Higher Education Students’ Perceptions of Risk and Crisis Management in Universities

Universities, as social organizations, are places where hazardous risks and crises are occurring with an ever-increasing pace and intensity. Therefore, their administrations are required to be properly prepared for any eventuality, regardless of how extreme or excessive a case may be considered or the probability of its occurrence. Among other things, such readiness requires the formation of positive perceptions and attitudes among the members of the university community towards risk and crisis management. Based on the lack of relevant research in the literature, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceptions and attitudes of students at the University of Thessaly regarding risk management and crisis management in the institution’s wider environment (educational, research, social and work environments). The main results of the current research show that, although the operation of the university takes place in a reasonably protected environment, risks are ever-present and critical incidents take place frequently. However, the level of preparedness of the university community in terms of risk and crisis management is judged to be low.

Introduction

The environment of modern public and private organizations is characterized by continuous and sometimes unexpected changes. These changes are likely to disrupt their normal functioning, endanger their well-being and threaten the health and lives of their members. When this happens, there is talk of sudden, unexpected events that trigger crises. However, these crises are not independent variables (Nabers, 2015). On the contrary, they arise either from natural causes or, mainly, from man-made causes such as institutional and organizational deficiencies, faulty control, technological failures, human indifference, and greed (among others).

Educational organizations such as schools and universities, being open systems (Fidan & Balci, 2017; Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2010), are no exception to the above. They constitute social organizations that, at an international level, are exposed to factors that threaten their security and protection and increase the chance of an adverse emergency situation (crisis) occurring, such as a dangerous natural phenomenon, a pandemic, a building failure, an accident or an act of violence/racism, etc., (Ascencao, 2022; Saitis & Saiti, 2018). The multitude of young people who gather at such facilities may be another factor, as well as a lack of relevant awareness of or information about their members and also the absence of comprehensive crisis management plans set by the administration of higher education institutions (HEIs) (Gholamzadeh Nikjooet al., 2022).

Regardless of the causes that can trigger a crisis in educational organizations, what should be noted is that its emergence can send shockwaves through the internal environment of such organizations, which disrupt their orderly functioning (educational, administrative) and endanger the lives of students, teachers, and workers, shaking the credibility/reputation of those organizations in society as a whole. The above acquires particular importance in the case of institutions offering university education. This is because universities particularly attract social interest as a production line of young scientists and innovators and as a basic mechanism of social mobility. In addition, universities are a means of economic, political and cultural progress of a country as well as a pillar of support for modern democratic societies (Dudzevičiūtė & Šimelytė, 2018; Volchiket al., 2018).

Due to the important contribution of university education to individual and collective progress–while also considering that (a) risks and crises will continue to be characteristic features of our societies in the coming years and that (b) critical events in the field of education are a growing trend (Gholamzadeh Nikjooet al., 2022; Holzweiss & Walker, 2018; Moerschell & Novak, 2020) with strongly negative consequences both in terms of the physical and psychological health of teachers, students and employees (Ohet al., 2013)–it is considered necessary to form a protection and security framework in every university.

However, relevant studies and research in the literature over the last two decades or so demonstrate the absence of a completely safe climate as well as deficiencies in crisis management planning in the field of education, particularly for universities (Mitroffet al., 2006; Wang & Hutchins, 2010). In addition, despite the passage of at least two decades of research and study in the field, after a number of critical incidents in educational institutions as well as the experience gained from the recent pandemic, certain deficiencies of university institutions in the field of crisis management have been recorded. For example, in their research, Moerschell and Novak (2020) state that crisis management plans in universities tend not to be harmonized with the everyday life of the university community. Also, Liuet al. (2022) highlight shortcomings in the area of publicizing crisis management plans and universally involving all members of the university community in order to have a pervasive sense of safety and security in teaching and research spaces.

Also of interest is the Alexander (2023) study, which highlights an issue that is expected to dominate in the coming years: the lack of attention and interest given by universities to the field of natural disasters in light of the growing climate crisis and its multiple and multidimensional consequences. Finally, it is worth mentioning the literature that highlights universities’ insufficient preparation for international crises that they will be called upon to face more frequently and with greater intensity in the coming years (de Wit & Altbach, 2021) due to geopolitical tensions, the rise of nationalism and populism, as well as growing reactions to globalization and anti-integration trends (e.g., Brexit). Such phenomena are going to divide our world further into different groups of countries with different customs and ideologies; it will challenge the foundations of democracy and the university community in terms of academic freedom, social justice, and critical discourse.

As far as the Greek reality is concerned, the few research studies carried out in this field focus on how the absence of a safe climate has a negative effect on the physical and mental health of the members of the educational community, creating problems both in the educational process and in the orderly functioning of the organization. For example, Sidiropoulou (2008), in her research regarding hygiene and safety at the University of the Aegean, points out that a key factor for effective crisis management on university premises is the cultivation of a positive climate among staff members (which is noticeably absent). It further states that common goals, a communal feeling, as well as positive and open communication between members of the university community are crucial factors that should be strengthened in order to raise members’ awareness of risk-related issues and also to promptly and effectively deal with crises in HEIs. In addition, relevant research on the assessment of occupational risks among employees at the University of Thessaloniki states that the assessment of occupational risks is the first basic step in creating a safe climate at the university (Tsantaki, 2022).

Taking the above into account, the purpose of this research is to investigate the perceptions and attitudes of students at the University of Thessaly regarding risk management and crisis management in the wider environment (educational, research, social and work environments) of the institution. In particular, this research work aims to:

1. Determine the extent to which students are aware of potential risks in their institution of study.
2. Investigate the frequency and causes of accidents in the teaching-learning-research area as well as their effect on students’ sense of safety.
3. Examine the degree of preparedness of the institution in terms of information dissemination, prevention and the implementation of plans to deal with potential risks.
4. Point out the consequences that the recent experiences of the pandemic crisis appear to have had on the educational and administrative function of the institution and on the extent of its preparation for similar critical health hazards in the future.
5. Investigate statistically significant differences between the above based on the demographic data of the students.
6. Identify practices to improve crisis management in university institutions.

In order to achieve its objective, this work is structured as follows: first, the approach to the issue of crisis management among HEIs in the relevant literature is presented, then the research methodology is given, followed by the research results and finally, a discussion of the results and suggestions for practical application and further research.

The above investigation is expected to yield useful conclusions that will concern not only the administration of the University of Thessaly, for which no similar investigation has been conducted in the past, but also that of other universities regarding students’ attitudes to safety in a university environment. Based on these conclusions, the administrations of university institutions will be able to refine their practices in terms of decision-making and the establishment of appropriate measures in order for the infrastructure in higher education to provide an even safer and calmer environment for knowledge, research, teaching and administrative work.

Theoretical Framework: The Management of Risks/Crises in Educational Organizations

The Concept of Crisis

In the relevant literature, the word ‘risk’ refers to an event about which we cannot decide whether it will happen or not (Kirytopoulos, 2021), either as a function of (i) the probability of an undesirable event occurring or (ii) the severity of the consequences that may arise from this event in terms of the realization of goals or even the well-being and the very existence of individuals and organizations (Frugarelloet al., 2022; Heath, 1998; Saiti & Saitis, 2022). The risks originate either from natural causes such as fires, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc., or from man-made causes such as negligence, accidents, acts of terrorism, social unrest, and failures in the functionality of buildings. They have multiple economic, psychological, physical and social consequences, among others. For effective management, it should be considered necessary to take preventive measures and not simply react to an event, no matter how well-organized such a reaction may be. Various risk prevention techniques are mentioned (Kanbaraet al., 2016; Saiti & Saitis, 2022), and the most important ones are as follows:

1. a. Avoiding the risk factor by, for example, removing trainees from a laboratory where electrical installations have been damaged,
2. b. Reducing the risk by, for example, carrying out regular maintenance of the electrical installations in the laboratory,
3. c. Having the management set a hypothesis that a risk exists whereby, through the management’s sense of responsibility, they consider scenarios (however extreme or improbable) of various accidents that could befall the trainees.

The term ‘crisis’ is found and described in a variety of scientific fields, such as economics, politics, health, education, tourism, and psychology. For example, Rosenthal and Pijnenburg (1991) and Haupt and Azevedo (2021) describe crises as situations in which the individuals or groups involved feel some kind of insecurity, pressure or uncertainty. In turn, Alexander (2005), Shalufet al. (2003), Somet al. (2014), and Filoliaet al. (2005) refer to a crisis as a situation that deviates the flow of processes from the norm due to human or natural intervention, during which immediate decisions must be made. There are other scholars who, in their definitions of what crises are, highlight the element of social and political interest that they cause the attention of the mass media they attract (Sawalha, 2020; Shalufet al., 2003; Walker, 2011) and the difficulty in managing them, primarily due to the specificity of each case (Turnipseed & VandeWaa, 2022).

As regards a crisis in the context of educational organizations, the phenomenon in question refers to anything urgent that can negatively affect school life by bringing about uncertainty and complexity (Debes, 2021; Karasavidou & Alexopoulos, 2019; Liou, 2015; Tokel, 2018). It also concerns the physical health of the members of the school community, their social and psycho-emotional health, and the activity of teaching and learning. Those responsible for dealing with a critical situation at the first level (that of the internal environment) are the educational, technical, administrative and support staff of the educational organization, but the trainees (pupils, students, etc.) also have a role to play in crisis response; this essentially covers the educational community in its entirety.

Typology of Crises

Taking into account references made in the relevant literature (Pepperet al., 2010; Saitis & Saiti, 2018; Smith & Riley, 2012), we would list developmental/evolutionary and situational crises as the predominant types of crises in the field of education. In the particular area of university education, the first type of crisis concerns the predictable and expected events that occur during an individual’s period of transition from one stage of his/her life to another. In the case of students of a HEI, this may be the first time the student finds himself or herself in a university environment (e.g., the student residence), his or her transition from one year of study to another or the beginning of his/her emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2015; Galanaki & Leontopoulou, 2017). Various and diverse factors contribute to the emergence of these stages, such as the individual’s personal socio-economic support network, family and social ties, and the special psycho-emotional characteristics of each student.

The second type of crisis covers unexpected and sudden events that can arise at any time and affect the university community in whole or in part, such as natural disasters (earthquakes), serious accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents of violence.

As far as the causes of risks/crises in the field of higher education are concerned, these mainly seem to involve accidents (e.g., injuries from student falls or damage to the HEI’s laboratory equipment), vandalism, natural disasters, violence, an intrusion into the university campus, communicable diseases, substance use or threats (physical or online). They have a substantial impact as they affect both the physical integrity of the university community members and the quality of university life, including educational and research work. Additionally, they create a financial burden on the state and/or the administration of the institution.

Developing a Crisis Management System

The above makes imperative the need for immediate and appropriate management of crises by universities through the development and implementation of a management system that will create a sense of security for the members of the university community so that they can carry out their work unhindered (Sidiropoulou, 2008). The organization of a risk/crisis management system should be a priority for every university for one more reason: to be able to capitalize on the key event to its advantage, for example, by introducing compensatory changes (e.g., Allenet al., 2002; Pepperet al., 2010; Sharmaet al., 2022).

According to the findings of several researchers (Brocket al., 2005; Coombs & Laufer, 2018; MacNeil & Topping, 2007; Savelideset al., 2015), in order to achieve this, it is necessary to draw up an integrated Crisis Management Plan (CMP). In particular, Fink (1986) states that a CMP initially includes a clear determination of the purpose of its execution. Then, measures to prevent risks and the occurrence of possible crises are recorded, together with measures to mitigate the impact of crises. The CMP also outlines the manner and the procedures by which the organization (e.g., an educational unit) should aim to recover from a crisis and ultimately return to its pre-crisis state, even utilizing the knowledge that emerged through this whole situation to avoid future crises (Dolph, 2016; Paraskevas, 2006; Philpott & Serluco, 2010). Finally, the CMP typically records the members that make up a small crisis management team, the tasks and the role of the members of the educational community (educators, administrative staff, parents) in dealing with critical incidents, as well as plans for the ongoing training of key personnel in matters of emergency management.

In addition to the establishment of a CMP, effective crisis management in an educational organization such as a university also includes several important parameters, such as capable leadership and a management team that inspires, guides, supports and motivates the active participation of all members of the educational community in the CMP. Actions are coordinated by:

1. a. The creation of a small crisis management team,
2. b. The definition of the roles of the team members and the determination (from the relevant security protocols) of the appropriate actions for each member’s role,
3. c. The valid and timely dissemination of information,
4. d. The cooperation of the group in question with external security and crisis management bodies such as health units and civil protection services,
5. e. Their vigilance in situations of danger in a university community such as mass gatherings due to student events/activities.

A necessary component for successful crisis management in educational organizations (at least, to the best extent possible) is the positive interpersonal relationships between the authorities, teachers and students. The promotion of a culture of cooperation between the members of each institution, after all, leads to its smooth operation.

The successful execution of a CMP depends to a significant extent on the adequacy of the resources and means that an educational institution can promptly and methodically secure, and they concern both the material means/equipment/information and the specialized human potential. Among the material resources, we would also include legislative interventions that make it possible for educational institutions to take initiatives that concern the safety of their entire academic community.

In addition to the above, the successful management of a crisis is expected to contribute to continuous, timely and scientific updates as well as to the training and awareness-raising of the teaching, administrative and support staff of the universities as well as the students who, due to their young age and enthusiasm, may often ignore the importance of such a plan. Moreover, Brocket al. (2005, p. 64) point out that “a management plan can be considered useless if the persons are not able to manage the crisis”. For this reason, the investigation of the relevant attitudes/perceptions and the possibility of influencing them through training is considered of crucial importance (Pielken, 1995; Senthilkumar, 2022). In this context, a number of university institutions from various countries have attempted to form a positive attitude of their community members towards crisis management (such as by offering courses on crisis management and security). However, the results have been considered unsatisfactory (Ingrassiaet al., 2014; Moerschell & Novak, 2020).

In conclusion, the valid and timely management of risk and multiple, multidimensional crises in educational institutions such as those of higher education is imperative. In this context, the literature is in favor of an integrated CMP in every university community. The main objective of this plan should be to establish crisis response and management practices to ensure the material means are in place to deal with a variety of dangerous scenarios (e.g., earthquake, fire, use of force, theft, flood, accidents, extreme weather phenomena) and to prepare facilities so that they are resilient to oversight or sabotage. Also, the aim of such a plan should be to strengthen the culture of preparedness in the educational units of higher education by forming positive attitudes among their members towards the CMP.

Method

In this research, the data was obtained by collecting responses to a questionnaire that was completed online anonymously by students of the University of Thessaly. The questionnaire was drawn up following a study of previous relevant research (Naser & Saleem, 2018; Perkins, 2018; Savelideset al., 2015) and from exchanging views on crisis management issues with students, administrative staff and members of the teaching staff of the country’s universities to ensure the questionnaire would fit the context of this study.

The questionnaire that was finally adopted consisted of 15 questions and involved questions of both an open and closed type (dichotomous, multiple choice, calibration, and graded on a five-point Likert scale). These questions were divided into six sections:

1. The first section included the demographic data of the sample.
2. The second section was about the occurrence of accidents in university institutions (e.g., “As a student, can you tell us how often accidents happen at your university?”).
3. The third section contained questions about the management of prevention programs in university institutions (e.g., “Would you like to have ‘Workplace Crisis Management’ as a course in your department’s curriculum?”).
4. The fourth section was about the training and preparedness of members of the university community in crisis management issues (e.g., “Who provides first aid when accidents occur on your university premises?”).
5. The fifth examined the consequences of pandemic crises (e.g., “To what extent do you think the COVID-19 crisis has affected the quality of your education?”).

The questionnaire concluded with an open-ended question that allowed the participating students to record their suggestions as to how the places and conditions for education, as well as the educational process, could be improved at their university.

The questionnaire was given its final form after a test run (with a high Cronbach’s alpha reliability index of 0.89) among a small sample of participants, 43 students, whose answers were not included in the main research. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2023. A total of 129 students from four departments of the University of Thessaly (out of a total of approximately 18,000 students studying at the institution that year) participated. The analysis of the questionnaire data was carried out using the statistical software program SPSS v25 and included an examination of the reliability of the questionnaire with the Cronbach α index and the following statistical techniques: single-entry frequency tables for the description of the variables; correlation tables (double-entry frequency tables) to look for correlations between two variables; and independence tests using the Pearson Chi-Square Test. By calculating the Chi-Square statistical measure, its significance (or p-value) is also given. The test was carried out by comparing a predetermined level of significance (α = 0.05) with that obtained from the test.

Results

Reliability of the Questionnaire

Regarding the investigation of the internal consistency of the questionnaire, it showed that for all six sections of the questionnaire, its reliability index, Cronbach alpha, was high (above 0.801) and, by extension, that the research results were statistically valid and usable.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

129 respondents filled out the questionnaire. Of the 129 respondents, 71 (55%) were women and 58 (45%) were men. 44 (34.1%) were studying in the first year, 24 (18.6%) were studying in the second year, 26 (20.2%) were studying in the third year, 21 (16.3%) were studying in their fourth year and 14 (10.9%) were studying for more than four years. Regarding the distribution of student departments, 32 (24.8%) were studying in the Architectural Engineering department, 33 (25.6%) in the Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Regional Development Engineering department, 30 (23.3%) in the Mechanical Engineering department and 34 (26.4%) in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Awareness of Campus Safety

From the analysis of the answers to the research questionnaire regarding the cause and management of accidents at the university, the majority of participants in the research (68.2%; n = 88) initially stated that they were not informed at the beginning of each academic year about specific hazards in the indoor and outdoor spaces and facilities of the institution they attend (see Table I). Also, 31.8% of the participants (n = 41) stated that they received only certain information on this issue, and none considered this information to be detailed and complete. Additionally, it was found that those students who answered the previous question indicated that they received relevant information about the particularities and dangers of the teaching, study, and research areas of the institution they are studying. The majority (80.4%; n = 33) indicated that this information is mainly provided by the administrative staff of their school or department of study, while 19.6% (n = 8) noted that this information is provided by their fellow students or student associations. Correlating the above question with the year of study of the participants in the research, it was observed that, as the year of study increases, the percentage of students who are informed about the security features of indoor and outdoor spaces and facilities decreases (χ² = 0.372, p = 0.005).

Table I. Participants’ Level of Awareness of Campus Safety Correlated with Their Year of Study

			Year of study					Total
			1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th or higher
Are you informed about the possibility/risk of an accident?	Yes	Count	14	7	9	6	5	41
		%	34.1%	17.1%	22.0%	14.6%	12.2%	100.0%
	No	Count	30	17	17	15	9	88
		%	34.1%	19.3%	19.3%	17.0%	10.2%	100.0%
	Total	Count	44	24	26	21	14	129
		%	34.1%	18.6%	20.2%	16.3%	10.9%	100.0%

Regarding the frequency of accidents at the university, the research results showed that the majority of the students who participated in the research (58.9%; n = 76) answered that accidents occur “Frequently or Very Often” (see Table II).

Table II. Frequency of Accidents at the University

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
Very often	6	4.7%	4.7%
Often	70	54.2%	58.9%
Sometimes	25	19.3%	78.2%
Rarely	20	15.6%	93.8%
Never	8	6.2%	100%
Total	129	100.0%

Regarding the extent to which the students participating in the research feel safe on the premises of their university, the research results showed that the most popular response (45.7%; n = 76) was “A little to not at all” (see Table III).

Table III. Feeling of Hygiene and Safety Among the Research Students on the University Premises

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
Completely	8	6.2%	6.2%
Very much	20	15.5%	21.7%
Average	25	19.4%	41.1%
A little	70	54.2%	95.3%
Not at all	6	4.7%	100%
Total	129	100.0%

Also, the results of this research showed a strong positive correlation between the frequency of accidents at the university and the extent to which the participating students considered that the teaching, learning and research area of their university provides a safe and healthy environment for learning and research (r = 0.687, p < 0.01).

Regarding who offers first aid in accidents that occur on the premises of the university institution, the majority of students (96.9%; n = 59) indicated that this aid is offered by the university staff (such as secretaries and building administrators) and to a lesser extent by other more specialized persons that provide first aid, such as nurses and medical staff of the institution (see Table IV).

Table IV. Information Regarding the Persons/Bodies that Offer First Aid on the University Premises

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
Trained staff of the university rector’s office, dean’s office	66	51.2%	51.2%
Trained staff of the university department	59	45.7%	96.9%
External body to be informed	4	3.1%	100.0%
Total	129	100.0%

Additionally, regarding the conditions that cause accidents, the majority of the student participants in the survey (42.6%; n = 55) stated that accidents take place on the university premises during extreme weather events and in outdoor facilities such as the courtyard area (Table V).

Table V. Opinions of Research Students on the Conditions that Cause Accidents

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
During extreme weather events	55	42.6%	42.6%
In your department’s outdoor facilities (courtyard)	22	17.1%	59.7%
In the interior facilities of your department (halls, corridors)	19	14.7%	74.4%
On the university premises (library, auditorium, laboratories)	14	10.9%	85.3%
Other	19	14.7%	100.0%
Total	129	100.0%

Correlating the responses of the participants with gender regarding the factors/conditions behind accidents that took place at the university, we observe that men and women equally identified extreme weather phenomena as a more serious source of risk for causing these accidents (see Table VI). Of particular interest, however, are the responses of the female students who chose “Other” as their answer. They identified events, gatherings and parties as a cause of accidents at the university where they study, to a greater extent than their male colleagues (χ² = 4.100, p = 0.033).

Table VI. Research Students’ Views on the Causes/Conditions of Accidents Taking Place at the University, Correlated with Gender

			Gender		Total
			Male	Female
Factors/circumstances	During extreme weather	Count	26	29	55
of accidents at your		%	47.3%	52.7%	100.0%
HEI that took place	In your department’s outdoor	Count	10	12	22
in gatherings	facilities (courtyard)	%	45.5%	54.5%	100.0%
	In your department’s interior	Count	11	8	19
	facilities (halls, corridors)	%	57.9%	42.1%	100.0%
	On the university premises	Count	6	8	14
	(library, auditorium, laboratories)	%	42.9%	57.1%	100.0%
	Other	Count	5	14	19
		%	26.3%	73.7%	100.0%
	Total	Count	58	71	129
		%	45.0%	55.0%	100.0%

Regarding the existence of emergency plans for university premises and the conduct of emergency plans on them, many students who participated in the survey answered that they do not exist (see Tables VII and VIII).

Table VII. Details Regarding the Existence of Emergency Plans on the University Premises

	Yes	No
Preparation and execution plan for earthquake preparedness exercises	56	73
	43.7%	56.3%
Complete firefighting plan	46	83
	35.7%	64.3%
Flood management plan	34	95
	26.4%	73.6%
Timetable for the implementation of the pandemic management program	65	64
	50.4%	49.6%
Plan for cooperation with external bodies (Fire service, civil protection, etc.)	38	91
	41.9%	58.1%
Plan for cooperation with mass media	90	39
	29.5%	70.5%

Table VIII. Details Regarding the Frequent Implementation of Readiness Exercises at the University

Frequency	Yes	No
Earthquake preparedness exercises	40	89
	31.%	69.0%
Flood preparedness exercises	26	103
	20.2%	79.8%
Fire preparedness exercises	24	105
	19.9%	80.1%
Infectious disease preparedness exercises	44	85
	34.1%	65.9%

The data of the present research also showed that the majority of students who participated in the research (83.7%; n = 108) wanted a course on crisis management introduced into the curriculum of the department where they studied as they considered it would be useful (see Table IX). Correlating the results of the above question with gender, the results showed that the female students who participated in the research wished to include such a course in the curriculum of the department/university they attended to a greater extent than the male students (χ² = 0.072, p = 0.019).

Table IX. Participants’ Degree of Desire to Introduce a Crisis Management Course in the Curriculum of Their Faculty/Department of Study by Gender

			Gender		Total
			Male	Female
Willingness to establish a course on workplace crisis management in the Faculty/Department curriculum	Yes	Count	48	60	108
		%	44.4%	55.6%	100.0%
	No	Count	10	11	21
		%	47.6%	52.4%	100.0%
	Total	Count	58	71	129
		%	45.0%	55.0%	100.0%

Regarding the extent to which the COVID-19 crisis affected the quality of their education, the majority of the students participating in this research (66.7%; n = 86) indicated that this effect ranged from quite a lot to very much (see Table X).

Table X. Evidence of University Students’ Views on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Their Education Provision

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
Very much	33	25.6%	25.6%
Quite a lot	53	41.1%	66.7%
Some	13	10.1%	76.8%
A little	19	14.7%	91.5%
Not at all	11	8.5%	100.0%
Total	129	100.0%

Correlating the above question with the year of study, it was observed that as the years of study increased, the students of the survey reported that the COVID-19 crisis affected the quality of their provided education from “Fair to Very Much” (χ2 = 43.981, p = 0.008; see Table XI).

Table XI. The Degree of Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on the Quality of the Education Provided by Year of Study

To what extent do you think the COVID-19 crisis has affected the quality of your education provided?			Very much	Quite a lot	Some	A little	Not at all	Total
Year of study	1	Count	8	21	3	3	9	44
		%	18.2%	47.7%	6.8%	6.8%	20.5%	100.0%
	2	Count	9	8	1	6	0	24
		%	37.50%	33.3%	4.2%	25.0%	0.0%	100.0%
	3	Count	7	10	2	7	0	26
		%	26.9%	38.5%	7.7%	26.9%	0.0%	100.0%
	4	Count	4	9	6	1	1	21
		%	19.0%	42.8%	28.6%	4.8%	4.8%	100.0%
	5	Count	4	4	0	1	1	10
		%	40.0%	40.0%	0.0%	10.0%	10.0%	100.0%
	6	Count	1	1	0	1	0	3
		%	33.3%	33.3%	0.0%	33.3%	0.0%	100.0%
	7	Count	0	0	1	0	0	1
		%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Total		Count	33	53	13	19	11	129
		%	25.6%	41.1%	10.1%	14.7%	8.5%	100.0%

Regarding the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the overall functioning of their department (research, administration), the research results showed that for the majority of students, this effect was from ‘very much’ to ‘quite a lot’ (see Table XII).

Table XII. Data on Participants’ Views on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Overall Functioning of Their Department

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
Very much	35	27.1%	27.1%
Quite a lot	51	39.5%	66.6%
Some	17	13.2%	79.8%
A little	16	12.4%	92.2%
Not at all	10	7.8%	100.0%
Total	129	100.0%

Nevertheless, the effects of the recent pandemic on the operation of the university, as pointed out by the research students, do not seem to have affected the degree of preparation for similar situations in the future (see Table XIII).

Table XIII. Data on Participants’ Views on the University’s Degree of Preparedness for Future Health Crises

	Frequency	Valid percentage	Cumulative percentage
Very much	11	8.5%	8.5%
Quite a lot	19	14.8%	23.3%
Some	51	39.5%	62.8%
A little	28	21.7%	84.5%
Not at all	20	15.5%	100.0%
Total	129	100.0%

Finally, regarding the answers to the open question, “What else do you have to recommend for the best possible education at your university?” the majority of students suggested (a) informing and protecting students from online bullying and (b) better safeguarding the university’s premises.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to investigate the attitudes and perceptions of the students of the University of Thessaly in Greece regarding risk management and crisis management in their study areas. More specifically, the views of the students in the areas of health and safety and the effect of this care on the overall operation of the institution (educational, research, administrative) were investigated.

Based on the quantitative analysis of the demographic data of the interviewed students, it was initially observed that the majority of them were women. This result is not surprising since, both internationally and in Greece, the majority of those studying in higher education are women. In fact, according to the Hellenic Statistical Authority (2023), in Greek universities, 57.27% are women, compared to 42.73% who are men, a fact that confirms the international trend that “things have started to change after 2018 and women are taking the lead in higher education” (Walters, 2018, p. 3). An additional characteristic of the demographics of the sample of this research is that the majority are in the first or second year of their studies. This is probably due to the fact that students of these years frequent the university’s teaching areas more than fellow students of older years, and so are more likely to participate in research conducted within the institution.

Regarding its first objective, the survey showed that students are not informed at the beginning of each academic year about the particularities of the indoor and outdoor spaces and facilities of their university or about the possibility of accidents in them. This finding is not surprising. On the contrary, it confirms the conclusions of earlier related research (Gkioka, 2008), according to which the country’s universities do not meet “the requirements for the information and preparation of trained executives in the various fields related to protection in the working environment” (Gkioka, 2008, p. 66). The present research also showed that students who are in their first year of studies are better informed about accidents, the health hazards on the premises and the management of possible crises in the university, possibly because they spend more time attending lectures on the premises of the institution than fellow students of older years. This finding could be attributed to the fact that the country’s universities have not succeeded in increasing the time spent by their students on the university premises to date (Kyprianos, 2009). Consequently, their interest in actions of the university community, such as in the field of health and safety, is reduced.

Regarding its second objective, this research showed, in agreement with earlier related ones (Mitroffet al., 2006; Moerschell & Novak, 2020; Wang & Hutchins, 2010), that accidents on university premises are frequent. The first possible interpretation for this finding is that, despite a university being a relatively protected environment, it is nevertheless a social organization where accidents/incidents happen mainly due to evolutionary and situational crises (e.g., environmental disasters, armed violence, sexual assaults, theft, sabotage), and more so in recent years. The second interpretation concerns the deficiencies in the existence of an integrated CMP in higher education institutions and the parameters that complement it, such as strong leadership, adequate resources and awareness among members of the university community.

Also, this research study highlighted in terms of its objective that most accidents occur in the external areas of universities and in places where large numbers of students gather. Accidents also occur to a large extent during extreme weather events such as strong winds and heavy rain. This finding can be attributed to the lack of proper preparation, maintenance, and improvement of the institution’s building facilities and interior spaces. It is also confirmed by the findings of the Synod of Rectors of Greek Universities (2023), where it is stated that the upgrading of the building and laboratory infrastructure of universities is a necessary element for their further development, but also for enhancing the safety of their staff and students.

From this research, it also emerged that the students do not feel completely safe in the teaching and research areas of their university. According to the research results of the present study and other previous ones (Daigleet al., 2008; De Keseredyet al., 2019), this is particularly the case for female students who face verbal abuse such as insults, attacks and sexual harassment in university settings to a greater extent than their male fellow students. This seems to be especially the case during mass gatherings in these spaces where female students, like male students, participate both to face the fear of rejection and to join a group of interlocutors (Fotiouet al., 2021). Also, the research results showed, in agreement with other relevant studies within (Gong, 2019) and outside (Glazeret al., 2005) the field of education, that there is a strong positive correlation between the number of accidents in the teaching and research areas of the institution with the students’ sense of safety (mainly the sense of danger, anxiety and panic) and, by extension, with the institution’s smooth operation.

The aim of this research was also to examine the university’s degree of preparedness in the field of information, prevention, and implementation concerning CMPs. Regarding this objective, the results initially showed that first aid is offered, whenever needed, by university personnel who are not specialized in offering this support (e.g., administrative, security and building supervision staff). This finding is probably due to the fact that the administration of each department is institutionally responsible for managing the health and safety programs and measures of the members of the university community. However, doubts are raised by this finding. These are related to the degree to which such staff can respond practically and effectively to this task, as the incorrect provision of first aid can be harmful or even fatal to those who receive it (Torpanet al., 2021).

Also, according to the results of this research, CMPs and preparedness exercises for dealing with them are absent from the university. We would say that this finding is in agreement with the culture of Greek society, which, as was seen during the fire in Mati, Attica, in 2018 and the train accident in Tempi in 2023, focuses on damage limitation rather than prevention of a possible crisis. But also, specifically in the field of education, relevant research (Karasavidou & Alexopoulos, 2019; Raptis & Samiotakis, 2021; Saiti & Saitis, 2022) has highlighted the lack of preparedness in terms of crisis management as well as the low prevalence of evacuation plan preparedness exercises in buildings.

Another goal of this work was to highlight the consequences of the recent pandemic crisis on students. In this regard, the research results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic affected both the quality of the education provided and the general functioning (e.g., research, administration) of the university departments where the research participants studied. The above finding is in agreement with several studies according to which the COVID-19 pandemic affected the operation of educational units to a significant extent, intensifying the anxiety of the teaching staff and affecting the mental and psychological health of the students (de la Fuenteet al., 2021; Raaper & Brown, 2020). Additionally, this research has shown that the above experience, according to the research participants, has not brought about significant changes regarding university preparedness for similar health-related crises in the future. In addition, it was found that, as the years of study at the university increase, so does the proportion of students’ responses, indicating that the COVID-19 crisis affects the quality of their education. This result is not surprising since senior students (3^rd and 4^th year) experienced the consequences of the pandemic to a greater extent than younger students. A possible interpretation of this finding is that students who are nearing the end of their studies are more acutely reflecting on the consequences of the pandemic on the quality and timely completion of their academic courses.

A notable finding of this work regarding the identification of practices for better crisis management and the strengthening of the university’s preparedness for the management of emergencies and health hazards is the suggestion to include a course in the curriculum on crisis management in the workplace. This finding should also not be surprising since attending courses, seminars and scientific conferences as a source of information and training in dealing with crises is judged by the literature as absolutely necessary (Hadžikadunić, 2019). In addition, a number of countries (mainly the USA and some in the EU) have begun to accept crisis management not only as an object of practical application but also as a special scientific field/subject of knowledge (Kešetović, 2017). After all, the education and training of educational staff and students on crisis management issues must be the primary goal of every educational organization in order to ensure the health and safety of its entire community. Finally, another research result of this work worth mentioning is that more female students wish to include such a course in their university’s curriculum. This differentiation can be attributed to the fact that, according to relevant research, women spend more time than men conducting research on information and training regarding health and safety issues in the workplace (Logan, 2020; Loosemore & Malouf, 2019).

Conclusion

This work aimed to investigate the perceptions of students from the University of Thessaly on the management of crises and risks in the institution where they study. According to the results of this research, although universities operate in a relatively protected environment, risks/hazards are ever-present and critical incidents often take place in them. Also, this research showed that:

1. Universities lack a safe logistical infrastructure, a comprehensive CMP and specialized staff for providing first aid,
2. The students do not have the appropriate (valid and timely) information, knowledge and support in the area of risk management and accident response,
3. As long as the number of accidents and critical incidents remains high in universities, the feeling of insecurity among students will remain high.

Therefore, based on the above, we would say that the degree of preparedness of universities in the field of risk and crisis management is noticeably low. Regarding the experience of the recent health crisis, although it affected the overall functioning of the University of Thessaly, it has not, according to the students, been taken into account to deal with similar situations in the future, thus raising the need to form a culture of prevention both in the university and in the wider Greek society.

Suggestions for Application

Taking into account the above, we would recommend the following for the creation of a safe and healthy educational environment in universities, which would facilitate the educational and research development of students:

1. The full inclusion of universities as a high-priority category in the civil protection plans of a country,
2. The regular assessment of universities’ premises and the preparation of plans in each institution to prevent and deal with all possible cases of critical incidents/accidents,
3. The recruitment of nurses to provide first aid to university students and employees after an accident and to administer special medication to chronically ill patients within the university community, including the treatment of emergency situations such as epileptic seizures, heart attacks and strokes,
4. The introduction of a course related to security and crisis management similar to other international universities (Zhanget al., 2018),
5. The conduct of regular mandatory experiential training seminars for teachers, students and administrative as well as other staff in crisis management issues.

These training sessions should not be static or be standardized routine procedures (e.g., for earthquakes or cybercrime). On the contrary, they should have an experiential nature through which the participants are expected to actively participate and shape a ‘safety culture’ on the university premises. Special emphasis should be placed on information and protection regarding online harassment and cyberbullying. This is a phenomenon that is a new form of violence that concerns an unprovoked attack on students who use the internet. Students who experience cyberbullying are gripped by strong emotions such as anxiety, fear, despair and alienation.

Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research

The present research is subject to limitations mainly in terms of its sample and its orientation to health and safety issues concerning the physical presence of students on university premises. For this reason, it is proposed that future research on this matter be carried out on a larger number of students at the University of Thessaly and at other universities in the country, in which the participants’ opinions on electronic security should also be researched, including the risks to their health from insufficient care for it. In an effort to capture the perceptions of members of the university community on hygiene and safety, it would also be interesting to investigate the views of members of the administrative, research and teaching staff of universities on this issue as well as those who are involved in guarding those premises. Finally, it is proposed to investigate the attitudes and intentions of the above stakeholders regarding measures to strengthen the hygiene and safety of university premises to protect them from extraordinary events, as well as measures concerning the protection of members of the university community who belong to a certain minority such as (but not limited to) groups of specific racial, religious, or sexual orientation.