en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Show issue
Year 2016 
Volume 24 
Issue 4

Quality of Teaching and Research in Public Higher Education in Poland: Relationship with Financial Indicators and Effciency

Janusz Kudła
University of Warsaw

Monika Stachowiak-Kudła
Lazarski University

Adam Figurski
Lazarski University

2016 24 (4) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.184

Article contents

Abstract

Purpose: The article addressed the problem of relationships between university funding and efficiency on the one hand and the quality of teaching and research on the other.

Methodology: The measurement of teaching and research quality in Polish universities was derived from two sources: 1) evaluation scores of teaching quality given to universities by the Polish Accreditation Committee, and 2) the research category grades given to university departments or units by the Polish Committee for Evaluation of Scientific Units. Subsequently, the quality measurements were correlated with financial indicators and efficiency scores obtained from data envelopment analysis.

Findings: The correlation and regression results indicated that public universities that have received higher scores of teaching quality simultaneously have higher average scientific categories. There was also a substantial relationship between the revenue per student and the revenue per teacher and variables describing quality but the regression analysis exhibited opposite directions regarding the type of quality indicator.

Research limitations/implications: The quality of teaching and research at universities was assessed despite the limited availability of internal information gathered from higher education institutions (HEIs).

Practical implications: The authorities of a university can simultaneously track the improvement of quality or financial efficiency without losing their interdependence when reforms of HEI operations are conducted.

Originality: The study proposed new measurements of quality derived from external evaluation bodies and investigated the relations of these measures with selected financial and efficiency indicators.

References

  1. Abbott, M. and Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The effciency of Australian universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22: 89–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272¬7757(01)00068¬1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agasisti, T. and Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities’ effciency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7): 1237–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801423 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahn, T., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1988). Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative effciencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22: 259–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(88)90008-0 [Google Scholar]
  4. Athanassopoulos, D. and Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative effciency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5: 17–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299700000011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Avkiran, N.K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale effciencies of Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35: 57–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(00)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  6. Banker R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale ineffciencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078–1092, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beck, N.L. and Katz, J.N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89: 634–647, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergseth B., Petocz, P. and Dahlgren, M.A. (2014). Ranking quality in higher education: guiding or misleading?, Quality in Higher Education, 20(3): 330–347, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.976419 [Google Scholar]
  9. Breu, T.M. and Raab, R.L. (1994). Effciency and perceived quality of the nation’s top 25 national universities and national liberal-arts colleges – an application of Data Envelopment Analysis to higher¬education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28: 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(94)90023-X [Google Scholar]
  10. Central Statistical Offce (2011). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Central Statistical Offce (2012). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2011. [Google Scholar]
  12. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the effciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ćwiąkała-Małys, A. (2010). Ustalenie efektywności procesu kształcenia publicznych uczelni akademickich przy wykorzystaniu nieparametrycznej metody analizy nakładów i wyników DEA. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 55: 25–43. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunbar, H. and Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14: 119–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)90393-M [Google Scholar]
  15. Jabnoun, N. (2015). The influence of wealth, transparency, and democracy on the number of top ranked universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2): 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0033 [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnes, J. and Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(3): 301–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272¬7757(95)00008¬8 [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and its application to the measurement of effciency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25: 273–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kmenta, J. (1997). Elements of Econometrics. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.15701 [Google Scholar]
  19. Leifner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4): 469–489, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977 [Google Scholar]
  20. Michael, S.O. (2005). The Cost of Excellence: The Financial Implications of Institutional Rankings. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 365–382, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510607716 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1): 37–53, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601 [Google Scholar]
  22. Sav, G.T. (2012). Productivity, effciency, and managerial performance regress and gains in United States universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(3): 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sav, G.T. (2013). Four-stage DEA effciency evaluations: Financial reforms in public university funding. International Journal of Economic & Finance, 5(1): 24–33. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016). Kultura akademicka. Koniec utopii? Warszawa. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tomkins, C. and Green, R. (1988). An experiment in the use of Data Envelopment for evaluating the effciency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 44: 147–164, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Worthington, C. and Lee, B.L. (2008). Effciency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27: 285–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Abbott, M. and Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The effciency of Australian universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22: 89–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272¬7757(01)00068¬1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Agasisti, T. and Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities’ effciency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7): 1237–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801423 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ahn, T., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1988). Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative effciencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22: 259–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(88)90008-0 [Google Scholar]
  30. Athanassopoulos, D. and Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative effciency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5: 17–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299700000011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Avkiran, N.K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale effciencies of Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35: 57–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(00)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  32. Banker R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale ineffciencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078–1092, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078 [Google Scholar]
  33. Beck, N.L. and Katz, J.N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89: 634–647, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979 [Google Scholar]
  34. Bergseth B., Petocz, P. and Dahlgren, M.A. (2014). Ranking quality in higher education: guiding or misleading?, Quality in Higher Education, 20(3): 330–347, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.976419 [Google Scholar]
  35. Breu, T.M. and Raab, R.L. (1994). Effciency and perceived quality of the nation’s top 25 national universities and national liberal-arts colleges – an application of Data Envelopment Analysis to higher¬education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28: 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(94)90023-X [Google Scholar]
  36. Central Statistical Offce (2011). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2010. [Google Scholar]
  37. Central Statistical Offce (2012). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the effciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ćwiąkała-Małys, A. (2010). Ustalenie efektywności procesu kształcenia publicznych uczelni akademickich przy wykorzystaniu nieparametrycznej metody analizy nakładów i wyników DEA. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 55: 25–43. [Google Scholar]
  40. Dunbar, H. and Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14: 119–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)90393-M [Google Scholar]
  41. Jabnoun, N. (2015). The influence of wealth, transparency, and democracy on the number of top ranked universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2): 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0033 [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnes, J. and Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(3): 301–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272¬7757(95)00008¬8 [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and its application to the measurement of effciency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25: 273–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kmenta, J. (1997). Elements of Econometrics. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.15701 [Google Scholar]
  45. Leifner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4): 469–489, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977 [Google Scholar]
  46. Michael, S.O. (2005). The Cost of Excellence: The Financial Implications of Institutional Rankings. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 365–382, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510607716 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1): 37–53, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sav, G.T. (2012). Productivity, effciency, and managerial performance regress and gains in United States universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(3): 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sav, G.T. (2013). Four-stage DEA effciency evaluations: Financial reforms in public university funding. International Journal of Economic & Finance, 5(1): 24–33. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016). Kultura akademicka. Koniec utopii? Warszawa. [Google Scholar]
  51. Tomkins, C. and Green, R. (1988). An experiment in the use of Data Envelopment for evaluating the effciency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 44: 147–164, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Worthington, C. and Lee, B.L. (2008). Effciency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27: 285–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  53. Abbott, M. and Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The effciency of Australian universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22: 89–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272¬7757(01)00068¬1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Agasisti, T. and Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities’ effciency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7): 1237–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801423 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ahn, T., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1988). Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative effciencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22: 259–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(88)90008-0 [Google Scholar]
  56. Athanassopoulos, D. and Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative effciency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5: 17–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299700000011 [Google Scholar]
  57. Avkiran, N.K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale effciencies of Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35: 57–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(00)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  58. Banker R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale ineffciencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078–1092, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078 [Google Scholar]
  59. Beck, N.L. and Katz, J.N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89: 634–647, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979 [Google Scholar]
  60. Bergseth B., Petocz, P. and Dahlgren, M.A. (2014). Ranking quality in higher education: guiding or misleading?, Quality in Higher Education, 20(3): 330–347, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.976419 [Google Scholar]
  61. Breu, T.M. and Raab, R.L. (1994). Effciency and perceived quality of the nation’s top 25 national universities and national liberal-arts colleges – an application of Data Envelopment Analysis to higher¬education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28: 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(94)90023-X [Google Scholar]
  62. Central Statistical Offce (2011). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2010. [Google Scholar]
  63. Central Statistical Offce (2012). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2011. [Google Scholar]
  64. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the effciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ćwiąkała-Małys, A. (2010). Ustalenie efektywności procesu kształcenia publicznych uczelni akademickich przy wykorzystaniu nieparametrycznej metody analizy nakładów i wyników DEA. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 55: 25–43. [Google Scholar]
  66. Dunbar, H. and Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14: 119–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)90393-M [Google Scholar]
  67. Jabnoun, N. (2015). The influence of wealth, transparency, and democracy on the number of top ranked universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2): 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0033 [Google Scholar]
  68. Johnes, J. and Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(3): 301–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272¬7757(95)00008¬8 [Google Scholar]
  69. Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and its application to the measurement of effciency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25: 273–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  70. Kmenta, J. (1997). Elements of Econometrics. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.15701 [Google Scholar]
  71. Leifner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4): 469–489, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977 [Google Scholar]
  72. Michael, S.O. (2005). The Cost of Excellence: The Financial Implications of Institutional Rankings. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 365–382, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510607716 [Google Scholar]
  73. Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1): 37–53, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sav, G.T. (2012). Productivity, effciency, and managerial performance regress and gains in United States universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(3): 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sav, G.T. (2013). Four-stage DEA effciency evaluations: Financial reforms in public university funding. International Journal of Economic & Finance, 5(1): 24–33. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016). Kultura akademicka. Koniec utopii? Warszawa. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tomkins, C. and Green, R. (1988). An experiment in the use of Data Envelopment for evaluating the effciency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 44: 147–164, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.x [Google Scholar]
  78. Worthington, C. and Lee, B.L. (2008). Effciency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27: 285–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  79. Abbott, M. and Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The effciency of Australian universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22: 89–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272¬7757(01)00068¬1 [Google Scholar]
  80. Agasisti, T. and Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities’ effciency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7): 1237–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801423 [Google Scholar]
  81. Ahn, T., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1988). Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative effciencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22: 259–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(88)90008-0 [Google Scholar]
  82. Athanassopoulos, D. and Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative effciency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5: 17–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299700000011 [Google Scholar]
  83. Avkiran, N.K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale effciencies of Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35: 57–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(00)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  84. Banker R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale ineffciencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078–1092, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078 [Google Scholar]
  85. Beck, N.L. and Katz, J.N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89: 634–647, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979 [Google Scholar]
  86. Bergseth B., Petocz, P. and Dahlgren, M.A. (2014). Ranking quality in higher education: guiding or misleading?, Quality in Higher Education, 20(3): 330–347, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.976419 [Google Scholar]
  87. Breu, T.M. and Raab, R.L. (1994). Effciency and perceived quality of the nation’s top 25 national universities and national liberal-arts colleges – an application of Data Envelopment Analysis to higher¬education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28: 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(94)90023-X [Google Scholar]
  88. Central Statistical Offce (2011). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2010. [Google Scholar]
  89. Central Statistical Offce (2012). Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2011. [Google Scholar]
  90. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the effciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8 [Google Scholar]
  91. Ćwiąkała-Małys, A. (2010). Ustalenie efektywności procesu kształcenia publicznych uczelni akademickich przy wykorzystaniu nieparametrycznej metody analizy nakładów i wyników DEA. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 55: 25–43. [Google Scholar]
  92. Dunbar, H. and Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14: 119–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)90393-M [Google Scholar]
  93. Jabnoun, N. (2015). The influence of wealth, transparency, and democracy on the number of top ranked universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2): 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0033 [Google Scholar]
  94. Johnes, J. and Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(3): 301–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272¬7757(95)00008¬8 [Google Scholar]
  95. Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and its application to the measurement of effciency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25: 273–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  96. Kmenta, J. (1997). Elements of Econometrics. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.15701 [Google Scholar]
  97. Leifner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4): 469–489, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977 [Google Scholar]
  98. Michael, S.O. (2005). The Cost of Excellence: The Financial Implications of Institutional Rankings. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 365–382, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510607716 [Google Scholar]
  99. Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1): 37–53, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601 [Google Scholar]
  100. Sav, G.T. (2012). Productivity, effciency, and managerial performance regress and gains in United States universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(3): 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  101. Sav, G.T. (2013). Four-stage DEA effciency evaluations: Financial reforms in public university funding. International Journal of Economic & Finance, 5(1): 24–33. [Google Scholar]
  102. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016). Kultura akademicka. Koniec utopii? Warszawa. [Google Scholar]
  103. Tomkins, C. and Green, R. (1988). An experiment in the use of Data Envelopment for evaluating the effciency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 44: 147–164, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.x [Google Scholar]
  104. Worthington, C. and Lee, B.L. (2008). Effciency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27: 285–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012 [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Kudła, Janusz & Stachowiak-Kudła, Monika & Figurski, Adam (2016). Kudła, J. , Stachowiak-Kudła, M. , & Figurski, A. . (2016). Quality of Teaching and Research in Public Higher Education in Poland: Relationship with Financial Indicators and Effciency. Central European Management Journal, 24(4), 88-108. https://doi.org/10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.184 (Original work published 2016)

MLA style

Kudła, Janusz and Stachowiak-Kudła, Monika and Figurski, Adam. Kudła, J. , et al.. “Quality Of Teaching And Research In Public Higher Education In Poland: Relationship With Financial Indicators And Effciency”. 2016. Central European Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 4, 2016, pp. 88-108.

Chicago style

Kudła, Janusz and Stachowiak-Kudła, Monika and Figurski, Adam. Kudła, Janusz , Monika Stachowiak-Kudła, and Adam Figurski. “Quality Of Teaching And Research In Public Higher Education In Poland: Relationship With Financial Indicators And Effciency”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 24, no. 4 (2016): 88-108. doi:10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.184.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY-NC-ND

People also read: