Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR UNDERTAKING STUDIES IN THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AT POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Magdalena K. WYRWICKA1, Beata MRUGALSKA2 1, 2Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, ul. Strzelecka 11, 60-965 Poznan, Poland E-mails: 1magdalena.wyrwicka@put.poznan.pl; 2beata.mrugalska@put.poznan.pl (corresponding author) Received 09 December 2014; accepted 19 January 2015 Abstract. Since 2010 a survey has been conducted among first-year students about sources of information which influence the decision of undertaking field studies in Safety Engineering, Management Engineering and Logistics in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology. The goal of these analyses is both to assess the effectiveness of promotion and also show trends in the use of diverse channels of information transfer of studies. The results of the investigation show that internet promotion via university and faculty website plays the dominant role but also direct promotion, such as opinion of older friends, is crucial. Furthermore, from year to year the analyses indicate the significant increase of official media and reveal that the prospective students rely on a few sources of information simultaneously. Keywords: communication channel, higher education, high school graduate, in- formation, information-seeking behaviour, promotion, source of information, uni- versity choice. JEL Classification: I21. 1. Introduction In the recent two decades university education has expanded to a remarkable extent in Poland. It results from the fact that before 1990 the higher education system in Poland comprised only state institutions, and the exception was the non-state Catholic University in Lublin. In 1990, the new Act on Schools of Higher Education established rules for non- state institutions of higher education. In the consequence, in the academic year 2013/2014 we had 467 higher education institutions whereas in 2000/2001 there were only 310. These institutions are facing now increasingly complex challenges as the size of higher education age groups is decreasing. In 2000, 1 584 804 students were enrolled in all types of higher education institutions, whereas in 2005 this number increased to 1 953 832. Since then it has been dropping and it amounted 1 676 927 students in 2012 (CSO 2013). B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2015, 13(1): 126–139 doi:10.3846/bme.2015.257 http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bme.2015.257 127 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 On the other hand, modern technology provides a variety of new information de- livery systems, sources and channels, which are accessible at anytime from anywhere. However, it is important to emphasise that the easy access to them does not have to mean that all retrieved information is relevant, reliable, valid and of sufficient quality. Therefore, the range of information resources contributes to the need to identify and select the most appropriate one. Therefore, there is a demand in a deeper understand- ing of the sources of information prospective students’ use when enrolling to college or university. In the paper the problems of higher education institutions in Poland are highlighted. The analysis of the existing theoretical and methodological potential about information seeking behaviour and sources of information is also presented. It provides a back- ground to the investigation part where the results of the questionnaire survey conducted among students in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology are shown and widely discussed. The final part of the paper summarizes the following discussion and provides some suggestions for future research. 2. Previous research In recent decades science and technology have developed rapidly and brought major changes in the ways in which information is being sought and used. Information seeking behaviour involves activities that are undertaken to identify information needs, search for information, evaluate and select it, and finally use to satisfy its needs (Wilson 1999). Various factors can be differentiated that determine the information seeking behaviour based on an individual or a group of individuals. Thus, it is vital to recognize the pur- pose for which information is needed, its environment, operator’s skills, its channels and sources, including both active and passive seeking, and limitations (Robson, Robinson 2013; Timmers, Glas 2010). Information-seeking behaviour of children, young people, students, researchers, and professionals has been the interest of the research for decades (Ansari, Zuberi 2010; Brussert 2011; Cluver 2013; Khosrowjerdi, Iranshahi 2011; Oláh et. al 2014; Sokkary 2013). However, initially, most of the studies were primarily focused on evaluation of library collections and lead to the design of appropriate information systems and ser- vices (Halder et al. 2010; Nesset 2014). For the aim of this paper in further analysis of the existing theoretical and methodological potential only high school graduates were taken into account. Selecting university is a decision-making process, which relies on an individual choice (Gati, Asher 2001). It is connected with the topic of career and it creates a “mini-cycle”, which constitutes a part of the whole career development cycle (Germeijs et al. 2012). The choice process of educational institution encompasses the following five steps: 128 M. K. Wyrwicka, B. Mrugalska. Identification of preferred sources of information for undertaking studies... − needs and motives, − information gathering, − evaluating alternatives, − decision and post-choice evaluation. A need or motive is usually a result of a perceived lack and when the student real- izes it he starts to pursue higher education and searches for information about its pos- sible providers. On the basis of the possessed experience and knowledge an evaluation between alternatives is established and choice is done. Each choice is evaluated in time (Al-Fattal 2010). Numerous factors influence information gathering process as applicants have differ- ent expectations and perceptions of the university degree benefits. They are depicted in 11 groups in Figure 1. For example, prospective students are affected by different opinions of various refer- ence groups such as parents, siblings, friends, teachers, high school and college counsel- lors, who have smaller or bigger impact on the individual (Navrátilová 2013; Kim, Gas- man 2011). The background also seems to determine the decisions of the students as it is proved that parents who went to college themselves, support much more their children in education process than those who did not attend it (Dumas, Lambert 2011; Kim, Gas- man 2011). Moreover, other studies showed that children from a lower socioeconomic background have even a smaller chance to get the qualification for university entrance (Solga, Dombrowski 2009). In many cases it may result from the high school context and location (Bell et al. 2009; Mangan et al. 2010; Rowan-Kenyon et al. 2008). Other critical factors in the students’ decision of a place to further studies are career prospects (Kinsler, Pavan 2011; Beffy et al. 2009) and reputation of the university, its programmes and rankings (Brown et al. 2009; Munisamy et al. 2014; Ciriaci, Muscio 2014). Fig. 1. Factors affecting students’ university choice (source: created by the authors) UNIVERSITY CHOICE Individual (collegues) Society (family) Educational background Carrier advisors Mass media University facilities Carrier prospects Promotional materials University staff Reputation Rankings 129 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 It is also revealed that financial aspects (e.g. tuition, scholarships, loans, grants, cost of living and the ability to work) are also of high importance for students (Cross, Golden- berg 2009; Dunnett et al. 2012; Pampaloni 2010; Rodic et al. 2012). Sometimes they are even a key factor as on the basis of them the decision is undertaken to not study at all (Heine et al. 2010). Following the study conducted by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers (June 2006) it is revealed that students indicate the fol- lowing university facilities as a key factors to consider when choosing higher school: library (73.6%), technology (53.6%), classrooms (50.9%), residence halls (42.2%) and exercise facilities (35.5%). Although the factors mentioned above have been identified as influential in the uni- versity choice process, there might be still discrepancies due to nation, gender and religion (Kim, Gasman 2011; Ivy 2010; Obermeit 2012; Taulke-Johnson 2010; Sojkin et al. 2012). For educational institutions it is very important to possess knowledge of informa- tion, which was taken into account during such decision, as it allows them to prepare the right promotional strategy which is target at the defined audience (Blackwell et al. 2001; Navrátilová 2013). Therefore, it is vital to discover what kind of information is supposed to be get, and from what sources it will be collected. Studies have shown that it is possible to differentiate several sources that are the most influential for students to collect information. According to Evans (1995), the major source of information is an institution’s staff and their direct or phone enquiries, whereas Taylor (1992) suggested friends’ advice and Pimpa (2005) underlined the role of family. In particularly, Alonderiene and Klimavičiene (2013) emphasized the role of parents and Wiese et al. (2010) mentioned siblings. Furthermore, other studies revealed the importance of the role of career advisers in information provision (James et al. 1999; Foskett 2009), current and prospecting students and employers (Mupemhi 2013). However, Kotler and Armstrong (2008) emphasized the need of division of information sources into the following four groups: − personal non-marketer controlled (e.g. family, friends, acquaintances), − personal marketer controlled (e.g. sales representatives), − non-personal non-marketer controlled (e.g. mass media), − non-personal marketer controlled (e.g. advertisements, prospectuses). He indicated the significance of the personal sources as they are a starting point for a student’s information gathering and in the further steps they supplement non-personal sources. In other studies it is shown that a highly influential role has an institution’s promo- tional materials such as guides, leaflets and prospects (Pasternak 2005). But on the other hand, Eckel (2007) noticed that information materials are generally poorly designed (not detailed enough or difficult to understand) and do not contain sufficient information for students and their parents for making comparisons between universities. Rankings 130 M. K. Wyrwicka, B. Mrugalska. Identification of preferred sources of information for undertaking studies... seem to be also helpful in undertaking decision which university to choose to study but nowadays they become to have a de-contextualised symbolic value which is no longer related to its original (Kehm 2014). According to Kim and Gasman (2011) and Pampaloni (2010) students willingly visit campuses to get direct information. On the other hand, it happens that young people, when they have a direct contact with educational institution, get overloaded with data which makes them more difficult to make decisions (Drummond 2004). However, in the last decade it is noticed that more and more attention is paid to so- cial media. The data presented in the 2014 Social Admissions Report (Pratt et al. 2014) reveal that 68% of secondary students use social media to find colleges and on the other hand 73% of universities interact with the prospective students using it. Social media provide the information not only via university web pages and blogs but through such informal media such as Facebook, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, MySpace, Pinterest, Twitter and Tumblr (Reddy 2014; Pratt et al. 2014). As far as university websites are concerned, 84% of prospective students indicate it as the most important source which supports their decision-making process concern- ing university choice (Ashburn 2007). Traditionally, the university website provides general information about school, its campus, academic programmes and news. In the past it used to be updated rarely, only some small parts of it were changed a few times per a month. However, this situation has changed completely in recent years. They have started to be dynamic sources of information which resemble storytelling, include videos and live updating events calendars. They allow to interact with a university community, current students, alumni, faculty, and staff. What is more, such websites include interactive virtual tours of the campus (Hussey 2011). Moreover, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds users can subscribe to it. Such a tool allows to get the latest news without having to search the web in the user’s reader. It collects the news on the basis of the reader’s set up. The examples of such readers are Bloglines and My Yahoo (Web-based readers) or PRESSfeed reader or NewsGator (downloadable newsreaders) (PRESSfeed 2010). On the other hand, many higher education professionals have already recognized the opportunities which informal media provide. Following the 2010 Pew Internet Project survey it can be noticed that 73% of online recent school leavers, who are potential prospective students, use social networks. The similar amount of young adults (72%) admits to communicate about their life also on networking sites (Lenhart et al. 2010). Moreover, the other research studies show that Twitter is recognized better (30.7%) than other Internet user (10.7%). Its recognition seems to increase as 71.8% of faculty declares to use Twitter more often (Magna 2009). It results from the fact that it is a platform which enables to engage, participate and collaborate the prospective students in real time. It is based on a content strategy: act and interact. Acting means providing news of interest, events, photos or statistics whereas interacting is observing what is 131 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 said, answering questions, updating, or congratulating on accomplishments (Hussey 2011). The greatest advantage of this new media is that it allows “the democratization of the creation, publishing, distribution and consumption of media context, and the real-time generation of new, unregulated content” (Reddy 2014). However, 53% of 243 schools admit that they monitor what is written about their institutions (Barnes 2009). In social media the most important roles as sources of information pay admissions counsellors (36%), currently enrolled students (32%), other admitted students (29%), guidance counsellors (28%), administrators (23%), faculty (20%) and alumni (13%) (Pratt et al. 2014). Furthermore, the prospective students precisely indicate that are interested in receiving instant messaging with the admissions counsellors (72%), read- ing blogs written by faculty members (64%) and profiles or blogs by current students (Junco, Cole-Avent 2008). Some other social networks as Ratemyprofessors.com and Stumbleupon also offer possibility of sharing, rating and recommending data on educational context. These are the places where people exchange information about the university staff, their skills and competences (Reddy 2014). When the sources of information are identified, a promotional effort to build com- munication channels, which will provide this information, should be done (Navrátilová 2013). For this aim education institutions can create two types of communication chan- nels (Koekemoer 2010): − pull, − push. Pull channels involve the user in whereas push channels are responsible for deliv- ering information to its users so they engage the educational consumers only in the process of receiving it. Communication channels can be also diversified into: − personal, − non-personal. Personal channels comprise two or more people communicating directly with each other. For instance, it can be communication face to face, through personalized mails, over the telephone or public speaking (Clemente 2002; Sandhusen 2008). In the last years more and more important instant messages and independent sites, that allow to contact with its clients, have become. In the future it is supposed that this distinction will be made into three types of communication channels: − advocate, − expert, − social. Advocate channels involve organization people who contact the prospective student in the target market. Expert channels are those where independent experts make state- ments to the audience whereas social channels encompass neighbours, friends, family members and associates who influence target person (Kotler et al. 2009). 132 M. K. Wyrwicka, B. Mrugalska. Identification of preferred sources of information for undertaking studies... The advantage of personal communication channels is the possibility of personal- izing the message and receiving feedback. Non-personal communication channels in- volve message transmittance without personal contact or interaction. The examples of them are: print (newspapers, magazines, leaflets, guides and direct mailing), broadcast (radio, television), electronic (audiotape, videotape), display (billboards, signs, post- ers), publicity, special events and atmospheres, or so called “packaged environments” which are responsible for creating or reinforcing a client to purchase a product which is an education (such as viewing rooms) (Sandhusen 2008). They can be also used to encourage personal communication via stimulating opinion leaders who later influence prospective educational consumers (Clemente 2002). 3. Materials and methods The purpose of this study was to determine sources of information which have an im- pact on undertaking studies. For this aim a theoretical review of previous researches in this area was done and then practical investigation was carried out among students of the first year of Bachelor and Master Science programme. The respondents studied such fields as Logistics, Management Engineering and Safety Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology. The modes of their studies were both daily and extramural. The study was based on a questionnaire that was distributed to the students before and after lectures in the first semesters in the years 2010–2013. All the questionnaires were valid what allow us to gather 1650 samples (481 in 2010, 456 in 2011, 350 in 2012 and 363 in 2013). The questionnaire consisted of eight questions from which seven were multiple choice questions with at least two answers. In some of them it was also possible to add more detailed information. The last question was open-ended so the students could add any sources of information not mentioned in the questionnaire. It allowed to collect a wider range of opinions. 4. Results, discussion and limitations In order to indicate the most important sources of information for enrolling studies in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology the investigation was conducted in the four following years and its results are presented in Figure 2. The studies have shown that in additional to formal information sources, high school graduates also relied heavily on informal communication channels to seek for informa- tion about studies. However, Internet was chosen as the most often consulted source. Analysing this information in details (Table 1) it can be noticed that the respondents mainly used university and faculty website (48.76% and 38.84%, respectively). In most cases they did it directly which means that they had already known univer- sity and faculty website. It rarely happened that some browsers were used for this aim. 133 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 Fig. 2. Sources of information for undertaking studies in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology (source: created by the authors) The research participants indicated people as the second most suitable source of in- formation. They mainly relied on the opinions of their friends (41.32%) and family (21.21), and only sometimes on employers and other (ca. 1%). According to the study more than one-third of responses concerned the guides to higher education as a source of information for enrolling studies. The resources published by the university were the highest assessed. When traditional news media are taken into account it appeared that television was indicated 56 times (overall ca. 15%) and radio was only chosen 20 times (ca. 6%). The newspapers, in particular, local ones, are a source of information in only 7%. On the basis of the results of the study it can be said that modern news media such as Internet is the most often perceived as the preferred source of information in contrast to traditional ones among young people. However, verbal communication still leads to an efficient flow of information. Seeking for knowledge about studies the attention is also paid to materials especially devoted to this issue such as guides and leaflets rather than advertisements in newspapers. During educational fairs the graduates compile a wide range of competitive information on education and its suppliers – educational institutions. These results of the study are comparable with the investigations presented in chapter 2 of this paper where an enviable role of institution and family is emphasised in the choice of higher schools. So, it can be noticed that directly involved factors have much more significant influence than indirect ones such as media. The limitation of the study is not a possibility of finding a correlation between variables what could help to better understand the choice of communication channels. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Internet People Guide to higher education Educational fairs Newspapers Television Radio Other 134 M. K. Wyrwicka, B. Mrugalska. Identification of preferred sources of information for undertaking studies... Over the years the questionnaires were not kept and only data were collected in files. Moreover, this study was conducted in only one faculty so the respondents might have an impact on the final results. It is also not possible to define any trend for the whole university. Furthermore, it could be interesting to compare these data with other higher schools. 5. Conclusions Contemporarily, young people have an opportunity to use many communication chan- nels for data gathering. However, in the educational point of view, it is crucial and vital to identify the preferred ones to be able to provide appropriate promotion as the Table 1. Detailed sources of information for undertaking studies in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology (source: created by the authors) Source of information Number of answers(N = 363) % Internet university website faculty website directly browser 177 141 105 43 48.76 38.84 28.93 11.85 People colleagues family employer other 150 77 6 4 41.32 21.21 1.65 1.10 Guide to higher education published by Poznan University of Technology national regional 104 18 7 28.65 4.96 1.93 Educational fairs organized by Poznan University of Technology regional organized by other higher school 78 19 5 21.49 5.23 1.38 Television local national 51 5 14.05 1.38 Newspapers local national 29 23 7.99 6.34 Radio regional national AFERA 13 4 3 3.58 1.10 0.83 Other 1 0.28 135 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 number of high school graduates is decreasing in contrast to the number of educational institutions. Therefore, the study was carried out among the students of the first year of Bachelor and Master Science programme in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology. On the basis of the obtained data it can be concluded that the Internet was identi- fied as the most suitable source of information. Almost 50% of the students indicated the university website as the basic knowledge provider about the studies. The faculty website was directly searched by 39% of the prospective students whereas 29% of them used a browser to find it. Majority of the respondents indicated also the significant role of friends and family in the process of enrolling studies. However, it must be empha- sized that colleagues (41%) and family (21%) were indicated as the most significant source of information. Furthermore, the respondents identified the need for searching information in materials such as guides and leaflets published by the university. Such information can be easily distributed during educational fairs. Furthermore, traditional news media, particularly television and newspapers, should be not regarded as outdated as they constituted ca. 35% of answers. References Alonderiene, R.; Klimavičiene, A. 2013. Insights into Lithuanian students’ choice of university and study program in management and economics, Management 18(1): 1–22. Al-Fattal, A. 2010. Understanding student choice of university and marketing strategies in Syrian private higher education: PhD dissertation. University of Leeds, Leeds [online], [cited 30 September 2014]. Available from Internet: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1115/1/PhD_Thesis_Anas_Al-Fattal_ SID200229252_Education.pdf Ansari, M. N.; Zuberi, N. A. 2010. Information seeking behaviour of media professionals in Karachi, Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 15(2): 71–84. Ashburn, E. 2007. Prospective students reply on campus visits and web sites to learn about colleges, The Chronicle of Higher Education 53(38): 39. Beffy, M.; Fougère, D.; Maurel, A. 2012. Choosing the field of study in postsecondary education: do expected earnings matter?, The Review of Economics and Statistics 94(1): 334–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00212 Barnes, N. G. 2009. Reaching the wired generation: how social media is changing college admis- sion [online], NACAC Discussion Paper. National Association for College Admission Counseling [cited 30 December 2014]. Available from Internet: http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/ Research%20Member%20Only/SocialMediaDiscussionPaper.pdf Bell, A. D.; Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.; Perna, L. W. 2009. College knowledge of 9th and 11th grade stu- dents: variation by school and state context, The Journal of Higher Education 80(6): 663–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0074 Blackwell, R.; Miniard, P.; Engel, J. 2001. Consumer behavior. 9th ed. Ft. Worth, Texas: Harcourt College Publishers. Brown, C.; Varley, P.; Pal, J. 2009. University course selection and services marketing, Marketing Intelligence & Planning 27(3): 310–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500910955227 136 M. K. Wyrwicka, B. Mrugalska. Identification of preferred sources of information for undertaking studies... Bussert, L. 2011. Millennial students’ online search strategies are associated with their mental models of search, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 6(3): 77–81. Cental Statistical Office (CSO). 2013. Higher education institutions. Warsaw: Statistical Publishing Establishment. Ciriaci, D.; Muscio, A. 2014. University choice, research quality and graduates’ employability: evi- dence from Italian national survey data, European Educational Research Journal 13(2): 199–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.2.199 Clemente, M. N. 2002. The marketing glossary: key terms, concepts and applications. New Jersey: Clemente Communication Group, LLC. Cluver, A. 2013. Young children selectively seek help when solving problems, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 115(3): 570–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.011 Cross, J. G.; Goldenberg, E. N. 2009. Off-track profs: nontenured teachers in higher education. Mas- sachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dumas, C.; Lambert, S. 2011. Educational achievement and socio-economic background: causality and mechanisms in Senegal, Journal of African Economies 20(1): 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejq028 Drummond, G. 2004. Consumer confusion: reduction strategies in higher education, International Journal of Educational Management 18(5): 317–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540410543466 Dunnett, A.; Moorhouse, J.; Walsh, C.; Barry, C. 2012. Choosing a university: a conjoint analysis of the impact of higher fees on students applying for university in 2012, Tertiary Education and Manage- ment 18(3): 199–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.657228 Eckel, P. 2007. Redefining competition constructively: the challenge of privativation, competition, and market-based state policy in the United States, Higher Education Management and Policy 19(1): 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v19-art5-en Evans, I. 1995. Marketing for schools. London: Cassell. Foskett, N. 2009. Fit for purpose? Career advisors, career decision-making and context of education choice, in Research Seminar on “Career Decision-making and Progression”, 19 March 2009, Uni- versity of Leeds, Lifelong Learning Institute. Gati, I.; Asher, I. 2001. The PIC model for career decision making: prescreening, in-depth exploration, and choice, in T. L. Leong, A. Barak (Eds.). Contemporary models in vocational psychology: a volume in honor of Samuel H. Osipow. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 6–54. Germeijs, V.; Luyckx, K.; Notelaers, G.; Goossens, L.; Verschueren, K. 2012. Choosing a major in higher education: profiles of students’ decision-making process, Contemporary Educational Psychol- ogy 27(3): 229–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.12.002 Halder, S.; Ray, A.; Chakrabarty, P. K. 2010. Gender differences in information seeking behavior in three universities in West Bengal, India, International Information and Library Review 42(4): 242–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2010.10.004 Heine, C.; Quast, H.; Beusse, M. 2010. Studienberechtigte 2008 ein halbes Jahr nach Schulabschluss: Übergang in Studium, Beruf und Ausbildung. Hannover: HIS Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH. Hussey, J. 2011. Twitter in higher education: from application to alumni relations, in L. A.Wankel, C. Wankel. Higher education with social media: including applications in student affairs, enroll- ment management, alumni relations and career centers. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 249–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2011)0000002016 Ivy, J. 2010. Choosing futures: influence of ethnic origin in university choice, International Journal of Educational Management 24(5): 391–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541011055965 137 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 James, R.; Baldwin, G.; McInnis, C. 1999. Which university? Factors influencing the choice of pro- spective undergraduates [online]. Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Divi- sion, Center for the Study of Higher Education, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne [cited 30 September 2014]. Available from Internet: http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv20817 Junco, R.; Cole-Avent, G. A. 2008. An introduction to technologies commonly used by college stu- dents, New Directions for Student Services. Special Issue: Using Emerging Technologies to Enhance Student Engagement 124: 3–17. June, A. W. 2006. Facilities play a key role in students’ enrollment decisions, study finds, Chronicle of Higher Education 9: A26–A27. Kehm, B. M. 2014. Global university rankings – impacts and unintended side effects, European Jour- nal of Education 49(1): 102–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12064 Kim, J. K.; Gasman, M. 2011. In search of a “good college”: decisions and determinations behind Asian American students’ college choice, Journal of College Student Development 52(6): 706–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0073 Kinsler, J.; Pavan, R. 2011. Family income and higher education choices: the importance of account- ing for college quality, Journal of Human Capital 5(4): 453–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/663649 Koekemoer, L. 2010. Introduction to integrated marketing communication. Lansdowne: Juta Legal and Academic Publishers. Kotler, P.; Armstrong, G. 2008. Principles of marketing. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.; Brandy, M.; Goodman, M.; Hansen, T. 2009. Marketing management. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Khosrowjerdi, M.; Iranshahi, M. 2011. Prior knowledge and information-seeking behavior of PhD and MA students, Library and Information Science Research 33(4): 331–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.04.008 Lenhart, A.; Purcell, K.; Smith, A.; Zickuhr, K. 2010. Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults, Pew Internet & American Life Project 1–37. Oláh, K.; Elekes, F.; Bródy, G.; Király, I. 2014. Social category formation is induced by cues of sharing knowledge in young children, PLoS ONE 9(7): e101680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101680 Magna. 2009. Twitter in higher education: usage habits and trends of today’s college faculty [online]. A Magna Publication [cited 1 January 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.facultyfocus.com/ wp-content/uploads/images/twittersurvey_facultyfocus.pdf Mangan, J.; Hughes, A.; Davies, P.; Slack, K. 2010. Fair access, achievement and geography: explain- ing the association between social class and students’ choice of university, Studies in Higher Education 35(3): 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070903131610 Munisamy, S.; Mohd Jaafar, N. I.; Nagaraj, S. 2014. Does reputation matter? Case study of under- graduate choice at a premier university, Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23(3): 451–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y Mupemhi, S. 2013. Factors influencing choice of a university by students in Zimbabwe, African Jour- nal of Business 7(36): 3723–3729. Navrátilová, T. 2013. Analysis and comparison of factors influencing university choice, Journal of Competitiveness 5(3): 90–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2013.03.07 138 M. K. Wyrwicka, B. Mrugalska. Identification of preferred sources of information for undertaking studies... Nesset, V. 2014. Depicting the intersection between information-seeking behavior and information literacy in the research process: a model, Library and Information Science 10: 39–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1876-056220140000010017 Obermeit, K. 2012. Students’ choice of universities in Germany: structure, factors and information sources used, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22(2): 206–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.737870 Pampaloni, A. M. 2010. The influence of organizational image on college selection: what students seek in institutions of higher education, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 20(1): 19–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241003788037 Pasternak, R. 2005. Choice of institution of higher education and academic expectations: the impact of cost-benefit factors, Teaching in Higher Education 10(2): 189–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000337945 Pimpa, N. 2005. A family affair: the effect of family on Thai students’ choices of international educa- tion, Higher Education: the International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 49(4): 431–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2825-6 Pratt, A.; Dalfonso, J. D.; Rogers, G. 2014. Digital, social, mobile: the 2014 social admissions report [online]. Uversity, Zinch a Chegg service [cited 30 December 2014]. Available from Internet: http:// www.uversity.com/downloads/presentations/2014-Social-Admissions-Report-Webinar.pdf PRESSfeed. 2010. RSS feeds – a tutorial [online]. PRESSfeed Co [cited 23 December 2014]. Available from Internet: http://www.press-feed.com/howitworks/rss_tutorial.php Reddy, V. 2014. Information experience in the context of information seeking methods by prospective students, in C. Bruce, K. Davis, H. Hughes, H. Partridge, I. Stoodley. Information experience: ap- proaches to theory and practice. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 295–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1876-0562_2014_0000010015 Robson, A.; Robinson, L. 2013. Building on models of information behaviour: linking information seeking and communication, Journal of Documentation 69(2): 169–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220411311300039 Rodic, V.; Kis, T.; Cileg, M. 2012. Determinants of high school graduates’ choice of faculty, Technics Technologies Education Management 7(4): 1655–1662. Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.; Bell, A. D.; Perna, L. W. 2008. Contextual influences on parental involvement in college going: variations by socioeconomic class, The Journal of Higher Education 79(5): 564–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0020 Sandhusen, R. 2008. Marketing. 4th ed. New York: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. Sojkin, B.; Bartkowiak, P.; Skuza, A. 2012. Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: the case of Poland, Higher Education 63(5): 565–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9459-2 Sokkary, N. A. 2013. Multicenter survey of contraceptive knowledge among adolescents in North America, Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 26(5): 274–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2013.04.010 Solga, H.; Dombrowski, R. 2009. Soziale Ungleichheiten in schulischer und außerschulischer Bil- dung: Stand der Forschung und Forschungsbedarf. Arbeitspapier Vol. 171. Dusseldorf: Hans-Bockler- Stiftung. Taulke-Johnson, R. 2010. Queer decisions? Gay male students’ university choices, Studies in Higher Education 35(3): 247–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070903015755 139 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(1): 126–139 Taylor, M. 1992. Post-16 options: young people’s awareness, attitudes, intentions and influences on their choice, Research Papers in Education 7(3): 301–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267152920070305 Timmers, C. F.; Glas, C. A. W. 2010. Developing scales for information-seeking behaviour, Journal of Documentation 66(1): 46–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220411011016362 Wiese, M.; van Heerden, C. H.; Jordaan, Y. 2010. The role of demographics in students’ selection of higher education institutions, Acta Commercii 10(1): 150–163. Wilson, T. D. 1999. Models in information behavior research, Journal of Documentation 55(3): 249– 270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM000000000714 Magdalena K. WYRWICKA. PhD, DSc is a professor and a dean in the Faculty of Engineering Management at Poznan University of Technology in Poland. As a PhD in technical sciences (her work applied to implementation of automation), she studied the issues of human resource management and small and medium size enterprises’ management at Witschaftsuniversität in Vienna which constituted the basis for her postdoctoral degree in the scope of management science and it centred on a range of problems connected with organizing an enterprise’s development. She is a licensed teacher of German REFA (Verband fϋr Arbeitsgestaltung, Betriebsorganisation und Unternehmensentwicklung) in the elementary scope and production planning and control. Magdalena K. Wyrwicka is an author and a co-author of more than 170 publications. Her scientific research con- centrates on endogenous organization premises concerning the enterprise development and companies’ networks. Since October 2009 to December 2011 she has been managing a project called “Foresight ‘Wielkopolska’s Economic Networks’ – scenarios of knowledge transformations supporting an innova- tive economy” in the scope of an Operational Programme of an Innovative Economy. Beata MRUGALSKA. PhD, Eng. is a researcher and lecturer at the Chair of Ergonomics and En- gineering Quality in the Faculty Management Engineering in Poznan University of Technology. She received the MSc degree in enterprise management and the PhD degree in machinery construction and operations from Poznan University of Technology (Poland) in 2001 and 2008, respectively. Her current research interests include robust quality control, robust product design and human factors. Beata Mrugalska has published more than 20 papers in journals and conference proceedings. She is an author and co-author of 5 monographs and 26 book chapters.