Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education
2.2 Quality Assurance
2.2.2 The concept of quality in higher education
Quality is an ancient concept, regarded as an “ineffable abstraction” until the end of the twentieth century (Csizmadia, 2006). The concept of quality at universities goes all the way back to the Middle Ages and has always been highly valued in academia as part of its ethos (Rose & Amaral, 2007). Moreover, the specific mechanisms of quality control developed in unique ways depending on the particular medieval university and its own political and historical circumstances. By the thirteenth century, two different standard mechanisms of quality assessment had been established. On one hand, the French model was based on external control of quality assurance, with an outside authority keeping institutions accountable. On the other hand, the English model was based on peer review and relied on a community of fellows to conduct assessments (Vught Van, 1995).
Governments’ interests in the quality of higher education arose in the early nineteenth century in connection with their role in financing higher education and governing its legal and administrative organization (Neave, 1988). However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, when quality in higher education was linked with new mechanisms and methodologies, it started to take a new form, becoming seen as something that could be managed and pro-actively improved. This new idea took root primarily in Europe as part of the transition from centralized state regulation to state facilitation and aid for autonomous higher education institutions (Neave & Van Vught, 1991). Hence, the traditional model of state universities, which had been under strict state control, became increasingly market-oriented (Gornitzka &
Maasen, 2000). Today, as a result of society being increasingly knowledge-based and financially responsible for higher education, institutions of higher education have become ever more
27
connected with the state and society, leading to a demand for a new mechanism to maintain academic autonomy and accountability to society (Pellert, 1999).
In the eighties, quality assurance agencies were first initiated and interest in them emerged in the educational policies as a main objective and an important procedure in higher education worldwide, and then, in the nineties, they became a primary focus of higher education institutions (Damme, 2002). Nevertheless, prior to the 1990s, different approaches to quality assurance in higher education were adopted. For example, the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries relied on the external examiner system, whereas the United States used the accreditation system. Many countries in Europe, as well as Saudi Arabia, relied on government ministerial control. Since the far-reaching changes in the 1990s, which have been called the decade of quality in higher education, higher education institutions have been required to prove the quality of their activities and processes using predetermined indicators or standards to meet government demands for value-for-money and fitness-for-purpose (Bernhard, 2012).
Nowadays, quality has become a fundamental value in the field of higher education, although it is a broad and branching concept which is difficult to explain in one single definition. The concept of quality is difficult to define, especially in the context of higher education institutions where there is a wide autonomy to determine individual institutions’ vision and mission. The problem that confronts concerned people is that there is no one consistent definition, purpose, or method of quality assurance in higher education. Thus, the concepts of quality and quality assurance as used in the higher education literature are complex and wide open.
28 Figure 1. Definition for quality
Source: Watty, 2003 p.215.
There is a divergence in researchers’ viewpoints about ways of thinking about quality Figure 1. The work of Lomas (2002) on a group of senior managers in higher education institutions shows that fitness for purpose and transformation seems to be the two most adequate definitions of quality. As Ball (1985) the prevailing definition of quality is fitness for purpose with an emphasis on its many subjective dimensions, thus equating quality with flexibility this suggested that quality only has meaning in relation to the purpose of the product or service.
Hence, this concept corresponds to management ideas needing to be launched as universal instruments in order to be well-spread. However, the universal problem that quality is supposed to solve is not identified.
Barnett (1992) identifies two definitions of quality in higher education. The first is the underlying concept of innate value in academic instruction and intellectual property independent of the outcomes. The second definition, which fits with most quality assurance systems in higher education around the world, is about performance. This concept portrays the
29
higher education process with inputs and outputs as a production process, whereby performance indicators are used to measure the performance level.
Other researchers go on to say that quality in higher education, which is described as a public management field, has two main aspects. As Pollitt and Bouckaert (1995) illustrate, there are only two major theoretical perspectives on quality:
1. The output-oriented view includes terms such as value for money, stakeholder satisfaction, and zero error. With this view of quality, there will be political changes to improve public services using new management approaches. These emphasize the deregulation of public services, greater managerial discretion, the introduction of market mechanisms, and a focus on stakeholders’ needs and satisfaction.
2. The process-oriented view embraces quality as transformative, which serves organizational learning and improvement. It should be focused on internal processes and stakeholders within higher education institutions and exclude the impact of external products and stakeholder orientation.
The output definition of quality is considered a result of the “New Right” political movement of the 1980s and 1990s, which called for restructuring public services and an emphasis on customer needs, and promoted market and quasi-market mechanisms (Tuckman, 1994. In this case, the definition of quality became giving customers exactly what they want (Tuckman, 1994).
In addition, as Schindler Schindler, Puls-Elvidge, Welzant & Crawford (2015) state, quality in higher education is conceptualized in four general ways: quality as purposeful, transformative, exceptional and accountable. Moreover, three mechanisms to quality assurance were identified early on in the work of Dill (1992). The first one is the reputational approach, in which peer review assesses the quality of programs and institutions. The second one is the student outcome approach, which is based on student achievements while attending higher education and also afterwards (career, earnings, etc.), as measured by outcome indicators. The last one is the total quality (management) approach, which emphasizes far-reaching participation, client orientation, organizational learning, and coordination.
30
In short, the difference in researchers’ viewpoints on the concept of quality may be due to the multiplicity of its aspects and forms as well as its many uses in different areas. Quality, being a complex term, mainly emerges from interpersonal interaction in the learning environment (ESG, 2015).
The determination of quality assurance’s key issues is the accrediting agency’s responsibility. When looking at any accreditation review mechanism, a single definition for quality cannot be found. Instead, different criteria in different areas for quality in higher education are found, and these reflect the preference of different stakeholders.
In the last few decades, institutional quality assurance procedures have appeared in leading “handbooks” on the issue of quality and reform in higher education. As shown in studies, institutional quality assurance has been used in various ways, such as in strengthening the connection between higher education and industry, initiating cultural changes, and making downsizing operations smoother (Fahlén, Liuhanen, Petersson, Stensaker
,
2000). There is remarkable divergence in quality assurance procedures, even between countries in the same geographic region and with similar economic, political, and cultural foundations. Examples include the Nordic countries (Smeby & Stensaker, 1999) and Latin America (Kells, 1995).The divergence seen among quality assurance systems seems to be the prevailing one (Dill, 2000). The areas of variation between national quality assurance and accreditation systems include: (1) the concept of quality and how it is defined in each system, (2) the objectives of using quality assurance, its purpose and functions, i.e., improvement, evaluation, accountability and transparency, steering and funding, accreditation and recognition, (3) the methods and procedures of quality assurance and accreditation, (4) the responsible agency or unit for carrying out and regulating the quality assurance process and stakeholders, and (5) the nature (voluntary or compulsory), the specifics (programs or institutions), and the focus (research or on teaching and learning) of the quality assurance system (Harman, 1998; Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1994). Hence, the capacity of a quality assurance and accreditation system to be effective in managing higher education is limited to its own environment by its local characteristics.
31
Some varied factors could explain the situation of higher education in the last twenty years, which were behind the quality assurance movement in higher education at that time.
(Higher education developments, and especially the cases of German and Saudi higher education systems, will be discussed in detail in the first part of Chapter 3.) First, academic standards could potentially fall as the number of students in higher education grows rapidly.
Second, as businesses and professional bodies have noted, traditional higher education institutions and their management procedures have lost their effectiveness to keep up with the needs of modern labor markets in an economy shaped by competition and transformation.
Third, financial limitations have resulted in less government funding per student as well as an emphasis on increased efficiency. Fourth, demand for increased public accountability has forced institutions to subject themselves to an “evaluative state” (Neave, 1988, p.14). Fifth, the nature of the higher education environment became more competitive as a result of greater mobility of both students and academics as well as the privatization of higher education.
Finally, greater transparency became a public priority, especially regarding quality levels, leading some countries to commercial publication of various rankings (Damme, 2002).
The international phenomenon of quality assurance in higher education is a subject of three main developments, including regional recognition of quality assurance, increased competition, and a need for mutual international recognition Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA, 2007). The quality assurance system implements three different approaches to quality in higher education accreditation, assessment, and audit. The context of an educational system and its culture determines which kind of approach – whether one or more – is suitable for adoption (Woodhouse, 1999). Accreditation and evaluation have different approaches but both include assessment and audit. The focus of accreditation and assessment is the quality of teaching and learning; however, the approach of audit is used by a higher education institution in internal management procedures to achieve its objectives (Kis, 2005).
In the context of the worldwide phenomenon of accreditation and quality assurance in higher education, many concerns arise regarding cultural differences and the potential threat of a uniform model of accreditation being universally imposed. The international adoption process of the Anglo-Saxon accreditation procedures, due to their perceived success in their own
32
countries of origin, could end up being largely mimetic. That is, it could be simply imported as an imitation without any deeper rooting in the historical background and culture in other countries and could also propagate an imperialistic relationship of cultural dependency (Damme, 2002).
Nowadays, the functions of quality assurance procedures have ceded their two old uses, improvement and accountability, to more complex functions as a result of a number of changes. For example, markets are being used for service regulation, while the academic world has become more proletarian and less elite. In addition, New Public Management theories, globalization, and supranational agencies have been making an ever stronger impact on higher education (Amaral, 2007).
These changes are marked by a few important shifts. First, the university’s role has become less cultural and more economic. Second, less trust is being put in quality assurance systems that may be connected with the institutions themselves, while more trust is being placed in independent accreditation agencies. Third, the quality systems have become more international (Amaral, 2007).