Page 1 of 14
Archives of Business Research – Vol. 10, No. 11
Publication Date: November 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/abr.1011.13508. Singh, H. P., & Alhamad, I. A. (2022). Influence of National Culture on Perspectives and Factors Affecting Student Dropout: A
Comparative Study of Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia. Archives of Business Research, 10(11). 287-300.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Influence of National Culture on Perspectives and Factors
Affecting Student Dropout: A Comparative Study of Australia,
Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia
Harman Preet Singh
Department of Management and Information Systems
College of Business Administration, University of Hail
PO Box 2440. Ha'il – 81451, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ibrahim Abdullah Alhamad
Department of Management and Information Systems
College of Business Administration, University of Hail
PO Box 2440. Ha'il – 81451, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
Student dropout is a complex issue with significant repercussions for educational
institutions and nations. Using the Hofstede national culture model, this study
assessed the various social, psychological, economic, and organizational factors
that influence student dropout. Since developed, developing, and least-developed
countries score differently on the Hofstede model, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and
Ethiopia were selected as representative nations. The evaluation indicates that
social factors may have a low, moderate, and high influence on student dropout
rates in Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia, respectively. Different organizational
factors may influence student dropout rates in Australia, Saudi Arabia, and
Ethiopia. In Australia and Ethiopia, psychological factors may play a larger role in
student dropout than in Saudi Arabia. In Australia and Ethiopia, economic factors
may play a larger role in determining student attrition than in Saudi Arabia. In
Australia, the dropout rate among female students may not be a major concern,
while it could be a more prominent concern in Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. However,
in Saudi Arabia, such concerns are mitigated by the substantial financial assistance
provided by the government to students pursuing an education.
Key Words: Student dropout, Student attrition, National culture, Hofstede model,
Education.
INTRODUCTION
Education is essential for the economic and social development of a nation. A robust system of
education can provide the skilled human resources necessary for business, professional,
academic, and leadership positions. Education increases individuals' productivity,
competitiveness, and capacity by providing them with pertinent knowledge. Education plays a
vital role in enhancing sustainable and decent employment opportunities (Singh et al., 2022a;
Singh et al., 2022b) and contributes to a nation’s economic growth (Alam et al., 2022).
Education is essential for fostering administrative and creative abilities (Tapanjeh & Singh,
2015; Alshammary & Singh, 2017).No nation can achieve genuine, sustainable, and endogenous
Page 2 of 14
288
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 11, November-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
development without competent education institutions that produce the necessary skilled
workforce (UNESCO, 1998).
Due to the significance of education in developing a nation's workforce necessary skills, the
global demand for education is increasing (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018). However, the
proportional increase in enrollment is not sustained up to the level of graduation due to
dropout of students from education institutions (Larsen et al., 2013). Education completion is
closely related to producing quality workforce (UNESCO, 2015) but student dropout counters
this goal. Therefore, it is essential for all nations, particularly developing and least-developed
nations, to address education dropouts and meet their skill requirements.
Student dropout becomes a critical issue when educational administrators do not possess the
tools necessary to identify students at risk of leaving the institution. This, in turn, reduces
potential corrective measures which might have enabled student retention at educational
institutions. Identification of dropout factors can aid educational administrators in
implementing preventative measures against the phenomenon. However, these dropout factors
are context-dependent and vary by country's culture. Accordingly, this study reviews the
various dropout perspectives (like social, psychological, economic, and organizational),
relevant theories and factors that affect student dropout. The study attempts to conceptualize
the role of national culture in influencing student dropout by examining social, psychological,
economic, and organizational factors. The study also compares the scores of a developed,
developing, and least-developed nation on Hofstede model in order to assess the influence of
national culture on dropout rates. For this purpose, Australia is selected as a developed nation,
Saudi Arabia as a developing nation, and Ethiopia as a least-developed nation.
DROPOUT THEORIES AND LITERATURE
Theoretical models and explanatory theories have been proposed to explain student's dropout.
The popular theories include student integration model (Tinto, 1975), integrationist model
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), expectancy-value theory (Wigfield et al., 2017); student
attrition model (Bean & Metzner, 1985); theory of planned behavior (Dewberry & Jackson,
2018), economic model (Donoso & Schiefelbein, 2007), seamless retention (Burr et al., 1999)
etc. All the theoretical models or approaches to explain retention or dropout are primarily
predicated on four key sets of explanatory perspectives: sociological, psychological, economic,
and organizational. The leaning as to whether a model is from a sociological, psychological,
economic, or organizational perspective depends only on the emphasis placed on any of the
four key sets of explanatory perspectives. The sociological viewpoint places more weight on the
role of social factors in determining whether or not a student stays in an institution or drops
out (Winding & Andersen, 2015). The psychological perspective examines the differences in
personality traits between students who drop out and those who continue their education
(Vaara et al., 2020). The economic perspective emphasizes the financial status of students and
their families in order to fund their education (Shuja et al., 2022). The organizational
perspective emphasizes the educational institution's potential dropout-influencing factors
(Donoso & Schiefelbein, 2007).
Social Perspective
Researchers have also looked into the field of sociology to explain the dropout phenomenon.
The student integration model is the most prominent model derived from this field (Tinto,
Page 3 of 14
289
Singh, H. P., & Alhamad, I. A. (2022). Influence of National Culture on Perspectives and Factors Affecting Student Dropout: A Comparative Study of
Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia. Archives of Business Research, 10(11). 287-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.1011.13508
1975). According to Tinto, the level of academic and social integration at an educational
institution is strongly correlated with a student's choice to continue or drop out of institution
(Braxton et al., 1997; Glynn et al., 2003).
The Integrationist model is similar to Tinto’s model, but the emphasis is on the interaction
between the students and the teachers (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). According to research
presented by Gablinske (2014), students are more likely to graduate when they have frequent
and open communication with their instructors. The common characteristic of all these models
is identifying variables that can influence dropout intention and behavior (Suhlmann et al.,
2018).
The subsequent research along these lines looked at a variety of factors that could serve as
predictors of student dropout: e.g., sex, and age (Tan & Shao, 2015; Tinto, 2010), domicile (Badr
et al., 2016; Pal, 2012). Aina (2013) concluded that students from more disadvantaged
education and socio-economic backgrounds had an increased risk of dropout.
Psychological Perspective
Expectancy-value theory offers psychological explanation of student dropout phenomenon
(Wigfield et al., 2017). Under the expectancy-value theory, studies have examined the
relationship between motivation and dropout intention. For effective learning, particularly in
the realm of academic decision-making, student motivation is absolutely necessary
(Richardson et al., 2012). A lower level of academic motivation has been associated with a
greater likelihood of intending to withdraw from educational institutions (Scherrer & Preckel,
2019).
The student attrition model offers yet another psychological explanation for why students
discontinue class attendance (Cabrera et al., 1993). In this model, attitudes, student- environment compatibility, and other contextual factors (such as familial support) were
highlighted as crucial (Cabrera et al., 2006). Prior academic history of students may play a role
in shaping their attitudes and mentality toward studies (Tinto, 2010). Students with a positive
attitude and a strong work ethic are more likely to earn high grades (GPA and CGPA) throughout
their education (Jia & Malone, 2015; Zhang et al., 2010), which prevents them from dropping
out (Casanova et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Muñiz et al., 2019).
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) provides another psychological explanation for student
disengagement (Ajzen, 1991). Dewberry & Jackson (2018) found that TPB variables, such as
students' attitudes toward courses and expectations of success, are highly relevant and
accurate predictors of dropout. Students who have higher education aspirations are less likely
to drop out (Singh & Alhulail, 2022).
Economic Perspective
The dropout phenomenon due to economic issues has also been studied. According to Donoso
& Schiefelbein (2007), the economic model is a practical application of cost-benefit analysis. In
this regard, he argued that students drop out of college when they perceive the social and
economic benefits, they receive from studying to be insufficient in comparison to those they
receive from other activities. According to Stoecker (1991), working students prefer to
postpone their higher education until they can secure adequate funding. Tan & Shao (2015)