HoDs endeavour to engage academics in achieving quality, through their involvement in the DQC within each academic department. It is the university policy to rotate membership of this committee amongst all academics in a given department. This in line with claims by Harvey and Green (1993) and Darandari and Cardew (2013) that quality achievement is the responsibility of all stakeholders, especially academics who have a central role in delivering education (Ledden et al., 2011). HoD 1 confirmed this, saying “there is not one person in this department that has not worked in the DQC so far”. Some HoDs welcomed this because it provides fresh energy and insight for the committee. Rotating the membership of the DQC provides more academics with opportunities to become “aware of the common glitches, the different aspects of quality” and what is required to achieve it (HoD 4). Furthermore, through actually doing the practical work, the majority of academics become knowledgeable about the “various concepts of quality, its values, what is meant by various quality measures” (HoD 3) such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and student-to-academics ratio as stated by HoD 12:
This committee, to be fair, is shuffled every semester, keeping the head and the vice-head of the committee the same. But we try to involve as many academics in the DQC as possible. That is part of our policy in trying to disseminate the work on quality amongst academics. And it’s a learning opportunity as well - you are met with the criteria and the requirements. So, they work hands-on, not only quality but in their own work responsibilities, they are also having a taste of how it is, in terms of quality administration or administrating QA. I find involving as many academics as I can in this committee very helpful in achieving quality in the department.
HoD 11 observed that rotation of DQC membership positively influences attitudes and practices of staff and is “really a good idea to spread the culture of quality amongst all the academics”. HoDs further elaborated that this rotation system was helpful in reducing
staff suspicion regarding quality implementation and accreditation processes. HoDs also considered themselves as “part of a quality chain and processes that happen in the department” (HoD 12) through their participation in the DQC. They also stated that “part of the responsibilities is upheld in delivering what is required from the quality regulation standpoint” (HoD 6).
Although HoDs were keen to say how committed they were to QA and how engaged they were with quality-related initiatives, the stakeholders especially those from the Deanship for Development and Quality (DDQ) took a different view. They observed that HoDs see quality-related tasks as “extra work” (DDQM 1) and “HoDs still look at quality as an elective and they look at it as somebody else can do it” (DDQM 2). QDM 6 stated, HoDs “really did not give quality the proper time, or address it as it should be”, and they are “not directly part of it. In most cases, they assign the quality work to the committees” (QDM 3) without proper follow-up and supervision. Hence, “they do not know what is happening” (QDM 7) in daily practices and strategies in relation to quality. This results in delays in submitting the quality-related documentation, and thus in reduced departmental efficiency, as noted by DDQM 4 who said: “if an HoD just receives the consultants, asks them to work with the academics and then expects a good result, the result will not be that effective”. Therefore, “direct involvement in the achievement of quality is mandatory” (DDQM 3). DDQM 5 also illustrated the negative impact of poor HoD involvement in quality-related activities:
If you want HoDs to work for self-assessment that is part of NCAAA requirements, they will form a committee. The committee will be supervised by another senior faculty member advising on quality but in most cases, the HoD under whom the programme is being run is not directly part of it. And quality cannot be achieved unless the HoDs play an active role no matter how effective the academic is […] if you are not directly involved, you will be receiving 25% of contribution and the work will be delayed. The desired outcomes will not be achieved.
Transparency was advocated as a way to improve quality. Departments were encouraged to publish information on their website, regarding course specifications, assessment criteria, and examination and even past papers. This level of information sharing was thought to prevent a culture of closeness and secrecy, thus promoting an atmosphere of openness that supports quality achievement in a department. HoD 13, for example, said:
I am totally focused on making everything transparent. I do not want any secretive affairs in the department. One of the things from my point of view that will make people improve quality is to stop working behind closed doors. This will ensure clarity and transparency.
HoDs believed that the open communication policy within their departments facilitated the achievement of quality. In this respect, they cited examples of how Al-Jawda University has taken various steps to promote open communication by, for example, making it compulsory for academics including HoDs to develop their webpages with official contact details and giving students and staff email addresses. These strategies remove obstacles to communication between academics and their students and help in enhancing accessibility. Communication between HoDs and their staff has also improved as highlighted by HoD 8:
We are open. Each faculty and student has email contact information. It’s mandatory to have your website in the university. So, if anyone wants to access your information, especially students, they can do and this is part of quality. Communication is part of quality.
In addition, a recent technique to maintain quality reported by the stakeholders is the implementation of a local Quality Management System (QMS) in Al-Jawda University. However, this technique was not spoken of by HoDs, which might signify that, as a new initiative, the QMS was not widely implemented among departments. The system is
based on the internationally recognised Malcolm Baldrige13 system for accreditation and academic excellence, and aims to maintain performance and quality improvements. This is done by evaluating and scoring the performance of academic programmes, and by internal auditing. In the case of Al-Jawda University, there is a board of assessors who review departmental performance once every two years prior to applying for re- accreditation. The QMS has two phases - self-study, and audit and assessment – which together help in preparing a department to satisfy national audits by the NCAAA, which has higher quality standards and requirements than QMS. DDQM 8 elaborated this benefit of QMS:
If a department successfully implements the QMS, it is on track to achieve NCAAA accreditation because the QMS is based on NCAAA standards themselves […] So there is no duplication of effort. Actually, if you work towards the QMS, you end up obtaining NCAAA because it’s the same standards.
Furthermore, it was stated that implementation of the QMS “encourages HoDs to continuously improve themselves” (HQU 2), “keeps everyone involved in the accreditation process” (DDQM 1), and “reduces a lot of the time and effort in quality management” (DDQM 4). The Vice-Dean highlighted that the QMS is useful to “follow up, maintain delivery of quality or even prove it […] It’s an official way, a military way to maintain your performance”. DDQM 2 unequivocally stated multiple advantages of the system:
The QMS is our tool to maintain quality. Because HoDs are constantly updating their SSR [Self-Study Report], they are constantly working with their KPIs. They are consistently trying to achieve the quality goals. They are consistently implementing
13The Malcolm Baldrige is a U.S based quality award in the business, health care, education, and non-
profit sectors for performance excellence. The award promotes awareness of performance excellence as an important element in competitiveness.
the action plans [...] Actually, this is what we call a continuous improvement process.
The above quotes from the stakeholders point towards the direction of Hofstede’s power distance dimension, according to which Saudi Arabia is a hierarchical society and is therefore classed as a high power distance culture. Hence, the afore-mentioned ‘military way’ reflects a tendency to enforce, rather than implement, rules and regulations.