Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2(11) 107
Janne Parri
The main argument of this paper emanates from the understanding that “quality” is a highly contested concept and
has multiple meanings for people who conceive higher education and quality differently. This paper also investigates
various models of measuring quality in higher education, considers their value and discusses both their shortcomings and
contributions to the assessment of higher education institutions.
Key words: higher education, education quality, models of measuring quality.
effective, to be able to predict and control. He introduces the term ‘macdonaldisation’ and states that
institutions offering higher education are in no way different from other institutions offering services and that
the customer expects to get the same standards, reliability and predicted quality from universities as they
expect to get while buying a hamburger or making a bank transaction (Lomas, 2002). Scott (1996) claims that
recent trend towards mass higher education in England proves that higher education is like any other ‘mass
industry’. Westerheijden (1998) sees the understanding that in higher education ‘everything goes’ as long as
the proper goal is found, the biggest pitfall of the goal-compliance approach. This is reason why it is
important to add that quality is compliance with higher education goals. Another weakness that has been
pointed out regarding this approach as been that while focusing on the measuring goal compliance, it can slip
our mind to pay attention to whether the goal is relevant in the first place. This is the reason why first we
should ask whether the goal is relevant; and only then start analysing to what extent it has been met.
Quality as transformation, reshaping. According to this point of view, the main customer of the higher
education quality is a student whose understandings, attitudes and objectives change and evolve in the course
of the study process. The better the graduate can manage in the future working life with the help of the
knowledge, experience and skills acquired at the university, the more fully has the particular university met its
goals. The process of transformation is described figuratively by Harvey (1995), who says that transformation
in higher education could be compared with how water transforms into ice. There is a lot of subjectivity in
such quality assessment. If it is not possible to measure, then it is not possible to improve. According to
Newby (1999), it is problematic and difficult to measure intellectual capital that is the main outcome and
output of higher education. The students are the focus of attention – the better the university, the better it can
meet the goals that include equipping the students with special skills, knowledge and attitudes that enable them
to work and live in the society of knowledge. It has been stressed that the views and aims of students change
during the studies (Westerheijden, 1998). Under educational circumstances it means becoming better,
empowerment and development of new knowledge. It means a qualitative change here transformation does not
apply to physical transformation but cognitive reshaping. Besides cognitive reshaping, higher education does
influence the intellectual aptitude of students, but can also shape the I-picture, provide the individual with
skills, equip with knowledge, change attitudes and fight prejudice (Tam, 2001). Similar terminologies describe
transformation in the development of a student in higher education using terms like ‘growth’ and ‘influence’.
All those terms literally stress the importance of university that brings along positive change in students, both
in the cognitive and non-cognitive dimension. The situation, where the institution offering higher education
has such an influence on the student that he/she can sense positive difference in comparison with the prior
period, could also be viewed as transformation. The most outstanding institutions are those that have
the biggest impact on the knowledge and personal development of students (Tam, 2001).
Quality as threshold. Specific standards and norms are defined; a threshold is set that the institution
should cross in order to certify that the instruction meets the quality standards. Standards help to rationalise the
definition of quality, make it more objective. The weakness of the above-described approach is that standards
are difficult to apply under rapidly changing circumstances. Standards outdate as the reality changes more
quickly than the standards are changed. Nevertheless most European countries apply minimum standards that
ensure the level of quality below what no institution offering higher education should not go. Minimum
standards also allow comparability in higher education system. Minimum standards are often briefly defined:
only the general definition of the expected knowledge, skills and attitudes of graduates is provided. These
ensure the particular minimum quality of higher education and curricula comparability. At the same time it is
assumed that all university units or curricula exceed minimum standards, adding the goals and increasing
quality through meeting these goals (Westerheijden, 1998).
Quality as enhancement. This viewpoint focuses on the constant development and raise of quality that is
primarily the task of the academic personnel. The given concept stresses academic freedom and autonomy of
university in quality insurance.
Quality as value for money. It is a populist approach that equalizes quality and value, especially value
for money (Harvey, Green, 1993). Statements “quality for reasonable price” and “quality at affordable price”
mean that you are promised a high quality product at a reduced price. This is an opposite of the blind faith of
the perfect competition market that states, “you get what you pay for”. The essence of this approach lies in the
responsibility aspect of quality assurance. Sate funded universities are expected to hold responsible towards
financiers and clients. It is thought that the key of increase in cost-effectiveness is in increased competition
between universities both for financing and students. Despite considerable drawbacks of this theory have
several governments strengthened the bond between the quality of education and its monetary value mainly
through demands for efficiency (Harvey, Green, 1993).
VADYBA / MANAGEMENT. 2006 m. Nr. 2(11) 109
A topical issue is the impact of quality assessment. If quality assessment does not have any impact then
there is no point in carrying it out. It is assumed quite intuitively that assessors assess, decision-makers are
well informed and therefore make fairer decisions as the result of assessment. It is not necessarily like that.
The assessment results could deserve no attention, their importance could be diminished, they can get lost in
the organisation; they can be used inappropriately or unwisely. Besides that the impact of assessment could be
noticed or perceived differently on the various levels of higher education.
The impact of assessment is a deceptive concept and at first this issue can create two simplified notions
that bring along activity. We can compare the development of 2 units where one of them underwent
assessment and the other did not to see whether they have developed differently. Another option is to compare
the situation within the unit before and after assessment in order to trace the development due to assessment
(Rossi, Freeman, 1989). Unfortunately higher education could not be examined in “laboratory conditions” that
could allow to research the impact of assessment separately leaving aside all other interfering factors.
Therefore such simplified approach does not work.
Quality audit of higher education investigates whether the process of activity is efficient (whether the
goals are achievable). In other words, quality audit means checking whether relevant systems and structures
within organisation support the goal of instruction. Quality audit can be internal as well as external. Quality
audit checks whether university systems function and whether documents prove that (Hernon, 2002).
Accreditation of higher education is often delegated by the government to specially formed assessment
agencies (e.g. Higher Education Accreditation Centre in Estonia) as it is also common in accreditation of
curricula (especially for specific specialties) American voluntary accreditation system that has its roots in the
US market system is unique and hardly applicable in education systems of different market systems and in
other countries (Eastern Europe, South America) where rapid increase of private education sector can be
observed. In such situations a central (government led, controlled, supported) body is created to monitor that
the private offer meets the minimum standards. The closer the central body is to the higher education sector,
the more successful the procedures are and improvement happens; especially in these cases where the
assessment agency is seen as independent of government as well as universities (like in Sweden, for example).
When the assessment agency tries to impose itself on the sector or influence it– reluctance is expressed and
trust in the process diminishes (like it happened in Britain). Generally speaking, together with the development
and improvement of agencies, they start to focus their attention on activities that stress improvement (instead
of responsibility) that in its turn bring along more influence form the side of politicians who would like the
agency to maintain or develop “their teeth” (Harvey, 2002). In case of accreditation one can pose a question
“Are we good enough to deserve approval”. Accreditation is a form of assessment that defines the status of the
higher education institution.
Quality control is a system that checks whether the produced product or offered service meets the set
standards. Quality is checked usually at the end of the production procedure and somebody from outside the
institution administers it. This approach in higher education results in the problem that the institution is
checked and the fact that everybody who is working for the institution holds responsible for the quality of the
institution (Harvey, 2002).
Conclusions
Majority of approaches towards quality in higher education described in the paper are
represented in all higher education systems but as the systems are different in different countries, one
can observe variations that are mainly connected with emphases. When in some countries the
emphasis is on quality as constant and continuous development, then other countries focus more on
setting the minimum standards. We should also bear in mind that quality in higher education is
affected by tightly interrelated factors and in order to give potentially the most adequate assessment
to quality, one has to research as many factors as possible and necessary.
REFERENCES
1. El-Khawas, E. (1998). Accreditation’s role in Quality Assurance in the United States. Higher Education Management, Vol 10, No
3.
2. Harvey, L., Green, D. (1993). Defining Quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 18.
3. Harvey, L. (1995). Editorial, Quality in Higher Education, Vol 1.
VADYBA / MANAGEMENT. 2006 m. Nr. 2(11) 111
4. Harvey, L. (1999). An Assessment of Past and Current Approaches to Quality in Higher Education. Australian Journal of
Education, Vol 43, No 3.
5. Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for What? Teaching in Higher Education, Vol 7, No 3.
6. Hernon, P. (2002). Quality: new directions in the research. Journal of Academic Liberianship, Vol 28, Issue 4.
7. Institutsionaalse kvaliteedijuhtimise Euroopa dimension. Euroopa Ülikool – strateegilise juhtimise, kvaliteedijuhtimise, Euroopa
strateegia ja akadeemilise tunnustamise institutsionaalse lähenemise käsiraamat. (2000). Koostanud Campell, C.; Kanaan, S.,
Kehn, B.; Mockiene, B.; Westerheijden, D. ja Williams, R. EC/Phare/ETF.
8. Lomas, L. (2002). Does the Development of Mass Education Necessarily Mean the End of Quality. Quality in Higher Education,
Vol 8, No 1.
9. McKay, J., Kember, D. (1999). Quality assurance systems and educational development: part 1 – the limitations of quality control.
Quality Assurance in Education. Vol 7, No 1.
10. Rossi, P., Freeman, H., (1989). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 4th edn (London, Sage).
11. Scott, C., Burns, A., Cooney, G. (1996). Reasons for Discontinuing Study: The Case of Mature Age Female Students with
Children. Higher Education, Vol 31.
12. Tam, M. (2001). Measuring Quality and Performance in Higher Education. Quality in Higher Education, Vol 7, No 1.
13. Wahlen, S. (1998). Is there a Scandinavian Model of Education of higher Education? Higher Education Management Vol 10, No
3.
14. Westerheijden, D., Kristoffersen, D., Sursoc, A. (1998). Kõrghariduse kvaliteedikindlustus. Kvaliteedikindlustuse juhend:
Metoodika ja praktika. EC/Phare/ETF.