información general de los pasos de la elaboración de escenarios

Given the suggested framework of the current study (i.e. the EFQM Excellence Model), the additional models of ensuring QA in HE previously discussed in this chapter (i.e. TQM, Hoshin Kanri and ISO 9000), as well as the context in which the case study is situated, it is also important to take into account the impact of internationalisation and globalisation in HE policies and QA reforms.

According to Altbach and Knight (2007: 290-291), internationalisation and globalisation are two different issues that impact HE in different ways. While globalisation has economic, political and societal ramifications, as it implies the growth of international labour markets, the use of English and of information technology (IT), internationalisation refers to an institution’s personnel, curriculum and “the commercialization of international HE” (Altbach and Knight, 2007: 291). Zajda and Rust (2016: 1-2) argue that globalisation has recently become an all-encapsulating phenomenon that impacts culture, economy and politics, especially due to the

65

technological innovations of the past years. According to Held et al. (1999: 2), globalisation is the process of “widening, deepening and speeding up of world-wide interconnectedness”. At the same time, internationalisation in HE is a process that implies making changes in existing HE policies, practices and perspectives, with the ultimate purpose of enriching the quality of services offered by an institution through the use of international alternatives (Ziguras, 2011). With this in mind, Mok (2011: 180-181) explains that the internationalisation of HE has recently gained popularity, given that enhancements in the HE sector seem to directly influence a country’s population, economy and ranking in a global context.

The globalisation and internationalisation of HE can have several advantages, if implemented in a correct systematic manner. Globalisation can offer the possibility of expanding HE by creating international agreements between countries that pledge to offer educational, financial and social support to each other (Al-Ohali and Burdon, 2013). In addition, the standardisation of the knowledge, quality and services offered by HEIs, could thus allow individuals to pursue their studies in the preferred social and cultural environment, as exchange programmes become increasingly common (King, Marginson and Naidoo, 2011). Gibbs (2012: 241-242) notes that this standardisation, however, can be accompanied by the risk of eliminating diversity in the supply of education and it can be argued that a homogenous supply of knowledge, ideas and perspectives can become a detriment to innovation and research. Zajda and Rust (2016: 2) further argue that the globalisation and internationalisation of HE could impact deeply embedded assumptions related to how education is organised, systematised and produced, as well as the common understanding of what a curriculum is and how it should be constructed. To illustrate, as a result of internationalisation, Van Damme (2001: 417) found that universities may be required to undertake several activities or policies (i.e. broadening the curricula, regional networking, enhancement of research) that can have a negative impact on the institution’s success and efficiency, if implemented poorly.

Nevertheless, some of the changes that have resulted from the globalisation of HE include the spread of QA within the industry, as well as the tendency to borrow foreign QA policies (Blanco-Ramirez and Berger, 2013: 89). As discussed in the previous sections, there is a wide variety of QA models that can be adopted by different countries, including the KSA. Although some of these models are not specialised in ensuring quality in HEIs, each of them could arguably be modified to suit the objectives, purposes and values of a

66

university (Sartika, 2013; Hutchins, 2008; Hart and Shoolbred, 1993; Jackson, 2001). In the case of the KSA, QA has been recently implemented and standardised, and the official body that evaluates QA standards has been adapted from different HE bodies and contexts like the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Since the creation of the NCAAA in 2004 (Darandari et al., 2009), the HE sector in the country has produced more research, more experts, has opened many more universities due to the increased demand, has gained financially and has experienced a boost in both curriculum and international partnerships (MoHE, 2013).

Saudi Arabian HEIs have become increasingly aware of both the benefits and the disadvantages of globalisation. According to Donn and Al-Manthri (2010: 102), the former has provided Saudi universities with the opportunity to evolve into educational centres that can employ the English language as a medium to promote regional and international research. Due to the use of the English language, HEIs in the KSA could thus potentially attract foreign students and investors, and could also adhere to the changing demands of the labour market by enhancing the curricula, resources and operations offered by both private and state institutions (Al-Ohali and Burdon, 2013: 161; Donn and Al-Manthri, 2010: 102). In addition, the increased interest in providing higher quality services worldwide has prompted the Saudi government to offer more varied training, to collaborate with other countries in creating more advanced technological programmes, as well as to invest a considerable budget into developing highly advanced science and technology universities (Al-Ohali and Burdon, 2013: 161-162). The Kingdom has further acknowledged the positive impact that globalisation of HE can have on foreign student enrolment, and thus on the competitive aspect of HE, which stems from the creation of acclaimed programmes and internationally recognised diplomas (Badry and Willoughby, 2016). This being said, the internationalisation of HE practices has also brought attention to the fact that international procedures do not follow the same values and cultural perspectives as the Gulf States, and the KSA in particular (Donn and Al- Manthri, 2010: 102). Therefore, the MoHE and HEIs have to first consider the implications of HE globalisation and internationalisation, and then adapt these standards to the cultural and religious context of the country. However, this approach can be a detriment to the implementation of globalised policies within Saudi universities. This is firstly, due to the lengthy process of establishing the acceptable norms, and secondly due to the fact that altering said norms may, in fact, lead to the implementation of policies that

67

do not actually increase the quality of Saudi HE, but rather simply aim to fulfil a sought- after standard that is presumed to be beneficial to Saudi HEIs (Badry and Willoughby, 2016: 208). To illustrate, internationalisation and student cross-border mobility is recognised by the MoHE (2013: 68-72) as an important emerging trend in HE, and the Kingdom has made great progress towards providing scholarships (both local and international) to Muslim students from varying countries. Although a great pursuit that needs to be a common practice of HEIs, the criteria for gaining a scholarship is sometimes too lenient, and scholarships are, at times, offered solely to meet a quota. This common practice, which is also encountered at KAU from time to time, negatively influences the budget of a HEI, budget that could otherwise be allotted to other important issues, such as research or training.

It seems evident that the spread of QA in the KSA has been influenced by the phenomena of HE globalisation and internationalisation, and the mixture of these two elements has resulted in policy borrowing, given the fact that the country (which had a less developed QA systems and newly established QA policies) has adapted to international quality standards in the HE sector. Although research shows that implementation of globalised practices and policies in the KSA could have, for the most part, positive ramifications in the quality of services provided (Al-Ohali and Burdon, 2013; Donn and Manthri, 2010; Badry and Willoughby, 2016), it is important to take into consideration all possible ramifications of policy borrowing in HE QA.

On the one hand, policy borrowing can have a tremendous impact on the implementation of QA, and on the quality of HE in general, as it provides the opportunity to follow an already tested and proven idea (Phillips and Ochs, 2004). As such, the HEI no longer needs to dedicate resources towards researching a successful practice, and can thus dedicate time and money towards fulfilling other goals. According to Phillips and Schweisfurth (2014: 46), policy borrowing occurs in three stages: the “identification of successful practice”, followed by the “introduction into the home context” and “assimilation”, the latter being the most complicated step. However, the success of the third stage is more easily attained if the first two stages are conducted in a thorough manner, and if the change is rationalised and explained prior to its implementation (Phillips and Schweisfurth, 2014). Additionally, given the fact that the policy has already been tested, observed and proved to be successful, it is safe to assume that the policy follows a model that can provide extensive guidance. As such, the policy may offer

68

solutions for issues that arise, while the existing results can serve as a benchmarking tool, as a means to compare and contrast the results from various HEIs, with the purpose of evaluating the policy’s success within the new context (Portnoi, 2016).

On the other hand, if the policies have not been carefully considered beforehand, and have not been adapted to the local social, cultural, economic and political circumstances of the target country, or university, the borrowing of international policies could have a negative impact (Turbin, 2001, Rubenstein, 2006). However, Phillips and Schweisfurth (2014) and Portnoi (2016) argue that the chosen policies could also be ignored or resisted by the members of the staff, despite the institution’s attempts to implement them. These stances may lead to conflict in the vision, mission and goals of various stakeholders. Alternatively, “stakeholders may reformulate them [the borrowed policies] in the local environment through vernacular globalization, leading to a policy that only vaguely resembles the one that was lent” (Portnoi, 2016: 148). These changes may have grave negative implications, especially in situations where problems arise after the implementation of the borrowed policy, as the staff may notice that the original solutions for said problems no longer apply. Another negative implication may be the staff’s misunderstanding of the need to introduce the policy, and even the misunderstandings of the procedures surrounding it (Phillips and Ochs, 2004). Therefore, without proper training, the staff that is required to implement the foreign policies will fail in their attempt. This will result in a cumbersome process for all the stakeholders involved, and could even result in the unintentional decline in quality. All things considered, policy borrowing needs to be implemented in a systematic manner, by following a carefully constructed plan that takes into account the crucial necessary steps.