Keynote presentation at the Conference of the Japanese Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (JAQAHE) on 27 October 2011 in Tokyo

1. Internal Quality Assurance in
Universities: Academic Self-
Regulation in a Context of Increasing
Accountability in Higher Education
Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme
Head of the Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation – OECD
Presentation at the JAQAHE Conference – Tokyo, 27 October 2011

2. Outline
1. The old ideal of academic self-regulation
2. External quality assurance
3. The concept of quality:
definitions, dimensions, categories
4. Internal quality assurance and ‘quality culture’
5. Threats, risks and challenges to quality culture
6. Conclusions
2

3. 1.
ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION
3

4. The old ideal
• Quality is not a new concept in academia, but
was a purpose of the academic community from
the first days of the modern university
• Quality was an integral part of the academic
community’s quest for truth and the higher good
• Quality was supported and controlled by an
informal process of self-regulation in the
community based on informal peer-review
• Hence, quality is an integrative part of the
academic core value system.
4

5. Erosion of academic self-regulation
• Several factors contributed to the erosion of
academic self-regulation and the
‘externalisation’ of quality:
– Institutionalisation of universities
– Massification and fear for decline of quality
– Role of the state in higher education
– Increasing public demand for transparency and
accountability
– Liberalisation and marketisation
• The consequence was a loss of public trust in
academic self-regulation
5

6. 2.
EXTERNAL QUALITY
ASSURANCE
6

7. External quality assurance
• The consequence was the emergence of external
quality assurance systems, in most cases based
on explicit mechanisms of peer review
• The emergence of external quality assurance
essentially was a renegotiation in the power field
of the triangle of academia, the state and the
market
• Where powers gradually shifted from academia
to the state and the market
7

8. State
Licensing/
Recognition
External quality
assurance/Accreditation
Internal
quality ranking
assurance
Academia (Intl) Market
8

9. 3.
THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY
9

10. The concept of quality
• Alternative – often conflicting – definitions:
– Quality as ‘standards’
– Quality as ‘perfection’ or ‘excellence’
– Quality as ‘fitness for purpose’ (recognising
different purposes and missions)
– Quality as ‘value for money’ (stakeholders’ view
on return on investment)
– Quality as ‘transformation’ or ‘change’
(Harvey)
10

11. The concept of quality
• Two dimensions:
– low versus high
– absolute standards versus (externally/internally)
relative
• Four approaches
– excellence standards
– fitness for purpose
– basic standards
– consumer satisfaction
11

12. Definitions of quality
high
excellence
standards
fitness for consumer
internally purpose absolute satisfaction
externally
relative relative
basic
standards
low
12

13. Definitions and measurements
• Different definitions of quality are linked to
different measurements or assessments:
– Basic standards: external
review, benchmarking, accreditation
– Excellence: peer
review, reputation, benchmarking
– Fitness for purpose: auditing processes
– Consumer satisfaction: performance
assessment, stakeholders review
13

14. Categories of assessment
• Quality assessment typically focus on the
following categories, which can get more
emphasis in different definitions:
– Input: resources invested
– Process: the way to achieve objectives
– Output: results, achievements
– Feedback: institutional mechanisms in place to
monitor and improve
• Each can have its specific standards and
indicators, and different assessment methods
14

15. 15

16. Quality: shifting concepts
• Quality is a multi-dimensional concept with
changing definitions over time and place
• Any particular definition of quality at a given
time-space configuration is function of
interaction of dimensions and categories of
quality
• Importance of social, economic, political and
cultural context
• There is no single, absolute definition of quality!
16

17. 4.
INTERNAL QA AND ‘QUALITY
CULTURE’
17

18. Internal quality assurance
• Internal and external quality assurance are not
to be seen as opposite or conflicting approaches
– External quality assessments always start with an
internal self-assessment
– Most quality assessments still rely on the use of
peer review
• In many quality assurance systems there is a
shift towards quality audits, where not quality as
such is assessed, but the institution’s capacity to
monitor, assess and improve quality itself
18

19. Quality culture
• An institutional quality culture includes:
– A transparent and active commitment to quality at all levels
– A willingness to engage in critical self-evaluation
– An internal regulatory framework with clear and consistent
procedures
– Explicit and clearly assigned responsibilities for quality
control and assessment
– A drive to obtain feedback from a variety of internal and
external constituencies
– A clear commitment to identify and disseminate good
practice
– Prompt, appropriate, and sensitive managerial action to
redress problems, supported by adequate information
19

20. Internal and external
• Internal and external dimensions of quality
assurance should work together:
– External QA should support and encourage
institutional quality culture
– ‘Internalisation’ of quality assurance: self-
regulation of the academic community in semi-
autonomous institutional environments
– ‘Externalisation’ of quality assurance:
transparency and critical dialogue with
stakeholders and society
20

21. 5.
THREATS, RISKS AND
CHALLENGES
21

22. Threats to quality culture
• ‘Reputation race’, rankings and superficial
quality perception
• ‘Mission overload’: institutions trying to do
everything and do nothing well
• Very intrusive external quality assurance
• Internal tolerance for low quality
• Excessive competition, undermining academic
self-regulation and collaboration
• Over-demanding and over-critical consumers
• Lack of society’s respect for academia
22

23. Challenges for quality culture
• QA became situated at the crossroads of the main
rationales defining the HE arena, each defining
its dimension of quality
– Public policy rationale:
efficiency, rationalisation, access, relevance, produ
ctivity
– Institutional rationale:
autonomy, expansion, cohesion, market
share, revenue generation
– Market rationale: rankings, reputation race and
competition, world-class status
– Academic rationale: academic freedom, flexible 23
networks, research driven, scientific quality

24. Balancing rationales
Quality Assurance - intended
Public policy
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Institutional
Academia 0
autonomy
Market
24

25. Balancing rationales
Quality Assurance - intended Quality Assurance - realised
Public policy
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Institutional
Academia 0
autonomy
Market
25

26. Risks
• Instead of becoming a tool of transparency and
public trust in a system supported by
academia, QA risks to be captured in a deadlock
between
– Governments looking to increase their capacity to
intervene and regulate
– Institutions frustrated in their desire for
autonomy
– Market forces interested in reputation and
resisting real transparency
– Academia distrusting the added-value of
evaluation 26

27. Overcoming risks
• Governments, while protecting public policy
interests, should respect institutional autonomy
and develop trust in the capacity of the academic
community to realise quality
• Institutions should create favourable
conditions for high quality teaching, research
and service to the community, and should define
their own mission
27

28. Overcoming risks
• Markets should focus more on the real
contributions of higher education and less on
meaningless competition over perception and
reputation
• Academic community should see critical
evaluation as the road to scientific progress and
quality, and as part of the core value system of
the academic tradition
28

29. 6.
CONCLUSIONS
29

30. Conclusions
• Well-performing higher education systems need
to balance internal and external quality assurance
• Academic quality needs to be based on genuine
self-regulation, with internal and external
feedback
• Institutions need to invest in strong quality
culture, aimed at their institutional mission
• Evidence-based transparency is necessary
• Critical evaluation and self-evaluation is part of
the academic value-system!
30

31. Thank you !
dirk.vandamme@oecd.org
www.oecd.org/edu/ceri
31