As already mentioned, the NCAAA started its work in 2004. Since then, this system has been gaining acceptance by HEIs and has been implemented across the Kingdom, despite some substantial barriers (Darandari et al., 2009; Onsman, 2010). Firstly, there is the issue of distribution of power and leadership amongst Saudi and non-Saudi employees in HE. At the higher level, Rectors, Vice-Rectors, Deans and HoDs are Saudi nationals; whereas a number of
academic staff in HEIs are non-Saudi. Not many of the Saudi academics occupying these posts are trained to perform their role effectively, and this creates a problem, as most of the academics, who come from abroad, are well qualified and trained. Nonetheless, the Saudis receive preferential treatment and are involved in some of the decision-making processes unlike the non- Saudi staff. The overseas members of staff are required to implement those decisions, which are often taken without consultation. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disengagement from the process of QA on the part of the frontline teaching staff (Onsman, 2010) and the HoD may feel a lack of support from staff in implementing QA.
Moreover, the top-down approach to management and the centralised system of decision- making have a very significant and largely negative impact on the implementation of QA in Saudi HE and, as Onsman (2010) suggests, may regress the achievement of quality at such institutions. Although plans for academic development of the KSA have been made and attempts to apply changes have been undertaken, the implementation of a quality culture still seems challenging in many Saudi HEIs, due to a number of culture-related factors (Darandari et al., 2009; Onsman, 2011). Many of the HoDs may consequently have little control over the implementation of QA in their department and do not receive support from senior management.
Furthermore, strict social and religious codes and local cultural values in Saudi society can hinder the creation of a world-class academic environment in the KSA (Krieger, 2007; Onsman, 2010). The indiscriminate application of neo-liberal values in Saudi HE has encountered some opposition, leading to accusations of westernisation and neglect of the Islamic identity of the community and the local system of values (Elyas and Picard, 2013). Thus, it has not been easy to establish a networked QA system grounded in shared values (Onsman, 2010). Although NCAAA requires every institution to establish its own QA model, the implementation of QA systems in KSA has not been as smooth as expected, with some institutions failing to adopt NCAAA standards, with only three out of 33 of the institutions participating in the QA process
35
being granted institutional accreditation (Albaqami, 2015)4. This highlights the indifferent success experienced in establishing quality in Saudi universities. HoDs, who do support QA, may therefore not receive the institution-wide approval for its implementation.
It is also evident that leadership at the academic programmes level plays a significant role in achieving QA in Saudi universities (Onsman, 2010). This position is generally occupied by an HoD and is categorised as middle level leadership. However, there is little understanding of the role of HoDs in achieving quality and a much clearer picture of this is needed in order to determine their impact on Saudi HE. There is a growing body of research about the role of HoDs generally (Knight and Trowler, 2001; Sotirakou, 2004; Meek et al., 2010; Floyd and Dimmock, 2011; Floyd, 2012; Mercer and Pogosian, 2013); however, little attention is paid specifically to HoDs and their role in QA and in the context of KSA. This study presents an opportunity to explore and understand the role of HoDs in the implementation of QA in the Saudi HE context.
1.6.1 Research Rationale
The role of HoDs in achieving quality in their departments has been highlighted in literature. Saunders and Sin’s (2015) study, conducted in Scotland, found HoDs acted as gatekeepers between senior management and staff, passing messages between them for implementing quality processes. This indicated that they were not making decisions or having a great influence on QA themselves. The main areas where HoDs were found to have an impact on quality were in research and teaching, according to Juhl and Christensen’s (2008) study conducted in Denmark. It is known that there are many demands on an HoD’s time, as Kok and McDonald (2015) found in their study of UK universities, and it is consequently difficult to ascertain HoDs’ input within the QA processes, or even their understanding of their role in such quality initiatives. This is why it is important to explore the perceptions of HoDs on QA, especially in a different
context other than the Western contexts that have mainly been investigated. There is a paucity of literature on Middle East HEIs, and this is why more research is needed to find out the situation of HoDs in Saudi Arabia, which is attempting to become a global knowledge economy. Quality is an important factor in achieving international status and there is a need to investigate the challenges HoDs may have in implementing QA in Saudi universities, given the hierarchal structure of such institutions.
1.6.2 Researcher’s Background and Origins of the Thesis
This research study stems in part from my personal interest in developing high quality education in the KSA. Following a four-year experience as a teacher and head teacher, and a further five years as a Director of the Educational Media and Public Relations Department of the Ministry of Education, I realised that there was a pressing need to improve educational quality in the Kingdom. Having experience of the Saudi educational system and later in educational leadership roles, it came to my attention that Saudi students may have not been able to compete with their Western peers on an equal basis. Therefore, as an educational researcher, I decided to focus on the issue of quality in the sector of education (my MA) and higher education in the KSA (my doctoral study).
I gained additional insights into various aspects of educational reforms in the UK when I undertook an MA in Educational Leadership and Management. Studying and researching at the University of Nottingham made me alert to other aspects with regard to educational developments in the UK. Due to the accessibility I had to schools in the local area, I was able to investigate the quality of schooling in England. Furthermore, I identified specific attributes and features that could be implemented into the quality of the Saudi schooling system, taking cultural differences into account.
37
Following my Master’s degree, I decided to continue researching leadership and quality but in the HE sector, rather than in schools. This led to my current research study, as I sought a better understanding of quality implementation system in Saudi HE and the role of educational leaders in achieving its objectives. Having experience of both the UK and Saudi HE systems, and taking into consideration my future career aspirations, I believe that the findings of my current study will be beneficial to the educational field in Saudi Arabia, where there is still a need for more quality specialists.
A meticulous literature search found very little theoretical work in relation to QA in Saudi HE and the role of leadership in it. Since there is a noticeable gap in literature, it is expected that the research findings of this study will be beneficial, not only to myself and the Saudi MoHE, but will also contribute to the literature on Saudi HE. This study has involved a thorough investigation of the principles, implications and limitations of the development and implementation of a QA system in Saudi Arabia – one of the aspiring leaders in education in the Middle East – in order to achieve the research objectives.
1.6.3 Research Questions
Based upon the research problem and research rationale, this study explored perceptions and realities of QA implementation in Saudi Arabia and addressed the following questions:
1. How, if at all, do HoDs at an elite Saudi university achieve quality within their departments?
2. What factors are said to influence the HoDs in trying to achieve departmental quality? 3. How does the selection and development of HoDs influence their achievement of
1.6.4 The Cultural Context of the KSA and the UK
Culture plays a significant role in the application and implementation of quality in Saudi HEs. However, as noted earlier, educational reforms based on neo-liberal ideologies have been uncritically adopted by the policymakers seeking to reform Saudi HE. This in turn has invited much criticism from the individuals who believe that the values of KSA, as an Islamic country, conflict with the Western values integrated with neo-liberal reforms implemented at universities. There are, consequently, tensions between the reforms implemented and the expectations of quality arising out of these, vis-à-vis the local culture and context. Therefore, since this study relies mostly on literature from the UK, a comparison was drawn between Saudi and UK values, as elements underpinning the educational systems of both countries. One of the first and most comprehensive studies on cultural values in the work place and in management was conducted by Geert Hofstede in the 1960s and 1970s. Although the study was criticised for its narrow scope, as it was conducted on a single company within the IT sector (i.e. IBM), it resulted in a set of dimensions that could be applicable across societies, though with a degree of caution. Five of Hofstede’s dimensions (see Figure 2) were deemed to be of relevance to any comparison between the Saudi and the British approaches to HE in general, and HE leadership in particular. These are power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation.
39
Figure 2: Cultural Dimensions of KSA and UK
Source: Adapted from Hofstede Centre (2017b)
The power distance dimension related to how far inequality was accepted within society. In this regard, Saudi Arabia (score of 95) differs considerably from the UK (score of 35), which indicates that Saudi structures are very hierarchical, while in Britain egalitarian principles are more valued (Hofstede Centre, 2017). Those cultural features of society can be applied to a managerial culture, where Saudi managers tend to be more autocratic and employees (subordinates) expect to be instructed on their actions. In the UK, however, the management of employees seems to be underpinned by a sense of fair play and equal treatment.
The individualism-collectivism continuum depicts the level of interdependence between members of society and is best represented by the frequency of use of personal pronouns, i.e. ‘I’ vs. ‘we’. While Saudi Arabia is considered a collectivist society (with a score of 25) meaning group loyalty is ranked highly, the UK is a highly individualistic society (score of 89), where individual idiosyncrasies and uniqueness are pursued. Therefore, family links and professional relationships in Saudi are seen in moral terms, which can affect recruitment and management decisions, while the UK culture focuses more on achieving personal goals and employee
95 25 60 80 36 35 89 66 35 51 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity UncertaintyAvoidance OrientationLong Term
Ra ng e of Re sp on se s