In this chapter, I first review the concept of quality and its practices in HE as well as reflect on the multidimensional and contested nature of quality and its formal and situated meanings depending on the level of analysis (system, organization, individual). Since this study also focuses on organizational quality practices or as Randall (1988) puts it “the meso-structures, occupying the middle ranges of the micro-macro continuum” (p. 251), the tensions between micro and macro, agency and structure are inevitable. A brief review of the quality phenomenon in HE illustrates such an ongoing tension.
2.1. Quality in higher education 2.1.1. The concept of quality
Quality is a multidimensional concept (UNESCO, 1998). Moreover, it is fluid, taking on a variety of definitions and meanings. It has a tendency to evolve and change with time. A major issue in the discourse and practice of quality is that
“what counts as quality is contested” (Barnett, 1992, p. 3). As epistemological and empirical studies of quality in higher education suggest (Harvey and Green, 1993;
Freed and Klugman, 1997; Tam, 2001; Harvey, 2009), quality means different things to different people at different times, and in different contexts.
In their meta-analysis of 320 contributions published in 15 volumes of the journal Quality in Higher Education, Harvey and Williams (2010a) concluded that quality, due to its multi-faceted and contested nature with political undertones, must necessarily be interpreted in terms of purpose and context (p. 7). Based on Rittel and Weber’s (1973) notion of “a wicked problem”, Krause (2012) asserts that it provides a useful lens in analysing HE quality. “A wicked problem” of quality may be characterized as “ill-structured and strongly shaped by social forces such that judgments about possible solutions vary widely and may depend on the values and goals of individuals or institutions” (p. 286). Moreover, as research into HE quality shows, the meaning of quality will depend considerably on the level of analysis (Krause, 2012). As Krause points out, “at the national and institutional levels, quality is typically formally defined and equated with such terms as ‘excellence’,
‘consistency’, ‘value for money’, or ‘fitness for purpose’” (p. 288), whereas at the micro, i.e. departmental level, situated meanings such as ‘ritualism’, ‘tokenism’, quality as ‘impression management’ or ‘lack of mutual trust’ are found (Newton, 2002). A sample summary of various concepts is provided in Appendix B, representing definitions that circulate in HE.
The many definitions of quality circulating in HE, as Krause (2012) noted is “not necessarily exclusive, rather they highlight the ongoing tension in higher education between efficiency and effectiveness” (p. 290). Harvey and Williams (2010a) contend that empirical studies on quality in the last 15 years clearly indicated “the tension between quality assurance as a bureaucratic and administrative task and the improvement of the quality of academic endeavors” (p. 24). The aforementioned insights into the quality phenomenon in HE indicate that ideas about quality and its practices are embedded in certain discourses. Vidovich’s (2001) study of quality developments in Australian HE confirm that multiple discourses of quality is a global and local phenomenon arising from “persistent contradictory tensions…
between assessments of process and outcomes dimensions; between satisfying internal and external stakeholders; between qualitative and quantitative measures of quality; and between diversity of institutions across the sector and uniformity of provision” (p. 251). In the European context, for instance, the latest developments of quality related to study programmes revolve around the discourse of learning outcomes and their measurement. These discourses are linked with broader social values and processes attributed to HE, e.g., academic freedom and autonomy, consumerism and market orientation, competitiveness and globalization, and entrepreneurialism and innovation.
2.1.2. Internal quality practices
Internal quality practices may involve various organizational activities, processes, procedures, instruments, methods, models, policies, and strategies of quality management. These might include a range of mechanisms from programme assessment and evaluation, learning outcomes assessment, peer review of teaching, student surveys, performance indicators and benchmarking to elaborate QA systems such as Total Quality Management (TQM), the European Foundation for Quality Management model (EFQM) or even the model of service quality (SERVQUAL). A variety of quality practices and organizational developments may be targeted at subjects/courses, programmes or departments. They could be focused on various functions, such as teaching, research, or service and might serve a variety of ends, such as control, monitoring, enhancement, assessment, decision-making, and accountability. Choosing which practices to employ requires knowledge, skills, awareness and reflexivity on the organizational actors’ part.
External demands for QA, especially regulatory mechanisms such as legislation, the tension between improvement and accountability, and an ‘auditing culture’, triggered by the corresponding prevalence of ideas and strategies drawn from the 'New Public Management' ideology, which promotes a more 'business-focused'
management approach including programme self-assessments, benchmarking, etc.
(Deem et al., 2007), consequently have effects on the internal quality developments within HEIs. Good examples of such developments in the EHEA are the ESG, Guidelines for Quality Enhancement in European Joint Master Programmes (EUA, 2006a), and EQAR (also see sections 1.1.2 and 3.3.3).
On the one hand, empirical studies on quality in HE report (e.g., Rostan and Vaira, 2011) that excellence [quality] is undergoing a process of ‘institutionalization’. The core principles, beliefs, values and assumptions underlying organizational practices are seen, following Bourdieu, as the construction of the academic ‘habitus’, ideology of the ‘field’ and social norms. The institutionalization that Rostan and Vaira (2011) refer to is seen “as a process by which such an ‘object’ [excellence or quality] gains a growing degree of legitimation and taken-for-grantedness given to it by social actors (Berger and Luckmann, 1966)” (p. viii).
On the other hand, there are studies, which report varied responses to external pressures, e.g., surveillance (Barrow, 1999), resistance (Anderson, 2006; Stamelos and Kavasakalis, 2011), and unintended consequences of quality initiatives (Newton, 2000). Anderson’s study (2006) revealed academic staff’s resistance to quality assurance mechanisms, which they perceived to be undermining the notions of quality as excellence, instead replacing it with ‘instrumental’ and ‘minimalist’
notions (p. 171). Although scholars acknowledge that a mutually agreed understanding is a prerequisite for overcoming resistance and easing existing tensions, the question of how to reconcile clashing ideologies of compliance and enhancement remains a challenge. For a more developed discussion on QA in HE, see section 3.3.3.
Kostova (1999) in her research about strategic organizational practices makes an observation that such practices “are meaning and value based, as well as knowledge based” (pp. 310-311). The same holds true for quality practices in HE (see Krause, 2012). Value basis of practices indicates that they are part of organizational culture. The concept of quality and practices are the ingredients of an organizational culture of quality, which relies on normative and cultural-cognitive frameworks of organizing, while regulative forces have considerable influence on the development of quality practices. Harvey and Stensaker (2008) differentiates four ‘ideal-type’ quality cultures in a higher education context:
responsive, reactive, regenerative and reproductive. The typology is based on the intensity of external rules and the strength of the organizational actors’ control. As the scholar notes, these are just two potential dimensions dichotomized for the purpose of simplicity.
Research on quality culture in HE affirms the contested nature of quality, the tension between the need to comply to external quality requirements, accountability and assurance of quality on the one hand and the internal institutional values and everyday practices on the other. Below I provide a few accounts that further illustrate these tensions. For instance, Vlasceanu et al. (2004) define quality culture as
a set of shared, accepted, and integrated patterns of quality to be found in the organizational cultures and the management systems of institutions. Awareness of and commitment to the quality of higher education, in conjunction with a solid culture of evidence and with the efficient management of this quality (through quality assurance procedures) are the ingredients of quality culture. (pp. 50-51) Whereas, Harvey (2009) notes that
quality culture is poorly understood and often implicitly construed as embodying a system of internal quality monitoring. However, a set of bureaucratic procedures is not the same as a quality culture. Most internal processes do not exhibit the characteristics of a lived culture, rather they reflect the rules and expectations of an ‘audit culture’. They are fundamentally distrustful and constrained by an externally imposed or oriented framework of thinking. (p. 5) For Harvey externally oriented thinking and organizing, especially when driven by monitoring and auditing, does not reflect quality culture. One way to reconcile the opposing views is offered by Gvaramadze (2008), who asserts that it is the enhancement approach that “links internal quality culture (autonomy, transparency and effectiveness) to external quality mechanisms” (p. 452). Similarly, in the EUA (2006b) perspective, quality culture is an internal organizational culture with permanent enhancement mechanisms at two levels: institutional and individual. At the institutional level, these are structural and managerial elements. Quality is seen as an enhancement process; whereas at the individual and the staff level, it refers to the transformation process through shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitment towards quality culture. Bendermacher et al. (2017), by conducting a review of existing empirical literature on quality culture developments in HE, attempted to identify the following: organisational context elements inhibiting and promoting a development of quality culture, its working mechanisms and associated outcomes. The authors concluded that quality culture “can assume various shapes” (p. 53), that it is dependent on organizational subcultures. The results of the review (for more details see section 3.3.3) also confirmed Harvey and Stensaker (2008) view that a quality culture is a complex, socially constructed phenomenon which can not be seen in isolation from the specific context in which
it is embedded, external pressures and the idea that quality practices may not be easily transferrable from one context to another.
2.1.3. Implications for the study
Based on the above review, quality in HE may thus be treated as a multifaceted, value-laden, stakeholder and context relative phenomenon. A variety of quality concepts and definitions of quality culture circulating in HE confirms the plurality of logics guiding quality related activities. It also explicates the ongoing tension between accountability to external constituents of HEIs (e.g., governments, granting agencies and foundations) on the one hand, and organizational learning and enhancement on the other (Krause, 2012). I share a concept of quality with higher education researchers who claim that quality in higher education is a process, not a status quo, something people do (a verb) rather than a state of being (a noun) (Freed, Klugman and Fife, 1997; Chaffee and Sherr, 1992). Quality, therefore, can be defined as “an orientation and a philosophy focused on action” (Freed, Klugman and Fife, 1997, p. 24). Also, I observe that quality is relational, both conceptually and operationally. Quality related activities of HEIs are embedded in the organizational quality culture and strategic practices as well as guided by institutional quality logics and practice.
Although I am interested in whether JP quality developments are improvement led, I have to be sensitive to the following. First, I recognize the existing contestation over various definitions of quality, actors’ meanings and interpretations of quality and their intentions regarding quality work. Second, quality practices might bring about both intended and unintended consequences. Third, in order to reconcile and theorize some of the tensions mentioned earlier, it is essential for researchers to go beyond formal definitions of quality to situated meanings of quality, encompassing interpretations by organizational members, and enactments of various stakeholders’
demands and priorities.