Are you being served? : Innovative ways to evaluate Student as Customer Metaphor Joanna Jones & Mary Hedderman – 11th May 2017 – Shaping the Future Business Conference Introduction  As early as 1997, the UK Government identified university students as ‘customers’ (Deering 1997); a stance that would seem to be consolidated by the inclusion of universities under the Consumer Rights Act (2015). The last 20 years has also seen the introduction of both student fees and the National Student Survey (NSS); measures that some authors believe have led to universities “presenting themselves as tangible service providers” (Bunce et al, 2016,p.2). These changes in the HE environment have triggered researchers to explore appropriate metaphors that exemplify the student / university relationship. In addition to Student as Consumer (SAC) metaphor, other mooted metaphors include citizen / authority analogy (Svensson & Wood, 2007) ; student as partial employee (Hoffman & Kretovics ,2004); student as co-producer (McCulloch, 2009); and somewhat starkly, student as policy pawn (Tight, 2013). The impact of this changing landscape on student expectations, student satisfaction and the student /university relationship has been of interest to the authors of this poster for over 10 years. Published work relates to such areas as Student Satisfaction ( Gaffney-Rhys & Jones, 2008), Student Charter ( Gaffney-Rhys & Jones, 2010) and Student Evaluation of Teaching (Jones et al, 2014). However, this poster presentation focuses upon the methodologies utilised in studies completed in 2012- 14, evaluating the relevance of these methodologies in the light of more recent research relating to Student as a Consumer. The 1st study ( Jones et al, 2012) aimed to explore the student metaphor via the interpretation of student drawings; thus providing an insight into what students valued. Students were asked to complete drawings as part of induction activities and a coding system to analyse content was subsequently developed ( see fig. 1 below for example of drawing). The 2nd study ( Hedderman & Jones, 2014) aimed to explore the student metaphor via the content analysis of student assessed work. In a taught module at level 6 - Customer Service Excellence- students were tasked with a written, assessed assignment asking them to determine the extent to which students are now customers of education. Additionally, the students completed a reflective journal relating to the assessed assignment. Contemporary SAC Studies More recent studies have utilised questionnaires with likert scales to evaluate the extent to which students act as consumers / customers. For example, Bunce et al (2016) surveyed 608 undergraduate students in England regarding their consumer orientation; whilst Koris & Nokelainen (2014) surveyed 700 undergraduate students in Estonia, developing a student-customer orientation questionnaire. Despite the differing jurisdictions, these studies identified comparable student consumer orientations and acknowledged similar drawbacks to the likert questionnaire approach. Encouragingly, many of the findings also mirrored those realised in the poster authors’ previous research. For example, Hedderman & Jones, 2014 found that the many students did not holistically view themselves as customers, but did consider themselves to be customers of the learning environment e.g. Library, IT equipment etc. This coincides with Koris & Nokelainen, who stated that “results indicate that students expect to be treated as customers in some, but not all educational categories” ( 2014, p128). Similarly, Hedderman & Jones identified that students were concerned about the potential negative consequences of being treated as and behaving as customers. Bunce et al attempted to quantify these negative consequences, for example, identifying that “higher grade goal was associated with lower academic performance when consumer orientation was taken into account.” ( 2016, p.14) Drawbacks to Likert Scale responses In addition to the obvious issues relating to the use of single time point correlational data; studies have shown that students do not necessarily self-identify as consumers of HE, thus making use of likert questionnaires difficult to moderate (e.g. Williams, 2013). Indeed, Bunce et al (2016) acknowledged that student ‘self-reporting’ could be seen as a limitation of their study. Furthermore, Budd (2017) argues that the phrasing of questions regarding student instrumentalism are sometimes not as clear cut as the author envisages. Budd also describes how students are motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors from all spheres of life, thus negating the ability to measure factors by questionnaire. Therefore, the poster presenters believe that the use of drawings and content analysis are important tools when evaluating the SAC metaphor and student expectation. Drawings are freeform and do not require students to self-report on specific questions. Additionally, they allow students to depict things that they value and not what researchers think that they value. Moreover, drawings produced show a range of factors (see fig 3) and allows researchers to consider relationships and timelines. Hancock and Gillard (2004) explained that drawings provide a rich source of information because they include settings, arrangements in physical space, objects, action, and a reflection of the mental images that people have. It must of course be acknowledged that coding of drawing content is both extremely time consuming and subjective. Therefore, drawing studies should also include an interview element. (Guilleman, 2004). Conclusion This poster presentation outlines how drawings and content analysis tools are useful when exploring student metaphors and student expectations. As drawings are a useful communication tool, it is suggested that such exercises should be included in student induction activities. Thus starting a dialogue with students relating to student expectations at the beginning of the relationship and providing data for future research. And of course drawing is fun and an excellent ice-breaker! References: See separate sheet. Fig. 4: Drawing coded as clear delineation between study and social life Fig. 2:Drawing coded as high grade expectation Fig. 3: Drawing coded in many categories, illustrating the range of student expectations Fig 1: Drawing coded as making reference to “no money”