Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Higher education institutes around the world are adjusting to a rapidly changing environment caused by macro level trends such as massification and marketization. As part of this process, higher education institutions are seeking to enhance the student experience and build deeper, mutually beneficial relationships with their alumni. This involves encouraging loyalty in students and alumni from the outset of the relationship. This paper studies the impact of extra-curricular activities on students’ loyalty to their educational institution. A quantitative survey was conducted in an Irish HEI (n = 798) and a French HEI (n = 670). The data collected suggests that participation in extra-curricular activities has a significantly positive effect on student’s loyalty to their institution which we posit will enhance their loyalty as eventual alumni. Institutional loyalty is culturally sensitive and needs to be managed as such, but the effect of participation in extra-curricular activities on loyalty is consistent across cultural contexts. These findings suggest that institutions should support extra-curricular activities as an investment in building loyalty in students and alumni.

Keywords

alumni loyalty alumni management extra-curricular activities student loyalty university management

Introduction

Higher education institutes (HEI) all over the world are being forced to adjust to an operating environment that is rapidly changing due to the impact of macro level trends such as massification (Tight, 2019) and marketization (Natale & Doran, 2012). Institutions are adopting a wide range of strategies to deal with these changes. One strategy being pursued by many HEIs is to seek to build deeper, mutually beneficial relationships with their students and alumni (Gallo, 2012). Traditionally, building these relationships has been conceptualized as a form of relationship marketing (McAlexander & Koenig, 2001). However, the limitations of this approach has prompted calls in the literature to find new ways of building and strengthening the loyalty of students and alumni to their alma mater (Iskhakova et al., 2017). Qualitative work in the ECA literature on participation suggests that it builds familial-like ties and loyalty to their HEI among students and alumni (Buckley & Lee, 2018). This research builds our knowledge base by testing this hypothesis quantitatively.

The Higher Education Context

Across the globe, higher education institutions are facing the challenge of a rapidly changing operating environment. The magnitude and velocity of this transition can be attributed to at least two macro-level contemporary trends. The first is often referred to as Massification (Tight, 2019), and refers to the exponential increase in the number of individuals seeking to access higher education (Altbach & Reisberg, 2018). Traditionally, higher education was the preserve of a small elite within the population and largely focused on the renewal of specific professions such as academia or the legal profession (Hornsby & Osman, 2014). Today, one third of the cohort of global school leavers enters higher education, and this participation rate is rising by 1% per annum (Marginson, 2016). Within countries, the participation rates of populations which were traditionally under-represented such as women and ethnic minorities are rapidly rising (Bathmaker, 2016; Waller et al., 2014). Globalization has created a large, internationally mobile student population (Altbach et al., 2019; Streitwieser, 2014) eager to travel to access educational opportunities across the world within what has become known as the GEI – global education industry (Verger et al., 2016).

A second macro-level trend is the marketization of the higher education sector across the world (Natale & Doran, 2012). The funding models which support HEIs are being transformed (Doyle et al., 2013). National governments are seeking to reduce expenditure on the provision of education and are re-structuring HEIs to be more market linked and competition orientated, a perspective which is referred to as academic capitalism (Schulze-Cleven & Olson, 2017) or marketization (Natale & Doran, 2012). Marketization re-conceptualizes students as consumers, with a wide range of attendant organizational impacts (Bunce & Bennett, 2019; Harrison & Risler, 2015). Private actors play a large role in the provision of higher education, with private sector institutions now holding 1/3 of the world’s total higher education enrolment (Levy, 2018). Government and students alike are demanding curricula and courses that prioritize employability so that the economic investment in tuition can be quickly recouped by lucrative employment (Elwick & Cannizzaro, 2017).

Taken together, these macro level trends and associated second-order effects present very significant challenges to the status quo. Massification leads to larger cohorts of more diverse students (Hornsby & Osman, 2014). Reduced state support makes resources more difficult to obtain, leading to less support for individual students (Pitman, 2014). Tying funding models directly to student numbers leads to increased competition for students, particularly those who can or must pay high fees. Transitions from other educational systems or other contexts such as unemployment or full or part-time work are more difficult if well-resourced supports services do not exist. Ultimately, the tension between increasing class sizes and scarcer resources can lead to adverse effects at both the individual (lack of motivation, lack of engagement, poor learning outcomes) (Exeter et al., 2010) and institutional levels (high dropout rates, declining grades, pressure on educational standards) (Scott, 1995).

Higher education institutions are responding to these challenges using a wide range of strategies. Innovative pedagogies such as active learning, problem-based learning (van den Bossche et al., 2004), gamification (Buckley et al., 2016) and co-creation (Doyle et al., 2019) are being used to improve students’ educational experience. Universities are developing courses aimed at attracting new student cohorts such as international students or professionals seeking to up-skill or change careers (Molesworth et al., 2009). They are exploring alternate revenue streams to replace declining state funding (Schulze-Cleven & Olson, 2017). While these approaches demonstrate the existence of potential paths forward for HEIs, the scale of the challenge serves to emphasize the need to continue to explore how to best operationalize them.

It is in the context of developing such strategies that student and alumni loyalty has become a topic of increasing academic interest. Used loosely, as it often is, the term loyalty ‘encompasses notions such as fidelity and commitment’ (McGoldrick & Andre, 1997, p. 97). The commonly use framework proposed by Dick and Basu (1994) defines loyalty as a construct with two dimensions, attitudinal loyalty which focuses on attitude to the entity, and behavioural loyalty which includes measures such as value and frequency of purchases or interactions. Iskhakov et al. (2017) have adapted this framework to a HEI setting. Attitudinal loyalty is a positive affect towards the institution which is expressed as a desire to keep in touch with the institution, an interest in obtaining and consuming news about the institution and a willingness to act as an institutional advocate when the opportunity arises (Iskhakova et al., 2017). Behavioural loyalty is expressed through actions such as providing financial support and actively seeking out volunteering and advocacy opportunities (Iskhakova et al., 2017).

Student loyalty is seen as being dependent on a satisfactory student experience (Temizer & Turkyilmaz, 2012). As an outcome variable, it is seen as having several antecedent factors, such as perceived service quality (Purgailis & Zaksa, 2012) (which is in turn affected by variables such as academic staff, course content, readiness for the labour market and acquired skills), trust in the institution (Perin et al., 2012) and institutional reputation (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). While often treated as an outcome of the student experience, student loyalty does lead to significant benefits. From the perspective of an individual student, loyalty leads to better educational experiences and outcomes for themselves and their peers through motivated and active participation (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). From an institutional perspective, student loyalty is associated with increased recruitment through positive word of mouth between peers (Shahsavar & Sudzina, 2017). It improves retention and makes students less likely to leave the institution (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Positive word of mouth extends to students endorsing the university to the wider community, building its reputation (Raja, 2023). In the modern context, as well as the traditional areas of teaching and research, universities are now seen as having a social responsibility to engage with the local and wider community (Latif et al., 2021). Loyalty motivates students to proactively engage in outreach activities that facilitate this relationship building (Buckley & Lee, 2018).

Another important impact of student loyalty is that it is the foundation of a positive lifelong relationship between a graduated student and their alma-mater (Monks, 2003). Newman and Petrosko (2011) note that numerous studies have demonstrated a significant positive relationship between the undergraduate student experience and altruism as alumni. The bonds alumni have with their alma mater are influenced strongly by the institutional relationship and loyalty they develop as students (McAlexander & Koenig, 2001). The loyalty a student develops towards their institution is a crucial determinant of attitudinal loyalty and altruistic behaviours towards their alma mater as an alumnus (Iskhakova et al., 2017).

Alumni loyalty is an increasingly important concern of HEIs worldwide who are looking to capitalize on their graduates (Gallo, 2012). Alumni are commonly seen as a source of financial support, with a tradition of philanthropic donations being particularly strong in the United States (Monks, 2003). However, alumni can offer a breadth of services to their alma mater. Alumni can act as institutional advocates to a wide variety of stakeholders including potential students, industrial partners and government (Portera, 2002). They may fulfil roles in institutional governance or an alumni association (Dolbert, 2002). Of particular note in this context is the contribution they can make in ensuring courses and curricula are up to date and relevant to the needs of industry and employers (Paton et al., 2014). Their professional roles may allow them to offer work placements or employment to students or graduates (Button Renz, 2010). A supportive and vocal alumni may make a significant contribution to a university’s reputational score in the various university rankings which continue to increase in number and importance (Esposito & Stark, 2019).

Given the potential benefits of an engaged alumni, many of which directly support the strategies being implemented to deal with their current challenges, HEIs have a significant interest in building a strong relationship with their alumni. The dominant paradigm that informs how HEIs interact with their alumni is that of relationship marketing (McAlexander & Koenig, 2001). Alumni are sent magazines and newsletters, event invitations and affinity credit card offerings, using the full complement of modern communication tools (McAlexander et al., 2005). These tools are also used to inform and encourage alumni to contribute to their alma mater in the ways outlined above.

It is difficult to imagine an institution being able to maintain a dialogue with their alumni without using the tools of relationship marketing. However, many authors warn that the use of relationship marketing can be a double-edged sword. Overzealous communication may cause a negative shift in alumni perception of their alma mater and cause them to view it as an annoyance or even as a foe (Fournier et al., 1998). This can be particularly pernicious if cynicism is engendered by a perception that all communications are correlated with an appeal for a financial donation (Gallo, 2012). These risks can be exacerbated by the nature of the modern world, which is awash with communication streams. In this context, institutions may feel the need to increase the volume of their alumni messaging or risk being overlooked. Most individuals in the developed world suffer from information overload (Bawden & Robinson, 2020) and may respond to increased communication with increased cynicism or attempts to sever communication channels entirely (Godfrey et al., 2011).

These negative repercussions are noted in the literature and discussed in practice. There is a recognized need to move beyond an alumni strategy based on relationship marketing to one that identifies and builds on emotional links with the institution (Gallo, 2012). The concept of an ‘alumdergraduate’, with its focus on building a lifelong relationship with individuals from the moment of student induction encapsulates this more holistic approach to building a collaborative, mutually beneficial alumni-alma mater relationship (Gallo, 2012). Higher education institutions are searching for ways to operationalize this concept.

From an institutional perspective both student and alumni loyalty are positive attributes. The literature suggests that student loyalty is the dominant predictor of alumni loyalty (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009), which is in turn associated with another wide range of benefits for institutions and alumni. In recognition of this, building loyalty and enhancing alumni relations are increasingly being managed in universities as soon as students enrol (Rissmeyer, 2010). Institutions seeking to reap the benefits of student and alumni loyalty must interrogate its antecedents in order to understand how to best nurture it.

Extra-curricular activities

Extra-curricular activities are ‘non-academic activities that are conducted under the auspices of the school but occur outside of normal classroom time and are not part of the curriculum’ (Bartkus et al., 2012, p. 698). Extracurricular activities have been closely associated with HEIs since their medieval origins (Sequeira & Daly, 2012). An enormous range of cultural, social and political activities are organized and run by groups such as sports clubs, student societies, fraternities and other bodies that are closely linked with HEIs (Bartkus et al., 2012). While there is enormous variation, these associations share some common characteristics. Bartkus offers the following definition with encompasses the key attributes of ECA. ‘Extracurricular activities are defined as academic or non-academic activities that are conducted under the auspices of the school but occur outside of normal classroom time and are not part of the curriculum. Additionally, extracurricular activities do not involve a grade or academic credit and participation is optional on the part of the student’ (Bartkus et al., 2012, p. 698)

Research to date has looked at the impact of ECA from three perspectives. One stream of research has looked at the impact of ECA participation on academic performance (Seow & Pan, 2014). Three main models are proposed in the literature. The first is the Zero-Sum model, which views a student’s resources such as time, cognitive effort, and so on, as limited (Coleman, 1961). From this perspective, the resources a student expends on ECA activities are being diverted from academic activities (Torenbeek et al., 2010). This model has been largely superseded by the Development model which suggests that ECA participation has a positive effect on academic performance (Holland & Andre, 1987). Participation in ECA prompts the development of competencies that support both academic achievement and the development of social capital and a supportive network of peers. These provide strong, albeit indirect support for academic achievement (Larson et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2013). The Threshold model extends the Development model but argues that the positive effects of ECA participation are not linear and can reverse if individuals devote excessive time and resources to ECA (Cooper et al., 1999).

A second research stream has investigated the development of complementary skills. Complementary skills are competences that are not discipline specific, and thus generally outside the remit of academic courses, but are desired by employers (Maher & Graves, 2008). Specific items in this category would include communication skills, team-working and networking skills and self-efficacy. These skills are difficult to develop in traditional academic environments (Fink, 2013). Researchers have suggested that ECA can help students to both develop these skills and evidence them to potential employers (Clark et al., 2015; Greenbank, 2015) enabling an easier transition to work (Tchibozo, 2007). However, the literature cautions that establishing causation and assigning relative credit between academic programs and ECA for the development of complementary skills is difficult (Clark et al., 2015).

The literature investigating the instrumental effect of ECA on academic performance and competence development can be summarized as being broadly positive. The dominant models describing the impact on academic performance (the Development and Threshold models) both view the relationship as positive, albeit with caveats noted by the Threshold model. Studies exploring the impact of ECA on complementary skills development generally show positive relationships.

The third lens used to view the impact of ECA on students is less developed than the previously described perspectives. It is best framed as the impact on the student experience and is generally concerned with taking a more holistic view of the impact of ECA on students. Studies in this corpus report on effects that are more concerned with the impact of ECA on the individual. Research suggests that ECA participation builds social capital and augments social networks (Stuart et al., 2011). Other researchers note effects such as increased resilience (Thompson et al., 2013), improved mental health (Chan, 2016) and improved motivation (Osterman, 2000).

Research objective

Some studies have suggested that ECA participation can have a significant effect on student affinity and loyalty to their HEI. Buckley and Lee (2018) note that extra-curricular activities build loyalty and affinity with the university and the campus community. McAlexander et al. (2005) note the importance of challenging, fun experiences in building loyalty. However, the hypothesis that ECA leads to increased loyalty has not yet been tested quantitatively in the literature. This has led to calls for quantitative work to investigate the relationship between ECA and loyalty more robustly (Buckley & Lee, 2018). This paper seeks to address this acknowledged lacuna by quantitatively investigating whether participation in ECA influences students’ loyalty to their institution. As the effect of ECA participation may be culturally dependent, the paper also seeks to gather evidence that would support the suggestion that effect of ECA participation is consistent in different cultural contexts.

Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study were students at two HEIs in the Republic of Ireland and France. The HEI in Ireland spans the full range of disciplines normally associated with HEI (e.g. business, science, engineering, medicine). The HEI in France is focused entirely on business disciplines. Both institutions cater to undergraduate and postgraduate students. The data collection procedure was reviewed and approved by the relevant institutional research ethics review boards before data collection commenced. The survey was designed using an online tool and distributed via email in the vernacular to students of both institutions. All the existing measures were published in English in the literature and were translated into the vernacular by an academic fluent in both English and French. The survey was active for 3 weeks in the Autumn teaching semester. The survey was available simultaneously in the Irish and French HEIs, with participation reminder sent at the start of the 2nd and 3rd weeks.

The survey was distributed to 15,781 undergraduate and postgraduate students in the Irish institution. Seven hundred and ninety-eight respondents completed the survey, a response rate of 5.05%. Of the Irish respondents, 45.2% identified as male, while 54.8% identified as female. 88% of the respondents were undergraduate students while 22% were postgraduate students. Similarly, the survey was distributed to 7,131 undergraduate and postgraduate students in the French institution. Six hundred and seventy students in the French institution completed the survey, a response rate of 9.39%. Of the 670 students, 45.7% identified as male and 54.3% identified as female, while 53.1% were undergraduate and 46.9% were postgraduate students.

Measures

A quantitative instrument was used to investigate the impact of ECA participation on student loyalty. After some initial demographic questions, which gathered data on respondents’ gender, level (undergraduate or postgraduate) and area of study, students were asked to self-report their ECA participation. They were asked to indicate how many different ECA activities they were currently involved in. This data was captured at a point in time and did not seek to differentiate students who were active in the past but were currently inactive from students who have never participated. Data on what specific ECA activity a respondent was involved in was not collected. Respondents were presented with a series of questions drawn from previously published and validated instruments, which were used to measure the variables of interest.

Schlesinger et al. (2017) developed an instrument to measure students’ satisfaction with, sense of shared values, trust, perception of university image and overall loyalty to their University, with the scales being named accordingly. Their measurement items were derived from existing validated scales and adapted by them to a higher education context. The measurement items ask questions such as ‘Overall, I have a positive image of this University’ and use an 11-point Likert scale question to capture responses. Schlesinger reports that Cronbach’s alpha exceed 0.9 for all scales and the composite reliability for all the scales in this instrument is above 0.9. All the scales contained in Schlesinger’s instrument were included in the survey. Further information on the psychometric properties of this instrument can be found in Schlesinger et al. (2017).

The extent to which an individual feels their identity is instantiated by their affiliation to their HEI may be a significant indicator of loyalty to that organization (Heckman & Guskey, 1998). To capture Organizational Identity, a scale used by Mael and Ashford (1992) was included in our survey. This scale consists of six measurement items consisting of questions such as ‘When someone criticizes (name of school), it feels like a personal insult’. Responses to these questions were captured using a 5-point Likert Scale. Mael and Ashford report that the co-efficient alpha exceeds 0.8 for uses of this construct reported in the literature.

Organizational Pride is another factor that positively influences the likelihood of an individual maintaining a relationship with an organization (Appleberg, 2005). To capture students’ organizational pride, a scale developed by Goutheir and Rhein (2011) was adapted. This scale uses three measurement items which ask questions such as ‘I feel proud to work for my company’. They report a composite reliability of 0.9 for this scale. Further details on the development and validation of this scale can be found in Goutheir and Rhein (2011). For this study, the measurement items were adapted to situate the question in an educational setting, so, for example, the previous question was adapted to read ‘I feel proud to have attended my university’. In the source scale, responses to the measurement items were captured using a 5 item Likert scale.

The measurement items taken from Schlesigner’s instrument use 11-point Likert scales, while the measurement items from Mael and Ashford and Gouther & Rhein use 5-point Likert scales. All these scales are designed to measure a similar construct, namely the intensity of agreement or disagreement with a statement. The different level of granularity on the response scales contained in the survey presented potential challenges in terms of consistency of interpretation for respondents and comparability for analysis.

To address this discrepancy in granularity, a decision was made to adjust all the measurement scales to use a 7-point Likert scale. The transformation process ensured the both the end and midpoints of the old response scales maintained conceptual alignment with the new response scale. A 7-point Likert scale was used as it lay between the 11-point and 5-point Likert scales used in the original measurement items and also because a 7-point Likert scale is generally recognized as providing reliable scores (Preston & Colman, 2000). Ultimately, the rescaling decision was made to improve the clarity of the results, ensuring that measurements are presented consistently to respondents and can be analysed comparably.

Data analysis

The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27). The total number of responses was 1,667. Data cleansing and the removal of incomplete survey responses required the exclusion of 199 incomplete responses, leaving a total of 1,468 valid responses. A total of 1,079 responses were received from individuals who participated in ECA. Of this group, 61.6% of respondents were Irish and 38.4% were French. 71.3% of the respondents were undergraduate students, while 28.7% of the respondents were postgraduate students. Of this group, 55.4% identified as female while 45.6% identified as male. A total of 389 responses were received from individuals who did not participate in ECA. Of this group, 65.5% of the respondents were Irish and 34.5% of the respondents were French. 74.2% of the respondents in this group were undergraduate students and 25.8% of the respondents were postgraduate students. In this cohort, 52.7% of respondents identified as female and 46.3 identified as male.

To investigate the impact of ECA participation on student loyalty, an independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean score of the participants on the dependent variables. Before performing this test, the Cronbach’s alpha of the measurement scales used in the study was calculated to validate their reliability. The scales used in this study have good internal consistency, with the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of all the scales used above 0.78, exceeding recommended values (DeVellis, 2017). This research is exploratory in nature. In this context, a correction to account for the relatively large number of comparisons was deemed inappropriate because the predominant intent of the research was to uncover effects worthy of further study and the application of a Bonferroni correct or similar would increase the risk of Type-II errors (Barnett et al., 2022). However, a conservative value for p of 0.01 was used to establish significance in testing. We have interpreted effect size using the benchmarks suggested by Cohen (2013)

Results

Table 1.

ECA participants versus non-participants.

Variable	ECA participation		No ECA participation		t	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Image	5.63	1.09	5.37	1.24	3.68	.00	0.22
Satisfaction	5.91	1.09	5.42	1.36	6.41	.00	0.39
Shared values	5.05	1.30	4.60	1.39	5.66	.00	0.33
Trust	5.31	1.30	4.73	1.35	5.16	.00	0.30
Loyalty	5.68	1.14	5.24	1.40	5.46	.00	0.34
Organizational identification	4.92	1.20	4.63	1.30	3.92	.00	0.23
Organizational pride	5.88	1.08	5.53	1.31	4.82	.00	0.23

The number of respondents who participated in ECA activities was N = 1,079, while the number of respondents who did participate was N = 389. Students who participated in ECA reported significantly higher perceptions of their university’s image, satisfaction, shared values, trust, loyalty, identification, and pride compared to those who did not. The largest difference was observed in satisfaction, where ECA participants scored higher (M = 5.91) than non-participants (M = 5.42), with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.39). University image, shared values, trust and loyalty also showed significant differences, though with small effect sizes (d = 0.22–0.34). Identification with the university and pride were also higher among ECA participants, but these differences remained small (d = 0.23). While participation in ECA is associated with more positive perceptions of the university, the small effect sizes suggest that other factors may also contribute to these attitudes.

Different cultures may have different attitudes towards institutions such as Universities. To investigate if this is the case, an independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean score of the participants on the dependent variables using the nationality of the participant as the independent variable. The result of these tests is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Irish students versus French students.

Variable	Irish students		French students		t	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Image	5.78	1.08	5.29	1.15	8.44	.00	0.43
Satisfaction	6.05	1.09	5.46	1.22	9.68	.00	0.51
Shared values	5.15	1.27	4.67	1.37	5.66	.00	0.36
Trust	5.23	1.36	4.79	1.22	6.52	.00	0.34
Loyalty	5.84	1.14	5.23	1.35	9.54	.00	0.48
Organizational identification	4.75	1.28	4.94	1.16	2.99	.00	0.15
Organizational pride	5.98	1.07	5.60	1.21	5.78	.00	0.33

The number of respondents who participated in ECA activities was N = 798, while the number of respondents who did participate was N = 670. Irish students reported significantly more positive perceptions of their university compared to French students across multiple dimensions, including university image, satisfaction, shared values, trust, loyalty and pride. The largest difference was in satisfaction, with Irish students scoring higher (M = 6.05) than French students (M = 5.46), showing a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.51). University image and loyalty also differed significantly, though with small effect sizes (d = 0.43–0.48). Shared values, trust and pride were also rated higher by Irish students, but the effect sizes remained small (d = 0.33–0.36). In contrast, French students identified more strongly with their university (M = 4.94) than Irish students (M = 4.75), but this difference was minimal (d = 0.15).

The significant differences observed between different cultural groupings raises the possibility that the differences between active and non-ECA participating students could be explained by cultural differences. To investigate this, two separate independent samples t-test were conducted to measure the effect on ECA participation at the level of cultural groupings. The results of these tests are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Irish ECA participants versus non participants.

Variable	ECA participation		No ECA participation		t	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Image	5.58	1.01	5.47	1.35	3.12	.00	0.09
Satisfaction	6.14	0.99	5.61	1.41	4.06	.00	0.43
Shared values	5.23	1.23	4.73	1.41	3.84	.00	0.37
Trust	5.33	1.28	4.73	1.61	4.04	.00	0.41
Loyalty	5.91	1.06	5.45	1.44	3.49	.00	0.36
Organizational identification	4.81	1.26	4.44	1.37	3.08	.00	0.28
Organizational pride	6.02	1.01	5.60	1.32	3.47	.00	0.35

Table 4.

French ECA participants versus non participants.

Variable	ECA participation		No ECA participation		t	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Image	5.28	1.13	5.32	1.18	0.51	.00	0.03
Satisfaction	5.54	1.16	5.32	1.31	2.20	.00	0.17
Shared values	4.75	1.36	4.54	1.38	1.90	.00	0.15
Trust	4.82	1.24	4.74	1.20	0.80	.00	0.06
Loyalty	5.29	1.67	5.14	1.37	1.49	.00	0.09
Organizational identification	5.08	1.07	4.72	1.25	3.92	.00	0.30
Organizational pride	5.67	1.15	5.60	1.30	1.76	.00	0.13

The results indicate that both groups of students respond to ECA participation in a similar way—students who participate in ECA generally report more positive perceptions of their university compared to those who do not. However, the strength of this effect is more pronounced in Irish students.

In both Irish and French samples, ECA participation was associated with higher satisfaction, shared values, trust, loyalty, identification and pride. Importantly, while the direction of these effects was consistent across both groups, the magnitude of the differences varied. Among Irish students, the effect sizes were consistently small but meaningful (Cohen’s d = 0.09–0.43), with the largest impact observed for satisfaction (d = 0.43). In contrast, the French sample also showed positive associations between ECA participation and university perceptions, but the effect sizes were much smaller (Cohen’s d = 0.03–0.30), indicating a weaker influence.

The only exception to this trend was university image: while Irish ECA participants reported slightly higher perceptions of university image than non-participants, the effect was very small (d = 0.09). In the French sample, non-ECA participants actually reported slightly higher university image perceptions than ECA participants, though the difference was extremely small (d = 0.03).

A consistent picture emerges from the two previous analyses. In both cases, there is a significant change across the variables being used to measure student loyalty. In both cultural contexts, ECA participation is associated with a significant mean increase across the variables measuring student loyalty. In general, the effect sizes are smaller in a French context, but the direction of effect remains consistent. This consistency indicates that the impact of ECA participation remains consistent even if underlying cultural differences lead to different absolute perspectives.

Discussion and conclusions

The modern world is a challenging environment for HEIs. They must continue to meet their age-old mission of advancing knowledge through education and research while being buffeted by modern trends such as massification and marketization. Higher education institutions are responding to these challenges using a variety of approaches. One such approach is to provide (Temizer & Turkyilmaz, 2012). Another strategy is to build stronger relationships with their alumni that can benefit both partners (Gallo, 2012).

The first major contribution of this research is to move beyond theory to provide empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis that ECA participation has a significant effect on student and alumni loyalty. Understanding how to build student and alumni loyalty has become a pressing operational and strategic concern for many HEIs. Extra-curricular activity participation offers students stimulating opportunities to challenge themselves across a whole range of physical and social activities (Stuart et al., 2011). It enables them to hone skills and competences that will serve them throughout their lives as well as their careers (Clark et al., 2015). Participation in ECA builds social capital and a social network that will support students throughout their time in higher level education and beyond (Buckley & Lee, 2018).

Loyalty appears to vary culturally. This study, comparing students studying in France to students studying in Ireland, shows significant differences between the two groups. Irish participants have significantly higher scores across most measures of loyalty, such as image, satisfaction and shared values. The exception to this is organizational identification, where French students score higher than Irish students on average. A possible explanation is the difference in prestige between the respective institutions. The French institution in this study is a French Grande Ecole, an elite business school, with a very competitive entry selection process. One hypothesis is that this associated prestige may entice students to define themselves in terms of belonging to the institution. The larger point here is that HEIs seeking to measure and mediate loyalty must be aware loyalty towards HEIs is culturally and possibly institutionally specific and must be managed as such.

The cultural variance notwithstanding, our findings suggest that the impact of ECA participation is consistently positive in these different contexts. This implies the effect of ECA is not dependent on cultural differences suggesting HEIs can be confident of the effect of ECA participation regardless of their cultural setting. It also suggests that the effect of promoting ECA participation will be consistent across the increasingly diverse populations that make up global student bodies.

The positive effect of ECA on student and alumni loyalty has a wide range of benefits. Increased loyalty leads to an improved student experience and better learning outcomes through a more motivated and active student population (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Loyalty leads to students being more likely to advocate for the institution (Raja, 2023), and more likely to engage in off campus and altruistic activities that build the institution’s reputation (Latif et al., 2021). Loyalty is associated with the internalization of the academic and scientific values espoused by institutions (Perin et al., 2012). Similarly, a loyal and engaged alumni population is associated with a wide range of benefits including financial support for their alma mater (Monks, 2003), institutional advocacy (Portera, 2002), participating in institutional governance (Dolbert, 2002), guiding course and curriculum development (Paton et al., 2014) and building an institution’s reputation (Esposito & Stark, 2019).

The wide range of benefits of increased loyalty through ECA participation has important implications for academics and administrators tasked with managing these institutions. Higher education institutions should seek to support and promote ECA activities both as a contributor to the student experience and as a lever to increase student and alumni loyalty. This support could take numerous forms. The most obvious is the direct provision of financial and infrastructural support to enable the activities of clubs, societies and other student associations on campus. Beyond this, there are a wide range of ways that HEIs could encourage ECA participation. Official communication channels could be used to advertise and highlight ECA activities, broadening the reach of clubs and societies. Other practical measures could include flexibility around the scheduling of teaching and assessments to allow for participation in ECA. Higher education institutions could modify scheduling policies to clear periods of time for ECA activities, both as a practical measure to ease scheduling and a clear signal of recognition of the importance of ECA participation on campus. Many clubs and societies engage in activities that could resonate with and support active learning in course work. Can participation in a sports team be used to instantiate a business course on teamwork and leadership? Could participation in college debating be used to develop advocacy skills in a law course? Such linkages would be situational and contextual, but HEIs could support them through suitable policies and teaching and learning supports.

In the context of alumni relations, a focus on building loyalty through ECA participation offers additional opportunities to the HEI. Monks (2003) notes that the common practice of soliciting donations from the entire alumnus may be an inefficient use of scarce resources. It may be more productive to target alumni who are more likely to be positively inclined towards the institution. Since ECA participation increases loyalty, one way of identifying individuals more likely to engage is to target those who participated in ECA while attending the HEI. This also allows for the development and targeting of campaigns that are more relevant to alumni. Communications to alumni could be personalized by reminding them of their activities or informing them about the current events of the clubs and societies they were involved with. Reunion events could be themed around specific clubs, societies or associations, and include students currently participating in the alumni’s ECA. Participation and funding appeals could be targeted at providing supports for infrastructure development or sports scholarships for the specific ECA an alumnus was involved with.

From a research prospective, this paper verifies a relationship that has been theorized in the literature. A number of limitations of this study must be acknowledged. This study was sited in two HEIs. A wider range of institutions operating in different cultural contexts would corroborate and increase confidence in the observed effects. Since both institutions are situated in a European context, studies sited outside that milieu would be particularly welcome. Studies that query alumni directly would increase confidence that the effects observed persist over time. From an analytical perspective, making multiple comparisons in a study can increase the likelihood of making a Type-I error, and so further corroborative studies would be welcome. Beyond corroborative studies that seek to address these limitations and increase confidence in the observed results, a number of other interesting research questions suggest themselves. One interesting question would be to explore whether different types of ECA, for example team sports versus political groups versus charities, have a different effect on loyalty as well as the other affective characteristics of individuals. As long as building strong, emotionally meaningful relationships with students and alumni is a concern of modern HEIs, such studies will continue to provide valuable insights to practitioners and academics alike.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-alh-10.1177_14697874251347190 – Supplemental material for The impact of extra-curricular activity on student loyalty

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-alh-10.1177_14697874251347190 for The impact of extra-curricular activity on student loyalty by Patrick Buckley and Peter Daly in Active Learning in Higher Education

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Patrick Buckley

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Patrick Buckley is an Associate Professor of Information Management at the University of Limerick. His primary research focus is the use of collective intelligence to improve organisational effectiveness and efficiency. He has published in journals such as “The Journal of Risk Research”, “Business Horizons” and “Information Systems Frontiers”. His research has been supported by a range of institutions, including the Irish Tax Institute (ITI) and Enterprise Ireland (EI). He also has significant research stream investigating the effect of extra-curricular activity on the student experience.

Peter Daly has worked in management communication and management studies since 1995. He has taught managerial communication programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Germany and in France. He currently teaches reflexive leadership, creativity and management communication. His primary research interests revolve around teaching and learning in higher education, business education pedagogy, and discourse analysis. He has presented papers at international conferences on these research areas. Professor Daly has an international background and speaks Irish, English, French and German fluently. Having studied languages (French, German & Spanish) in Ireland, Spain and Belgium, Professor Daly continued his studies in pedagogy and linguistics/communication, prior to taking up a post at the University of Bayreuth. While working in Germany, he completed a Postgraduate qualification in e-learning pedagogy. His doctoral research in higher education looked at the social, institutional and self-discourses of business apprentices. He also completed a Diploma in Human Relations in 2017. From 2015-2022, Professor Daly was Director of the MSc in Management Studies, and from 2022-2025, Director of the MSc in Management & Leadership.

References

Altbach

P. G.

Reisberg

(2018). Global trends and future uncertainties. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3–4), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509601

Altbach

P. G.

Reisberg

Rumbley

L. E.

(2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. BRILL.

Appleberg

K. A.

(2005). The construction of a nomological network for organizational pride. Benedictine University.

Barnett

M. J.

Doroudgar

Khosraviani

E. J.

(2022). Multiple comparisons: To compare or not to compare, that is the question. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 18(2), 2331–2334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.07.006

Bartkus

K. R.

Nemelka

Gardner

(2012). Clarifying the meaning of extracurricular activity: A literature review of definitions. American Journal of Business Education, 5(6), 693–703.

Bathmaker

A.-M.

(2016). Higher education in further education: The challenges of providing a distinctive contribution that contributes to widening participation. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 21(1–2), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2015.1125667

Bawden

Robinson

(2020). Information overload: An overview (pp. 13–45). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1360

Brown

R. M.

Mazzarol

T. W.

(2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9183-8

Buckley

Doyle

(2016). Game on! Students’ perceptions of gamified learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 1–10.

10.

Buckley

Lee

(2018). The impact of extra-curricular activity on the student experience. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418808988

11.

Bunce

Bennett

(2019). A degree of studying? Approaches to learning and academic performance among student ‘consumers.’ Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419860204

12.

Button Renz

. (2010). How to build a bridge between students and alumni. In Feudo

J. A.

(Ed.), Alumni relations: A newcomer’s guide to success (2nd ed., pp. 123–129). Case Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

13.

Chan

Y.-K.

(2016). Investigating the relationship among extracurricular activities, learning approach and academic outcomes: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654795

14.

Clark

Marsden

Whyatt

J. D.

Thompson

Walker

(2015). ‘It’s everything else you do. . .’: Alumni views on extracurricular activities and employability. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415574050

15.

Cohen

(2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

16.

Coleman

J. S.

(1961). The adolescent society (pp. xvi, 368). Free Press of Glencoe.

17.

Cooper

Valentine

J. C.

Nye

Lindsay

J. J.

(1999). Relationships between five after-school activities and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.369

18.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.

19.

Dick

A. S.

Basu

(1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001

20.

Dolbert

S. C.

(2002). Future trends in alumni relations. Australian International Education Conference, 3, 2006.

21.

Doyle

Buckley

Carroll

(2013). Innovative business school teaching: Engaging the millennial generation. Routledge.

22.

Doyle

Buckley

Whelan

(2019). Assessment co-creation: An exploratory analysis of opportunities and challenges based on student and instructor perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1498077

23.

Elwick

Cannizzaro

(2017). Happiness in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12121

24.

Esposito

Stark

(2019). What’s observed in a rating? Rankings as orientation in the face of uncertainty. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419826276

25.

Exeter

D. J.

Ameratunga

Ratima

Morton

Dickson

Hsu

Jackson

(2010). Student engagement in very large classes: The teachers’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903545058

26.

Fink

L. D.

(2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Fournier

Dobscha

Mick

D. G.

(1998, January 1). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1998/01/preventing-the-premature-death-of-relationship-marketing

28.

Gallo

(2012). Beyond philanthropy: Recognising the value of alumni to benefit higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.611892

29.

Godfrey

Seiders

Voss

G. B.

(2011). Enough is enough! The fine line in executing multichannel relational communication. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.94

30.

Goutheir

M. H. J.

Rhein

(2011). Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. Journal of Service Management, 22(5), 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111174988

31.

Greenbank

(2015). Still focusing on the “essential 2:1”: Exploring student attitudes to extra-curricular activities. Education + Training, 57(2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2013-0087

32.

Harrison

L. M.

Risler

(2015). The role consumerism plays in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415573356

33.

Heckman

Guskey

(1998). The relationship between alumni and University: Toward a theory of discretionary collaborative behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1998.11501799

34.

Helgesen

Ø.

Nesset

. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710729926

35.

Holland

Andre

(1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 437–466. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057004437

36.

Hornsby

D. J.

Osman

(2014). Massification in higher education: Large classes and student learning. Higher Education, 67(6), 711–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9733-1

37.

Iskhakova

Hoffmann

Hilbert

(2017). Alumni loyalty: Systematic literature review. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29(3), 274–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1326352

38.

Larson

R. W.

Hansen

D. M.

Moneta

(2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849

39.

Latif

K. F.

Bunce

Ahmad

M. S.

(2021). How can universities improve student loyalty? The roles of university social responsibility, service quality, and “customer” satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(4), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2020-0524

40.

Levy

D. C.

(2018). Global private higher education: An empirical profile of its size and geographical shape. Higher Education, 76(4), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0233-6

41.

Maher

Graves

(2008). Graduate employability: Can higher education deliver? Threshold Press.

42.

Marginson

(2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x

43.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

44.

McAlexander

J. H.

Koenig

H. F.

(2001). University experiences, the student-college relationship, and alumni support. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v10n03_02

45.

McAlexander

J. H.

Koenig

H. F.

Schouton

J. W.

(2005). Building a university brand community: The long-term impact of shared experiences. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v14n02_04

46.

McGoldrick

P. J.

Andre

(1997). Consumer misbehaviour: Promiscuity or loyalty in grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(96)00027-6

47.

Molesworth

Nixon

Scullion

(2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898841

48.

Monks

(2003). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00036-5

49.

Natale

S. M.

Doran

(2012). Marketization of education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0958-y

50.

Newman

M. D.

Petrosko

J. M.

(2011). Predictors of Alumni Association Membership. Research in Higher Education, 52(7), 738–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9213-8

51.

Osterman

K. F.

(2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323

52.

Paton

Chia

Burt

(2014). Relevance or ‘relevate’? How university business schools can add value through reflexively learning from strategic partnerships with business. Management Learning, 45(3), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507613479541

53.

Perin

M. G.

Sampaio

C. H.

Simões

de Pólvora

R. P.

(2012). Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797

54.

Pitman

(2014). Reinterpreting higher education quality in response to policies of mass education: The Australian experience. Quality in Higher Education, 20(3), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.957944

55.

Portera

(2002). Alumni clubs and chapters, a Presidents perspective. In Feudo

J. A.

Clifford

P. J.

(Eds.), Alumni clubs and chapters (pp. 1–5). Case. https://www.case.org/resources/alumni-clubs-and-chapters

56.

Preston

C. C.

Colman

A. M.

(2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5

57.

Purgailis

Zaksa

(2012). The impact of perceived service quality on student loyalty in higher education institutions. Journal of Business Management, 6, 138–152. https://journals.riseba.eu/index.php/jbm/article/view/174

58.

Raja

E. D. O.

(2023). Building student loyalty in higher education: The role of corporate reputation. F1000Research, 12, Article 1102. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129077.3

59.

Rissmeyer

P. A.

(2010). Student affairs and alumni relations. In New Directions for Student Services (Vol. 2010, pp. 19–29). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ss.357

60.

Schulze-Cleven

Olson

(2017). Worlds of higher education transformed: Toward varieties of academic capitalism. Higher Education, 73(6), 813–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0123-3

61.

Scott

(1995). The meanings of mass higher education. Open University Press.

62.

Schlesinger

Cervera

Pérez-Cabañero

(2017). Sticking with your university: The importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2178–2194. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1136613

63.

Seow

P.-S.

Pan

(2014). A literature review of the impact of extracurricular activities participation on students’ academic performance. Journal of Education for Business, 89(7), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.912195

64.

Sequeira

Daly

(2012, June 1). Student Associations: The promotion of cultural and social engagement of future managers [Conference session]. Educational Innovation in Economics and Business Conference 21, Haarlem, Holland.

65.

Shahsavar

Sudzina

(2017). Student satisfaction and loyalty in Denmark: Application of EPSI methodology. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0189576. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189576

66.

Streitwieser

(2014). Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility. Symposium Books Ltd.

67.

Stuart

Lido

Morgan

Solomon

May

. (2011). The impact of engagement with extracurricular activities on the student experience and graduate outcomes for widening participation populations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411415081

68.

Tchibozo

(2007). Extra-curricular activity and the transition from higher education to work: A survey of graduates in the United Kingdom. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00337.x

69.

Temizer

Turkyilmaz

(2012). Implementation of student satisfaction index model in Higher Education Institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3802–3806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.150

70.

Thompson

L. J.

Clark

Walker

Whyatt

J. D.

(2013). ‘It’s just like an extra string to your bow’: Exploring higher education students’ perceptions and experiences of extracurricular activity and employability. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413481129

71.

Tight

(2019). Mass higher education and massification. Higher Education Policy, 32(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0075-3

72.

Torenbeek

Jansen

Hofman

(2010). The effect of the fit between secondary and university education on first-year student achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903222625

73.

van den Bossche

Segers

Gijbels

Dochy

. (2004). Effects of problem-based learning in business education: A comparison between a PBL and a conventional educational approach. In Ottewill

Borredon

Falque

Macfarlane

Wall

(Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business: Pedagogy, technology and innovation (pp. 205–227). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1386-3_13

74.

Verger

Lubienski

Steiner-Khamsi

(2016). World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry. Routledge.

75.

Waller

Holford

Jarvis

Milana

Webb

(2014). Widening participation, social mobility and the role of universities in a globalized world. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(6), 701–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.972082

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB