En la zona más próxima al límite Norte del Parque, cercano al Campo de Golf,

Reviewing the website of the University of Exeter leads me say that the analysis of the institutional level can be overviewed via three main categories which include teaching and learning, research, and community outreach and knowledge transfer. I noticed that schools of the University operate differently. In spite of this differentiation, the University is the governing body of each of these schools. The responses of the interviewees reveal that each

160 school administers itself differently. They concluded that the main part of monitoring performance is the academic performance and how it moves towards the Research Excellence Framework which replaces the RAE. They added that the government wants to make sure that the research impact goes to help industry and economy. I noticed that the University of Exeter did very well in the UK’s 2008 RAE, improving the quality of research and submitting significant number of staff. This means that the university is on the way to achieve its strategy. The interviewees explain that the RAE and subsequent the Research Excellence Framework which is going to take place in 2013 is a national peer-review process for assessing the University’s research quality. Expert R asserted that “the University manages

research and deals with the research assessment exercise on behalf of the schools……we get the academic work from the schools and we send them to the RAE. Research in Exeter is separated from community outreach and teaching and learning”.

What facilitates combining research agendas in schools together is the University’s overall agenda of research. However, the operations have the potential to be systematic. The agenda of the University can represent the overall system combining the sub-systems of schools’ agendas. Expert R was asked about this development. The answer was that “the agenda for

research within the University of Exeter is identified by the University and not by the RAE”

while “community outreach and knowledge transfer is operated centrally through the

university and not via every school”. This answer reveals that quality of research is not

accompanied with the quality of community outreach and knowledge transfer. The University contributes to community services through the process of community outreach and knowledge transfer. The interviewees reported that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCF) identifies categories of community service and the University proceeds to address these categories. This means that this process follows a reactive approach, where the University does not report back to HEFCE on what has been achieved in the field. It would be better if there was kind of interaction and feedback from the University to report on the developmental engagement with the community.

Expert R was asked whether it is better for every school to have its own plan of quality assurance. The answer was that “yes, for example community outreach in the School of

161

vocational”. Perhaps the reason for this separation is because operations of quality assurance

are not located in the hands of academics. The administrative staff (who operate quality in the University) might be not familiar like academics with the potential to connect quality of teaching and learning with quality of research and with quality of community outreach and knowledge transfer. I argue that it is time to transfer the operations of quality from the hands of administrative staff to the hands of academics who are specialised and more familiar with the nature of higher education and the requirements of its quality.

6.4.5 National Level

In August 1997 the QAA took over the quality assurance functions of the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC). Just over two years later the QAA announced the final details of the new ‘Quality Framework’ which was to operate from 2002. The QAA tries to achieve many roles and tasks. Hacham and Sheinman (2003) point out some of these roles which include the promotion and maintenance of quality and standards in higher education provided by or in collaboration with the UK universities and colleges. They add that the QAA is meant by enhancing teaching and learning, and the identification and promotion of innovation and good practice in teaching and learning. Brown (2000) adds another role represented in the provision of information and the publication of reports on quality and standards in HEIs.

HEIs in the UK are autonomous and accountable bodies. Hendry (2010) points out that every higher education institution in the UK is responsible for the quality of education it provides and the standards of the awards it makes. He adds that each institution has its own internal quality assurance procedures. Each university sets its mission and part of its mission is to teach and undertake research to support society and support economy and outreach. This reflection is perceived by expert H who said that “most British universities look to provide

some public benefits”. I observed this reflection in the University of Exeter. For example,

the University of Exeter has an interest in understanding the economic and social implications of environmental change and it is setting up environmental sustainability institute. I argue that the discipline of this new institute is an important area of public policy. This new project can impact also on the amount of funding the University receives from the funding bodies.

162 The universities in the UK started to address issues of national relevance and global significance. This is reported in the answers of expert R when asked about the priorities of the UK universities in teaching and research. Expert R answered that “some international

priorities like climate change, economic crisis, peace and issues of immigration are addressed by research councils…..at the moment, I am working on a new research strategy for the University around key performance indicators…..about what impact is our research having in the UK”.

Meanwhile, British universities put considerable effort into attracting international students. Expert H was asked about the mechanism followed by the UK universities in this aspect. The answer of expert H was that “the development and operation of quality assurance processes

maintain quality and standards with the national UK framework”. The answer of expert H

reveals that the UK universities have international perspectives in programmes and guidelines to investigate what they teach from international concepts to address international perspectives. However, expert H reported that some kind of harmonisation is required by the UK universities to create consistency between the national relevance and the global significance. The answer of this expert denotes that this area needs further enhancement by commenting that “I believe that we need both national agenda and international agenda”.

I argue that adopting international perspectives is beneficial for high and low ranking countries. However, Expert D considered that the low ranking countries are more in need to adopt such perspectives. The issue of politicisation I addressed in section 3.4.10 of chapter three is reflected here. It is time to politicise quality and to discuss its issues and concerns on the tables of heads of states and between national governments. To reflect this, Expert D argued that “developing countries may be in more need……I am sure that they are in more

need to develop their higher education sectors, their economy and their society”.

6.4.6 Regional Level

The UK is a European country and is a member of the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), which was established in 2000 to promote European co-operation in the field of quality assurance. Documents (ENQA, 2003) show that

163 the ENQA has safeguarded the public interest through adopting sound standards and guidelines of higher education qualifications and encouraging continuous improvement in the management of quality of higher education.

Another structure at the regional level associated with the European Higher Education Area is the Bologna Process emanated from Bologna Declaration in 1999. Documents (ESIB, 2008) indicate that the overarching aim of the Bologna Process is to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) based on 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. The envisaged EHEA will facilitate mobility of students, graduates and higher education staff. The EHEA aims to prepare students for their future careers and for life as active citizens in democratic societies, and support their personal development. In addition, the operations of the EHEA offer broad access to high-quality higher education based on democratic principles and academic freedom.

It is clear that both ENQA and the EHEA exist to promote the cooperation between the European countries in the field of quality assurance and ease the recognition of degrees and other qualifications. However, they are only networks and processes and neither of them performs the operations of assuring and accrediting the quality of HEIs. They are similar to other regional networks in the field of quality (see chapter five). Expert D was asked about the impact of such regional networks on national higher education. The answer reveals that the cultural dimension is the governing factor to establish these networks. However, he expressed that these networks face challenges and difficulties. Expert D said that “quality

assurance agencies in each country reflect their culture and the relationship between the institutions and the state…..Bologna Process faces challenges of difficulties of broad equivalence, [as] there are commons and differences”. Although the existence of these

regional networks facilitates the work among the member countries, these networks lacks systematisation. The connections are only limited to the national agencies of quality and not at the institutional level across HEIs. Being the core of quality, HEIs need to engage in communication with these regional networks.

164

6.4.7 The World Level

Interviewees were asked about probing this, they concurred that systematising quality could be secured through negotiations and agreements with HEIs themselves being part of such operations. This is clear from the answer of expert D saying that “we have kind of

development which is to look at globalising programmes to make sure that the international dimension is at all types of programmes. We want to internationalise because we want to make sure that we have wide range of students from all over the world to take our programmes and to contribute to our teaching and learning”. Systematising quality

facilitates exchanging degree recognition and accepting students from other parts of the world so as to formalise equivalence of standards. I consider that section 8.2.1 of chapter eight reveals that the European region established the European Higher Education Area, the European Consortium for Accreditation and the European Network for Quality Assurance to facilitate mutual recognition among European HEIs. However, systematisation of quality via the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality is to provide the international accreditation to HEIs across the globe (see section 1.5 of chapter one and section 2.8 of chapter two and section 5.2 of chapter five and section 7.4.7 of chapter seven and see chapter nine).

Working with HEIs in high and low ranking countries to build their capacity and to help countries forward requires international systematisation to make this easier. Such framework is beneficial to both high and low ranking countries. This is feasible because higher education is adequate for internationalisation. For example, research of HEIs can serve internationally as well as locally. However, the key issue is funding and resources for conducting research of high quality. Expert H was asked about this issue and the answer was that “increasingly

in the United Kingdom, the research that has to be funded needs to show that it has impact on the local society and also on the international society…..it needs to take into account that it has impact on the environment”. However, research needs to meet international needs. To

reflect this, expert H said that “some of the research in the schools meets international needs

and some does not”. This leads me to argue that academics need to evaluate their research

165 Expert R was asked about the potential for internationalising quality via establishing the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality and its relation to research. The answer was that “research is unique piece of information each time that needs to be assessed

and it can be assessed internationally via review panel. If the suggested organisation is to provide international research areas, I think yes, there is need for establishing a United Nations organisation for International Quality assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education. I can see gap in the international area because national operations meet national requirements, regional operations meet regional requirements, but there is no international operation for meeting the international requirements. Logically you can argue for that, but you need to think about who would monitor it, who would pay for it and who would benefit from it”. This answer is interesting because it leads me to envision how the United Nations

Organisation for Systematisation of Quality will be operated. I argue that outstanding experts and academics from across the globe can be elected to come together to operate the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality. However, the selection of these operators should be based on qualitative dimensions such as expertise and contribution and not based on quantitative such as representation and numbers. Regarding funding the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality, money can be collected from member states of the UN. In addition, every higher education institution or programme seeks to be accredited internationally from the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality has to pay fees which can be used in funding a United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality.

The perspective of expert R agrees with the perspective of expert H on the potential of systematising quality. However, Expert H added the rationale of gathering data from across the globe to compare between nations. This is what the research did in chapter four, where I investigated current operations in the development of quality in the UK and Egypt. The investigation of the research case studies produced significant comparative findings. The potential of the two contexts for internationalisation is presented in this section. I asked expert H about the potential for systematisation of quality and establishing the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality. The answer of expert H was that “at the

moment, we need to gather data from across the globe to compare between nations to proceed with the global needs. To meet global vision, you would have to have an organisation

166

internationally. We need international organisation because you would not have that from individual nations. If you need to proceed with the global agenda, you will have to establish international organisation to deal with that. You need to establish the organisation first, secondly to set criteria, and thirdly to identify how you will achieve them. What is good for your neighbours is good for you. It would have to be regulated. You would have to have international body to organise that. If you are going to create this new era of international development, you would have to have that organisation. There is need for creating this new era of international development”.

However, the perspective of expert R envisions that each country should meet the international agenda according to its national needs. Expert R envisioned that “the best thing

is to establish international agenda and each nation operates it according to its needs and then the institution operates it. There should be international organisation for quality assurance and accreditation in higher education”.

I argue that occupying first grades in world rankings does not necessarily mean that these world class HEIs meet international needs. This means that a United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality is to regulate complex questions on how to set international agreement about the way HEIs should address the needs of the world. Expert H was asked about his vision regarding this issue. The perspective of expert H on this complex issue was that “there is a need for such organisation to regulate big questions on how such organisation

is going to set international agreement about the world. Then every country will work towards common global goals for the good of humanity”. I consider that each country has

the right of freedom to work towards common global needs for the good of the world. However, I argue that it would be better if operations of countries and their HEIs towards addressing global needs are based on the ‘systematic’ understanding of quality from body like a United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality. The question arises here is how can the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality succeed on what the heads of states and their governments cannot do? How will the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality achieve what regions cannot achieve? In case that the soft creation of the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality turned to hard creation, it is recommended to assist HEIs on how they can meet both national and

167 international need. The hard creation can bring outstanding experts and academics from HEIs across the globe for operating the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality.

I consider that the international priority is complex question. However, I argue that international priorities should be filtered through the United Nations Organisation for Systematisation of Quality to examine where are the priorities for the world? This means the potential for internationalisation on big issues like quality that have to be addressed at international level. Expert H was asked about this complex issue and the answer was that

“although the agenda of my University is focused nationally, there are interests on what issues affecting the world and then we align ourselves with these priorities”.

Experts were asked whether quality of teaching and learning, research and community outreach and knowledge transfer are ready for internationalisation. Regarding internationalising quality of teaching and learning, the answer of expert D was that

“internationalisation would either require each country to agree to harmonise their internal operations or it would require some umbrella body to find a way to recognise and evaluate the differences in the internal operations and decide the extent to which they are broadly comparable and equivalent”. For internationalising quality of research, the answer of expert

H was that “the best thing is to establish an international agenda and each nation operates

it according to its needs and then the institutions operate it”. Regarding internationalising

quality of community outreach and knowledge transfer, the answer of expert R was that “yes,

certainly and due to international needs, an international office has been established in the