Title: Quality in Higher Education: Meanings, Tensions, and Practices
Author: Kathy Siedlaczek, EdD
Having spent most of my career in the public post-secondary sector, it has been interesting to observe how the notion of ‘quality’ is used in different contexts. For some, quality means excellence, for others it means effectiveness or efficiency, and for yet others it means consistency and standards. There is little doubt that quality and associated terms such as excellence are complex and contentious issues in higher education with varied perspectives on what they mean. Yet it would be surprising to find an institution that did not claim to provide its students with high quality education. How quality is perceived at a post-secondary institution may depend on factors such as the institution’s mandate, its governance structure, the mix of educational programs it offers, or its organizational culture and history. The meaning may also vary across different members of an institution, it may evolve over time, and it may be impacted by external factors such as changes in dominant political ideologies. Indeed, quality in higher education has been characterized as highly contested, arbitrary, and politically malleable (Vidovich, 2013).
Within this varied context of quality, each institution has established its own processes for determining and maintaining the quality of its educational offerings. In my current role as Dean of Academic Planning and Quality Assurance at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), I am responsible for our institutional quality-related processes. As part of my practice, I have often wondered why it can take so much effort to engage people in quality-related practices. Many times during my career I have said to myself “why do I have to explain this again? They should know this!” when needing to explain one more time what was expected of one of our quality processes, what the related governance process was, and what documentation needed to be produced. The constant effort to not only explain but also defend these quality-related processes within my institution, and win people over one by one by helping them get to a meaningful outcome has caused me in my reflective moments to wonder why this was the case, and in my frustrated moments to wonder whether it was worth the effort. And in this, I know I am not alone. Discussions with colleagues doing similar work at other institutions confirms similar challenges in establishing and maintaining quality-related practices in higher education.
In this article, I look at the meanings of quality in higher education, the tensions with related concepts such as accountability and trust, and the complex and necessary work involved in maintaining the practice of quality. The opportunity to reflect on these aspects of my practice through my dissertation using the lens of theory has provided me with important insights on the challenges I experience in practice and potentially better ways forward.
What is quality?
In his influential article that asks ‘what is quality,’ Ball (1985) states:
‘Quality in education’ is a subject extraordinarily difficult to come to grips with, and full of pitfalls. There is no single final answer to the quality question, and we should not look for it. But the issue cannot be avoided. (p. 96)
This quote indicates the elusive nature of quality. We know it when we see it, but trying to describe what we mean by it tends to tie us in linguistic knots. Ball (1985) follows his initial question with another: ‘quality for what?’ His own response to this question settled on the notion of quality as ‘fitness for purpose,’ for example, considering the quality of a program in terms of how well it meets its purpose. This perspective continues to be influential in post-secondary discourse around quality.
Another important perspective on quality is the influential work done by Harvey and Green (1993). Rather than a single definition of quality, Harvey and Green present five categories as different ways that quality can be understood in higher education. These are quality as exception (excellence as judged by reputation), quality as perfection (specifications to achieve quality), quality as fitness for purpose (alignment with purpose), quality as value for money (effectiveness and efficiency), and quality as transformation (fundamental change via the learning process). These categories present a diversity of views onquality which helps capture the complexity of the concept.
Two important insights from the literature and from my own professional practice are the need for ongoing dialogue or negotiation on the meaning of quality, and the need to be alert to how quality is perceived among different actors and how it may be defined in various contexts. Both of these issues require us to recognize power issues in the discourse on quality, and to question whose voices are included and what silences are apparent. As well, there is value in considering what may be at the root of someone’s conceptualization of quality and how this may relate to their view on the fundamental purpose of education (Prisacariu & Shah, 2016). One reason to pay attention to these issues is that a growing number of jurisdictions are establishing policies and practices focused on quality in higher education, and specifically on how to assess it. As Vidovich (2013) notes, this indicates that how quality is defined could have political implications, so there is value in exploring the dominant discourses to develop a better understanding of these influences.
Notions of quality assurance, accountability, trust and autonomy
Unlike the general notion of ‘quality’ which has a longer history, ‘quality assurance’ is a more recent concept within higher education, with each institution having its own processes for determining and maintaining the quality of its educational offerings. Quality assurance is often considered the processes and policies an institution establishes to ensure quality, coupled with the commitment to improve or enhance quality. However, just as there are differences in how the meaning of quality is viewed, this is similar for quality assurance. Within higher education, quality assurance has been challenged on a number offronts, including its roots in industry and whether this is an appropriate basis from which to translate to higher education (Green, 1994; Wittek & Kvernbekk, 2011). Another challenge relates to views on how quality assurance is used within higher education, ranging from a focus on value-for-money (efficiency/effectiveness), as a range of continuous improvement processes, as a means to improve institutional reputation, as a measure to safeguard students, or as a process to ensure programs remain aligned with their own and their institution’s purpose (Vettori, 2018).
Typical quality assurance practices in higher education focus on the development of new programs and the periodic review and renewal of existing programs. Often these processes are articulated within institutional policies in order to document and communicate the requirements involved. The mix of policies and processes may vary across institutions, with some having a robust set of policies and procedures that are followed closely, and others having more informal processes whose implementation waxes and wanes depending on internal/external priorities, institutional memories, and changes in responsibilities.
Quality assurance in higher education is a growing policy issue worldwide, as evidenced by the growing number of quality assurance bodies in different jurisdictions, and the range of monitoring processes these bodies oversee (Beerkens, 2015; Steiner-Khamsi, 2016). In 2016, British Columbia introduced a new quality assurance policy impacting all public post-secondary institutions in the province, called the Quality Assurance Process Audit (QAPA). This policy requires that all public post-secondary institutions’ quality assurance policies and practices are reviewed by a Ministerially-appointed panel to ensure alignment with expectations for quality in higher education. This is similar to processes implemented in other provinces as well as internationally, demonstrating growing attention to quality assurance in higher education.
Where quality assurance in higher education is discussed, there are often accompanying discourses around accountability and trust. Ranson (2003) discusses the notion of accountability and makes the distinction between accountability as being held to account versus giving an account. ‘Being held to account’ is the conventional expectation of accountability, whereby we must account for our actions. Applied to quality, the primary focus is on evaluation of efficiency, for example in the use of resources to achieve expected outcomes. On the other hand, ‘giving an account’ provides an opportunity for presenting our view of a situation and explaining how it came to be. Most importantly, it provides opportunity for dialogue and reflection. Ranson (2003) refers to this as the “discursive practice of accountability” (p. 461). Applied to quality, the primary focus is on dialogue as a way to consider opportunities for improvement. I find this framing of accountability compelling as a way to shift focus to a meaningful exchange of ideas around the purpose and practices of education rather than a primary concern around standards and measurement.
Also important in a higher education context are the notions of trust and autonomy, which are often referenced in connection to, and sometimes in tension with, accountability. Trow (1996) argues that accountability and trust have an uneasy relationship, where they are at times in support of one another and other times in conflict, such that in the latter case accountability can be seen as an alternative to trust. Autonomy is a foundational principle in higher education, with an expectation that institutions have the freedom to govern themselves and set direction and policies for their operation. However autonomy is not absolute, and varies depending on legislation across jurisdictions and also on institutional type. The notion that some level of accountability is a legitimate and reasonable expectation of publicly funded institutions is referenced across the literature (Berdahl, 1990; Bond, 2017; Tapper & Salter, 1995). Concomitant with this understanding is the question of how to strike the right balance with institutional autonomy/trust to align with accountability as a discursive practice focused on improvement.
Through these discussions, we can see the enduring complexity around discourses related to quality and the tensions between discourses related to quality assurance, trust, autonomy and accountability. Being alert to competing views on these issues is critical in understanding the practice of quality.
The practice of quality
As I look at the work involved in quality practices, I think there is value in using the concepts of institutions and institutionalization to frame the discussion. Building on Vukasovic’s(2014) writings, institutionalization is the process by which new rules, practices, and understandings become accepted, established and routinized. The work needed to maintain quality practices such as program reviews involves such aspects as defining a common language, establishing processes and resources, creating roles and supports, communicating expectations and providing training, monitoring alignment with expectations, as well as celebrating successes. Each of these requires actors who are embedded in the institutional context and who have agency to determine and enact the necessary practices. This is what Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) call institutional work, which is the work needed to create and maintain institutions.
Drawing from my practice, I believe the work involved in maintaining the institution of quality requires a continual process of bringing people into a closer level of engagement with quality-related practices. This involves implementing systems and processes to facilitate greater awareness among the community, develop better understanding of the purpose and importance of related processes, and over time establish greater commitment to institutional values around quality and related processes. I offer an illustration of this idea in the figure below, which shows a set of concentric circles representing the layers of institutional actors involved in the work of maintaining the institution of quality.
Figure: Layers of institutional actors involved in maintaining institution of quality
The illustration shows that there is most often a core of institutional actors who are responsible for the creation and maintenance of quality-related practices at the institution. This is often a department tasked with defining, creating, communicating, implementing, embedding, routinizing, educating, monitoring, refining quality-related processes, and all the other day-to-day practices of maintaining the institution of quality. Many institutions have recognized the importance of having a central department responsible for these tasks, as demonstrated by the growing number of such departments being established at public post-secondary institutions. This group is necessarily the most knowledgeable about the processes involved, and its task is to bring people in outer layers closer to this level of knowledge.
The second layer from the centre represents other institutional actors who are tasked with elements of quality processes, in most cases involving departments that support and guide these processes such as learning and teaching centres, registrarial and service departments, institutional research offices, and governance bodies. These areas have close contact with related processes, and are expected to have high awareness, understanding, and commitment to processes, but also benefit from intentional, ongoing, and structured reminders and sharing of practices to maintain this close connection.
The third layer is the most critical one to engage in an effective way and often requires the most intentional effort to engage constructively. This layer represents institutional actors who become involved in quality-related processes when their program or department is required to engage with the processes, for example in the development of a new program. There is a great deal of effort and support needed to quickly integrate these institutional actors into the processes so that they have sufficient knowledge of requirements and resources and feel that their initiative is able to move ahead efficiently. Their experience with the process can play a significant role in these actors being future champions of the processes and sharing with peers the value of engaging constructively. Alternately, if they perceived their experience negatively, they may choose to perpetuate their perspective among their peers, potentially making it more challenging to engage their peers when they subsequently need to engage in the processes. Therefore, the work involved in engaging this layer of institutional actors is significant, both so that they can achieve their goals with their programming initiative, and to establish positive normative associations to build and sustain the institution of quality.
The fourth layer from the centre represents other faculty, staff, and students who are not currently undergoing a quality-related process but are “candidates” for future processes. Particularly for faculty and staff, it is important that they have ongoing awareness about institutional quality-related processes to simplify and shorten the learning required when they are tasked with engaging in the processes. The institutionalwork involved with this layer involves primarily educating, sharing exemplars of good practice, and over time building normative associations to facilitate constructive engagement in future.
Finally, the outermost layer represents external parties who have an interest in the institution and the quality of its programs, for example alumni, and program advisory committees. While these parties may become involved in some aspects of quality-related processes (for example, in responding to surveys or participating in site visits), they do not need direct and detailed knowledge of institutional processes. They should however, be aware that the institution has quality-related processes and trust that these processes are contributing to the overall quality of the institution’s educational programs.
As we can see, as we go further out the circle, there is less day-to-day contact with an institution’s quality practices, and so it is important to find ways to keep people’s attention focused on these processes. Based on my experience in practice, the task of institutional work then is to embed practices and grow support across the various layers. The more the outer layers are supportive and engaged in the work of the institution, the more stable the institution can be. If awareness and support is limited to the inner layers, theinstitution is less stable and may decline or be dismantled over time as the outer layers do not see value in it.
Important to note is that the stability of an institution does not mean it is intended to remain unchanged, but rather its stability is measured by its ability to adapt and change, and therefore persist, within an evolving landscape. As Vukasovic(2014) argues, the process of institutionalization is not irreversible, and so it requires continued and sustained attention to maintain an institution. This type of maintenance work is sometimes characterized as silent and invisible but is nevertheless essential to preserve and reinforce institutions, andsometimes repair them after a period of neglect (Micelotta & Washington, 2013). As I reflect on my practice, it is evident that this is the ongoing work of maintaining the institutionof quality, which involves looking for ways to better embed or routinize processes, identify champions and advocates, connect experienced practitioners with new ones, and if funding allows, establish new positions to further support and guide related practices. As well, it is not uncommon for people to change roles or for new people to join an institution, necessitating a continual and intentional effort to explain the value of processes.
Institutions need to recognize the commitment necessary to maintain the systems and processes related to quality. It can take significant time and much effort to build up systems that represent what an institution considers excellent quality and a corresponding culture that values these processes. It takes as much if not more effort to sustain these processes and culture with the various types of institutional work needed to do so. In contrast, without adequate resources and priority placed on quality-related processes, it is comparatively easy for the institution of quality to be slowly dismantled until it is no longer meaningfully aligning with expected norms in higher education.
So then what is quality in relation to practice?
I return now to the question posed earlier in the article, “what is quality?” I believe there is not much value to be gained in trying to arrive at one meaning of quality in higher education, either broadly or even at the level of an individual institution. Instead, I believe there is value in acknowledging that there are and likely always will be varied meanings of quality and that there is more to be gained by entering into conversations on the topic with curiosity. As Deephouse et al. (2017, p. 17) note, while conceptual clarity is an important endeavour, “concepts should evolve as they are used and juxtaposed with other concepts.” Thus we should expect the meaning of quality to evolve and this may be based on a variety of factors, for example the role an individual has at an institution, the discipline within which a faculty member teaches, or the previous experiences someone may have had before joining higher education. As well, the meaning of quality may shift over time, as the discourse itself changes over the years or is influenced by shifts from other jurisdictions.
So perhaps what is more important than defining quality is putting in place processes to integrate the wide range of views on quality to ensure that these perspectives are incorporated into the overall, collective evaluation of quality. This is essentially the process of quality assurance, and as I would argue, is directly connected to the process of quality enhancement. Establishing negotiated and collegially determined processes to review and assess quality and establishing the equally important processes to then improve quality are essential components of demonstrating the quality of an institution’s educational programs to its broad community. Approaching quality in this way, recognizing the multiple perspectives with which people come to it, and establishing processes to integrate this range of views is an important way to institutionalize practices related to quality. There is the acknowledged challenge of quality assurance terminology being associated with its roots in industry, and therefore being at times viewed with suspicion from the world of academia. I would argue that this would indeed be problematic if the same methods and expectations of quality control from a manufacturing setting were implemented in higher education settings. But adopting practices that reflect Ranson’s (2003) discursive practice of accountability, while balancing elements of trust and autonomy, provide a sound basis on which to adapt quality processes to the context of higher education.
Concluding thoughts
As a concluding comment, I start with the observation that there is often little need to convince people of the need for quality. While there are various understandings of quality, the importance of quality and the belief that we all offer quality at our institutions is a widely shared belief. What is morechallenging is to establish a shared belief in the need for and value of quality-related processes as an element of achieving quality. From my experience, I see the intentional effort and significant resources required to maintain the practices and processes which are foundational to the institution of quality. The main risk to the institution of quality is if other priorities reduce attention and focus on the need for quality practices, or if these practices are characterized more as a bureaucratic mechanism than as a fundamental process contributing to the quality of our educational programs. As Lawrence et al. (2009) argue, it is risky to treat institutions as self-sustaining social structures, and rather, there is a need to consider these as fragile structures needing ongoing effort and work to ensure they can be stable and self-replicating. Provincial policies such as QAPA play an important role in defining expectations and creating structures and processes that act as a catalyst for institutions to prioritize their quality practices. But it is the institutions themselves, with their internal quality practices living under their own governance structures that must actively maintain the structures and processes related to quality. All of this takes significant time, effort, and resources, and requires that quality and the processes related to achieving and maintaining it remain a priority at institutions. Taken together, this in my view is the practice of quality.
References
Ball, C. (1985). What the hell is quality? In C. Ball & D. Urwin (Eds.), Fitness for purpose: Essays in higher education (pp. 96-102). Society for Research into Higher Education & NFER-Nelson.
Beerkens, M. (2015). Quality assurance in the political context: In the midst of different expectations and conflicting goals. Quality in Higher Education, 21(3), 231-250.
Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities. Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169-180.
Bond, R. (2017). Canadian and international trends in quality assurance. [Keynote address]. Quality Assurance Process Audit: Initial Learning & Context Forum, Vancouver, BC. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/post-secondary-education/institution-resources-administration/degree-authorization/degree-quality-assessment-board/quality-assurance-process-audit.
Deephouse, D., Bundy, J., Plunkett Tost, L. & Suchman, M. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence & R. Meyer (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. SAGE Publications.
Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice. In D. Green (Ed.), What is quality in higher education? (pp. 3-20). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Lawrence, T. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence & W. Nord (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of organization studies. SAGE Publications.
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In T. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 1-27). Cambridge University Press.
Micelotta, E. & Washington, M. (2013). Institutions and maintenance: The repair work of Italian professions. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1137-1170.
Prisacariu, A. & Shah, M. (2016). Defining the quality of higher education around ethics and moral values. Quality in Higher Education, 22(2), 152-166.
Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), pp. 459-480.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). New directions in policy borrowing research. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 17, 381-390.
Tapper, E. & Salter, B. (1995). The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education,20(1), 59-71.
Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309-324.
Vettori, O. (2018). Shared misunderstandings? Competing and conflicting meaning structures in quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 24(2), 85-101.
Vidovich, L. (2013). Balancing quality and equity in higher education policy agendas? Global to local tensions. In P. Axelrod, R. Desai Trilokekar, T. Shanahan, & R. Wellen (Eds.), Making policy in turbulent times: Challenges and prospects for higher education (pp. 167-187). Queen’s Policy Studies Series, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Vukasovic, M. (2014). Institutionalisation of internal quality assurance: Focusing on institutional work and the significance of disciplinary differences. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 44-63.
Wittek, L. & Kvernbekk, T. (2011). On the problems of asking for a definition of quality in education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(6), 671-684.