Search

Among pioneering European countries who started to establish a formal higher education quality assurance system in the 1980s, the Netherlands adopted one based on peer review and quality enhancement, which was replaced in 2003 by an accountability-oriented accreditation system under the substantial influence of the Bologna Process. Recently, the emphasis is being put on institutional audit to restore a culture of quality within higher education institutions. This article addresses the question of what the higher education worldwide can learn from the evolution of Dutch quality assurance policy concerning control, the balance between accountability and quality improvement and trust. Finally, recent adaptations to the current, third, round of accreditation are also addressed in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout Latin America there is evidence of policy change reflecting greater emphasis on quality assurance within higher education institutions and programs. Focusing principally on indicators such as adoption of laws and creation of regulatory agencies, prior studies have emphasized the similarities across countries. Given the stark contrasts in political ideologies among Latin American countries one might wonder if policy change in the realm of higher education quality assurance manifests differently in countries with different ideologies. Using discourse analysis, evidence is found to support theories which would predict differences between the neoliberal and externally focused orientation in Colombia and the more leftist and internally focused Plan de Buen Vivir in Ecuador. Our findings indicate the importance of examining more qualitative elements of policy discourse as one measure of policy change and not relying solely on concrete quantitative indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality assurance in modern higher education is both an accountability-oriented ideology and a technological method. It has also evolved into a increasingly rationalist and professionalized power mechanism. Its advocacy of compliance, technological mythology, and imbalance between power and responsibility are inherent disadvantages of higher education quality assurance at present. To sustainably improve higher education quality, the current concern must change from quality assurance to quality culture. We should reflect on and innovate the traditional quality assurance in higher education. At the same time, it is necessary to build a holistic quality culture among various stakeholders based on mutual trust and a social contract. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education’s Guidelines of Good Practice by higher education quality assurance agencies need substantial revision before they can be considered adequate by stakeholders in any national higher education system. Various revisions are proposed in this article. But the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education also argues that adoption of its Guidelines of Good Practice has international significance in that the decisions about higher education quality made by agencies which comply with them can be accepted at face value universally. This conclusion, however, cannot be accepted until the Guidelines of Good Practice are amended to address the processes whereby each agency can become comfortable with the criteria and standards which the others impose in their respective jurisdictions. This article also maintains that, even if the Guidelines of Good Practice were technically perfect, agencies and/or governments ought to subject any proposals for their implementation to the discipline of rigorous risk management processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review of the performance of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) was undertaken in 2005-2006. It was commissioned by AUQA and the review report was published in May 2006. This article explores whether the AUQA review can be regarded internationally as an exemplar and thus used with confidence by governments or other principals as a reliable means of measuring higher education quality assurance agency performance. It pays particular attention to the method of analysis employed by the review team. The article argues that the AUQA review was flawed, in this and other respects, to a degree which renders it inadequate as a global exemplar. Its conclusions must thus be treated with caution by higher education policy-makers, departments of state, universities, businesses, students and other institutions in Australia and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]