4.3 Results of the Study
4.3.6 Building a More Effective ERM Framework in UAE HEIs
iii) Summary
Analysis of HEI 3’s available risk management-related documents showed a clear absence of interrelatedness between the major concepts defended by the researcher under this study, that is, ERM, risk management, institutional effectiveness and QA. In all cases, the Institutional Effectiveness document makes clear reference to QA under its “Structures” section. The document defines exactly how the QA process must be implemented and executed, as well as defining who is responsible for each step.
However, the Risk Management Policy does not make a reference to QA being one of the integrated processes in ERM, or one of the potential outcomes.
One of the affected parameters of the Institutional Effectiveness QA process is “Accreditation activities”.
However, the risk-based approach mandated by the CAA Standards for SIL, and SPA is not reflected in this QA process, and therefore no clear link can be made by the researcher between ERM or risk management implementation on the one hand, and QA and institutional effectiveness on the other. As concluded in the previous HEI 1 document analysis, the researcher investigated this gap in the interview questions, and when presenting and recommending a set of enhanced guidelines for ERM implementation in UAE HEIs. Some of the themes emerging from this HEI document analysis, as well as the others, will be revisited and analysed more comprehensively in the interview data analysis.
4.3.6 Building a More Effective ERM Framework in UAE HEIs
2. Exploring the current status of ERM policies and practices in UAE HEIs; and
3. Proposing a set of workable guidelines for more effective ERM framework for UAE HEIs in relation to effective ERM implementation in the UAE higher education context.
To better achieve the main aim and objectives of the study, some of the interview questions (Q1 to Q3) were revised and modified slightly throughout the process of the quantitative data collection and analysis, where some of the perceptions of the academic administrators and faculty members of ERM effectiveness in their HEIs began to emerge. For example, Interview Q1 “What quality assurance (QA) or risk management approach is adopted in your institution?” was changed from “What risk management policy is adopted in your institution?” Some of the quantitative phase answers indicated the absence of clear risk management policies in some HEIs and for that reason the question was modified to include “quality assurance” as a more general concept that is guaranteed to be used by the selected HEIs in the UAE. The same applies for Interview Q2 and Q3 where QA was added as a general and guaranteed corporate concept. However, the answers to the interview questions specifically aided the discussion of the findings related to RQ3. In a sense, this section covers the results of the semi-structured interviews conducted by the researcher with five major respondents conveniently and yet purposefully chosen from the selected UAE HEIs based on the criteria set out in the Methodology chapter.
The semi-structured interviews conducted by the researcher targeted five major or key respondents, referred to as the “Interview Participants”, coded as IP1, IP2, IP3, IP4 and IP5, and generally referred to as the IPs. These respondents, as stated in the Methodology chapter, were selected conveniently based on their areas of expertise and professional tasks in relation to ERM (risk management and institutional effectiveness). Table 4.39 provides a brief profile description of the selected IPs.
Table 4.39 – IPs’ Demographic Profiles
No. Institution Participant Qualification & Job Title Public/Private Experience 1. HEI 1 IP1 PhD in Engineering – Head of
Academic Effectiveness
Private 18 years 2. HEI 2 IP2 PhD in Education – Senior
Manager (Institutional Research)
Public 7 years
3. HEI 3 IP3 Bachelor of Arts in Executive MBA (Head of Quality, Health, Safety and Environment (QHSE) and Integrated Management Systems)
Public 10 years
4. HEI 4 IP4 PhD in Business Management – Head of Administration
Private 15 years
5. HEI 5 IP5 PhD in Quality Assurance, Business Management (BM) – Head of Quality Assurance and Academic Effectiveness
Private 12 years
The design of the questions for the semi-structured interview was opted for in order to enable the researcher to elaborate on and refine the responses more expressly. A consent form together with a detailed interview schedule were sent to the respondents by email for them to read and sign. Some interviews included an elaborated consent form completed digitally during the interviews, where the respondents recorded their consent to answer the questions already shared by the researcher. Several methods were used by the researcher to capture the responses, which included web-based video and audio meeting applications (Zoom and Microsoft Teams), digital recording using mobile phone recording features, and note-taking, which were all used to save the responses in their full length for the interactive data analysis model of coding and subsequent analysis. Later, the researcher made use of the NVivo application software (Version 12) to keep track of all the transcripts and responses, summarise them and put them in diagrams and tables based on different categories of codes. Colour-coded charts and visual aids such as NVivo generated Tree-maps, Sunbursts and Word Clouds (See Figures 4.10 to 4.13) were also employed by the researcher with the aid of NVivo to provide a visually clear representation of the themes and the sub-themes that emerged from the interview coding data analysis. Eventually, the researcher grouped all the themes into major categories in a table and highlighted the important quotes around them in terms of the emerging themes. For each Interview, the researcher fed different entries to the NVivo coding based on the major themes of each of the ten interview questions.
The following Figures are examples of Tree-maps and Word Clouds of the major ten codes elicited from the transcript of IP1 of HEI 1: