Globalising Quality
Assurance inHigher Education
Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme
Head of the Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation (CERI) – OECD
Keynote presentation at the NIAD-UE University Evaluation Forum 2011 –Tokyo, Japan – 26 October 2011

Outline
1. Achievements of the global quality assurance
movement in higher education
2. Emerging risks
3. Globalisation and quality assurance
4. Strategies for quality assurance

2

1.
ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE
GLOBAL QA MOVEMENT
3The Global QA Movement in HE• Most higher education systems now have wellestablished quality assurance arrangements– From input-steering by governments to outputoriented quality assurance– Exchange of institutional autonomy withevaluation– Demand for more transparency and publicaccountability– Massification, liberalisation and fears of declineof standards and erosion of academic control– Increasing demand for cost-effectiveness4

Achievements• Internal and external QA have a positive impact
on the quality of education provision at
programme and institutional level– QA has a crucial role in ensuring that mostprogrammes meet threshold quality standards andsub-threshold provision has been addressed– QA has successfully reinforced the education functionof HE, balancing the strong priority for research– Institutional leadership with regard to quality has
been strengthened as part of general reinforcement ofstrategic management capacities
5

Achievements• The quality imperative has pervaded the higher
education systems– Most institutions have established internal QA
procedures– Most programmes/institutions are subject to formal
external QA procedures based on peer review– Most academic staff are conscious of a stronger QA
regime and comply with it– Most students do not actively participate to, but
acknowledge the existence of QA systems

6

Achievements• A common approach to QA has been developedand institutionalised– General acceptance of some basic rules and ‘goodpractice’– Crucial role of INQAAHE and regional associations– Still too many national idiosyncrasies, endangering
the automatic mutual recognition of QA decisions
and, in turn, the automatic recognition of degrees– Development of meta-evaluation and registration
procedures of QA agencies

7

2.
EMERGING RISKS
8

Risks• Bureaucratisation, formalism and ‘legalism’– QA has been ‘captured’ in procedures andregulations, in which completing forms and‘ticking boxes’ in standardised questionnaires
becomes the norm
– Legalistic procedures lead to extreme formalism
and avoid risk-taking behaviour of evaluators– Formalising QA procedures often increase thedifficulties for peers to ‘read’ the actual situationin programmes or institutions

9

Risks• Window-dressing in the reputation race
– Many procedures still give ample space towindow-dressing behaviour or superficialcompliance– Institutions are increasingly relying on‘professional’ quality managers who have toguarantee the smooth processing of reviews– Each new review or assessment has to cope withthe collective learning process to better survive
the test10

Risks• Balancing accountability and improvement
functions has proven to be quite difficult– Stringent external accountability functions
endanger internal improvement functions, expose
the academic professionals, and threatens thelegitimacy of the QA regime in the academic
community– Too much emphasis on improvement andenhancement functions takes the critical edge off
the evaluation process11Risks• Cost and workload involved in QA may be very
high indeed– Cost is an issue in many countries, but direct
monetary cost is in most cases still acceptable– State funding for QA agencies is sometimes seen
by institutions as diverting their legitimate
resources– Non-monetary cost in hidden staff time and all
kinds of ‘grey’ activities probably is very high12

Risks• Most QA schemes still rely too much on input
and process standards– QA standards and procedures defined from a
supply-side or delivery perspective: is what isdelivered to students of sufficient quality?
– Tendencies towards learning outcomes still very
hesitant: AHELO (OECD) projects needs more
institutional and political support, because it
could nurture QA with empirical evidence on
actually achieved learning outcomes13

Risks• Most QA schemes apply standards situated atthreshold level– Little support and acceptance of attempts todiversify quality statements or labels above
threshold level– Little incentives generated by QA for good
programmes to further improve themselves
towards excellence and to market themselves assuch14Risks• Limits of peer review methodologies– Peer review is a very powerful method of intercollegial assessment in professional environments– But it’s also very sensitive to personal opinions andexisting debates in a disciplinary field– Generational dimension: aged colleagues coming toassess younger colleagues/rivals– Independence of peers in some cases still is an issue,
because of impact of networks, friendship or hostility,
and competition and rivalry in academia– Use of international peers limited due to cost andlanguage issues
15

3.
GLOBALISATION ANDQUALITY ASSURANCE
16

Higher education systems• Main trends in higher education(OECD, Thematic review tertiary education, 2008)– Continued expansion– Diversification of provision– More heterogeneous student population– New funding arrangements– Increased focus on accountability andperformance– New forms of institutional governance andmanagement– Global networking, mobility and collaboration
17

Globalisation• Worldwide convergence and integration– Integrated global system of scientific research– Increasing mobility of students, researchers,
teaching staff and institutional leaders• Emerging market of academics and researchers– Technology-driven expansion of new delivery
modes in teaching and learning– International labour market of graduates• Globalising organisation of professions• Migration of high-skilled labour is increasing
18

Globalisation• Challenges and risks of globalisation– International activities of higher education
institutions ‘escaping’ the ambit of domestic
quality assurance– Low-quality provision or even ‘diploma mills’
driven by commercial interests– Difficulties with regard to credit transfer from orto foreign institutions• Need to complement national QA systems withinternational arrangements
19Levels of quality assurance???

International recognition

National (meta)accreditation

External quality assurance

Internal quality culture in universities
20

Functions of internationalisation in QA• Collaboration, exchange and professional
development in networks and associations– E.g. INQAAHE• Common guidelines and standards– E.g. European Standards, UNESCO-OECD
Guidelines• Mutual recognition of QA outcomes anddecisions in view of credit transfer, recognitionof qualifications, etc.
• Recognition (meta-accreditation) of QA agencies– E.g. European Register of QA agencies
21

4.
STRATEGIES FOR QUALITYASSURANCE
22

Critical conditions• QA in HE functions best
– When it is at arm lengths of governments, while
maintaining a strong public policy focus– When it supports institutional autonomy bydemonstrating how QA can help to improve– When it enhances the transparency of and trust in
higher education– When it is fundamentally trusted by academia as
being part of their own sphere

23

Strategies
1. Be a driver of innovation in the system
2. Focus on what is really relevant to academia,
institutions, students and society
3. Positively recognise institutional diversity
4. Combine the local and the global
5. Invest in your main capital which is trust.

24

Strategy 1. Innovation• For quite some time, QA was one of the mostpowerful drivers of innovation in HE• When institutionalising, standardising andmainstreaming, the risk of conservatism grows• QA should again become one of the main
innovation-oriented forces in the system– QA tools for innovative practices– Innovators belong in peer-review panels– Linking and networking with other innovationoriented forces
25

Strategy 2. Relevance• After 20 years of QA, it is no longer necessary tocheck all standards and indicators of quality• Focusing more on what really matters, will help
to restore the balance– Outputs and outcomes, more specifically learning
outcomes– Complementing and correcting reputationoriented transparency tools by providing real
information on achieved quality

26

Strategy 3. Diversity• It is critically important to escape the risk ofstandardisation, by tuning to the real diversity instudents and institutional profiles– By critically making our tools and instruments
more flexible and sophisticated (‘smart qualityassurance’)– By accepting that ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches
are not going to help in a diversifying world– This may involve a process of ‘de-standardisation’27

Strategy 4. Local & Global• Recognise the increasingly importantinternational roles and functions of quality
assurance, accompanying the overall
globalisation of higher education– Sharing good practice, recognising outcomes,
developing agreed standards• But also stay close to the academic work floor
and the specific needs of the local situation

28

Strategy 5. Trust• Trust is probably the most important capital of
the QA system and community– Invest more in restoring trust levels in academia
and institutions– By demonstrating the added-value of being a‘critical friend’– Convincing them that real openness andtransparency based on evidence is at the core of
the academic value system and that reputation
races based on perception are not sustainable29

Thank you !
dirk.vandamme@oecd.org
www.oecd.org/edu/ceri

30