A review of the Western literature suggests that the concept of quality in higher education
is complex. There is no a one-size-fits-all definition of quality. According to Harvey and
Green (1993), the reason for this is because quality is a relative concept, and that different
groups of stakeholders in higher education have different priorities and therefore focuses of
quality. For example, the focus of the government might be on the outcomes of university
performance, while the focus of attention for the university managers and teachers might
be on the institution’s strategic development and the processes of education.
In Western literature, perhaps the most-cited and comprehensive definition of quality is
Harvey and Green's (1993) model of quality consisting of quality as exception, perfection
or consistency, fitness for purpose, value for money, and transformation. Quality as exception is the traditional approach to quality (Green, 1994). It associated quality as
something excellent and distinctive. This was often used to refer to elite universities such
as Oxford and Cambridge both in terms of the special education experience that they
provide, and in terms of the graduate attributes and research output. It captures the
excellence and distinctiveness characteristics of quality. Quality as perfection or
consistency relates quality to the notion of ‘zero defect’ which means that everything is
correct and there are no faults. This perspective of quality seems to have originated from
the industrial setting in light of the literature review in Section 3.2.1. Quality as fitness for
42
the extent to which the product or service fits its purpose. Thus, a quality product is the one
that meets customer specifications. This concept of quality is welcomed by policy makers
and the government, who expect universities to develop in accordance with broad national
goals and the university’s function in supporting societal development. Hence, this notion
of quality involves universities clarifying the purpose of higher education. Quality as value
for money is associated with the idea of ‘you get what you pay for’. In this definition,
students are assumed to be the customers of higher education. Thus, quality is associated with the notion of ‘market’ and customer interests. The level of customer satisfaction becomes an indicator of quality. Lastly, quality as transformation equates quality with
student transformative development during their education experiences. This definition of
quality is believed to be the most appropriate definition of quality by educationalists (e.g.
Harvey, 2006; Cheng 2011; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003; Carmichael, et al., 2001) who
believe the essence of education should focus on empowering the students. Harvey and Green’s (1993) model of quality has demonstrated that the concept of quality is very complex and has different meanings from different perspectives.
Similarly, Cheng & Tam’s (1997) model also suggested that the concept of quality is complex. Their model of quality consisted of seven perspectives, namely, quality as goals
and specifications; the resources input; the process, the satisfaction; the legitimacy, the absence of problems, and the organisational learning. Compared to Harvey and Green
(1993), Cheng and Tam’s (1997) model seems more explicit in terms of the various issues that emerge in higher education. For example, quality as goals and specifications is related to the institution’s goals and specifications. Quality as the resources input and the process emphasizes the importance of resources and input as well as the process to the achievement
of quality; quality as satisfaction is similar to Harvey and Green’s (1993) quality as value
for money, both of which are concerned with customer expectations. In particular, quality as legitimacy refers to higher education managers’ concerns about protecting their
43
institution’s reputation and legitimate status in a context of increased higher education market competition. This applies to some Western countries such as the US, UK and
Australia where universities have to compete for external resources and finance due to a
decline in public funding (Cheng and Tam, 1997; Harvey, 2005).
Conceptualisations of quality are in fact grounded in relevant philosophical underpinnings.
For example, the definitions of quality as consistency, fitness for purpose, and goals and
specifications share the same emphasis on aligning with pre-established specifications and
standards. These notions of quality are in accordance with the industry-born managerial
philosophical belief which currently prevails in the UK higher education system (Brennan
and Eagle, 2007; Houston, 2007). In literature, this managerial philosophical idea is termed as ‘Total Quality Management’ (TQM). As mentioned before (See Chapter 2), the current UK higher education system is highly influenced by the TQM philosophical belief that
universities should place a heavy emphasis on measuring, monitoring and controlling
academic standards. This business-like approach to quality is rooted in the industry-born
Total Quality Management theory. Within a TQM model, it is assumed that quality in
higher education can and should be measured through conforming to pre-defined academic
standards (Dill, 1995; Harvey, 1995). Guided by this philosophical belief, in practice, the
UK higher education quality assurance system places a high emphasis on the processes and
systems of quality in relation to accountability and compliance (Harvey, 2005). For
example, common practices of quality assurance adopted by UK higher education
institutions include quality evaluation, peer visits, quality monitoring, and quality audits
which all place emphasis on measuring, controlling, and reviewing. Some authors such as Gosling & D’ Andrea (2010) even described this phenomenon as the ‘quality industry’ to stress how overwhelmingly the UK higher education has been influenced by business and
industrial ideas. Although this approach to quality may provide a pragmatic strategy for
44
academic standards, educationalists such as Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2003) and Harvey
and Newton (2004) made the point that the industry-born quality approach places too much
emphasis on processes and systems while failing to engage with transformative teaching
and learning. They argued that it is not appropriate to equate the process of education with
manufacturing products in business and factories.
The definition of quality as transformation is related to the theory of transformative
learning (Cheng, 2011). This definition focuses on student-centred pedagogical learning
processes with the added value to the learner as a consequence of the learning process.
This includes not only developing student knowledge and self-confidence but their abilities
to critically question and analyse what is happening in society.
In addition, there is an increasing body of literature (e.g. Anderson, 2006; Kleijnen et al.,
2011; Ntim, 2014; Cardoso, Rosa and Stensaker, 2015) pertaining to quality culture as well
highlighting the importance of nurturing a communicative, participatory and supportive
institutional work environment for academics. For example, Cardoso, Rosa and Stensaker
(2015, p.956) highlighted that quality culture is comprised with a cultural/ structural
element (shared set of values, beliefs, expectations and commitment towards quality) and a
structural/managerial element (structures, processes and processes). These studies
contribute to our understanding of the barriers or obstacles to quality improvement in
empirical studies.
The above presentation of the various definitions of quality demonstrates that it is a highly
complex concept which can be conceptualized according to the focuses of the beholders. In
addition, these varying conceptualizations of quality have reflected different philosophical
beliefs, which highlights the contested nature of this concept. A series of recent empirical
45
Thian, Alam and Idris, 2016) have suggested that in real practice, different stakeholders
have different priorities or interpretations of quality. An example of this can be noted in the
study of Udam and Heidmets (2013) when the authors found that the representatives of the
different stakeholders (i.e. the state, the market and academia) have different
interpretations and expectations of what ‘a good university’ entails. To be specific, the
market places an equal importance on input, process and output of quality, whereas the
state and academia places more emphasis on processes and inputs but less on output. This
indicates that in higher education, the perceptions of quality are related to stakeholders’ role and perspectives. There is a need to understand different key stakeholders’ perceptions of quality in such complex higher education environments.
‘Quality in higher education’ in Chinese is termed as jiaoyu zhiliang. According to the
Chinese Education Dictionary, the generic meaning of quality in higher education is the
level of higher education and the learning outcome. Ultimately, it is embodied in the
quality of the graduates that universities produce (Pan, 2000). The criteria for evaluating
quality are the educational goals that different types of Chinese higher education
institutions have pre-established. In China, influenced by Marxist education philosophy,
the general goal for Chinese higher education institutions is to cultivate in the students a
well-rounded person with high intelligence, moral qualities, physical fitness and aesthetic
appreciation (Pan, 2000; Wild, 2011).
The Chinese meaning of quality is deeply rooted in the country’s education philosophies and political context. China’s most influential education philosopher, Confucius, believed that education should mould a student into a virtuous person (junzi). There is a humanistic
element of morality education in the Confucianism philosophical belief. As described in
Chapter 2, Chinese intellectuals started to pay attention to learning from Western
46
Confucianism educational philosophy emerging from Confucianism (Wilson, 1995). In modern China, after the establishment of the socialist People’s Republic of China, the government introduced the education ideas from Marxism, emphasizing that education
should develop students into all-rounded talents who are not only equipped with high
intelligence and professional skills, but also equipped with high moral principles, and
physical and mental health. In a word, the core of Chinese understanding of quality is focused on students’ overall development.
In the context of Sino-foreign cooperation in running schools, the concept of quality seems
to been attached with new meanings. The government encourages national higher
education institutions to introduce advanced education resources and practices from the
foreign partner. There is also a high social expectation on Sino-foreign partnership
institutions to develop students into international talents to meet the societal and economic
development demands. For example, Jinhui and Mengjin (2016, p.236) define quality in
Sino-foreign cooperation as being able to develop students who ‘have international vision,
being national competition, being able to fully exercise the talents of individuals,
comporting with the needs of social development, and allowing students to achieve clear improvement over their original level’.
To sum up, a review of relevant literature indicates that the concept of quality in higher
education is complex, and it has many different meanings according to the perspectives of
the different stakeholders. This has highlighted the challenges in ensuring quality in higher
education, including transnational higher education. My study concentrates on quality
assurance in a Sino-UK transnational partnership. Thus, it is also equally important to
47
The review of the meaning of quality in the context of Western and Chinese higher
education reveals that the concept of quality is complex and has multiple meanings. It
shows that the meaning of quality is relative to the perspective of those who view it, and
more importantly depends on the political, social and education contexts of the institution.
This study is focused on quality assurance in transnational higher education. The following
section reviews the literature on the meaning of quality in transnational higher education
based on existing empirical studies.