In order to perform their critical role in QA, HoDs took three complementary approaches: compliance, consistency and culture (Cardoso et al., 2015). The first one, compliance, refers to achieving pre-specified standards and meeting the requirements of national and/or international accreditation bodies. According to a previous study (Smith and Abouammoh, 2013) and the majority of HoDs in this study, this was the most prevalent of the three approaches. The compliance-oriented culture is traditionally prevalent in Saudi HE. In this approach, HoDs “supervise the whole process of achieving quality through DQC and make sure that staff fill in the forms on time according to quality standards requirements” (HoD 7). Eight HoDs believe that the
implementation of quality standards is the fundamental step in achieving quality. This helps a department to achieve national and international accreditation, which is ultimately a major element in ensuring departmental quality.
In line with HoDs, the stakeholders identified various approaches, which HoDs use to achieve and cultivate quality in their departments. They too considered achieving accreditation as an initial approach to achieve quality. Indeed, the former Rector said that Al-Jawda University “cannot compete globally with no global accreditation”. Additionally, accreditation provides a structured way of working and helps in improving departmental performance, as indicated by a Vice-Dean who said “our performance after getting accreditation is quite different than before. We improved a lot in terms of quality”. Nevertheless, accreditation in not without its critics. Although Kleijnen et al. (2011) conclude it improves quality, Morrish and Sauntson (2016) suggest that the bureaucracy involved has a detrimental effect on academic freedoms; they argue that this can hinder quality achievement, and that appears to be the view of some of the participants as well. This may of course be due to a lack of understanding of the role of accreditation in the whole QA process.
In addition to the above, HoDs indicated that “the more people understand this quality, the more they believe in it, and the better they perform in general” (HoD 14). Stakeholders also emphasised that academics should be aware of the rationale for completing the quality-related documentation, and how this improves their own performance. They argued that understanding the benefits of quality motivates people to work towards its achievement. In the view of DDQM 1, “if they [HoDs] tell them [staff] what quality can do for them and their job and their product, I am sure that they will be keener than me in applying quality”. HQU 1 added weight to this argument, saying:
a better way […] because when they complete a course report, it is for their benefit, for documenting their work, and whatever problems they reveal within the reports will be solved by the department […] because when people do not know, they are going to resist anything new. Therefore, the HoD should be good at explaining the reasons for quality initiatives, then there might be a chance to get staff on board.
These comments echo the conclusions of Land and Rattray (2014) and Albaqami (2015) in that academics, who are unaware of the benefits of QA, are more likely to resist its implementation.
The second approach is maintaining consistency across academic programmes, levels and administration. Consistency means ensuring that everyone works to the same standards. Faith in quality helps HoDs to genuinely work towards accomplishing it, rather than simply aiming for accreditation, which is not an end in itself but rather a means to achieve a different end, namely good quality of graduates. HoD 7 emphasised that “You should love it and you should believe in it” while HoD 14 argued that a belief in quality and dedication influences daily performance:
I am a person who believes in quality […] I truly believe that it is not about forms, it is not about accreditation, it is not about how prestigious the university is. Quality is about how you perform every day, and if you do believe in it, this will affect your performance, day in and day out.
Having documented certain approaches used by HoDs to ensure departmental quality, it is appropriate to note that HoDs believe that quality achievement “requires much time and effort” (HoD12). It is “a very hard process”, and “you cannot have quality overnight” (HoD 1). Moreover, “you cannot achieve absolute or perfection in quality” (HoD 14), and “once you get it, you should maintain it” (HoD 9). They suggest that quality achievement is a journey, “a continuous process” (HoD 5) with scope for further improvement.
In line with the HoDs’ views, the stakeholders acknowledged that quality achievement is “a long-term process […] quality is about practice and requires steady improvement” (Dean 2), and should be seen as “continuous” (Vice-Dean), rather than a one-off job. Therefore, “sustainability and continuity of good practices of quality” (DDQM 5) can themselves be beneficial in achieving quality. The former Rector shared that
it is not just ‘pass the exam and you will be done’, but the enhancement and improvement of quality is a continuous process, not just to prepare for the accreditation or to just do it once or twice, but it has to be done every time as if it were the first time.
The third approach is the development of an enduring culture, which everyone in the department feels obligated to uphold. Seven HoDs mentioned that generating a departmental culture of quality beyond that required by the central administration was the critical step to achieving quality, as well as being part of their role. If there is a culture of quality, all individuals working in a department believe in value and strive for quality achievement more than any other goal. Such a culture can be spread through frequent discussion and attracting experts from accredited global universities. A culture of quality will be reflected in the work ethic of the academics rather than in a focus on paperwork. HoD 12 explained this point by saying:
Part of my work is to enforce what the institute requires; the other part of it is trying to encourage the introduction of quality in the workplace as an ethic or culture in the department.
HoD 4 considered himself enthusiastic about creating a culture of quality and testified to the importance of disseminating this among all staff:
I am passionate about developing a quality culture. In my view, it should be the preoccupation of all members in the department. One of the benchmarks to achieve quality is to spread the culture of quality implementation. Any institution keen on applying quality should begin by spreading a quality
Moreover, six HoDs mentioned the importance of staff buy-in and how their own level of commitment affected this. With regard to the first point, HoD 14 said, “the more staff believe in quality, the easier the implementation process will be, and the smoother quality achievement will be”. In terms of the second point, HoD 10 said, “because I believe in quality, I was able to convince my staff of its importance.” There is no doubt that it is important for staff to have a good understanding of quality and its value in the institution, as Darandari et al. (2009) argue. Hence, commitment from staff is an essential element, as other studies confirm (Srikanthan and Dalrymple, 2007; Cardoso et al., 2015). Yet, it is not always easy to convince academics to change (Alghamdi, 2016). It may happen that staff agree in principle but resist in practice. Having a capable leader, who is committed to a quality culture, may be helpful in breaking down such resistance, as the earlier quote from HoD 10 indicates.
The data was interrogated to determine if there was a link between the way a HoD perceived quality and the strategies they adopted to achieve it. Discipline and length of service was also mapped. See appendix O for an example from the College of Health. In most cases, there was a clear link between the HoD’s perception of quality and their strategies for achieving it. For example, those HoDs who referred to culture in their understanding of quality would also mention developing a quality culture as an approach. In a few cases, HoDs were inconsistent. For example, they said that quality was about following a system but also believed it should be embedded as a culture. Two interviewees were not able to give a clear explanation of what they thought quality was nor articulate approaches for achieving it. Both respondents were newly-appointed. Nonetheless, some strategies employed during the course of their work were reported by almost all HoDs. It seems that these strategies are required by the quality agency and/or
are part of the university strategy/policy. For example, almost all HoDs talked about having strategies to achieve consistency such as the uniformity of course specification and the appointment of a course co-ordinator.
It can be clearly seen that academic discipline makes a difference to quality achievement since it impacts on perception of quality, relates to its outcomes and indirectly influences the choice of approach. Furthermore, it became evident that the longer an HoD has been in the post, the more they tend to be inclined towards the culture approach, whereas less experience in the role drives HoDs towards compliance.
The stakeholders concurred with the HoDs in considering developing a culture of quality among staff as an essential step. DDQM 4 said that if there is “a solid culture of quality, it doesn’t matter, then, who is in charge, actually. Because people will just do things because they know they are valuable and they believe in it”. DDQM 1 highlighted that having a quality culture can facilitate quality achievement:
We should work on disseminating a culture of quality - let’s put it this way; infecting everybody with the virus of quality. Then, the job will be a lot easier for HoDs and for the staff and so on. If you believe in something, then you feel happy doing it, if you don’t believe in it and it’s being forced by the HoD or even the deanship or the dean, I think you will do it hesitantly.
This indicates that an HoD must work carefully to introduce a quality culture, without seeming to force staff to make changes. Consensus is a key priority (Dias et al., 2014) and if a quality culture becomes part of the strategy for the institution, then it is more likely to succeed (Buchanan, 1995).