A prominent part of the quality assurance literature up to date has been focused on the different values held by, and the power tension between and among stakeholders in HEIs. Such varied ways of thinking underlie different choices of the quality assurance types by HEIs.
At the institutional level, quality assurance is defined as one part of the overall management function that determines and implements the institutional quality policy (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011). Externally, the government or funding agencies might impose procedures on institutions, for purposes of accountability and conformity. Internally, the institutional or departmental management might also establish their own procedures for monitoring their performance and improvement.
As summarised in the IIEP-UNESCO quality assurance modules (2011), the procedures for quality assurance at the institutional level may be part of a well- practised process (e.g. institutional accreditation or program review) or relate to new practices (e.g. the use of student feedback on the teaching and learning process). These procedures may be ‘geared towards research activities, courses, academic staff or support/administrative functions’ (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011, p.17).
19
2.1.3.1 Accountability or external quality assurance vs. improvement or internal quality assurance
As argued by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2007), a quality system can be seen as having two aspects: accountability and improvement through assurance.
External quality assurance is the process of evaluating education quality through the subjective process of peer-review by external bodies (Westerheijden, 2007; Stensaker et al., 2010), in which it is thought that this approach ensures “value for money” (Harvey & Newton, 2007) and “fitness for purpose” (Lomas, 2004). External quality assurance focuses on accountability (Barnett, 1992) and is compliance-driven. To put it in simple terms, external quality assurance refers to the actions of an external body, such as a quality assurance agency, or another body outside the institution, which assesses the operation of the institution or its programs to determine whether the agreed-on standards have been met.
Meanwhile, internal quality assurance refers to the fixed procedures and policies developed within the institution to monitor and improve their own quality (Westerheijden, 2007; Dill, 2007), and is associated with the transformation view of quality. Internal quality assurance focuses on improvement (Barnett, 1992) and is improvement-driven. Again, to put it simply, internal quality assurance refers to the institution’s policies and mechanisms for ensuring that it is fulfilling its own purposes, as well as meeting the standards that apply to higher education in general or to the profession or discipline in particular.
2.1.3.2 The power tension between accountability and improvement
As Brennan and Shah (2000b) point out, HEIs are faced with two types of need: one to change and one to comply. These two needs promote quality assurance activity in an institution, but as ‘means to ends’ (p. 121). In both cases, the power tension between accountability and improvement can be identified. For example, improvement is often sidelined in assurance processes if the focus is on demonstrating compliance (Harvey & Newton, 2007).
20
The proponents of the improvement-led approach view quality as a process of transformation (Harvey, 1995; Colling & Harvey, 1995) and shift the focus from external scrutiny to internal creative innovation (Bauer & Franke-Wikberg, 1993; Bernhard, 2012). However, subscribers of the accountability-driven approach believe that improvement can be a result of accountability and is secondary in the quality monitoring process (Commonwealth of Australia, 1991; Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013).
Many quality researchers (see, for example, Brennan et al. 1992; Westerheijden & Van Vught 1994) suggest that although accountability approaches to quality assurance may lead to initial improvement, they have no long-term impact on continuous improvement, especially when there is a requirement for the production of strategic plans with clear vision and objectives. In the same vein, Harvey (1995) argued that having to respond to accountability requirements may negatively affect the resources needed for innovation and improvement.
Further pro-improvement arguments continue with Harvey and Knight (1996) provided additional pro-improvement arguments, believing that if the institution puts primacy on accountability and hopes that improvement will result, the continuous quality improvement process is likely to be impeded rather than encouraged. Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2007) shared this viewpoint and recommended that improvement should be the priority aim of the institution, with accountability as a result.
In the actual implementation of quality assurance in many developed countries in the world, the above-mentioned power tension seems to be perpetuating. For example, while many European countries advocate for an improvement-led approach (Harvey & Williams, 2010; Westerheijden et al., 2013), Australia has shifted from improvement-led approach back to a compliance-driven approach (Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013).
21
For quality assurance policy-makers worldwide, the question is how HEIs can resolve the tension between accountability (i.e. the need to comply) and improvement (i.e. the need to change).
Harvey (1995, p. 138) proposed the development of a ‘collegiate approach’ as a solution to the tension between accountability and improvement. This approach advocates a quality culture of continuous improvement and transformative, empowering education. The core of this approach is a self-critical collegiate group who set their own agenda for improvement and strive to fulfil the improvement plans. The collegiate approach embraces initiative through internal procedures and demonstrates that accountability is achieved through the continuous quality improvement process. To further develop this proposal, Harvey and Newton (2004, 2007) proposed a research-informed improvement-led approach to quality evaluation, which shifts the focus from externally imposed procedures to internally generated ones.
A quality improvement approach should fit with external requirements for accountability (Harvey, 2002a) and that a successful implementation of quality assurance in HEIs requires a balanced blend of the four quality assurance types (quality assessment, quality audit, accreditation, and external/peer review) (Brennan & Shah, 2000a). The expected benefit of quality assurance in higher education should be ‘products of the external-internal dialogue’ (Harvey, 2002a, p. 9) through the interaction between external monitoring and internal quality systems.
As such, accountability and improvement do not have to be polar opposites. Hoecht (2006) observed that accountability can be geared to promote learning and innovation rather than bureaucratic control, and does not have to undermine professional autonomy. Quality assurance is no longer the game of the leaders and managers or quality assurance agencies, it is now an integral part of academic life. Academic staff who care more about professional autonomy and improvement of the teaching and learning quality should have no problem with the principles of accountability and transparency. Thus, as Hoecht (2006)
22
proposed, it requires a proper debate between higher education policy-makers and academics on how to achieve quality in teaching and learning while ensuring trust and professional autonomy.
Further review of the literature on this power tension reinforces Harvey and Knight’s (1996) opinion that although accountability and improvement are two faces of the same quality system coin, the focus should be on improvement with accountability being a consequence. Well-cited scholars (for example, Boyle and Bowden, 1997; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2007) also believe that if improvement is properly addressed, the evidence for accountability will be automatically developed. These authors suggest that an evidence-based approach should be adopted if the institution is to attend to both accountability and improvement.
In their updated research, Harvey and Newton (2007) reaffirmed the need for HEIs to address the imbalance between external quality monitoring and internal quality assurance. Academics and quality practitioners, according to the authors, should “make” rather than just “take” the quality agenda, by renewing the focus of quality evaluation on the enhancement of teaching and learning, learner empowerment and learning experience enrichment. The institutions that adopt this enhancement-led approach to quality assurance will operate on a self-regulation basis, and have such tools as an ‘institutional quality enhancement plan’, a ‘teaching and learning improvement strategy’ and ‘systems and mechanisms for identification and dissemination of good practices’ (Harvey & Newton, 2007, p. 239).
The challenge for HEIs is to implement a ‘hybrid model of quality assurance that focuses on compliance and improvements with increased emphasis on internal enhancements and active engagement of all staff’ (Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013, p. 104).
In the subsequent section, the actual implementation of quality assurance in higher education is reviewed. The issues to be elaborated on include: whether the
23
tension between accountability and improvement can be lessened, and how HEIs respond to external quality assurance.
2.2 Quality assurance implementation in higher education