Full Ebook of Service Quality Measurement Issues and Perspectives Issues and Perspectives 1St Edition Lewlyn L R Rodrigues Online PDF All Chapter

Service Quality Measurement Issues
and Perspectives Issues and

Perspectives 1st Edition Lewlyn L R
Rodrigues
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/service-quality-measurement-issues-and-perspectives
-issues-and-perspectives-1st-edition-lewlyn-l-r-rodrigues/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Understanding Medical Cannabis Critical Issues and

Perspectives for Human Service Professionals 1st
Edition Joanne Levine (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/understanding-medical-cannabis-
critical-issues-and-perspectives-for-human-service-
professionals-1st-edition-joanne-levine-editor/
Water Governance and Management in India Issues and

Perspectives 1st Edition Girish Chadha
https://ebookmeta.com/product/water-governance-and-management-in-
india-issues-and-perspectives-1st-edition-girish-chadha/
Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Conflict (Psychological

Issues) 1st Edition Christopher Christian
https://ebookmeta.com/product/psychoanalytic-perspectives-on-
conflict-psychological-issues-1st-edition-christopher-christian/
Language and Law in Professional Discourse Issues and

Perspectives 1st Edition Vijay K. Bhatia
https://ebookmeta.com/product/language-and-law-in-professional-
discourse-issues-and-perspectives-1st-edition-vijay-k-bhatia/
Utah s Air Quality Issues Problems and Solutions
Crimmel
https://ebookmeta.com/product/utah-s-air-quality-issues-problems-
and-solutions-crimmel/
Temporary and Child Marriages in Iran and Afghanistan:

Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Issues 1st
Edition S. Behnaz Hosseini (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/temporary-and-child-marriages-in-
iran-and-afghanistan-historical-perspectives-and-contemporary-
issues-1st-edition-s-behnaz-hosseini-editor/
Variability in Perspectives on Current Issues in Social

Sciences Warsaw Studies in Philosophy and Social
Sciences Daniel Bešina
https://ebookmeta.com/product/variability-in-perspectives-on-
current-issues-in-social-sciences-warsaw-studies-in-philosophy-
and-social-sciences-daniel-besina/
Quality of Higher Education Organizational and

Educational Perspectives 1st Edition Yihuan Zou
https://ebookmeta.com/product/quality-of-higher-education-
organizational-and-educational-perspectives-1st-edition-yihuan-
zou/
Colonization and Domestic Service Historical and

Contemporary Perspectives 1st Edition Victoria K.
Haskins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/colonization-and-domestic-service-
historical-and-contemporary-perspectives-1st-edition-victoria-k-
haskins/
L. L. R. Rodrigues, A. Hussain, U. S. Aktharsha, G. Nair
Service Quality Measurement
Issues and Perspectives

Copyright © 2013. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.
Anchor Academic Publishing

disseminate knowledge
L. R. Rodrigues, Anisa Hussain, U. Syed Aktharsha, Girish Nair
Service Quality Measurement
Issues and Perspectives
ISBN: 9783954895526
Fabrication: Anchor Academic Publishing, an Imprint of Diplomica® Verlag GmbH,
Hamburg, 2013
All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.
Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von
Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der
Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,
bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung
dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen
der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich
vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des
Urheberrechtes.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in
diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,
dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei
zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können
Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und der Verlag, die Autoren oder
Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl.
verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.
© Diplomica Verlag GmbH
http://www.diplomica-verlag.de, Hamburg 2013
Service Quality Measurement: Issues and Perspectives : Issues and Perspectives, Diplomica Verlag, 2013. ProQuest Ebook
Acknowledgement
My thanks to my co-authors Dr. Girish Nair, Mrs. Anisa Hussain and Dr. Sayed
Aktharsha who have given me timely support in bringing out this book. My thanks are
due to the respondents of the survey on service quality. There are many who have helped
in this venture of bringing out this book and all the names cannot be mentioned due to
limited space but I want them to know that I am grateful to them.
Last but not the least, our sincere thanks to ©Anchor Academic Publishing ein Imprint
der Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, Germany for their excellent printing of our
manuscript in this form.
I am deeply indebted to:
- Dr. Gopalakrishna B., my guide, who was kind enough to take me as a research
scholar and provide me with his invaluable guidance from- start to finish. His
unstinting support and encouragement has enabled me to complete this work.
- All my colleagues who supported me and encouraged me during the course of this
work.
- To all the respondents of this research without whose inputs the work would not have
been possible.
- To all my earlier and contemporary researchers who have given enough arguments to
agree or disagree with the two metrics available today for service quality evaluation.
- Finally, my sincere thanks to my wife Chandrika Raj who has helped me to keep
myself awake late nights with refreshing cups of coffee thus enabling me to complete
this project on time.
Dr. Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues

v
Synopsis
Introduction
Service quality measurement is in the forefront of management literature since the past
few decades, especially post liberalization and globalization. This is because of the
tremendous pressure service providers are facing in the domestic and international market.
This has lead to the development of several instruments to measure service quality and the
two prominent ones are SERVQUAL and SERVPERF.
The use of a particular instrument in a given situation, or to a specific service industry
is not clear and is subjective as well as context based. The research literature has no
significant evidence on whether both the instruments totally differ in their outcomes, or
concur with their each other in some cases. It is in this context this project work has made an
attempt to determine the correlation and relationship between the two metrics.
Problem Statement
The SERVPERF and SERVQUAL are the two Service quality measurement
instruments widely used in the measurement of service quality in various service sectors
such as banking, hospitals, tourism, insurance etc. But the service quality literature indicates
that there exists a significant difference in the philosophy of service quality measurement in
these two metrics, and also, the results while these two metrics are used need not necessarily
match.
According to Parasuraman et al. (1985) the direction of gap between customer

Perception and Expectation as measured by SERVQUAL affects Service quality.
Accordingly, customers will have ‘Perception’ of high service quality to the extent that their
‘Expectation’ is lower than perceived service performance, and if the converse is true they
would perceive low service quality. The second string lead by Cronin & Taylor (1992) argue
that unweighted performance based SERVPERF metric, which takes into consideration only
customer ‘Perception’ as the basis is a better measure of Service quality.
Hence, the problem identified in this project is: do these two metrics concur in their
results, or is there a significant difference in their outcomes as applicable to a given service

sector. The study also extends to the correlation between the outcomes of these two metrics
and looking into the possibility of drawing implications based on the combined outcome.
vi
Research Methodology
The research is partly qualitative and partly quantitative in nature. Qualitative in the sense
that it analyses existing metrics of service quality based on meta-analysis and, through the
use of secondary data, discusses the relative importance of both the metrics in service
sectors. The research becomes quantitative, as it deals with descriptive statistics and tests
various hypotheses using standard statistical tools. Keviat diagrams have been used to
identify the service quality gaps.
Significance of this Research
The results of this project work will add to the body of knowledge of service literature in the
sense that the empirical study has proved that there is a significance difference in the
outcomes of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics. Further, using the combined
outcome of these two metrics and Gap analysis, the implications drawn have identified that
Tangibles and Reliability are the two dimensions which have received higher level of
Service quality satisfaction by the customers and Empathy and Assurance are the
dimensions of least satisfaction. Responsiveness seems to be moderately satisfactory
dimension among the five Service quality dimensions. These implications would help the
service providers to strengthen the weaker dimensions.
Limitations and Scope for future Research
Even though the sample size is adequate in comparison to that of the universe, the study
outcome cannot be generalized as it is based on a focused research in a particular higher
educational institute. So, to generalize the results on a concrete basis several samples may
have to be drawn at national and international level owing to the fact that educational
services today are global in nature. However, as the selection of the respondents and service
providers is such that they are from different parts of the country the results can be
generalized to a considerably high level. The study can be extended at national level, and if
System Dynamics approach is applied, simulation may be possible to study the influence of
each of the Service quality dimensions on the overall service of the sector under
consideration.
vii
Conclusions
The research has clearly indicated that there is a significant difference in the outcomes of
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics. The reliability of the study was 0.8815, which is at
adequately acceptable level. Tangibles and Reliability are highly scored, and Empathy and
Assurance are least scored, whereas, Responsiveness is moderately scored Service quality
dimension. It can be concluded that if meaningful outcome has to be obtained, both these
metrics have to be applied to a service sector and based on the combined inference drawn,
suggestions should be made for quality enhancement.
----- 000 -----

viii
List of Figures
No. Page
2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model (Nordic Model) 10

2.2 The SERVQUAL Model 11
2.3 The SERVPERF Model 11
2.4 The Three-Component Model 12
2.5 The Multilevel Model 13
3.1 Structural Model: Service Quality Dimensions 16
4.1 The Research Framework 22
4.2 The Research Process 32
5.1 Normal Distribution Pattern of Data 35
5.2 Gap Analysis (Electronics Department) 39
5.3 Gap Analysis (Computer Science Department) 43
5.4 Gap Analysis (Mechanical Department) 46
5.5 Gap analysis (Overall) 50
List of Tables
2.1 Chronology of Service Quality Research 6

4.1 Descriptive Information of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Dimensions 26
4.2 Changes to the Standard SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Instrument 29
5.1 Overall Descriptive Statistics 34
5.2 Frequency Classification of Data 35
5.3 Factor Analysis 36
5.4 Mean Score and Rank of Electronics Department (n = 25) 37
5.5 Rank order correlation of Electronics Department 37
5.6 Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) of Electronics Department 38
5.7 Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) of Electronics Department 38
5.8a Paired Sample Correlation & t-test of Electronics Department 39
5.8b Paired Sample t-test of Electronics Department 40

5.9 Mean Score and Rank Computer Science Department 41
5.10 Rank Order Correlation Computer Science Department 41
5.11 Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) Computer Science Department 42
5.12 Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) Computer Science Department 42
ix
5.13 Paired Sample of Computer Science Department 43
5.14 Mean Score and Rank of Mechanical Department 44
5.15 Rank Order Correlation of Mechanical Department 45
5.16 Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) of Mechanical Department 45
5.17 Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) of Mechanical Department 46
5.18 Paired Sample t-test of Mechanical Department 47
5.19 Overall Mean Score and Rank 48
5.20 Overall Rank Order Correlation 48
5.21 Overall Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) 49
5.22 Overall Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) 49
5.23 Overall Paired Sample t-test 51
5.24 One-way ANOVA for Combined Sample 52
6.1 Satisfaction Level Range of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF 54

x

CONTENTS
Pg. No.
Acknowledgement v
Synopsis vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables ix
Contents xi
1. Introduction
1.1 The Background ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1
1.2 The SERVQUAL Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- 2
1.3 The SERVPERF Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- 3
1.4 Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF ----- ----- 3
1.5 The Problem Statement ----- ----- ----- ----- --- 4
1.6 Objectives of Research ----- ----- ----- ----- -- 5
1.7 Significance of this Research ----- ----- ----- ----- 5
2. Literature Review
2.1 Service Quality Research ----- ----- ----- ----- 6

2.2 The Service Quality Models ----- ----- ----- ----- 9
2.2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model ----- ----- ---- 10
2.2.2 The SERVQUAL Model ----- ----- ----- ----- 10
2.2.3 The SERVPERF Model ----- ----- ----- ----- 11
2.2.4 The Three-Component Model ----- ----- ----- 12
2.2.5 The Multilevel Model ----- ----- ----- ----- 12
2.3 Discussion on Service Quality Models ----- ----- --- 13
2.4 Metric Development ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- 15
3. Structural Models, Hypothesis & the Metric
3.1 The Structural Model ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16
3.2 Research Hypothesis ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16
3.3 Metric Preparation ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18

4. Research Methodology
4.1 Nature of Research and the Variables ----- ----- ----- 20
4.2 Research Framework ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 21
4.3 Sample Selection and its Rationale ----- ----- ----- 24
xi
4.4 Development of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Metric ----- 26
4.5 Organizational Profile and Demographics ----- ----- 26
4.6 Reliability, Validity and Practicality ----- ----- ----- 27
4.6.1 Reliability of the Instrument ----- ----- ----- 27
4.6.2 Validity of the Instrument ----- ----- ----- ----- 28
4.7 Practicality of the Instrument ----- ----- ----- ----- 30
4.8 Data Collection Strategies ----- ----- ----- ----- 31
4.9 Statistical Procedures ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 33
4.10 Types of Data Analysis ----- ----- ----- ----- 33
5. Analysis and Results
5.1 Descriptive Statistics ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 34
5.2 Reliability Analysis ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 34
5.3 Distribution Pattern ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 34
5.4 Factor Analysis ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 35
5.5 Comparisons of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF 36
5.5.1 Department-wise Comparison ----- ----- ----- 37
5.5.1.1 Electronics Engineering Department ----- 37
5.5.1.2 Computer Science & Engineering Dept. ----- 40
5.5.1.3 Mechanical Engineering Department ----- 44
5.5.2 Institution-wise Comparison ----- ----- ----- 48
5.5.3 Dimension-wise Comparison ----- ----- ----- 51

6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions

6.1 Findings ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 53
6.2 Implications ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54
6.3 Scope for future work ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 56
6.4 Conclusions ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 56
References ----- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- 59
Appendices
I Reliability of the Instruments ----- ----- ----- ----- 64
II SERVQUAL Multi-dimensional Scale ----- ----- ---- 65
III Service Quality Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- --- 68
xii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Background
Since the 90s service sectors have taken more stringent measures to enhance their
performance and effectiveness in search of achieving ‘differentiation’ in the market. Quality
consciousness is further enhanced by the Globalization and Liberalization due to fierce
competition. As the quality consciousness among the service sectors increased, the need to
measure the quality of service also increased and this prompted for the development of
metrics for the measurement of service quality. There have been several attempts made by a
group of researchers who have systematically identified the variables that quantify the
service quality among which the two most popular metrics are SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF.
Among the two popular metrics mentioned above, SERVQUAL is more popular and
has a wide application in service quality measurement and has number of applications in a
variety of settings. In service quality measurement, Health care applications are numerous
(Babakus and Mangold, 1992; Bebko and Garg, 1995; Bowers et al., 1994; Headley and
Miller, 1993; Licata et al., 1995; Lytle and Mokwa, 1992; O’Connor et al., 1994;
Reidenbach and Sandifer-Smallwood, 1990; Woodside et al., 1989). Other settings include a
dental school patient clinic, a business school placement center, a tire store, and acute care
hospital (Carman, 1990); independent dental offices (McAlexander et al., 1994); at AIDS
service agencies (Fusilier and Simpson, 1995); with physicians (Brown and Swartz , 1989;
Walbridge and Delene, 1993); in large retail chains such as: kMart, WalMart, and Target
(Teas, 1993); in General Insurance sectors (Gopalakrishna, Varambally and Rodrigues,
2007), and banking, pest control, dry cleaning, and fast-food restaurants (Cronin and Taylor,
1992).
Cronin and Taylor (1992) found that their measure of service performance
(SERVPERF) produced better results than SERVQUAL. SERVPERF instrument has also
many applications in diversified areas. There are several studies to compare the two
instruments and discuss on which one of the two measures Service quality in the true sense.
In the light of this background this research is carried out to seek relationship between the
two most popular metrics of Service Quality measurement.
1
1.2. The SERVQUAL Metric
Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1990) developed SERVQUAL, which was originally
measured on 10 aspects of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access,
courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding or knowing the customer, and
tangibles. It measured the gap between customer expectations and experience. By the early
nineties the authors had refined the model to the useful acronym RATER:
1. Reliability - ability to perform the promised service accurately and dependably.
2. Assurance - knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust
and confidence.
3. Tangibles – physical facilities, equipment, and the appearance of personnel.
4. Empathy - caring and individualized attention to customers.
5. Responsiveness - willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service.
The SERVQUAL instrument consists of a 22-items for assessing service quality based on
customer’s perceptions, which is, by his turn, the difference between the customer’s
perceived quality and customer expectation. The perceived quality is assessed based on
service quality dimensions that correspond to the criteria used by consumers when assessing
service quality. There are 10 potentially overlapping dimensions: tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, communication, credibility, assurance, competence, courtesy,
understanding/knowing the customer, and access. A more detailed description of those
dimensions can be found in Zeithan et al. (1990). Afterwards, these dimensions were
reduced to five, namely: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. Using
those 10 or 5 dimensions as the evaluation criteria the specification of service quality
becomes the gap between customers’ Expectations and their Perceptions (Parasuraman et al,
1985). This performance-expectation model was also adopted by other authors (e.g. Brown
and Swartz, 1989).
The SERVQUAL has its detractors and is considered overly complex, subjective and
statistically unreliable. The simplified RATER model however is a simple and useful model
for qualitatively exploring and assessing customers' service experiences and has been used
widely by service delivery organizations. It is an efficient model in helping an organization
shape up their efforts in bridging the gap between ‘perceived’ and ‘expected’ service.
Nyeck, Morales, Ladhari, and Pons (2002) stated the SERVQUAL measuring tool, “remains
the most complete attempt to conceptualize and measure service quality” (p. 101). The main
benefit to the SERVQUAL measuring tool is the ability of researchers to examine numerous
service industries such as healthcare, banking, financial services, and education (Nyeck,
Morales, Ladhari, & Pons, 2002). The fact that SERVQUAL has critics does not render the
2
measuring tool moot. Rather, the criticism received concerning SERVQUAL measuring tool
may have more to do with how researchers use the tool. Nyeck, Morales, Ladhari, and Pons
(2002) reviewed 40 articles that made use of the SERVQUAL measuring tool and
discovered that “few researchers concern themselves with the validation of the measuring
tool” (p. 106).
According to SERVQUAL model,
Service quality = Perception - Expectation
1.3. The SERVPERF Metric
Cronin and Taylor (1992) had re-examined and extended the SERVQUAL model with a
more focused approach on the conceptualization of the model SERVPERF. This model is
basically ‘Perception’ part of SERVQUAL model, which measures Service quality in terms
of perceptions of customers based on the performance of service providers.
Hence,
Service quality = Perception
1.4. Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF

Francis Buttle (1996) critiques SERVQUAL in the article "SERVQUAL: review, critique,
research agenda" on a number of theoretical and operational bases. He particularly notes that
SERVQUAL's five dimensions (Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and
Responsiveness) are not universals, and that the model fails to draw on established
economic, statistical and psychological theory. Although SERVQUAL's face and construct
validity are in doubt, it is widely used in published and modified forms to measure customer
expectations and perceptions of service quality.
Lages and Fernandes (2005) in the article "The SERPVAL (Service Personal Values)
scale: A multi-item instrument for measuring service personal values" suggests that
consumer final decisions are taken at a higher-level of abstraction. Similarly to the
SERVQUAL scale, the SERPVAL scale is also multi-dimensional. It presents three
dimensions of service value to peaceful life, social recognition, and social integration. All
three SERPVAL dimensions are associated with consumer satisfaction. While service value
to social integration is related only with loyalty, service value to peaceful life is associated
with both loyalty and repurchase intent.

Brown, Churchill and Peter (1993) had expressed their primary focus of critique on
the difference score (i.e. perception minus expectation) with psychometric concerns about
conceptualization. They come to a general agreement that the SERVQUAL 22 items are
reasonably good predictors of service quality in its wholeness, however, they observe that
3
careful scrutiny of the 22 items by and large deal with the element of human interaction
intervention in the service delivery.
Sureshchandar et al., (2001), comment in general on both SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF instruments and claim that these metrics have overlooked some other important
factors of service quality like core service, systematization, standardization of service
delivery (the non-human element), and the social responsibility of the service organization.
1.5. The Problem Statement

SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics are widely in use for the measurement of
Service quality, but it is not clear whether their results match. There are a group of
researchers who argue that the measure of Service quality is through ‘Perception minus
Expectation’, as used in SERVQUAL but another group of researchers consider only
‘Perception’ as the measure. The main problem identified in this research is to carry out an
empirical investigation on whether the two metrics concur in their measurement or they
differ significantly. The problem statement gives rise to the following research questions:
1. Do both the metrics i.e. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF produce the same outcome
while measuring the service quality w.r.t. the five dimensions: Reliability,
Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness?
2. Is there a significant difference in the results obtained by SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF?
3. If they differ in their measurement, are there some dimensions in which they agree or
do they differ w.r.t. all the five dimensions?
4. Can the inferences be drawn based on the interpretation of the results on combined
evaluation of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF?
4
1.6. Objectives of the research
With the above problem statement, it is clear that the cardinal objective of this research
is to study whether the SERVPERF and SERVQUAL metrics concur in their outcome of
service quality measurement, or if there is a significance difference in their outcomes.
Following sub-objectives have been formulated to accomplish this main objective:
1. Prepare a SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metric for the measurement of service
quality in a chosen service organization.
2. Validate the metric for use in the chosen service sector.
3. Apply the metric to collect data for Service quality measurement.
4. Build hypothesis to test if there is a significant difference in the measurement of
service quality as measured by the two metrics and analyze the same.
5. Identify the dimensions, if any, w.r.t. which the two instruments concur and
attempt to find reasons for the difference.
6. Identify weaker dimensions of service quality and make suggestions to improve
the same.
1.7. Significance of this Research
The service quality literature is shrouded in mystery regarding which instrument to be
used for measurement of service quality, as there are a number of models which describe
service quality. The choice of a particular model to a great extent is subjective as the
researcher chooses a model which he feels covers most of the measurable parameters. A
good number of researchers have applied the available metrics and empirically evaluated the
quality of service in various organizations. There are also a sizable number of articles
available on criticizing the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics, which are popularly used
by service quality researchers. This research throws light on, do these two instruments
concur in their results or significantly differ in their results. Hence, the outcome of this
research adds to the body of knowledge of service literature. Education sector is considered
to be one of the largest service organization post liberalization, and as these two metrics are
tested in an educational set-up, the outcomes of this research not only identify the pitfalls but
also make suggestions to improve upon the same.
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Service quality literature is rich in models, hypotheses and criticisms owing to the fact that
active research has been in progress since the past two decades. The chronological order of
Service quality research has been tabulated in the beginning and the focus of this chapter is
on the review of various models proposed to measure service quality and discussions on the
two models viz., SERVQUAL and SERVPERF.
2.1. Service Quality Research
The literature review indicates that Service quality research is in the forefront of many
countries owing to the fact that today’s global economy is basically a service economy. It is
to be noted that almost all the organizations compete to some degree on the basis of service
and it is difficult to name even one industry for which service matters are unimportant
(Zeithmal et al., 1990). A lot of research is in progress round the globe on issues of Service
quality enhancement in service industries to name a few: banking, health-care,
transportation, hospitality, hospitals, health care, insurance, education, and tourism. The
chronological order of some significant research and the outcome has been listed in Table
2.1.
Table 2.1: Chronology of Service quality research
Year Researchers Research Outcome
Anderson, Eugene. W., Cox,E. Recognized importance of selection as priority for obtaining
1976
P. and Fulcher D. G. and retaining customers
Churchill, Gilbert A. and Carol

1982 Service satisfaction is similar to attitude.
Suprenant
Significance of processes and outcomes in defining service

1982 Gronroos Christian
quality
Alluded to satisfaction as being similar to attitude
Noted significance of processes and outcomes in defining
service quality
Difference in service quality and attitude is seen as general,
1983 comprehensive appraisal of some specific product or
Lewis and Booms
service.
Contd.
1984 Gonroos Quality is a function of expectations, outcome and image
1985 Holbrook and Corfman Defined perceived quality as a global value judgment
Viewed service quality as the extent to which a product offers

1985 Maynes, E. S.
the characteristics that individual desires.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Established ten service quality determinants known as

1985 SERVQUAL (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,
Valarie and Berry Leonard L.
communication, credibility, security, competence, courtesy,
6
understanding / knowing the customer, and access).
Q=P-E
After substantial factor analysis and testing, reduced the 10

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.
1988 service quality determinates in SERVQUAL to five (tangibles,
and Berry, L
responsiveness, reliability, assurance, and empathy.
Noted that firms not only have a difficult time delivering a

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, A and consistent level of quality service, but also had difficulty
1988
Leonard L. Berry understanding what service quality really entails.
Perceived service quality as an attitude
Found through focus groups that good service quality as
meeting customer expectations
Babakus, E. and Mangold, Developed serious reservations about SERVQUAL’s scales:
1989
G.W reliability and discriminant validity
Noted research yielded service quality as being similar to

1990 Bitner, Mary Jo
attitude
1991 Bolton and Drew Introduced the concept of value in quality assessment.
Cronin J. Joseph and Steven A Found that perceptions of service quality more closely
1992
Taylor approach customer evaluations of services provided.
Noted customer preferences of service quality based upon

1992 Howcroft Barry comparison between expectations and actual service
performance.
1993 Teas Kenneth R Found interpretation of SERVQUAL expectations was flawed.
Brown Tom J., Churchill Jr., Questioned whether five key dimensions capture all possible
1993
Gilbert A., and Peter J Paul determinants of service quality.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Disagreed with Brown, et al

1993 Valarie A. and Berry Leonard
Research supports disconfirmation as valid since it allows
L service providers to establish gaps in provided service.
Found fault with SERVQUAL and developed SERVPERF
1994 Cronin, J. Joseph., Taylor, S.A. based upon consumer satisfaction
Exerts stronger influence on purchase intentions than does
service quality
Used multi-item measures to ascertain overall service quality
Dabholkar P, Thorpe D.I and
with factors as antecedents.
Rentz J.O
1996
Spreng and Mackoy
Contd.
7
Questioned face validity and construct validity of
1996 Buttle Francis
SERVQUAL.
Chong Chee-Leong, Lee, J. & Studied the dynamic behaviour of SERVQUAL / SERVPERF
1999
Tan dimensions and studied the model behaviours
2000 Dabholkar Pratibha A, C.

Found that perceptions and measured disconfirmation are more
David Shepherd, and Dayle I.
advantageous than computed disconfirmation.
Thorpe
2000 Devised measurement system modifying SERVQUAL to

Bahia Kamilia and Jacques
examine specific service context on a 6-dimension scale
Nantel
called BSQ.
Researchers admitted BSQ had limitations.
Beckett, Antony, Paul Hewer, Developed consumer behaviour matrix to determine impact of
2000
and Barry Howcroft electronic-based delivery systems on service / service quality
Used integrated conjoint experiments to measure perceived

Oppewal, Harmen, and Marco
2000 level of service quality to avoid measurement pitfalls of
Vriens
SERVQUAL
Acknowledged acceptance of SERVQUAL, but questioned

2001 Newman Karin
composition of sample and insensitivity to customer
Sureshchandar, G.S., Emphasized on Core services, Systemization of service

2001 Rajendran, C., and Delivery, and Social responsibility dimensions to SERVQUAL
Kamalanabhan, scale factors.
Studied the effect of critical factors on quality erosion in

2001 Oliva Roggelio
service quality by using System Dynamics
Technology has had a remarkable influence on the growth of

2002 Dabholkar and Bagozzi service delivery option and profound effect on service
marketing.
Proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the inter-

linkages among service quality and the various components of
2002 Parasuraman, A the company-customer perspective of productivity, and
discusses the implications of the framework for service
executives and researchers.
Development in information and communication technology

have provided a platform by which companies can design,
2003 Surjadjaja et al.
develop and deliver services that can be perceived by
customers as superior .
Devised measurement system to measure Service Quality in

2004 Jayawardhena Chanaka Internet banking using the dimensions - Access, Web Interface,
Trust, Attention, and Credibility
Used Quality function deployment on paired SERVQUAL

dimensions using 15 variables to enhance service quality in
Engineering education
2005 Rodrigues Lewlyn L.R.
Contd.
Identified five service quality factors: technical, functional,

2006 Peter Schofield, Nicole Katics environmental, technological convenience and technological
product dimensions, which supports the Northern European
service quality model with the addition of technological
8
dimensions.
Generalization of quality dimensions is not possible among all

Nimit Chowdhary, Monika
2007 types of services taken together, however important insights
Prakash
were available pertaining to each service type.
Observed several inconsistencies in previous research when it

comes to the relationship between quality management and
2008 Asa Ronnback, Lars Witell business performance when comparing manufacturing and
service organizations
Deduced through empirical investigation that there is a

Rodrigues, Gopalakrishna & significance difference in Service quality and Customer
2009
Varambally satisfaction perceptions. Their study revealed that Service
quality alone does not lead to Customer satisfaction.
Hence, there is a clear evidence that Service quality research is a potential area of research
and there has been enough work undertaken so far and the research is still in progress. The
above chronological research also indicates that there have been different approaches to
Service quality and several tools are available to measure Service quality. There is also a
diversified view on measurement issues and there exists evidence to prove that
generalization of quality dimensions is not possible and inconsistencies exist when it comes
to the relationship between quality management and business performance. The focus of this
research is to test whether a significance difference exists in the measurement of service
quality when the two basic models namely SERVQUAL and SERVPERF are used. Hence,
following key models have been chosen for discussion from the chronological outcomes of
service quality research.
2.2. The Service Quality Models
Even though the Service quality research is flooded with models, the focus of this
chapter is to discuss the most relevant models which significantly influence service quality
and contributes to the parameters of this research. The chosen models have been discussed in
the following sections.
9
2.2.1. Gronroos' Service Quality Model
One of the oldest models in service quality measurement is the model developed by
Gronroos developed in 1984. According to this model, the customer's perception of service
has two components:
1. Technical quality - What the consumer receives, i.e., the technical outcome of the
process
2. Functional quality - How the consumer receives the technical outcome; or
"expressive performance of a service"
Functional quality is generally perceived to be more important than technical quality
according to Gronroos assuming. The Technical quality and Functional quality lead to
Expected service and perceived service as shown in Fig. 2.1.
Expected Perceived Service Perceived

Service Quality Service
Technical Quality
Technical Functional
Quality Quality
What? How?
Figure 2.1: Gronroos' Service Quality Model (Nordic Model)

(Source: Gronroos, 1984)
2.2.2. SERVQUAL Model

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry developed the SERVQUAL model in the 1988. Service
quality results from a comparison of perceived with expected performance (Fig. 2.2) and is
based on the disconfirmation paradigm, which creeps in from the discrepancies between
prior expectation and actual performance.
10
1. Reliability
Perceived
Service
2. Responsiveness
Service Quality
3. Empathy
Expected
4. Assurance Service
5. Tangibles
Figure 2.2: The SERVQUAL Model

(Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1988)
The ‘Perception’ of service by the customer is based on the ‘Performance’ level of

Service quality. Parasuraman et al.’s (1985; 1988) basic model was that consumer
perceptions of quality emerge from the gap between performance and expectations, as
performance exceeds expectations, quality increases; and as performance decreases relative
to expectations, quality decreases (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988). Thus, performance-to-
expectations “gaps” on attributes that consumers use to evaluate the quality of a service form
the theoretical foundation of SERVQUAL.
2.2.3. The SERVPERF Model

Cronin and Taylor (1992) proposed that perceptions of performance are the only criteria
to measure & define Service quality and brought out SERVPERF model (Fig. 2.3).
1. Reliability
2. Responsiveness
Perceived
3. Empathy Perceived Service
Service Quality
4. Assurance
5. Tangibles
Figure 2.3: The SERVPERF Model

(Source: Cronin & Taylor, 1992)
11
2.2.4. The Three-Component Model
Rust and Oliver (1994) suggested that Service quality is a function of three components viz.,
Service Product, Service Delivery and Service Environment (Fig. 2.4). The service product
is the outcome and the consumer’s perception of the service. The service delivery is the
consumption process and any relevant events that occur during the service act. The service
environment is the internal and external atmosphere. The service environment is important
because it is viewed as an integral role in consumer service perception development (Bitner,
1992).
Service
Quality
Service Service Service
Product Delivery Environment
Figure 2.4: The Three-Component Model

(Source: Rust and Oliver, 1994)
2.2.5. The Multilevel Model

Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) developed a model which suggests that Service quality
follows hierarchical conceptualization (Fig. 2.5) and it follows three levels viz.,
1. Customer’s overall perceptions of Service quality
2. Primary dimensions
3. Sub – dimensions.
12
Overall Perception of
Service Quality
Primary Problem Physical Reliability Policy Personnel

Dimensions solving aspects Interaction
Sub- Appearance Promises Inspiring

dimensions confidence
Convenience Doing it right

Courteous
& Helpful
Figure 2.5: The Multilevel Model

(Source: Brady and Cronin, 2001)
2.3. Discussion on Service Quality Models

Adoption of a particular Service quality model into a situation is to a great extent subjective
as each of the above models given in the preceding sections defines service quality in its
own set of parameters. Zhao et al., (2002) state that Service quality is difficult to measure
objectively, since services have been described as intangible, heterogeneous and inseparable.
So, a group of researchers started working on the comparison of the results obtained by these
models. Based on the results they obtained, researchers also started identifying new
dimensions, which were not accounted for in a particular model. So, there has been a wealth
of knowledge based on the research of service quality literature.
Churchill and Suprenant (1982) established the fact that Service quality was an attitude.
Gronroos (1982) brought out another model by emphasizing the significance of processes
and outcomes in defining Service quality. In this Nordic model, Gronroos proposed the
concept of Expected service and Perceived service as a measure of service quality. Holbrook
and Corfman (1985) expanded on the concept of an act being performed and defined
perceived quality as a global value judgment and they indicated that quality does by its
nature seem to express general approval. They brought out three specific dimensions of
quality viz., implicit features, humanistic features, and operational features in nature.
Further, Maynes (1985) quantified service quality by placing a number on the level of
satisfaction.
13
The literature review on Service quality indicates that SERVQUAL metric dominates the
literature and is most widely used (Lai et al., 2007), and has been widely tested for its
validity and reliability (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Bolton and Drew, 1991; Brown and
Swartz, 1989; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994). Although some of these
studies failed to support the five dimensional factor structure, Parasuraman et al. (1994)
defended the framework on conceptual and practical grounds. Further, Researchers have
criticized the SERVQUAL scale for its use of gap scores, measurement of expectations,
positively and negatively worded items, the generalizability of its dimensions, and the
defining of a baseline standard for good quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Brown et al.,
1993; Oliver, 1993).
Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) suggested that service quality be measured using a
performance-only index (SERVPERF) instead of the gap-based SERVQUAL scale. They
reported that the use of the SERVPERF scale containing only performance items explained
more of the variation in service quality than did the entire 44-item SERVQUAL instrument.
The SERVPERF instrument contained 21 of the original SERVQUAL performance items.
Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that SERVQUAL confounds satisfaction and attitude.
They stated that service quality can be conceptualized as “similar to an attitude”, and can be
operationalized by the “adequacy-importance” model. In particular, they maintained that
“performance” instead of “performance – expectation” determines service quality and that
developed an alternative measurement tool, SERVPERF, which concerns only performance.
In their empirical study, SERVQUAL appeared to have a good fit in only two of the four
industries examined, whereas SERVPERF had an excellent fit in all four industries. A
similar result was obtained from regression analyses.
Cronin and Taylor (1994) argue that SERVQUAL:
1. does not measure either Customer satisfaction or Service quality instead it “appears
at best an operationalization of only one of the many forms of expectancy
disconfirmation”.
2. does not exhibit construct validity.
3. does not ensure that the dependant measure is performance based.
4. has little empirical and conceptual research support.

On the above grounds they opine that SERVPERF can provide reliable, valid and useful tool
for measuring overall service quality levels or attitudes. A group of researchers including
Churchill et al. (1993), Carman (1990), Babacus ad Boller (1992) support this argument.
14
Hence, in consideration of the above discussions it can be very clearly concluded that both
of these two instruments (SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) are is use across service quality
literature and their relative importance is an issue of analysis.
2.4. Metric Development

The SRVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics have Service quality perception influenced by the
five dimensions viz. Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness as
per the literature review. The metric used in this research consisted of 22 variables which
measured the five dimensions just mentioned (Parasuraman et al., 1988). As the instrument
was basically developed for a general service sector, it was to be modified to suit to the
requirements of Higher Education settings. The details of the instrument development is
given in Chapter 4: Research Methodology.
15
3. STRUCTURAL MODELS, HYPOTHESIS & THE METRIC
3.1. Structural Model: Difference in SERVQUAL and SERVPERF based
measurement of Service quality
In the Structural Model (Fig. 3.1) it is proposed that the Service quality of the
organization is measured using five dimensions.
Reliability
Empathy
ServiceQuality
Assuranc Responsiveness
Tangibility
Fig. 3.1: Structural Model: Service Quality Dimensions
The structural model provides the following aim to this research work:
Aim: To estimate the relationship between the Service quality perception, as measured
using SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics.
In other words, the Aim is to test the structural model, which leads to the formation of the
following hypothesis.
3.2. Research Hypothesis
The purpose of the research hypothesis is to test whether the two instruments under study
(SERVQUAL & SERVPERF) produce the same outcome while used for the measurement
of Service quality, or is there a significant difference in their outcomes. The hypothesis is
tested at two levels viz., Department level and then Institutional level (Overall). There are
again three classes at the department level, and hence, the following main and sub-
hypotheses have been formulated.
16
Main Hypothesis:
Research Hypothesis H1a:
“There is a significant difference in Service quality measurement, as measured by

SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics.”
Null Hypothesis H1o:
“There is no significant difference in Service quality measurement, as measured by

SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics.”
Sub-hypotheses:
Research Hypothesis H1a-1:
“There is a significant difference in Service quality measurement department wise, as

measured by SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics.”
Null Hypothesis H1o-1:
“There is no significant difference in Service quality measurement department wise, as

Research Hypothesis H1a-2:
“There is a significant difference in Service quality measurement institute wise, as measured

by SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics.”
Null Hypothesis H1o-2:
“There is no significant difference in Service quality measurement institute wise, as

17
Research Hypothesis H2a:
“There is a significant difference in individual Service quality dimension measurement, as

Null Hypothesis H2o:
“There is no significant difference in individual Service quality measurement, as measured

by SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics.”
3.3. Metric Preparation
The metric used in this research for the collection of quantitative data is a self-administered
questionnaire. The reason for choosing this instrument is that it is a relatively systematic and
standardized method of collecting data, which lays emphasis on measurement and
conversion of data from qualitative to quantitative form. Further, it is evolved from studying
sampling population to probability sampling and provides means for simple counting to
statistical description and inferential analysis. Finally, this method is considered to be
economical and convenient for this kind of research.
The questionnaire has been designed to measure Service quality as defined by

SERVQUAL and SERVPERF instruments. They obtain the answers to the research
questions and provide the necessary data to test hypothesis.
Though the literature review and interviews with the teaching faculties of various
institutes identified several issues related to quality of service in educational institutes, only
those areas specific to this research were selectively chosen to modify the
SERVQUAL/SERVPERF metric, so as to fit into educational sector. The problem areas
were categorized, simplified and redundancy was eliminated to develop a set of questions
for the research questionnaire. Further, while developing the questionnaire the following
points were taken into consideration:
x Are the categories of respondents competent enough to provide the necessary

information?
x Do the chosen items of each questionnaire truly measure the dimension to which
they correspond?
Questions were frames to be uniformly understood by all respondents belonging to
different disciplines of engineering. A pilot study was conducted for about 25 students and
was reviewed for problems with bias and it was confirmed that no particular question caused
18
any problem of understanding. Simple language was used throughout the questionnaire and
all possible ambiguity was eliminated. Moreover, it was ensured that all the questions were
effective in obtaining information relevant to hypothesis testing in all the cases. The
questionnaire was also subjected to Construct, Content and Criterion validity which has been
explained in chapter 4: Research Methodology.
19
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the research methods and the methodology adopted in this research.
The validation and factor analysis of the instrument used to collect data has been explained.
The chapter also outlines the research framework. The nature of research and the variables
involved therein are highlighted in the beginning of this chapter. The methods used in this
research are listed. Identification and rationale for the sample selection has been given.
Organizational profile and respondents’ profile have also been given. The systematic
procedure for performing reliability, validity and practicality test has been described. The
best practices incorporated in developing the questionnaire, data collection strategies,
statistical procedures, data analysis and limitations of these methods are discussed. Finally,
methodological limitations have been discussed and the methods adopted to minimize the
same have been listed.
4.1 Nature of Research and the Variables
This is basically a correlational type of research, from the study results of which, inferences
are drawn and implications are made. The following dependent variables are the focal areas
of research interest:
Service quality in this research is considered to be an independent variable and the

dependent variables are: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy and Responsiveness.
Thus,
Service quality = f (Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy and Responsiveness).
This research focuses on the service quality offered in a higher educational institution, to be
more specific an engineering institute. Hence, the service providers are the Management,
Faculty, Support staff, and all those who contribute to the overall development of students.
The service receivers are mainly the students. Even though the engineering college has a
higher goal to be accomplished which includes contributing to the national GDP by
enriching the knowledge, skill and attitude of prospective engineers, in the context of this
research it is limited to providing service to the future engineers. Hence, the primary source
of data is the engineering students. The secondary source of data include teaching and non-
teaching faculty, journals, periodicals, newspapers and the response from all the
stakeholders of engineering institutes. The primary source of data is used for quantitative
analysis and the secondary source for the qualitative analysis.
20
The method used in this research goes in line with Kerlinger’s (1977) procedure:
‘…the theory and method of analyzing quantitative data obtained from samples of
observations in order to study and compare sources of variance of phenomena, to help make
decisions to accept or reject hypothesized relations between the phenomena, and to aid in
making reliable inferences from empirical observations’.
The type of research is partially quantitative and to some extent qualitative. It is

quantitative in the sense of being correlational and testing of hypothesis. It attempts to
determine whether there exists a significant relationship between two independent variable.
This refers to the hypothesis testing (formulated in chapter 3), undertaken in this research. It
is qualitative in the sense that it involves the collection of secondary data, which is
qualitative in nature, in the form of suggestions and implications, to enhance performance
and quality of engineering education.
The data collection is through stratified random sampling method. The data, which is
basically qualitative in nature, is converted into quantitative form through Likert type 5-
point scale. It is then processed using statistical packages Excel and SPSS version 10.0. The
results obtained through analysis are used to test various hypotheses. The gap analysis is
undertaken to compare the inter-department Service quality.
4.2 Research Framework
The entire project was carried out in the standard Research Framework shown in
Figure 4.1. The following were the various phases involved in the project work.
Phase I: Problem Statement

In this phase of the project the research question was very clearly stated. The problem
identified in this research was the concurrence issue of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
metrics. It was decided to seek whether both these metrics produced the same outcome when
applied to a Service quality measurement situation or they differed in their perception
evaluation (Chapter 1).
21
Phases
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SERVICE
I Problem Statement QUALITY METRICS
II Purpose & Objectives Research Questions
III Literature Review - Review of

Concepts and Theories Contemporary Research
Research Background
IV Hypothesis Formulation
Research Design
Research Methodology
V
Data Collection
Execution
Statistical Analysis & Testing of Hypotheses

VI
Analysis & Results

Results, Findings, & Implications
Conclusion
VII
Conclusion
Figure 4.1: The Research Framework
Phase II: Purpose and Objectives

In this phase of the project the research question was very clearly stated. The problem
identified in this research was the concurrence issue of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
metrics. It was decided to seek whether both these metrics produced the same outcome when
applied to a Service quality measurement situation, or they differed in their perception
evaluation. Based on this understanding the objectives were defined (Chapter 1).
22
Phase III: Research Background
This phase basically involved the Literature Review of the Concepts and Theories
underlying Service Quality and the study of Contemporary Research. Through literature
review it was clear that the Service quality literature had different theories and metrics to
measure the standard of Service quality. The contemporary research was focussed on mainly
two instruments i.e. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. Discussion on each of the model,
criticism of the two instruments lead to the development of metric customized for Service
quality measurement in Higher education (Chapter 2).
Phase IV: Research Design

In this phase of project the procedure, techniques, and tools & techniques to be used were
decided. This being an empirical study it was decided to formulate hypotheses to answer the
fundamental research question related to concurrence of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. The
types of data to be collected, sample size, instrument to be used, and methods of data
collection was decided. The hypothesis testing was to be through the application of
Statistical tools such as t-test and ANOVA. Software to be used was also decided and
Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS Ver. 10 were chosen based on their versatility and wide
application (Chapter 4).
Phase V: Execution
In this phase of the project, the tools and techniques chosen for research were deployed. The
two important parts of this phase were collection of Primary Data and application of
Statistical tools. An Engineering college was chosen to be the source of primary data and
three prominent departments which were well established were selected to be the three
models for cross comparison. The students were randomly picked during their free timings
and the data was collected. The SPSS was used to test the reliability and type of distribution
of data. Accordingly, t-test and ANOVA were applied to test the hypotheses.
Phase VI: Analysis & Results

The concept of Meta-analysis was adopted for the processing of Secondary data. The
procedure involved screening of the available data from Journals, Books, Encyclopaedia,
Periodicals, Conference proceedings, and Dissertations and collecting the most relevant ones
for this study. They key features from these literature were recorded in the chronological
order and the findings were listed and contradictions were noted down. This gave insight
into the fact that SERVQUAL and SERVPERF had concurrence issues and both the metrics
had context based applications. So, the Primary data was to be collected and the analysis was
through empirical investigation and statistical procedures. This lead to the selection,
23
modification, validation, application and analysis of the data thus collected. The results thus
obtained were analysed department-wise and on the overall basis, and inferences were drawn
to accept or reject null hypotheses. Implications were drawn based on these analyses
(Chapter 5).
Phase VII: Conclusion

Various conclusions were drawn with reference to Reliability of the study, Distribution
pattern, Descriptive statistics, Factor analysis, Rank order correlation, Hypotheses testing,
Inter variable correlation, Gap analysis, Implications and suggestions (Chapter 6).
4.3 Sample Selection and its Rationale
The main purpose of this research is to compare the two Service quality metrics
(SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) make suggestions for the enhancement of service quality in
engineering education. The rationale for selecting the engineering institutes which is an
affiliated college of a university is that it typically has most of the characteristics and
features of a premier private college ranked among the top ten.
The Sampling Design: Random sampling constitutes the sampling design in the data
collection. Convenience sampling is adopted as the method owing to the fact that data from
students is freely available. A random sample of final and pre-final year students constituted
the strata.
Sample Size (N): The universe of the study is finite with 360 students in three Engineering
disciplines viz., Mechanical, Electrical Electronics and Computer Science. The sampling
unit is a private engineering college which is a constituent of a Deemed University.
The approach of specifying the precision of estimation desired first, and then
determining the sample size necessary to ensure it (Kothari, 2000) is adopted, according to
which, the sample size necessary is 124 (eqn. 1).
N = ( z2 . p. q. NU ) / (e2 (NU – 1) + z2 . p . q ) ------------------------------ (1)
where,
p = Proportion of defectives in the universe (Based on the pilot study, a 2% defect is

assumed).
q = (1 – p ).
z = 1.96 ( as per table of scores in a normal distribution within a selected range of z
for a
confidence level of 95%).
24
e = Acceptable Error (an error of 2% of the true value is assumed).
NU = Size of Universe.
Again, the optimum size of the sample in management/social research is based on the nature
of the empirical study, time and resources available, and various other considerations such as
size of questionnaire, size of universe, nature of classes proposed etc. In practice, the
complexity of the competing factors of resources and accuracy means that the decision
regarding a sample size tends to be based on experience and good judgment, rather than
relying on a strict mathematical formula (Hoinville et. al. 1978). Also the use of surveys in
social research does not necessarily have to involve samples of 1000 or 2000 people or
events. Instead, research involving a number between 30 and 250 cases is adequate
(Denscombe, 1999). In this research, the sample size selected is 184 for the combined
sample based on the above formula. In comparison to similar research the number is
adequate (Credit card customers n = 187, Long distance telephone customers n = 184, Bank
customers n = 177, Zeithmal et al., 1990).
The Instrument: The instrument used in this research are self-administered questionnaire.
The reason for choosing this instrument is that it is a relatively systematic and standardized
method of collecting data, which lays emphasis on measurement and conversion of data
from qualitative to quantitative form. Moreover, the objective of the research was to
compare the results of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF to check whether they concur and
hence the metric in the form of questionnaire has been used for data collection. Finally,
questionnaire method is considered to be economical and convenient for this kind of
research.
The questionnaires have been designed to study the perceptions of the respondents on
Service quality. They obtain the answers to the research questions and provide the necessary
data to test various hypotheses.
The research has made use of the standard SERVQUAL/SERVPERF questionnaire. It

used a five-point Likert-type scale, measuring the degree to which the respondents believed
the statements in the questionnaire to be true, the highest being ‘True to a very great extent’
and the least being ‘True to almost no extent’. The delivery was on a personal mode to the
students, and on a collective mode to the students in the randomly chosen classrooms in the
three major disciples of engineering viz., Mechanical, Electronics and Computer Science
Engineering.
25
4.4 Development of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Metric
Service quality models SERVQUAL and SERVPERF basically differ in their philosophy of
defining Service quality. According to SERVPERF, Service quality is based on the
Perceived service quality which is defined to be the difference between ‘Perceived service’
and ‘Expected service’ (Parasuraman et al., 1991) and in SERVPERF model Service quality
is simply based on the Perceived service quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Both make use
of five dimensions of service quality namely, Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy,
and Responsiveness (Appendix I). The original metrics have been modified to suit the
requirements of higher educational service providing requirements (Appendix II). The
descriptive information of the dimensions and the sample items is given in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Descriptive Information of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Dimensions
Dimension Description Sample Item
Ability to perform the promised service The department

1. Reliability accurately and dependably. insists on error-free
records.
Knowledge and courtesy of employees The behaviour of
2. Assurance and their ability to convey trust and the faculty instils
confidence. confidence in you.
The department has
Physical facilities, equipment, and the
3. Tangibility modern and state of
appearance of personnel
the art laboratories.
The faculty has your
Caring and individualized attention to
4. Empathy best interests at
customers
heart.
The department is
Willingness to help customers and to
5. Responsiveness known for its
provide prompt service
prompt service.
4.5 Organizational Profile and Demographics

The engineering institute selected for the primary data collection of this research is one of
the top notch institutes among the private ownership at the national level. The institute is a
self-financed college which has completed five decades of fruitful contribution in producing
engineers spread across the world and is affiliated to a UGC approved university. It has
sixteen under graduate and twenty post graduate courses and Ph.D. in all the departments.
The institute has over 450 teaching and 350 non-teaching faculty and about 5000 students.
The institute is very well connected through railway, airport and bus facility. Separate
hostels are available for boys and girls and a number of messes and food courts are available
to meet the food preference of students. Mutli-gym, playgrounds, swimming pools, indoor
26
and outdoor game facilities and other related amenities are also provided to cater to the
overall development of students. The institute has a very well equipped library in the
.
country operating in over 70,000 sq. ft. area, with 75,000 books, 9,000 bound volumes, 800
videos related to engineering and technology. It has alumni of over 15,000 graduates and
1000 postgraduates spread all over the world.
The focus of this research is mainly to compare the outcomes of the two metrics of
Service quality, and hence, the choice of organization for this research is not of prime
importance, as both the metrics are served to the same respondents and the same set of
service quality dimensions are compared for correlation and significance in difference of
perceptions. Even though dimensional preference will be identified, detailed suggestions for
quality enhancement in relation to the specific details is beyond the scope of this project, and
hence, the work is not conducted as a case study in a specific organization.
4.6 Reliability, Validity and Practicality
Sound measurement must meet the tests of Reliability, Validity and Practicality. These are
the three major considerations used in a research, which involves data collection through
instruments such as questionnaires (Kothari, 2000).
‘Reliability’ has to do with the accuracy and precision of measurement procedure

(Litwin, 1995). A reliable instrument should give identical responses if the questionnaire is
served two or more times.
‘Validity’ refers to the extent to which a test measures what we wish to measure. Even
though validity to a great extent depends upon the judgement of the researcher three types of
validity: content, criterion and construct validity are strongly recommended.
‘Practicality’ of a measuring instrument is judged in terms of economy, convenience and

interpretability. Economy consideration of practicality suggests that some trade-off is needed
between the ideal research project and that which the budget can afford. The length of the
questionnaire is an important area where economic pressure is felt. More items in a
questionnaire will give greater reliability (Kothari, 2000) but this is time consuming and
tedious.
4.6.1 Reliability of the Instrument

The ‘stability’ aspect of reliability is concerned with securing consistent results with
repeated measurements of the same person with the same questionnaire. But for a sample
size of 124, as in the present case, with three disciplines in an engineering college it is not
27
very practicable, and hence, the method of determination of the degree of stability by
comparing the results of repeated measurements has been adopted. The most common
approach of estimating the reliability of an instrument that is presented to respondents only
once is ‘split-half reliability’. In this approach the test is split into two equivalent halves and
the scores for respondents on one half are correlated with those scores on the second half of
the test. The difficulty in this approach is determining whether the two halves are equivalent.
Chronbach proposed the coefficient ‘alpha’ (called Chronbach’s Alpha), which may be
thought of as the mean of all possible split-half coefficients. A test with ‘robust’ reliability
would be expected to display a Chronbach’s Alpha in excess of 0.9. However, values above
0.7 are usually acceptable indicators of internal consistency as suggested in the literature
(Santos, 1999; SPSS, 2000). The reliabilities of all the three instruments have been tested on
this basis.
4.6.2 Validity of the Instrument

The instruments used in this research have a proved ‘content and criterion related’
validity, as they are derivatives of standard instruments used before in different
organizations. However, in this research, as they have been used in an educational setting,
with some changes, the content validity was checked again. Even though the content validity
can be primarily judgemental and intuitive, a panel of faculty members was consulted for its
content validity and the following changes have been made in the instruments (Table 4.2).
The language of the questionnaire was revised wherever necessary to make the
questionnaire more precise and understandable.
Firstly, to check the ‘construct validity’, the interpretative approach by Erickson (cited
in Waldrip & Fisher, 1998) was adopted. The main purpose of this was to check whether the
scales were measuring what they were designed to measure i.e. they had construct validity.
A semi-structured kind of discussion was adopted with the students as the mode of
communication. Initially, the general aspects of Service quality were discussed to give them
an idea about the nature of this research. This included promptness of service, tangibles of
service, importance of reliability, individual attention etc. just to study whether these
practices were streamlined in their departments. They were also asked whether the self-
administered questionnaire was simple enough to understand.
28
Table 4.2: The Changes made in the Standard SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Instrument
Dimension Original Variable Changed to

1. Reliability 1. When the company promises to do 1. When certain time bound promise of
something by a certain time it does service is made it is fulfilled.
so. 2. When you are in problem, the faculty
2. When you have a problem the sincerely shows interest to solve
company shows a sincere interest in your problem.
solving it. 3. The department provides the service
3. The company performs service right right the first time.
the first time. 4. The subjects are covered on target
4. The company provides service at the dates.
time it promises to do so. 5. The department insists on error-free
5. The company insists on error free records.
records
2. Assurance 1. The behaviour of employees in the 1. The behaviour of the faculty instils
company instils confidence in you. confidence in you.
2. You feel safe in your transactions 2. You feel safe in your transaction in
with the company. the department.
3. Employees in the company are 3. The faculty is consistently courteous
consistently courteous with you. to you.
4. Employees in the company have the 4. The faculty is knowledgeable to
knowledge to answer your deliver the subjects.
questions.
3. Tangibility 1. The company has modern looking 1. The department has modern and state
equipment of the art laboratories.
2. The company’s physical facilities 2. The infrastructure is visually
are visually appealing appealing.
3. Companies employees are neat in 3. The faculty is neat in appearance.
appearance 4. The materials displayed during lecture
4. Materials associated with service are visually appealing.
such as pamphlets or statements are
visually appealing
4. Empathy 1. The company gives you individual 1. The faculty gives you individual
attention. attention.
2. The company has operating hours 2. The operating hours are
convenient to you. convenient.
3. The company has employees who 3. The faculty gives you personal
give you personal attention. attention.
4. The company has your best interest 4. The faculty has your best interests
at heart. at heart.
5. Employees of the company 5. Faculty understands your specific
understand your specific needs. needs.
5. Responsiveness 1. The employees of the company tell 1. You are informed well in advance
you exactly when services will be about your assignments
performed. 2. The department is known for its
2. Employees in the company give you prompt service.
prompt service. 3. Faculty shows eagerness to help
3. Employees in the company are you.
always willing to help you. 4. The faculty is never too busy to
4. Employees in the company are respond to your requests.
never too busy to respond to your

requests.
Secondly, their perception about the scales was discussed. It was also asked whether the
significance of ‘Perception’ and ‘Expectation’ was clear to them and whether the questions
under each dimension did justice to the main heading and whether they adequately described
the main dimension with the educational set-up as the reference. The discussion indicated
29
that most of the students were, by and large, happy with the distribution of service variables
selected in the questionnaire.
Thirdly, their responses for different scales were discussed. The degree of variation on
a 5-point Likert scale was also discussed for its adequacy. They felt it was adequate in
measuring their agreement/disagreement. It was also discussed whether each dimension gave
an equal opportunity to score evenly. Their reply was affirmative.
Finally, there were deliberations about their perception on the key issues focussing on
the consistency of their answers. They felt that their rating would be unbiased and would
remain consistent. All items were considered to be completely available for their rating.
The questionnaires were subjected to ‘item validation’ (Pattanayak et al., 2002)

through ‘Factor Analysis’ the purpose of which was to determine the internal structure of the
set of given number of items. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method with varimax
rotation using Kaiser variation was used to generate factors (Chapter 5). The PCA is very
appropriate when the main concern is to predict the minimum number of factors that are
required to account for the maximum proportion of the variance when there is a priori set of
variables (Ghauri et al., 1995). Hence, this method has been used to test the item validation
of the instruments used.
4.7 Practicality of the Instrument

‘Practicality’ of a measuring instrument is judged in terms of economy, convenience and
interpretability, as mentioned before. This is one of the reasons why a limited number of
items with a maximum of 22 questions were used in the questionnaires of this research.
However, care was taken to give a maximum coverage of the study topic.
‘Convenience’ forms another key factor of practicality. The questionnaire was designed
to be self-administrative in nature and clear guidelines were given in the instrument itself, so
that the queries regarding how it has to be filled would be minimum. As Service quality is
relatively known term in education system, adequate understanding of the fundamentals
were evident among the respondents. However, they were not knowledgeable about the
dimensions such as Responsiveness or Assurance which was not required as those terms are
not used in the questionnaire. The Likert scale scoring keys were stated in the beginning and
separate columns were provided for ticking under each variable. Interpretability of the items
was given enough importance to see that each question gives only one meaning, free from
ambiguity.
30
4.8 Data Collection Strategies
The following process model (Figure 4.2) was developed and deployed to assure a
successful and effective survey dissemination and collection. The research questions have
been consolidated into the variables of questionnaires based on the literature review and
theoretical models (Chapters 2 & 3). The SERVQUAL and SERVPERF questionnaire was
distributed to the students belonging to the different departments and the sequential steps are
illustrated in the figure given below.
31
Research Area
Develop Survey
Questionnaire
Pilot Run, Test &

Consolidate
Distribute & Collect
Obtain Raw Data
Data Analysis
Test Hypotheses
Draw Inference
Make Implications
Figure: 4.2: The Research Process

32
4.9 Statistical Procedures
Microsoft Excel 2007 has been used to enter the data into the spreadsheet and calculate the
simple statistical parameters such as sum, mean, ranking etc.
SPSS Version 10 for Windows has been used for following statistical analysis:
x Reliability and factor analysis,
x Descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, skewness, ranking, etc.,
x Variable correlation coefficient matrix,
x t-test, and
x Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
4.10 Types of Data Analysis
Descriptive Analysis was used to provide general description of the sample such as sample
size, mean, standard deviation, percent mean, ranking, and skewness. Inferential Analysis
was used to test the hypothesis. The main tools used in hypotheses testing are paired sample
t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), based on their relevance to the analysis.
Frequency diagrams have been used to obtain the distribution pattern and radar diagrams to
undertake Gap analysis.
33
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
THE COST OF THE COALITION MINISTRY.
It is probable that ere these pages issue from the press, war will
have been formally declared with Russia, and Great Britain will be
irretrievably engaged in a contest of which it is impossible to see the
termination. Already our choicest troops have left our shores for the
Mediterranean, inspired by the cheers and accompanied by the
blessing of many hundreds of thousands of their fellow-countrymen,
who, for the first time in their lives, have witnessed so solemn yet
exciting a spectacle. Already has a noble fleet sailed for the waters of
the Baltic, to sweep that inland sea, and to launch its thunders
against the foe. Wellnigh forty years have elapsed since such din of
martial preparation has been heard. On the last occasion, Russia and
Britain were combined against France—now, Britain and France are
combined together against Russia. Such a struggle, so commenced,
must be a desperate, but not therefore necessarily a short one. We
cannot yet calculate on the part to be taken by the central powers of
Europe; for, notwithstanding Lord Clarendon’s assurance that
Austria is with us, we have every reason to believe that the
government of that country is so closely leagued with Russia, that
when compelled to throw off its appearance of neutrality, its forces
will be ranged upon her side.[11] We cannot depend upon the cordial
co-operation of Prussia—which power, besides having no direct
interest in the Eastern quarrel, is intimately allied with Russia, and
has always acted, during times of European disturbance, with a view
to its own aggrandisement. It would be folly to underrate the
magnitude of the contest in which we are engaging. The re-
pacification of Europe cannot be achieved without an enormous
expenditure of blood and treasure, and without very considerable
alterations in its territorial adjustment. The war once begun, Russia
will know that she is fighting, not for the occupation of the Danubian
provinces, but for the retention of the territories which she has
absorbed or pillaged from her neighbours. The penalty she must pay
in the event of defeat is dismemberment, and she will resist that to
the uttermost.
We must not, therefore, blind ourselves to consequences, which, in
so far as human judgment can go, appear to be inevitable. We may be
able to disperse or even to annihilate the Russian fleets in the Baltic
and the Black seas—we may be able to prevent the colossal northern
power from crossing the Danube, or even beat it back from the
Principalities—but the contest will not end there. We are on the verge
of a general European embroilment, in which there will not only be
wars, but bloody revolutions; and as we have been the first to enter,
so we must be the last to withdraw. We do not say this for the
purpose of checking enthusiasm—God forbid! We are already
committed to the struggle; and if in the minds of any there has
lingered a doubt as to the propriety of Christian intervention for the
maintenance of a Mahometan power in Europe, that ought to be
dispelled by the revelations recently made of the objects of the
Russian ambition. The Czar is no crusader; nor is he influenced by
any tender regard for the religious liberties of the Christian
population dwelling beneath the government of the Sultan. He has
set his eyes upon Turkey, just as Catherine in 1772 fixed hers upon
Poland, and he has had the astounding effrontery to propose that
Great Britain should take part in the spoliation. Here is his own
proposition, as communicated to Lord John Russell, by Sir G. H.
Seymour, in his despatch of 22d February 1853:—
“The Emperor went on to say that, in the event of the dissolution of the Ottoman
empire, he thought it might be less difficult to arrive at a satisfactory territorial
arrangement than was commonly believed. ‘The Principalities are,’ he said, ‘in fact
an independent state under my protection; this might so continue. Servia might
receive the same form of government. So again with Bulgaria. There seems to be no
reason this province should not form an independent state. As to Egypt, I quite
understand the importance to England of that territory. I can then only say that if,
in the event of a distribution of the Ottoman succession upon the fall of the
empire, you should take possession of Egypt, I shall have no objections to offer. I
would say the same thing of Candia: that island might suit you, and I do not
know why it should not become an English possession.’”
Such was the language used by the Emperor of Russia to the
British minister at the Court of St Petersburg, and we really cannot
imagine anything more absolutely infamous. It was a bribe, tendered
evidently in the belief that it would be accepted; and the offer ought
to have been at once most indignantly repelled. Was it so? We shall
see presently—for the correspondence recently published is far too
remarkable and momentous to be passed over with a single extract
from its contents.
The Government of Lord Aberdeen, it will be remembered,
acceded to office in the latter part of December 1852. On the 9th of
January following, the Emperor Nicholas, at a private meeting in the
palace of the Grand-duchess Helen, thus approached Sir G. H.
Seymour. We shall be as short in quotation as possible; but it is
absolutely necessary that the leading points of such an extraordinary
transaction as this should be kept before the public view. We quote
from Sir Hamilton Seymour’s despatch to Lord John Russell, then
Foreign Secretary, of date 11th January 1853:—
“The Emperor came up to me, in the most gracious manner, to say that he had
heard with great pleasure of Her Majesty’s Government having been definitively
formed, adding that he trusted the Ministry would be of long duration.
“His Imperial Majesty desired me particularly to convey this assurance to the
Earl of Aberdeen, with whom, he said, he had been acquainted for nearly forty
years, and for whom he entertained equal regard and esteem. His Majesty desired
to be brought to the kind recollection of his Lordship.”
Then follows the report of some expressions regarding the close

amity which ought to prevail between the two countries, and their
community of interests, which, being general, we may pass over: but
Nicholas speedily comes to the point—
“In the mean time, the Emperor went on to say—‘I repeat, that it is very essential
that the two Governments—that is, that the English Government and I, and I and
the English Government—should be upon the best terms; and the necessity was
never greater than at present. I beg you to convey these words to Lord John
Russell. When we are agreed (d’accord), I am quite without anxiety to the west of
Europe; it is immaterial what the others may think or do. As to Turkey, that is
another question; that country is in a critical state, and may give us all a great deal
of trouble. And now I will take my leave of you,’ which His Majesty proceeded to do
by shaking hands with me very graciously.”
The Czar probably thought that he had said enough in the first
instance, and that it would be prudent to allow Sir Hamilton
Seymour to chew, for a day or two, the cud of thought. But that active
and astute diplomatist saw that something more than common was
intended, and pressed for a further explanation. The following
conversation is certainly as curious as any which is recorded in the
pages of history:—
“‘Sir,’ I observed, ‘your Majesty has been good enough to charge me with general
assurances as to the identity of views between the two Cabinets, which assuredly
have given me the greatest pleasure, and will be received with equal satisfaction in
England; but I should be particularly glad that your Majesty should add a few
words which may tend to calm the anxiety with regard to the affairs of Turkey,
which passing events are so calculated to excite on the part of Her Majesty’s
Government. Perhaps you will be pleased to charge me with some additional
assurances of this kind.’
“The Emperor’s words and manner, although still very kind, showed that His
Majesty had no intention of speaking to me of the demonstration which he is
about to make in the South. He said, however, at first with a little hesitation, but,
as he proceeded, in an open and unhesitating manner—‘The affairs of Turkey are in
a very disorganised condition; the country itself seems to be falling to pieces
(menace ruine); the fall will be a great misfortune, and it is very important that
England and Russia should come to a perfectly good understanding upon these
affairs, and that neither should take any decisive step of which the other is not
apprised.’
“I observed in a few words, that I rejoiced to hear that His Imperial Majesty held
this language; that this was certainly the view I took of the manner in which
Turkish questions were to be treated.
“‘Tenez,’ the Emperor said, as if proceeding with his remark, ‘tenez; nous avons
sur les bras un homme malade—un homme gravement malade; ce sera, je vous le
dis franchement, un grand malheur si, un de ces jours, il devait nous échapper,
surtout avant que toutes les dispositions nécessaires fussent prises. Mais enfin ce
n’est point le moment de vous parler de cela.’
“It was clear that the Emperor did not intend to prolong the conversation. I
therefore said, ‘Votre Majesté est si gracieuse qu’elle me permettra de lui faire
encore une observation. Votre Majesté dit que l’homme est malade; c’est bien vrai,
mais votre Majesté daignera m’excuser si je lui fais observer, que c’est à l’homme
généreux et fort de ménager l’homme malade et faible.’
“The Emperor then took leave of me in a manner which conveyed the impression
of my having, at least, not given offence, and again expressed his intention of
sending for me on some future day.”
It is proper to subjoin Sir Hamilton Seymour’s own impressions of

this interview, as communicated to Lord John Russell.
“Your Lordship will pardon me if I remark that, after reflecting attentively upon
my conversation with the Emperor, it appears to me that this, and any overture of
the kind which may be made, tends to establish a dilemma by which it is very
desirable that Her Majesty’s Government should not allow themselves to be
fettered. The dilemma seems to be this:—If her Majesty’s Government do not come
to an understanding with Russia as to what is to happen in the event of the sudden
downfall of Turkey, they will have the less reason for complaining if results
displeasing to England should be prepared. If, on the contrary, Her Majesty’s
Government should enter into the consideration of such eventualities, they make
themselves in some degree consenting parties to a catastrophe which they have so
much interest in warding off as long as possible.
The sum is probably this:—That England has to desire a close concert with
Russia, with a view to preventing the downfall of Turkey; while Russia would be
well pleased that the concert should apply to the events by which this downfall is to
be followed.”
In a postscript to this despatch, we learn that the Emperor had

communicated to the Austrian Minister the tenor of the above
conversation. That circumstance is, to say the least of it, significant.
Five days afterwards, Sir Hamilton Seymour waited upon the
Emperor, at the request of the latter, and was favoured from the
imperial lips with a remarkably choice specimen of what our Irish
friends denominate blarney. The Czar began by asseverating that he
had not the least intention of increasing the extent of his territorial
dominions. The only danger, he said, which he could foresee to
Russia would arise from an extension given to an empire already too
large. From this general statement he presently condescended to
particulars.
“Close to us lies Turkey, and, in our present condition, nothing better for our
interests can be desired; the times have gone by when we had anything to fear from
the fanatical spirit or the military enterprise of the Turks, and yet the country is
strong enough, or has hitherto been strong enough, to preserve its independence,
and to insure respectful treatment from other countries.”
These were, we venture to think, injudicious premises on the part

of the Emperor, for they are tantamount to an admission that
Turkey, if left alone, was quite able to maintain its own position. We
are not quite sure that the same could be said of Austria, which, but a
few years ago, owed its integrity to the intervention of Russian
bayonets. Be that as it may, the Emperor went on to state that he had
the right of surveillance over some millions of Christians in the
Ottoman empire—a right which he regarded as a duty, but used
sparingly, because it was “attended with obligations occasionally very
inconvenient.” And then we arrive at a statement, quite inconsistent,
we think, with what had gone before.
“Now, Turkey, in the condition which I have described, has by degrees fallen into
such a state of decrepitude, that, as I told you the other night, eager as we all are
for the prolonged existence of the man (and that I am as desirous as you can be for
the continuance of his life, I beg you to believe), he may suddenly die upon our
hands (nous rester sur les bras); we cannot resuscitate what is dead: if the Turkish
empire falls, it falls to rise no more; and I put it to you, therefore, whether it is not
better to be provided beforehand for a contingency, than to incur the chaos,
confusion, and the certainty of a European war, all of which must attend the
catastrophe if it should occur unexpectedly, and before some ulterior system has
been sketched? This is the point to which I am desirous that you should call the
attention of your Government.”
We had better give in extenso the conversation which immediately

followed; because we think that Sir Hamilton Seymour might,
without any breach of propriety, have used more decided language
than he did employ, with regard to the view likely to be taken by the
British Cabinet. We are quite aware of the difficulties of an
ambassador in such a situation; still we cannot avoid the conclusion
that Sir H. Seymour was unnecessarily timid, and not nearly decided
enough in the tone which he assumed. He objected, indeed, but the
objection was rather feeble; which was unfortunate, as his principal
in England immediately adopted the like inconclusive tone.
“‘Sir,’ I replied, ‘your Majesty is so frank with me that I am sure you will have the
goodness to permit me to speak with the same openness. I would then observe
that, deplorable as is the condition of Turkey, it is a country which has long been
plunged in difficulties supposed by many to be insurmountable. With regard to
contingent arrangements, her Majesty’s Government, as your Majesty is well
aware, objects, as a general rule to taking engagements upon possible eventualities,
and would, perhaps, be particularly disinclined to doing so in this instance. If I
may be allowed to say so, a great disinclination (répugnance) might be expected in
England to disposing by anticipation (d’escompter) of the succession of an old
friend and ally.’
“‘The rule is a good one,’ the Emperor replied, ‘good at all times, especially in
times of uncertainty and change, like the present: still it is of the greatest
importance that we should understand one an other, and not allow events to take
us by surprise; maintenant je désire vous parler en ami et en gentleman; si nous
arrivons à nous entendre sur cette affaire, l’Angleterre et moi, pour le reste peu
m’importe; il m’est indifferent ce que font ou pensent les autres. Usant donc de
franchise, je vous dis nettement, que si l’Angleterre songe à s’établir un de ces jours
à Constantinople, je ne le permettrai pas; je ne vous prête point ces intentions,
mais il vaut mieux dans ces occasions parler clairement; de mon côté, je suis
également disposé de prendre l’engagement de ne pas m’y établir, en propriétaire
il s’entend, car en dépositaire je ne dis pas; il pourrait se faire que les
circonstances me misent dans le cas d’occuper Constantinople, si rien ne se trouve
prévu, si l’on doit tout laisser aller au hazard.’
“I thanked his Majesty for the frankness of his declarations, and for the desire
which he had expressed of acting cordially and openly with her Majesty’s
Government, observing at the same time that such an understanding appeared the
best security against the sudden danger to which his Majesty had alluded. I added
that, although unprepared to give a decided opinion upon questions of such
magnitude and delicacy, it appeared to me possible that some such arrangement
might be made between her Majesty’s Government and his Majesty as might
guard, if not for, at least against certain contingencies.
“To render my meaning more clear,” I said, further, “I can only repeat, Sir, that
in my opinion her Majesty’s Government will be indisposed to make certain
arrangements connected with the downfall of Turkey, but it is possible that they
may be ready to pledge themselves against certain arrangements which might, in
that event, be attempted.”
We have no desire whatever to reflect upon the conduct of the

prudence of Sir Hamilton Seymour, but we cannot help saying that
he seems to have missed one very material point—that being a
distinct explanation of the quarter from which the anticipated
danger to Turkey was to arise. Sir Hamilton was perfectly justified
in intimating that Britain did not intend to subvert the integrity of
Turkey, and that she would not be passive if France were to manifest
such a design. There was no earthly danger from either quarter; and
certainly Austria, whatever she may wish to have or is ready to
receive, would not have dared, under existing circumstances, to
disturb the peace of Europe. Turkey itself was in a far better position
than it ever had been. “L’homme gravement malade,” was exhibiting
every symptom of convalescence, and the only danger to be
apprehended was from the Muscovite doctor, who, without being
summoned, was preparing to administer his pills. Therefore, we
think that the rejoinder to the Emperor’s confidences—subject, of
course, to the official Cabinet approval—should have been in the
shape of a query as to the nature of the apprehended danger. The
Czar had protested, in the most emphatic language, that he was
“eager for the prolonged existence of the man;” and, if that were the
case, his dissolution was an event much less likely than that of many
a dynasty of Christian Europe. With Russia and Britain as
determined protectors, who was to give him the coup-de-grace?
Surely Sir Hamilton Seymour erred in not putting that point more
forcibly and distinctly in his confidential conversations with the
Emperor.
We say this, because the last paragraph in Sir Hamilton Seymour’s
despatch, of 22d January 1853, to Lord John Russell shows that he
was not altogether uninfluenced by the Imperial blandishments and
affectation of perfect sincerity.
“A noble triumph would be obtained by the civilisation of the nineteenth century

if the void left by the extinction of Mahommedan rule in Europe could be filled up
without an interruption of the general peace, in consequence of the precautions
adopted by the two principal Governments the most interested in the destinies of
Turkey.”
Precautions indeed! Precautions which would have made Russia,

without assuming the name of proprietor, the virtual and absolute
occupier of Constantinople, with the power of the keys of the
Bosphorus! It is marvellous that so acute a minister as Sir Hamilton
Seymour—who otherwise deserves great praise for his lucid
exposition of the designs and motives of the Czar—did not perceive
that any approach to an arrangement for disposing of the
inheritance, was tantamount to a declaration of the immediate
dissolution of Turkey.
In answer to these communications, Lord John Russell, on the 9th
February, forwarded a despatch, of the wisdom of which it is for the
public to form their own opinion. It commences with an
acknowledgment of “the moderation, the frankness, and the friendly
disposition of his Imperial Majesty.” Why the first of these terms
should have been employed, we really do not comprehend. Then
Lord John, adverting to the indirect proposal of the Emperor,
observes that—“In considering this grave question, the first reflection
which occurs to Her Majesty’s Government is, that no actual crisis
has occurred which renders necessary a solution of this vast
European problem”—that “there is no sufficient cause for intimating
to the Sultan that he cannot keep peace at home, or preserve friendly
relations with his neighbours”—and that “it occurs further to her
Majesty’s Government to remark that the event which is
contemplated is not definitely fixed in point of time.” After pointing
out the impropriety as well as the impolicy of devising a partition for
providing for a settlement under such circumstances, Lord John
intimates, in tolerably distinct terms, that “neither England nor
France, nor probably Austria, would be content to see
Constantinople permanently in the hands of Russia.” He then draws
the following conclusions:—
“Upon the whole, then, Her Majesty’s Government are persuaded that no course
of policy can be adopted more wise, more disinterested, more beneficial to Europe,
than that which His Imperial Majesty has so long followed, and which will render
his name more illustrious than that of the most famous sovereigns who have
sought immortality by unprovoked conquest and ephemeral glory.
“With a view to the success of this policy, it is desirable that the utmost
forbearance should be manifested towards Turkey; that any demands which the
Great Powers of Europe may have to make should be made matter of friendly
negotiation rather than of peremptory demand; that military and naval
demonstrations to coerce the Sultan should as much as possible be avoided; that
differences with respect to matters affecting Turkey, within the competence of the
Sublime Porte, should be decided after mutual concert between the great powers,
and not be forced upon the weakness of the Turkish Government.”
To this succeeds a passage which we cannot help considering as
unfortunate, because it gives decided colour to the Russian pretext,
that a protectorate over Turkey was necessary for securing the rights
of the Christian inhabitants. There was no occasion whatever for its
introduction, especially as the Emperor had not thought it necessary
to ask advice upon the subject:—
“To these cautions Her Majesty’s Government wish to add, that in their view it is
essential that the Sultan should be advised to treat his Christian subjects in
conformity with the principles of equity and religious freedom which prevail
generally among the enlightened nations of Europe. The more the Turkish
Government adopts the rules of impartial law and equal administration, the less
will the Emperor of Russia find it necessary to apply that exceptional protection
which his Imperial Majesty has found so burdensome and inconvenient, though no
doubt prescribed by duty and sanctioned by treaty.
We observe that the Times, notwithstanding its notorious

ministerial leaning, has declined awarding praise to this state
document, and we are not surprised at it. It is dissuasive and
declinatory, but it is altogether feeble. We should have expected to
find in it, not hypocritical acknowledgments of Imperial moderation
and so forth, but a distinct, firm, and energetic protest against any
attempt to disturb the peace, or to violate the integrity of Turkey. The
infamous proposals made to Britain—for they were infamous not
only as regarded Turkey but other European powers—should have
been rejected in a manner that could have left no doubt in the mind
of the Czar as to the part which the British Government was prepared
to take in the event of his entering into hostilities with the Sultan.
From the beginning to the end of this despatch there is not a single
word which can be construed into a plain warning to the Czar, that
any attempt made by him upon Turkey would provoke the hostility of
Britain. On the contrary, the declinature to participate in the scheme
is mainly founded on the fact that no “actual crisis” has yet arrived;
but there is nothing said to indicate that Britain would oppose the
forcing on of such a crisis, if Russia thought proper to precipitate it;
and a more unlucky expression than “that the event which was
contemplated is not definitely fixed in point of time” it is utterly
impossible to conceive. The perusal of this despatch could leave no
other impression upon the mind of the Czar, than that the British
Ministry were afraid to commit themselves by entering into any
secret or separate treaty with Russia for the disposal of the Turkish
dominions, until a crisis actually should occur. That they would have
preferred the maintenance of the status quo to a disturbance of it,
was tolerably clear; but it was not in the least degree clear that they
would take umbrage at an act of aggression, or be indisposed to treat
with Russia after the aggression was made, and the weakness of the
Ottoman empire exhibited by its being forced to succumb to the
attack of the northern Colossus. The despatch, in short, was not
couched in such manly, distinct, and positive terms as a British
Secretary of State for foreign affairs should have employed on such
an occasion. It is weak, timid, and almost subservient; and we are
not in the least degree surprised to find that the Czar considered that
it gave him sufficient encouragement again to renew his attack. Here
is an extract from his next conversation with the British envoy, Sir
Hamilton Seymour.
“‘I think your Government does not well understand my object. I am not so eager
about what shall be done when the sick man dies, as I am to determine with
England what shall not be done upon that event taking place.’
“‘But, sir,’ I replied, ‘allow me to observe, that we have no reason to think that
the sick man (to use your Majesty’s expression) is dying. We are as much
interested as we believe your Majesty to be in his continuing to live; while, for
myself, I will venture to remark that experience shows me that countries do not die
in such a hurry. Turkey will remain for many a year, unless some unforeseen crisis
should occur. It is precisely, sir, for the avoidance of all circumstances likely to
produce such a crisis that Her Majesty’s Government reckons upon your generous
assistance.’
“‘Then,’ rejoined the Emperor, ‘I will tell you that, if your Government has been
led to believe that Turkey retains any elements of existence, your Government
must have received incorrect information. I repeat to you, that the sick man is
dying; and we can never allow such an event to take us by surprise. We must come
to some understanding; and this we should do, I am convinced, if I could hold but
ten minutes’ conversation with your Ministers—with Lord Aberdeen, for instance,
who knows me so well, who has full confidence in me, as I have in him. And,
remember, I do not ask for a treaty or a protocol; a general understanding is all I
require—that between gentlemen is sufficient; and in this case I am certain that the
confidence would be as great on the side of the Queen’s Ministers as on mine.’”
The despatch, containing the report of this conversation, was
written on the 21st February, and received at the Foreign Office on
6th March 1853; so that the Emperor Nicholas, whatever may be
thought of his conduct otherwise, cannot be justly charged with
deliberate perfidy in concealing his views from our Government.
Indeed, Sir Hamilton Seymour, in this very document, gave Lord
John Russell a distinct intimation of the real objects of the Czar.
“It can hardly be otherwise but that the Sovereign, who insists with such
pertinacity upon the impending fall of a neighbouring state, must have settled in
his own mind that the hour, if not of its dissolution, at all events for its dissolution,
must be at hand.
“Then, as now, I reflected that this assumption would hardly be ventured upon
unless some, perhaps general, but at all events intimate understanding, existed
between Russia and Austria.
“Supposing my suspicion to be well founded, the Emperor’s object is to engage
Her Majesty’s Government, in conjunction with his own Cabinet and that of
Vienna, in some scheme for the ultimate partition of Turkey, and for the exclusion
of France from the arrangement.”
On the following day a more particular, and, if possible, more

interesting, conversation took place between the Czar and the British
envoy. We regret extremely that our limits will not allow us to detail
this so fully as we could wish, but we shall advert to the principal
points, which were in the form of a commentary upon Lord John
Russell’s despatch. The Emperor began by saying,—
“That he was, perhaps, even more interested than England could be in

preventing a Turkish catastrophe, but that it was constantly impending; that it
might be brought about at any moment, either by an external war, or by a feud
between the old Turkish party and that of the ‘new superficial French reforms,’ or
again, by a rising of the Christians, already known to be very impatient of shaking
off the Mussulman yoke. As regards the first cause, the Emperor said that he had a
good right to advert to it, inasmuch as, if he had not stopped the victorious
progress of General Diebitch in 1829, the Sultan’s authority would have been at an
end.”
Next he descanted upon what could not be permitted in the event
of a break-up of the Ottoman empire. This is perhaps the most
curious passage of the whole.
“‘Well, there are several things which I never will tolerate; I will begin by
ourselves. I will not tolerate the permanent occupation of Constantinople by the
Russians; having said this, I will say that it never shall be held by the English, or
French, or any other great nation. Again, I never will permit an attempt at the
reconstruction of a Byzantine empire, or such an extension of Greece as would
render her a powerful state; still less will I permit the breaking up of Turkey into
little republics, asylums for the Kossuths and Mazzinis, and other revolutionists of
Europe; rather than submit any of these arrangements I would go to war, and as
long as I have a man and a musket left would carry it on. These,’ the Emperor said,
‘are at once some ideas; now give me some in return.’”
This was an awkward demand, but Sir H. Seymour seems to have

acquitted himself with sufficient adroitness. He put the following
case: “How would it be if, in the event of any catastrophe occurring
in Turkey, Russia and England were to declare that no Power should
be allowed to take possession of its provinces; that the property
should remain, as it were, under seals, until amicable arrangements
could be made as to its adjudication?” Of course this notion could
not be countenanced; and the Emperor’s reply allowed Sir Hamilton
the opportunity of making the following remark:—
“‘Sir,’ I then observed, ‘if your Majesty will allow me to speak plainly, I would say
that the great difference between us is this—that you continue to dwell upon the
fall of Turkey, and the arrangements requisite before and after the fall; and that
we, on the contrary, look to Turkey remaining where she is, and to the precautions
which are necessary for preventing her condition from becoming worse.’ ‘Ah!’
replied the Emperor, ‘that is what the Chancellor is perpetually telling me; but the
catastrophe will occur some day, and will take us all unawares.’”
Then follows a passage of very great interest at the present

moment, when the course which Austria may adopt is still matter of
speculation. Our impression has been, and is, that she will ultimately
co-operate with Russia.
“Being desirous, if possible, of ascertaining whether there was any
understanding between the Cabinets of St Petersburg and Vienna, I added, ‘But
your Majesty has forgotten Austria; now all these Eastern questions affect her very
nearly; she, of course, would expect to be consulted.’ ‘Oh!’ replied the Emperor,
greatly to my surprise, ‘but you must understand that when I speak of Russia I
speak of Austria as well: what suits the one suits the other; our interests as regards
Turkey are perfectly identical.’ I should have been glad to make another inquiry or
two upon this subject, but I did not venture to do so.”
Next comes the bribe—for we can call it nothing else—implied in

the Emperor’s statement, already quoted, that he saw no reason why,
in the event of the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, Great Britain
should not obtain possession of Egypt and Candia! And so
completely does he seem to have considered that point settled, that a
few days afterwards, and without any further intercourse with
Britain (for so we are given to understand), a confidential
memorandum, dictated by the Czar, and containing the following
passage, was placed in the hands of Sir Hamilton Seymour:—
“In short, the Emperor cannot but congratulate himself at having given occasion
for this intimate interchange of confidential communications between Her Majesty
and himself. He has found therein valuable assurances, of which he takes note with
a lively satisfaction. The two Sovereigns have frankly explained to each other, what
in the extreme case of which they have been treating, their respective interests
cannot endure. England understands that Russia cannot suffer the establishment
at Constantinople of a Christian Power sufficiently strong to control and disquiet
her. She declares, that for herself she renounces any intention or desire to possess
Constantinople. The Emperor equally disclaims any wish or design of establishing
himself there. England promises that she will enter into no arrangement for
determining the measures to be taken in the event of the fall of the Turkish empire,
without a previous understanding with the Emperor. The Emperor, on his side,
willingly contracts the same engagement. As he is aware that in such a case he can
equally reckon upon Austria, who is bound by her promises to concert with him, he
regards with less apprehension the catastrophe which he still desires to prevent,
and avert as much as it shall depend on him to do so.”
This is, perhaps, the most extraordinary note that was ever issued.
If founded upon nothing else than Lord John Russell’s single
despatch of 9th February 1853, it is an attempt to make a
memorandum supply the place of a treaty, and that not with regard
to existing circumstances, but to a contingency involving the
destruction of an ally. The Emperor must, indeed, have had great
faith in the subserviency of the British Cabinet to his views, before he
could have ventured on such a step. Lord Clarendon now comes into
action, as the successor of Lord John Russell in the Home Office; but
we need not pursue the correspondence further than to say, that it
was conducted on the same principle of remonstrance, though very
feeble on the part of the British Minister, against the assumption that
Turkey was absolutely in a critical state, and of assertion to the
contrary on the part of the Czar. His object was to alienate Britain
from France—to keep the latter power out of any arrangement which
might be made for the partition of the Turkish territories—and to
hasten the crisis as fast as possible, in order that Britain might be
compelled to come to definite terms. Lord Clarendon’s despatches
are couched in terms quite unworthy of his position. Lord John
Russell, who had primarily to state the views of the British Cabinet,
may be excused for a certain weakness of expression; but no such
apology can be made for Lord Clarendon, who was bound
emphatically to have informed the Czar that this country disdained
his proposals, and was prepared, at any hazard, to maintain the
integrity of Turkey. We say that he was bound to have done so, on
the supposition that the Aberdeen Ministry disapproved of the
partition of Turkey, and were prepared, by force of arms, to oppose
it. Disapproval is of two kinds: There is the faint remonstrance,
which is usually considered to imply reluctant consent; and there is
strong distinct denial, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted. We
find no such strong distinct denial in Lord Clarendon’s despatches.
They are filled with almost fulsome adulation of the Czar, who had
previously tendered a bribe. Thus, in the despatch of 23d March, we
find the following passage:—
“The generous confidence exhibited by the Emperor entitles His Imperial

Majesty to the most cordial declaration of opinion on the part of Her Majesty’s
Government, who are fully aware that, in the event of any understanding with
reference to future contingencies being expedient, or indeed possible, the word of
His Imperial Majesty would be preferable to any convention that could be framed.”
Scarce less miserably sycophantish are the terms of the despatch of
April 5th. “My despatch of the 23d ult. will have furnished you with
answers upon all the principal points alluded to in the memorandum
which Count Nesselrode placed in your hands; but it is my duty to
inform you that that important and remarkable document was
received by her Majesty’s Government with feelings of sincere
satisfaction, as a renewed proof of the Emperor’s confidence and
friendly feelings; and her Majesty’s Government desire to convey
their acknowledgments to his Imperial Majesty for having thus
placed on record the opinions he expressed at the interview with
which you were honoured by his Imperial Majesty.”
We do not profess to know much about the language of diplomacy;
but if these are the sort of terms to be addressed to an avowed
disturber of the peace of Europe, who has attempted to engage us in
a conspiracy by offer of a bribe, we are at a loss to know what
language can afford by way of adequate encomium to a really honest
ally. The excuse of sincere belief in the sincerity of the Czar is entirely
precluded by the terms of the previous communications from Sir
Hamilton Seymour, which not only indicate but demonstrate the
game which the Autocrat was playing. It is certainly remarkable to
observe the extreme cordiality with which the Emperor greeted the
accession of his old friend, Lord Aberdeen, to power, and the
fervency of his wishes for his long continuance in office. Immediately
thereafter—or rather on the same occasion—he begins to develop his
designs upon Turkey, states his prognosis of the condition of the sick
gentleman, and requests to be informed what are our views as to the
partition of his property. Our Ministers demur as to the fact of the
sickness; but the Imperial Doctor assures them that it is so, or shall
immediately be so, and states that he will be contented with a
temporary occupation of the dying man’s domicile—the catastrophe
to be hastened by a bolus of his own administration—but that we are
perfectly welcome to seize upon certain outlying hereditaments! And
in return to such proposals, which, if agreed to, would have made us
deservedly infamous throughout Europe, the Ministers of Queen
Victoria think fit to beslaver the Czar! Since the days of Charles II.
England has seen no similar instance of adulation to a foreign
potentate.
The correspondence is now before the world, and the public must
decide whether it is such as to justify Lord Aberdeen’s assertion, in
reply to Lord Derby, “that if he thought it would be found to contain
anything on which a charge could be founded against the
Government, he would find himself egregiously mistaken.”
Undoubtedly they are not chargeable with connivance—but they are
chargeable with incapacity and misconduct so gross, that even
connivance could not have produced effects more disastrous. If they
did not play directly into the hands of the Czar, they failed to make
him aware of the part which they were bound to take should he
persist in his nefarious designs. They manifested no kind of
honourable indignation at his offers; they received his cajolements
with complacency, and paid him back with compliments and
assurances not one whit more sincere than his own. If this really is
the style in which our diplomatic intercourse is usually conducted,
there is ample room for a reform. They cannot with justice assert that
the Emperor was keeping them in the dark as to the nature of his
own projects. He was, on the contrary, particularly frank. He
insisted, over and over again, that Turkey was on the eve of
dissolution; he even indicated that he might himself be the agent to
force on that catastrophe—and yet Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues
are now maintaining that he had deceived them! How, where, and
when were they deceived? He showed them the victim, prophesied
his immediate death, intimated that the fatal deathblow might be
given by his hand, told them that he was in accord with Austria,
invited them to declare their wishes as to the subsequent partition,
and emphatically assured them that there was no time to be lost. Let
us call things by their proper names. Stigmatise the conduct of the
Czar, if you will, as ambitious, tyrannical, unprincipled, or nefarious
—but do not accuse him of having concealed his purpose from the
British Ministry.
Were the Ministers then so blind that they failed to perceive his
purpose? Of course they were not. The Cabinet which contained
Lords Aberdeen and Palmerston, both of them experienced in
foreign affairs, could be at no loss to divine his meaning, even if that
had been more obscurely expressed; and consequently we must
conclude that so early as March 1853 they were put thoroughly on
their guard. They were aware that the Czar meditated the destruction
of the Ottoman empire, and having that knowledge, every movement
of his in the East, whether diplomatic or military, could only be
regarded as progressive means towards the end proposed.
Now there were two courses open to Ministers. The one was to
have intimated at once, without any circumlocution or compliment,
that Great Britain would not submit to any invasion of the Turkish
territories on the part of a European power, but would be prepared,
by force of arms, to resist any such attempt. That would have been a
manly and honourable course; and we are satisfied that, if adopted,
the Czar would not have had the temerity to provoke a crisis.
Unfortunately no declaration was made. A faint dissuasive,
accompanied by an immense deal of complimentary sugar, was all
that our Ministers ventured to tender; and the Czar was accordingly
allowed to proceed, under the evident impression that Great Britain
would not actively interfere to prevent his designs upon Turkey, any
more than she interfered to prevent those of his ancestress upon
Poland.
The other course was to have maintained a strict neutrality, and to
have treated the Eastern question as an affair entirely between
Russia and Turkey. To that, however, it is more than doubtful
whether the people of this country would have submitted. The
appetite of Russia for territorial aggrandisement is so insatiable, and
her advances have been pushed so far, that the virtual cession to her
of so fair and fertile a country as Turkey, and the entire command of
the entrance to the Black Sea, would, very justly, have been deemed
an act of culpable cowardice. Setting aside the position of India, and
the facilities which the occupation of Turkey would afford for any
hostile demonstration upon that part of our dominions, we have
now, in consequence of Free Trade, a direct interest in the Danubian
Principalities, as so many granaries for our home consumption.
Since we ceased to act upon the principle of growing corn for our
own population, and made ourselves dependent upon foreign
supplies, it would be suicidal to give Russia the power of cutting us
short both in the north and on the south—in the Baltic and the Black
Seas. Still that was the only other course which Ministers could
consistently have adopted, if they wished to avoid or postpone the
terrible calamity of a war.
They followed neither the one course nor the other. They did not
tell the Czar that, if he persisted in the schemes which he had
disclosed to them, he must be prepared to meet Britain in the field;
nor did they tell him that, in so far as they were concerned, he might
do what he pleased with Turkey. They halted between two
opinions. In full knowledge of his designs, they allowed him to
commit himself—to pick a quarrel with Turkey about some rubbish
relating to the keys of the Holy Places—to march his forces across the
Pruth—to occupy the Principalities,—to do, in short, the work of one
effective campaign. They never intimated to the country that the
religious questions,—on which Russia, with scandalous hypocrisy,
rested her justification of invasion,—were mere pretexts to mask the
avowed intentions of Nicholas. They did not even send a fleet at once
to Constantinople, but kept it hovering between Malta and Besika
Bay, in the attitude of observation, long after the Russian guns were
roaring upon the Danube. Is it fair to suppose that Nicholas,—after
having frankly communicated to them his intentions more than a
twelvemonth ago; after having told them that the sick gentleman was
sure to die immediately; and after having taken measures to secure
the fulfilment of that prophecy,—could consider their late hesitating
and dilatory movement as otherwise than a convenient sham? It
must have appeared to him that if the British Government was
determined to oppose his project, they would at once have said so,
with the same openness which he manifested in his communications
to them. They said nothing of the kind. They gave him fulsome
compliments. Of course he went farther, and marched into the sick
man’s territory. What did our Ministers then? They concealed what
they knew, and entered into negotiations about the Russian
Protectorate of Christian subjects in Turkey, as if that were the sole
point which had occasioned the disturbance! What, under such
circumstances, could the Czar conceive, but that they were playing
into his hands? He had apprised them, in almost as many words, that
he intended to take possession of Turkey, so that they knew perfectly
well that the question involved was not one of religion, but of
political aggrandisement. It was, however, his policy to make it
appear to the uninitiated that religion was his paramount motive;
and when the British Cabinet began to negotiate and issue notes
upon that footing, he was, after the confidential correspondence
which had taken place, fairly entitled to believe that they were not in
earnest. The Czar is a remarkably able man—we question whether,
politically speaking, he is not the ablest man in Europe—but his own
extraordinary position precludes him from understanding the effect
of public opinion in such a country as our own. He is accustomed to
deal with Cabinets, not with nations or parliaments; and he
attributes more power to the former than they possess, at least
according to the constitution of Great Britain. The British Cabinet
cannot, like that of Prussia or Austria, commit the country to a
course which is inconsistent with or derogatory to its honour.
In consequence of this irresolution on the part of our rulers, we are
now precipitated into war, and are already beginning to feel some of
its inconveniences. Let us now endeavour to ascertain the causes
which have led to so very serious a denouement as the disruption of
the peace of Europe. It is important that we should do so now, and
not leave the question entirely to the future speculation of historians.
During Lord Derby’s short tenure of office, relations of peculiar
amity had been established between Britain and France. Lord
Malmesbury, than whom no more able or judicious minister ever
held the seals of the Foreign Office, saw that the interests of
civilisation not only in the west, but throughout the whole of Europe,
could only be maintained by a close and permanent co-operation,
and mutual good understanding between these two countries; and he
addressed himself to the task with equal discretion and success. It is
not too much to say that Britain and France never were more
cordially united and confidentially allied than during the period we
refer to. This, of course, was anything but agreeable to the Czar,
whose opportunity lay in a separation of the interests of the two great
powers of the West.
The dissolution of Lord Derby’s Government and the accession of
the Aberdeen Ministry effected a material alteration. The new
Premier, Lord Aberdeen, had been for a great many years on the
most intimate footing with the despotic Courts and Cabinets. He had
not, it was true, the ability of the Nesselrodes or Metternichs; but he
was considered in the highest diplomatic circles as a person who
might easily be led, and upon whom a certain show of deference
would not be thrown away. It was supposed, also, that he regarded
with particular dislike the recent changes in France, and was not
favourable to the re-establishment of the Empire under the rule of
Napoleon III. This veteran ally of the despotic powers was now
associated with men whose former political opinions had differed

Full Ebook of Service Quality Measurement Issues and Perspectives Issues and Perspectives 1St Edition Lewlyn L R Rodrigues Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Service Quality Measurement Issues and Perspectives Issues and Perspectives 1St Edition Lewlyn L R Rodrigues Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Service Quality Measurement Issues

and Perspectives Issues and

Understanding Medical Cannabis Critical Issues and

Water Governance and Management in India Issues and

Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Conflict (Psychological

Language and Law in Professional Discourse Issues and

Temporary and Child Marriages in Iran and Afghanistan:

Variability in Perspectives on Current Issues in Social

Quality of Higher Education Organizational and

Colonization and Domestic Service Historical and

Service Quality Measurement

Issues and Perspectives

Anchor Academic Publishing

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik

I am deeply indebted to:

Dr. Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues

According to Parasuraman et al. (1985) the direction of gap between customer

results, or is there a significant difference in their outcomes as applicable to a given service

Significance of this Research

Limitations and Scope for future Research

----- 000 -----

2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model (Nordic Model) 10

2.1 Chronology of Service Quality Research 6

5.8b Paired Sample t-test of Electronics Department 40

2.1 Service Quality Research ----- ----- ----- ----- 6

3.3 Metric Preparation ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18

6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions

two most popular metrics of Service Quality measurement.

1.4. Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF

with both loyalty and repurchase intent.

1.5. The Problem Statement

2.1. Service Quality Research

Table 2.1: Chronology of Service quality research

Year Researchers Research Outcome

Churchill, Gilbert A. and Carol

 Significance of processes and outcomes in defining service

1984 Gonroos Quality is a function of expectations, outcome and image

Viewed service quality as the extent to which a product offers

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Established ten service quality determinants known as

After substantial factor analysis and testing, reduced the 10

 Noted that firms not only have a difficult time delivering a

Noted research yielded service quality as being similar to

Noted customer preferences of service quality based upon

1993 Teas Kenneth R Found interpretation of SERVQUAL expectations was flawed.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml,  Disagreed with Brown, et al

2000 Dabholkar Pratibha A, C.

2000  Devised measurement system modifying SERVQUAL to

Used integrated conjoint experiments to measure perceived

Acknowledged acceptance of SERVQUAL, but questioned

Sureshchandar, G.S., Emphasized on Core services, Systemization of service

Studied the effect of critical factors on quality erosion in

Technology has had a remarkable influence on the growth of

Proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the inter-

Development in information and communication technology

Devised measurement system to measure Service Quality in

Used Quality function deployment on paired SERVQUAL

Identified five service quality factors: technical, functional,

Generalization of quality dimensions is not possible among all

Observed several inconsistencies in previous research when it

Deduced through empirical investigation that there is a

2.2. The Service Quality Models

Expected Perceived Service Perceived

Significance of processes and outcomes in defining service

Noted that firms not only have a difficult time delivering a

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Disagreed with Brown, et al

2000 Devised measurement system modifying SERVQUAL to