3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATION
3.4.2 Defining quality in the context of higher education
It is impossible to find an inclusive and universally accepted definition of quality in higher education. It has been subject to ambiguous and diverse interpretations. When defining quality in higher education, it is vital to consider stakeholders such as the government, community, students and employers because each group has different perceptions of quality (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002). Therefore, the involvement of all stakeholders is essential to incorporate different needs and perspectives in defining quality and establishing a quality culture in higher education (Cullen et al., 2003).
Although there are challenges in defining quality in higher education, various definitions in the literature can be categorised as standards-driven, or stakeholder- driven. Standards-driven quality focuses on fulfilling specifications, a predefined set of standards, and requirements, or it focuses on excelling in the maximum standards in pursuit of exceptionality and excellence. Stakeholder-driven quality focuses on meeting implicit and explicit expectations of stakeholders (e.g. students and employers) or accountability to the public (Schindler et al., 2015). Accordingly, from
56
the standards-driven and stakeholder-driven perspectives, referring to Harvey and Green (1993) and other authors, the most common definitions of quality in the context of education are presented as follows.
3.4.2.1 Quality as exceptional
This view is linked to the elitist and traditional academic perspective that views quality as something exceptional and unique. It assumes quality is not achieved by all. In educational terms, it characterises excellence, passing a minimum set of standards unachievable by most, as high-level performance. Institutional services and products attain exceptionality and distinction through the accomplishment of high standards. In this view, quality is attained if it exceeds the standards, and such achievement would lead HLIs to be selected by stakeholders. This perception of quality is also helpful to select the best recognised or world-class HLIs and in the global HLI rankings (Cheng
& Tam, 1997; Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996).
3.4.2.2 Quality as consistency/perfection
This view of defining quality is similar in some respects to the conventional view of excellence. The central focus is on the process, based on given requirements that are expected to be fulfilled perfectly without any defect. In other words, the output of the product or the service is expected to fulfil all the requirements of the given specification or design, with zero error. Any divergence from the given specification or design means a decline in quality (Harvey, 2007; Harvey & Stensaker, 2008). However, this notion of defining quality is difficult to apply in higher education because, unlike the manufacturing sector, the purpose of higher education is not to produce “defect-free”
graduates (Yong & Wilkinson, 2002).
3.4.2.3 Quality as fitness for purpose
This view requires that a product or service meet thresholds and satisfies stakeholders’
needs, requirements, or desires. Quality is measured by the level of fulfilment of a stated purpose, mission or goals. This indicates that quality can be achieved as long as the envisioned mission is fulfilled, and this allows different types of HLIs to achieve quality in terms of their own categories. In this case, defining quality evaluates quality in terms of whether a service or product achieves its stated purpose. The purpose could be a list of requirements defined by customers, or the statements listed in the
57
vision, mission and goals of HLIs, or the stated aim, objective, and graduate outcome (or course objective) of a higher education programme curriculum. A course of a study can be considered acceptable quality when it satisfies the needs of particular levels of attainment or standards for the aim for which it was intended (Van Berkel & Wolfhagen, 2002). The notion of fitness for purpose can also be expressed in terms of institutional services and products when it conforms to a stated requirement, standards, or a set of specifications set by regulatory and/or accrediting bodies.
At a broader level, it could be the vision or strategic plan or qualified human resource requirements of a nation. Quality in this perspective is relative to particular needs, activities, services or products and is judged on whether it effectively serves or meets the purpose of the user/customer (Yong & Wilkinson, 2002; Harvey & Knight, 1996;
Harvey & Green, 1993). The assumption of defining quality as fitness for purpose emphasises the dynamic nature of quality to respond to changes in the work environment.
3.4.2.4 Quality as value for money
The perception of this definition focuses on the output per input ratio, with the aim of gaining more efficiency. The notion of accountability is the key determinant factor in the value for money perspective of quality in education. Quality is described in terms of prices or costs invested in the product or service. Based on the value for money definition, a quality product or service is one that provides for and fulfils the requirements at an acceptable cost or price. Value for money is also related to the notion of efficiency and effectiveness in the utilisation of management, time and resources. The value for money definition of quality perceives quality in terms of return on expenditure or investment. Quality is attained when a better or higher result can be attained at the same price, or if the price can be decreased while the outcome level is maintained (Harvey & Green, 1993; Yong & Wilkinson, 2002).
3.4.2.5 Quality as transformative
In the perspective of education, transformation means adding value to students’ or researchers’ knowledge to enhance their level of thinking and trait. Moreover, it is about empowering them to be reflective, critical thinkers, innovators and lifelong learners (Harvey, 2007). Institutional services and products achieve constructive
58
change in student learning (psychomotor domains, cognitive, and affective) and professional and personal potential (Green, 1994; Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey &
Knight, 1996; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002).
According to Lomas (2001), transformation and fitness for purpose appear to be the two most fitting definitions of quality in HLIs. However, Harvey (2002) suggests that, in an era of mass higher education, the value-added transformation has become the preferable concept in comparison to the other definitions of quality in higher education.
Carmichael, Palermo, Reeve and Valence (2001) and Tam (2002) support the idea of quality as transformation, since giving more attention to the assurance of a student’s quality learning is central in the education reforms and is viewed as a fundamental principle of quality effort. In the case of Ethiopia, ‘”fitness for purpose” is adopted as a guiding definition of quality in higher education by the ETA (HERQA, 2006).
3.4.2.6 Quality as conformance to standards
This view originates from the manufacturing quality control approach. Standard refers to expectations of customers or predetermined specifications, and if an institution meets these standards or expectations, it can be regarded as a quality institution fit for a specified status. This approach is mostly applied by regulatory bodies to provide recognition for a particular status, approval to start programmes, or for funding based on the context. Quality is also considered as fulfilling threshold requirements. This notion of quality often outlines the basis for accreditation decisions (Woodhouse, 1999). Aksu (2018:31) asserts that ‘‘accredited institutions and programmes are considered to be higher quality than those non-accredited’’.
In conclusion, it can be considered that all of these definitions of quality are valid; it is also possible to add more to the list. Quality in higher education is considered to be the central factor that gives assurance to all stockholders, and it is highly associated with the existence of effective quality assurance practice. Even though quality is a vague concept with multiple definitions, one must know what quality is before it can be assessed and then assured. The policy and quality assurance system adopted in a particular higher education scheme depends on the approach to defining quality.
Therefore, HLIs need to define quality based on their customers’ needs and must be able to systematically assess and provide tangible evidence to support the assertion
59
of quality. The meaning of quality also needs adjustment with respect to the changing nature of higher education across time and context.