


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

1 
 

Original Paper 

Education Policy in Developing Countries: Addressing the 

Challenge of Managing Overseas Scholarship Programs through 

Performance Measurement 

Lasbrey N. D. Nsiegbe
1
  

1
 Federal University Wukari, Wukari, Nigeria 

 

Received: January 9, 2022        Accepted: January 21, 2022        Online Published: May 19, 2022 

doi:10.22158/elp.v5n1p1                         URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v5n1p1 

 

Abstract 

Education and development–whether personal, social, economic or technological–are inextricably 

bound. In recognition of this, governments, societies and private organizations commit huge financial 

resources to the funding of education. However, funding for students’ higher education through 

scholarships suffers a huge disadvantage against funding for higher education institutions. This is 

more so in developing countries that are even in need of high quality education obtainable in the 

developed economies through overseas scholarship schemes for deserving candidates.  

Governments and Sponsoring organizations such as Nigeria’s Tertiary Education Trust Fund 

(TETFUND), World Bank’s Overseas Scholarships for Developing Countries, America’s USAID, 

United Nations’ UNESCO or the Commonwealth Scholarship Programs therefore need to deploy 

performance assessment mechanisms to effectively and regularly monitor the performances of the 

beneficiaries of the overseas scholarship schemes throughout the course duration of their studies with 

a view to recalling back home any under-performing candidate(s) to avoid wasted resources. 

The deliverables of this Research Paper, therefore, include: 

 The Nsiegbe Performance Assessment Model for Overseas Scholarship Schemes. 

 A Performance Measurement Formula, known as, The Nsiegbe Formula for Scholarship 

Schemes Performance Measurement.  

 A Student Performance Assessment Plan.  

Keywords 

education policy, developing countries, higher education, overseas scholarship, quality assurance, 

benchmarking, performance assessment, performance measurement 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

This section gives a general overview of the study presented in this paper. It begins with a brief 

description of the background of the subject matter. It explores the significance of the study and also 

provides justification for the research. It summarizes the nature of the study and gives an insight into its 

methodology. 

1.1 Background of the Research 

Education policy and development economics can be considered as Siamese twins–hard to separate. It 

is therefore understandable that many developing nations around the world–in a bid to attain modern 

and high level development in virtually every field of existence–have been committing huge resources 

toward the acquisition of top notch quality education for their citizens in the hope of bridging the gap 

between themselves and the developed economies. For decades, this has taken the form of sponsoring 

candidates to various developed countries such as The USA, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Russia, 

The Netherlands, and, in recent times, to China, etc. on State-funded foreign education programs. 

However, in most cases in the past few decades, this strategy has largely been marred by favouritism, 

corruption and such other vices that ensure that the most academically and intellectually deserving 

candidates are side-lined while the less deserving and less qualified are often the beneficiaries of the 

overseas scholarship programs. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of Performance Monitoring 

over the beneficiaries, and the absence of appropriate management frameworks for these overseas 

scholarship programs. In some other cases, the Scheme is marred by politicization, a phenomenon that 

has become rife in my own country, Nigeria, in this 21
st
 century. The stunted growth and development 

of the country after many decades of a promising future have confirmed that education that is 

politicized and marred by corruption does not yield the desired and expected results. It can at best 

produce ―Professors without Research and Addition of Knowledge‖, ―Leaders without Ideas and 

Vision‖, ―Doctors without Clinics‖, ―Senior Officers without Merit‖, ―Engineers without Projects‖, 

―Administrators and Managers without depth‖, etc. as is the reality in the country at the tailspin of 

2021. 

For the purposes of this Paper, countries classified as developing economies are those who,  for the 

current 2022 fiscal year, are classified by the World Bank as low-income economies with a GNI per 

capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method, of $1,045 or less in 2020; and the lower 

middle-income economies with a GNI per capita between $1,046 and $4,095 (World Bank Atlas 

Method, 2021).  

1.2 Why the Research is Important: Significance of the Study 

This study is significant because of its relationship with public funding of education, and is geared 

towards the enhancement of public financing of education. It can be argued that education is the 

greatest asset and wealth that any nation, society or community of people can possess due to its great 

benefits. The importance of education itself cannot be over-emphasized. It and the significance of this 

study are inextricably bound. The benefits of education are discussed herein and are considered at 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

individual, economic, social, technological and revolutionary levels: 

1.2.1 Individual Benefits 

It can be said that the primary motivation an individual has for acquiring education is to secure a good 

standard of living: earn a good pay, be capable of providing for him/her and the family the basic 

necessities of life and quite possibly add some icing to these, in the form of some extra comforts of 

living. Topel (2004) states that the private monetary returns to a person who acquires education can be 

as high as 8-15% per year of schooling while four years of college education can raise earnings by 

about 65 per cent–a compounded return of about 13 per cent per year of schooling. 

1.2.2 Economic Benefits 

Ferguson (2006), notes that education plays a critical role in the provision of goods and services that 

have high economic value. He asserts that economic achievement and educational achievement–both at 

individual and national levels–are intertwined.  

It can be argued that improved private monetary returns brought on by acquiring higher 

education, as stated by Topel (2004), means a better economic life for the individual as 

he/she is in a better position to pay for desired goods and services. This translates to 

increased economic activity and benefits for the larger society. 

1.2.3 Social Benefits 

Acquiring higher education overseas in advanced countries assists the individual to know and 

understand how the legal, educational, economic, infrastructural and other systems work in those places. 

This knowledge can prove useful when repatriated and applied back home for the effective 

transformation of the beneficiary‘s native society. 

Moreover, additional skills–technical, academic, managerial and even research 

skills–acquired by studying overseas can prove very useful to the state when repatriated 

back home and applied for the wellbeing of the larger society. This can particularly be 

achieved if mechanisms are put in place to ensure the repatriation of talent after overseas 

study, especially where the education was financed with public funds. 

1.2.4 Revolutions 

On a philosophical note, an educated mind is a liberated mind. When the mind is liberated, a lot of 

revolutionary thoughts are germinated. This can lead to a flowering of revolutionary ideas in 

management of public funds and utilities, in education–such as the idea of an overseas scholarship 

scheme in science and technology, agriculture, power generation, housing, etc, to name a few. Such 

revolutionary thinking can lead to either incremental or radical innovation for the enhancement of 

society.  

Another revolutionary benefit of education occurs when a people can utilize new and 

upbeat technologies to share and organize in mass revolts to remove a dictatorial and/or 

unpopular government, as happenings just over a decade ago in the Arab world have 

proved, in what was christened ―The Arab Spring‖.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1.2.5 Technological Benefits 

There is no gainsaying the fact that the great technological advancements being witnessed in the world 

today are the results of education via scientific research and development. Developing Countries 

yearn for technological growth, and desire to be in the league of technologically advanced nations. As 

they struggle to catch up with the technologically advanced countries, the need for each of them to send 

more people to acquire higher education in science, technology, management, etc. in such overseas 

countries becomes a high imperative, other things being equal.  

1.3 Justification for the Research: Gap 

The importance of education is further supported by scholarly articles and case studies that dealt with 

the funding of higher education. Much of this literature, however, focused on the funding of the higher 

education institutions rather than on student scholarships for higher education, or their management. 

Frolich, Schmidt, & Rosa (2010), for instance, discuss how funding systems influence higher education 

institutions and their strategies and core tasks. They used the results of a comparative study between 

Denmark, Norway and Portugal to identify and analyse the main features of these state funding systems, 

their strengths and weaknesses, and their impact on academia. They acknowledge there are vast 

differences in funding systems for Higher Education, and, citing Salmi & Hauptman (2006), identify 

two major types of funding systems namely:  

 Direct public funding of institutions, i.e., funding of teaching through negotiated formula, 

demand-side vouchers, performance-based funding, funding for specific purposes and/or 

combined funding for teaching and research, block grant funding and project funding; 

and, 

 Funding for students via government grants and scholarships, tax benefits and student loan 

models. 

However, their research focuses on the first type of funding and does not give much attention to 

funding for students via government grants and scholarships.  

Hagood (2019) explores the financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education. 

However, the focus in this regard is on the funding of higher education institutions without exploring 

how this policy can also impact on high performing students through scholarships for student higher 

education acquisition. 

Akinkugbe (2001), on the other hand, examines the financial flows within the educational system in 

Swaziland and tries to compare public contribution to unit costs in education relative to the 

contribution of households. He found that higher education is heavily subsidized by the government, 

with 83% contribution, at the expense of basic education. He does not, however, tell us how this 83% is 

distributed between the funding of the Higher Education Institutions and funding of student 

scholarships or how their student scholarship funding is managed. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Ortagus et al. (2020) examined the intended and unintended consequences of Performance-Based 

Funding (PBF) policies in higher education in America. They observe that the adoption of PBF is 

generally associated with modest positive effects on such intended outcomes as retention and 

graduation but that there are also unintended disadvantages for underserved student groups and 

under-resourced institution types. Again, their public funding discourse does not deal with how these 

underserved student groups can be better served through scholarships based on individual performance 

assessment. 

Mutula (2001) delves into the management of library finances under the funding of public universities 

in eastern and southern Africa, which still falls under the studies of the funding of Higher Education 

Institutions, while Mutula (2002) discusses how public funding of higher education institutions has 

affected overall operations of the universities in Kenya. The focus here is: Public Funding of Higher 

Education, which is also what the student scholarship programs are all about. 

None of the studies in the existing literature has dealt with the issue of developing a framework to 

assist in the effective management of student overseas scholarship programs. Furthermore, none has 

been able to provide a performance assessment formula that should be applied to such programs despite 

the fact that, according to Frolich et al. (2010), incentive mechanisms and quality assurance in the 

public funding of higher education do get weakened by the lack of performance parameters. This study 

has attempted to fill these gaps and to also open a possible window to new engagements in academic 

discourse in this domain area. 

1.4 Nature of the Research and Its Methodology 

The study is Qualitative in nature and adopts an Inductive Approach that is based on Grounded 

Theory Research Strategy. 

Research Philosophy: The Philosophy on which the research is based is Social 

Constructivism/Interpretivism, with a spicing of pragmatism. 

Research methodology: As mentioned above, the research is qualitative in nature because it is based 

mainly on theoretical information gathered from a review of existing literature. However, the outcome 

of the study, which is the Performance Assessment Model/Tool and the Performance Measurement 

Formula, can only be utilized through the application of quantitative data to the model but this does not 

qualify the study as a quantitative research. This does not also therefore qualify the study as a Mixed 

Methods research. Consequently, the choice that was made for the study presented in this paper, 

therefore, was an innovative research methodology referred to by this researcher as ―Quasi-Mixed 

Methods‖, and this was derived from the combination of qualitative method and ―quasi-quantitative‖ 

method, in light of Bloomberg & Volpe (2008, p. 7).  

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Method  

This study is concerned mainly with developing ideas, forming opinions, understanding meanings, 

interpretations, gaining perceptions, or looking at, describing and understanding experience (Wisker, 

2008, p. 75; Breach, 2009, p. 45) to enable the accomplishment of the desired results. The method 

therefore adopted for achieving this is that of literature search.   

2.1 Literature Review 

Developing nations are in need of real development, yet most of them do not know how to go about 

it–even when the resources to achieve the desired development abound. Most of those who know how 

to go about achieving this development do not have the political will to fight the main enemy of 

development: Corruption in high and low places. Among this latter group exist those societies who 

recognize that real and sustainable development hinges upon high quality education. They therefore 

place high premium on quality education and are willing to commit substantial financial resources to 

the funding of education, both at home and overseas. 

Their funding of education may take the shape of formal, structured funding or informal, unorganized 

funding where many factors may dictate what is done at any particular point in time. Those who adopt 

formal, structured funding of student education through scholarships may choose to do so through the 

instrumentality of bodies, departments or agencies established by statutes. Such agencies are then 

charged with the responsibility of managing all processes involved in the funding of the scholarship 

schemes.  

Here then lies the big challenge for such organizations: To effectively manage the scholarship schemes 

for optimal results and to international best practice standards. To assess the performance of such 

organizations it is necessary to contextualize or situate their application of the necessary tools and 

techniques in relation to the management processes of their scholarship programs, most especially the 

overseas scholarship schemes. This is so because it is here the bulk of the funding goes.  

This literature review will focus on Quality Assurance and Benchmarking as tools and techniques for 

improving the efficiency of the Overseas Scholarship programs. 

2.1.1 Quality Assurance 

Before exploring the concept of quality assurance in the operations of the overseas scholarship scheme 

it is necessary to understand first the concept of quality. 

2.1.1.1 What is Quality?: -   

Quality, in the business context, is primarily concerned with customer satisfaction. Hence, intense 

competition in the global market calls for business excellence. The success of organizations in Japan 

has been attributed to the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM) which they freely adopt and 

implement, such as those propounded by well-known Quality exponents and gurus like Deming, Juran, 

Philip Crosby, Armand Feigenbaum, Kaoru Ishikawa, Taguchi, etc. (Ahmad & Yusof, 2010; Harry & 

Schroeder, 2004). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Despite the business context of quality and its apparent acceptability, Reeves and Bednar (1994) argue 

that there is no globally accepted definition of quality but, rather, different circumstances warrant 

different definitions. They posit that the era or applicable sense of the study of the concept of quality 

notwithstanding, the concept has been associated with a variety of experiences but with often confusing 

definitions. Tracing the manner in which the definition of ―Quality‖ has evolved and the trade-offs that 

are inherent in adopting any particular definition over another, they conclude that there are too many 

components or variables in the quality construct space and so any model of quality construct or 

definition that attempts to encompass all the possible components or variables will find little areas of 

usage. The challenge therefore remains that of formulating comparable constructs for quality rather 

than attempting to define the concept in one single construct that will take care of every variable 

thinkable. 

This may have led Doherty (2008) to assert that there is no simple answer to the question of what 

quality is since, like ―beauty‖, it is subjective and depends on personal judgment. Consistent with the 

arguments of Reeves and Bednar (1994), and the assertion of Doherty (2008), the Chartered Quality 

Institute (CQI, 2011) gives 20 different answers to the question, ―What is Quality?‖ From among the 

CQI‘s pool, however, the definition of ―Quality‖ that best suits the purpose of this study, in line with 

Reeves and Bednar (1994), is that: 

Quality is the characteristics of a product or service that make that product or service capable of 

satisfying specified needs or their implied aspects (CQI, 2011).  

Based on the foregoing arguments, therefore, it is safe to say that practices of quality assurance are 

context-dependent (Wu et al., 2011) which implies that certain total quality management tools and 

practices will be rendered ineffective if used under certain situations (Dean & Bowen, 1994). This 

paper will proceed to look at the issue of assuring quality in higher education.  

2.1.1.2 The Education-Context of Quality: -  

In addressing viewpoints on quality in the context of Higher Education, Harvey and Green (1993) 

primarily acknowledged that: 

 Quality has different connotations to different people. 

 Quality relates to processes or results achieved irrespective of the conceptual 

viewpoint it is considered from. 

They noted that there are varying ideas about quality that influence what a stakeholder may consider as 

a preference in higher education and went ahead to give some definitions of quality in higher education 

in discrete but comparable (Reeves & Bednar, 1994) categories that include:  

 Quality as Exceptional: - This category views quality as something special and has 

three variations: 

 A perception that classifies quality to be something in a class of its own 

 Seeing quality to be an embodiment of excellence, and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 An idea that quality is something that passes certain established minimum 

standards required by stakeholders in higher education (Harvey & Green, 

1993) 

 Quality as Fitness for Purpose: - A view of quality that relates it to what purpose a 

product or service was made to serve. It is an effective and inclusive definition that 

has practical applications, as opposed to the exceptional definition that is special, 

distinctive and elitist with a conferment of status. It presumes that an educational 

program or institution should fit the purpose for which it was established (Harvey & 

Green, 1993). In the case of a Higher Education Institution, ―fitness for purpose‖ 

also relates to the mission statement of the institution and presumes that the HEI 

should be able to fulfil the objectives or mission it has set for itself.  

 Quality as Value for Money: - This equates the concept of quality with value for 

money, but also incorporates other criteria like standards, levels of specification, and 

reliability. According to Church (1988) and Moodie (1988) as cited in Harvey and 

Green (1993) the British government established a strong connection between the 

quality of education and value for money as far back as the 1980s, through its 

demand for efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector (Joseph, 1986; DES, 

1987; Secretary of State for Education, 1988; Cave, Kogan & Smith, 1990 cited in 

Harvey & Green, 1993). This approach to public sector funding forms the bedrock of 

the methodology of funding higher education in Britain (PCFC/UFC, 1992a, b cited 

in Harvey & Green, 1993).  

 Quality as Transformation: - This conceptualization of quality has its roots in the 

concept of ―qualitative change‖. It is centred on the transformative quality in the 

process of education whose participant or consumer–be it student or researcher–is 

enhanced and empowered by the process (Harvey & Green, 1993). Through quality 

education, changes are effected in the participant who is also enhanced at the same 

time. 

2.1.1.3 Quality Assurance in Higher Education:- 

According to Harvey and Green (1993), in the UK, quality in higher education is regarded as an 

important issue to government as well as to employers. The main concern and role of quality assurance, 

therefore, has been that of monitoring to identify whether the higher education institution is achieving 

its purpose as set out in its mission statement. In this regard, through its validation function, the key 

role of the Council for National Academic Awards (Church, 1988 cited in Harvey & Green, 1993) was 

to ensure that necessary mechanisms, processes and procedures have been put in place to yield the 

desired quality, however defined and measured.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In addition to the UK, many parts of the world have witnessed a growing emphasis on the issue of 

assuring quality in higher education and have recently implemented reforms to expand the sector (Law, 

2010), with increasing calls for adherence to global trends in the sector. In this respect, there have 

emerged in the literature, for example Doherty (2008); Houston (2008); Stensaker (2008) new views in 

the area of assuring quality. 

Sponsors of higher education generally expect to get some level of satisfaction from what they are 

paying for, irrespective of whether such sponsor is the parent, employer or government (Doherty, 2008), 

and Quality Assurance is their means of ensuring they get value for what they are paying for. This is 

achieved through the monitoring of Higher Education quality (Harvey, 2002) that has witnessed 

increasing uniformity of practice as a pragmatic response from governments (Houston, 2008) who 

demand a demonstration of value for money and ―fitness for purpose‖ (Harvey & Green, 1993). This 

practice of Quality Assurance in higher education becomes enhanced and even more rewarding if the 

organizational change that can result from the process is well understood (Stensaker, 2008).  

Quality Assurance as a tool for continuous improvement and performance enhancement is itself 

enhanced through the use and application of the benchmarking tool which is the next area of 

focus for this literature review.  

2.1.2 Benchmarking 

Benchmarking is a strategic tool which underlying principle is the sustainable pursuit of excellence 

(Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997) and has proved particularly useful for performance assessment while 

enabling organizations to ensure continuous improvement in performance. As such, it also helps 

organizations to gain better understanding of their own internal administrative operations and by so 

doing identify areas needing improvement. When this is achieved, the organization succeeds in 

eliminating waste and improving its competitive advantage (Allan, 1997 cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 

1997).   

Bhutta & Huq (1999) saw benchmarking primarily as a tool that can bring about improvement through 

comparisons with other organizations. They disagreed with the idea of benchmarking that relates to an 

organization‘s own internal administrative operations as argued by (Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997) and 

argued, instead, that it is meaningless to make comparisons of strategy at internal level but very 

beneficial for improvement when such comparisons are made between the organization and its 

competitors. Hence, by forcing an external focus of the organization on improvement, benchmarking is 

able to raise industry standards of competition and thus weed out those who cannot maintain a 

competitive edge in the industry.  

Lee, Zailani & Soh (2006), on the other hand, showed more interest in the aspect of performance 

improvement and agreed with Elmuti & Kathawala (1997), describing benchmarking as a simple but 

effective strategic tool which organizations have used to improve their performance at three levels: 

 Processes 

 Products, and  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 Services. 

It would appear that these levels pertain only to manufacturing organizations alone. However, a closer 

scrutiny would reveal that they can be adapted to suit any particular organization, such as a government 

agency or department that deals with overseas sponsorship of education. This viewpoint is in 

agreement with Bhutta & Huq (1999) who noted that various organizations have adapted the 

benchmarking methodology to suit their needs. According to Cook (1995 as cited in Lock, 2001), the 

benchmarking tool can be most beneficial to an organization if the following procedures are followed: 

 The organization needs to link benchmarking to objectives that form the core of its business or 

services 

 Targets that can be measured should be set by the organization in respect of the benchmarking 

activity 

 The commitment of the organization‘s senior management to the benchmarking process has to 

be assured 

 A powerful benchmarking team needs to be created by the organization, and 

 Issues that are considered to be the right ones should form the main focus of the organization 

in respect of the benchmarking activity. Cook (1995 as cited in Lock, 2001) 

Barber (2004) had noted that what is most important about benchmarking is that it is ―a comparison‖ 

and as such any evaluation that is done is only limited to that of the level against which it was 

benchmarked. This would imply that different types of benchmarking techniques or combinations 

thereof may have to be applied to different benchmarking needs so as to be able to obtain objective and 

comparable results. 

2.1.2.1 Types of Benchmarking: -  

The different types of benchmarking that an organization can implement are as follows:   

 Performance Benchmarking – Involves the comparing of performance measures to 

enable an organization know where it stands in relation to others (Bhutta & Huq, 

1999).  

 Process Benchmarking – This type of benchmarking involves comparing methods 

and processes to enable the organization improve its own processes (Bhutta & Huq, 

1999).  

 Strategic Benchmarking – If a need arises to change the strategic direction of an 

organization, strategic benchmarking can be conducted to compare the 

organization‘s strategy with that of its competitors (Bhutta & Huq, 1999).   

 Internal Benchmarking – This involves benchmarking internal operations of an 

organization when there are similar functions within its business units. Its main 

objective is to determine the internal performance standards of the organization 

(Matters & Evans, 1997 cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997). It involves making 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

comparisons between departments within the same establishment (Bhutta & Huq, 

1999).  

 Competitive Benchmarking – This type involves externally comparing direct 

competitors who operate in similar markets with similar products or services/work 

processes (Finch & Luebbe, 1995 cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997). Its purpose is 

the comparison of performance/results (Bhutta & Huq, 1999). 

 Functional/Industry Benchmarking – Also external in nature and involves 

benchmarking organizations that are recognized as industry leaders or organizations 

that are known to have the best functional operations (Matters & Evans, 1997 cited 

in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997). It compares the technology or the process in the 

organization‘s area of technology with the known technology leaders in the 

organization‘s industry (Bhutta & Huq, 1999) with the aim of becoming the best in 

the industry. 

 Generic Benchmarking – This type of benchmarking is also done externally but does 

not necessarily have to be against a similar organization. It involves comparing the 

organization‘s processes against best process operators (Bhutta & Huq, 1999). It is 

not directed at the business practices of an organization but instead emphasizes work 

processes that are considered best practice. It also emphasizes similar functions or 

procedures in any organization. It is a difficult approach (Finch & Luebbe, 1995; 

Matters & Evans, 1997 cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997).  

It is important that the organization does a thorough evaluation of how it views Benchmarking and the 

way the tool is used (Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997). Therefore, defining the type of benchmarking or 

combinations thereof to be adopted for yielding better results should be based on what is being 

compared and against what the comparison is being made (Bhutta & Huq, 1999). This is the best way 

for an organization to start the process of benchmarking (Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997).  

Figure 1 shows the matrix combinations of types of benchmarking that can be used in this regard for 

effective results: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Types of Benchmarking (Integrated Matrix Format) 

 

2.1.2.2 The Benchmarking Process: -   

According to Lee et al. (2006), benchmarking is a structured process that consists of several steps that 

involve ethical and legal issues which an organization needs to take into consideration when embarking 

on the benchmarking process. The ethical and legal issues merely serve to provide guidelines that can 

ensure that the benchmarking partners mutually achieve their objectives. Elmuti & Kathawala (1997) 

emphasize that before an organization decides to benchmark, determining first what needs to be 

benchmarked is of paramount importance.   

There are five major components or stages of the benchmarking process (Bhutta & Huq, 1999; Matters 

& Evans, 1997 cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997) which in itself follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act 

(PDCA) cycle propounded by Edward Deming (Pulat, 1994 cited in Bhutta & Huq, 1999). The ―Plan‖ 

phase deals with early decisions to be taken such as determining what to benchmark and the choice of 

what benchmarking study should be conducted using the matrix format choice-making (Leibfried & 

Mcnair, 1992 as cited in Bhutta & Huq, 1999). The ―Do‖ phase involves forming a benchmarking team, 

doing a characterization of the processes to be benchmarked, identifying the benchmarking partners 

and gathering information relating to them. The ―Check‖ phase would involve doing a gap analysis on 

the benchmarking information with the aim of identifying negative gaps that need to be closed or 

positive gaps that can be built upon. The ―Act‖ phase involves making necessary strategic decisions for 

change and implementing the decided actions in line with the outcomes of the ―Check‖ phase (Bhutta 

& Huq, 1999; Matters & Evans, 1997 cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997).  

 

                                                                                                                                                                             

 

 

Δ φ Δ θ 

Δ θ φ φ  

θ φ θ θ 

Internal 

Benchmarking 

Competitor 

Benchmarking  

Functional 

Benchmarking 

Generic 

Benchmarking  

 

 Performance 

Benchmarking 

Process 

Benchmarking 

Strategic 

Benchmarking 

Relevance/Value:                       High φ                

Medium Δ               Low θ 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The five stages of the benchmarking process are often presented in models (Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997). 

The model presented by Bhutta & Huq (1999) is one in which the five major components or stages are 

linked together in the fashion of spokes on a wheel; hence they referred to the model as the 

benchmarking wheel, shown in Figure 2.   

 

 

Figure 2. The Benchmarking Wheel–the 5 Stages of the Benchmarking Process 

 

The five stages of benchmarking as determined by Bhutta & Huq (1999) through a fundamental 

process evaluation include the following:  

 Plan the Benchmarking Study: - Involves decisions pertaining to what is to be 

benchmarked, taking into consideration that the critical success factors of the 

organization have to be the driving force behind the decision. The critical 

performance measures are also to be decided.  

 Form the Benchmarking Team: - Members of the team should come from different 

areas of the organization, where applicable (Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997) and need 

cooperation and communication with one another for best results to be achieved. The 

team is subdivided into three main teams: (1) the lead team who have the 

responsibility of ensuring that the organization maintains focus and commitment to 

the process. (2) The preparation team whose responsibility it is to carry out the 

detailed analysis of benchmarking data/information. (3) The visit team who have the 

responsibility of carrying out the visit to the benchmarking partners. 

 Identify Benchmarking Partners: - This involves the identification of organizations 

who would be the potential benchmarking partners. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 Collect and analyse information: - This can be considered as the crux of the 

benchmarking exercise and it involves comparing the information on the 

benchmarking partner with the organization‘s own data to enable the understanding 

of gaps (Bhutta & Huq, 1999). The organization should first identify its own 

processes, products and services to enable a full realization of the extent of 

improvements required from the benchmarking study (Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997). 

 Take Action: - At this stage of the process what is most important is determining 

what needs to be done in light of results of the benchmarking data analysis and 

taking appropriate action to implement the changes decided (Matters & Evans, 1997 

cited in Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997).   

According to Bhutta & Huq (1999), benchmarking can be carried out in many steps that can be 

classified under the five major stages, and while some organizations have used as many as thirty-three 

steps at a go, others have used just as few as four. Figure 3 is a nine-step benchmarking model 

presented by Elmuti & Kathawala (1997). It can be tailored to suit any organization.    

 

 

Figure 3. A Nine-step Benchmarking Model 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Results 

3.1 Performance Assessment and Measurement 

Having thoroughly examined the concepts of Quality Assurance and Benchmarking and their 

respective applicable roles in managing Overseas Scholarship Schemes, this paper will proceed to lay 

the foundation for the most vital aspect of addressing the challenge of managing Overseas Scholarship 

Schemes for Developing Countries. 

3.1.1 A Performance Assessment Plan to Ensure Effective Monitoring of the Academic Performance of 

the Scheme‘s Beneficiaries  

One of the solutions advanced to bring about better strategic performance is the application of 

performance assessment as a tool toward achieving this goal. This section describes the performance 

assessment plan that was developed for that purpose. It was achieved through the application of 

Benchmarking as a management tool. 

3.1.1.1 Performance Assessment at Student-Level: -  

Performance assessment at the student level relates to assessing the academic performance of each 

student who is a beneficiary of the government‘s or organization‘s sponsorship program. This is 

considered a vital aspect of the management of the scholarship scheme since the quality of output of 

the beneficiaries sponsored by government is largely determined by their academic performances at 

their various universities and colleges. Meeting the objectives of the funding scheme, for the benefit of 

the larger society, from the perspective of the government or organization who instituted it is largely 

dependent on the quality of candidates selected for the public funding program. Where transparency is 

lacking in the selection process at the selection stage, the best way to ensure quality would be to put 

mechanisms in place to find out and assess how the selected and sponsored candidates are performing 

in their various institutions of learning. This will be aimed at eliminating waste (Allan, 1997 cited in 

Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997) by weeding out poor quality beneficiaries and saving resources that could 

be channeled to other areas of usage for the benefit of the larger society. This approach could be mostly 

effective with regard to undergraduate students who are under the government‘s or organization‘s 

sponsorship and whose study programs take as much as four years of sponsorship. 

The method that was proposed in this paper for achieving that goal is to benchmark student 

performance against those of other students of the same country who are studying at the same 

institution of higher learning as private students, regardless of what part of that country the benchmark 

student partner comes from. This entailed developing a performance assessment plan.  

3.1.1.2 The Performance Assessment Plan: -  

The performance assessment plan developed here was derived from the principles of benchmarking 

(see section 2.2) as a management tool for continuous improvement (Lee et al., 2006). The plan 

follows the benchmarking models put forward by Bhutta & Huq (1999) and Elmuti & Kathawala 

(1997), with necessary adaptation to suit the purpose of this study. In essence, the performance 

assessment plan developed here is a combination of these two models, with the basic principles 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

retained. The plan incorporates the following steps:  

1) Determining what to Benchmark: - Employing the integrated benchmarking matrix 

(Leibfried & Mcnair, 1992 as cited in Bhutta & Huq, 1999), the benchmarking 

combination type that is needed to carry out the benchmarking study would be 

Performance-Competitor combination type. Decisions have to be made concerning 

what performance parameters should be used for the purpose. As already noted, the 

academic performance of each beneficiary is paramount. Their exam and 

coursework scores are the variables to use. This stage will incorporate decisions on 

what would constitute the critical performance measures for the assessment. This 

involves deciding the minimum average scores that must be met and surpassed 

(Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997).  

2) Forming the Benchmarking Team: - This would involve looking into the 

scholarship board to select individuals with strength of character and confidence, 

with good communication skills and bringing them together as a team to execute the 

benchmarking study. They could come from any section of the board. The selected 

team would be divided into three sub-teams made up of:  

a) The lead team who would ensure focus and commitment to the process 

b) The preparation team who would do the detailed analysis of the 

data/information collected for the benchmarking exercise, and  

c) The visit team who would carry out the actual visits to the various overseas 

universities and colleges where the government‘s or organization‘s 

scholarship beneficiaries are studying.  

3) Identifying the Benchmarking Partners: - Since the Sponsorship Board already 

knows the various universities and colleges where the beneficiaries are studying, this 

stage would involve communicating with the institutions to notify them of the 

exercise. A formal request would then be made detailing the type of information 

needed in the benchmarking study in line with the decisions reached in stage one. 

4) Collecting and analyzing Data/Information: - What is needed here is to first collect 

information with regard to the exam and coursework performance scores of all the 

scholarship beneficiary students. This information needs to be grouped according to 

the institution, level of academic study (Masters or Undergraduate), and the program 

of study. The next step would involve collecting information on other students of 

that same country under the same grouping categories. This second group of students 

is regarded as the student benchmarking partners but all information relating to them 

has to be anonymous so as not to contravene data protection laws. 

5) Taking Action: - At this stage, the funding body needs to decide on what should be 

done in light of the results of the benchmarking data analysis, with a view to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

enhancing the academic performance and quality of the funding scheme‘s outputs or 

products. Most importantly, whatever decision is taken for change implementation 

should be followed to the letter for effectiveness.      

The performance assessment plan outlined above is represented as a model in Figure 4 below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Figure 4. Student Performance Assessment Plan 

 

 

 

Determine Benchmarking 

Combination type to use. 

Decide Performance Parameters 

Form the Benchmarking Team 

Identify three sub-teams within the 

Team 

Collect Exam and Coursework 

Performance Data & sort them 

Select the Scheme‘s 

Beneficiaries‘ 

Performance Data 

Select Student Benchmarking 

Partners‘ Performance Data 

Measure Performance Measure Performance 

Compare Performance 

Decide Actions to take for Change 

Decide Critical Performance 

Measures 

Take/Implement Action 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.1.2 Performance Metrics for Assessing the Scheme and How the Performance Can Be measured     

Performance assessment at Program Level is discussed here in two stages. The first stage involves 

developing a model that is referred to as, Nsiegbe Performance Assessment Model for Overseas 

Scholarship Schemes. The second stage involves the development of a mathematical formula for 

measuring the Scheme‘s Performance. The formula is referred to as, Nsiegbe Formula for Scholarship 

Schemes Performance Measurement.   

3.1.2.1 The Scheme‘s Performance Assessment Model: -  

Performance assessment at program level relates to finding out how well the entire funding scheme is 

doing in terms of academic performance of the entire sponsored students. The assessment at this level 

therefore involves the integration of all levels of student performances in each institution and then 

extending this integration across all other universities and colleges where the Sponsor‘s beneficiaries 

are studying. In other words, the scheme‘s performance is first determined at institutional level and 

then executed across all the applicable institutions in an integrative mathematical fashion.   

Determining the performance of the scheme at the level of each institution employed a weighted 

average computation methodology to arrive at the applicable performance value for that particular 

institution. A simple average or mean value computation methodology was then applied to the entire 

values obtained for all the institutions to work out the mean value of the performance figure for the 

sponsorship scheme. A benchmark figure can be specified, below which the scheme can be said to be 

underperforming, thereby placing the responsibility on the funding body to reassess their internal 

selection processes at the candidate selection phase of the management process and then recalibrate to 

improve performance in line with Elmuti & Kathawala (1997). 

The process explained above is represented in a flowchart model as shown in Figure 5 below: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Figure 5. Nsiegbe Performance Assessment Model for Overseas Scholarship Schemes 

 

3.1.2.2 Nsiegbe Formula for Scholarship Schemes Performance Measurement: -   

This section describes the derivation of the mathematical formula to be used for the computation of the 

performance of an Overseas Scholarship Scheme. It is derived from the Nsiegbe Program 

Performance Assessment Model shown in Figure 5 above. It is necessary to explain the following 

features of Figure 5:  

 

 

 

 

 

Collect Performance Data of all the Scholarship 

Beneficiaries at the respective Overseas 

Institutions 

Sort Data according to 

Grades A, B, C, D & F 

Assign a representative/ fixed 

value to each Grade 

Compute Weighted Average of all Grades for 

each Institution 

Compute Mean Value of the Weighted Averages 

of the Scheme‘s Performance for all Institutions 

Specify a Benchmark Value for the Scheme‘s 

Performance Average 

Determine the Funding Scheme‘s Performance 

Position relative to Benchmark Value 

Below Benchmark Value: 

Unsatisfactory; Reassess 

Beneficiary Selection Process, then 

Recalibrate for Future 

Equal to or above Benchmark Value: 

Scheme‘s Performance is okay and 

satisfactory 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 Sorting the Data: - Level 2 of the model requires the sorting of performance data 

collected from the respective overseas universities and colleges of the scholarship 

beneficiaries. The data is to be sorted according the five categories of A, B, C, D, 

and F as follows:  

 A = 70% and above 

 B = 60% - 69% 

 C = 50% - 59% 

 D = 40% - 49% 

 F = 39% and below 

 Assigning Representative/Fixed Values to each Category: -  

 Category ‘A’: - Since this is the highest grade in all universities and colleges, 

the baseline of 70% was utilized as the representative value for this category. 

 Category ‘B’: - The best representative value for this category was assumed to 

be the mid-value of 65% to account for that range of student performance 

scores. 

 Category ‘C’: - Similar to category ―B‖, a median of 55% was assumed to 

represent this range or category. 

 Category ‘D’: - Here, like in ‗B‘ and ―C‖, the median of the range was 

assumed as the representative value, at 45%. 

 Category ‘F’: - As in category ―A‖, a baseline value was used as the 

representative value for this range but with a negative coefficient. Since the 

highest student exam/coursework score that amounts to a ―Fail‖ grade is 39%, 

this score was assumed as the representative value for the ―F‖ category. A 

negative coefficient was applied because failure amounts to a waste of 

resources.  

Using the foregoing categorization of exam/coursework performance scores and the representative 

values, the following mathematical relationships were proposed: 

 

 

 

 

Where, Wψi = weighted average of all beneficiaries‘ grades at institution ―I‖  

                    λai = number of beneficiaries scoring category ―A‖ at institution ―I‖  

    λbi = number of beneficiaries scoring category ―B‖ at institution ―i‖ 

    λci = number of beneficiaries scoring category ―C‖ at institution ―i‖ 

    λdi = number of beneficiaries scoring category ―D‖ at institution ―i‖ 

    λfi = number of beneficiaries scoring category ―F‖ at institution ―i‖ 

  

Wψi 

= 

 λaiA + λbiB + λciC + λdiD - λfiF 

λai + λbi + λci + λdi + λfi 

 

Σ Wψi  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Now, substituting the representative values of A, B, C, D and F, the weighted average of all 

beneficiaries‘ grades at institution ―I‖ is given by: 

 

 

 

 

 

This mathematical relationship represents the Overseas Scholarship Scheme‘s performance at each 

university and college where beneficiaries of the Scholarship Scheme are studying for their degrees. 

Measuring the overall performance of the scholarship scheme, therefore, can be done by computing the 

mean value of these weighted averages. The mathematical expression for this is given by: 

 

                                                            

 

 

Where, P = the scholarship scheme‘s performance measure 

   γ = number of institutions–universities and colleges–where the scholarship 

beneficiaries are studying, and    

               = sum of the weighted averages from all institutions where the 

beneficiaries are studying 

The scholarship scheme‘s performance measure will always be a fraction; so it is most 

appropriate to express it as a percentage as follows: 

 

   

                                                         

 

This formula is known as the Nsiegbe Formula for Scholarship Schemes Performance Measurement, 

and can be used to assign a performance value to any wide scale student sponsorship scheme. However, 

a user who is not conversant with the logic behind the derivation of the weighted average, Wψi, may 

have an uphill task using the formula in that form. It was thought necessary, therefore, to express a 

Scholarship Scheme‘s Performance value in full format as: 

 

 

  

 

 

 

λai + λbi + λci + λdi + λfi 

 

Wψi = 

 0.7λai + 0.65λbi + 0.55λci + 0.45λdi - 

0.39λfi 

P  =

  
γ 

P =

  
γ 

x 100 %  

Σ 

Σ Wψi  

Σ Wψi  

Σ Wψi  

P =

  

 %  

(λai + λbi + λci + λdi + λfi) 

 
Wψi 

= 

(0.7λai + 0.65λbi + 0.55λci + 0.45λdi - 0.39λfi) 

Σ 

100 

 γ 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Discussion 

Education policy and development economics are inextricably tied together. The developmental strides 

of countries like India and China in recent decades in the field of ICT have shown that where the 

education policy is right, high and accelerated levels of development can be guaranteed. It is therefore 

understandable that many developing nations around the world–in a bid to attain modern and high level 

development in virtually every field of existence–have been committing huge resources toward the 

acquisition of top notch quality education for their citizens in the hope of bridging the gap between 

themselves and the developed economies. 

However, a great chunk of these financial resources goes into the support and development of higher 

education institutions while the sponsorship of individuals to acquire higher education is relatively 

negligible. This is true of most developing countries. 

For those developing countries who try, this paper has succeeded in providing them a few nuts and 

bolts to assist them manage their overseas scholarship programs as a matter of Policy. Among such 

outcomes of this study are the following: 

1) The Nsiegbe Performance Assessment Model for Overseas Scholarship Schemes 

2) A Performance Measurement Formula known as, The Nsiegbe Formula for Scholarship 

Schemes Performance Measurement 

3) A Student Performance Assessment Plan. 

These outcomes can also be useful to those International Organizations who run overseas scholarship 

schemes for candidates from developing countries. 

In this drive, it is very important that the funding bodies and organizations develop the will and 

commitment to improve their internal processes for selection and assessment of candidates for the 

scholarship schemes.  

And, finally, this paper has also opened up a new vista of opportunities for research by Scholars in the 

domain area. Future work should involve collection of quantitative data and their practical application 

to the outcomes of this paper for verification, because Knowledge is incremental in nature. 

 

References 

Ahmad, M. F. B., & Yusof, S. M. (2010). Comparative study of TQM practices between Japanese and 

non-Japanese electrical and electronics companies in Malaysia: Survey results. Total Quality 

management & Business Excellence, 21(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360903492520 

Akinkugbe, O. (2000). Higher Education Financing and the equality of Educational Opportunities in 

Swaziland. International Journal of Social Economics, 27(11), 1074-1097. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290010352461 

Barber, E. (2004). Benchmarking the management of projects: A review of current thinking. 

International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 301-307. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9V-4B0P91M-2&_user=2563

https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360903492520
https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290010352461


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

821&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2004&_alid=1712379088&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&

_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=5908&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=

147&_acct=C000057807&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2563821&md5=7a32bb3fc560b

e04a0945960eca5cdbc&searchtype=a 

Bell, E., Fryar, A. H., & Hillman, N. (2018). When intuition misfires: A meta-analysis of research on 

performance-based funding in higher education. In E. Hazelkorn et al. (Eds.), Research handbook 

on quality, performance and accountability in higher education (pp. 108-124). London: Edward 

Elgar. Retrieved January 23, 2022, from 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=When%20intuition%20misfires%3A%20A%20m

eta-analysis%20of%20research%20on%20performance-based%20funding%20in%20higher%20e

ducation&pages=108-124&publication_year=2018&author=Bell%2CE&author=Fryar%2CAH&a

uthor=Hillman%2CNW#:~:text=When%20intuition%20misfires,28%20Related%20articles 

Bhutta, K. S., & Huq, F. (1999). Benchmarking—Best practices: An integrated approach. 

Benchmarking: An International Journal, 6(3), 254-268. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779910289261 

Birdsall, C. (2018). Performance management in public higher education: Unintended consequences and 

the implications of organizational diversity. Public Performance and Management Review, 41(4), 

669-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1481116 

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your Qualitative Dissertation: A Roadmap from 

Beginning to End. California: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226613 

Breach, M. (2009). Dissertation Writing for Engineers and Scientists. Harlow, Essex: Pearson 

Education. 

Campbell, A. C., & Mawer, M. (2019). Clarifying mixed messages: International scholarship 

programmes in the sustainable development agenda. Higher Education Policy-2019. Retrieved 

November 7, 2021, from 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=224593632760018725&as_sdt=5  

Claeys-Kulik, A. L., & Estermann, T. (2015). DEFINE Thematic Report: Performance-Based Funding 

of Universities in Europe. The last in the series of Thematic Reports coming out of the EUA-led 

DEFINE project on Designing Strategies for Efficient Funding of Higher Education in Europe 

(2012-2015). Retrieved August 22, 2019, from 

https://www.eua.eu/resources/publications/361:define-thematic-report-performance-based-funding

-of-universities-in-europe 

CQI. (2011). The Evolution of Quality thinking post c1970. Chartered Quality Institute. Retrieved 

September 12, 2015, from 

http://www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/Knowledge-portal/Concepts-of-quality/Evolution-of-quali

ty-thinking/ 

 

https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779910289261
https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1481116
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226613
https://www.eua.eu/resources/publications/361:define-thematic-report-performance-based-funding-of-universities-in-europe
https://www.eua.eu/resources/publications/361:define-thematic-report-performance-based-funding-of-universities-in-europe


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Crossan, F. (2003). Research philosophy: Towards an understanding. Nurse Researcher, 11(1), 46-55. 

https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2003.10.11.1.46.c5914 

Dassin, J. R., Marsh, R. R., & Mawer, M. (2017). International scholarships in higher education: 

Pathways to social change. Retrieved November 18, 2021, from 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=9675285297352203246&btnI=1&hl=en  

de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., Lemmens-Krug, 

K., & Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in 

fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: University of Twente, Centre for Higher Education 

Policy Studies. Retrieved August 17, 2019, from 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Performance-based%20funding%20and%20perf

ormance%20agreements%20in%20fourteen%20higher%20education%20systems&publication_ye

ar=2015&author=Boer%2CH&author=Jongbloed%2CB&author=Benneworth%2CP&author=Cre

monini%2CL&author=Kolster%2CR&author=Kottmann%2CA&author=Lemmens-Krug%2CK&

author=Vossensteyn%2CH 

Dean, J. W. J., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and 

practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392-418. Retrieved 

September 12, 2015, from 

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=19&sid=1c99e48c-f5fe-420db982fe367c34854

8%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=9412271803 

Doherty, G. D. (2008). On quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 255-65. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810886268 

Dougherty, K. J., Rebecca, S., & Natow, R. S. (2020). Performance-based funding for higher education: 

How well does neoliberal theory capture neoliberal practice? Higher Education, 80, 457-478. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00491-4 

Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (1997). An overview of benchmarking process: A tool for continuous 

improvement and competitive advantage. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 

4(4), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779710195087 

Ferguson, R. W. Jr. (2006). The Importance of Education. A speech delivered by Roger W. Ferguson, 

Vice Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, USA, at the commemoration of 

Black History Month, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, 

Maryland. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Ferguson20060224a.htm 

Frolich, N., Schmidt, E. K., & Rosa, M. J. (2010). Funding systems for higher education and their 

impacts on institutional strategies and academia: A comparative perspective. International Journal 

of Educational Management, 24(1), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013015 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2003.10.11.1.46.c5914
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=9675285297352203246&btnI=1&hl=en
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=9675285297352203246&btnI=1&hl=en
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810886268
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00491-4
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779710195087
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Ferguson20060224a.htm
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013015


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Gandara, D., & Rutherford, A. (2020). Completion at the expense of access? The relationship between 

performance-funding policies and access to public 4-year universities. Educational Researcher, 

49(5), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20927386 

Hagood, L. P. (2019). The financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 189-213. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719837318 

Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2004). Six Sigma. New York: Rosetta Books LLC. Retrieved September 

18, 2015, from http://www.netlibrary.com/Reader/ 

Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what? Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 245-263. Retrieved 

January 21, 2017, from 

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=12&sid=d84bc299-7414-4cb4-99ef-4e96a612b

62a%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=7105621 

Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining Quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 

18(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102 

Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2016). University funding and student funding: International 

comparisons. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(4), 576-595. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw029 

Law, D. C. S. (2010). Quality Assurance in Post-Secondary Education: The Student Experience. 

Quality Assurance in Education, 18(4), 250-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011079125 

Lee, Y. P., Zailani, S., & Soh, K. L. (2006). Understanding factors for benchmarking adoption: New 

evidence from Malaysia. Benchmarking: an International Journal, 13(5), 548-565. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770610690401 

Leibfried, & Mcnair. (1992). Benchmarking—A Tool for Continuous Improvement. Harper Collins, 

cited in Bhutta, K. S., & Huq, F. (1999). Benchmarking—Best practices: An integrated approach. 

Benchmarking: An International Journal, 6(3), 254-268. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779910289261 

Lock, D. (2001). Benchmarking: Sylvia Codling, Gower, Aldershot, 1998, 192pp. ISBN: 0 566 07926 

7 (paperback), £25.00. International Journal of Project Management, 19(4), 253-254. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00062-9 

Mawer, M. (2014). A study of research methodology used in evaluations of international scholarship 

schemes for higher education. Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United… Retrieved 

August 20, 2021, from 

Mawer, M. (2017). Approaches to analyzing the outcomes of international scholarship programs for 

higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316687009 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20927386
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719837318
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw029
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011079125
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770610690401
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779910289261
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00062-9
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=15265406894221720736&btnI=1&hl=en
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=15265406894221720736&btnI=1&hl=en
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=7452636052834815054&btnI=1&hl=en
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=7452636052834815054&btnI=1&hl=en
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316687009


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Mutula, S. M. (2001). Financing public universities in eastern and southern Africa: Implications for 

information services. Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 14(3), 116-132. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/08880450110398681   

Mutula, S. M. (2002). University education in Kenya: Current developments and future outlook. 

International Journal of Educational Management, 16(3), 109-119. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210422219 

Ortagus, J. C., Kelchen, R., Rosinger, K., & Voorhees, N. (2020). Performance-based funding in 

American higher education: A systematic synthesis of the intended and unintended consequences. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 520-550. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720953128 

Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications. Academy of 

Management Review, 19(3), 419-445. https://doi.org/10.2307/258934 

Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications. Academy of 

Management Review, 19(3), 419-445. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from 

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=19&sid=2237ad84-e4c9-4fea-bb2a-351486196

892%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=9412271805 

Salmi, J., & Hauptman, A. (2006). Higher Education in the World 2006: The Financing of Universities. 

Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Guni Series on the Social Commitment of Universities. 

Stensaker, B. (2003). Trance, transparency and transformation: The impact of external quality 

monitoring in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(2), 151-159. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320308158 

Stensaker, B. (2008). Outcomes of quality assurance: A discussion of knowledge, methodology and 

validity. Quality in Higher Education, 14(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802011532 

Topel, R. (2004). The Private and Social Values of Education. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland 

Conference on Education and Economic Development, November 19, 2004. Retrieved August 30, 

2018, from http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/conferences/2004/november/pdf/topel.pdf 

William, C. B. (2018). Performance funding and historically black colleges and universities: An 

assessment of financial incentives and baccalaureate degree production. Educational Policy, 34(4), 

644-673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802118 

Wisker, G. (2008). The Postgraduate Research Handbook (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36494-3 

World Bank Atlas Method. (2021). Retrieved January 2, 2022, from 

https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1108/08880450110398681
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210422219
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720953128
https://doi.org/10.2307/258934
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=19&sid=2237ad84-e4c9-4fea-bb2a-351486196892%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=9412271805
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=19&sid=2237ad84-e4c9-4fea-bb2a-351486196892%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=9412271805
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320308158
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802011532
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/EdConf2004/Nov/pdf/topel.pdf
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/conferences/2004/november/pdf/topel.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802118
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36494-3


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Appendix 

 

Table 1. End Notes 

S/No. Description 

1. Figure 1: Types of Benchmarking (Integrated Matrix Format)  

Source: Adapted from Leibfried & Mcnair (1992) as cited in Bhutta & Huq (1999) 

2. Figure 2: The Benchmarking Wheel–the 5 Stages of the Benchmarking Process 

Source: Adapted from Bhutta & Huq (1999) 

3. Figure 3: A Nine-step Benchmarking Model 

Source: Adapted from Elmuti & Kathawala (1997)  

4. Figure 4: Student Performance Assessment Plan 

Source: Lasbrey N. D. Nsiegbe  

5. Figure 5: Nsiegbe Performance Assessment Model for Overseas Scholarship Schemes 

Source: Lasbrey N. D. Nsiegbe 

 

 


