Abstract
Purpose
This study investigates whether there are relationships between the characteristics of the boards of trustees of universities in the Arab region, higher education quality assurance and the output of scientific research.
Design/methodology/approach
The descriptive analytical approach was used in this study. The study was conducted on the universities of the Arab region that are included in the classification of the British Institution for the Arab Region: QS Arab Region University.
Findings
The findings show that there is an effect of the characteristics of the trustees combined in the universities of the Arab region on ensuring the quality of higher education, other than the output of scientific research. The findings also indicate when measuring the characteristics individually that the trustee system is not effective in the Arab region and it is only formal for nominal purposes.
Research limitations/implications
Most universities in the Arab region do not disclose the data of boards of trustees, their roles, committees, rules of procedure and the nature of their work. A large number of universities also do not operate under the trustee system because the regulations and instructions do not allow this in the country.
Practical implications
This study seeks to improve practitioners knowledge, including boards of trustees, in ensuring the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research.
Originality/value
The research projected the governance model through the characteristics of the boards of directors of for-profit companies on the boards of trustees of universities in the Arab region. The study examines the nature of the characteristics of the boards of trustees that are compatible with its responsibilities, the most important of which is the supervision of the strategy to ensure the quality of higher education research.
Keywords
Citation
Awwad, B., Anaewah, M., Razia, B. and Salameh, M. (2024), "Governance boards of trustees: quality of higher education and the outputs of scientific research", Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-03-2023-0021
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Bahaa Awwad, Mohammad Anaewah, Bahaa Razia and Muhammed Salameh
License
Published in Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
The interest in moving from the traditional method of governance to following the methods of governance began more than two decades ago, especially with the development of convictions regarding the positive impact of governance methods on higher education and scientific research (Leisyte, 2007). Universities are considered a source of great development in human societies, especially in light of the rapid progress in our current era, as it has turned from a mere productive place for knowledge and science to institutions that seek to produce human resources capable of being a source of development and community development (Berqaan and Al-Qurashi, 2012). Higher education institutions must build an internal governance model that includes all the diverse elements associated with the university, to reach structures and processes that support effective decision-making and flexible and sustainable management (Estermann et al., 2021).
Higher education in the Arab world is subjected to several criticisms by international institutions including the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program. This is because it is behind its counterparts in developed countries, and the gap between learning and employment (Sabri, 2010). Higher education in the Arab world faces many challenges, including funding, compared to population growth, the rate of enrolment in universities and the high costs of higher education (Mediani and Talhawi, 2018). It is believed that the classification of Arab countries is still lagging according to the classification: QS Arab Region University Rankings 2021, where King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia ranked first among the Arab countries, while it ranked 143 globally (QS top universities, 2021).
Attempts to reform higher education and scientific research in Arab countries have not yet yielded actual results. Because it has not kept pace with the human capital requirements necessary for economic development efforts to the extent and type required. The percentage of universities allocated to individuals is still less than the global average (Mediani and Talhawy, 2018). The centralisation of power in the universities of the Arab world has caused several negative repercussions on the efficiency and effectiveness of these institutions. This is also related to the lack of spending on scientific research and the failure to give it the necessary attention (Boukraa and Boukassas, 2018). Hence, the issue of higher education reform in the Arab world has assumed great importance in the corridors of academic and scientific councils. This study focuses on highlighting the role of the characteristics of boards of trustees as indicators of governance and tries to monitor their impact on ensuring the quality of education and the output of scientific research.
Organisation of the paper
The study is divided into eight parts including the problem of the study, the importance and objectives of the study, the theoretical framework, the methodology, the results, testing hypotheses, the discussion and finally the conclusions and recommendations.
The research problem
The International Association of Universities Governing Bodies emphasises the need for institutions to constantly improve their management and align their governing model to meet challenges in higher education. It is also vital to discuss the autonomy of universities and which allows for development and competition. This remains subject to the higher education policies adopted by states, through their direct supervision, to ensure the quality of higher education (Hénard and Mitterle, 2010). Scientific research practices are affected by economic, social and political external influences. The most important of which is the quality of leadership in universities and the extent of their commitment to governance standards (Leisyte, 2007). Therefore, boards of trustees are necessary for the university management process, as they involve all stakeholders in the management of higher education and scientific research operations. Universities that are managed traditionally, through internal committees, and the academic side dominated most decisions from the failures in their outputs. As a result, the presence of the Board of Trustees gives universities a state of independence that provides a free atmosphere for scientific research and knowledge production (Razia et al., 2019). This study seeks to ascertain the application of the principles of governance (represented by the characteristics of boards of trustees) in universities in the Arab region. This supports ensuring the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research.
The importance and objectives of the study
This study came to shed light on the characteristics of boards of trustees, their role in ensuring the quality of education and the output of scientific research in universities in the Arab region. This contributes to strengthening institutional reform in Arab universities, which is positively reflected in the efficiency and effectiveness of performance and the quality of services provided in these universities. This can be achieved through the development of administrative and leadership systems within Arab universities. These patterns, in turn, help develop the outputs of higher education institutions and ensure the achievement of efficiency in the quality of education and the output of scientific research. The outputs of this study also help decision-makers and practitioners in the ministries of higher education to apply the best indicators of governance of boards of trustees.
Theoretical framework
Higher education and scientific research occupy an important place in all countries of the world, especially in developed countries. It is noticeable that they occupy an advanced position in financing and investment, and many emerging countries have begun in recent years, such as India, China, Malaysia and Brazil. This leads to an increase in their interest in universities and various research centres. China recently became the second largest country after the United States, in terms of higher education, creativity and scientific innovation. Among the most important systems used in the development of the higher education sector is the so-called university governance, which is characterised by a set of foundations and principles that allow advancement and development of university institutions (Masoudi, 2018).
The university’s governance constitutes a general framework through which the institution seeks to achieve its goals and policies in a state of coherence and homogeneity. It controls the direction of the daily procedures and activities of the institution’s executive branch and generates interest in certain aspects. This includes aspects of the quality assurance system that are difficult to implement, due to its reliance on evaluation, which resulted in an approximate match with the desired university quality characteristics (Shibli and Mohsen, 2020). Therefore, advisory bodies were set up at different levels, to provide expertise to university governance. Some councils have set them up, in response to a project logic, and include a quality assurance component (Razia et al., 2019; Estermann et al., 2021).
The administration undertaken by the Board of Trustees is considered the most powerful tool for managing modern universities. Universities are granted autonomy, which creates a free environment for scientific research and knowledge production. Key Functional Activities is one of the most important policy functions of Boards of Trustees, in addition to the Board of Trustees’ emphasis on university research, is consistent with taking into account future strategic innovations (Mathies and Slaughter, 2013).
Most educational policies in developed and developing countries at present focus on developing a system of educational and administrative policies and programmes, to achieve excellence and quality in education (Sabri, 2010). The role of the Board of Trustees, in the educational field, is challenging due to harsh economic fluctuations, rapid development in methods of government, and regulatory concerns (Hermalin, 2004). It is noted that universities and companies are very similar in terms of the structure, the organisational form and the legal role of the boards of trustees in universities and the boards of directors of companies (Brown, 2014).
Many international institutions have pointed out the need for universities to improve their management, and to follow the style of governance in education. The International Association of University Governing Bodies 2008 “emphasised the need for institutions to continually improve their governance and align their governance model to meet challenges in higher education” (Hénard and Mitterle, 2010). The development of education is associated with the requirements of the times and the needs of the market, and the development of higher education from the elite system to the global system, to meet Societal Demand and Quality Assurance (Çetinsaya, 2014).
As a result, there is a need for distinguished university leaders at the academic and administrative levels. This is vital to play their role in coordination with the rest of the stakeholders in the educational process. This has the potential to give them additional strength that enables them to lead the wheel of excellence. The Board of Trustees is mostly a body whose members are independent. This board is concerned with the planning of the university, providing financial support and formulating educational and research policies for the trustees providing autonomy to universities and creating an appropriate climate for scientific research and knowledge production (Awwad and Razia, 2021).
Several studies have dealt with some of the characteristics of boards of directors (in profit organisations), where the researcher carried out the process of projecting these characteristics on boards of trustees (in non-profit organisations). Several studies dealt with the issue of the link between the characteristics of boards of directors and boards of trustees, this is due to the similarity and overlap The greatness in its composition, role and nature of its formation, as what applies to boards of directors also applies to boards of trustees in terms of characteristics, form and purpose (Awwad and Razia, 2021; Xiaoxu, 2015; Brown Jr, 2014; de Andrés et al., 2010).
Zalloum and Baqila (2021) examined some characteristics, such as the diversity of the gender of the members of the board of directors, and the size of the board of directors, and it was found that there is an adverse effect of the diversity of the gender of members on innovation, as well as the absence of an effect due to the size of the company. Maghribi (2020) found that there is a statistically significant effect of the independence of the council on the level of voluntary disclosure. The study also showed the presence of statistically significant differences due to the size of the council. Zabhoud (2019) indicated that there is a direct relationship between the size of the board and earnings management.
Abu Aqoula and Al-Daoud (2019) identified a positive statistically significant impact for each of the board members’ independence, the board members, and the gender of the board members on the delay in issuing the financial reports. Ali and Oudat (2021) indicated that there is a substantial relationship between the size of the board of directors, the independence of the board, the size of the bank and the performance of intellectual capital, while there is a marginal relationship between the number of board meetings, the diversity of the board of directors, the board’s experience and the performance of intellectual capital in Bahraini commercial banks.
There is a correlation between some characteristics of the board of directors (the independence of the board of directors, the size of the board, board meetings and duplication of roles) and the level of voluntary disclosure of banks in the annual reports listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange. Milad and Bicer (2020) indicated that the independence of the board of directors and the size of the board meetings of the board of directors were positively and significantly related to the level of voluntary disclosure. To achieve the effectiveness of board meetings and whether they modify the relationship between the diversity of the board (in terms of educational level and nationality) and the performance of intellectual capital. Al-Musali and Ismail (2015) showed that there was no effect of board diversity by increasing the number of board meetings On the performance of intellectual capital and learning how gender diversity, ethnic diversity, the board size, board composition and foreign principals affect the financial performance of insurance companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.
Garba and Abubakar (2014) indicated that gender diversity and foreign managers have a positive impact on the performance of insurance companies and that there is a negative and important relationship between the composition of the board of directors and the performance of insurance companies in Nigeria. These results have positive repercussions in increasing the number of female directors on boards. Managing insurance companies in Nigeria will enhance their performance, but an increase in the proportion of external directors on the board will reduce performance (Abdulkareem et al., 2023).
Regarding the possibility of managing public universities through the establishment of a Board of Trustees, the majority of participants believe that it will be successful in state universities with checks and balances. Trakman (2008) found that there is an increasing controversy between public universities in many language-speaking environments. One fear is that the crisis of governance will cause staff and students to flee to universities elsewhere, and the opposite fear is that if the crisis of governance is not revealed, the university will collapse from within, and “good” university management simply does not happen. It is usually the result of painstaking efforts to arrive at appropriate governance structures, protocols and processes related to “good” governance also timing and governance: require governing boards to understand when the governance model is not working, and why and how it is being reformed.
Shafee et al. (2020) indicated that there is a wide gap in the dimensions of quality and implementation between the two universities studied, so academic institutions and colleges must collect data on themselves and evaluate the educational process based on quality assurance standards for use in policymaking. Nasreddin (2012) stated that the reality of the application of governance in the University of the Middle East was generally high. With the presence of differences according to the different job positions, it was in favour of the faculty members. De Andrés et al. (2010) illustrated that board size and independence are not determinants of organisational efficiency, in contrast, managers’ ability to create value for the organisation is directly related to group participation or critical discussion derived from group members with heterogeneous knowledge.
It is noted that the boards of trustees express the extent of commitment to the application of governance in universities, and despite the importance of the subject, according to the researcher’s knowledge, there are no studies that address all its aspects, in terms of studying the combined characteristics in-depth. Arab studies do not study the boards of trustees in a specialised way. In addition to rooting the concept related to the characteristics of boards of trustees (in non-profit institutions), which were imported from boards of directors (in for-profit institutions). The hypotheses of the study are formulated as follows:
There is no statistically significant effect of the characteristics of the Board of Trustees with its dimensions (the size of the board, the composition of the board, independence, the proportion of foreigners, diversity in specialisations, academic degree and work environment), in ensuring the quality of higher education in universities in the Arab region.
There is no statistically significant effect of the characteristics of the Board of Trustees in its dimensions (the size of the board, the composition of the board, independence, the proportion of foreigners, the diversity in specialisations, the degree and the work environment), on the output of scientific research in the universities of the Arab region.
Methodology
Study population and sample
The study population is represented in the universities of the Arab region. These universities are included in the classification of the British Institution for the Arab Region (QS Arab Region University Rankings, 2021), which are 160 universities. The purposeful sample of the study consisted of 50 universities distributed over nine Arab countries, which provided sufficient information for the characteristics of the boards of trustees for the year 2021.
Methods for measuring study variables
The descriptive analytical approach is the most appropriate for the nature of the subject of the study and its variables. This is because the data used for statistical analysis, which are the characteristics of the boards of trustees in their dimensions, will be collected from the official websites of the universities of the Arab region, the subject of the study for the year 2021 (Garba and Abubakar, 2014; Mokhtar, 2016; Al-Khadash and Al-Washli, 2019; Maghribi, 2020). Data of QS Quacquarelli Symonds according to the classification of the QS Arab Region University Rankings was used to ensure the quality of higher education. The product of scientific research will be extracted from the Scopus database, and accordingly, the model function is formulated as follows:
Y1: Quality of higher education
Y2: The product of scientific research
X7–X1: Board of Trustees characteristics (the size of the board, the composition of the board, the independence of the board, the proportion of foreigners on the board, the academic degree of the board members, the background of the work environment for the board members and the diversity of specialisation for the board members)
β1–β7: The slop
ε: Random error
Descriptive statistics for the study data
Table 1 shows the descriptive analysis of the data, where the Skewness index appears for all variables with values less than 3, and the Kurtosis index for all variables with values less than 7. These are considered good indications since there are no problems with the data.
The statistical methods used in the study
To conduct the appropriate analysis and answer the study questions and hypotheses, cross-section data was used. This type of data is collected by observing many subjects, at one point or period. The analysis may not give any consideration to the differences in time. The analysis consists of cross-section data, usually from a comparison of differences between selected subjects, which was statistically processed with a multi-platform software package for econometric analysis (Gretl), written in the programming language “C”. The validity of the general model hypotheses and multiple linear regression analysis will be tested.
Results
Multiple regression model validity tests
Building a multiple linear regression model, which corresponds to the nature of the data cross-section data, requires several assumptions and conditions to ensure the ability to generalise the results. This includes the condition of the independence of the independent variables from each other (multicollinearity). This means that there is no high correlation between the independent variables about each other. The imbalance of this condition causes the problem of coupling linearity. This condition was also verified using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test. As the VIF is less than. This indicates that there is no problem with coupling linearity in the model and therefore supports the quality of the proposed model. The condition of the normal distribution of the study variables was also verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The results indicated that the statistical significance (SIG) for all study variables is greater than the significance level of 0.05. Thus, the distribution of the data follows a normal distribution, and the Breusch–Pagan test was used for heteroscedasticity. The results show that the statistical significance (SIG) for all study variables is greater than the significance level of 0.05. Thus the distribution of data for these variables follows a random and heterogeneous distribution of variance (see Table 2).
Correlation test
The Bivariate Pearson Correlation test was used to ascertain the degree of correlation of each variable with the other variables. This test enhances the degree of ascertainment of the independence of the variables and their non-interference with each other, and thus their validity and readiness for regression analyses. Table 3 shows that the strength of the correlation between the study variables does not exceed 80%. Therefore, there is no indication of problems in the data.
Hypothesis testing
To answer the first main hypothesis, a multiple regression test was used to study the effect of all the characteristics of the Board of Trustees on the dependent variable which is the quality of higher education. The results can be clarified through Table 4.
Table 4 shows that there is an effect of the two variables closest to the level of statistical significance only from the independent variables, namely the percentage of foreigners and the background of the work environment of the (academic) council on ensuring the quality of higher education. This indicates that these two variables have an effect with a negative regression coefficient of −0.8911 and −0.9328, respectively. A statistical significance of 0.0527 and 0.0949, respectively, which are among the accepted error rates in social sciences and fall below the level of significance of 0.10.
The overall interpretation coefficient R2 was equal to 0.3909, which means that the independent variables were affected by 39% in the dependent variable, the adjusted interpretation coefficient R2 was equal to 0.2348 and the p-value (F) is 0.0197. It means that it is less than the significance level of 0.05, that is, there is an effect of the independent variables on ensuring the quality of higher education. Below is an analysis of the regression effect of each of the independent variables separately on the dependent variable (see Table 5).
Table 5 shows that there is no effect on the size of the Board of Trustees, the composition of the Board of Trustees, the independence of the Board of Trustees, the percentage of diversity in the specialisation of the Board of Trustees, the degree of master’s and doctorate degrees, and the background of the work environment, while there was an effect for foreigners in the Board of Trustees and academic degree (Bachelor’s degree or less) to achieve the quality of higher education in universities in the Arab region. To answer the second main hypothesis, a multiple regression test was used to study the effect of all the characteristics of the Board of Trustees on the dependent variable the product of scientific research (see Table 6).
Table 6 shows that there is an effect of the two variables closest to the level of statistical significance only from the independent variables, which are the background of the work environment of the council (Legal personalities) and the background of the work environment of the council (Academic) on the output of scientific research. This indicates that these two variables have an effect with a negative regression coefficient of the value of 0.8691 and 1.00058, respectively. The statistical significance amounted to 0.0549 and 0.0950, respectively, which is within the accepted error rates in social sciences and falls below the significance level of 0.10. The overall interpretation coefficient R2 was 0.3449. This means that the independent variables were affected by 34% of the dependent variable, the modified interpretation coefficient R2 was 0.1770 and the p-value (F) was 0.0533.
This also means that it was higher than the significance level of 0.05, meaning that the independent variables did not affect the dependent variable, the product of scientific research. The following table is an analysis of the regression effect of each of the independent variables separately on the dependent variable.
Table 7 shows that there was no effect on the size of the Board of Trustees, the independence of the Board of Trustees, the percentage of foreigners, the academic degree of the Board of Trustees or the background of the work environment. However, there was an effect on the composition of the Board of Trustees, and the percentage of diversity in the specialisation Board of Trustees on the output of scientific research in universities in the Arab region.
Discussion
The study sought to clarify the role of the characteristics of the boards of trustees with their dimensions (the size of the board, the composition of the board, the independence of the board, the proportion of foreigners on the board, the academic degree of the board, the background of the work environment of the board and the diversity of the board’s specialisations) in ensuring the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research in universities in the Arab region. The results showed that there is an impact of the characteristics of the boards of trustees collectively on ensuring the quality of higher education, while it did not affect the outcome of scientific research. When conducting a unilateral analysis of the variables, it was not found that there was a statistically significant effect of the size of the Board of Trustees on ensuring the quality of higher education and the outcome of scientific research. The explanation for this is that 72% of the boards of trustees, on which the study was conducted, include members of a size of 11–20.
Thus, it is neither very large nor small. Some literature has been critically reviewed and suggested that in non-profit organisations’ boards of trustees, the impact of size on board effectiveness is less clear and more complex (Belcher, 1960; Alagla and Habash, 2018; Nour et al., 2020; Ali and Oudat, 2021). A board with a larger number of members allows for more control over operational issues and the processing of larger amounts of data (Dato et al., 2019). On the other hand, the board is small in size and is unable to issue accurate and comprehensive decisions, and it cannot monitor all aspects of activities related to its duties in an optimal manner.
As for the composition of the council (namely, the percentage of females in the council), it was not clear that there was a statistically significant effect of it on ensuring the quality of higher education in universities in the Arab region, other than the output of scientific research. This means that 34% of the councils under study do not include a single female among their members, while 66% include females, even at low rates sometimes.
The diversity of the council’s gender provides new values and knowledge, attracts new and different perspectives in the council’s discussions on university-related strategies and encourages creativity (Arzubiaga et al., 2018). It was also not found that there was a statistically significant effect of the independence of the council on ensuring the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research in the universities of the Arab region. However, the percentage of independents in the study sample is 68%. De Andrés et al. (2010) indicated that it is difficult to describe the characteristics of effective councils in general terms since it is not always desirable to increase the number of independent members of the council.
It is clear from the results that there is a statistically significant effect of the presence of foreigners in the council, on ensuring the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research in universities in the Arab region. This links with 36% of the council members of the study sample including foreign members. In other words, members of nationalities and others from outside the country foster different cultures and the exchange of ideas and perspectives, leading to organisational productivity (Ali and Oudat, 2021). For this reason, having a Board of Trustees that understands how different countries work, business environments and people are essential. This assists more people from different countries with different lifestyles, cultures and backgrounds to deal with potential challenges (Jhunjhunwala and Mishra, 2012).
Regarding the diversity of specialisation of the council members, it was found that there is no impact on ensuring the quality of higher education in the universities of the Arab region, other than the output of scientific research. At least 36% of the sample of councils under study had a diversity rate of 71–80%, which is considered a good diversity rate but not to the required level. Alonso et al. (2010) indicated that the diversity of disciplines leads to the highest benefit that the council achieves from the different types of knowledge brought by members. However, the heterogeneity of this knowledge is more important, as formations with diverse perspectives can determine the best solution for each problem.
Conclusions and recommendations
Regarding the academic degree of the board members, the results show that there is an impact of the bachelor’s degree variable only for council members on ensuring the quality of higher education in universities in the Arab region, other than the output of scientific research. Bathula (2008) suggested considering qualified and skilled members as a strategic resource that provides a link with external resources different, ensuring an effective board. This requires high levels of intellectual ability, experience and integrity. The results did not show any significant statistical effect of the background of the work environment on ensuring the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research in the Arab League. Taylor (1987) indicated that the presence of faculty members on boards of trustees is unnecessary because their membership is not considered useful in attracting appropriate support. However, the board can consult with faculty members, which establishes the council’s internal legitimacy. Belcher (1960) considered that the diversity of background adds a wide range of educational and research activities and their impact and interests at the general level. For this reason, great diversity in the membership of the Board of Trustees, in terms of scientific background, professional experience and geographical location, is required.
Therefore, this study recommended that there is a need to activate the role of boards of trustees by increasing the number of members by involving stakeholders, raising the number of females and focusing on independence, increasing the number of periodic meetings, activating administrative follow-up, and auditing quality reports and the output of scientific research. It is also recommended to conduct further studies on boards of trustees and add other characteristics such as the number of board meetings. The majority of universities in the Arab region do not disclose the data on the boards of trustees, their roles, committees, rules of procedure and the nature of their work. There are a large number of universities that do not even operate under the trustee system because the regulations and instructions of those countries do not support this.
This paper highlights the importance of the role of boards of trustees for the quality of higher education and the output of scientific research. Investigating and proposing better conditions for better and reliable relationships between higher education institutions and the Board of Trustees lead to reflections on the role of the universities’ engagement with society and create more value for practitioners and stakeholders. Future research could also investigate the Board of Trustees’ role and their impact on universities’ performance in terms of strategic planning, governance and establishing policy-related issues.
Results of the descriptive analysis of the study variables
| Variable | Mean | Median | Minimum | Maximum | Std. dev. | Skewness | Ex. kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bsize | 0.02 | 0.017 | 0.009 | 0.052 | 0.008 | 1.833 | 4.526 |
| BComposition | 0.12 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.128 | 0.977 | 0.359 |
| Independence | 0.901 | 0.92 | 0.62 | 1 | 0.088 | −1.784 | 3.116 |
| Nationality | 0.138 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 0.248 | 1.918 | 2.681 |
| Bachelor | 0.293 | 0.28 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.150 | 0.404 | −0.345 |
| Master | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0 | 0.42 | 0.134 | 1.131 | 0.184 |
| Phd | 0.597 | 0.59 | 0.22 | 1 | 0.193 | −0.04 | −0.931 |
| Academic | 0.437 | 0.425 | 0.12 | 0.8 | 0.157 | 0.288 | −0.172 |
| Business | 0.315 | 0.3 | 0.00 | 0.8 | 0.198 | 0.364 | −0.278 |
| Legalpersons | 0.409 | 0.395 | 0.00 | 0.92 | 0.241 | 0.191 | 0.571 |
| Diversity | 0.732 | 0.73 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.109 | 0.105 | −0.188 |
| QS | 1 | 1.007 | 0.013 | 2.08 | 0.629 | 0.019 | −1.208 |
| Scopus | 2.012 | 1.961 | 0 | 3.622 | 0.651 | −0.214 | 1.142 |
Note(s): The data was collected from the websites of Arab universities, the Scopus and the QS for the year 2021
Source(s): Authors’ work
Results of tests for the validity of the multiple regression model hypotheses
| Variables | Test value | SIG | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Board size | 1.234 | 0.095 | 1.956 | |
| Female proportion | 0.425 | 0.994 | 1.398 | |
| Percentage of freelancers | 0.727 | 0.665 | 1.105 | |
| Percentage of foreigners | 0.682 | 0.741 | 2.108 | |
| Diversity rate in specialisation | 0.526 | 0.945 | 1.626 | |
| Degree | Bachelor’s degree or less | 0.876 | 0.427 | 1.471 |
| Master’s | 0.810 | 0.528 | 1.324 | |
| Ph.D. and above | 0.878 | 0.423 | 2.768 | |
| Work environment background | Academic | 0.602 | 0.862 | 1.256 |
| Business | 0.432 | 0.992 | 1.331 | |
| Legal persons | 0.747 | 0.632 | 1.348 | |
| Breusch–Pagan | Unadjusted R2 | F | SIG | |
| 0.351 | 17.598 | 0.613 | ||
Source(s): Authors’ work from the results of the SPSS program
Results of the Pearson correlation matrix test
| Scopus | QS | Diversity | Legalpersons | Business | Academic | Ph.D. | Master | Bachelor | Nationality | Independence | BComposition | Bsize | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bsize | 0.158 | −0.187 | −0.493 | 0.137 | 0.355 | −0.148 | −0.268 | 0.372 | 0.013 | 0.456 | 0.075 | 0.451 | 1 |
| BComposition | 0.295 | −0.257 | −0.284 | 0.089 | 0.147 | 0.055 | −0.173 | 0.279 | −0.026 | 0.172 | 0.161 | 1 | |
| Independence | −0.035 | −0.107 | 0.075 | 0.221 | 0.081 | −0.049 | −0.106 | 0.206 | −0.047 | 0.127 | 1 | ||
| Nationality | 0.258 | −0.468 | −0.29 | 0.237 | 0.234 | −0.156 | 0.002 | 0.398 | −0.358 | 1 | |||
| Bachelor | −0.246 | 0.283 | −0.182 | 0.241 | −0.135 | −0.235 | −0.724 | −0.075 | 1 | ||||
| Master | 0.197 | −0.271 | −0.209 | 0.225 | 0.240 | −0.046 | −0.634 | 1 | |||||
| Phd | 0.054 | −0.032 | 0.285 | −0.342 | −0.061 | 0.214 | 1 | ||||||
| Academic | 0.260 | −0.195 | 0.029 | −0.236 | 0.043 | 1 | |||||||
| Business | 0.170 | −0.186 | −0.356 | −0.292 | 1 | ||||||||
| legalpersons | 0.163 | −0.205 | −0.067 | 1 | |||||||||
| Diversity | −0.287 | 0.258 | 1 | ||||||||||
| QS | −0.798 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Scopus | 1 |
Source(s): Authors’ work from the results of the SPSS program
The value of the constant and the multiple regression coefficients for the effect of the characteristics of the Board of Trustees on the quality assurance of higher education
| Study variables | Non-standard transactions | Value (t) | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard error | ||||
| Constant value | 0.770 | 1.195 | 0.644 | 0.523 |
| Board size | 14.301 | 13.652 | 1.048 | 0.301 |
| Board composition | −0.807 | 0.711 | −1.135 | 0.263 |
| Board independence | 0.024 | 0.959 | 0.025 | 0.979 |
| Percentage of foreigners | −0.891 | 0.446 | −1.998 | 0.052 * |
| Academic degree of the board (Bachelor’s degree or less) | 0.702 | 0.671 | 1.047 | 0.301 |
| Board academic degree (Master) | −0.156 | 0.688 | −0.228 | 0.820 |
| Academic degree of the council (Ph.D. and above) | 0.156 | 0.688 | 0.228 | 0.820 |
| Work environment background for the council (Academic) | −0.932 | 0.544 | −1.712 | 0.094 * |
| Business environment background of the board (Business) | −0.357 | 0.491 | −0.728 | 0.470 |
| The work environment background of the council (Legal persons) | −0.632 | 0.409 | −1.544 | 0.130 |
| Diversity in specialisation | 1.0 | 0.919 | 1.087 | 0.283 |
| Interpretation coefficient R2 | 0.390 | |||
| Adjusted interpretation coefficient R2 | 0.234 | |||
| F statistic | 2.503 | |||
| p-value (F) | 0.019 | |||
Note(s): ** Statistically significant at the significance level (α = 0.05)
*Statistically significant at the significance level (α = 0.10)
Source(s): Authors’ work from the results of the SPSS program
Results of testing the variables associated with the first main hypothesis
| Variable | B | Adj R2 | R Square | T | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1 | |||||
| Board size | −14.717 | 0.014 | 0.035 | −1.321 | 0.192 |
| Hypothesis 2 | |||||
| Board composition | −1.258 | 0.046 | 0.066 | −1.847 | 0.07 * |
| Hypothesis 3 | |||||
| Board independence | −0.767 | −0.009 | 0.011 | −0.750 | 0.456 |
| Hypothesis 4 | |||||
| Percentage of foreigners | −1.184 | 0.202 | 0.219 | −3.671 | 0.00 *** |
| Hypothesis 5 | |||||
| Diversity rate in specialisation | 1.493 | 0.047 | 0.066 | 1.854 | 0.069 * |
| Hypothesis 6 | |||||
| Academic degree of the board (Bachelor’s degree or less) | 1.187 | 0.061 | 0.080 | 2.050 | 0.045 ** |
| Board academic degree (Master) | −1.272 | 0.054 | 0.073 | −1.951 | 0.056* |
| Academic degree of the council (Ph.D. and above) | −0.105 | −0.019 | 0.001 | −0.225 | 0.822 |
| Hypothesis 7 | |||||
| Work environment background for the council (Academic) | −0.779 | 0.018 | 0.038 | −1.382 | 0.173 |
| Business environment background of the board (Business) | −0.591 | 0.014 | 0.034 | −1.317 | 0.194 |
| The work environment background of the council (Legal persons) | −0.535 | 0.022 | 0.042 | −1.451 | 0.153 |
Source(s): Authors’ work from the results of the SPSS program
The value of the constant and the multiple regression coefficients for the impact of the characteristics of the Board of Trustees on the outcome of scientific research
| Study variables | Non-standard transactions | Value (t) | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard error | ||||
| Constant value | 3.486 | 1.282 | 2.719 | 0.009 *** |
| Board size | −11.619 | 14.648 | −0.793 | 0.432 |
| Board composition | 1.135 | 0.763 | 1.488 | 0.144 |
| Board independence | −1.02 | 1.029 | −0.991 | 0.327 |
| Percentage of foreigners | 0.131 | 0.478 | 0.275 | 0.784 |
| Academic degree of the board (Bachelor’s degree or less) | −1.176 | 0.720 | −1.634 | 0.110 |
| Board academic degree (Master) | 0.145 | 0.738 | 0.196 | 0.845 |
| Academic degree of the council (Ph.D. and above) | −0.145 | 0.738 | −0.196 | 0.845 |
| Work environment background for the council (Academic) | 1.0 | 0.584 | 1.711 | 0.095 * |
| Business environment background of the board (Business) | 0.456 | 0.526 | 0.865 | 0.392 |
| The work environment background of the council (Legal persons) | 0.869 | 0.439 | 1.979 | 0.054* |
| Diversity in specialisation | −1.482 | 0.987 | −1.502 | 0.141 |
| Interpretation coefficient R2 | 0.344 | |||
| Adjusted interpretation coefficient R2 | 0.177 | |||
| F statistic | 2.054 | |||
| p-value (F) | 0.053 | |||
Note(s): ** Statistically significant at the significance level (α = 0.05)
*Statistically significant at the significance level (α = 0.10)
Source(s): Authors’ work from the results of the SPSS program
Results of testing the variables related to the second main hypothesis
| Variable | B | Adj R2 | R Square | T | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1 | |||||
| Board size | 12.879 | 0.004 | 0.025 | 1.111 | 0.271 |
| Hypothesis 2 | |||||
| Board composition | 1.491 | 0.068 | 0.087 | 2.140 | 0.037** |
| Hypothesis 3 | |||||
| Board independence | −0.26 | −0.019 | 0.001 | −0.245 | 0.807 |
| Hypothesis 4 | |||||
| Percentage of foreigners | 0.675 | 0.047 | 0.066 | 1.852 | 0.07* |
| Hypothesis 5 | |||||
| Diversity rate in specialisation | −1.715 | 0.063 | 0.082 | −2.075 | 0.043** |
| Hypothesis 6 | |||||
| Academic degree of the board (Bachelor’s degree or less) | −1.067 | 0.041 | 0.06 | −1.761 | 0.084* |
| Board academic degree (Master) | 0.960 | 0.019 | 0.039 | 1.398 | 0.168 |
| Academic degree of the council (Ph.D. and above) | 0.182 | −0.017 | 0.002 | 0.377 | 0.707 |
| Hypothesis 7 | |||||
| Work environment background for the council (Academic) | 1.074 | 0.048 | 0.067 | 1.869 | 0.067 * |
| Business environment background of the board (Business) | 0.56 | 0.008 | 0.029 | 1.201 | 0.235 |
| The work environment background of the council (Legal persons) | 0.441 | 0.006 | 0.026 | 1.147 | 0.257 |
Source(s): Authors’ work from the results of the SPSS program
References
Al-Khadash, M. and Al-Washli, H. (2019), “Diversity of the board of directors and its impact on the performance of companies listed on the Amman stock exchange: the case of banks and insurance companies”, The Jordanian Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 467-487, doi: 10.35516/0338-015-004-007.
Al-Musali, M.A. and Ismail, K.N. (2015), “Board diversity and intellectual capital performance: the moderating role of the effectiveness of board meetings”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 268-283, doi: 10.1108/ARJ-01-2014-0006.
Abdulkareem, H.K.K., Jimoh, S.O. and Shasi, O.M. (2023), “Socioeconomic development and sustainable development in Nigeria: the roles of poverty reduction and social inclusion”, Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 265-278, doi: 10.1108/JBSED-10-2021-0137.
Alagla, S. and Habash, M. (2018), “The impact of board of directors on opportunistic managerial behaviour: evidence from the UK”, King Abdulaziz University Journal - Economics and Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 121-145, doi: 10.4197/Eco.32-1.4.
Ali, B. and Oudat, M. (2021), “Board characteristics and intellectual capital performance: empirical evidence of Bahrain commercial banks”, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00645.x.
Alonso, P.D., Palenzuela, V.A. and Merino, E.R. (2010), “Beyond the disciplinary role of governance: how boards add value to Spanish foundations”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 100-114, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00645.x.
Aquila, N. and Al-Daoud, A. (2019), “The impact of the characteristics of the board of directors and the ownership structure on the timing of issuing financial reports in the Jordanian industrial public shareholding companies”, Master's Thesis, Yarmouk University, pp. 1-110.
Arzubiaga, U., Iturralde, T., Maseda, A. and Kotlar, J. (2018), “The moderating effects of family, women, and strategic involvement in the board of directors”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 217-244, doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0473-4.
Awwad, B. and Razia, B. (2021), “Financial leasing in palestinian islamic banks and its role in enhancing financial performance: an analytical study”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. S6, pp. 1-18.
Bathula, H. (2008), Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Evidence from New Zealand. Doctor of Philosophy, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Belcher, D.R. (1960), The Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, ScholarlyCommons, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Boukraa, L. and Boukassas, A.H. (2018), “The reality of higher education in the Arab world: problems and prospects for development”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 29, pp. 60-71.
Brown, W.O., Jr (2014), “University board composition: causes and consequences”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 318-336, doi: 10.1002/mde.2618.
Burqaan, A.M.A. and Al-Qurashi, A.A. (2012), “University governance and its role in facing challenges”, The Globalisation of Management in the Age of Knowledge, pp. 16-16.
Çetinsaya, G. (2014), “Büyüme, Kalite, Uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye Yükseköğretimi İçin Bir Yol Haritası”, Eskişehir: Yükseköğretim Kurulu, available at: https://yolharitasi.yok.gov.tr/docs/ YolHaritasi.pdf.
Dato, M.H., Hudon, M. and Marsland, R. (2019), “Board governance: does ownership matter?”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1111/apce.12262.
de Andrés, P., Azofra, V. and Romero-Merino, M. (2010), “Beyond the disciplinary role of governance: how boards add value to Spanish foundations”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 100-114, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00645.x.
Estermann, T., Pruvot, E.B. and Stoyanova, H. (2021), The Governance Models of the European University Alliances: Evolving Models of University Governance, Vols 1-25”, European University Association, European.
Garba, T. and Abubakar, B.A. (2014), “Corporate board diversity and financial performance of insurance companies in Nigeria: an application of panel data approach”, Asian Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 257-277.
Hénard, F. and Mitterle, A. (2010), “Governance and quality guidelines in higher education: a review of governance arrangements and quality assurance guidelines”, Paris: OECD.
Hermalin, B. (2004), “Boards of trustees in higher education: a research program”, ResearchGate, pp. 1-33.
Jhunjhunwala, S. and Mishra, R.K. (2012), “Board diversity and corporate performance: the Indian evidence”, IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 71-79, available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/3df3fc0f590bb4587aeac936377ad326/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54446
Leisyte, L. (2007), “University governance and academic research: case studies of research units in Dutch and English universities”, The University of Twente, p. 427, available at: https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/university-governance-and-academic-research-case-studies-of-resea
Maghribi, M.Z. (2020), “The impact of the characteristics of the board of directors on the level of voluntary disclosure in companies”, Ramah Journal for Research and Studies, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 209-247, available at: http://search.mandumah.com/Record/1053836
Massoudi, B. (2018), “Requirements for applying the principles of university governance in higher education institutions”, Economic Notebooks Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97, doi: 10.36530/1661-010-002-006.
Mathies, C. and Slaughter, S. (2013), “University trustees as channels between academe and industry: toward an understanding of the executive science network”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 Nos 6-7, pp. 1286-1300, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.003.
Midiani, M. and Talhawi, F.A. (2018), “The reality of the higher education sector and scientific research in the Arab countries”, Independence University Journal of Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 245-262, doi: 10.36554/1796-003-001-008.
Milad, I.A. and Bicer, A.A. (2020), “The association between board of directors characteristics and the level of voluntary disclosure: evidence from listed banks in Borsa Istanbul”, Management and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 166-185, available at: http://search.mandumah.com/Record/1040051
Mokhtar, E.S. (2016), “Testing the relationship between profit management practices, the characteristics of the board of directors, family control and the global financial crisis 8002-9002: an applied study on the Lebanese banking sector”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 256-310.
Nasreddin, Y.A. (2012), “The reality of the application of governance in the Middle East University from the point of view of the members of the teaching and administrative staff working in it”, Journal of the Union of Arab Universities, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 341-374, available at: http://search.mandumah.com/Record/496696
Nour, A.I., Sharabati, A.A. and Hammad, K.M. (2020), “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure”, International Journal of Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility (IJSECSR), Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 20-41, doi: 10.4018/IJSECSR.2020010102.
QS top universities (2021), “QS Arab region university Rankings 2021(QS)”, QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited 1994-2021, available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/arab-region-university-rankings/2021
Razia, B., Larkham, P. and Thurairajah, N. (2019), “Risk assessment and risk engagement in the construction industry within conflict zones”, Proceedings of the 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), Leeds, ISBN 9780995546349, pp. 863-872.
Sabry, H.A. (2010), “The quality of higher education and academic accreditation standards: the experience of private university education in Jordan”, Authored by the Arab Administrative Development Organization, the Third Arab Conference - Arab Universities: Challenges and Prospects, Sharm El-Sheikh: Arab Administrative Development Organization, pp. 87-115.
Shafee, M.S., Kasses, T. and Zoweil, R.Y. (2020), “Quality dimensions in higher education in Egypt: a comparative study between accredited colleges by NAQAAE represented in College of Management and Technology - AASTMT and non-accredited colleges represented in Faculty of Commerce - Alexandria University”, Scientific Journal for Economic and Commerce, No. 3, pp. 249-291.
Shibli, A. and Mohsen, N. (2020), “The impact of university governance on the level of quality of the educational process at the University of Basra and the Southern Technical University: a field study”, The Arab Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 19-42, doi: 10.21608/aja.2020.91521.
Taylor, B.E. (1987), Working Effectively with Trustees: Building Cooperative Campus Leadership, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED284509
Trakman, L. (2008), “Modelling university governance”, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2, pp. 63-83.
Xiaoxu, L. (2015), “The role of the board of trustees in public universities in China”, PhD thesis. Canada: ProQuest LLC (2016), available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/71023
Zaghoud, T. (2019), “The effect of the characteristics of the board of directors on profit management: an empirical study on a sample of family shareholding companies in Algeria during the period 2010-2016”, Algerian Journal of Economic Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.35156/1433-006-002-001.
Zalloum, O. and Baqila, K. (2021), “The impact of the diversity of the board of directors on innovation for Jordanian public shareholding industrial companies”, The Jordanian Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-52, doi: 10.35516/0338-017-001-002.
Further reading
Ajal, M. (2018), “Principles and standards for the quality of higher education”, Journal of Human and Society Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 819-842, doi: 10.1002/nml.21137.
Al-Jaidi, N.M. and Asmio, M.M. (2015), “Towards a modern vision of the governance model in higher education institutions: a descriptive and analytical study of the governance model in the higher education system in Libya”, Journal of Economics and Business Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-24.
Al-Wahidi, M.A.M. (2018), “Total quality management and its applications in the Jordanian ministry of public works and housing”, Journal of Graduate Studies, Vol. 11 No. 42, pp. 230-251.
Barringer, S.N. and Riffe, K.A. (2018), “Not just figureheads: trustees as micro-foundations”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 155-170, doi: 10.1007/s10755-018-9422-6.
Bassam, A.H. (2019), “A proposed framework for adopting governance in the public sector”, King Saud University Journal - Administrative Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 175-203, doi: 10.33948/0255-028-002-005.
Hamdan, A.M.M. and Awwad, B. (2015), “Governance of higher education and its impact on the quality of scientific research: evidence from Palestine and Bahrain”, Research of the Fifth International Arab Conference for Quality Assurance of Higher Education: The United Arab Emirates, University of Sharjah, pp. 186-193.
Heemskerk, K., Heemskerk, E.M. and Watts, M. (2015), “Behavioural determinants of nonprofit board performance: the case of supervisory boards in Dutch secondary education”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 417-430, doi: 10.1002/nml.21137.
Mitterle, A. and Henard, F. (2010), “Governance and quality guidelines in higher education”, A Review of Governance Arrangements and Quality Assurance Guidelines Parts: OCDE.
Noaman, A.Y., Ragab, A.M., Madbouly, A.I., Khedra, A.M. and Fayoumi, A.G. (2015), “Higher education quality assessment model: towards achieving the educational quality standard”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 23-46, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1034262.
Nour, S.S. (2011), “National, regional and global perspectives of higher education and science policies in the Arab region”, Minerva, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 387-423, doi: 10.1007/s11024-011-9183-1.
Obaid, M. and Rabay'ah, M. (2020), “The degree of application of governance rules in public sector institutions in the West Bank and its most important obstacles”, Al-Quds Open University Journal of Administrative and Economic Research, Vol. 5 Co. 13, pp.12-27, doi: 10.33977/1760-005-013-002.
Sayidah, N., Ady, S.U., Supriyati, J., Sutarmin, S., Winedar, M., Mulyaningtyas, A. and Assagaf, A. (2019), “Quality and university governance in Indonesia”, International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 10-17, doi: 10.5430/the.v8n4p10.
Soomro, T.R. and Ahmad, R. (2012), “Quality in higher education: United Arab Emirates perspective”, Higher Education Studies, Vol. 2 No. 4, doi: 10.5539/her.v2n4p148.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Palestine technical university – Kadoorie for its valuable support.