Editorial

Citation

Dalrymple, J. (2007), "Editorial", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae.2007.12015daa.001

Editorial

The search for quality in modern higher education spans a variety of approaches and encompasses both the macroscopic and microscopic views of the institution and its endeavours. The external stimuli involving national quality agencies are accompanied by internal activity to seek out what works and why. In the early stages of the introduction of quality management thinking in the education sector, there was a perception that education was “different” and approaches that were derived from external business enterprise-oriented sources were inappropriate. It is, perhaps, a sign that the absorption of quality management thinking into the education sector has reached a mature phase when we see the approaches derived from other sectors being applied in the education sector. The early developments were, perhaps, a little off-putting because of the language. For example, the Australian Business Excellence Framework and the EFQM Business Excellence Model looked as if they might be a poor match for the education sector. Likewise, the early focus on “assurance” rather than “improvement” was less attractive than it might have been. It is interesting, therefore, that we have papers in this issue that address some of these fundamental challenges. The first paper examines the EFQM Excellence Model in the context of higher education, while the second paper focuses on the academic staff and their perceptions of quality. The second pair of papers looks at assessment, firstly relating to theses in the action research field, and secondly in the controversial area of competence. The contributions in this issue span a significant range of the pressing issues in modern considerations of quality in education.

In the opening article, John Davies, Alex Douglas and Jacqueline Douglas explore the effect of academic culture on the implementation of the European Foundation for Quality Management’s (EFQM) Excellence Model in United Kingdom (UK) universities. A literature review reveals several aspects, which collectively define the academic culture in UK universities. These aspects are explored in four case studies of the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities. It was found that certain of these aspects had a good “cultural fit” with the EFQM Excellence Model and its underpinning concepts, and others acted as cultural barriers to the implementation of the model.

In the following article Laurie Lomas attempts to deepen the understanding of university lecturers’ perceptions of quality. The use of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a random sample of 20 lecturers in a range of United Kingdom universities form the basis of data which was categorised using the constant comparative method. The majority of the respondents perceived quality to be largely related to fitness for purpose and accountability rather than transformation. Many respondents made reference to quality assurance or terms associated with it. On the other hand, very few respondents referred to quality enhancement or associated terms. The research would suggest that enhancement activities in universities need to be developed further and then highlighted as the respondents in this small sample perceived quality to be more about assurance than enhancement.

In the next article, Ortrun Zuber-Skerrit and Margaret Fletcher identify the quality characteristics of critical action research and action research theses compared to traditional research thesis writing. Drawing on the literature and their experience with supervising and examining action research theses, they identify key problem areas in the literature and suggest effective strategies for meeting these challenges, and avoiding pitfalls through reflective practice and questioning insight. They include sets of crucial questions for higher degree students to address. They present definitions of and checklists for quality action research, a quality thesis, and a quality action research thesis.

In the next article Effie Maclellan raises the question: what is a competent “competence standard”? Using the UK’s recent disability legislation as a trigger, the paper explores issues in evidencing competence in the current context of using assessment as a tool for learning. A modified version of a pragmatic method is used in which assessment theory is utilised to explore the tension in assessment, which is both legislatively compliant and theoretically coherent. Based on this the author finds that in the current context of requiring assessment to be edumetrically sound, the legislation of competence standards is problematic in a number of respects: its validity is essentially concerned with formative assessment; this is considered pedagogically important but, politically, is of less significance than summative assessment.

In the following book review section, Peter Ling looks at the book edited by Ronald Barnett entitled Reshaping the University: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. The reviewer finds that, true to its bold title, the book can make a claim to addressing the fundamental activities of the contemporary university, to critiquing its operations, and to proposing some alternative arrangements. The book indeed does convey the possibilities and challenges in reshaping the university, but does not provide prescriptions for good practice. It does suggest some vital elements in inter-relating the key functions of universities. For successful leadership of universities this requires a substantial commitment, rather than a rhetorical mention of some sort of nexus between teaching and research in strategic plans.

In the final book review section, Alistair Inglis takes up the book Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies, edited by David Hung and M.S. Kline. The reviewer finds the book to contain many thought-provoking ideas, and breaks new ground in linking the application of information and communications technologies in education directly to the theory of learner engagement. But the difficulty experienced seems to be in engaging with the ideas presented in the volume as the structure of the book fails to support some of the principles that the authors advocate. The chapters don’t seem to follow any logical sequence. The reviewer notes this as a frustrating aspect of the book as it does not sufficiently take into account the reader’s context.

Finally, the team hopes that the articles included for your consideration in this issue will provide inspiration for reflection, individually and collectively, to review some of the perspectives on and practices for quality in education.

John DalrympleFor the Editorial Team