This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 27 August 2014, At: 15:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20

Quality Management in Higher

Education: Towards a Better
Understanding of an Emerging Field
a a
Halina Pratasavitskaya & Bj⊘rn Stensaker
a
University of Oslo , Norway
Published online: 14 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Halina Pratasavitskaya & Bj⊘rn Stensaker (2010) Quality Management in Higher
Education: Towards a Better Understanding of an Emerging Field, Quality in Higher Education, 16:1,
37-50, DOI: 10.1080/13538321003679465

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679465

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, April 2010

Quality Management in Higher

Education: Towards a Better
Understanding of an
Emerging Field
HALINA PRATASAVITSKAYA & BJØRN STENSAKER*
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

University of Oslo, Norway

bjorn.stensaker@nifustep.no
Quality
10.1080/13538321003679465
CQHE_A_468468.sgm
1353-8332
Original
Taylor
102010
16
BjørnStensaker
00000April
and
&inArticle
Francis
Higher
(print)/1470-1081
Francis
2010Education (online)

ABSTRACT The article analyses how quality management is understood in higher education
research. By reviewing a number of academic contributions addressing quality management issues in
Quality in Higher Education from 1995–2008, the article identifies central concepts associated
with quality management, discusses whether there are commonalities to be found in how the field of
research addresses quality management issues, and provides some clarifications as to the developmen-
tal potentials in this area. The article shows that research in the field of quality management can be
characterised as conceptually heterogeneous and multidisciplinary, although the contributions in the
field also share a number of similarities. In the conclusion an argument is made for more joint and
comparative research in this area.

Keywords: quality management; governance; quality systems; higher education

Introduction
Following national requirements or voluntary adaptation, many higher education institu-
tions throughout the world have implemented or are in the process of creating their own
quality management (QM) systems, with the aim of securing and improving teaching and
learning. For those institutions that want to establish a QM system, various theoretical and
conceptual approaches exist offering solutions for those that may be interested in using
these as ideals, blueprints or inspiration in the implementation process.
While there has been considerable interest in issues concerning how quality could be
defined (Harvey & Green, 1993), in the design and relevance of various national quality
assurance schemes in higher education (Westerheijden et al., 1994; Schwarz & Westerheijden,
2004) and also much interest in the outcomes and effects of such quality assurance processes
throughout the world (Stensaker, 2008), analysis of models or approaches of quality

*Corresponding author. Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo, Box 1092, Blindern, 0317
Oslo, Norway. Email: bjorn.stensaker@ nifustep.no

ISSN 1353-8322 print; 1470-1081 online/10/010037-14 © 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13538321003679465
http://www.informaworld.com
 38 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

assurance at the institutional level is more rarely addressed. In one of the few articles trying
to sum up research on quality management at the institutional level, Brookes and Becket
(2007), point out that the introduction of quality-management concepts in higher education
is mainly an externally driven process related to increased demands for accountability and
efficiency in the sector. They also found that much attention has been given to quality
management models developed for business and industry, and that there is a concern that
such models may add little to the improvement of teaching and learning, although they
might have advantages for improving accountability.
This situation is unfortunate, especially since quality management, at least theoretically,
can have potential academic benefits; for example, with respect to identifying available
options higher education institutions may choose from in order to respond to increasing
external pressures for demonstrating academic output, and that quality assurance also
needs to demonstrate its ability to develop as a field of knowledge (Westerheijden, 1999).
Hence, as Harvey argues (1995), it is necessary to move beyond debates about whether
quality management is relevant for higher education, by having less focus on the label and
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

by paying more attention to the content and substance of such concepts.

Studies on quality management and how such concepts are understood and implemented
are important in that they may provide a better understanding of higher education as a field
of research (Tight, 2004). Still, this article is not meant as a comprehensive empirical review
of quality management per se. The ambition is rather to initiate a more reflective process on
what may be potentials and problems in the research conducted based on a sample of arti-
cles published in Quality in Higher Education in the period 1995–2008. Although this may
seem a rather narrow empirical approach, the choice can be supported by the fact that the
journal is one of very few specialised journals in this area having a clear international orien-
tation. In this way, the empirical data cover a key source in the research on quality manage-
ment, while attention is also given to geographical and system diversity. On this basis the
aim of this article is to:

• identify possible approaches to quality management;

• discuss whether and how different approaches share similarities as to how quality
management is perceived;
• suggest possible areas for development with respect to research on quality management.

What is quality management and how can it be analysed?

With more attention being paid to the quality of higher education, quality has also increas-
ingly been seen as something that can and should be managed and improved (Seymour,
1992). Historically, one could argue that quality management in higher education had
already been introduced during the 1980s, and in the beginning of the 1990s the idea of
applying the popular industrial quality models—such as Total Quality Management
(TQM), aiming at customers’ satisfaction—to the higher education area was also quite wide-
spread. TQM can be considered as the first quality-management model in higher education
that caused a lot of discussions about potential relevance for the sector, as well as its educa-
tional and social implications (Stensaker, 2007). Although there have been some studies
showing certain positive changes in several areas of institutional activities, such as
improved enrolment, retention and internal institutional environment (Freed & Klugman,
1997), other authors argue that TQM failed with respect to higher education. For example, a
survey of 469 higher education institutions in the USA (Birnbaum & Deshotels, 1999)
 Quality Management in Higher Education 39

concluded that the adoption of TQM in higher education was both a myth and illusion.
However, as Birnbaum (2000, p. 104) later pointed out: ‘TQM was sound; it was the imple-
mentation that was at fault’. Among the reasons for unsuccessful implementation of TQM
in higher education institutions, Seymour (1991) mentioned the resistance to change; an
insufficient administrative commitment; a high time investment due to personal training;
the difficulty of application of TQM tools to the higher education institutions’ environment;
little experience of team leaders and staff in working as a team; and the concern of the insti-
tutions about the results being not sufficient enough. The ISO 9001:2000 and the excellence
models (EFQM) are also among the popular industry-originated models that have been
applied to higher education. Still, Csizmadia (2006, p. 61) argued that the ISO approach
entails too general a view of the ‘production process’ of higher education. Hence, after the
first wave of attempts to copy private-sector models in higher education, more attention has
been devoted to the development of quality management models that would take into
consideration the specific characteristics of higher education institutions (Harvey, 1995).
Of course, the question then is how to identify an approach as quality management if it is
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

not labelled as TQM or other well-known private sector models? Three more general
descriptions can still be identified. First, the term ‘quality management’ is in general a term
that encompasses policies, concepts, approaches, ideas, systems and processes designed for
ensuring the systematic maintenance and enhancement of quality within an institution
(Csizmadia, 2006, p. 24). In other words, quality management covers both process and
structure, and is seen as comprehensive. Second, quality management can have multiple
purposes (Trow, 1994). Quality management can be seen both as techniques and instru-
ments used to improve the quality directly and also as establishing operating mechanisms
through making the activities of institutions more accountable, transparent and efficient.
Still, even if the area covered by quality management may vary, empirical studies have
shown that most attention has been put on establishing systems and procedures targeting
teaching and learning issues (Stensaker, 2003). Third, and related to the other two issues,
quality management is tightly linked to institutional decision-making processes, being a
‘more general term to describe the total process of judgement, decision and action’ (Brennan
& Shah, 2000, p. 5).
Brennan and Shah (2000, p. 14) also provide a framework as to how one could categorise
quality-management models. According to them, the choice of an approach to quality
management, as well as quality assessment depends on ‘quality values’ and ‘conceptions
about what constitutes high quality in higher education’. Furthermore, they also differentiate
between four main types of quality values stressing different focuses in approaches to qual-
ity management. These are academic, managerial, pedagogic and employment focus (Table 1). In
the first approach (‘academic’) the focus is on the subject field, which is associated with
professorial authority and where the academic values are of great importance. ‘Conceptions
of quality are based on subject affiliation and vary across the institution, which has limited
scope to define and assess quality’ (Brennan & Shah, 2000, p. 14). In essence, a quality-
management system should be decentralised, focusing on disciplinary characteristics and
applying different quality standards. The managerial type has institutional policies and
procedures as the main focus of assessment, underlying good management practices as the
key factor of quality production. The characteristics of quality are considered as being
‘invariant’ across the institution (Brennan & Shah, 2000, p. 14). Here, centralisation is seen as
an essential characteristic of a quality-management system, along with the coupling to
institutional strategies and more coherent quality standards. The third type, described as
‘pedagogic’, focuses on people and pedagogical aspects of the process, i.e. teaching skills and
 40 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

TABLE 1. Possible categorisations of quality-management approaches

Type 1 Subject focus—knowledge and curricula

‘Academic’ Professorial authority
Quality values vary across institutions
Type 2 Institutional focus—policies and procedures
‘Managerial’ Managerial authority
Quality values invariant across institutions
Type 3 People focus—skills and competencies
‘Pedagogic’ Staff developers/educationalist influence
Quality values invariant across institutions
Type 4 Output focus—graduate standards/learning outcomes
‘Employment focus’ Employment/professional authority
Quality values both variant and invariant across institutions

(Source: Brennan & Shah, 2000, p. 14)

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

methods, staff training and development. The characteristics of quality are regarded as
invariant across the whole institution. Unlike the first type, a lot of attention is paid here to
a more standardised delivery process rather than the content of education. The ‘employ-
ment-focus’ approach focuses on learning outcomes, standards and output characteristics of
graduates. This approach deals with customer requirements, where the customers are often
seen as the employers of graduates. ‘It tends to take into account both subject specific and
core characteristics of high quality education’ (Brennan & Shah, 2000, p. 15). Quality charac-
teristics are regarded as both invariant and variant depending on a specific subject. The
invariant dimensions could in this approach be linked to the generic skills often identified in
national qualification frameworks.
These four categories offer a simple but efficient way of identifying key characteristics
and focus of a given quality-management model and is used as a heuristic tool in the further
analysis, although it also should be mentioned that the four dimensions may appear quite
stylised and not capable of capturing the complexities of different approaches to quality
management.

Data and methods

The journal Quality in Higher Education has over the years published a number of articles on
various issues related to quality assurance, ranging from international comparisons of
quality assurance policies and descriptions of national quality assurance systems, to indi-
vidual case studies describing or reporting on the effects of quality assurance. Because of
this central position in research on quality assurance, the journal has also been the point of
departure for our investigation into quality management.
The methodological approach can be divided into three stages. First, all articles in the
journal in the period 1995–2008 were screened with respect to their empirical focus. Using
the three general descriptions of how quality management could be understood, this
resulted in the selection of 19 articles that had an empirical focus targeting higher education
institutions, and emphasising how institutions could deal with challenges related to quality
as an organisational actor: especially issues related to their governance structure, culture
and evaluation systems. The 19 articles identified were very diverse. Empirically, they
covered institutional practices and educational settings from almost every continent; from
Africa to Australia, from Europe to the USA.
 Quality Management in Higher Education 41

Second, all articles went through an initial analysis; that is, whether it was possible to
classify the articles as belonging to one of the four approaches specified by Brennan and
Shah. Here several techniques were combined, including counting specific words that can
be related to a specific category (e.g., managerial, leadership, decision-making, systems,
routines, indicators), the weight given to certain elements in the proposed approach and the
types of data, analysis and processes that were seen as necessary to implement a given
approach.
Third, since the initial analysis disclosed difficulties in identifying articles belonging to a
specific approach using the Brennan and Shah categories, all articles were further analysed
with respect to their theoretical or analytical frame; that is, whether they employed a theo-
retical frame and what the articles considered as the key component(s) in the (successful)
functioning of the suggested approaches. The emphasis on theory was used as a check on
the overall relevance of the categorisation by Brennan and Shah as an analytical scheme
and, by identifying key components, the intention was to go beyond the counting of certain
words and concepts and reveal the deeper messages in the text.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

An overview of contributions on quality management

In general, the 19 articles analysed were labelled in very different ways. While some had an
image of presenting a ‘model’ for quality management, others were more modest, describ-
ing the articles as ‘investigations’ or ‘studies of quality management’. Such labels have not
been important in the analysis of the articles and, as a consequence, all articles analysed will
be described as ‘approaches’ to quality management. However, based on the content analy-
sis, the articles can be divided into two groups. Whereas some of the articles are meant to be
more theoretical contributions often without detailed empirical illustrations, others are
based on case studies attempting to offer more transferable knowledge from a single institu-
tion. Among the 19 contributions, three of them stand out as they are presented as more
theory-driven approaches. These are presented more in detail below.

Theory-driven approaches of quality management

Massy (1997) proposed in one of the earliest volumes of Quality in Higher Education a ‘Six
Quality Process Domains Model’. Although this approach is meant to serve as a generic tool
for all higher education institutions enjoying a certain degree of autonomy, the background
for the design of this approach can be related to quality–process reviews conducted in 1996
at the range of the higher education institutions in Hong Kong for the purpose of assuring
value for money in the higher education sector. The aim of the model is ‘to focus attention
on teaching and learning, assist institutions in their efforts to improve teaching and learning
quality, and enable the institutions to discharge their obligation to maintain accountability
for quality’ (Massy, 1997, p. 255). The main idea is not to limit the ways of the delivery of
teaching and learning quality by specifying particular approaches but, rather, to investigate
whether these quality dimensions have been thought through carefully by institutions and
academics and whether the choices made are then well-articulated and defended.
In his model, Massy (1997, 2003) reviewed organisational issues, faculty and departmen-
tal education quality processes on the basis of six domains, which include determination of
desired learning outcomes, design of curricula, design of teaching and learning processes,
design of student examination and the use of examination results, implementation quality
and commitment of resources to education quality work.
 42 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

The first domain, determination of desired learning outcomes, stresses the goals of study
programmes and how they relate to students’ needs, comprising students’ prior knowledge,
abilities, further employment opportunities and quality of life. Design of curriculum addresses
the processes to design and improve programme curriculum. These include: programme
contents and from what perspective it will be taught; the role of design inputs from students,
staff and employers; what will be done to create a coherent curriculum by collecting system-
atic feedback and acting upon it while adjusting it to programme goals when necessary;
assurance of the standard of academic programmes offered by organisations. The third
domain, design of teaching and learning processes, presupposes processes to design, review and
improve teaching and learning methods, materials and students’ learning environment,
which include considering desired and achieved learning outcomes, the role of external
inputs and students’ views, and innovation to improve student learning. Design of student
examination and the use of examination results highlights processes to design, review and
improve the examination of students and its relation to educational objectives, including:
placing responsibility for examination; mechanisms for feedback to improve examination;
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

and processes that connect examination with educational objectives more closely. Implemen-
tation quality implies processes that assure correct, coherent and effective implementation of
learning outcomes, curricula, teaching, learning and examination design and processes that
include: staff recruitment and development; peer review; measures of students’ learning
experience outside the classroom; and teacher–student interaction. The sixth domain,
commitment of resources to education quality work, focuses on the use of resources by organisa-
tions to enhance quality work; adequate funding of quality management processes; the
establishment of incentives for rewarding good performance in delivering quality education;
whether unit levels receive sufficient funding to perform their mission.
Balancing improvement and accountability is a central theme in the ‘Quality develop-
ment model’ proposed by Gosling and D’Andrea (2001). In this article, they argued that a
quality system is a system that ‘not only performs a regulatory function but one that func-
tions to improve the quality of the educational experience, one that provides a developmen-
tal function as well’ (p. 11). They further state that the dilemma outlined above causes some
tension in higher education institutions between offices responsible for quality assurance
and educational development. The reason for this tension arises from the differences
between these values, because quality assurance concentrates on quality assessment and
educational development concentrates on quality enhancement.
Gosling and D’Andrea (2001, p. 11) saw, therefore, the holistic educational development
model as the one that combines the enhancement of learning and teaching with the quality
and standards monitoring processes in a higher education institution. In this model, educa-
tional development includes the initiation and management of three major areas of work:
academic development, learning development and quality development. According to the model,
the activities of the educational development office would create a ‘quality loop’. It takes the
development, implementation and evaluation of the educational provision full circle by
supporting the process of curriculum development with knowledge of current pedagogical
theory and practice. It would also enhance the necessary professional development for
teaching staff on teaching and learning strategies that would meet the educational goals and
objectives of the curriculum developed.
One observation the authors made is that there is usually little dialogue between the
offices responsible for curriculum development and for supporting students’ learning, and
for the quality assurance of both, as the responsibilities for these main areas are often
separated (see also Harvey, 1998). Thus, the important issue is then to create links between
 Quality Management in Higher Education 43

curriculum development and quality assurance by creating a collegial environment where

quality is assured during the development of the curriculum. Moreover, it can also improve
students’ learning development. The linkage between learning development, academic
development and quality development brings the expertise of each area into the educational
process. The authors argued that improvement will take place if students are provided with
sufficient support to achieve their educational objectives.
Gosling and D’Andrea (2001, p. 12) claimed that this model offers many advantages for a
higher education institution, staff and students. First, it creates the linkage between quality
assurance and educational development by supporting teaching activities to enhance the
students’ educational experience. Second, it facilitates the dialogue between those responsi-
ble for quality assurance and the ones responsible for educational development about the
internal and external quality assessment policies and procedures. As a result ‘there is less
duplication of effort and a more holistic understanding of the relationship between quality
assurance and learning enhancement’ (Gosling & D’Andrea, 2001, p. 12). Besides, the coop-
eration between the quality assurance processes and the quality-enhancement processes can
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

lead to a more effective dissemination of educational policies within an institution and to

maintaining good standards across the range of institutional provision.
An important aspect of the model is that it focuses on practice rather than on documenta-
tion. The outcomes of the model are represented not as measurable scores but as develop-
ment of quality assurance skills and processes accepted by staff as being beneficial for the
students. The academics are free to decide themselves upon appropriate activities to
achieve their goals; there is no methodology or ideology imposed on the academics, as the
model is based on their reflective practice. ‘Quality development replaces trust in academics
to investigate and evaluate their practices and to find ways of improving quality’ (Gosling
& D’Andrea, 2001, p. 13).
A final, more generic model of quality management has been offered by Srikanthan and
Dalrymple (2002, 2005). In these two contributions they advocated the need for a ‘holistic
model’ of quality management in higher education in which they try to combine existing
research on quality in the field in a more integrated framework. Hence, their model is an
attempt to combine existing concepts and contributions emphasising transformation,
engagement, learning and responsiveness in one single perspective. The central themes that
emerge from these models are student learning and an active collaboration at the educational
delivery level. Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, p. 219) examined these points and took them
as a basis for their generic quality-management model. They supported the idea expressed
by other authors that quality in higher education institution relates strongly to the quality of
students’ learning, and that the focus has to be on enriching the learning experiences for
students. It is argued that the improvement of students’ learning experience could be
achieved if based on critical dialogue between the learners and teachers about the nature and
style of their learning, and also between the teachers about the teaching and learning process,
as well as on communication with the external partners. The senior management has to
encourage and ensure this ‘transformative process’, which is possible through senior
management commitment, the continuous improvement culture and the team interaction.
Although these notions may resemble TQM principles focusing on the process control of the
service, in the context of ‘transformative process’ the emphasis is on the changes in students’
cognitive and affective areas so that the experience ‘continues to make an impact long after
any formal programme’ (Harvey & Knight, 1996, p. 118).
Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, p. 222) argued that to implement the generic model a
‘shared vision’ has to be developed within the community, based on an agreement on how
 44 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

the quality at all levels would be monitored, integrated and improved. The objective is ‘to
obtain a seamless meshing of different approaches to quality’ (Srikanthan & Dalrymple,
2002, p. 223). Through the dialogues the participants would develop common principles of
the institution’s values, methods for effective operation and new organisational solutions, to
create a foundation for an ‘organisational architecture’ for learning. According to
Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, p. 223), this would maintain a continuous synergy with a
‘deep learning cycle’ (Senge et al., 1994, p. 46) of ‘awareness and sensibilities’ about the
higher education institution’s role in the community. The generic model for quality
management has, therefore, as its objective, the creation of a synergy between educational
and organisational theories.

Case-driven approaches to quality management

The remaining 16 articles can be said to be more case-driven than theory-driven in their
approach. By researching or reporting from a particular institutional or disciplinary
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

setting, these authors argue that single case studies offer much knowledge and insights
that can be of much relevance to others. As in the case of the three contributions
presented above, a large number of the articles analysed employ a holistic approach. In
general, the claim is made that the improvement and enhancement of educational quality
within higher education institutions requires addressing all four quality values; that is,
academic, pedagogic, managerial and employment focus. For example, Popli (2005, p. 21)
advocated the importance of ‘the holistic development of students’ in India’s business and
management schools and institutions. The author suggested that this it can be achieved
through:

• the improvement of programme/curricular design, making it ‘more practically oriented

than theoretical, and placing more emphasis on analytical skills’;
• the reinforcement of customers’ satisfaction (here students and employers are considered
as being the main customers);
• the provision of training-for-job opportunities ‘for students to be able to perform not only
in interviews but also to do justice to their work responsibilities’;
• ‘benchmarking of best teaching and learning practices at both the national and interna-
tional level and using this to update curricula’ (pp. 22–23).

Another example can be drawn from Ottewill and Macfarlane (2004, p. 231) who discussed
the notion of ‘scholarship of teaching’ and how a quality assessment process can contribute
to its primary goal; ‘to enhance the quality of the student learning experience’ (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1999, quoted in Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004, p. 231). Although in the discussion
the main target is pedagogic quality values, the authors strongly emphasise the need for the
involvement of other quality-management criteria, such as collaboration, stakeholder
involvement and self-criticism, in order to achieve this target.
Still, the holistic approach is not totally dominant. A smaller number of contributions
build their approaches to quality management around a combination of only two quality
values, considering them as an important factor of quality enhancement. The most common
combination is:

• first, of those quality values that are related to professional and structural development
within an institution—that is, managerial and pedagogic quality values;
 Quality Management in Higher Education 45

• second, of those values that are focused on knowledge acquisition and students’ learning
experience and environment—that is, academic and pedagogic quality values.

In the first case, the researchers raise the discussions about the implications of the develop-
ment of quality assurance systems for culture and change within higher education institu-
tions. Hence, the main topic of the articles here is change within an institutional structure, as
well as institutional activities, both administrative and educational. These articles often see
quality management as a result of changing environments of higher education triggering the
need for ‘effective change management’, ‘cost-effectiveness’, ‘efficiency’, ‘an organisational
changing culture’ and ‘dissemination of best teaching practices’ (Barrow, 1999; Strydom et
al., 2004; Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2005; Lomas & Nicholls, 2005). The impression is that the
solution to a number of challenges related to quality is to apply more managerial tools in a
sensible way, through organisational restructuring, reinforcement of leadership and
administration and more efficient management of resources.
In the second case, the articles portray quality first of all as students’ transformation
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

during the teaching and learning processes (Hansen & Jackson, 1996; Harris & Bretag, 2003;
Knight, 2006; Watty, 2006). The main objective expressed in their articles is how to enhance
students’ learning experience and to promote their learning outcomes. To achieve this objec-
tive, the authors of the articles advocated the use of the approaches that are based on peda-
gogic and academic quality values. For example, in her article about quality in accounting
education in Australian universities, Watty (2006, p. 298) suggests that ‘quality in accounting
education ought to be about transformation, defined … as: a unique, individually negotiated
process between the teacher and the learner, where the participant is transformed’. When it
comes to employment focus, this is the least-emphasised dimension in the articles analysed,
as quality in general focuses on managerial, academic and pedagogic dimensions.
Thus, our reading reveals that the approaches and analysis of quality management at an
institutional level can be characterised as heterogeneous in how the articles conceptually
perceive quality in higher education and what quality values they address in their
approaches. This heterogeneity can also be observed in the frameworks of reference and
theoretical basis used by the researchers in their research. The theoretical and analytical
framing of the articles analysed draws upon theoretical knowledge developed both outside
and within the higher education field. This includes concepts, theories and ideas coming
from many disciplines and perspectives, including sociology, psychology and management
studies, as well as the higher education field. This suggests that the field may be character-
ised as multi- or interdisciplinary in nature.
Interestingly, one can hardly observe much diversity of methods and measures identified
as central in the articles. In this respect the articles are quite homogeneous and emphasise
three key components upon which the approaches are built. These are measures intended to
stimulate students’ learning, strengthening the linkages between higher education and soci-
ety and management tools to support and enhance the quality of the educational activities in
higher education institutions. For example, student learning is usually seen as being
achieved through detailed planning, preparation and cohesion between different parts of the
educational programmes or courses, flexible curricula, clearly defined programme aims and
the development of learning outcomes (Hansen & Jackson, 1996; Alean-Kirkpatrick et al.,
1997; Horsburgh, 1998; Bolander et al., 2006). Several articles also point to the need for
measures to develop students’ communication skills, their critical abilities, the involvement
of students in knowledge creation, professional development and training of teaching staff,
the improvement of teaching methods, the employment of various teaching and learning
 46 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

styles and teacher–student cooperation in the learning process (Horsburgh, 1998; Harris &
Bretag, 2003; Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004; Knight, 2006).
With respect to strengthening the linkages between higher education and society, the
articles tend to emphasise the necessity of staff selection and appraisal, provision of profes-
sional training for students, development of indicators of possibilities of students’ employ-
ment, collaboration of higher education institutions with potential employers and
communities—all of these can be summarised by the criteria employers’ needs and require-
ments, students’ needs and employment opportunities (Alean-Kirkpatrick et al., 1997; Barrow,
1999; Popli, 2005; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2005; Rosa et al., 2006).
Finally, among a variety of existing management practices, the most frequently
mentioned measures requested in the articles are the development of mission statements
and policies of an institution, the improvement of organisational culture, the development
of leadership skills among the academics, the use of resource management and a supporting
quality information system and the encouragement of effective communication between
higher education stakeholders both within an institution and outside, which can be
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

embraced in such criteria as leadership, teamwork and resource management (Duening &
Kadipasaoglu, 1996; Strydom et al., 2004; Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2005; Lomas & Nicholls,
2005; Rosa et al., 2006).

Towards a joint understanding of quality management?

Although this study of quality-management approaches covers only a limited number of
the possible contributions available in research on higher education and with limited possi-
bilities for generalisations, the analysis does identify some interesting findings as to how
this area seems to be understood and theorised in the sector.
A first characteristic is that the quality-management approaches can be described as quite
heterogeneous; either by studying or reporting from a single case study, advocating the
possible transferability of the findings from one institution or setting to another. Very few
studies try to build their analytical and theoretical frameworks on extensive literature
reviews, close examination of research in the field or by developing or building upon more
established theories or perspectives.
A second characteristic is that the majority of the contributions analysed tend to apply a
more comprehensive approach to quality management when related to the four categorisations
offered by Brennan and Shah (2000). When employing both a quantitative and a qualitative
analysis on the articles, it was found that many articles covered more than just one of the
categories. As illustrated in Table 2, the majority of the contributions analysed are quite
broad in scope and coverage, although with a tendency for concentration on managerial
and pedagogical dimensions.
The contributions analysed are perhaps more similar in their substance than their some-
times very different labels might suggest (Table 2). Hence, as such, the findings fit well with
the initial descriptions of what quality management is—the approaches are quite compre-
hensive, they are intended to be used for a number of different purposes and are tightly
linked with institutional decision-making. The comprehensive nature of the contributions in
this area is also interesting when relating them to the more general approaches of quality
management such as TQM, ISO and EFQM, which can be said to share this point of depar-
ture. Hence, at least there seem to be little difference between private sector/industry
approaches and higher education approaches with respect to their view on quality manage-
ment involving the whole organisation.
 Quality Management in Higher Education 47

TABLE 2. Categories emphasised in the analysed articles

Contributions covering a specific dimension

Academic Hansen & Jackson, 1996; Alean-Kirkpatrick et al., 1997; Massy, 1997; Horsburgh, 1998;
Godling & D’Andrea, 2001; Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004; Popli, 2005; Bolander et al.,
2006.
Managerial Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2001; Duening & Kadipasaoglu, 1996; Massy, 1997; Barrow,
1999; Godling & D’Andrea, 2001; Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004; Strydom et al., 2004;
Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2005; Lomas & Nicholls, 2005; Popli, 2005; Rosa et al., 2006.
Pedagogic Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2001; Massy, 1997; Horsburgh, 1998; Barrow, 1999; Godling
& D’Andrea, 2001; Harris & Bretag, 2003; Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004; Popli, 2005;
Knight, 2006; Watty, 2006.
Employer focus Alean-Kirkpatrick et al., 1997; Massy, 1997; Barrow, 1999; Srikanthan & Dalrymple,
2001; Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004; Popli, 2005; Rosa et al., 2006.

A third characteristic can be found when studying what sort of methodological processes
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

are emphasised in the contributions. Most of the contributions have a common thrust on
assessing and enhancing students’ learning experience, when one defines ‘quality’. This is in
particular a special feature in the more theory-driven approaches. For example, Srikanthan
and Dalrymple (2002, p. 220) suggested that quality policies have to be learning-oriented
with the emphasis on students’ experience, ‘empowering students through adding value to
their capability and ultimately empowering them’. Massy (1997, p. 225) maintained that
organisational issues, faculty and departmental education quality processes should be
designed in the way that they lead to the improvement of students’ learning. Gosling and
D’Andrea (2001, p. 11) saw a quality system as a system ‘that functions to improve the qual-
ity of the educational experience … and provides a developmental function as well’. They
emphasised the necessity of ‘linking curriculum development with quality management’
(p. 11) to enhance students’ learning development. A further shared view in the contribu-
tions is the need for interaction and dialogue at the level of the education delivery. Srikanthan
and Dalrymple (2002, p. 220) required the students’ learning experience to be based on a
dialogue between a teacher and students, as well as between higher education institutions
themselves and with the external community. Massy (1997, pp. 256–260) foresaw teaching
and learning to be based on teacher–student interaction, mentoring and cooperative peer
learning. Gosling and D’Andrea (2001, pp. 11–15) underlined the creation of teaching and
learning strategies that would meet the educational goals of the curriculum development
and would contribute to the improvement of the quality of students’ experience of the
higher education as well.
An unsurprising final element shared by most contributions is to emphasise the need for
different management measures to coordinate the educational processes at all levels of a higher
education institution. Thus, Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, p. 220) gave leadership an
important role in creating and securing an appropriate collegial culture in order to achieve
‘transformation of the learners’.

Conclusion
Based on this analysis, there are indications that contributions on quality management in
higher education are more similar than their labels may suggest. The approaches, concepts
and frameworks offered tend to concentrate on many of the same dimensions, although the
way in which they discuss and present these may be very different. This could imply a
 48 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

possibility to improve the links between various quality-management approaches in higher

education, although it also triggers the question of why research in this area has been so
heterogeneous in the past. There may be at least three possible explanations. The first expla-
nation is related to the field of higher education research in general, and the fact that such
research tends to be multidisciplinary and conducted from very different perspectives
(Tight, 2004). Hence, research on quality management is then just a result of a multitude of
researchers, perspectives and theoretical positions entering into this area.
The second possible explanation is partly related to the characteristics of higher education
research and the resource situation in general. As illustrated in the review, most contribu-
tions on quality management appearing in Quality in Higher Education since 1995 are single
case studies that seem to have been conducted in a small-scale operation, either by those
responsible for a particular quality-management system or by people managing to find
some support for studying such systems in a more qualitative way. This does not imply that
those initiating such projects are uninterested in theory but an argument can be made that
in a situation where time and resources for research may be very scarce, a very comprehen-
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

sive theoretical framing may not be prioritised.

The third explanation is more speculative in that it is arguable that the current heteroge-
neous nature of the research conducted is partly a result of inherent scepticism in using
more general quality-management approaches due to arguments that these are not related
to a higher education setting (Birnbaum, 2000). Although this scepticism is understandable,
the problem that appears as a consequence is a lack of a more solid and reliable analytical
framework without a joint terminology and little agreement on central concepts. This may
limit more systematic knowledge accumulation in this area.
This is unfortunate since there seems to be much agreement on the substantive processes
and requirements for making more sensible use of quality management in the sector, as
illustrated in Table 2. On this basis, this review will conclude by advocating more joint and
integrative research to appear in the future. However, this is not to argue for yet another
model with a fashionable label but more systematic and comparative studies sharing a
vocabulary, enabling us to agree on key concepts and definitions without forcing us to
abandon the multidisciplinary characteristics of the field. With respect to the current criti-
cism directed at research on quality, and the seeming inability of this research to address
issues on student learning, learning outcomes and effects, this can be related partly to the
complexity of the research object but is also a product of little coordination and few studies
building systematically on previous research. It is perhaps time to try to concentrate (scarce)
resources and better integrate the different research initiatives in the field of quality
management.

References
Alean-Kirkpatrick, P., Hänni, H. & Lutz. L. 1997, ‘Internal quality monitoring of the teaching at the ETH,
Zurich: Model design and initial impacts’, Quality in Higher Education, 3, pp. 63–71.
Barrow, M. 1999, ‘Quality-management systems and dramaturgical compliance’, Quality in Higher Education,
5, pp. 27–36.
Birnbaum, R. 2000, Management Fads in Higher Education—Where They Come From, What They Do, Why They Fail
(San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
Birnbaum, R. & Deshotels, J. 1999, ‘Has the academy adopted TQM?’, Planning for Higher Education, 28,
pp. 29–37.
Bolander, K., Josephson, A., Mann, S. & Lonka, K. 2006, ‘Teachers promoting expertise in medical education:
Understanding the role of the core curriculum’, Quality in Higher Education, 12, pp. 41–55.
 Quality Management in Higher Education 49

Brennan, J. & Shah, T. 2000, Managing Quality in Higher Education. An International Perspective on Institutional
Assessment and Change (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Brookes, M. & Becket, N. 2007, ‘Quality management in higher education: A review of international issues
and practice’, International Journal of Quality Standards, 1(1), pp. 85–121.
Brunetto, Y. & Farr-Wharton, R. 2005, ‘Academics’ responses to the implementation of a quality agenda’,
Quality in Higher Education, 11, pp. 161–180.
Csizmadia, T. G. 2006, Quality Management in Hungarian Higher Education: Organisational Responses to
Governmental Policy (AE Enschede, CHEPS/University of Twente).
Duening, T. & Kadipasaoglu, S. N. 1996, ‘Team-driven change in higher education: The three key principles’,
Quality in Higher Education, 2, pp. 57–64.
Freed, J. E. & Klugman, M. R. 1997, Quality Principles and Practices in Higher Education: Different Questions for
Different Times (Phoenix, American Council on Education and Oryx Press).
Gosling, D. & D’Andrea, V. M. 2001, ‘Quality development: A new concept for higher education’, Quality in
Higher Education, 7(1), pp. 7–17.
Hansen, W. L. & Jackson, M. 1996, Total quality improvement in the classroom’, Quality in Higher Education,
2, pp. 211–217.
Harris, H. & Bretag, T. 2003, ‘Reflective and collaborative teaching practice: Working towards quality student
learning outcomes’, Quality in Higher Education, 9, pp. 179–185.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014

Harvey, L. 1995, ‘Beyond TQM’, Quality in Higher Education, 1, pp. 123–146.

Harvey, L. 1998, ‘An assessment of past and current approaches to quality in higher education’, Australian
Journal of Education, 42(3), pp. 237–255.
Harvey, L. & Green, D. 1993, ‘Defining quality’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), pp. 9–34.
Harvey, L. & Knight, P. T. 1996, Transforming Higher Education (Buckingham, SRHE and Open University
Press).
Horsburgh, M. 1998, ‘Quality monitoring in two institutions: A comparison’, Quality in Higher Education, 4,
pp. 115–135.
Knight, P. 2006, ‘Quality enhancement and educational professional development’, Quality in Higher
Education, 12, pp. 29–40.
Lomas, L. & Nicholls, G. 2005, ‘Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching’, Quality in
Higher Education, 11, pp. 137–149.
Massy, W. F. 1997, ‘Teaching and learning quality—process review: The Hong Kong programme’, Quality in
Higher Education, 3, pp. 249–262.
Massy, W. F. 2003, Honoring the Trust: Quality and Cost Containment in Higher Education (Bolton, MA, Anker
Publishing).
Ottewill, R. & Macfarlane, B. 2004, ‘Quality and the scholarship of teaching: Learning from subject review’,
Quality in Higher Education, 10, pp. 231–241.
Popli, S. 2005, ‘Ensuring customer delight: A quality approach to excellence in management education’,
Quality in Higher Education, 11, pp. 17–24.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. 1999, Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience of Higher Education
(Buckingham, SRHE and Open University Press).
Rosa, M. J., Tavares D. & Amaral, A. 2006, ‘Institutional consequences of quality assessment’, Quality in
Higher Education, 12, pp. 145–159.
Schwarz, S. & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds), 2004, Accreditation in the Framework of Evaluation Activities. Current
Situation and Dynamics in Europe (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Press).
Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J. & Kleiner, A. 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (London,
Nicholas Brealey).
Seymour, D. 1991, ‘TQM on campus: What the pioneers are finding’, AAHE Bulletin, 44, pp. 10–18.
Seymour, D. 1992, On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education (New York, American Council on Education/
Macmillan).
Srikanthan, G. & Dalrymple, J. 2002, ‘Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education’, Quality in
Higher Education, 8, pp. 215–224.
Srikanthan, G. & Dalrymple, J. 2005, ‘Implementation of a holistic model for quality in higher education’,
Quality in Higher Education, 11, pp. 69–81.
Stensaker, B. 2003, ‘Trance, transparency and transformation: The impact of external quality monitoring in
higher education’, Quality in Higher Education, 9(2), pp. 151–159.
Stensaker, B. 2007, ‘Quality as fashion’, in D. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. Rosa (Eds.) Quality Assurance
in Education (Dordrecht, Springer).
 50 H. Pratasavitskaya & B. Stensaker

Stensaker, B. 2008, ‘Outcomes of quality assurance: A discussion of knowledge, methodology and validity’,
Quality in Higher Education, 14, pp. 3–13.
Strydom, J. F., Zulu, N. & Murray, L. 2004, ‘Quality, culture and change’, Quality in Higher Education, 10,
pp. 207–217.
Tight, M. (Ed), 2004, The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Higher Education (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Trow, M. 1994, Academic Reviews and the Culture of Excellence. Unpublished seminar paper for the office of
Chancellor of Swedish Universities, Stockholm.
Watty, K. 2006, ‘Want to know about quality in higher education? Ask an academic’, Quality in Higher Educa-
tion, 12, pp. 291–301.
Westerheijden, D. F. 1999, ‘Where are the quantum jumps in quality assurance? Developments of a decade of
research on a heavy particle’, Higher Education, 38, pp. 233–254.
Westerheijden, D. F., Brennan, J. & Maassen, P. A. M., (Eds.), 1994, Changing Contexts of Quality Assessment
(Utrecht, Lemma/CHEPS).
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:07 27 August 2014