Role of Universities in Quality Assurance Quality Culture Project

1
Role of Universities in Quality
AssuranceQuality Culture Project

• OAQ-CRUS Conference
• Internal quality assurance at higher education
  institutions
• requirements and good practices 
• Bern, 2 December 2005

2
Structure of the presentation

• Aims of the project
• QC Philosophy
• QC Method
• Results in terms of
• Processes
• Actors
• Structures
• Success factors
• Impact

3
Quality Culture Project Aims

• Increase awareness of the need to develop an
  internal quality culture in universities in order
  to
• Improve quality levels, without stifling
  diversity and innovation
• Strengthen institutional autonomy
• Promote non-intrusive external QA procedures,
  i.e., institutional audit

4
The Project title A signpost of a philosophy
and a method

• A carefully chosen title
• Quality culture vs. Quality control or Quality
  management
• To indicate
• The importance of a change in attitude and
  behaviour within the institutions
• The importance of a grass-root development of
  quality rather than a top-down approach

5
Central philosophical tenet Quality is contextual

• An institution must develop quality measures that
  are congruent with its internal environment
• An institution must develop quality measures that
  are congruent with its external environment
• An institution must take into account the time
  vector e.g., quality champions might be useful
  at the beginning of the internal quality
  developments but not necessarily later

6
Method key features

• Six small networks
• Institutional self-evaluation based on SWOTs
• Interactive and geared at participants concerns
• Attentive to cultural aspects and change
  engineering process
• Engaging the whole institution at key phases of
  the project
• Results in action plans tailored to specific
  institutions no single recipe approach

7
Results Process

• The exceptionalism of higher education
  institutions
• The challenge then is two-fold
• To systematise standards and operations across an
  institution while taking into account the
  professional concentration of expertise at the
  grass roots.
• To develop a set of standards in line with the
  institutional mission, without stifling
  individual initiatives and departmental
  diversity.

8
Results Process

• To meet these two challenges, it is essential to
• Engage the whole community including students
  and administrative staff who are often forgotten
  in a process of reflection about missions and
  goals
• Develop a communication strategy that combines
  top-down, bottom up and horizontal communication
  channels, written documents and formal and
  informal meetings

9
Results Process

• Identify and empower quality culture champions
  to contribute to the development and
  implementation of a quality culture strategy
• Create teams across the institution in order to
  ensure cross-fertilisation
• Address the issue of fears by developing a
  coherent staff development scheme
• Support the development of an effective quality
  culture with appropriate human and financial
  resources

10
Results Actors

• The rectoral team will
• agree an overarching quality framework,
  structures and procedures
• agree a process to integrate results of the
  internal quality monitoring into the strategic
  planning in order to ensure their long-term
  effect
• ensure the wide engagement of the community and
  its commitment to the quality framework.

11
Results Actors

• Institutions that are beginning the process of
  developing an internal quality culture, may want
  to appoint quality champions who will
• report directly (or be part of) the senior
  rectoral team
• explain to academic staff that academic freedom
  can only be supported by a vigorous and
  responsible institutional autonomy

12
Results Actors

• Financial officers at the central and faculty
  levels will be involved in this process, which
  needs to be resourced adequately.
• Human resource officers will be involved in the
  change process to ensure that they develop
  overarching and coherent staff development
  schemes that will equip academic and
  administrative staff members to cope with new
  institutional requirements.

13
Results Actors

• Students play a key role in embedding quality
  through
• their regular evaluation of teaching
• their involvement in student support services
  (e.g., as tutors and peer advisors)
• their involvement in appropriate decision-making
  bodies. They will require training in order to
  fulfil this role effectively.

14
Results Actors

• External stakeholders will contribute a different
  and useful perspective on the institution, serve
  as a reality check and enrich the debate.
• The rectoral team will
• identify the appropriate stakeholders and their
  role in the change process
• ensure that the rest of the academic community
  understands the needs and benefits for
  establishing such relationships.

15
Results Five Structures

• All structures are centrally located thus
  reflecting a trend away from decentralised
  institutions and report to the rectoral level.
• Quality unit for teaching and learning. These
  units work best when
• their staff expertise is solid and credible,
• their approach is advisory rather than required,
• orientated toward improvement rather than control.

16
Results Five Structures

• Office of institutional research and information
  to serve in a supporting role for institutional
  planning. It collects and analyses data points
  that enable the institution to monitor actively
  areas of strengths and weaknesses.
• An international office,
• positioned strategically to bring together the
  different missions of universities (research,
  teaching and service to society),
• works closely with the rectoral team,
• involves the academic community.

17
Results Five structures

• Research management office responsible for
  setting research priorities, allocating
  resources, developing partnerships and strategic
  alliances, providing legal support (e.g., for
  intellectual property issues), managing research
  staff careers and monitoring quality.
• Integrated and comprehensive students support
  services that view students holistically and take
  into account their academic needs as well as
  their mental and physical well-being.

18
Results Success factors

• The networks identified the following success
  factors
• The success of the first steps in introducing a
  quality culture is essential for an effective
  development along that path
• The importance of institutional governance and
  community building (vs. management) for an
  effective quality culture
• The importance of strategic thinking, based on an
  appropriate institutional analysis (SWOT or
  similar analytical instruments)

19
Results Success factors

• The integral causal link between strong
  institutional autonomy and the effective
  development of a quality culture
• The link between quality development and
  appropriate financial and human resources,
  including staff development schemes
• Avoid the bureaucratisation of QC (i.e., proper
  staffing of QC unit and staff rotation)

20
Impact

• The project had an impact on
• On participating institutions through their
  individual action plan
• On the European QA Community An increased
  recognition that quality culture is key to
  improving quality levels
• On Berlin and Bergen Communiqués Ministers
  recognised that the primary responsibility for
  QA in HE lies with each institution itself

21
Next steps

• QA Forum
• Creativity Project