Quality assurance and quality enhancement: is there a relationship?

Introduction

Many of the articles that have been published in Quality in Higher Education have focused on processes of quality assurance and on quality enhancement activity. Indeed, it is arguable that these two concerns underpin all discussions of quality in higher education. Most of the existing definitions of the two terms show that they are clearly distinct activities but there have been remarkably few studies that have directly explored the relationship between them. This editorial reflects upon the relationship between quality assurance and quality enhancement with a view to stimulating further discussion within this journal.

Definitions

The most comprehensive definitions of the terms ‘quality assurance’ and ‘quality enhancement’ can be found in the Analytic Quality Glossary (Harvey, 2004–16). It is clear from the current definitions of the quality assurance and quality enhancement that they are both distinct activities. Both terms have a range of definitions that, like quality itself, are complex and vary not only according to time and context but also to the different stakeholders (Harvey, 2007). At the most simplistic level, ‘quality assurance’ and ‘quality enhancement’ are umbrella terms for a range of activities, whilst ‘quality’ is, as Harvey and Green long ago (1993) suggested, a more philosophical concept, following in the tradition of Robert Pirsig (1974).

Quality assurance

The Analytic Quality Glossary defines quality assurance as ‘the collections of policies, procedures, systems and practices internal or external to the organisation designed to achieve, maintain and enhance quality’. Quality assurance can be both an internal and external process. However, Harvey observes that ‘it has become a shorthand term for ‘for all forms of external quality monitoring, evaluation or review’ and indeed, many commentators actually mean ‘external quality assurance’. Indeed, the former chief executive of the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency, Peter Williams, argued that there was in fact ‘no single common definition of the phrase “quality assurance”’ and that ‘quality assurance, therefore, has become a catch-all phrase; it is asked to do too many different things and as a result it can do few of them to anyone’s satisfaction’ (Williams, 2011, p. 87).

There are certainly different emphases given to quality assurance. Several authorities state that the purpose of quality assurance is to ensure that higher education reaches stated standards. However, some authorities focus on accountability, a term in itself that is seldom defined with respect to higher education. Indeed, quality assurance appears to be understood by many colleagues and institutions as another phrase for ‘accountability’. Collini (2012, pp. 106–8) refers to accountability in the same breath as quality assurance. Anecdotally, this view is often expressed by colleagues in conversations across the sector. For others, quality assurance is about ensuring the quality of teaching and others focus more on the processes to achieve quality: quality assurance is in fact a meta-process.

Quality enhancement

For Harvey in the Analytic Quality Glossary, quality enhancement ‘is a process of augmentation or improvement’. It has two strands: first it is the ‘enhancement of individual learners; the augmentation or improvement of learners’ attributes, knowledge, ability, skills and potential.’ Second, it is ‘the improvement in the quality of an institution or programme of study.’ The use of the words ‘enhancement’ and ‘improvement’ are often interchangeable, as they are in the Oxford English Dictionary, but the terms are often used in subtly different ways. Improvement is often used to refer to a process of bringing an activity up to standard whereas enhancement is about raising to a higher degree, intensifying or magnifying it.

Several definitions of quality enhancement focus on students’ learning. The UK QAA defined Quality enhancement … as an aspect of institutional quality management that is designed to secure, in the context of the constraints within which individual institutions operate, steady, reliable and demonstrable improvements in the quality of learning opportunities. (QAA 2006). The QAA's Handbook for Enhancement-led Institutional Review: Scotland (QAA, 2003) defined enhancement as ‘taking deliberate steps to bring about continual improvement in the effectiveness of the learning experience of students’.

However, there is also an argument that enhancement can be seen as a definition of quality (Campbell and Rosznyai, 2002; Vlãsceanu et al., 2007, pp. 72–3) and this is critiqued by Harvey in the Analytic Quality Glossary because, he argues, quality is more than ‘the continuous search for permanent improvement’. For critics such as Collini, even the notion of continuous quality improvement in higher education is ‘conceptually incoherent’ because, he argues, there is a limit to how far an activity that is already regarded as excellent can practically be improved (2012, p. 110).

A spectrum of relationships?

It seems clear, however, that there is a range of perspectives on the relationship between quality assurance and quality enhancement. At one end of the spectrum, it is arguable that quality assurance and enhancement have little real contact and work in isolation from each other. At the other end of the spectrum, quality assurance and quality enhancement are integral to each other.

QA and QE take place without reference to each other

Quality assurance and quality enhancement are defined as distinct activities and indeed, as Middlehurst and Woodhouse (1995) argued over twenty years ago, improvement and accountability must be conceptually and practically distinct, with separate resourcing. However, this appears to translate into a perception that they can work in isolation from each other. Gosling and D’Andrea (2001) argued that there was often a separation of the two activities. They observed that despite the enormous growth in national quality assurance processes in the UK, serious doubts remained about their effectiveness in achieving lasting quality improvement.

In part, the roots of this separation may be traced to differences between perceptions of different stakeholders, particularly those of academic staff and those of governments. Staff, as Amaral (2007) claimed, tend to be more interested in quality improvement whereas institutions and governments tend to be more interested in accountability. This is reflected in work that explores the perceptions of academic staff, such as Newton’s seminal articles in Quality in Higher Education (2000; 2002) and in Cheng’s (2011) study of stakeholder perceptions of quality which highlighted that staff tend to view the proper role of quality processes to be about transformative learning.

For many of the academic staff interviewed in such studies, quality assurance processes continue to be seen as a burdensome extra and one that is responded to through ritualised compliance (Harvey & Williams, 2010; Anderson, 2006; Barrow, 1999). In this view, quality assurance fails to be a part of the everyday activity of academics because they perceive no real link between the quality of their academic work (teaching and research) and the performance embodied in quality assurance processes (Harvey & Williams, 2010).

QA and QE in opposition to each other

Broad differences between outcomes of quality assurance and quality enhancement have been identified by a few commentators such as Elassy (2015), Swinglehurst (2008) and Raban (2007). In general, quality assurance is presented rather negatively and quality enhancement as much more positive. Broadly, quality assurance is a top down process, characterised by inflexibility and based upon quantitative measurements, whereas enhancement is characterised as a bottom up, negotiated process, based on qualitative judgement and engagement with academics.

Gosling and D’Andrea (2001) highlighted the concern that many have that quality assurance can have a tendency to subvert trust and respect for academics’ expertise. Academics, they found, wanted to replace a ‘name and shame’ approach, which is the consequence of quality assurance, with ongoing continuous improvement through integrated educational development model that is devolved to academics themselves. This notion of lack of trust is apparent in much of the research into academics’ perceptions of quality processes.

In his study of quality inspectorates in the Netherlands, Leeuw (2002) discussed the reciprocal relationship between inspectors and inspectees and argued that that this relationship is fundamentally based on mutual trust. Without it, inspectorates run the risk of becoming ‘trust killers’, particularly if they focus too much on their own norms and criteria without discussing them in depth with their inspectees.

However, a balance is needed, Leeuw argues. Although no reciprocity is bad for practice, too much reciprocity, he claimed, can harm the independence of inspectorates and may even lead to ‘negotiating the truth’. This tension is a serious challenge for external quality assurance systems, as highlighted by the criticism by Geoffrey Alderman levelled at the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency in 2008. Alderman criticised the ‘cosiness’ of the relationship between the Agency and the institutions and this led to an overhaul of the quality assurance system in the UK (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2016).

QA leads to QE

Some perspectives have implied that quality assurance and quality enhancement are on a linear scale. The model presents a progression from quality assurance to quality enhancement, where the former does not always appear in a positive light. For example, a recent handbook produced by the University of Aberdeen noted, perhaps rather ambiguously, that

it is increasingly agreed that it is important to promote improvement of quality, not just to ensure that quality is maintained. This shifts the emphasis from quality assurance to quality enhancement. (University of Aberdeen, 2015)

Here it is implied that quality enhancement is the next, perhaps more profound stage in a process that began with quality assurance, but that quality assurance is not enough in itself. A little more positively, some commentators have argued that quality assurance processes have led to quality enhancement (Dill, 2000).

Elassy (2015) posited that quality assurance and quality enhancement are (or should be) part of a spectrum, where enhancement is dependent on quality assurance. This implies a need for good quality assurance data that is then used to inform enhancement. This rather ignores the accountability purpose of quality assurance, which is primarily about providing information to external stakeholders. However, it is a good principle that quality assurance processes can provide useful institutional data that informs quality improvement processes.

An important element of improvement, it is argued, is the follow-up after the evaluation to ensure suggested improvements are put in place. Leeuw (2002) argued that reciprocity between inspectors and institutions is important because it includes exchange of information and transparency of operations. Reciprocity, Leeuw argued, reduced the potential for dissembling and game playing because inspectees would lose credibility as trustworthy partners in the evaluation.

However, in reflecting on this model of the relationship between quality assurance and quality enhancement, a routine criticism is that quality assurance does not achieve the goals it sets out. It fails to lead to genuine improvement and ends up as a bureaucratic exercise. As Stefan Collini observes:

The great unspoken truth is that the process of ‘assurance’ do not actually achieve these ends [of being a check on poor behaviour and ensuring accountability]: they merely indicate that the processes of assurance have been complied with (Collini, 2012, p. 108).

QA and QE: integral parts of the same process

The final perspective presents quality assurance and quality enhancement as integral parts of the same process: arguably they are part of a cycle, each part informing the next (Danø & Stensaker, 2007).

Gosling and D’Andrea (2001) suggested that the quality of students’ experience of higher education can more effectively be improved by combining educational development with quality assurance to create a more holistic approach. They regarded the typical separation of ‘educational development’ units and quality assurance offices as counterproductive as they have competing improvement agendas based on often opposing values.

In reality, where good practice has been developed, it has been based on paying attention to what the key stakeholders have said. For example, where institutional student feedback processes have been followed over a period of years, there is clear evidence to indicate that student satisfaction is closely interrelated with clear, tangible action (Williams & Kane, 2009). Where institutions have acted on the basis of what the students have said in their annual feedback surveys, student satisfaction can be seen to rise. A quality feedback action cycle, such as that outlined by Harvey (2003) appears to work in practice.

At the same time, where students and staff work together to act on issues raised by this dialogue, quality appears to increase. Students can be engaged at all levels from student academic boards at faculty level to working with staff to develop new and innovative teaching materials. This approach has, at least at one institution, resulted in an increase in NSS scores for optional questions relating to engagement, but, more significantly, it has enhanced the experience of those students and staff involved. Engaging students and staff in partnership therefore appears to be a key component in successfully enhancing the learning environment (Millard et al., 2013).

Conclusions

This brief reflection has highlighted the variety of perspectives on the relationship between quality assurance and quality enhancement. The two phrases, even if we can get past the definitional issues, relate to a wide range of key issues in higher education and existing research shows that these issues have been important for the last two decades. The question of how the two concepts are related has important implications for how staff are treated, respect and trust, how institutional data can be used to improve what the institutions and ultimately, what universities are actually for.

If academics are to remain pivotal in efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning, then more attention needs to be paid, by institutions and external quality bodies, to the importance of the conditions and context of academics’ work. Otherwise, quality monitoring is liable to be invested with a ‘beast-like’ presence requiring to be ‘fed’ with ritualistic practices by academics seeking to meet accountability requirements (Newton, 2000).

James Williams
School of Social Sciences, Birmingham City University, UK
[email protected]

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.