Equipos

The purpose of this final Chapter is to advance the third research objective to develop an approach to quality assurance that recognises the nature and purposes of universities. The Chapter is set out according to problem setting, structuring and solving followed by a discussion and conclusion. Problem-setting briefly retraces the context for the present study including the research objectives. Problem-structuring brings together key points from Chapters 4 and 5 to ‘redefine the problem’ and identify the areas likely to be of greatest importance to the advancement of the research objective. In the third part of the Chapter, VSM is used as an aid for ‘problem-solving’ with reference to quality assurance in New Zealand universities. A number of potential ‘system faults’ are highlighted and an attempt is made to identify particular areas where improvements to the quality assurance system would lead to reconciliation with the nature and purposes of universities. The Chapter concludes with a discussion of the main findings from the present study and their relationship to themes in the literature.

PROBLEM-SETTING

Chapter 2 traced the history of quality management in business organisations from early systems of inspection and control to quality as a cycle of ‘plan, do, study, act’ for the purposes of understanding and improving business processes and organisational management. The pinnacle of quality management—TQM—later situated quality

management tools and methods within the broader social context of the organisation and its wider environment. The shift from quality management to TQM was accompanied by claims about the efficacy of the model for all types of business organisations. However, as the use of TQM expanded so too did understanding of its failings. Reported successful interventions were tainted by problematic definitions of ‘quality’, contextual factors that impeded the full application of TQM in specific organisations, and a lack of tangible evidence that TQM had made a demonstrable difference to profit, productivity, or customer satisfaction.

The transfer of quality management processes and techniques to higher education was positioned as part of the NPM reforms that accompanied growing concerns about access, accountability, resourcing and diversity. Quality management became one of a battery of techniques used with a view to enhancing the transparency, standardisation, and measurable outputs of higher education so that the government and general public could be assured that their higher education system was economical, efficient and effective. Despite widespread and persistent use, quality management in higher education exhibited failings similar to those identified in business organisations. One of the main issues was that multiple conceptions of quality, together with conflicting needs of ‘customers’ (or ‘stakeholders’), presented difficulties for defining ‘improvement’ in the higher education context. Furthermore, the economic rationale appeared to place significant weighting on quality management as a mechanism for control, which was reinforced by the dominance of

inspection and quantitative performance measures as the main quality management methods applied to universities.

The Chapter concluded that ‘quality’ in higher education was a ‘wicked problem’ largely because the understanding of ‘quality’ differed according to the social, political, and technical knowledge of diverse groups that had interests in higher education. The relationships between the groups were unclear and it is possible that the needs of some groups were being constrained by the wants of others. The research question was then posed about whether or not existing approaches to quality management in higher education were an appropriate fit for the context, and the proposal made that CST could be used to enhance understanding of the problem(s) and contribute to identifying alternative approaches to quality management that could recognise the nature and purposes of universities.

The design of the study and the critical systems approach including the ‘package’ of systems tools and methods was the subject of Chapter 3. Empirical data for the investigation was drawn from the New Zealand context using published material and interviews with participants who operated at different levels (and potentially different perspectives) of the New Zealand tertiary education sector as a case study. An analysis of the international literature enabled broader perspectives on ‘quality’ and higher education to be elucidated and incorporated in the study. The package of systems methods included metaphor analysis, systems windows, systematic boundary critique and self-reflection. The application of these methods, first to the nature and purposes of universities and then to ‘quality assurance’ in universities, was the subject of Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. A substantive analysis was presented in each Chapter according to a consistent framework that examined systems of meaning, structure, process and knowledge/power using information from the literature. Empirical data from the case study provided the means for a localised perspective on some of the key issues identified in the literature, and the application of systems methods formed the basis for an overall analysis of findings.

As the analysis of each aspect of the research unfolded, different understandings of the purposes of higher education and of quality in universities were revealed, and the related processes and structures were discussed. A complex picture emerged of purposes, procedures, methods, processes, power, and the interactions that occurred between these elements. I believe that the findings from the Chapters fulfilled the research objectives to investigate, compare, and contrast perceptions of quality at different levels of the university system, and to use systems thinking to examine assumptions regarding the nature and purposes of quality assurance. What remains is to examine and problem-solve conflicting perceptions in order to develop an approach to quality assurance that recognises the nature and purposes of universities. The following section on problem-structuring is the first step in this process, highlighting key findings from Chapters 4 and 5 followed by a discussion of areas to be addressed through problem redefinition and problem solving later in the Chapter.

PROBLEM STRUCTURING The purposes of universities

Examination of the purposes of universities was the subject of Chapter 4 where the relative stability of universities’ missions for knowledge creation, preservation and transmission was observed. In the New Zealand context, the Education Act (1989) described universities as autonomous institutions that promoted advanced learning through a diversity of teaching and research which were closely interdependent. Information obtained from the case study participants at different levels of the university system reinforced the broad functions of New Zealand universities set out in the Act: universities were consistently described as places where advanced learning was fostered through teaching and research. Emphasis on the integration of teaching and research was especially evident in the views of academic staff and middle managers, whereas senior managers and representatives of government agencies presented a broader conception of teaching and research as ‘learning and scholarship’. Thus, the idea of universities as centres for learning was uncontested within the literature and the case study findings, although differences emerged regarding who is, or should be, the beneficiaries of that learning.

The systematic boundary critique reported in Chapter 4 revealed that two world-views governed the functions and purposes of universities—the social view and the economic view. The social view canvassed knowledge creation, preservation and transmission for the benefit of individual learners, society, and advanced learning for its own sake. The

economic view emphasised knowledge creation and transmission that benefited the economy and the labour market. The interaction between these world-views was manifest in the strong political dimension that operated within and across the university system. References to the political aspects of university life and the conflict that existed between functions, individuals and groups were reflected in the views of academic staff in the case study, and in the dominance of the political and cultural metaphors within the literature. A recurring theme throughout the Chapter related to the primacy of the economic world-view which was pursued at the expense of the social outcomes. Information from the New Zealand context was particularly compelling on this point.

The functions of New Zealand universities presented in the Education Act (1989) are described with reference to their social and economic benefits with more or less equal weighting given to each. However, recent policy and strategy documents, including the TES 2010-2015, focus mainly on the economic benefits of universities rather than their broader social functions. Indeed, the existing ‘measures of success’ for universities in New Zealand are restricted to those that can be understood in economic terms with priority being given to the generation of knowledge and delivery of tuition that could benefit the national economy. Consequently, the issue of whether the long-term functions of tertiary education as set out in the Education Act (1989) are served by the relatively short-term TES is questioned.

Roles and functions within the university system

Understanding the roles and functions, and the rules and procedures applied at different levels of the higher education system was the subject of discussion around systems of structure in Chapter 4. The literature provided a foundation for clarifying the roles of government, universities, academic units, disciplines and academic staff which were

summarised in Table 13. Of particular interest was the role of universities which provided a vehicle for local interpretation of knowledge creation, preservation and transmission. Their role within the system was to develop and advance an institutional identity based upon the needs and requirements of broad constituencies including cognate individuals and discipline areas. Institutional autonomy and academic freedom were discussed as necessary

requirements of the higher education mission, subject to regular demonstrations of academic and ethical standards. The discipline also emerged as a critical element in the higher education system providing the rules, procedures and wider reference system for the creation, preservation and dissemination of knowledge.

The role of the government was identified as representing and safeguarding the public interest in higher education. This involved assurance of minimum standards for efficient and effective education delivery and reconciliation of the purposes and functions of individual universities with those of others in the education system alongside broad policy directions. This pattern was consistent with the functions discussed by the government agency

representatives in the case study who described their roles in terms of intelligence gathering and the synthesis of evidence that would influence tertiary policy.

Other information obtained from the case study and from published material in New Zealand provided a rich source of data for understanding the functions of academic staff, academic units and the university. Academic staff made and shaped the creation, preservation and transmission of knowledge through research, teaching and their integration. Their role was multifaceted and required careful balancing of allegiance to their discipline, their academic unit, and their university in the context of their own personal strengths and capabilities. Academic staff believed they took their responsibility for continuously improving their own performance and that of their students seriously, and that their function within the system had continuity across time and place.

Coordination and management of teaching and research was an academic unit function combining aspects of financial and human resource management (e.g., induction, professional development and staff appraisal), and pastoral care and custodianship for individuals (staff and students) and disciplines. Academic units were also reported to have a key role in the design and development of programmes of study including assessment of, and support for, student learning. Responses from middle managers in the case study affirmed these functions, but also indicated the importance of contextual factors such as disciplinary affiliations, and the location and history of the University in which they resided. The idea of

balancing multiple roles, as an intermediary, an enabler and a facilitator was a theme common to the observations of middle managers about their role and functions.

The responses of senior managers interviewed for the case study suggested that their function within the University was not dissimilar to that of a middle manager. However, in the discussion of systems of knowledge/power it was apparent that decision-making about the control and coordination of higher education through the setting of rules and procedures and the distribution of funding was primarily located at university and government levels. Systematic boundary critique affirmed this observation and underscored the privileged position of the autonomous university as the lynchpin in the determination of relevant stakeholder’s interests to be served, values to be endorsed, and the resource and policy constraints (or enablers) to be applied at the academic unit, discipline, and (by association) academic staff levels. Furthermore, the role played by the TEC in influencing the

universities’ plans and determining their funding challenged their autonomy and diminished the strength and status of academic units, academic staff and disciplines. In other words, the predominance of controls implemented at government and university levels was such that the views and values at other levels of the system were marginalised, and the extent to which diverse beneficiaries of higher education could be involved in its design and development were inconsistent.

The PBRF was used as an example of how policy levers implemented at government level to advance an economic world-view have caused significant tension and conflict at other levels of the system. The perceptions of academic staff, middle and senior managers within the case study University were almost unanimous in their views of the PBRF as a mechanism that undermined the ability of academic staff to continuously improve their teaching and research. One of the reasons for this related to the relative value placed on teaching and research within the University, and the fact that emphasis on one or other activity at another level of the system had a detrimental impact on the ability of University staff to manage their own roles effectively.

Important processes

Key processes in universities were identified in Chapter 4 including teaching, learning and research. Implementation of these processes was largely dependent on the endeavours of the individuals within universities and all were grounded to some extent within disciplines which provided reference systems for the development, evaluation and communication of knowledge.

Research was discussed as a systematic process of personal enquiry, reflection, and the creative integration of evidential data within a disciplinary framework. Important factors in the research process were identified as time for deep immersion in a particular problem, independence, and the availability of adequate facilities and resources. Consequently, the research context was critical because individual capabilities and the socio-economic

environment within an academic unit, university, and the wider system influenced the conception and conduct of research. Research, and perhaps more importantly the ‘products’ of research (e.g., publications and access to public funding), were reported to be the primary currency of reputation for academic staff, academic units and universities.

Pivotal to the teaching and learning process was the level of interaction and engagement between students, between students and teachers, and between students, teachers and learning resources. Curriculum design and the assessment of student learning provided the framework for these interactions within the broader structure provided by the discipline. An important observation was made that teaching and learning were essentially private pursuits of individual academics and students. Unlike research with its tangible products, the outcomes of teaching and learning were difficult to measure and this shortcoming was proposed as one of the reasons for perceptions that it was undervalued in universities.

The interdependence of teaching and research was another element that received attention in Chapter 4. Exploration of this element hinged upon viewing the processes of teaching and research as a means of inquiry and learning. The difficulty of measuring the

interdependence of teaching and research was observed given the complex array of factors that influence the teaching and learning processes. Again, individual academic staff were key determinants of the extent to which teaching and research were interdependent, the central idea being that research and teaching were most likely to interact when staff were engaged with both activities.

The decision-making processes that occurred within universities were also identified as a critical component. Both managerial and intellectual forms of decision-making were identified as equally important because they provided for debate regarding the construction and implementation of the institutional identity. A distinction was made between managerial hierarchies that managed the tangible asset base, and collegial decision-making which preserved values such as diversity and pluralism, and supporting democratic approaches to the mitigation of differences across disciplines.

The importance of the teaching, learning, research and their integration within universities was confirmed in the case study findings. Staff from the case study all provided images of the University in terms of the way in which it functioned which was seen as very different from other types of organisations. Of particular importance was the collegial decision- making process which could take into account the pluralist nature of the University, as well as the inherent culture of individualism that exists across diverse areas of teaching and research. In contrast, responses of representatives from the government agencies appeared to place little value on how universities functioned, focusing instead on the valued outcomes of knowledge creation and transfer, advanced learning and service to industry and the economy.

The purposes of quality assurance

The purposes of quality assurance were examined in Chapter 5 where it was observed that the main purpose was to improve accountability to stakeholders outside universities. The link between quality assurance and accountability was enacted through the public

availability of data and information related to programmes of study and student outcomes, institutional performance and value for money. Generic frameworks for gathering and presenting quality assurance information strongly reinforced the external accountability dimension, facilitating external scrutiny and privileging the use of quantitative performance measures that could be collated and compared across universities.

Information from the New Zealand context indicated that it was no exception to the trends identified in the literature. Accountability to government, students, and the general public was emphasised in the recent tertiary reforms as an important outcome of quality assurance alongside the disclosure of evidence regarding the strengths, weaknesses and performance of TEOs. Despite detailed information already available through annual reports, performance against additional criteria determined by Government agencies was a key element of the new quality assurance arrangements and an ongoing requirement for receipt of government funding.

The idea that quality assurance provides a mechanism for advancing a range of political agendas was affirmed by the dominance of the political metaphor observed in the literature. Examination of the linkages between the purposes of quality assurance, the methods used, and its beneficiaries using boundary critique revealed that the main beneficiaries of quality