The role of students in internal quality assurance: a case study of Namibian institutions of higher education
Authors:   , Nghikembua Anneli Ndapanda 
Published: December 2024

The interplay of the mechanisms such as globalisation, massification and internationalisation led to higher education systems across the world introducing quality assurance. As systems have massified, student bodies have diversified with the result that the quality of teaching and learning has become increasingly important and has drawn the attention of policy makers and researchers. The Namibian higher education system was no different in heeding the call to develop quality assurance systems. As this happened, calls to involve students in quality assurance because of their roles as “stakeholders” in higher education were also heeded, and in common with institutions in systems across the world, those in Namibia began to include students in governance and quality assurance. Research on student involvement in internal quality assurance with a focus on higher education institutions in Namibia is scarce. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the role of students as stakeholders in the quality of teaching and learning in higher education institutions in three Namibian institutions. Roy Bhaskar’s (1978; 1989) critical realism and Margaret Archer’s (1995; 1996; 2000) social realism were used to build a theoretical framework which allowed for the exploration of students’ involvement in the quality assurance of teaching and learning. Critical and social realism both draw on the idea of a “depth ontology” and acknowledge that what is available to researchers empirically is only part of reality. As a result, critical and social realist researchers aim to move from empirical data to explore a level of reality not directly accessible via the senses. In the study underpinning this thesis, this involved using inference to move from interview data and documents to explore a level of reality from which events and experiences of events (both accessible empirically) emerge. A case study approach was used involving a “cross case” analysis of the three institutions. Questions guiding the study aimed not only to explore ways in which students were, or were not involved, in assuring quality of their education, but also what constrained and enabled involvement. Ultimately the study focused on whether or not their engagement contributed to the enhancement of quality. As all the institutions in the study did allow students to be involved in quality assurance, the question was the extent to which this involvement was “meaningful” in the sense that it could lead to change. Insights derived from the study showed that although students were represented on various governance structures, their experiences were that their contributions to debates and the issues they raised were not heeded. Another significant way in which students were involved in quality assurance was through the provision of feedback on teaching and course design. The investigation showed that, although teaching and learning centres at the three institutions studied did use feedback from students to develop training programmes for academic teachers, feedback was mainly used for instrumental purposes such as personal promotion, an observation which raises questions about the extent to which its elicitation could lead to enhancement. The use of Archer’s social realism allowed for the identification of a number of constraints on the potential of student involvement to contribute to the enhancement of teaching and learning. One such constraint was the hierarchical nature of institutional organisations which led to student comments not always being treated seriously, sometimes because of perceptions of their “immaturity”. Another constraint was related to confused understandings of what constitutes “quality” in policy documents. The study recommends that policies and manuals on student involvement should be designed to provide guidance to staff and students on how they should be involved. There is also a need to train students on their involvement as well as interrogate the student involvement beliefs and practices.