Assessing quality of academic programmes: comparing different sets of standards

Abstract

Purpose

Standards should provide a means for transparently comparing academic programmes delivered by higher education providers and the research activities they carry out. The purpose of this study is to investigate the different sets of standards related to the quality assurance of academic programmes in four countries with regard to the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG), developed by the European Association for Quality Assurance, for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions. The main aim is to find the convergence and divergence points and to test the consistency of terminologies in use which may impede international collaboration to develop one comprehensive international quality assurance system.

Design/methodology/approach

The study relied solely on desk-based research and no fieldwork or interviews were conducted for data collection; a point-by-point comparative approach has been applied to explore the standards related to quality assurance of academic programmes.

Findings

Although there is a great deal of convergence between the different sets of standards compared in this study, fundamental differences still exist.

Research limitations/implications

This study compared the standards of academic programmes in four countries with the ESG. To generalise the findings of this study, future research may include other standards for comparison.

Originality/value

This study engages in the debate of how quality of higher education will remain maintained, in times, when higher education is facing challenges such as internationalisation, which requires new initiatives and integrated mechanisms to facilitate mutual recognition of qualifications of students and staff moving across borders.

Citation

Ali, S.A.B., Ahmad, M.N., Zakaria, N.H., Arbab, A.M. and Badr, K.B.A. (2018), "Assessing quality of academic programmes: comparing different sets of standards", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-09-2016-0051