A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES OF
PAKISTAN
By
Bibi Asia Naz
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION & RESEARCH GOMAL UNIVERSITY DERA ISMAIL KHAN
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN February, 2013
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES OF PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES OF
PAKISTAN
By
Bibi Asia Naz
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Dr.Umar Ali khan
Submitted in Partial fulfillment of the requirement for Ph.D. in Education
at the Institute of Education & Research (IER)
GOMAL UNIVERSITY, DERA ISMAIL KHAN KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN
February, 2013
iii
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH
THE BENEFICENT
AND
MERCIFUL MOST
iv
Dedicated to
My Great Abu Jee and Mummy whose constant support, prayers & encouragement
always provided me a foundation for achieving my objectives
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
ALHAMDULILLAH, all praises to Allah for the strengths and His blessing in
completing this thesis. All respects to His Holy Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W)
who enabled us to recognize our creator.
The researcher is grateful to her research supervisor Prof. Dr Umar Ali Khan, whose
scholarly advice, help and constant encouragement have contributed significantly to
the completion of this study. The researcher enjoyed working with him as she
witnessed him a generous attitude towards the work, and every moment of our
interaction has been a process of tremendous learning experience.
The researcher is also grateful to her senior colleagues Dr. Rehmat Ullah Shah and
Dr. Javed Iqbal who encouraged her all the times and provided her necessary
assistance and help in the completion of this task. The researcher offer her sincerest
thanks from the core of her heart to her loving parents, and other family members
whose heartily prayers brought ever success in her life. The researcher is thankful to
her sweet brother Fazli Amin for his constant support in data collection. The
researcher could not have completed this study without the encouragement of all of
these people. The researcher is humbled, and grateful for each of them. Thank you for
all.
The researcher is also grateful to her sponsor: Higher Education Commission of
Pakistan for its financial support throughout her study.
Bibi Asia Naz
vi
Declaration
I, Bibi Asia Naz, Daughter of Fazle Hadi, Registration No. 433.NCPEM.03 as
student of PhD at the IER, Gomal University do hereby solemnly declare that the
thesis entitled “A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public and
Private Sector Universities of Pakistan”, submitted by me in partial fulfillment of
Ph.D. Degree in Education is my original work, except where otherwise
acknowledged in the text and has not been submitted or published earlier and shall not
in future, be submitted by me for obtaining any Degree from this or any other
university or institution.
_______________
12 February, 2013 Bibi Asia Naz)
vii
FORWARDING SHEET
The thesis entitled “A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public
and Private Sector Universities of Pakistan” submitted by Bibi Asia Naz in partial
fulfillment of the requirement of PhD Degree in Education has been completed under
my guidance and supervision. I am fully satisfied with the quality of her research
work.
Dated: 12 February, 2013
Supervisor
Dr. Umar Ali Khan)
viii
APPROVAL SHEET
Title of Thesis: “A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public and
Private Sector Universities of Pakistan.”
Submitted by: Bibi Asia Naz, PhD scholar
Accepted by IER, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, in Partial Fulfillment
of the requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
Evaluation Committee:
Supervisor)
External Examiner)
Director)
Dean)
Dated: 12/02 / 2013
ix
ABSTRACT
Administration is the backbone of any institute, which not only utilizes the human and
material resources in the best possible way but also gives direction for the
achievement of its goals and objectives. This study aimed to compare the
administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan. The
administrative practices consisted of amendments in university statutes; university
governing bodies; its members selection; tenure; meetings; decision making practice;
and implementation of decisions; recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of
official and faculty; provision of facilities to faculty; administrative, financial and
academic matters; establishment of new departments; allocation of funds; university
timings suitability; scholarships; evaluation of the employees; Procedure for
overcoming irregularities; university management; dealing of university with
community, HEC; Government, and other universities; HEC influence in university
affairs; students admission; affiliation to colleges; and the like. The population of the
study consisted of all administrators and academicians in the universities of Punjab
and KPK provinces of Pakistan. Eight universities, four each from Punjab and Khyber
Pakhtoon-khwa (two public and two private of each provinces) were randomly
selected as sample of the study. Questionnaire for Administrative Practices (QAP),
consisted of 32 domains, was utilized for data elicitation. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient was used to measure the reliability of QAP, resulting in 0.963. Data was
analyzed through the utilization of Mean score and t-test.
Significant difference was observed between public and private sector universities
regarding the administrative practices i.e. amendments in the statutes; universities
bodies tenure; the provision of facilities to staff; officials attitude for handling of
x
academic matters; official’s way of supervising their subordinates; student admission;
university timings suitability; process of college affiliation; evaluation of employees;
procedure for overcoming irregularities; meeting with authorities; university
management. While insignificance difference was found for universities bodies
members selection; student representation in university bodies; their meetings;
decision making; decision implementation; official appointment; staff promotion;
administrative and financial matters; relations with community; HEC; Government
and other universities; HEC influence in administration and other matters;
scholarships; fund allocation; process to visit authorities and establishment of new
departments.
Significant difference was found between the opinions of academicians of public and
private sector universities in terms of amendments in statutes; bodies decision
making; staff selection; financial matters; academic matters; HEC influence in
administration; student admission; university timings; meeting with authorities, and
university management.
Significant difference was observed between the opinions of administrators of public
and private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’ tenure; bodies’ decision
implementation; provision of facilities to staff; administrative matters; academic
matters; official supervision; relations with other universities; HEC influence; fund
allocation; university timings; College affiliation; procedure for overcoming
irregularities; and university management.
It was concluded from the findings that both public and private sectors are performing
numerous practices in different ways and means. The university stakeholders’
administrators and academicians have lack of coordination.
xi
It is recommended that the coordination body HEC may arrange workshops, seminars
for both public and private sectors universities. In the universities a body may be
established which strives for the coordination between administrators and
academicians.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Content Page
Acknowledgements v
Declaration vi
Forwarding Sheet vii
Approval Sheet vii
Abstract ix
List of Tables xv
List of Figurres xxiv
1. Introduction 1-9
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 5
1.3 Objectives of the Study 6
1.4 Hypotheses 6
1.5 Significance of the Study 7
1.6 Limitations of the Study 8
1.7 Delimitations of the Study 8
1.8 Definitions of Terms / Abbreviations 8
2 Review of related literature 10-40
2.1 University Organizational Structure and Autonomy 11
2.2 University Statutes 15
2.3 University Operating Bodies, its Members Selection, Students 17
xiii
Representation, Tenure, Meetings, Decision Making Practice,
Implementation of Decisions
2.4 Recruitment/Selection/Appointment, Promotion and Provision
of Facilities to Officials and Faculty
23
2.5 Administrative, Financial and Academic Matters. 28
2.6 Establishment of New Departments and Allocation of Funds 29
2.7 Students admission and scholarships 31
2.8 Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for Overcoming
Irregularities
32
2.9 Relationship of University with Community, HEC, Govt, and
other Universities
33
2.10 Affiliation to Colleges 36
3 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 41-46
3.1 Population 41
3.2 Sample and sample size 41
3.3 Data collection instrument 43
3.3.1 Validity of the questionnaire 43
3.3.2 Pilot testing 43
3.3.3 Reliability of the questionnaire 44
3.4 Analytical procedure 44
3.4.1 Operational definitions of independent variables 44
3.4.2 Operational definitions of dependent variables 44
3.5 Data analysis 45
3.6 Assumptions 46
xiv
4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 47-147
5 SUMMERY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, DISCUSION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
148-164
5.1 Summary 148
5.2 Findings 151
5.2.1 Findings relationship with hypothesis #1. 151
5.2.2 Findings relationship with hypothesis #2. 151
5.2.3 Findings relationship with hypothesis #3. 152
5.3 Conclusion 153
5.4 Recommendations 155
5.5 Discussion 157
5.6 Suggestions for further research 168
References 169
Appendices 170-197
Appendix-A: Permission for the utilization of Administrative Practices Scale
Appendix-B: Cover letter to Teachers
Appendix-c: Questionnaire for Administrative Practices
Appendix-D: Item Mean, Variance, Corrected Item Total Correlation and
Cronbach’s Alpha for the Whole Scale
Appendix-E: List of Experts for Validation of Scale
Appendix-F: List of Public and Private Sector Universities
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page
3.1 Sector, university and category wise number of respondents in
study sample.
42
4.1 sector wise and respondent wise sample 48
4.2 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the amendments in the statutes.
49
4.3 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the universities bodies members
selection
50
4.4 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the universities bodies tenure
51
4.5 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the student representation
52
4.6 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the university bodies meeting
53
4.7 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the bodies decision making
54
4.8 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the bodies decision
implementation
55
4.9 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the official appointment
56
4.10 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private 57
xvi
Sector Universities Regarding the staff selection
4.11 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the staff promotion
58
4.12 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the staff facilities
59
4.13 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the official in administrative
matter
60
4.14 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the financial matters
61
4.15 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the academic matters
62
4.16 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the official supervision
63
4.17 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with
community
64
4.18 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with HEC
65
4.19 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with
government
66
4.20 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the officers relation with other
67
xvii
universities
4.21 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the HEC influence in
administration
68
4.22 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the HEC influence
69
4.23 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the student admission
70
4.24 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the scholarships
71
4.25 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the fund allocation
72
4.26 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the university timings
7
4.27 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the college affiliation
73
4.28 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the evaluation of employees
74
4.29 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the procedure for irregularities
75
4.30 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the meeting with authorities
76
4.31 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the process to visit authorities
77
xviii
4.32 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the university management
78
4.33 Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private
Sector Universities Regarding the establishment of new
departments
79
4.34 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the amendments in the statutes
82
4.35 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the universities bodies members
selection
83
4.36 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the universities bodies tenure
84
4.37 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the student representation
85
4.38 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the university bodies meeting
86
4.39 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the bodies decision making
87
4.40 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the bodies decision
implementation
88
4.41 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the official appointment
89
4.42 Comparative views of academicians of public and private 90
xix
sector universities regarding the staff selection
4.43 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the staff promotion
91
4.44 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the staff facilities
92
4.45 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the administrative matters
93
4.46 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the financial matters
94
4.47 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the academic matters
95
4.48 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the supervision of the subordinates
96
4.49 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with community
97
4.50 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with HEC
98
4.51 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with government
99
4.52 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with other universities
100
4.53 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the HEC influence in
administration
101
xx
4.54 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the HEC influence
102
4.55 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the student admission
103
4.56 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the scholarships.
104
4.57 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the fund allocation
105
4.58 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the university timings
106
4.59 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the college affiliation
107
4.60 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the procedure of evaluation of
employees
108
4.61 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the irregularities procedure
109
4.62 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the meetings with authorities
110
4.63 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the process to visit authorities.
111
4.64 Comparative views of academicians of public and private
sector universities regarding the university management
112
4.65 Comparative views of academicians of public and private 113
xxi
sector universities regarding the establishment of new
departments
4.66 Comparative views of administrator’s official of public and
private sector universities regarding the amendments in statutes
115
4.67 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the different bodies members
selection
116
4.68 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the different bodies members
tenure
117
4.69 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the student representation in
different bodies.
118
4.70 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the different bodies meetings
119
4.71 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the bodies decision making
practice
120
4.72 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the bodies’ decision
implementation
121
4.73 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the official appointment
122
4.74 Comparative views of administrators of public and private 123
xxii
sector universities regarding the staff selection
4.75 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the staff promotion
124
4.76 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the provision of facilities to staff
125
4.77 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the official in administrative
matters
126
4.78 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the in financial matters
127
4.79 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the official in academic matters
128
4.80 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the supervision of the subordinates
129
4.81 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with community
130
4.82 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with HEC
131
4.83 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with government
132
4.84 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the relation with other universities
133
4.85 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the HEC influence in
134
xxiii
administration
4.86 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the HEC influence
135
4.87 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the student admission procedure
136
4.88 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the scholarships
137
4.89 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the fund allocation
138
4.90 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the university timings
139
4.91 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the affiliation of colleges
140
4.92 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the procedure of evaluation of
employees
141
4.93 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the procedure for any irregularities
142
4.94 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the meetings with authorities
143
4.95 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the procedure to visit authorities
144
4.96 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the university management
145
xxiv
4.97 Comparative views of administrators of public and private
sector universities regarding the establishment of new
departments
146
xxv
LIST OF FIGURRES
Figure No Title Page
2.1 University Organizational/Governance Structure 13
2.2 Staff Selection Process in Pakistani Universities 26
2.3 College Affiliation Chart 39
2.4 Affiliated Colleges of Pakistan 34
4.1 At a Glance Comparison of Administrative practices of
Public and Private Sector
81
4.2 At a Glance Comparison of Administrative practices
according to the opinions of Public and Private Sector
114
4.3 At a Glance Comparison of Administrative practices
according to the opinions of Public and Private Sector
147
CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Higher education plays major role in the overall development of a nation by
providing it skilled, educated, trained and professional manpower. The major function
of higher education is to develop and flourish the academic and specialized
qualification of the youths of society. Higher education enhances the capability of
learners to think logically, objectively and clearly. It also develops the critical
thinking ability of the learners. In most of the countries, it is the responsibility of
higher education institutions to train country’s intellectual proficient, technological
and supervisory human resources as they have to perform their functions as agents for
the transmission and propagation of knowledge through scientific trainings and
research. Higher education objectives can be classified as economic, social, cultural
and personal (Govt. of Pakistan, 1998).
Universities are the main centers and pillars of higher education. Universities are the
chief determinants of quality and standard of higher education. According to Vohra &
Sharma, ( 1990) a university is like a laboratory for experiments where students enter
to be equipped with skills and knowledge. They considered higher education as a
major national investment and suggest that all its essentials should be carefully
planned and managed for the best results. A university is a combination of academic
departments linked together by administration. Administration brings coordination
between different departments/institutes and faculties of university. According to
2
(Sporn, 1996), Universities are complex social organizations with distinctive cultures.
Academic freedom and autonomy are the inviolable values of universities.
To run an educational organization like university is an art not a science. As it
requires good possible strategies, techniques and professional approach to tackle with
and deal the matters. The university’s governance formulates its policies and
objectives, finding its way to achieve them with fairness and equity. It is machinery
which ensures the responsible authority that is held accountable for the persuasion of
those policies and objectives (White Paper on University, 2006). Governance simply
means how the organizations are doing for the accomplishment of their goals and
objectives. Governance is concerning how an organization steers itself in order to
achieve those goals. Governance of a university is the decision making practice
regarding all the matters that are important for all the stakeholders. Professional
administration is the key for quality education especially in higher education.
Administration plays a key and crucial role in the endorsement of education. If the
educational administration is unable to meet the global changes and challenges, the
educational organization cannot achieve the desired objectives. Administration is the
life of an organization which provides conducive and vibrant environment for the
development of an individual and society. Education polishes, develops and enhances
those capacities of an individual which facilitate and enable him/her to bring
improvement in his environment and accomplish his responsibilities. (Campbell,
1957). So for as university’s administration is concerned, Homadi (1989) reported
that
3
“The administration of university has many responsibilities. They are expected to
mobilize, organize, and maximize the human, physical and fiscal resources under its
jurisdiction in order to achieve educational objectives”.
Administrators are the high ranking personnel for the overall management of
university administrative practices. They serve as decision makers and educational
advisors. University administrators perform their different functions i.e. goal setting,
teaching and research, decision making, communication, reporting, supervision,
evaluation, matters regarding students admission and their scholarships, recruitment,
selection of officials, trainings of the personnel, dealing with stakeholders and other
agencies etc. These functions are termed as administrative practices. According to
(Khan, 1992) “Administrative practices are seen as organizational variables which
include organizing, goal setting, decision making, building morale or climate,
communicating, initiating changes, negotiating, resolving conflicts, supervising and
evaluating. The task of administration includes curriculum planning and instruction,
finance and business management, legal responsibilities, staffing, pupil accounting
and so on…”
Today the universities in Pakistan and in other developing countries are on the
threshold of a new era. They are facing issues like rapid growth of population,
advancement of knowledge, abilities and talent of the teaching faculty, solution of
social problems and the increased interest in higher education. All these issues need
the reshaping of university administration. These problems can’t be solved with the
expansion of staff, facilities and establishment of new universities. The university
may be taken as a social system designed to accomplish goals and objectives.
4
For the execution of the administrative practices the organizational structure of every
university has its top level governing bodies/authorities. Every country has its own
structure of the university authorities’ but almost an identical structure of authorities
and their liaison exist. Syndicate, the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research,
the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Board of studies, the Selection Board for the
appointment of Staff, the Finance Committee, the Planning and Development
Committee etc are authorities in Pakistani Universities. (Handbook to the Universities
of Pakistan , 1963).
Universities operate their administrative practices with the approval of university act.
An act is the legal and constitutional statement which provides jurisdiction for the
operation of university. In the light of constitutional act every university frame its
statutes for its day to day matters and activities. Statutes works like a spinal column
on which all the university structure is standing. The day to day activities of the
university get direction for the attainment of set goals and objectives but it also gives
light to compete with other universities. “The statutes provide a skeleton, and blood
activity to local discretions. The changes in the constitutions of each university are
necessary to meet the changing situations and requirements” (Singh, 1978).
In Pakistan higher education is the responsibility of the universities, Degree
Awarding Institutes and the affiliated Colleges in both public and private sector. Their
prestige and influence is based on their integrity and intellectual competence; it is not
based on their being wealthy, or having political contacts and influences.
During the last three decades many universities have experienced growth in students’
enrollment and as such will be growing up to five or six folds in the coming decades.
The establishment of private sector universities in the last two decades copes well
5
with the situation of expanding gross enrollment in higher education. Despite
unprecedented growth in the number of private sector universities, the public sector
remains the dominant contributor of university education (Cohen, 2003). (Yossof &
Ishak, 2005) find out “public universities are more proficient in fulfilling public need
and demand for provision of quality education.” At the time of independence there
were only two universities in Pakistan, University of Punjab 1882 and University of
Dacca 1921. Only two universities could not fulfill the needs of the nation. The
government took steps and university of Sind was established in April, 1947,
university of Peshawar in 1950, Rajshahi University in 1953. Similarly in this regard
the efforts of community in private sector are very appreciable; the first private sector
university The Agha Khan University started its working in 1983, LUMS (Lahore
University of Management Sciences) in 1985. During 1980s and 1990s higher
education in private sector emerged in all countries of the south Asian region except
Bhutan and Afghanistan and is gradually moving from periphery to a dominant
position. According to (Lemaitre, 2010) “Private provision has also expanded, and
some countries such as Korea, Japan or Chile have over 70% of their students
enrolled in private institutions.”
At present there are 69 public and 58 private sector universities in Pakistan. Different
studies have been conducted on different aspects of university system and governance
(Anwer, 2005), (Parveen, 2011), (Figel, 2008) and (Homadi A. , 1989) but very little
attention has been paid to the prevailing overall administrative practices of public and
private sector universities. Therefore it is intended to propose a particular study to
compare and evaluate the prevailing administrative practices of public and private
sector universities. Furthermore, an investigation has also been made into the internal
6
and extenal pressure and influence on these administrative practices which directly or
indirectly affect the quality and standard of higher education.
1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The study attempts to compare the administrative practices of public and private
sector universities of Pakistan. The administrative practices include such as:
amendments in university statutes; university operating bodies; its members selection;
tenure; meetings; decision making practice; implementation of decisions;
recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of official and faculty; provision of
facilities to faculty; administrative, financial and academic matters; establishment of
new departments; allocation of funds; university timings suitability; scholarships;
evaluation of the employees; Procedure for overcoming irregularities; university
management; dealing of university with community, HEC; Government; and other
universities; HEC influence in university affairs; students admission; and affiliation to
colleges.
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Following were the main objectives of the study.
1. To compare the prevailing status of administrative practices of public and
private sector universities of Pakistan.
2. To investigate the similarities and differences among the views of
administrators regarding the administrative practices of public and private
sector universities of Pakistan.
3. To compare the different views of academicians regarding the administrative
practices of both sector universities.
7
1.4. HYPOTHESES
Ho 1. There is no significant difference between the administrative practices of
public and private sector universities of Pakistan.
Ho 2. There is no significant difference between the opinions of academicians
regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector universities
of Pakistan.
Ho 3. There is no significant difference between the opinions of administrators
regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector universities of
Pakistan.
1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The university’s education plays a pivotal role and is held responsible for the
advancement of the society. The higher education can be made effective with the
sound administrative practices. The importance of the study can be elaborated with
the following points.
1. The results of this study may bring out an obvious representation of the
university administrative system in Pakistan.
2. This study may be valuable for the development of university governance
structure in Pakistan.
3. This study may be helpful for high authorities of the universities to analyze the
problems and issues to raise the standard of education more effectively.
8
4. The results of the study may be helpful for the university administrators to
discover imbalance in the allocation of resources and to identify the responsible
factors.
5. The result of this study may be helpful for HEC to frame rules and regulations
for day to day activities and matters of both public and private sector
universities.
6. This study may provide educational administrators and researchers with useful
information regarding administrative practices in universities
1.6. Limitations of the Study
This study was conducted for the purpose to compare the administrative practices of
public and private sector universities, but due to time constraint, lack of resources,
worst situation of law and order in the province of Sindh and Balochistan and access
to all universities of Pakistan and their stakeholders this study was limited to:
3 Only selected, independent variable viz: status of universities, position of
stakeholders, academicians and administrators.
4 The public and private sector universities of Baluchistan and Sind provinces were
not included in the study.
5 Only general type universities were included in the study.
6 Specialized and degree awarding institutes were also excluded from the study.
1.7 Delimitations of the Study
1. The study was delimited to eight (8) public and private general type
universities of Pakistan, four (4) each from Punjab, Khyber Pakhtoon-khwa
provinces.
2. Only academicians and administrators were selected for the study.
9
1.8. Definitions of Terms / Abbreviations
KPK: Stands for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formally named as NWFP.
Academicians: Teaching faculty with designations like professors, associate
professors, assistant professor and lecturer.
Administrators: An office hold who helps in maintaining establishment like Vice
Chancellor, registrar, Provost, Deans, Director Academics, head of the departments
and etc,
Public university: That is mainly financed by public funds through a national or
provincial government
Private university: Which are not funded by government, but obtain public grant,
particularly in the form of tax breaks and public student loans and grants.
ASRB: Advanced studies and Research Board
Cal: value: Calculated value
HEC: Higher Education Commission
HOD: Head of Teaching Department
S.D: Standard Deviation
SPSS: Statistical package for social sciences
Tab; value Tabulated value
VC: Vice chancellor
CHAPTER-II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The major purpose of this chapter is to discuss the university administrative practices
in the light of related literature. Keeping in view the importance of review of related
literature; an attempt has been made to describe the available research on different
aspects of university administration. The research topic administrative practices at
universities are presented in various sections. The illustration of which is given below.
2.1 University organizational structure and university autonomy
2.2 University Statutes
2.3 University Operating Bodies
Its Members Selection, Students Representation, Tenure, Meetings,
Decision Making Practice and its Implementation
2.4 Recruitment/Selection/Appointment, Promotion and Provision of Facilities of
Officials and Faculty
2.5 Administrative, Financial and Academic Matters.
2.6 Establishment of New Departments and Allocation of Funds
2.7 Students Admission and Scholarships
2.8 Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for overcoming Irregularities
2.9 Relationship of University with Community, HEC, Govt, and Other
Universities
2.10 Affiliation to Colleges
11
2.1. University Organizational Structure and Autonomy
The main responsibilities of Higher education institution are to contribute to the
socio-economic development of the country, to disseminate and create knowledge and
to produce skilled manpower. It also helps in improving problem-solving skills, self
confidence, maturity, creative ability and effective communication skills. According
to Narasaiah (2007) “Higher education institutions also play an important role in
contributing to the social cohesiveness of a nation and as a forum for constructive
debates on development.”
In Pakistan, universities are established and operated with the approval of Act of
national or provincial assembly. This provides an administrative structure for the
better functioning of the university. Figel (2008) stated that “The
governance/administration structure of an institution tells us how stakeholders
including the executive head of the institution, staff, students, parents, governments,
laypersons, etc. communicate with each other: who is accountable to whom, how they
are held accountable and for what.” The president of Pakistan in case of federal
university and the provincial governor is the chancellor of provincial universities. He
holds great powers and authority such as the university pro-chancellor, vice
chancellor, members of syndicate and the deans are appointed by him. The federal or
provincial minister of education is the pro-chancellor of the university. His position is
formal and in the absence of chancellor he executes all the responsibilities. The vice
chancellor is appointed and accountable to chancellor. He is the acting chairman of
the syndicate, academic council and other bodies of the university. The vice
chancellor is the principal academic and administrative officer of the university as the
chancellor and pro-chancellor seldom attend the meetings of syndicate.
12
The university supreme legislative and governing body is Syndicate. The chancellor
appoints its members. Its main powers and responsibilities are
Approval of Budget
Approval of Curriculum
Promotion, salary and remuneration
Although Chancellor is the chairman of the syndicate but he never attends its
meetings so the acting and effective chairman of the syndicate is vice chancellor.
Registrar is the real head and executive authority of the university. He is responsible
for the interpretation and enforcement of administrative and academic policies. He
also controls the hiring and promotion of the faculty (The Boston Group), and (The
Task Force, 2002). University academic, financial and administrative matters requires
competent bodies like senate, syndicate, academic council, advance study and
research board, board of faculties, selection board, finance and planning committee,
affiliation and discipline committee. Parallel to these bodies the universities have the
other authorities like controller of examination, provost, treasure, librarian and deans
which supervise and help the heads of teaching department in academic matters.
These Bodies provide instructional leadership as well as manage day-to-day activities
of the university. They also direct the educational programs and community service
organizations. These bodies set educational standards, goals, rules and regulations and
establish the policies and procedures to carry them out. These Bodies also supervise
and support faculty members, librarians, coaches, affairs and management of the
property of the university. They develop academic programs, standard of teaching,
monitor students, educational progress, train and motivate teachers and other staff,
13
manage guidance and other students services, administer record keeping, planning &
development, prepare budget, handle relation with parents, prospective and current
students, and the community, and performs many other duties. All these Bodies and
other authorities may handle all these functions effectively if the members discourage
the political or external pressure. The university organizational structure and
governance comprised of legislative and executive authorities are presented in the
following figure.
Figure. 2.1. University Organizational/Governance Structure
For the better execution and supervision of their administrative, academic, and
financial functions university must have to discourage undue internal and external
pressure and influences. Particularly, for the development of academic programs; in
External
Pressure
External
Pressure
External
Pressure
External
Pressure
14
terms of recruitment, assessment, and development of their faculty; and selection,
training and educating their students university autonomy and academic freedom is
necessary (The Task Force, 2002). University autonomy and academic freedom are
the basic asset and essence of the university progress and development. University
autonomy is freedom of the university to make certified appointments, tenure,
research, salary and all academic decisions should be delegated to the academics
themselves. Academic freedom is a privilege of the teachers, researcher and students
in order to enable them to carry on their roles (Homadi, 1989).
“No single matter can affect the working of a university more profoundly than the
selection of its vice chancellor. The university vice chancellor is its chief academic
and executive officer. To be equal to his responsibilities he must have the strength of
character to resist firmly the many pressures that seek to relax standards of training,
scholarship and student behavior” (Vohra & Sharma, 1990). The politically loyal
Vice-chancellor of the university will always strive to work out for the interest of the
party in power. The political pressure and influence was reported by Siddiqui (2007)
and Isani & Virk (2005) in hiring of teaching faculty and even in the
appointment/nomination of Vice Chancellor. He is appointed by Chancellor and holds
the office to the entire satisfaction of chancellor. This produces the feelings of
insecurity on the part of Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor chairs different
important meeting and so the decision making process in respect of administrative,
financial and academic matters are made on the demand of political pressure which
creates indiscipline from the very top.
To bring quality in education, the undue internal and external influences should be
discouraged in educational institutes. According to Panday & Jamil government
15
should reduce its undue intervention in the university administration. Vice-Chancellor
should be elected through the senate, not by the government. A selected political vice-
chancellor always tries to preserve the interest of the party he belongs to even at the
cost of quality of education. Process of recruitment of teachers should be streamlined.
In Pakistan, very little autonomy is provided to universities under its Act, which is not
only laughable but also blurred, By Virk, M.L (The Task Force, 2002). Tapper &
Salter (1995) reported that “in the past decade, the link between institutional and
individual autonomy within the British university system has been broken. But the
state has established parameters which are managed by the funding councils. It is
within the framework of these parameters, and the managerial strategies of the
funding councils, that the universities now exercise their autonomy…” Universities in
Pakistan depend on government funds and so the political leaders influence the
university matters. For the essence of university autonomy university should generate
their own funds in different ways and means.
2.2. University Statutes
For the proper operation of any institute whether it is academic or business requires
some rules and regulations. University as an autonomous body prepares and develops
its own rules and regulation for the smooth and proper operation of its day to day
academic, administrative, and financial matters. These rules and regulations are called
statutes. The university statutes are legal framework for the management,
administration and supervision of the university. It provides a constitutional and
regulatory way for all the university policies and processes (Amendments to
University Statutes, 2010).
16
The world is rapidly changing with the changing needs and demands of the people. So
the university structure is also changing. And with this the university statutes also
demands amendment to cope with the changing and new arising situation.
(Melbourne, 2011) In Melbourne, University statutes are framed by the university
under Victorian legislation. The Statutes are considered as the primary legislative
procedure. The university council has the power to endorse, amend and repeal the
statutes with the approval of the Victorian minister for Higher Education and Skills.
Statutes are the conventional way and private law for the internal regulation of
universities. To sustain the university Statutes relevant and pertinent they should be
kept under regular review (University Statutes). To cope with the changing
technological advanced era, it is necessary to amend statutes of a university when and
where it is needed.
A university becomes operational with the approval of establishment act and statutes.
According to Naz et al (2012), and Naz (2012) “The statutes provides legal ways for
the university’s function and responsibilities, determines the various authorities
through which it governs itself, prescribes the areas of rule making, allows for
affiliation and inspection of colleges, and locates up the offices of administration.” In
Pakistani universities it is the responsibility of senate which proposes and also
recommends changes/amendment in statutes (The Task Force, 2002), (The University
of the Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan
University Mardan Act, 2009). But there is difference in theory and practice regarding
amendments in statutes which is evident from the Gomal University Amendment Bill,
1996, which was passed by the North West Frontier Province, Provincial Assembly
on the 30th September and assented to by the Governor on the 14th October, 1996 was
17
published as an Act of the Provincial Legislature of N.W.F.P
(http://legaladvicepk.com). Same case was repeated by the University of Peshawar
when the provincial government has not incorporated the recommendations of
teachers in the amended University of Peshawar Act 1974, on Dec 6, 2010 even with
drift of regarding three months. So, teachers raised their voice against it. They were
also complaining of the amended law because the structure and the authority of the
senate and syndicate of the university were distorted (Shah S. , 2011). Many times
amendments are made without the consultation of the university officials. In many
universities there is a clear distinction between what is stated in acts/statutes and what
is practiced.
2.3 University Governing Bodies, Selection of Members, Students
Representation, the Members Tenure, Meetings, Decision Making Practice,
Decisions Implementation
University is the academic community and for the better functioning of different
academic, administrative and financial matters, the university officials and the
exterior eminent personalities are given different tasks to be done through their shared
experience and vision. This coalition of renowned personalities is called university
authorities and bodies. According to Clark (1998) the university structure depends on
its authorities and its apex operational/governing bodies. Governing bodies perform
significant role in strengthening of universities. In the view of Ashley (2011) “The
main function of university governing bodies should be to protect the institution
against interference by government and business.” The major statutory bodies and
authorities of the university which deal with academic, administrative and financial
matters are Senate, Syndicate, Selection Board, Academic Council, Advanced Studies
18
and Research Board, Board of Faculty, Board of Studies (Jadoon & Jabeen),
(Nasreen, 2008), (The University of the Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University
Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan Act, 2009).
Different governance bodies together constitute the governance structure. Each
university has its own operational bodies e.g. senate, the syndicate, the academic
council, the selection board, the board of advance study and research, the finance and
planning committee etc that shape the university organizational structure for the
effective and efficient execution of university. These Bodies provide instructional
leadership as well as manage day-to-day activities in universities. They also direct the
educational programs and community service organizations. These bodies set
educational standards, goals, rules and regulations and establish the policies and
procedures to carry them out. Bodies also supervise and support faculty members,
librarians, coaches, affairs and management of the property of the university. They
develop academic programs, standard of teaching, monitor students, educational
progress, train and motivate teachers and other staff, manage guidance/counseling and
other student’s services, administer record keeping, planning & development, prepare
budget, handle relation with parents, students and the community. Thus for the
selection of best course of action very intellectual and wise decision making abilities
are expected from them (Anwer, 2005). The names of bodies may be different in other
countries of the world but they have identical structure in respect of governing bodies.
These are meticulous for the institutional academic matters and activities of the
university. According to (Huisman .J) the responsibilities of governing bodies are:
i. Determination of university mission and vision
ii. Conducive environment for the achievement of institutional objectives.
19
iii. Long-term educational plans,
iv. Approval of annual budgets,
v. Appointment of institutional head,
vi. Make sure and examination systems institutional performance through
accountability.
The prominent governing bodies in public or private sector universities of Pakistan
are:
The Senate: Senate is the supreme governing body of university and it has more than
hundred (100) members consisted of all Syndicate members, Deans, Directors, Heads
of Department, Representatives of Faculty, Alumni, and Provincial Assembly and
Appointees of the Chancellor. Its key powers are voting on the budget and proposing
amendments to Statutes.
The tenure for the other than ex-officio members of the Senate, is three years. They
can hold the office for more than two consecutive terms. The senate meets two times
in a calendar year.
All the decisions are made by a majority vote. In case of being equally divided on any
matter, the person who chairs the meeting has a casting vote (The University of the
Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan
University Mardan Act, 2009). According to Gupta (1987) the senate or the court is
the chief deliberating body of the university. The senate has the power to make new
rules and regulations and to make a whole range of decisions.
Syndicate: The Syndicate is the managerial and financial authority. It is comprised of
regarding 15-20 members, one third are ex-officio; the others are either elected by
20
faculty members or appointed by the Chancellor. The membership includes a
representative of the Provincial Assembly although a management team; it is often
viewed as a means of achieving independent governance. However, since the VC
chairs the Syndicate, it is not an independent body.
Members of the Syndicate other than ex-officio members can hold office for three
years and it meets at least once in each quarter of the year (The University of the
Punjab Act, 1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan
University Mardan Act, 2009). Syndicate is the main executive authority of the
university; the academic council decides the academic issues (Gupta, 1987).
Academic Council AC): Academic Council is responsible for all curricular matters.
It comprised of over 100 members, Chaired by the VC, it encompasses some senior
management staff, deans, department heads, Senior professors, librarian, elected
faculty representatives, Chancellor's nominees, and representatives of colleges. It is
too cumbersome body to make timely decisions on academic matters.
Members appointed by nomination or election hold the office for three years. The
academic council meets at least once in six months (The University of the Punjab Act,
1973), (The Gomal University Act, 1974) & (Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
Act, 2009)
Selection Board: The Selection Board is convened whenever needed to consider
appointments and other personnel matters. Chaired by the VC, it encompasses a
representative of the Public Service Commission, nominees of the Chancellor,
nominee of the Syndicate, department chairs, Deans concerned and relevant subject
experts are usually included.
21
ASRB: The committee of Advanced Studies and Research Board consists of the vice
Chancellor, persons appointed by the syndicate, two teachers with research
qualifications and two experts appointed by the vice Chancellor. The board advises
the syndicate on all matters connected with the promotion of advanced studies and
research in the university, prepares university ordinance and regulations regarding the
award of research degree, makes admission to research courses, appoints supervisors
for research students and recommends a panel of names of examiners for doctoral
degrees (Inter-University Board of Pakistan, 1963).
A few decades ago the governing bodies of universities in most systems were
considered rather indistinct assembly whose particular function was unclear to the
other members of the university. Kelleher presented a perception that larger governing
bodies are unmanageable and unproductive while smaller are deliberate to reach
decisions in a more “business-like” manner. Hoare (1995) reported that in Australia,
official reports advocating a suitable size of the governing bodies of 10 to 15
members. Similar changes have been observed in United Kingdom (Dearing, 1997),
& (Lambert, 2003). While in United States the size of university boards varies in both
public and private universities with a range of 10 to 40 members (Kelleher). Some of
the members of the university governing bodies are selected/appointed/elected from
internal employees of the university while others are external/lay members or
community members. Kelleher reported that in Australia, external members account
for over 60% of membership and similarly in the United Kingdom, there is a majority
of external members. In view of Musselin & Mignot-Gerard (2002) French councils
were either ‘rubber stamping’ or have no role in decision making. While De Boer
(2003) is not in favor of Musselin & Mignot-Gerard (2002) that academics have many
22
informal powers to influence decision-making and to achieve their objectives. The
faculty means academicians should also be properly concerned and should actively
participate in decision making process that may directly affect the educational policies
for which it is primarily responsible. These matters include the size of the student
enrollment, academic calendar, establishment of new departments and other academic
matters.
Magrath (1969) recommended in his study of Student participation; what happens
when try it in academic and curricular matters, students should have an advisory role,
and channels should be established for the communication of their opinions
The decision making bodies within the university present a common pattern all over
the country. In views of (Kelleher) various governing bodies are making decisions
which have a direct bearing on the type of course taught, on curriculum issues in
general and especially on all important aspects of exams. Gupta (1987) stated that the
persons who are affected by the decisions are to be involved and associated; they will
be a party to them. While the situation is different as University does not offer all its
members equal opportunity to take part in decision-making process as influential
citizens (Ekong). Huisman, Boer, & Goedegebuure (2006) focuses on student and
staff participation in decision making and on the actual appraisal of different actors
within the universities leaders, managers, staff, and students of the governance
structure of their university. According to Gayle, Tewarie, & White (2003) university
governance refers to the structure and process of authoritative decision making across
issues that are significant for external and internal stakeholders of a university cited
by (Lee & Land, 2010). Coaldrake, Stedman, & Little (2003) pointed out gradual shift
from the conventional collegial modes of decision making practice to managerial
23
style, with stronger managerial power. (James & Blackman) find out that governing
body’s role was to approve and confirm knowledge and decisions that have been
transferred to them; knowledge creation should happen in the subcommittees that feed
into council and academic board. Chaudhary (2004) concluded in his study that good
governance was lacking in the universities of Pakistan.
The results of the study conducted by Scheytt ( 2007) show that board members’
personal factors such as personality, experience, and their attitude towards the multi
faceted nature of university governance strongly influence the boards’ identity
formation and actual work. It is concluded that such factors must be regarded when
implementing governing boards in universities by means of university reform.
2.4 Recruitment/Selection/Appointment, Promotion and Provision of Facilities to
Officials and Faculty
The purpose of any educational institute is to provide and disseminate knowledge in
consonance with the highest ideals and traditions of their faith and national aspirations
and this can be accomplished by devoted and dedicated teachers who show a high
standard of disciplined, critical and constructive intelligence in the discharge of their
responsibilities and obligations. (Jamil) is of the view that “You cannot have a good
university without good faculty; the fundamental asset of a university is its faculty.
Without faculty working with students, the university is just a set of buildings”.
Faculty is an institution's most valuable asset (Matier, 1991). Gregorian (2005) names
the faculty as the "heart and soul, the bone marrow and blood of universities" cited by
(Gonzales, 2010). He further reported that “The quality of faculty is very directly
linked to the quality of a student’s education and the value of the degree”. Teaching is
the major professional activity of academic staff (Cannon, 1983). According to
24
Sochail (2005) one of the basic elements of a university is obviously its academic
staff.” .In view of Pankajam (2005) “a college or university stands or falls by its
teachers. Teacher can make or mar the image of college” and he further added that
quality of citizens depends on the quality of education and the quality of education in
turn depends on the quality of teachers.
The process of recruitment and selection of human resources refers to the process of
attracting properly and highly qualified personnel to apply for the job through
comprehensive advertisements and the process to choose from within the applicants
the person/s who best meets the selection criteria for hire or promotion (Nasreen,
2008). While in view of Newell (2005) recruitment is often a process when an
existing employee departs (Figel, 2008). The recruitment of academic staff is based
first and foremost on public advertisements in all countries official journal at central
level, national or international press, websites, etc. In addition with this the higher
education institutes may enjoy a certain degree of flexibility especially in distinct
recruitment procedures according to the institutions or categories of staff to be
recruited. According to Moy (2006) employers constantly function as information
processors. The personnel selection process requires employers to decide among
candidates characterized by multiple attributes.
For the proper management, the officials including the deans should be selected on
the basis of pre-set, clear and well-defined criteria (Birru, 2002). For quality
education it is necessary to conduct an energetic search throughout the country for
outstanding and promising young people for its teaching and research staff. In
Pakistani universities whether it is public or private faculty has two main streams,
administration positions Registrar, deputy registrar, Dean, provost, Director
25
Academics, controller of exams etc and teaching positions lecturer, assistant
professor, associate professor and professor. Parveen (2011) proposed that the
Chancellor should appoint senior administrative staff, deans, and departmental chairs.
And Departmental selection committees should hire faculty on the recommendation of
departmental chair. While Committees of senior faculty should be responsible for
faculty appointments and evaluation on tenure track system based on performance in
research, teaching and service. She further suggested that the promotions, incentives
and salaries of the faculty should be linked with i) research output ii) performance in
teaching iii) peer rating iv) student’s rating v) and faculty’s ‘market value’
In Pakistanis’ universities recruitment for lecturer, assistant professor, associate
professor and professor are made through a process which is shown in the following
chart. The test and demonstration is meant for the lecturers only and assistant
professors, associate professors and professors are excluded from the test and
demonstration.
26
Figure 2.2. Staff selection process in Pakistani universities
In Pakistan either the search committee which may be departmental, request to the
registrar, or registrar directs the department to propose the required staff. In second
stage after the approval of registrar and Vice Chancellor it is sent to the Provost for
advertisement in newspapers with eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions
with deadline. After the deadline the registrar sends all the applications to search
committee for scrutinizing. The shortlisted and all eligible applicants with the
approval of registrar are called on for the test. The test is checked through centralized
marking. And the merit list is notified with the approval of registrar and candidates
are called for demonstration in front of experts of subject. In the next stage the
shortlisted candidate are called upon for the viva in front of the selection board which
consists of Vice chancellor, registrar, chairman of Public Service commission and the
27
subject expert members of the university and other universities. And the list of
recommended candidates for final decision is sent to syndicate for approval.
(Panday & Jamil) Find out in Bangladesh that every administration have tried to
recruit teachers more on political grounds than on the basis of merit. They always
remain in search of recruiting a voter than a teacher. As an obvious consequence, the
quality of education has gone down. People are chosen for reasons more personal to
the recruiter than to the applicant (Atias & Mouly, 1993). In most of the developing
countries higher educational institutions suffer from corruption, favoritisms and undue
political backing in the selection process. In this situation and condition the
educational institutes can only dream for quality education than reality. Politics in
universities has made them as center of politics instead of centre of excellence. Birru
(2002) found that academic qualification and teaching experience was very important
criteria for selecting teaching staff.
Faculty members play pivotal role in imparting the education at the higher education
level in any country. They happen to be the nucleus of the education system.
Disturbing and disrupting them in any way is disturbing and disrupting the education
process. Influencing them directly or indirectly halts the true teaching process
(Sarwar., 2011).
(Panday & Jamil) claimed that selection of faculty on political basis is a usual
practice. Even the Promotional opportunities are also dominated by the influence of
politics in Bangladesh. Ramsden (1997) believes that “dissatisfaction of faculty
members regarding the rewards that they get for optimal teaching at universities has
become an international problem” cited by (Razavi, 2007).
28
Perna (2005) conducted a study to examine the ways in which parental status, marital
status, and employment status of the spouse are related to two outcomes, tenure and
promotion, among college and university faculty. It was found that the contribution of
family ties to tenure status and academic rank is different for women than for men.
“Task Force recommends an enhancement of the Government grant by Rs. 5 billion
annually in order to improve recruitment and retention of competent and qualified
faculty and staff; develop infrastructure for research; provide adequate libraries,
electronic access to information and communication, equipment and maintenance; and
refurbish the dilapidated physical facilities” (The Task Force, 2002).
Another important factor for the standard education and motivation of teachers is the
provision of facilities to them. Birru (2002) reported shortage of facilities and other
human as well as material resources, weaknesses in implementing staff development
programs. It is generally accepted that good facilities are needed for good education
(Bakare). Ndirangu & Udoto (2011) suggested that the improvement in quality of
educational facilities is important for all interested in enhancing student learning
environment anywhere. Teacher quality is affected adversely by the poor salary and
benefits and perverse incentives provided by systems of retention and promotion (The
Boston Group). According to (Panday & Jamil) unfortunately University Authority
provides undue privileges to the teachers loyal to them.
2.5 Administrative, Financial and Academic Matters.
An effective system of university governance with shared responsibility should have
the main purposes of providing educational opportunities in pursuit of academic
excellence with a spirit of productive cooperation (Lee & Land, 2010). Democratic
governance of universities is good for staff morale but not so good for their
29
productivity (Ekong). According to Kilmei & et al (2007) Governance is important
because it involves the recruitment of individuals managing the higher education
institutions and determines relevance and whether management structures are more or
less open.
Governing bodies must also give adequate and timely financial support towards the
maintenance of the existing structures in universities (Bakare). According to Gupta
(1987) “finance is an important area which includes problems of income and
expenditure and their accounting and auditing. A successful administrator must keep
himself intimately in touch with the financial position of the organization he is
responsible for”.
2.6 Establishment of New Departments and Allocation of Funds
With the growing population and raising needs and demands of the society,
universities are expanding its existing departments and also establishing new areas of
study for the production of technologically advanced manpower.
Chaudhary (2004) recommended that new discipline should be established according
with the need of the market. Birru (2002) recommended “to assess all the necessary
resources, forecast the constraints and possible solutions based on deep-rooted study
and come with a feasible guiding plan before opening new institutions.”
Financial resources are required for any educational institute to accomplish its tasks
and objectives. The institute head allocates funds for different activities and practices
in a wise manner. Unfortunately everyone is crying of the lack of financial support. It
is the excellency of institutional head as an administrator to utilize the resources in
best possible way with more productivity.
30
Hamid-Ullah (2005) reported that “Public sector in higher education could not fulfill
its functions due to shortage of funds, ill qualified teachers, lack of professional
competencies and adequate research facilities in the universities.” The same was
reported by Chandrasiri (2003) that the universities in Sri Lanka are facing with an
acute shortage of funds and that existing financial systems and procedures are control
oriented rather than promoting efficiency and quality enhancement. Moreover, the
heavily state dependent university system, particularly in the area of financing, has
failed to keep pace with technologically advanced market at national level. While in
the present era of globalization, universities need to be more market oriented in terms
of management, delivery of services and revenue generation. Rasul & Akram (2010)
recommended in their studies that inter university linkage and university industry
linkage should be developed for better academic environment of university and better
utility of higher education.
The new departments should be opened with the need and demands of labor market
and for this the university and industry have a good system of liaison. Dridi &
Houssine (2007) conducted a study which revealed that strengthening of university-
industry relationships has an impact on university research and from this not only
graduate students can get benefits but the institution itself. Assistance is needed for
the process of planning the allocation of funds from the various sources to potential
uses over time. Tyagi, J, & Taylor (1988) presented a report on a computer based
decision support system developed and implemented at a large public university to
provide senior university administrators with up-to-date information on the status of
funds, by source and use over time, and an interactive multi criteria model embedded
within the overall computer package to assist university administrators in decision
31
making regarding the allocation of funds from sources to uses over several time
periods. Basic institutional problem is that even when the allocated funds are spent on
education, they may be used inefficiently (Glewwe & Kremer, 2005). Universities, to
the extent that they enjoy autonomy to develop their own plans and programs, must
make hard choices in setting priorities and allocating resources (Altbach, Reisberg, &
Rumbley, 2009).
2.7 Students Admission and Scholarships
All over the world educational institutes are set up for educating the children. Ajmal
& et al (2009) stated that “Universities are like green houses where various types of
seeds grow into plants and are sent out throughout the world”. The process of
admission of students into higher education institutions has consequences which can
be examined from many points of view. For the applicant and his family the process is
a determinant of future occupational and social status (Pearse, 1978). University
admission or college admissions is the process through which students enter tertiary
education at universities and colleges. Systems vary widely from country to country,
and sometimes from institution to institution. Birru (2002) suggested that to make the
new emerging colleges competent and sustainable in the market the admission
requirements should be checked and revised so that academically competent students
can be attracted. (Government of, 1998) The National Education Policy (1998–2010)
recommended that quotas were to be abolished. Growth in number and quality of
students must become a means of enhancing quality of education (Homadi, 1989).
Khan A. (2007) reported in his study fairly negative opinion regarding selection of
students during admission on the basis of their merit and motivation and
competitiveness of the private sector graduates with public sector universities.
32
Gupta (1987) stated that the scholarship dimension of a college or university emphasis
the academic achievement. “Scholarships and bursary awards for able but indigent
students are resuscitated, cost recovery measures in the universities need to be
intensified” (Pearse, 1978). Fontes & Patricia (1980) found Overall participation rate
to be higher for males than for females in university education.
Parveen (2011) stated that in Pakistan the higher education institutions did not
concentrate on globalization, commercial consideration, scientific and technical
advancement. This made the situation worst with creating an environment of cheating,
corruption and ignorance of merit.
2.8 Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for Overcoming Irregularities
For judging the worth, value, supervision and future planning of any program
evaluation are necessary. According to Betored, (2003) and Hudd Leston, (2002)
universities should properly evaluate their performance for achievement of high
performance standards cited by (Razavi, 2007).
Teaching should be an important evaluative criterion (Gentry, Jauch, & James, 1976).
Most studies of how faculty performance is evaluated have been based on reports
from academic deans or vice presidents (Centra, 1977). Individual evaluation of
academic staff is, in most countries, an integral part of internal quality assurance
procedures. Internal procedures are often made compulsory by authorities, and are
generally determined by the institutions themselves (Figel, 2008).
33
2.9 Relationship of University with Community, HEC, Govt, and Other
Universities
Universities are established for the welfare of the society and therefore they are not
isolated institutions but part of the society and community. Universities are to present
a positive image to their internal and external stakeholders and therefore to have good
relationship with community, HEC, Govt, and other universities and also to get
possible benefits from them. Half the battle is won if good human relations prevail in
an organization (Gupta, 1987). He further stated “Community dimension indicates a
friendly, supportive and sympathetic environment and a sense of group welfare and
loyalty. When there is community spirit the college has a reputation for being
friendly; students commonly share their problems; professors go out of their way to
be helpful.” Today universities are not so isolated from society. According to Nasreen
(2008) universities realize that they are more than an institution disseminating
knowledge. They are agent of essential, or even critical, social change. So their
existence will be meaningful. University is the part of community and so they have to
maintain close links with community and industry. Universities should strive to
develop into active agents of social change. Badat (2009) proposed three purposes of
university. The first purpose of universities is the production of knowledge; the
second is the dissemination of knowledge and the formation & cultivation of the
cognitive character of students. The final, is to undertake community engagement.
According to Simone & Marselli University as a place for high education and
scientific investigation cannot avoid the social confrontation and communication with
the society on the contrary, it risks its own existence.
34
As universities and society in general grow closer together, administration has a
crucial part to plan in strengthening the links which unite them (The Administration
of Universities, 1966). Well reputed and good universities are connected with the
‘exterior world’ while for the better function and understanding their needs and
demands even became its part. In the same way, it was seen that university activities
are in contact with society in general and that their accomplishment depends on these
relations. University administrative systems, therefore, are never isolated but are
articulated with other institutions (The Administration of Universities, 1966). The
working party showed their agreement on the matter that relations between
government and universities were everywhere growing closer, even in university
systems where traditionally they had been weak or even non-existent. In United
States, the distrust of interference by the government in university matters was
particularly strong. (The Administration of Universities, 1966).
Parveen (2011) proposed that the management of government sector universities be
made more autonomous rather keeping it linked with government. In her study the
responses of management members and interviews of officials indicated that the
colleges received support and faced bureaucratic problems when dealing with
government offices (Birru, 2002). “Universities are large and complex organizations
dependent still on government i.e. taxpayer funds” (Edwards). The coordination,
control and financing mechanisms for higher education institutions have been the
subject of ongoing political analysis and technical debate within university systems
over recent years. The interrelationships between governments as the ones in charge
of university policy, universities and society have in recent years undergone a
35
restatement process, due principally to the widespread changes that have occurred in
the higher education environment (Vilalta, 2001)
Local government should support universities under their control, through relaxation
in tax as an incentive, financial support on utilities, student support and infrastructure
development grants, etc (Parveen, 2011).
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) was established for the progress and
advancement of the universities into world-class centers of education and research.
The due authority of the Higher Education Commission covers all universities and
degree awarding institutions. It strives for the quality education in these institutions
by facilitating and coordinating self-assessment of academic programs with an
external review by national and international experts. The HEC also supervises the
planning, development, and accreditation of public and private sector institutions of
higher education (Mukhtar, Tatlah, & Saeed, 2011). The government of Pakistan, in
an effort to enhance intellectual capital and enrollments, established the Higher
Education Commission (HEC) assigned to evaluate, improve and promote the higher
education and research culture in both public and private sectors in Pakistan (Qazi, S,
Rawat, & Hamid, 2010).
Steering committees on higher education recommend that “establishment of the
Higher Education Commission as a supportive body for quality assurance and
funding, and abolition of the UGC to enhance academic quality” (Pakistan, 2002).
(HEC, 2002-2003) The Task Force, Study Group and later the Steering Committee all
agreed to recommend an enhancement of the government grant annually in order to
improve recruitment and retention of competent and qualified faculty; develop
infrastructure for research; provide adequate library facilities electronic access to
36
information and communication, equipment and maintenance; and refurbish the
physical facilities of the universities.
Parveen (2011) has outlined the achievements of HEC in this manner:
i. Each and every student of the public sector universities has been given access
to e-textbooks and research articles from international research journals
ii. Enrolments to the universities have been quadrupled over a span of five.
iii. Promotion of research culture has resulted into the enhanced number of
research publication.
iv. Even a long span could not get any Pakistani university some place among the
high ranked universities of the world. Five Pakistani universities including
National University of Science and Technology could get a standing position
among the top 300 universities of the world.
v. To bring in quality into teacher education programs,
vi. As an innovative step, HEC has financed around 5000 PhD scholars for their
study in their own and advanced countries.
vii. HEC has given affiliation to around fifty universities for offering novel market
oriented programs.
2.10. Affiliation to Colleges
The term affiliation has the origin from a latin word ‘filius’ a son which means of
being adopted as a member of the family but unfortunately in practice we suppose it
to have come from the word ‘filus’ means a thread and so the colleges are connected
with the university only as a string.
37
Therefore Gupta (1987) suggested that each university should see before the
affiliation is given to a college that whether it strongly satisfied the conditions laid
down by the university. According to Mishra (2007) “in fact, the university has the
right to withhold or withdraw, in whole or in parts, the rights conferred on a college
by affiliation or in cases, a) it has failed to carry out any of the terms and conditions
of affiliation, b) a college is conducting its affairs in a manner prejudicial and at
loggerheads with the main purpose of education”. A college has the right to be
permanently affiliated by fulfilling all conditions laid down by the university statutes.
In Indian universities, first of all the college authority will write an application to the
registrar of the University for Affiliation with explanation of the position of the
college. The registrar will discuss it with the affiliation committee. If there is a need
and the college position is satisfactory with conditions laid down by the statutes. In
next stage a team of experts will be sent to the college for checking and verifying the
conditions and requirements and then they will submit their report. The affiliation
committee will decide in a meeting what to recommend. And finally the concerned
authorities of the university approve or disapprove the affiliation. When approval is
given that will be on temporary basis. The permanent affiliation will be given after
three years if the college is developing its position from time to time (Mishra, 2007).
Mishra (2007) divided the procedure in two parts. “First of all the university should
be convinced of the need for a college. When the need is established, then the college
should make suitable arrangements for fulfilling the conditions of affiliation as laid
down by the university”.
While in Pakistan before or after the establishment of an educational institution by the
private sector, the Principal/Head shall submit a formal application to the Registrar on
38
the prescribed Porforma, complete in all respects, along with registration of the
institution from Higher Education Regulatory Authority. The Registrar, after
satisfying himself with regard to the completion of the application in all respects shall,
in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor, furnish a copy of the questionnaire, to the
Head of the Higher Educational Institution concerned.
The Registrar examines the documents, and if finds it satisfactory he then proposed to
the Vice Chancellor, the appointment of an Inspection Committee for visiting the
concerned Institution.
The members of Inspection Committee are appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The
Inspection Committee submits its report to the Affiliation Committee.
The Affiliation Committee then accept the recommendations or reject or send back
the case with comments to the Inspection Committee for re-examination
The Affiliation Committee, after satisfying from every angle then forwards its
recommendation to the Syndicate for approval. The affiliation is granted on
permanent basis after having ensured the fulfillment of all affiliation requirements in
fulfillment of the Statutes. The process is presented in the following figure.
39
figure 2.3. College affiliation Chart
Isani U. A (2001) reported in his study that affiliated colleges are a source of great
dissatisfaction. The system of affiliation seems to have contributed significantly to the
deterioration of academic standards in the country. Safder, M. rightly called it as “the
affiliation curse” in The News, September 27, 1996 cited by (Isani U. A., 2001). The
affiliation is given to the colleges only to raise and generate funds. When once
affiliation is given then the universities authorities are neither give any consideration
nor supervise them on regular basis. Today the number of affiliated colleges has risen
to 1994 according to the (HEC, Universities affiliated colleges) Pakistan.
40
Figure 3.4. Affiliated colleges of Pakistan
Source: http://beta.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/QALI/Others/Pages/HEIs.aspx
CHAPTER-III
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
This chapter presents an overview of the research methodology that was used to
compare the administrative practices of universities. This section of the study
concisely describes population, procedure for selection of sample, sample size,
validity and reliability of data collection instrument, procedure of data collection, data
analysis, and assumptions.
3.1. Population:
The population of the study consisted of:
1. Total 24 public and 24 private sector universities of Punjab and KPK
provinces (attached as appendices F).
2. All administrators and academicians of 24 public and 24 private sector
universities of Punjab and KPK provinces in the year 2010.
3.3. Sample and Sample Size:.
Multi-stage sampling technique (Louis Cohen, 2007) was applied in order to select
the study sample of 320 respondents in the following way:
1. At first stage, eight (8) universities were selected (4 from Punjab and 4 from
KPK provinces) randomly in such a way that two (2) public and two (2)
private sector universities from each province were included in sample.
2. In the next stage, 40 respondents (20 administrators and 20 academicians)
were chosen conveniently from each selected university. Administrators
42
having key position i.e. VC, registrar, deputy registrar, deans, provost, director
academics, director finance, director QEC and Head of teaching departments
were selected while 20 Academicians were selected conveniently from each
selected university. Composition of the Sample of the study was:
The table 3.1 above shows the sector, university and category wise number of
respondents in study sample.
N Sector Universities Administrators Academicians Total1 P
U B L I C
Gomal university D.I.Khan 20 20 40
2 University of Hazara 20 20 40
3 University of Sargodha 20 20 40
4 Bahauddin Zakaria University (BZU) Multan
20 20 40
5 P R I V A T
City university Peshawar 20 20 40
6 Qurtaba University D.I.Khan
20 20 40
7 UMT Lahore 20 20 40
8 University of Lahore 20 20 40
Total 160 160 320
The researcher anticipated the sample size to be based on the proposition: a sample
with a minimum number of 100 is essential for descriptive studies (Fraenkel, 2003).
43
3.4. Data Collection Instrument
1. Data were collected with the use of two-part questionnaire for the
administrators and academician. In the construction of the instrument, items
were adapted from Singh, 1987 administration rating scale with prior
permission. Permission to use, modify and add according to local environment
the tool was obtained from the author (Appendix-A). Part-1 of the
questionnaire consisted of different independent variables viz: status of
University public or private , position of stakeholder academicians and
administrators), Part- II of the questionnaire was consisted of 112 Likert-type
items, responded on a 5 point rating scale from “Always” to “Never”, carrying
a value of 5 to 1 respectively. Items designated positively were scored as 5, 4,
3, 2 and 1 respectively. Omitted or invalid responses were given a score of 3.
They were classified into 32 domains measuring the overall comparison of
administrative practices of public and private sector universities. The scale is
attached as (Appendices-C).
3.4.1. Validity of the Questionnaire
For the content validity of the data collection, questionnaire was sent to eminent
researchers, Ph.D scholars and experts of social sciences. The list of experts is given
as an (Appendix-E).
3.3 .2 Pilot Testing
To assess the consistency of items, it was personally administered to 42 stakeholders,
21 academicians and 21 administrators, from Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
44
3.4.3 Reliability of the Questionnaire.
Internal consistency of the items was calculated through Cronbach’s coefficient Alpha
method. For the whole scale 0.963 Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained in terms of scale
mean if item deleted, scale variance if item deleted, corrected item-total correlation,
appendix-D illustrates Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted. Generally, the range as rule
of thumb for sorting out the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is always between
0 and 1. Actually there is no lower limit to the coefficient. The nearer the reliability
coefficient is to 1.0, the better will be the internal consistency of the item in the
questionnaire. According to (Sekaran, 1999: 311) In general the reliabilities less than
0.6 are considered to be poor, 0.7 range are satisfactory, and those more than 0.8 are
considered good: cited by (Shah R. , 2011). In the light of views of George and
Mallery 2003) rules of thumb for examining internal consistency of the item is “≥.9
=Excellent, ≥ .8 = Good, ≥ .7 = Acceptable, ≥.6 = Questionable, ≥ .5 = Poor and ≤ .4
= Unacceptable” cited by (Gliem. J. A.) .
3.5. Analytical Procedure
3.5.1. Operational Definitions of Independent Variables
1. Status of University: Status of university was treated as a dichotomous
variable to be either private or public sector
2. Position of stakeholder: Position of stakeholder was treated as a
dichotomous variable to be either academician or administrator.
3.5.2. Operational Definitions of dependent Variables
1. Administrative Practices: The administrative practices consist of amendments in
university statutes; university governing bodies; its members selection; tenure and
45
meetings; decision making practice; implementation of decisions;
recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of official and faculty; provision of
facilities to faculty; official attitude in administrative; financial and academic matters;
establishment of new departments; allocation of funds; university timings suitability;
scholarships; evaluation of the employees, Procedure for overcoming irregularities;
visiting authorities, university management; relationship of university with
community; HEC; Government; and other universities; HEC influence in university
affairs; students admission; and affiliation to colleges.
2. Comparison of Administrative Practices: This variable was measured by 112
Likert-type items comprising of 32 domains, asking the respondents to indicate their
opinions regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector
universities. The scale was developed on 5 point Likert type scale design. The
respondents have to score on the suitable place on one of the five categories ranging
from “Always” to “Never”. Scoring used for the instrument was; Always 5,
Frequently 4, Occasionally 3, Seldom 2, Never as 1.
3.6. Data Analysis
The collected data were analyzed by employing statistical method: Independent
Samples t-test. T-test was used to examine the Means difference among the views of
overall respondents, academicians and administrators.
The formula for t-test if the samples are related i.e two measures from the same
subject is
46
Where
= Mean of sample 1
= Mean of sample 2
= number of subjects in sample 1
= number of subjects in sample 2
= Variance of sample 1 =
= Variance of sample 2 =
To find out the significant difference between the samples Means, usually t-test was
applied. For testing null hypothesis significance level value was set as 0.05 values.
According to Stevens (1996) for all types of research studies in social sciences
statistical significance is placed at .05 Alpha levels.
Independent Samples t-test was utilized when cases are classified into two groups
and a test of Mean difference was performed for specified variables.
For testing null hypothesis emblematic values which are preferred for the significance
level are .05. Means are compared for independent samples.
The data was analyzed through the utilization of SPSS statistical software package,
version 16.
47
3.7. Assumptions
Following were the assumptions that were made for this study:
1. Stakeholders’ academicians’ and administrators’ responses on the
questionnaire were genuine.
2. Items of the questionnaire measured the comparative analysis of
administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan.
3. A proper survey was made to collect data in order to accomplish the true
worth of the study.
4. Respondents re cooperative with the researcher.
CHAPTER – IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter deals with presentation and analysis of data. Descriptive and inferential
statistics were utilized to compare the administrative practices of Public and Private
Sector Universities. Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic profile of the respondents.
To test the stated hypotheses, as presented in chapter-1, t-test was utilized for data
analysis. This chapter comprised of 97 tables.
4.1. Sector and Respondent Wise Sample Size
Sector N Academicians Administrators Total
Public 4 80 80 160
Private 4 80 80 160
Total 8 160 160 320
The table 4.1 above shows descriptive analysis of the sample size of respondents
(academicians and administrators). The researcher collected data from eight 8
universities (four 4 public and four 4 private). The total number of respondents from
the selected public and private sector universities was 320, out of which 160 were
academicians and 160 were administrators.
49
Table 4.2: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Amendments in the Statutes.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t df p-value
1 Public 160 12.43 2.19 3.64
318
.000
2 Private 160 11.37 2.96
The table 4.2 above shows that the cal; value 3.64 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05, hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between public and private
sector universities regarding the amendments in statutes is rejected. It is concluded
that respondents of both public and private sectors were of different opinions
regarding amendments in the statutes.
50
Table 4.3: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Universities Bodies Members Selection.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
12.48 2.08 .355
318
.723
2 Private 160 12.39 2.31
The table 4.3 above shows that the cal; value .355 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05, hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding universities bodies’
selection is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were
of same opinions regarding universities bodies’ selection.
51
Table 4.4: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Universities Bodies Tenure.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 13.00 2.11 .211
318
.003
2 Private 160 13.66 1.78
The table 4.4 above shows that the above shows that the cal; value .211 < tab; value
1.97; with df 318 at α = 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference
between the opinions of respondents of the public and private sector universities
regarding universities bodies’ tenure is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of
both sector universities were of uniform opinions regarding universities bodies’
tenure.
52
Table 4.5: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Student Representation.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 15.16 2.41 .511
318
.863
2 Private 160 15.11 2.83
The table 4.5 above shows that the cal; value .511 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding student
representation in university bodies is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of
both sector universities were of same opinions regarding student representation in
university bodies.
53
Table 4.6: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding University bodies Meeting.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 14.38 4.30 1.29
318
.195
2 Private 160 13.85 2.87
The table 4.6 above shows that the cal; value 1.29 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding bodies meeting is
accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same
opinions regarding bodies meeting.
54
Table 4.7: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Bodies Decision Making.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 9.38 1.67 1.95
318
.052
2 Private 160 8.96 2.08
The table 4.7 above shows that the cal; value 1.95 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence means that null hypothesis of no significant difference between the
opinions of respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding bodies
decision making is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector
universities were of similar opinions regarding the bodies’ decision making.
55
Table 4.8: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Bodies Decision Implementation.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 11.62 3.40 1.63
318
.104
2 Private 160 10.84 5.02
The table 4.8 above shows that the cal; value 1.63 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence means that null hypothesis of no significant difference between opinions
of respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding bodies decision
implementation is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector
universities were of same opinions regarding the bodies’ decision implementation.
56
Table 4.9: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Official Appointment.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 10.09 3.35 1.16
318
.245
2 Private 160 9.75 1.65
The table 4.9 above shows that the cal; value 1.16 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence means that null hypothesis of no significant difference between the
opinions of respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding official
appointment is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of same opinions regarding the official appointment.
57
Table 4.10: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Staff Selection.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 10.71 1.51 3.57
318
.000
2 Private 160 10.08 1.67
The table 4.10 above shows that the cal; value 3.57 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding staff selection is
rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of different
opinions regarding staff selection.
58
Table 4.11: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding Staff Promotion.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 10.71 1.80 .118
318
.906
2 Private 160 10.68 1.96
The table 4.11 above shows that the cal; value .118 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding staff promotion is
accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector were of same opinions
regarding the staff promotion.
59
Table 4.12: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Staff Facilities.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
12.74 2.63 2.72
318
.007
2 Private 160 11.96 2.49
The table 4.12 above shows that the cal; value 2.72 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding staff facilities is
rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of different
opinions regarding the staff facilities.
60
Table 4.13: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Official in Administrative Matter.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
9.68 1.79 .333
318
.740
2 Private 160 9.75 1.56
The table 4.13 above shows that the cal; value .333 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding official in
administrative matters is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector
universities were of same opinions regarding official in administrative matters.
61
Table 4.14: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Financial Matters.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
12.88 1.90 .128
318
.898
2 Private 160 12.85 2.42
The table 4.14 above shows that the cal; value .128 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding financial matters is
accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of similar
opinions regarding financial matters.
62
Table 4.15: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Academic Matters.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 12.36 2.01 2.58
318
.010
2 Private 160 13.04 2.60
The table 4.15 above shows that the cal; value 2.58 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding academic matters is
rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of different
opinions regarding academic matters.
63
Table 4.16: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Official Supervision.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
9.24 1.87 2.19
318
.029
2 Private 160 9.67 1.62
The table 4.16 above shows that the cal; value 2.19 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding official supervision
is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of
different opinions regarding official supervision.
64
Table 4.17: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with Community.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
9.09 2.06 .790
318
.430
2 Private 160 8.93 1.59
The table 4.17 above shows that cal; value .790 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding relations with
community is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of same opinions regarding official relations with community.
65
Table 4.18: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with HEC.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 8.75 2.07 .092
318
.927
2 Private 160 8.73 1.54
The table 4.18 above shows cal; value .092 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α = 0.05.
Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the relations with
HEC is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of
same opinions regarding officers’ relations with HEC.
66
Table 4.19: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with Government.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
8.96 2.08 .345
318
.730
2 Private 160 9.04 1.78
The table 4.19 above shows that cal; value .345 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding relations with
government is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of same opinions regarding officers’ relations with government.
67
Table 4.20: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Officers Relation with other Universities.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 8.82 1.64 1.54
318
.124
2 Private 160 9.11 1.76
The table 4.20 above shows that cal; value 1.54 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding relations with other
universities is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of same opinions regarding officers’ relations with other universities.
68
Table 4.21: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the HEC influence in Administration.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
16.87 3.58 1.80
318
.072
2 Private 160 16.11 3.89
The table 4.21 above shows that cal; value 1.80 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding HEC influence in
administration is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of similar opinions regarding the HEC influence in administration.
69
Table 4.22: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the HEC influence.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 10.83 2.49 .465
318
.645
2 Private 160 10.93 1.50
The table 4.22 above shows that cal; value .465 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the HEC influence
is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same
opinions regarding HEC influence.
70
Table 4.23: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Student Admission.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 14.14 1.67 5.11
318
.000
2 Private 160 12.86 2.69
The table 4.23 above shows that cal; value 5.11 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the student
admission is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were
of different opinions regarding student admission.
71
Table 4.24: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Scholarships.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 10.75 1.49 .00
318
1.00
2 Private 160 10.75 1.85
The table 4.24 above shows that cal; value .00 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the scholarships is
accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same
opinions regarding scholarships.
72
Table 4.25: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Fund Allocation.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 11.01 2.41 1.85
318
.065
2 Private 160 10.56 1.89
The table 4.25 above shows that the cal; value 1.85 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the fund allocation
is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of same
opinions regarding the fund allocation.
73
Table 4.26: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the University Timings.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 16.00 2.25 3.52
318
.000
2 Private 160 14.76 3.83
The table 4.26 above shows that cal; value 3.52 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the university
timings is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were of
different opinions regarding the university timings.
74
Table 4.27: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the College Affiliation.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
16.37 2.70 4.7
318
.000
2 Private 160 14.86 3.02
The table 4.27 above shows that cal; value 4.7 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the college
affiliation is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were
of different opinions regarding college affiliation.
75
Table 4.28: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Evaluation of employees.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 7.44 1.92 2.64
318
.009
2 Private 160 7.93 1.37
The table 4.28 above shows that cal; value 2.64 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the evaluation of
employees is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were
of different opinions regarding evaluation of employees.
76
Table 4.29: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Procedure for overcoming irregularities.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 10.65 1.86 2.35
318
.019
2 Private 160 11.12 1.73
The table 4.29 above shows that the cal; value 2.35 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the procedure for
overcoming irregularities is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector
universities were of different opinions regarding procedure for irregularities.
77
Table 4.30: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Meeting with Authorities.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160 9.23 2.53 2.86
318
.004
2 Private 160 8.35 2.91
The table 4.30 above shows that the cal; value 2.86 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding meeting with
authorities is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities were
of different opinions regarding meeting with authorities.
78
Table 4.31: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Process to visit Authorities.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
10.27 1.50 .62
318
.538
2 Private 160 10.38 1.56
The table 4.31 above shows that the cal; value .62 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding the process to visit
authorities is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of same opinions regarding process to visit authorities.
79
Table 4.32: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the University Management.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
10.26 2.92 5.68
318
.000
2 Private 160 11.71 1.39
The table 4.32 above shows that the cal; value 5.68 > tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding university
management is rejected. It is concluded that respondents of both sector universities
were of different opinions regarding university management.
80
Table 4.33: Comparative Views of Respondents of Public and Private Sector
Universities Regarding the Establishment of New Departments.
S.No Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public 160
13.54 2.12 .43
318
.667
2 Private 160 13.32 6.07
The table 4.33 above shows that the cal; value .43 < tab; value 1.97; with df 318 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding establishment of
new departments is accepted. It is concluded that respondents of both sector
universities were of same opinions regarding establishment of new departments.
81
Figure 4.1. At a Glance Comparison of Administrative Practices of Public and
Private Sector Universities (Graphical Representation)
Figure 4.1 above shows at a glance comparison of administrative practices of public
and private sector universities in terms of their standard deviation of Table No. 4.2,
4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18,
4.19,4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33.
82
Table 4.34: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding amendments in the statutes.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 12.67 2.06
4.08
158
.000 Private Academicians 80 12.67 2.96
The table 4.34 above shows that the cal; value 4.08 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding amendments of
statutes is rejected. It is concluded that academicians were of different opinions
regarding amendments in statutes.
83
Table 4.35: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Universities Bodies Members Selection.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 12.5 1.7
.531
158 .596
Private Academicians 80 12.3 2.3
The table 4.35 above shows that the cal; value .531 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding universities bodies’
members’ selection is accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of same
opinions regarding universities bodies’ members’ selection.
84
Table 4.36: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Universities Bodies Tenure.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 13.35 1.9
.210
158 .834
Private Academicians 80 13.45 1.8
The table 4.36 above shows that the cal; value .210 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of the public and private sector universities regarding universities bodies’
tenure is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sector universities were
of same opinions regarding universities bodies’ tenure.
85
Table 4.37: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Student Representation.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 15.41 2.45
.431
158
.667
2 Private Academicians 80 15.25 2.30
The table 4.37 above shows that the cal; value .431 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding student’s
representation in university different bodies is accepted. It is concluded that
academicians of both sectors were of similar opinions regarding student’s
representation in university different bodies.
86
Table 4.38: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding University bodies Meeting.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 14.53 4.19
.292
158
.771
2 Private Academicians 80 14.37 2.68
The table 4.38 above shows that the cal; value .292 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding university bodies
meetings is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar
opinions regarding university bodies meetings.
87
Table 4.39: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Bodies Decision Making.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 9.47 1.77
2.31
158
.022
Private Academicians 80 8.77 2.04
The table 4.39 above shows that the cal; value 2.31 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between opinions of
academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding universities
bodies’ decision making practice is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both
sector universities were of different opinions regarding universities bodies’ decision
making practice.
88
Table 4.40: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Bodies Decision Implementation.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 12.11 3.24
.016
158
.987
Private Academicians 80 12.10 6.03
The table 4.40 above shows that the cal; value .016 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference among opinions of
academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding universities
bodies’ decision implementation is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both
sectors were of similar opinions regarding universities bodies’ decision
implementation.
89
Table 4.41: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Official Appointment.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.38 4.59
4.59
158
.225
Private Academicians 80 9.71 1.85
The table 4.41 above shows that the cal; value 4.59 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of the public and private sector universities regarding official’s
appointment is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding official’s appointment.
90
Table 4.42: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Staff Selection.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.92 1.60
3.67
158
.000
Private Academicians 80 9.92 1.83
The table 4.42 above shows that the cal; value 3.67 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding staff selection is
rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding staff selection.
91
Table 4.43: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Staff Promotion.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.68 1.96
1.36
158
.173
Private Academicians 80 10.27 1.84
The table 4.43 above shows that the cal; value 1.36 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding staff promotion is
accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar opinions
regarding staff promotion.
92
Table 4.44: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Staff Facilities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 12.68 2.66
1.33
158
.185
Private Academicians 80 12.11 2.79
The table 4.44 above shows that the cal; value 1.33 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding provision of facilities
to staff is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar
opinions regarding provision of facilities to staff.
93
Table 4.45: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Administrative Matters.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 9.85 1.85
1.69
158
.09
Private Academicians 80 9.38 1.57
The table 4.45 above shows that the cal; value 1.69 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding administrative
matters is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar
opinions regarding the administrative matters.
94
Table 4.46: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Financial Matters.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 12.82 2.00
2.16
158
.032
Private Academicians 80 12.13 2.01
The table 4.46 above shows that the cal; value 2.16 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding financial matters is
rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding financial matters.
95
Table 4.47: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Academic Matters.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 12.87 1.92
2.05
158
.042
Private Academicians 80 12.27 1.77
The table 4.47 above shows that the cal; value 2.05 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding academic matters is
rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding academic matters.
96
Table 4.48: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Supervision of the subordinates.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 9.31 1.74
0.55
158
.583
Private Academicians 80 9.45 1.40
The table 4.48 above shows that the cal; value 0.55 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding supervision of the
subordinates is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding supervision of the subordinates.
97
Table 4.49: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Relation with Community.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 9.35 1.95
1.27
158
.206
Private Academicians 80 8.98 1.64
The table 4.49 above shows that the cal; value 1.27 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with
community is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding relations with community.
98
Table 4.50: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Relation with HEC.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 8.95 1.75
1.88
158
.06
Private Academicians 80 8.47 1.41
The table 4.50 above shows that the cal; value 1.88 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with HEC is
accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of similar opinions regarding
relations with Higher Education Commission (HEC).
99
Table 4.51: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Relation with Government.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 9.27 2.11
.36
158
.710
Private Academicians 80 9.16 1.82
The table 4.51 above shows that the cal; value .36 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with
government is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding relations with government.
100
Table 4.52: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Relation with other Universities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 8.98 1.82
1.49
158
.130
Private Academicians 80 8.58 1.55
The table 4.52 above shows that the cal; value 1.49 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with other
universities is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding relations with other universities.
101
Table 4.53: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the HEC Influence in administration.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 17.25 3.9
2.13
78
.03
Private Academicians 80 15.93 3.8
The table 4.53 above shows that the cal; value 2.13 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding relations with other
universities is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding relations with other universities.
102
Table 4.54: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the HEC influence.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 13.35 1.9
.210
158
.834
Private Academicians 80 13.45 1.8
The table 4.54 above shows that the cal; value .210 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding HEC influence is
accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of uniform opinions
regarding HEC influence.
103
Table 4.55: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Student Admission.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 14.23 1.80
6.63
158
.000
Private Academicians 80 12.07 2.028
The table 4.55 above shows that the cal; value 6.63 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding student’s admission is
rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sector universities were of different
opinions regarding student’s admission.
104
Table 4.56: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Scholarships.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.90 1.32
1.49
158
.138
Private Academicians 80 10.52 1.81
The table 4.56 above shows that the cal; value 1.49 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding scholarship is
accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of similar opinions regarding
scholarship.
105
Table 4.57: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the Fund Allocation.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.60 2.16
.205
158
.838
Private Academicians 80 10.53 1.66
The table 4.57 above shows that the cal; value .205 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding fund allocation is
accepted. It is concluded that academicians were of similar opinions regarding fund
allocation.
106
Table 4.58: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding suitability of University Timings.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 16.37 2.30
2.54
158
.01
Private Academicians 80 15.22 3.32
The table 4.58 above shows that the cal; value 2.54 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding university timings is
rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding suitability of university timings.
107
Table 4.59: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding College Affiliation.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 16.15 2.77
1.84
158
.06
Private Academicians 80 15.45 1.94
The table 4.59 above shows that the cal; value 1.84 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence that null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions
of academicians of public and private sector universities regarding college affiliation
is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of similar opinions
regarding college affiliation.
108
Table 4.60: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Procedure of evaluation of employees.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 7.37 1.84
1.80
158
.073
Private Academicians 80 7.83 1.36
The table 4.60 above shows that the cal; value 1.80 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding the procedure of
evaluation of employees is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors
were of similar opinions regarding procedure of evaluation of employees.
109
Table 4.61: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Irregularities Procedure.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.66 1.84
.258
158
.797
Private Academicians 80 10.58 1.82
The table 4.61 above shows that the cal; value .258 < tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding procedure for
irregularities is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding procedure for irregularities.
110
Table 4.62: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding meetings with Authorities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 9.97 2.32
3.64
158
.000
Private Academicians 80 8.42 3.00
The table 4.62 above shows that the cal; value 3.64 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding meeting with
authorities is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding meeting with authorities.
111
Table 4.63: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Process to visit Authorities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.33 1.66
.465
158
.642
Private Academicians 80 10.45 1.37
The table 4.63 above shows that the cal; value .465 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding the procedure to visit
authorities is accepted. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding the procedure to visit authorities.
112
Table 4.64: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding the University Management.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 10.10 2.61
4.24
158
.000
Private Academicians 80 11.53 1.53
The table 4.64 above shows that the cal; value 4.24 > tab; value 1.97; with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
academicians of public and private sector universities regarding the university
management is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding the university management.
113
Table 4.65: Comparative views of academicians of public and private sector
universities regarding Establishment of New Departments.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Academicians 80 13.56 2.10
3.97
158
.00
Private Academicians 80 12.06 2.64
The table 4.65 above shows that the cal; value 3.97 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
respondents of public and private sector universities regarding establishment of new
departments is rejected. It is concluded that academicians of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding establishment of new departments.
114
Figure 4.2. At a Glance Comparison of Administrative Practices according to the
opinions of academicians of Public and Private Sector Universities (Graphical
Representation)
Figure 4.2 above shows at a glance comparison of administrative practices according
to the opinions of academicians of public and private sector universities in terms of
their standard deviation of Table No. 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, 4.37, 4.38, 4.39, 4.40, 4.41,
4.42, 4.43, 4.44, 4.45, 4.46, 4.47, 4.48, 4.49, 4.50, 4.51,4.52, 4.53, 4.54, 4.55, 4.56,
4.57, 4.58, 4.59, 4.60, 4.61, 4.62, 4.63, 4.64, 4.65.
115
Table 4.66: Comparative views of administrator’s official of public and private
sector universities regarding the amendments in statutes.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 12.20 2.31
1.14
158
.257
Private Administrators 80 11.72 2.92
The table 4.66 above shows that the cal; value 1.14 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the amendments in
statutes is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar
opinions regarding amendments in statutes.
116
Table 4.67: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Different Bodies Members Selection.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 12.45 2.34
0.00
158
1.00
Private Administrators 80 12.45 2.31
The table 4.67 above shows that the cal; value 0.00 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the different bodies’
members’ selection is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors
were of similar opinions regarding different bodies’ members’ selection.
117
Table 4.68: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Different Bodies Members tenure.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 12.66 2.23
4.00
158
.000
Private Administrators 80 13.92 1.71
The table 4.68 above shows that the cal; value 4.00 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the different bodies’
members’ tenure is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding different bodies’ members’ tenure.
118
Table 4.69: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Student Representation in different Bodies.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 14.91 2.36
.14
158
.889
Private Administrators 80 14.97 3.30
The table 4.69 above shows that the cal; value .14 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the student’s
representation in different bodies is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of
both sectors were of similar opinions regarding students’ representation in different
bodies.
119
Table 4.70: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Different Bodies Meetings.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 14.22 4.44
1.50
158
.134
Private Administrators 80 13.32 2.96
The table 4.70 above shows that the cal; value 1.50 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding different bodies
meetings is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding different bodies meetings.
120
Table 4.71: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Bodies Decision Making Practice.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 9.28 1.58
.423
158
.673
Private Administrators 80 9.16 2.11
The table 4.71 above shows that the cal; value .423 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the different bodies’
decision making practice is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both
sectors were of similar opinions regarding different bodies’ decision making practice.
121
Table 4.72: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding bodies’ decision implementation.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 11.13 3.50
2.86
158
.005
Private Administrators 80 9.58 3.35
The table 4.72 above shows that the cal; value 2.86 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding different bodies’
decision implementation is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors
were of different opinions regarding different bodies’ decision implementation.
122
Table 4.73: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Official Appointment.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 9.80 1.12
.061
158
.951
Private Administrators 80 9.78 1.43
The table 4.73 above shows that the cal; value .061 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the official’s
appointment is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding official’s appointment.
123
Table 4.74: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Staff Selection.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.51 1.36
1.20
158
.231
Private Administrators 80 10.23 1.49
The table 4.74 above shows that the cal; value 1.20 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the staff selection is
accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar opinions
regarding staff selection.
124
Table 4.75: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Staff Promotion.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.73 1.65
1.24
158
.215
Private Administrators 80 11.10 2.01
The table 4.75 above shows that the cal; value 1.24 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the staff promotion
is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar
opinions regarding staff promotion.
.
125
Table 4.76: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Provision of Facilities to Staff.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 12.81 2.61
2.59
158
.01
Private Administrators 80 11.82 2.15
The table 4.76 above shows that the cal; value 2.59 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the provision of
facilities to staff is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding provision of facilities to staff.
126
Table 4.77: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Official in Administrative Matters.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 9.52 1.72
2.32
158
.02
Private Administrators 80 10.11 1.46
The table 4.77 above shows that the cal; value 2.32 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the officials in
administrative matters is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors
were of different opinions regarding officials in administrative matters.
127
Table 4.78: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Financial Matters.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 12.93 1.80
1.76
158
.079
Private Administrators 80 13.56 2.59
The table 4.78 above shows that the cal; value 1.76 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding financial matters is
accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar opinions
regarding financial matters.
128
Table 4.79: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Academic Matters.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 11.86 1.99
4.78
158
.000
Private Administrators 80 13.81 3.04
The table 4.79 above shows that the cal; value 4.78 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding academic matters is
rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding academic matters.
129
Table 4.80: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Supervision of the Subordinates.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 9.17 2.00
2.40
158
.017
Private Administrators 80 9.90 1.80
The table 4.80 above shows that the cal; value2.40 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α =
0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding official’s supervision
of their subordinates is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors
were of different opinions regarding official’s supervision of their subordinates.
130
Table 4.81: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Relation with Community.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 8.83 2.15
.133
158
.894
Private Administrators 80 8.87 1.55
The table 4.81 above shows that the cal; value .133 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding relation with
community is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding relation with community.
131
Table 4.82: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Relation with HEC.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 8.55 2.34
.137
158
.172
Private Administrators 80 8.98 1.62
The table 4.82 above shows that the cal; value .137 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding relation with HEC is
accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar opinions
regarding relation with HEC.
132
Table 4.83: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Relation with Government.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 8.66 2.01
.878
158
.381
Private Administrators 80 8.92 1.75
The table 4.83 above shows that the cal; value .878 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the officers’ relation
with government is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were
of similar opinions regarding officers’ relation with government.
133
Table 4.84: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Relation with other Universities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 8.66 1.44
3.83
158
.000
Private Administrators 80 8.65 1.800
The table 4.84 above shows that the cal; value 3.38 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the relation with
other universities is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were
of different opinions regarding relation with other universities.
134
Table 4.85: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the HEC influence in administration.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 16.50 3.20
.352
158
.725
Private Administrators 80 16.30 3.94
The table 4.85 above shows that the cal; value .352 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the HEC influence in
administration is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding HEC influence in administration.
135
Table 4.86: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the HEC influence.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.41 2.83
2.83
158
.005
Private Administrators 80 11.40 1.28
The table 4.86 above shows that the cal; value 2.83 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding HEC influence is
rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding HEC influence.
136
Table 4.87: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Student Admission Procedure.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 14.05 1.52
1.10
158
.270
Private Administrators 80 13.65 2.84
The table 4.87 above shows that the cal; value 1.10 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding student’s admission
process is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of similar
opinions regarding students’ admission process.
137
Table 4.88: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Scholarships.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.61 1.63
1.35
158
.179
Private Administrators 80 10.98 1.87
The table 4.88 above shows that the cal; value 1.35 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding scholarship is
accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding scholarship.
138
Table 4.89: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Fund Allocation.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 11.43 2.59
2.24
158
.026
Private Administrators 80 10.60 2.10
The table 4.89 above shows that the cal; value 2.24 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding fund allocation is
rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding fund allocation.
139
Table 4.90: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the University Timings.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 15.65 2.14
2.49
158
.014
Private Administrators 80 14.31 1.24
The table 4.90 above shows that the cal; value 2.49 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding university timings is
rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding university timings.
140
Table 4.91: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the affiliation of colleges.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 16.60 2.62
4.53
158
.000
Private Administrators 80 14.28 3.73
The table 4.91 above shows that the cal; value 4.53 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding college affiliation is
rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of different opinions
regarding college affiliation.
141
Table 4.92: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the procedure of evaluation of employees.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 7.51 2.00
1.92
158
.056
Private Administrators 80 8.03 1.38
The table 4.92 above shows that the cal; value 1.92 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding procedure of
evaluation of employees is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both
sectors were of similar opinions regarding procedure of evaluation of employees.
.
142
Table 4.93: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the procedure for any Irregularities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.63 1.89
3.83
158
.000
Private Administrators 80 11.66 1.46
The table 4.93 above shows that the cal; value 3.83 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding procedure for
irregularities is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding procedure for irregularities.
143
Table 4.94: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Meetings with Authorities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 8.48 2.52
.470
158
.639
Private Administrators 80 8.28 2.84
The table 4.94 above shows that the cal; value .470 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding meetings with
authorities is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding meetings with authorities.
144
Table 4.95: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding the Procedure to Visit Authorities.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.21 1.32
.410
158
.683
Private Administrators 80 10.31 1.73
The table 4.95 above shows that the cal; value .410 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding procedure to visit
authorities is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
similar opinions regarding procedure to visit authorities.
145
Table 4.96: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding University Management.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 10.42 3.21
3.83
158
.000
Private Administrators 80 11.90 1.22
The table 4.96 above shows that the cal; value 3.83 > tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the university
management is rejected. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were of
different opinions regarding university management.
146
Table 4.97: Comparative views of administrators of public and private sector
universities regarding Establishment of New Departments.
S.No Sector Respondents N Mean Std t d.f p-value
1 Public Administrators 80 13.52 2.15
1.14
158
.253
Private Administrators 80 14.58 8.00
The table 4.97 above shows that the cal; value 1.14 < tab; value 1.97 with df 158 at α
= 0.05. Hence null hypothesis of no significant difference between the opinions of
administrators of public and private sector universities regarding the establishment of
new departments is accepted. It is concluded that administrators of both sectors were
of similar opinions regarding establishment of new departments.
147
Figure 4.3. At a Glance Comparison of Administrative Practices of Public and
Private Sector Universities (Graphical Representation)
Figure 4.3 above shows at a glance comparison of administrative practices according
to the opinions of administrators of public and private sector universities in terms of
their standard deviation of Table No. 4.66, 4.67, 4.68, 4.69, 4.70, 4.71, 4.72, 4.73,
4.74, 4.75, 4.76, 4.77, 4.78, 4.79, 4.80, 4.81, 4.82, 4.83, 4.84, 4.85, 4.86, 4.87, 4.88,
4.89, 4.90, 4.91, 4.92, 4.93, 4.94, 4.95, 4.96, 4.97
148
CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. SUMMARY
This study dealt with the comparison of administrative practices of public and
private sector universities of Pakistan in terms of amendments in statutes of
universities; University Operating Bodies; their members Selection; Students
representation in the bodies; its Tenure; Meetings; Decision Making Practice and
Implementation of Decisions; Recruitment/Selection/Appointment and Promotion
of Officials and Faculty; Provision of Facilities to Faculty; Official Attitude in
Administrative; Financial and Academic Matters; Establishment of New
Departments; Allocation of Funds; Students Admission and Scholarships
;Evaluation of the Employees and Procedure for overcoming Irregularities;
meetings with Authorities ;University Management; Relationship of University
with Community; HEC; Government; and Other Universities ;HEC Influence in
University Affairs; Affiliation to Colleges and to know the actual situation as to
what extent rules and regulations are followed and is the internal and external
influences affect the administration of both public and private sectors universities.
The main objectives of the study were:
4. To compare the prevailing status of administrative practices of public and
private sector universities of Pakistan.
149
5. To investigate the similarity and dissimilarity among the views of
administrators regarding the administrative practices of public and private
sector universities of Pakistan.
6. To compare the different views of academicians regarding the administrative
practices of both sector universities.
The following hypothesis was formulated to test the administrative practices.
Ho 1. There is no significant difference between the administrative practices of
public and private sector universities of Pakistan.
Ho 2. There is no significant difference between the opinions of academicians
regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector universities of
Pakistan.
Ho 3. There is no significant difference between the opinions of administrators
regarding the administrative practices of public and private sector universities of
Pakistan.
For cross checking and finding the authentic and existent situation data was collected
from both administrators and academicians of public and private sector universities.
The population of the study consisted of:
1. Total 24 public and 24 private sector universities of Punjab and KPK
provinces in the year 2010.
2. All administrators and academicians of public and private sector universities
of Punjab and KPK provinces.
The sample of the study was 320 respondents with ratio of 160 administrators and 160
academicians. A questionnaire of administrative practices was developed by the
150
researcher in which some items were adopted from (Singh, 1978) India with prior
permission.
For the whole scale 0.963 Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained. The data was analyzed
through the utilization of SPSS statistical software package, version 16.
In both public and private sector universities, the administrative practices i.e.
amendments in the statutes; universities bodies tenure; the provision of facilities to
staff; official attitude for handling of academic matters; official’s way of supervising
their subordinates; student admission; university timings suitability; process of
college affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure for irregularities; meeting with
authorities; university management was observed significant.
Significant difference was observed between the opinions of academicians of public
and private sector universities in terms of amendments in statutes; bodies decision
making; staff selection; financial matters; academic matters; HEC influence in
administration; student admission; university timings; meeting with authorities;
university management except the following administrative practices which was
found insignificant for both public and private sector universities of Pakistan, these
were:
Universities bodies’ selection; universities bodies’ tenure; student representation in
university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies decision implementation; official
appointment; staff promotion; staff facilities; official in administrative matters;
official supervision of subordinates; relations with community; relations with HEC;
relations with government; officers relations with other universities; HEC influence;
scholarships; fund allocation; College affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure
151
for overcoming irregularities; process to visit authorities; establishment of new
departments.
Significant difference was found between the opinions of administrators of public and
private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’ tenure; bodies decision
implementation; staff facilities; administrative matters; academic matters; official
supervision; relations with other universities; HEC influence; fund allocation;
university timings; College affiliation; procedure for overcoming irregularities;
university management.
5.2 FINDINGS
Following were the findings of the study:
5.2.1 Findings related to hypothesis #1.
1. Significant difference was found between the opinions of respondents public
and private sector universities of Pakistan regarding the amendments in the
statutes, universities bodies tenure, staff selection, the provision of facilities to
staff, academic matters, official’s supervision of subordinates, student
admission, university timings, college affiliation, evaluation of employee,
procedure for overcoming irregularities, meeting with authorities, university
management see table 4.2, 4.4, 4.12, 4.15, 4.16, 4.23, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29,
4.30, 4.32.
2. In the light of opinions of respondents no significant difference was found
between the public and private sector universities of Pakistan regarding the
universities bodies members selection, student representation in university
bodies, their meetings, decision making, decision implementation, official
152
appointment, staff promotion, administrative and financial matters, relations
with community, HEC, Government and other universities, HEC influence in
administration and other matters, scholarships, fund allocation, process to visit
authorities and establishment of new departments see table 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7,
4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 4.14, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.24, 4.25,
4.31 & 4.33.
5.2.2. Findings related to hypothesis #2.
3. Significant difference was found between public and private sector
universities according to the opinions of academicians regarding amendments
in statutes; bodies decision making; staff selection; financial matters;
academic matters; HEC influence in administration; student admission;
university timings; meeting with authorities; university management see table
4.34, 4.39, 4.42, 4.46, 4.47, 4.53, 4.55, 4.58, 4.62, 4.64
4. No significant difference was found between public and private sector
universities in the light of the opinions of academicians concerning
universities bodies’ selection; universities bodies’ tenure; student
representation in university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies decision
implementation; official appointment; staff promotion; staff facilities; official
in administrative matters; official supervision of subordinates; relations with
community; relations with HEC; relations with government; officers relations
with other universities; HEC influence; scholarships; fund allocation; College
affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure for overcoming irregularities;
process to visit authorities; establishment of new departments see table 4.35,
153
4.36, 4.38, 4.40, 4.41, 4.43, 4.44, 4.45, 4.48.4.48, 4.49, 4.50, 4.51, 4.52, 5.54,
4.56, 4.57, 4.59, 4.60, 4.61, 4.63,4.65.
5.2.3. Findings related to hypothesis #3.
5. According to the opinions of administrators significant difference was found
between public and private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’
tenure bodies decision implementation; staff facilities; administrative matters;
academic matters; official supervision; relations with other universities; HEC
influence; fund allocation; university timings; College affiliation; procedure
for overcoming irregularities; university management see table 4.68,
4.72,4.76, 4.77, 4.79, 4.80, 4.84, 4.86, 4.89, 4.90, 4.91, 4.93, 4.96
6. No Significant difference was found between the public and private sector
universities in terms of amendments in statutes; universities bodies’ selection;
student representation in university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies decision
making; official appointment; staff selection; staff promotion; financial
matters; relations with community; relations with HEC; relations with
government; HEC influence in administration; student admission;
scholarships; evaluation of employees; meeting with authorities; process to
visit authorities establishment of new departments according to the opinions of
administrators see table 4.66, 4.67, 4.69, 4.70, 4.71, 4.73, 4.74, 4.75, 4.78,
4.81, 4.82, 4.83, 4.85, 4.87, 4.88, 4.92, 4.94, 4.95, 4.97.
5.3. CONCLUSION
1. Public sector universities are performing better job than private sector
universities in respect of amendments in statutes; universities bodies’
154
selection; student representation in university bodies; bodies meeting; bodies
decision making; bodies decision implementation; official appointment; staff
selection; staff promotion; staff facilities; official in financial matters;
relations with community; relations with HEC; HEC influence in
administration; student admission; funds allocation; university timings;
College affiliation; meeting with authorities; establishment of new
departments. The reason may be that public:
i. Following rules and regulation, in these matters
ii. Have maintained their esteem, autonomy, and are free of internal and external
pressure.
iii. All stakeholders are respected and have an equal voice in all important
matters.
iv. Have a cooperative environment.
v. Giving importance to quality education.
vi. Have transparent system of responsibilities and accountability.
2. The main variable the university status (Public and private sector universities)
proved to be significant in terms of many administrative practices. Mostly,
administrative practices are exercised in different ways in both sectors and
there is less uniformity in the execution of the practices in both sectors.
The reason may be the weak coordination by HEC between both public and
private sector universities.
i. The major stakeholder’s administrators and academicians are not equally
involved in university administrative practices where they are directly
155
affected. The administrators and academicians are not of uniform opinions
regarding the administrative practices.
ii. The university administrative practices are becoming paralyzed by internal
and external pressure.
5.4 DISCUSSION
Results of the study are discussed in this section according with the demographic
variable overall respondents, academicians, and administrators and their correlation
with the administrative practices one by one. The administrative practices ware
examined and compared in terms of amendments in university statutes; university
operating bodies; its members selection; tenure and meetings; decision making
practice; implementation of decisions; recruitment/selection/appointment and
promotion of official and faculty ;provision of facilities to faculty; official attitude in
administrative; financial and academic matters; establishment of new departments;
allocation of funds; university timings suitability; scholarships; evaluation of the
employees; Procedure to tackle the irregularities; university management; relationship
of university with community; HEC; Government; and other universities; HEC
influence in university affairs; students admission and affiliation to colleges.
Results showed significant difference between public and private sector universities
regarding the amendments in statutes according to the views of overall respondents,
academicians and administrators. The reason of this significance may be:
i. The public sector is following a set procedure for any amendments in statutes
and
ii. Amendments are made according to the needs of the university.
156
iii. The university has maintained its autonomy and can never come under
pressure by any politically influential or socially dominant persons.
The results of the study aligns with Naz (2012) who found insignificant difference
between public and private sector university regarding amendments in statures while
the results contradict with Singh (1978) who found that political pressure, influential
personalities, and desire of the officers of the universities has no role in any case of
amendments in only American, English, Japanese, south African, Canadian, two
Australian, and Indian universities. While the results are in line with the findings that
in some universities e.g. two American, English, Australian and Indian universities
the matter is not democratic and healthy. He also found that in one English,
Australian, South African, Canadian and two American universities amendments were
made according to the need of the situation Pp.99-100. All stakeholders, especially
university administrators and academicians, should be involved in the process of
amendments in statutes but when they are ignored then the situation is evident from
Peshawar University Teachers Association (PUTA) who condemned the Khyber
Pakhtoon-khwa Assembly for amendment in the Peshawar University Act-1974,
terming it an undemocratic and unilateral move (http://www.pakstudy.com, 2010)
The results reflected no significant difference between public and private sector
universities regarding university bodies’ members’ selection according to the views of
overall respondents, academicians and administrators. This indicates that both public
and private sectors are performing on same line. The reason may be that both sectors
are:
157
i. Strictly following the rules and regulations for the selection/election of the
members.
ii. Selecting members on seniority basis.
iii. Free of political pressure and motivation.
The results of the study are closely in line with Naz (2012) who found insignificance
between Public and Private Sector University regarding university bodies’ members’
selection.
In the light of views of overall respondents and administrators significant difference
was noted regarding bodies members tenure, The results of the study oppose (Naz,
2012) who found insignificance between public and private sector university
regarding different bodies members tenure. While no significant difference was found
in the light of the views of academicians between public and private sector
universities in terms of university different body’s tenure. The significance for the
tenure of different body’s members may be due to:
i. The rules and regulations are not followed as laid down in the statutes and the
act
ii. Extending and shortening by political consideration.
Alam (2005) Found “complain of educational administrators regarding the political
interference, engagement in unnecessary task and pressure from the top level”.
According to Sochail (2005) “political forces badly influenced the day to day working
of the universities.”
158
No significant difference was revealed according to the opinions of overall
respondents and academicians while the views of administrators showed significant
difference between public and private sector universities in terms of students’
representation in university different bodies. It is revealed from the results that the
main stakeholder students are given representation in different universities bodies
where it is necessary and where they matter. According to the (The University of the
Punjab Act, 1973) The University of Punjab in giving representation to two students’
representatives of the University Students’ Union and two elected representatives of
the Unions of the affiliated colleges by their Presidents in Senate and also the
President of the University Students’ Union is member of syndicate.
The views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators showed no
significant difference. It is clear that both sectors are following the same procedure for
university bodies meeting and working on same grounds.
According to the views of overall respondents and administrators no significant
difference was found while the views of academicians showed significant difference
in terms of university bodies’ decision making practice. It means that one of the major
stakeholder, academicians, is not given equal participation in decision making
practice. It is revealed from the results that both sectors have the same procedure for
decision making. The results of the study contradict with Naz (2012) who found no
significant difference between public and Private Sector University regarding
university bodies’ decision making practice. The findings of Anwar, Yousaf, &
Sarwar (2008) and Anwer (2005) contradict with the study who found that overall
159
decision-making practices are unsatisfactory in the universities of Pakistan and,
mostly decisions are made without appliance of decision-making skills and technique.
Decision implementation was found insignificant in the light of views of overall
respondents and academicians and was found significant in the light of views of
administrators. The results clearly indicate that the decisions made in meetings are
implemented in both public and private sector without any delay by authorities.
Official appointments were found insignificant in the light of views of overall
respondents and academicians and were found significant in the light of views of
administrators. It is revealed that the situation is unclear Sometimes the officials are
appointed on merit but sometimes there is internal or external pressure for the
appointment of a specific person. Collen & Linda, 1963 noted variation in the degree
of formalization in the hiring procedures in mid western universities.
Significant difference was found in the light of views of overall respondents and
academicians and was found insignificant in the light of views of administrators
regarding staff selection which affect the standard education. The result is surprising
and the reason for significance may be:
i. The recruitment/selection/appointment is not fair.
ii. The competent authority is influenced by internal or external pressure which
damages the university autonomy.
According to Panday & Jamil every administration has tried to recruit teachers more
on political ground than on the basis of merit in Bangladesh. They always remain in
search of recruiting a voter than a teacher. These findings are in line with the results
of the study that faculty recruitment selection/appointment was found unsatisfactory
160
in both public and private sector universities of Pakistan (Panday & Jamil) and Naz
(2012).
According to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators no
significant difference was found between public and private regarding staff
promotion. So it is revealed from the finding that both public and private sector
universities in Pakistan have a very clear and transparent system of promotion of
faculty. The promotions are totally on merit basis. The results contradict with Panday
& Jamil who found that in Bangladesh Promotional opportunities are dominated by
the influence of politics. Allen (1988) found that in Australian university system
promotion opportunities for academic staff are becoming more restricted. The result
of the study contradicts with the Moses (1986) who showed the dissatisfaction of
academic staff with existing promotion practices in the USA, Britain, Australia and
New Zealand.
Provision of Facilities to staff was found significant in light of views of overall
respondent and administration while according to the views of academicians it was
found insignificant. The reason of significance may be due to:
i. The favors shown by higher authorities
ii. The political backings
iii. The dominancy of influential personality
Chaudhry (2004) recommended in his study that political activities should be banned
and rules and regulations should be enforced in universities for eradication of
problems and to bring quality in higher education in Pakistan. And results of the study
161
are same as Agbowuro (1976) who observed that undue political interference has
endangered the autonomy of Nigerian universities.
No significant difference was found between public and private sector universities in
terms of academic matters according to overall respondents, and academicians. While
significance was found according to the opinions of administrators. The academic
matter which is the soul of any educational institute is being practiced on same line by
both the public and private sector universities. So it is evident that both sectors are
following rules and regulation and are free of any internal or external pressure. But
the results also showed that there is less coordination between administrators and
academicians as both have different opinions regarding academic matters.
According to the views of overall respondents and administrators no significant
difference was found between public and private sector universities in terms of
financial matters. While significant difference was found according to the opinions of
academicians. For the operation of any program, fund is one of the important
elements. The results showed that the financial matters are dealt according to rules
and regulation in both sectors. But the academicians are not satisfied with the
financial matters and the reason may be that academician’s main role is teaching and
they are not given involvement in financial matters.
Administrative matters were found significant according to the views of overall
respondents, academicians and administrators. The results revealed that the situation
is satisfactory regarding the administrative matters in both public and private sectors.
The officer’s way of supervision of their subordinates was found significant in the
light of views of overall respondents, and administrators while according to the views
162
of academicians no significant difference was found between public and private sector
universities. The reason of significance may be:
i. Supervision is not properly given on democratic grounds
ii. Supervision is not based on the report of the juniors
Insignificant difference was found between public and private sector universities
according to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators in
terms of university relations with the community. University is part of the community
and works for the welfare of the people. The results indicate that both sectors are
striving to maintain good relation with community.
According to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators
insignificant difference was noted in terms of university relations with government.
The results of the study clearly indicate that both public and private sector is striving
to maintain good relation with the government. The government should not interfere
in those matters of university which can erode its autonomy.
Insignificant difference was found between public and private sector universities in
the light of views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators in terms of
university relation with HEC. The results were surprising are those both public and
private sector universities having good relations with HEC.
University relations with other universities was found insignificant between public
and private sector according to the opinions of overall respondents, and academicians
while found significant according to the administrators. The results showed that both
public and private sector has maintained good relation as it is necessary. But for
163
quality and standard education the administrators were not satisfied with this situation
in both public and private sectors.
Significant difference was found between public and private sector universities in
terms of student’s admission according to the opinions of overall respondents, and
academicians while insignificance was observed according to the views of
administrators. The reasons of insignificance may be the violation of rules and
regulations and the political backing as revealed from the case of Karachi University
where students protested against the chief of admission committee who was not
giving admission on political and religious basis. The intensity of political pressure
can be measured from the fact that the head of the admission committee, Prof Dr
Saleem Shehzad, was recently locked in his room for over half an hour by student-
cum-political activists who wanted their colleagues enrolled in the university
(www.ilmkidunya.com, 2010)
Significant difference was found between public and private sector universities in
terms of fund allocation according to the opinions of overall respondents, and
academicians while insignificance was observed according to the views of
administrators. The results showed that public sector is performing better than private
sector in terms of fund allocation. The reason may be that public sector is allocating
funds on:
i. Need basis
ii. The consultation of HOD/Director/Dean
iii. Priority basis
164
Insignificant difference was found between public and private sector universities
according to the views of overall respondents, academicians and administrators in
terms of scholarships. Both public and private sectors are awarding scholarships to the
students on merit to enhance the quality and standard of education.
University timings, according to the opinions of overall respondents, academicians
and administrators, were found insignificant. The results were very interesting as in
both public and private sector the stakeholders were satisfied with the university
timings.
Significant difference was found between public and private sector universities in
terms of college affiliation according to the opinions of overall respondents, and
administrators while insignificance was observed according to the views of
academicians. The reason of insignificance for the affiliation of colleges may be:
i. The rules and regulations are not followed
ii. Political pressure
iii. The concerned person is influential
According to the opinions of overall respondents, and academicians significant
difference was found between public and private sector universities in terms of
meeting with authorities while no significant difference was found according to the
views of administrators. The reason of significance may be that in meetings:
i. Only influential persons takes more time in discussion
ii. Those who are closer to authorities can speak.
iii. Only the person in chair speaks all the time
165
Establishment of departments was found insignificant according to the opinions of
overall respondents, academicians and administrators. The practice of establishments
of new departments is satisfactory in both sectors and the reason of insignificance
may be:
i. The departments are established according to the need and demand of the
society
ii. Infrastructure/Financial availability
iii. Space facility/ availability
According to the views of academicians and administrators, evaluation of employees
was found insignificant while according to the opinions of overall respondent’s
significant difference was noted. The overall situation was significant and the reason
of insignificance may be
i. That evaluation is not regularly done.
ii. Proper meetings are not arranged in this regard with HoDs, Directors and
Deans
Significant difference was found in terms of procedure to tackle irregularities
according to the opinions of overall respondents, and administrators while no
significant difference was found according to the opinions of academicians between
public and private sector universities. Both public and private sector are not following
rules and regulation to give punishment whenever any irregularities were found.
Collen & Linda (1963) found variation in the degree of formalization in the
evaluation of performers, and handling of unsatisfactory faculty members.
166
University management was found significant between public and private sector
universities according to the opinions of overall respondents. Memon (2007) pointed
out that “in Pakistan higher education has low quality of staff, lack of students, library
and laboratory, irrelevance with society needs, lack of research facilities, financial
crisis, and weaknesses of examination, ineffective governance and academic results
are not at par with international standards”. Mabokela (2000) discovered that “gender
inequities are persistent in the allocation of key administrative positions and
permanent teaching and research positions”.
5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. University as an independent educational institute should perform its
functions and practices without any undue interference from the outside
world. The other agencies, such as Government, political parties,
influential personalities of the society should not interrupt in any matter of
educational institutes i.e. faculty and official selection/appointment; their
promotion; university executive and operation bodies; decision making
practice; students admission and their scholarship; and all other matter
from which the education system can be affected directly or indirectly.
2. Universities and especially HEC whose sole responsibility is to bring
coordination among universities of both public and private sectors, should
arrange workshops, seminars and other programs to bring uniformity in
their practices. And in this way they can get benefits and valuable
information from each other’s experiences.
3. Academician should not be kept aloof from the important matters and
decisions in the university. Wherever it is necessary the academicians
167
should be involved in the administrative practices of the university. It will
bring strong coordination between administrators and academicians for the
best operation of the university.
4. There should be a coordination center/body between administrators and
academicians
5. Overall management of the university should be cooperative and
democratic. The university should:
i. Invite suggestions on important issues
ii. Listen to the new ideas of faculty and
iii. Give respect and regard to other’s ideas
6. The university should
i. Follow rules and regulations and the same should be
amended/modified with time to time.
ii. Internal or external pressure/influences should be discouraged from
undermining the very integrity of a university.
iii. Follow strict merit in all matters of students’ admission & faculty
selection.
iv. Strive for the generation of their own funds through different programs i.e.
business shops, plazas, agriculture center, pharmaceutical laboratories, and
the like.
v. Faculties among public and private sector universities are made equal.
7. The following cells should be set up in the university:
168
i. Public-relations/media cell to mobilize and increase awareness of the
community through the use of newspaper articles, press releases, TV
interviews and websites etc.
ii. Community involvement cell to mobilize the community within
universities; through consultative seminars, talks, community gatherings,
and update sessions on the progress of the university.
iii. Liaison cell to engage the political leadership outside the university
and lobby for changes.
5.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The conclusions drawn from the study indicate that there are similarities and
differences in administrative practices of both public and private sector universities.
There are other areas which can be studied for further findings:
1. To generalize these results across Pakistan, this study should be replicated in
other provinces viz; Sindh and Baluchistan and federal area Islamabad.
2. Keeping in view the importance of administrative practices in educational
institutions, it should be investigated at other type of universities i.e.
engineering, medical universities, colleges and also secondary and elementary
level.
3. Keeping in view the importance of administrative practices in universities, it
should be compared with the advanced and developing countries universities.
4. This study should be supplemented with inclusion of other demographic
variables including gender, and experience.
169
5. This study should be replicated by using other instruments for data collection
such as interview and observation.
6. Significant difference was found in this study in terms of administrative
practice of public and private sector universities so the study should be
conducted by utilizing qualitative research method.
170
REFERENCES
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan Act, Registered no. PIII (The provincial assembly sectriate, The North-West Frontier Province Oct 24, 2009).
Agbowuro, J. (1976). Nigerianization and the Nigerian Universities. Comparative Education , 12 (3), 243-254.
Ajmal, M., & et al. (2009). Effectiveness of quality assurance programs of higher education commission in teacher training sector. International journal of academic research , 2 (5).
Alam, S. (2005). Need Assessment and Designing a Model for Professional Development of Educational Administrators in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.
Allen, N. (1988). Universities, Aspects of Promotion Procedures in Australian. Higher Education , 17 (3), 267-280.
Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world confernce on higher education. SIDA/SAREC.
Amendments to University Statutes. (2010, May). Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/committees/senate/2009_10docs/S0956Statutes.pdf
Anwar, M. N., Yousaf, M. I., & Sarwar, M. (2008). Decision Making Practices in Universites of Pakistan. Journal of Divesity Management, Fourth Quarter , 3, (4).
Anwer, M. N. (2005). Evaluative study of Management Techniques Used in Administrative and Academic Decision Making in Universities. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.
Ashley, D. (2011). Universities' governing bodies need more educationalists. University and College Union.
Atias, C., & Mouly, C. (1993). Faculty Recruitment in France. The American Journal of Comparative Law , 41 (3), 401-411.
Azmat, Z. (2012, January 12). Internationl The News. No admissions under pressure, says KU . Karachi: International The News.
Badat, S. (2009). The role of higher education in society: Valuing higher education. South Africa: Rhodes University.
171
Bakare, T. A consideration of the adequacy of teaching facilities in the universities of the South Western. University of Lagos: Unpublished Thesis.
Birru, K. (2002). Planning and Managerial Problems of Private Colleges in Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa University: Unpublished Thesis.
Campbell, R. F. (1957). Administration Behaviour in Education. New York, USA.: Harper Brother Publisher.
Cannon, R. A. (1983). The Professional Development of Australian University Teachers: An Act of Faith? Higher Education , 12 (1), 19-33.
Centra, J. (1977). How universities evaluate faculty performance: A survey of departments heads. New jersey: Educational testing service prisceton.
Chandrasiri, S. (2003). Financing of University Education in Sri Lanka. Higher Education , 5 (1), 91-108.
Chan-Young, C. (1988). A Study on the Autonomy of Educational Administration. Korean Educational Development Institute Press.
Chaudhry, A. I. (2004). Problems and Prospects of Higher Education in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis, University Institute of Education and Research.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Pergamon: Oxford.
Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L., & Little, P. (2003, August). Issues in Australian University Governance. Retrieved Jan 22, 2012, from http://www.chancellery.qut.edu.au/vc/governancefinal.pdf
Cohen, C. C. (2003). Diversification in Argentine Higher Education: Dimension and Impact of Private Sector Growth. Higher Education , 46 (1), 1-35.
Collen, E. H., & Linda. (1963). Administrative Practices in University Departments. Administrative Sciences Quarterly , 8 (1), 44-60.
Committee, K. (1967). Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from www.google.com
De Boer, H. (2003). Institutionele verandering en professionele autonomie. Center .
Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the learning society: Main Report. Londom: H.M.S.O.
172
Dopson, S., & McNay, I. (1996). Management of Higher Education: Organizational Culture. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Dridi, M. C., & Houssine. (2007). Intensification of University-Industry Relationships and Its Impact on Academic Research. Higher Education , 54 (1), 61-84.
Ekong, E. E. (n.d.). Management Styles in Nigerian Universities under Military Rule and the Challenges of Democracy: How Democractic can University Management be? Retrieved October 15, 2011, from www.google.com
Figel, J. (2008). Higher education governance in Europe: policies, structure, funding and academic staff. Retrieved Feb 14, 2012, from www.eurydice.org.
Fontes, T. K., & Patricia, J. (1980). Participation in University Education by Gender and Geographical Location. The Irish Journal of Education , 14 (1), 3-18.
Fraenkel, J. R. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Gary Orfield, H. H. (April 06, 2011). Two Studies of a Faculty in Crisis. University of california: The Civil Rights Project,Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Gentry, L. R., Jauch, & James, W. (1976). Perceptions of Faculty Evaluation in the Soft Sciences: A Case Study. Research in Higher Education , 5 (2), 159-170.
Glewwe, P., & Kremer, M. (2005, April). Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from www.google.com
Gliem. J. A., &. G. (n.d.). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Retrieved December 5th, 2011, from 2003: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu
Gonzales, L. D. (2010). Faculty inside a changing university: Constructing roles, making spaces. Retrieved october 29, 2011, from www.google.com: http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/dissertations/AAI3426847/
Gornitzka, A. &. (2004). Towards Professionalisation? Restructuring of Administrative Work Force in Universities. Higher Education , 47 (4), 455-471.
Government of, P. (1998). National educational policy (1998-2010). Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
Group, T. B. Higher Education in Pakistan: Towards a Reform Agenda, A Contribution to the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan.
173
Gupta, L. (1987). Educational Administration: Revised Edition. New Delhi: Oxford & IB Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd.
Hamid-Ullah, M. (2005). Comparison of the Quality of Higher Education in Public and Private Sector Institutions in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.
Handbook to the Universities of Pakistan . (1963). Karachi: Inter-University Board of Pakistan 42-W P.E.C.H Society.
HEC, P. (2002-2003). Islamabad: Higher education commission.
HEC, P. (n.d.). Universities affiliated colleges. Retrieved Feb 14, 2012, from http://beta.hec.gov.pk: http://beta.hec.gov.pk/OurInstitutes/Pages/UniversitiesAffiliatedColleges.aspx
Hoare, D. (1995). Higher Education Management Review: report of committee of inquiry. Canberra: AGPS.
Homadi, A. H. (1989). University Administration In Developing Countries. New Delhi: India Biblographic Burea.
http://legaladvicepk.com. (n.d.). Gomal University (amendment) Act, 1996. Retrieved 15 Feb, 2012, from http://legaladvicepk.com/gomal-university-amendment-act-1996-3168.html
http://www.pakstudy.com. (2010, Dec 10). PUTA Criticised for Amend in Peshawar University Act . Retrieved 15 Feb, 20112, from http://www.pakstudy.com/index.php?topic=28995.0
Huisman, J. Governing bodies of higher education institutions: Roles and responsibilities (Conduct of governing bodies). OECD.
Huisman, J., Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2006). The perception of participation in executive governance structures in Dutch universities. Tertiary Education and Management , 12 (3).
Inter-University Board of Pakistan. (1963). Hand book to the universities of Pakistan. Karachi: Inter-university Board of Pakistan.
Isani, U. A. (2001). Higher education in Pakistan: A historical - futuristic persective. The national university of modern languages, Islamabad: Unublished thesis.
Isani, U. A., & Virk, M. L. (2005). Higher education in Pakistan: A historical and futuristic perspective. Islamabad: National Book Foundation.
174
Jack R. Fraenkel., N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Jadoon, Z. I., & Jabeen, N. (n.d.). Human Resource Management and Quality Assurance in Public Sector Universities of Pakistan: The case of Punjab university. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from www.google.com
James, S., & Blackman, D. (n.d.). Goveranance in Australian Universities: Where Next? Retrieved Jan 22, 2012, from www.ifo.de/DocDL/dicereport209-rm1.pdf
Jamil, P. K. (n.d.). Impact of Politicization on the Recruitment of University Teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi. Retrieved Jan 27, 2012, from www.napsipag.org: www.napsipag.org/PDF/PRANAB.pdf
Joseph A. Gliem., &. R. (n.d.). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Retrieved December 5th, 2011, from 2003: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu
Kelleher, M. F. (n.d.). Governing bodies of higher education institutions: Roles and responsibilities, The Effectiveness of Governing Bodies. Retrieved Jan 22, 2012, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/31/37378222.pdfSimilar
Khan, A. (2007). The Role of Private Sector in Higher Education in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.
khan, S. H., Saeed, M., & Fatima, K. (2009). Assessing the Performance of Secondary School Head Teachers: A Survey Study Based on Teachers’ Views in Punjab. Educational Management Administration and leadership , 37 (6), pp. 766-783.
Kilmei, M., & et al. (2007). Public and Private Universities in Kenya. New York: James Currey Ltd.
Lambert, R. (2003). Review of Business-University Collaboration. London: H.M.S.O.
Lee, L.-S., & Land, M. H. (2010). What University Governance can Taiwan Learn from the United States? Paper presented at International Presidential Fourm (pp. 179-187). China: Harbin Institute of Technology, Herbin.
Lemaitre, M. (2010). New approaches to quality assurance in the changing world of higher education. 3rd International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education,. Lahore.
Louis Cohen, L. M. (2007). Research Method in Education. New York: Routledge.
Mabokela, R. O. (2000). 'We Cannot Find Qualified Blacks': Faculty Diversification Programmes at South African Universities. Comparative Education , 36 (1), 95-112.
175
Magrath, C. P. (1969). Student Participation; What Happens When We Try It? Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal
Maria Grazia Simone., G. M. (n.d.). Governance and management in the universities. Ict for decisional. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6g00G8s64zcJ:www.formatex.org/micte2009/book/525-528.pdf
Matier, M. W. (1991). Recruiting Faculty: Complementary Tales from Two Campuses. Research in Higher Education , 32 (1), 31-44.
Melbourne, T. U. (2011, June). University Secretary's Department: Statutes and Regulation. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.unimelb.edu.au/Statutes/
Memon, G. R. (2007). Education in Pakistan: The Key Issues, Problems and The. Journal of Management and Social Sciences , 3 (1), 47-55.
Minksova, L., & Pabian, P. (2011). Approaching students in higher education governance: Introduction to the special issue. Tertiary Education and Management , 17 (3).
Mishra, M. (2007). Modern methods of educational administration. New Delhi: Alfa publications.
Moses, I. (1986). Promotion of academic staff: reward andiIncentive. Higher Education , 15 (1/2), 135-149.
Moy, J. W. (2006). Are employers assessing the right traits in hiring? Evidence from Hong Kong companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 17 (4).
Mukhtar, S., Tatlah, I., & Saeed, M. (2011). An analytical study of higher education system of Pakistan. International journal of academic research , 3 (2).
Musselin, C., & Mignot-Gerard, S. (2002). The recent evolution of French universities. In A.Amaral, G. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Narasaiah, M. L. (2007). Education and Economic Development. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
Nasreen, A. (2008). Faculty management in public sector universities of the Punjab. Institute of education and research, University of Punjab: Unpublished Thesis.
176
Naz, e. (2012). A comparative study of selected administrative practices at public and private sector universities of Pakistan. International Journal of Learning & Development , 2 (1), 593-603.
Ndirangu, M., & Udoto, M. O. (2011). Learning Facilities and Learning Environment: Challenges for Teaching and Learning in Kenya's Public Universities. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective , 19 (3).
Newell, S. (2005). The recruitment process, Organizational review and job analysis. Managing human resources: Personal management in transition (4th ed.). (S. Bach, Ed.) Cornwall: TJ international, Padstow.
Pakistan, G. o. (2002). Streering Committee on Higher Education. Islamabad.
Pakistan., G. o. (1998). National Education Policy. Islamabad.: Ministry of.
Pakistan: Country Summary of Higher Education. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2012, from https://docs.google.com: www.google.com.pk
Panday, P. K., & Jamil, I. (n.d.). Impact of Politicization on The recruitment of University teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi. Retrieved Jan 27, 2012, from 2012, from www.napsipag.org:: www.napsipag.org/PDF/PRANAB.pdf
Panday, P., & Jamil, I. Impact of Politicization on the Recruitment of University Teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi. Bangladesh: University of Rajshahi.
Pankajam, G. (2005). Education and Development. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
Parveen, A. e. (2011). System and reforms of higher education in Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 2 (20).
Paul Glewwe., M. K. (2005, April). Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from www.google.com
Pearse, R. (1978). The Role of Selection Based on Academic Criteria in the Recruitment Process at an Indonesian Government University. Higher Education , 7 (2), 157-176.
Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex Differences in Faculty Tenure and Promotion: The Contribution of Family Ties. Research in Higher Education , 46 (3), 277-307.
Pranab Kumar Panday. (n.d.). Impact of Politicization on the Recruitment of University Teachers in Bangladesh: The Case of the University of Rajshahi.
177
Qazi, W., S, H. C., Rawat, K. J., & Hamid, S. (2010, January). ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION OF PAKISTAN: PREDICAMENTS AND INSIGHTS. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from www.google.com.pk
Rasul, S. ,., & Akram, M. (2010). Opinions of Teachers and Students about Futurology of Higher Education in Pakistan. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), , 1 (4).
Razavi, S. M. (2007). Desigining a model for evaluation of universities system. Iranian journal of management studies , 1 (1), 133-141.
Sarwar., S. (2011). Internal and external influences on the university teachers in semester system. International journal of emergiging sciences , 1 (1).
Scheytt, C. M. (2007). Reinventing Governance: The Role of Boards of Governors in the New Austrian University. Tertiary Education and Management , 13 (3).
Shah, R. (2011). Role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication at postgraduate level. Gomal University D.I.Khan: Unpublished Thesis.
Shah, S. (2011, June 1st). Amendments in University of Peshawer Act: Govt ignores teachers` views. Peshawer, KPK, Pakistan: Dawn.
Shah, S. (2011, June 1st). Amendments in UoP Act: Govt ignores teachers` views. Peshawer, KPK, Pakistan: Dawn.
Siddiqui, S. (2007). Rethinking education in Pakistan: Percepttions, practices and possibilities. Karachi: Paramount Publishing.
Simone, M., & Marselli, G. (n.d.). Governance and management in the universities. Ict for decisional. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6g00G8s64zcJ:www.formatex.org/micte2009/book/525-528.pdf
Singh, V. (1978). A Comprative Study of Administration of Selected Universities in India and Abroad. Vedya Bhawan Teachers College Udaipur (Udaipur): un published thesis.
Sochail, F. (2005). Comparative study of Provincial Educational Administration Systems in Pakistan. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Unpublished Thesis.
Spangler, D. P., & Ronald, K. (1979). The Measurement of Administrative Effectiveness of the Academic Department Head. Research in Higher Education , 10 (4), 291-303.
178
Sporn, B. (1996). Managing University Culture: An Analysis of the Relationship between Institutional Culture and Management Approaches. Higher Education , 32 (1), 41-61.
Tapper, E., & Salter, B. (1995). The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education , 20 (1).
The Administration of Universities. (1966, October 5-8). Retrieved July 29, 2011, from www.eric.ed.gov
The Boston Group. (n.d.). Higher education in Pakistan: Towards a reform agenda, A contribution to the task force on improvement of higher education in Pakistan. Retrieved Feb 5, 2012, from www.docstoc.com: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/45606234/Higher-education-in-pakistan
The Gomal University Act, 1. (1974, Dec 2). Retrieved Feb 15, 2012, from www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk: http://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/Gov/files/v8_0010.htm
The Task Force. (2002). Task force on improvement of higher education in Pakistan. Retrieved from www.tfhe.net: http://www.tfhe.net/resources/pakistan.htm
The University of the Punjab Act, 1. (1973). Retrieved Feb 22, 2012, from http://punjablaws.gov.pk: http://punjablaws.gov.pk/laws/279.html
Tyagi, R., J, M. L., & Taylor, B. W. (1988). A Decision Support System for Funds Management in a Public University. Operations Research , 36 (6), 864-881.
University Statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://9thlevel.ie/
Vilalta, J. (2001). University policy and coordination systems between governments and universities: The experience of the Catalan university system. Tertiary Education and Management , 7 (1).
Vohra, A., & Sharma, S. (1990). Management of Higher Education In India. New Delhi: Anmol Publication.
(2006). White Paper on University. University of Oxford.
wikipedia. (n.d.). Chancellor (education). Retrieved Jan 26, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_(education)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). University and College Admissions. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_and_college_admissions
www.ilmkidunya.com. (2010, Nov 8). Political pressure to enroll ineligible canditates in KU . Retrieved 12 Feb, 2012, from
179
https://doctorfinder.pk/edunews/political-pressure-to-enroll-ineligible-canditates-in-ku-5089.aspx
Yossof, R. W., & Ishak. (2005). Public and Private Provision of Higher Education in Malaysia: A Comparative Analysis. Higher Education , 50 (3), 361-386.
180
Appendix-A
Request for use and amendments in administrative practices rating scale
181
182
Appendix-B
Questionnaire for Administrative Practices
Respected sir/Madam
Asslam-O-Alaikum
I am a Ph.D scholar at Institute of Education & Research Gomal University D.I.Khan, working on a topic “A comparative study of administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan”.
This survey is being conducted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Ph.D. I need your assistance in this regard.
Kindly read each statement carefully and respond according to your best judgment.
The data obtained will be kept confidential and will only be used for research purpose.
I shall be grateful to you for your cooperation.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Sincerely yours
Bibi Asia Naz
Research Scholar
Institute of Education & Research
Gomal University, D.I.Khan.
E-Mail: [email protected]
183
Appendix-C
Questionnaire for Administrative Practices
PART “A
Status of the University: Public Private Designation: Teaching Faculty Administration
PART “B”
S. No
STATEMENT
Alw
ays
Fre
qu
entl
y
Occ
asio
nal
ly
Sel
dom
Nev
er
1
The amendments in statutes of your university are made Due to political pressure
5 4 3 2 1
2 A group of influential persons wants it. 5 4 3 2 1 3 The officials of the university desire it. 5 4 3 2 1 4 As per need. 5 4 3 2 1 5
The election/selection of the members for different bodies of the university Is politically motivated
5 4 3 2 1
6 On bases of different groups interacts. 5 4 3 2 1 7 Is based on the seniority. 5 4 3 2 1 8 Is held strictly in accordance with the rules and
regulation. 5 4 3 2 1
9
The tenure of different bodies is As laid down in the statutes and the act.
5 4 3 2 1
Please read the following statements carefully and tick (√) that best describe your opinion.
The criteria for ticking the statement are as follows.
Always (5) Frequently (4) Occasionally (3) Seldom (2) Never (1)
184
10 Extended and shortened on political consideration. 5 4 3 2 1 11 Extended and shortened on the basis of decision taken by
the body concerned. 5 4 3 2 1
12 Extended and shortened due to unavoidable situation. 5 4 3 2 1 13
The students are given representation in various bodies of the university In accordance with rules and regulation.
5 4 3 2 1
14 Due to political backing. 5 4 3 2 1 15 Students backing 5 4 3 2 1 16 On merit 5 4 3 2 1 17 Whenever the students demands 5 4 3 2 1 18
In your university there is a regular meeting of Advance studies & Research Board.
5 4 3 2 1
19 Academic council. 5 4 3 2 1 20 Syndicate. 5 4 3 2 1 21 Senate 5 4 3 2 1 22
The decision in meeting of the different bodies of your university are Dictated by the chair
5 4 3 2 1
23 Are made by a majority vote. 5 4 3 2 1 24 Are taken on political grounds. 5 4 3 2 1 25
The implementation of the decisions taken by different bodies of the university is Delayed by the authorities.
5 4 3 2 1
26 Put of till they are again considered by the bodies. 5 4 3 2 1 27 Based on political consideration 5 4 3 2 128 Not cared by the authorities. 5 4 3 2 1 29
Are all the appointments of officials in your university made Due to political pressure
5 4 3 2 1
30 On the basis of academic record/merit 5 4 3 2 1 31 On basis of seniority 5 4 3 2 1 32
The selection of the staff of your university is made on the basis of The academic record of the candidates
5 4 3 2 1
33 The performance at the interview 5 4 3 2 1 34 The political push 5 4 3 2 1 35
The promotion of the staff of your university is made on the basis of Performance at the university
5 4 3 2 1
36 Confidential report and past record 5 4 3 2 1 37 Any other consideration not covered above. 5 4 3 2 1 38
The various facilities/Benefits are given to a member of the staff of your university By the virtue of post s/he holds.
5 4 3 2 1
39 Due to favors shown by higher authorities. 5 4 3 2 1
185
40 Due to political backings. 5 4 3 2 1 41 Due to influence s/he commands. 5 4 3 2 1 42
The officials of your university in administrative matters Follow the rules and regulations.
5 4 3 2 1
43 Are influenced by political pressure. 5 4 3 2 1 44 Are influenced by the opinions of high officials. 5 4 3 2 1 45
The officials of your university in financial matters Follow the rules and regulations.
5 4 3 2 1
46 Are influenced by political pressure. 5 4 3 2 1 47 Are influenced by the opinion of high officers 5 4 3 2 1 48 Use their own judgment 5 4 3 2 1 49
The official of your university in academic matters Follow rules and regulation
5 4 3 2 1
50 Are influenced by political pressure 5 4 3 2 1 51 Are influenced by high officials 5 4 3 2 1 52 Use their own individual judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 53
The officers supervise and control Supervision is based on the report of the juniors
5 4 3 2 1
54 A separate body does the supervision work. 5 4 3 2 1 55 Through a method not covered above. 5 4 3 2 1 56
In dealing with the community the officers Are influenced by political pressure.
5 4 3 2 1
57 Are influenced by high officers 5 4 3 2 1 58 Use their own judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 59
The relationship of the officers with HEC Is influenced by political pressure.
5 4 3 2 1
60 Is influenced by high officers. 5 4 3 2 1 61 Personal judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 62
The relationship of the officers with the government Is influenced by political pressure.
5 4 3 2 1
63 Is influenced by high officers. 5 4 3 2 1 64 Personal judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 65
The relationship of the officers with other universities Is influenced by political pressure.
5 4 3 2 1
66 Is influenced by high officers. 5 4 3 2 1 67 Personal judgment. 5 4 3 2 1 68
The HEC influences the administration of your university In the appointment of teachers and other officials
5 4 3 2 1
69 In the admission of students. 5 4 3 2 1 70 In framing of courses 5 4 3 2 1 71 In matters of finance i.e. grant in aid 5 4 3 2 1 72 In the formulation of rules and regulation. 5 4 3 2 1 73
Your university is influenced by HEC In the exchange of teachers.
5 4 3 2 1
186
74 In the field of maintenance of standard 5 4 3 2 1 75 In the recognition of degree and diplomas. 5 4 3 2 1 76
The admission of students to various courses in your university is based on The academic record.
5 4 3 2 1
77 Performance in the admission test. 5 4 3 2 1 78 Political backing. 5 4 3 2 1 79 The reservation of seats. 5 4 3 2 1 80
Scholarship are awarded to students on Merit basis
5 4 3 2 1
81 According to prescribed rules 5 4 3 2 1 82 Due to favors shown by higher authorities. 5 4 3 2 1 83
Funds are allocating on Need basis
5 4 3 2 1
84 Consultation of HOD/Director/Dean 5 4 3 2 1 85 Priority basis 5 4 3 2 1 86
University timings are suitable for Students
5 4 3 2 1
87 Teachers 5 4 3 2 1 88 Administrators 5 4 3 2 1 89 Non-teaching staff 5 4 3 2 1 90
Affiliation to educational colleges are given According to prescribed rules
5 4 3 2 1
91 Political pressure 5 4 3 2 1 92 Person concerned is influential 5 4 3 2 1 93 The officials of the university desire it. 5 4 3 2 1 94 As and when there is a need of these situations. 5 4 3 2 1 95
Vice chancellor satisfy himself regarding the teachers & officials performance through Regular/accidental visits
5 4 3 2 1
96 Meeting with HoD/Director/Dean 5 4 3 2 1 97
Procedure for any irregularities Call explanation
5 4 3 2 1
98 Punish according to rules and regulation 5 4 3 2 1 99 Flexible in taking disciplinary action. 5 4 3 2 1 100
In a meeting with the authorities of your university Only influential ones consume major time in discussion.
5 4 3 2 1
101 Those who are closer to authorities can speak. 5 4 3 2 1 102 Only the person in chair speaks all the time. 5 4 3 2 1 103
Authorities can be visited. On appointment only.
5 4 3 2 1
104 Any time under open door policy. 5 4 3 2 1 105 On request. 5 4 3 2 1 106
Your university management is Inviting suggestions on important issue.
5 4 3 2 1
107 Listening to ideas of faculty. 5 4 3 2 1
187
APPENDIX D
108 Giving respect and regard. 5 4 3 2 1 109
New discipline/departments are established with consideration of Society need and demand
5 4 3 2 1
110 Infrastructure/Financial availability 5 4 3 2 1 111 Space facility/ availability 5 4 3 2 1 112 Due to political pressure 5 4 3 2 1
188
ITEM MEAN, VARIANCE, CORRECTED ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION AND CRONBACH’S ALPHA FOR THE WHOLE SCALE
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Cases
q1 375.82 4762.302 .674 .962 42
q2 375.52 4765.179 .647 .963 42
q3 374.92 4833.815 .369 .963 42
q4 373.85 4967.926 -.463 .964 42
q5 376.32 4817.302 .581 .963 42
q6 375.92 4807.661 .518 .963 42
q7 374.58 4817.276 .435 .963 42
q8 375.40 4814.092 .508 .963 42
q9 375.42 4839.071 .282 .963 42
q10 375.85 4790.592 .580 .963 42
q11 375.10 4844.041 .308 .963 42
q12 375.05 4844.408 .311 .963 42
q13 375.22 4880.076 .154 .963 42
q14 374.88 4962.984 -.320 .964 42
q15 376.18 4804.712 .687 .963 42
q16 375.45 4816.818 .434 .963 42
q17 375.80 4813.138 .581 .963 42
q18 375.48 4892.563 .065 .963 42
q19 375.65 4802.438 .595 .963 42
q20 375.82 4876.866 .145 .963 42
q21 376.18 4804.712 .687 .963 42
q22 375.30 4786.882 .569 .963 42
q23 375.62 4813.676 .548 .963 42
q24 375.65 4802.438 .595 .963 42
q25 375.58 4795.687 .717 .963 42
q26 375.72 4829.692 .382 .963 42
q27 375.48 4892.563 .065 .963 42
q28 374.88 4934.061 -.157 .964 42
189
q29 375.40 4794.554 .575 .963 42
q30 375.80 4793.292 .710 .963 42
q31 375.95 4795.895 .636 .963 42
q32 375.88 4801.138 .606 .963 42
q33 375.58 4795.687 .717 .963 42
q34 375.58 4786.969 .599 .963 42
q35 375.32 4871.456 .209 .963 42
q36 375.78 4795.102 .612 .963 42
q37 375.58 4786.969 .599 .963 42
q38 374.52 4872.256 .172 .963 42
q39 375.85 4803.926 .608 .963 42
q40 375.68 4816.225 .504 .963 42
q41 375.95 4818.151 .566 .963 42
q42 375.40 4820.144 .490 .963 42
q43 375.65 4803.105 .625 .963 42
q44 375.50 4760.410 .722 .962 42
q45 375.85 4803.926 .608 .963 42
q46 374.20 4923.651 -.125 .964 42
q47 375.08 4816.738 .463 .963 42
q48 375.88 4800.112 .612 .963 42
q49 374.52 4872.256 .172 .963 42
q50 375.12 4839.087 .314 .963 42
q51 375.58 4795.020 .581 .963 42
q52 375.40 4888.913 .095 .963 42
q53 374.50 4962.462 -.389 .964 42
q54 375.88 4800.112 .612 .963 42
q55 375.88 4800.112 .612 .963 42
q56 374.28 4969.538 -.403 .964 42
q57 375.30 4812.010 .521 .963 42
q58 375.75 4782.808 .681 .963 42
q59 375.62 4792.035 .625 .963 42
q60 375.72 4821.948 .519 .963 42
q61 375.18 4842.251 .380 .963 42
q62 374.22 4924.179 -.137 .964 42
190
q63 375.62 4772.599 .674 .963 42
q64 375.10 4868.759 .200 .963 42
q65 375.72 4807.538 .600 .963 42
q66 375.62 4801.625 .611 .963 42
q67 374.15 4933.054 -.210 .964 42
q68 375.12 4813.907 .527 .963 42
q69 375.42 4864.661 .260 .963 42
q70 375.78 4811.410 .603 .963 42
q71 375.68 4814.020 .581 .963 42
q72 375.82 4876.866 .145 .963 42
q73 375.65 4802.438 .595 .963 42
q74 375.58 4795.687 .717 .963 42
q75 375.12 4873.189 .179 .963 42
q76 374.62 4881.471 .114 .963 42
q77 375.50 4795.385 .665 .963 42
q78 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42
q79 375.78 4811.410 .603 .963 42
q80 375.60 4765.426 .722 .962 42
q81 374.98 4874.538 .160 .963 42
q82 375.35 4817.208 .471 .963 42
q83 375.92 4796.379 .679 .963 42
q84 376.18 4806.763 .657 .963 42
q85 374.62 4881.471 .114 .963 42
q86 376.15 4818.387 .648 .963 42
q87 375.10 4849.733 .291 .963 42
q88 375.85 4756.336 .760 .962 42
q89 374.62 4881.471 .114 .963 42
q90 375.40 4814.862 .512 .963 42
q91 375.25 4852.859 .271 .963 42
q92 375.78 4765.615 .715 .962 42
q93 374.75 4929.526 -.145 .964 42
q94 375.38 4831.728 .395 .963 42
q95 375.92 4806.687 .558 .963 42
q96 374.90 4852.605 .279 .963 42
191
q97 375.50 4795.385 .665 .963 42
q98 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42
q99 375.58 4795.225 .580 .963 42
q100 376.00 4818.615 .472 .963 42
q101 374.88 4828.984 .410 .963 42
q102 374.90 4852.605 .279 .963 42
q103 375.50 4795.385 .665 .963 42
q104 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42
q105 375.78 4811.410 .603 .963 42
q106 374.75 4957.372 -.313 .964 42
q107 374.88 4829.804 .371 .963 42
q108 375.25 4852.859 .271 .963 42
q109 376.00 4818.615 .472 .963 42
q110 375.42 4814.097 .515 .963 42
q111 375.35 4836.541 .353 .963 42
q112 374.88 4828.984 .410 .963 42
q113 374.75 4957.372 -.313 .964 42
q114 375.18 4815.687 .416 .963 42
q115 374.95 4843.690 .288 .963 42
q116 374.90 4897.272 .034 .964 42
q117 375.35 4836.541 .353 .963 42
q118 374.35 4852.182 .308 .963 42
q119 375.18 4815.687 .416 .963 42
q120 374.82 4838.661 .353 .963 42
q121 374.48 4888.256 .082 .964 42
q122 375.15 4858.695 .292 .963 42
q123 375.45 4774.254 .711 .962 42
q124 374.35 4852.182 .308 .963 42
q125 375.45 4841.638 .347 .963 42
q126 374.95 4929.536 -.163 .964 42
q127 375.60 4807.323 .587 .963 42
q128 375.58 4795.225 .580 .963 42
q129 374.70 4905.497 -.014 .964 42
q130 375.32 4851.866 .260 .963 42
192
q131 375.40 4846.862 .295 .963 42
q132 375.45 4774.254 .711 .962 42
q133 375.45 4841.638 .347 .963 42
q134 375.40 4846.862 .295 .963 42
q135 374.35 4852.182 .308 .963 42
q136 374.82 4838.661 .353 .963 42
APPENDIX E
193
LIST OF EXPERTS FOR VALIDATION OF SCALE
1. Prof. Dr. Umar Ali Khan, Director, Institute of Education & Research, Gomal
University D.I.Khan KPK.
2. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shah, Institute of Education & Research, Gomal University
D.I.Khan KPK.
3. Prof. Dr. Saeed Anwar, Department of Education, Hazara University.
4. Dr. Rahmatullah Shah, Department of Education, University of Science and
Technology Bannu.
5. Porf. Dr. Ihsan Ali, Vice Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan.
6. Dr. Wajid Ali Shah, Assistant Professor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan.
7. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, Assistant Professor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan.
8. Dr. Sajjad Hayat Akhter, Elementary and Secondary Education, Mardan.
194
APPENDIX F
LIST OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN THE PROVINCE OF
PUNJAB AND KPK PROVINCES
Public Sector Universities chartered by Government of the Punjab S. No University/DAI Name Main
Campus Location
Website Address
1 Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan
Multan www.bzu.edu.pk
2 Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi
Rawalpindi www.fjwu.edu.pk
3 Government College University, Faisalabad
Faisalabad www.gcuf.edu.pk
4 Government College University, Lahore
Lahore www.gcu.edu.pk
5 Islamia University, Bahawalpur
Bahawalpur www.iub.edu.pk
6 Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore
Lahore www.kinnaird.edu.pk
7 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore
Lahore www.lcwu.edu.pk
8 University of Education, Lahore
Lahore www.ue.edu.pk
9 University of Gujrat, Gujrat Gujrat www.uog.edu.pk
10 University of Sargodha, Sargodha
Sargodha www.uos.edu.pk
11 University of the Punjab, Lahore
Lahore www.pu.edu.pk
12 University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi
Rawalpindi www.uaar.edu.pk
195
Public Sector Universities chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa S. No
University/DAI Name Main Campus Location
Website Address
1 Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan
Mardan www.awkum.edu.pk
2 Frontier Women University, Peshawar
Peshawar www.fwu.edu.pk
3 Gomal University, D.I. Khan D.I.Khan www.gu.edu.pk/
4 Hazara University, Dodhial, Mansehra
Manshera www.hu.edu.pk/
6 Islamia College University, Peshawar
Peshawar www.icp.edu.pk
7 Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat
Kohat www.kust.edu.pk
8 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir
Dir www.sbbu.edu.pk
9 University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir, Malakand
Malakand www.uom.edu.pk
10 University of Peshawar, Peshawar Peshawar www.upesh.edu.pk
11 University of Science & Technology, Bannu
Bannu www.ustb.edu.pk
12 University of Swat, Swat Swat www.swatuniversity.edu.pk
Private sector Universities chartered by Government of the Punjab S. No
University/DAI Name Main Campus Location
Website Address
1 Beaconhouse National University, Lahore
Lahore www.bnu.edu.pk
3 Hajvery University, Lahore Lahore www.hajvery.edu.pk
4 HITEC University, Taxila Taxila www.hitecuni.edu.pk
5 Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan
Multan www.usp.edu.pk
6 Lahore Leads University, Lahore
Lahore www.leads.edu.pk
7 Minhaj University, Lahore Lahore www.mul.edu.pk
8 The GIFT University, Gujranwala
Gujranwala www.gift.edu.pk
10 The University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad
Faisalabad www.tuf.edu.pk
11 University of Central Punjab, Lahore www.ucp.edu.pk
196
Private Sector Universities chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa S. No
University/DAI Name Main Campus Location
Website Address
1 Abasyn University, Peshawar Peshawar www.abasyn.edu.pk
2 CECOS University of Information Technology and Emerging Sciences, Peshawar
Peshawar www.cecos.edu.pk
3 City University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar
Peshawar www.cityuniversity.edu.pk
4 Gandhara University, Peshawar Peshawar www.gandhara.edu.pk
5 Iqra National University, Peshawar
Peshawar www.iqrapsh.edu.pk
6 Northern University, Nowshera Nowshera www.northern.edu.pk
7 Preston University, Kohat Kohat www.preston.edu.pk
8 Qurtaba University of Science and Information Technology, D.I. Khan
D.I.Khan www.qurtuba.edu.pk
9 Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar
Peshawar www.suit.edu.pk
Lahore 12 University of Lahore, Lahore Lahore www.uol.edu.pk 13 University of Management &
Technology, Lahore Lahore www.umt.edu.pk
14 University of South Asia, Lahore
Lahore www.usa.edu.pk
15 University of Wah, Wah Wah www.uw.edu.pk