Editorial

In this issue of Quality in Higher Education, articles range widely from quality assurance of online courses to student preparedness and to corruption in higher education. However, at the heart of the papers are concerns with the impact of quality assurance processes on higher education and the preparedness of institutions and ‘actors’ to take an effective role. Much of the research on quality in the sector thus far indicates that discussions about impact relate to the effectiveness of national and institutional quality processes in assuring the quality of what is being done, helping to improve it and to the continuing issue of how to engage stakeholders, particularly staff and students, in those processes. At the same time, lack of genuine engagement with quality processes can lead to the failure of some ‘actors’ to follow official standards: in turn, there is a danger that some staff will engage in corrupt practice as Michaela Martin (2016) warned in Quality in Higher Education some years ago.

The first article in this issue was submitted before the COVID-19 pandemic but is perhaps pertinent as it deals with quality assurance and online courses. In a series of case studies of the implementation of ‘massive open online courses’ in higher education in the United Kingdom, Ahmed A. Al-Imarah, Robin Shields and Richard Kamm ask whether quality assurance is compatible with technological innovation despite the growing importance of it to learning and teaching practice. The authors argue that most universities have a superficial approach that focuses on technical requirements rather than academic quality and that quality assurance processes as they currently exist are not readily compatible with the new innovations.

There are often comments that students are not very well prepared for study in higher education and lecturers often bemoan the lack of appropriate skills and attitudes amongst their students (Curnock-Cook, 2017). This question is addressed in a study from Norway. Sabine Wollscheid, Berit Lødding and Per Olaf Aamodt have found that students’ preparedness for higher education is largely influenced by their previous experiences of independent study and by whether their programmes are selective. Academic staff, concomitantly, are not always prepared to deal with quality assurance processes. In an article on Italian higher education, drawn from challenges facing the sector during the first accreditation experience in Italy, Enrica Vesce, Maurizio Cisi, Tiziana Gentile and Ilaria Stura develop a self-assessment tool for professors that have to implement study programme quality, in order to understand their position with respect to accreditation requirements.

The role of different actors has been picked up in this issue by Ayaka Noda, Sounghee Kim, Angela Yung Chi Hou, I-Jung Grace Lu and Hua Chi Chou. They explore the relationships between internal quality assurance and learning outcome assessments in a study that compares higher education in Japan and Taiwan. The article highlights shared perspectives on the relationship between internal quality assurance and learning outcome assessments but argues that there are variations between or even confusion in how the functions of internal quality assurance are understood at different universities. The authors argue that not only are there differences between Japanese and Taiwanese approaches to quality work, even within institutions, different actors have different approaches.

Differences in application of quality management is also noticeable between different types of institution. The differences between state-run and private higher education institutions is the focus of attention in an article by Riaan Dirkse van Schalkwyk, Jeanette Maritz and Rigard Steenkamp. They explore sociotechnical service quality for students and academics at private higher education institutions in South Africa. The authors highlight an explosive growth in the number of new private higher education institutions in South Africa and the need for corporate quality management of service quality for students and staff. The article argues that a holistic approach to service quality is needed and that a quality service framework includes quality of work life.

Can quality assurance and accreditation play a part in national processes of sensemaking and sensegiving in higher education? Sayed Ahmad Javid Mussawy and Gretchen Rossman explore sensemaking and sensegiving in policy implementation in quality assurance and accreditation in Afghanistan. The article argues that participants conceptualise quality assurance and accreditation as organisational sensemaking that emphasises contextual circumstances in exploring meaning construction. In Afghanistan, as in many other countries, there is patchy engagement with quality assurance and accreditation processes. However, the authors highlight a continuing issue for quality assurance: engagement of key stakeholders. They argue that the serious involvement of senior leadership helps to improve engagement by academic staff.

Similarly, in another article focusing on Italian higher education, Pietro Previtali and Paola Cerchiello explore the extent to which corporate governance affects the responsiveness of public and private organisations to adopting new accreditation standards. The article argues that the responsiveness of the providers to the adaptation of new accreditation standards depends on corporate governance factors and particularly the functioning and composition of the supervisory board but it is also an issue of engagement with anti-corruption law.

Opinion piece

In an opinion piece, Mehmet A. Orhan responds to Lee Harvey’s analysis of research fraud and research culture in this journal last year (Harvey, 2020). Orhan observes that scholars are increasingly voicing concerns about fraud and malpractice in academic research and argues that research fraud is a rational response to what he refers to as ‘a toxic ecosystem for research in which short-term individual interests and institutional goals override long-term ones’. Orhan explores the ways in which this ‘ecosystem’ has developed and how it might be addressed. The articles by Harvey and Orhan are particularly pertinent in the context of recent scandals that have rocked Austrian, German and Spanish governments where ministers have been accused of plagiarism in their research degree dissertations (The Guardian, 2021).