE domain, leading to value being generated in the workplace. The relationship between quality as a simple construct in the HE domain and value as a complex construct in the workplace is an important addition to HE literature. The hierarchical nature of the relationship between conceptions is also an important contribution to HE literature.

Second, from the limited mention in published research of HEI-led formal quality standards or accreditation, prospective employers do not link these with conceptions of quality and value. This is an important finding that has received little attention in previous published research in the HE domain. While in no way diminishing the importance of HEI-led formal quality standards and/or accreditation, the wide adoption of quality standards and accreditation by HEIs may have led to quality associated with standards being regarded as an order qualifier rather than an order winner (Hill, 1993, 2000). An order qualifier is a characteristic of a product or service that is necessary for the product or service to be considered by a customer. An order winner is a characteristic that directly influences a customer’s purchase decision, one that is used to differentiate between offerings (Ansari et al., 2022). The implications are that while HEIs should continue to invest in meeting or exceeding quality standards, stakeholders may not regard them as important in making choices relating to HE and HEIs. In other words, in the view of employers, who form an important stakeholder group, there is no competitive advantage accruing to HEIs from meeting quality standards or achieving quality-based accreditation. This is important as HEIs need to be aware that while they should continue to meet formal quality standards, they also need to differentiate their offerings from those of competitors on other grounds, such as value accruing to stakeholders. The issue of order qualifiers/order winners is a contribution to HE knowledge and practice.

Third, the research provides empirical confirmation that quality and value may be conceptualized on the basis of family resemblances as proposed by Francis et al. (2021) and Fisher et al. (2016). The methodology and methods provide a novel perspective of the ways quality and value are understood as family resemblances through the lens of practitioners’ experiences.

This study is part of a larger one of stakeholders directly involved in the supply of and demand for HE. Future research will consider the other stakeholder groups identified in this study. Other future research could extend the methodology and theme of this research to include other stakeholder groups, such as government and accrediting bodies. International studies that provide comparative data for stakeholder groups would also extend the research. Investigating the order qualifier/order winner issue within other stakeholder groups is also an opportunity for further research. Although particularly appropriate for HE research, the method used in this study could be applied to other domains. As with all qualitative research generalizability of the findings cannot be claimed, though in our view, this should not detract from the importance of the research.

In conclusion, we investigated how quality and value in HE are related as experienced by members of the important stakeholder group of prospective employers of graduates. What is clear is that there is no universal way in which quality and value are experienced and understood. Considering quality as being phenomenologically determined has been a constraint to research, particularly when coupled with a contradictory proposition that quality and value are experientially and individually determined by actors. Wittgenstein (2000) argued that the reason concepts like quality and value are not understood is that they have no essence or necessary conditions. Following the logic of Wittgenstein’s approach, we view quality and value as each forming a family rather than phenomena that have an essence.

Our consideration of quality and value is that each forms a family, where for each concept properties in one context may have similarities or differences to another but cannot be expressed in terms of necessary conditions or essences. We also propose phenomenography as an appropriate research approach that accommodates the experiential, individual ways in which actors conceive quality.

The findings reveal three conceptions of how prospective employers understand the links between quality and value in HE. Employers’ conceptions of quality and value as family resemblances provide a means of understanding the nature of quality and value provided by HE through the qualitatively different lived experiences of individuals. Understanding the links between quality and value is a precursor to understanding how they are created and developed. This research contributes to the body of academic literature and promises to facilitate improved understanding of quality and value for educators and practitioners alike.