Share This Article:

Enriching Stakeholder Theory: Student Identity of Higher Education

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:2471KB) PP. 762-766
DOI: 10.4236/ajibm.2014.412082    4,287 Downloads   5,107 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

While students commonly assume the identity of being key stakeholders of higher education, the present article explores the possible complications stemmed from such key identity. Stakeholder theory has its strengths attributed by its conceptual breath and versatility; the limits of the theory arise for the same merit. Making reference to the theory with no restrains leads reasonably to the conclusion that the educational institute is unwilling to take measure closely to the long term effect, tangible or intangible, of such approach. Providing multiple perspectives on the identity of students are observed, an enrichment of stakeholder theory catering student identity is necessary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Lau, J. (2014) Enriching Stakeholder Theory: Student Identity of Higher Education. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 4, 762-766. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2014.412082.

References

[1] Borkowski, S.C. and Ugras, Y.J. (1992) The Ethical Attitudes of Students as a Function of Age, Sex and Experience. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 961-979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00871962
[2] Freeman, R. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Ballinger, Boston.
[3] Rowley, T.J. (1997) Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 206-221.
[4] Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995) The Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
[5] Key, S. (1999) Toward a New Theory of the Firm: A Critique of Stakeholder “Theory”. Management Decision, 37, 317-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749910269366
[6] Fassin, Y. (2008) Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879-888.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5
[7] Seeman, E.D. and O’Hara, M. (2006) Customer Relationship Management in Higher Education: Using Information Systems to Improve the Student-School Relationship. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23, 24-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650740610639714
[8] Singh, G. (2002) Educational Consumers or Educational Partners: A Critical Theory Analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 681-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2002.0552
[9] Sperlich, A. and Spraul, K. (2007) Students as Active Partners: Higher Education Management in Germany. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 12, Article 11.
[10] Hill, F.M. (1995) Managing Service Quality in Higher Education: The Identity of the Student as Primary Consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3, 10-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889510093497
[11] Tasie, G.O. (2010) Analytical Observations of the Applicability of the Concept of Student-as-Customer in a University Setting. Educational Research and Reviews, 5, 309-313
[12] Voss, R., Gruber, T. and Szmigin, I. (2007) Service Quality in Higher Education: The Identity of Student Expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60, 949-959.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.020

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.