The concept of quality assurance is closely interrelated with the concept of quality. Yet,
researchers believe that they are two separate concepts. Harvey (2006) suggests that the
difference between concept of quality and quality assurance is conceptually similar to that
between the concept of intelligence and IQ tests. The latter is designed to measure the
former. In other words, Harvey (2006) believes that quality assurance is the methodology
of checking the quality of a process or outcomes of higher education. Other scholars have
also attempted to define quality assurance. Vlăsceanu, Grünberg and Pârlea (2007)
conceptualise quality assurance as a regulatory mechanism, stating that the quality
assurance regulatory mechanism contains an ongoing, continuous process of evaluating,
assessing, monitoring, guaranteeing, and improving the quality of higher education
institutions or programmes. In addition, Williams (2016, p.97) defines quality assurance as ‘a collection of policies, procedures, systems and practices internal or external to the organisation designed to achieve, maintain and enhance quality’. Although scholars have
provided different definitions of quality assurance, it seems that they all agree that it
comprises of a comprehensive regulatory framework which ultimately aims to demonstrate
49
There are two major purposes of quality assurance in higher education, namely, accountability and enhancement. ‘A central aspect of accountability is that ‘rendering an account’ of what one is doing in relation to goals that have been set or legitimate expectations that other may have of one’s products, services or processes, in terms that can be understood by those who have a need or right to understand the ‘account’’ (Kris, 2005, p.10), whereas improvement-based quality assurance focuses on promoting further
performance rather than control or evaluating quality. The improvement-based quality
assurance is often seen as a mechanism to help increase transparency of decision-making
processes, develop teaching and learning quality, and hence benefit students and the
academic work (Cardoso, Rosa and Stensaker, 2015).
There are three generic approaches to quality assurance as identified by scholars:
assessment, accreditation and audit. Kis (2005) points out that the differences among the
three approaches can be distinguished by three questions: the audit approach is to answer ‘are your processes effective in achieving your objectives?’; the assessment approach is to answer ‘how good are your outputs?’, and the accreditation approach is to answer the question ‘are you good enough?’. However, research (e.g. Billing, 2004) shows that quality assurance frameworks vary from country to country. This is determined by practical issues, such as ‘the size of higher education sector, the rigidity/ flexibility of the legal expression of quality assurance (or the enshrinement in law), and the stage of development from state
control of the sector’ (Billing, 2004, p.113). This means that in a transnational partnership,
it is very likely that the two partner countries will have different approaches to quality
assurance, which leads to the question of how the two partner institutions resolve the
potential competing goals during the partnership.
It is noted that quality assurance is not static but a dynamic developmental process (Goff,
50
paradoxes. Tee Ng (2008) studied the development of quality assurance of primary and
secondary education in Singapore and found that quality assurance develops in phases:
standardisation, local accountability, and diversity and innovation. Goff (2016) further
conceptualises quality assurance as a developmental phase: defending quality,
demonstrating quality and enhancing quality. He called for further research to explore the
factors that influence quality assurance approaches during the developmental process.
Furthermore, researchers (e.g. Morley, 2001; Skolnik, 2010; Beerkens, 2015) suggest that
the nature of quality assurance is political. This is because quality assurance involves
decision-making among different groups of stakeholders who may hold competing
concepts of quality; moreover, some groups of stakeholders have stronger voices than
others (Beerkens, 2015). For instance, in Brady and Bates's (2016) empirical study, they
found that the Quality Assurance Agency had a stronger voice than academics in deciding
quality assurance approaches. With an overemphasis on accountability and efficiency, the
current quality assurance practices have led to a distortion of academic professional
practices within the institution. Likewise, Houston and Paewai (2013) highlighted the
power struggles among different groups of stakeholders in quality assurance practices. They indicated that quality assurance can be seen as ‘a series of control paths based upon the ability of a decision-taker to alter the funding, reputation or both funding and reputation of other elements within the system’ (Houston and Paewai, 2013, p.270). Brennan and Shah (2000), reinforcing this argument, categorised the main approaches to
quality assurance into: academic, managerial, pedagogic, and employment focus based on different ‘quality values’ held by different stakeholders (See Table 3.1).
51
Table 3-1 Four Dimensions of Quality Assurance
Categorisations of quality management approaches
Academic Subject focus: knowledge and curricula
Professional authority
Quality values vary across institutions
Managerial Institutional focus: policies and
procedures
Managerial authority
Quality values invariant across institutions
Pedagogic People focus: teaching skills and methods
Staff training and development
Quality values invariant across institutions
Employment Output focus: graduate standards/
learning outcomes
Employment/ professional authority Quality values both variant and invariant across institutions
Source: Brennan & Shah, 2000, p.14, cited from Pratasavitskaya and Stensaker (2010).
There has been an ongoing debate concerning the concepts of quality assurance and quality
enhancement. As suggested by Williams (2016), ‘quality assurance’ and ‘quality enhancement’ are both umbrella terms for a range of activities. However, the emphases of the two concepts differ. A review of literature on the current definitions of quality
assurance and quality enhancement appears to suggest that quality assurance is more linked
to the notion of ‘accountability’ by many higher education managers and academics. The
purpose of quality assurance is to ensure that higher education reaches pre-established
standards, and the focus of quality assurance is on the processes to achieve quality whereas
52
assurance is presented rather negatively, characterised by inflexibility and quantitative
measurements, whereas quality enhancement is presented more positively and is
characterised by negotiated processes based on qualitative engagement with front-line
academics.
Although the two concepts have distinct differences in their meanings, scholars have also
identified a relationship between quality assurance and quality enhancement. Elassy (2013)
argued that quality enhancement is dependent on quality assurance. Danø and Stensaker
(2007) concluded that quality assurance and quality enhancement are integral parts of the
same process arguably in a cycle with each part informing the next. Supporting this
viewpoint, scholars such as Gosling and D’Andrea (2010b) called for a holistic approach to
quality assurance processes to facilitate the improvement of student learning. What these
scholars indicated was that quality assurance can contribute to the improvement quality
under particular conditions. Coates (2005) and Wang (2014) suggested that it is important
to engage students and staff in the process of quality assurance to enhance quality in
learning.