As mentioned in Section 6.1, at the time of the data collection, the enhanced phase ‘4+0’ programmes were not running yet. Thus, there was limited information about how the key
stakeholders influence quality assurance in the enhanced phase. The data shows that in the
enhanced phase when the ‘4+0’ programmes begin, the UK partner university will play a
stronger role in assuring quality. As the UK dean of teaching and learning suggested, they
will be the primary directors of quality assurance and be responsible for the consequences
if anything goes wrong. They will put tighter control on student learning processes and
outcomes, making sure the curriculum, teaching materials, the way teaching is delivered,
and student examination and assessment outcomes are equivalent with the UK programmes.
The following quotation of the UK dean of teaching and learning provided a detail
introduction of how the UK partners will be engaged in quality assurance in the enhanced
154 From September, our role will be much more enhanced. We will be the
primary directors. It will be our programme. Largely it will be delivered by the staff at [name of the case study partnership institute], but it will be our programme and they will be our students. So, we will have a bigger role for this. As I said, what do we do if things go wrong? And that has implications for us. Examination circumstances, academic engagement, policy academic misconducts, students who are unwell or cheat in exams…All those things will become our responsibility. And we need to look at the assessment as well. We will be setting the assessments. Probably our local colleagues will be marking. We will look at their marking and moderate. Our external examiners will have an interest in the outcomes of the assessments. So, it’s much more intensive. (Dean of teaching and learning, UK)
The reason why the UK partner will have a stronger role in quality assurance in the
enhanced phase is that they will have the ownership the ‘4+0’ programmes from the
beginning when students are recruited. In other words, students will belong to the UK
partner university and have a UK university email account, although they will be receiving
training in the local partnership institute. The findings suggest that there is a difference
between different types of the partnership programmes in the mechanisms of quality
assurance due to the ownership of the programmes. The statement of the programme
director of Engineering has further confirmed the more prominent role of the UK partner
during the enhanced phase.
[In terms of the ‘4+0’ programmes], so all modules descriptions, for example, have to be based on the [UK] model. They are owned [by the
155 UK institution]. Sounds sort of authoritarian, doesn’t it? But because of
that type of level, all of the assessment, the evaluation, and the modules will follow the [UK] system. So, whatever [the Senior Quality Officer] publishes as good practices for [UK home institution] will have to apply to the [local partnership institute] complying with the standards. (Programme director of Engineering, UK)
This section discusses how the stakeholders are engaged in quality assurance in the
enhanced phase. The data show that in the enhanced phase, the UK home university will
play a critical role in influencing how quality is assured in the ‘4+0’ programmes,
requiring the local staff members to stick to the UK home university’s policy regulations.
The power relations between the UK and the local staff members will change,
consequently. Again, linking to Clark’s (1983) model, the findings of this section highlight
the influences of the UK home university from the meso dimension, which does not align
with the model.
6.5 Chapter Summary
This chapter explores how key stakeholders were engaged in quality assurance activities by
reviewing the development process of quality assurance in this partnership institute.
Section 6.2 focuses on discussing the key stakeholders’ engagement in the pre-delivery
phase. The findings have identified that the following stakeholders, namely, the UK home
university (see Section 6.2.1), the Chinese government (see Section 6.2.2), and the market
(see Section 6.2.3) had important influences on quality assurance during this phase. It
appears that during this stage, on the one hand, the two partners had to comply with the
156
taken the demands of the market into consideration. Compromises were made between the
two partners when faced with the government’s policy requirements to develop
contextually appropriate solutions.
Section 6.3 presents the findings regarding how the key stakeholder were engaged in
quality assurance activities in the delivery phase. The findings suggest that the UK partner,
specifically the individual staff members from the UK home university (see Section 6.3.1),
the local individual staff members (see Section 6.3.2), the government (see Section 6.3.3),
and the students and parents (see Section 6.3.4) participated in quality assurance activities.
During this stage, the focus of attention was shifting from meeting the government’s and
the institution’s policy regulations to improving the quality of student learning experiences.
It appears that it is individuals, namely, the flying faculty members of the UK home
university, the local faculty members, and students and parents at the micro level that were
engaged in quality assurance activities actively. In particular, the faculty members between
both partner institutions worked collaboratively to contribute to the improvement of quality
in daily learning and teaching activities.
The last section, Section 6.4 suggests that in the enhanced phase, the UK home university
became the most influential stakeholder exerting tighter control on the academic standards
and practices of the ‘4+0’ programmes.
To summarise, Section 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 in this chapter have identified that quality
assurance mechanisms of this partnership institute were very complex. There are multiple
stakeholders who were engaged in quality assurance development processes from different
dimensions. At the macro level, the key stakeholders are the Chinese government and the
157
UK home university and the Chinese parent university; and at the micro level, the
individuals took an active part in quality assurance activities, including the UK faculty
members, the local staff, and the students and parents. Linking to Clark’s (1983)
framework, the findings regarding the influences of the Chinese government align with the
force of the ‘state’; the influences of the market, like an invisible hand in the background
and the individual students and parents are in line with the force of the ‘market’; and the
individual faculty members including the academic managers and teachers of both
institutions are consistent with Clark’s (1983) notion of ‘academic oligarchy’. The
influences of the two partner institutions, i.e. the UK home university and the Chinese
parent university are not indicated in Clark’s (1983) framework. A new model of the
stakeholder engagement in quality assurance in this transnational partnership is developed
in Chapter 7 by pulling out the key findings of Chapter 5 and 6.
158