The regional operations in quality indicate that there are many forms of development at which quality is currently conducted. Over the past few years, many groups of agencies of quality have formed networks on the basis of geographical regions and/or other agency characteristics (such as agencies in small states or agencies for professional accreditation). This form of cooperation created into existence regional networks for quality. The policies and practices of such networks are bounded by the membership of each network. Reviewing the website of these regional networks (see Appendix C) leads me to argue that these regional networks assist HEIs around certain region for meeting and addressing its regional priorities and needs. An example of this is the European Higher Education Area (see the next section). An explicit analysis of some regional networks follows.
8.2.1 European Operations
Reviewing the website (www.enqa.eu) of the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQAHE) indicates that the ENQAAHE was established in 2000 to promote European co-operation in the field of quality assurance. In November 2004 the General Assembly transformed the Network into the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. The idea for the association originates from the European Pilot Project for Evaluating Quality in Higher Education (1994-95) which indicated the need
188 for sharing and developing experience in the area of quality assurance. Subsequently, the idea was given momentum on the European mutual recognition of higher education qualifications (1998) and by the Bologna Declaration of 1999.
Ginkel (2007) points out that the European countries committed themselves to establish the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This reveals the European co-operation in the field of quality through developing comparable criteria and methodologies. Michavila and Zamorano (2007) point out that the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education assists the European countries in establishing a common framework of reference for quality assurance which directly worked in the establishment of the EHEA in 2010. However, they recommend that the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education should contribute more to the European quality assurance process. I argue that this contribution can be achieved through ‘systematic’ understanding of quality. I mean operating quality in the European region as an overall system combining a set of sub-systems for assuring and accrediting the quality of higher education. In this ‘systematic’ understanding of quality, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education is the overall system and each national agency of quality is a sub-system. This can create adequate peer review system for European agencies of quality and can develop agreed European standards, procedures and guidelines on quality.
An aspect of the European operations is the Bologna Process representing the main mechanism for creating the European Higher Education Area EHEA and is based on cooperation between ministries, HEIs, students and staff from the 46 countries, with the participation of international organisations. Ginkel et al. (2007) point out that the overarching aim of the Bologna Process is to create EHEA that is based on international cooperation and academic exchange that is attractive to European students and staff as well as to students and staff from other parts of the world. They add that Bologna Process seek to develop EHEA based on institutional autonomy, academic freedom, equal opportunities and democratic principles that facilitate mobility, increase employability and strengthen Europe’s attractiveness and competitiveness (see section 6.4.6 of chapter six). They argue expecting that EHEA can: facilitate mobility of students, graduates and higher education staff; prepare students for their future careers and for life as active citizens in democratic societies and
189 support their personal development; and offer broad access to high-quality higher education based on democratic principles and academic freedom.
Another aspect of the European operations in quality is that the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA). Heusser (2008) points out that the ECA was established in Córdoba in November 2003 and renewed in Kraków in June 2008. The members of ECA believe that mutual recognition of accreditation decisions can contribute to the recognition of qualifications and the mobility of students in Europe. Heusser expects that the ECA can make life easier for HEIs and their programmes operating across borders. He argues that there is a need for better mutual recognition agreements, where HEIs only need to apply for accreditation in one of the ECA member countries instead of obtaining accreditation in each country separately. This means that by undertaking the necessary activities for mutual recognition, ECA contributes to the EHEA. I argue that the ECA can work to provide transparent information on quality and to support the internationalisation of institutions and students. In addition, the organisations in ECA can share best experience and promote best practices in accreditation. Achieving this enables the participating agencies to accept the results and/or decisions of other ECA members as equivalent to their own.
Reviewing the website of the ECA (www.ecaconsortium.net) reveals that the ECA aims for the mutual recognition of accreditation and quality assurance decisions. The members of ECA believe that the ECA can contribute to the recognition of qualifications in higher education and the mobility of students and graduates in Europe. This means that the ECA can be enhanced to prevent the necessity of multiple accreditations for joint programmes and institutions operating across borders. I argue that the ECA can be functioned for: mutual learning; disseminating best practices in accreditation; providing transparent information on quality; and supporting the internationalisation of HEIs and theirs students.
It is argued (Beccari and Rauret, 2008; Beccari and Remaud, 2008; Cox and Malfroy, 2008, Frederiks: 2008; Harris and Sauri, 2008; Hijden, 2008; Vaht, 2008; Woodhouse, 2008) that mutual recognition of accreditation and quality assurance decisions can substantially reduce existing barriers in the recognition of qualifications and thereby enhance academic and professional mobility in Europe. This is because mutual recognition of quality assurance and
190 accreditation decisions would prevent that joint programmes and joint degrees need to be accredited in each of the participating countries. The ECA, therefore, has been established as a road map towards mutual recognition. I argue that the establishment of the ECA encompasses different dimensions including: mutual understanding of agencies of quality assurance and accreditation; mutual recognition of quality assurance and accreditation procedures; and mutual recognition of quality assurance and accreditation results and/or decisions; facilitating the work of recognition agencies; enhancing joint programmes and degrees; validate the work of agencies; and mapping the diversity of the European higher education.
The final aspect of the European operations in quality is Qrossroads. Reviewing the website of Qrossroads (www.qrossroads.eu) reveals that the phrase of Qrossroads is used in the European region for exchanging information about quality among the region members. This phrase presents information regarding assuring and accrediting the quality of higher education in Europe. The information on Qrossroads is provided by agencies of quality, and specifically concerning qualifications from HEIs which are quality assured and their programmes are accredited. Qrossroads brings together information from different databases of agencies of quality. However, I noticed that each of these agencies is responsible for the administration of their own database.
Aerden (2008) points out that the main aim of Qrossroads is to present the qualifications awarded by HEIs and their programmes that are quality assured and accredited. These qualifications are presented in perspective of higher education together with information on the relevant accreditation organisation and recognition authorities. This indicates that Qrossroads operates as clearinghouse in the European region for issues related to quality. The investigation reveals that it is only the European region which uses this term.
8.2.2 Other Regional Operations
One of regional operations in quality is the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE). Reviewing the website (www.anqahe.org) of the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE) indicates that the ANQAHE was established in June 2007 as a non-profit nongovernmental organisation. The purpose of the
191 ANQAHE is to create a mechanism between the Arab countries to exchange information about quality assurance in the region. Documents (ANQAHE, 2007) show that the mission of the ANQAHE is to ensure and strengthen quality in the Arab region and to enhance the cooperation between agencies of quality in the Arab region. The aims of the ANQAHE are to support national agencies of quality in the Arab region. These documents reveal that the ANQAHE transformed these broad aims into operational objectives to disseminate good practice of quality in the Arab region. Babiker (2007) and Lopez-Segrera et al. (2007) explain that in the Arab countries, four countries practise both institutional and programmatic accreditation dealing with the quality of HEIs and the validity of their educational programmes. One case operates only institutional accreditation and ten are in the process of introducing operations for quality. Nevertheless, most of the existing national frameworks lack the basic conditions of an effective quality. Although they have written statements and set of objectives, there is still no systematic approach to achieve their objectives, or a clear policy to translate the mission statement of their quality into systematic actions.
Another network is the Caribbean Area Network for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (CANQATE). The genesis of the CANQATE was at an INQAAHE workshop held in Montego Bay in May 2002. Reviewing the website (www.canqate.org) of CANQATE indicates that the aim of the network is to promote and assist in the implementation of good practices in quality assurance in tertiary education. Sobrinho (2007) points out that in November 2004, members of the CANQATE agreed to work to maintain quality of tertiary education in the region. He adds that the members work together to increase the mutual recognition of qualifications to facilitate the movement of students and graduates within the region. I argue that the dissemination of information on quality makes potential students aware of the need to accreditation status as appropriate of the institution or programme which they are interested to enrol. In Caribbean region, Sobrinho (2007) points out that fourteen countries practise both institutional and programmatic accreditation, four countries conduct only institutional accreditation, and only one carry out programmatic mechanism alone. Eight countries are in process to produce operations for quality, and two countries have quality assessment. He adds that several factors in the region have created serious challenges for quality. These challenges include: huge expansion of enrolment; reduction in state budgets for higher education; and emergence of private sector and different models in higher
192 education. In response, national agencies for quality have been established in Argentina, Central American Countries, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and many other countries of the region. These countries practise both institutional and programmatic accreditation. Lopez- Segrera et al. (2007) indicate that one of the main objectives of creating these agencies has been to ensure and accredit quality due to enormous growth of public and private higher education. However, they argue that many institutions and programmes remain of low quality in these countries.
Another regional example is Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) which covers all Pacific island nations and territories excluding Gulf States. Documents (APQN, 2008) show that the mission of the APQN is to enhance the quality of higher education in Asia and the Pacific region through strengthening the work of quality assurance agencies and extending the cooperation between them. The aim of APQN is to promote good practice in the maintenance and improvement of quality in higher education in Asia-Pacific region. Cheung (2008) argues that the aims of APQN can permit better-informed recognition of qualifications throughout the region. He adds that through the development and use of credit transfer schemes, the mobility of students between institutions both within and across national borders can be enhanced. In Asia-Pacific Stella (2007) points out that seven countries practise both institutional and programmatic quality, one has institutional accreditation, one is in process to introduce operations for quality, and one uses unofficial accreditation. In Asia-Pacific, Lopez-Segrera et al. (2007) explain that nine countries are in the process of introducing operations for quality. Six countries practise institutional and programmatic accreditation and one practise programmatic accreditation. In South and South West Asia, two countries practise both institutional and programmatic quality, two are in process of producing new operations for quality, and two countries have quality assessment mechanisms.