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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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