Editorial

As 2021 progresses, the main topic of concern in higher education remains the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and it would be strange not to mention it in an editorial relating to research on quality in the sector. The core issue resulting from the pandemic, the shift to online learning, has been highlighted by the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) publishing a report in December 2020 entitled How UK Higher Education Providers Managed the Shift to Digital Delivery During the Covid-19 Pandemic. The conclusion of this report, that this shift has been managed swiftly and effectively in the UK, was perhaps unsurprising and the main concerns relating to quality emerging from the pandemic are about institutional engagement with live-streaming technology. A recent QAA event at the University of East Anglia has highlighted similar concerns but also argued that ‘one of the more positive legacies of the pandemic is the realisation that as educators and learners we are in this together and it is teamwork that will lead to our success’ (Gulliver, 2021). However, despite the unique circumstances of the last year and a half, underlying issues of quality remain a concern for commentators in the sector. In this issue of Quality in Higher Education, several long-standing and cross-cutting issues have been addressed, in particular those of the meaning and measurement of excellence and how stakeholders engage with and reflect on quality management processes.

The controversial subject of rankings has attracted two studies that discuss participation in quality assurance processes, the ways in which quality is defined and the impact of quality processes on higher education. First, Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh and Aseel Zibin critically review three well-known university ranking methodologies in relation to universities in the Arab region, highlighting the ways in which they are used in the region. They argue that although so-called leading ranking systems are popular in the region, they are somewhat inappropriate for identifying key issues. In the second paper, Jennifer Easley, Lesley Strawderman, Kari Babski-Reeves, Stanley Bullington and Brian Smith also explore the veracity of international rankings. They argue that university rankings have become a proxy for quality and excellence but that quality factors identified by their research participants do not align with methodologies for any of the rankings under review.

Participation in quality assurance processes has long been a central concern of research into quality in higher education and two articles are included here that address this issue in different parts of the world. In this issue of Quality in Higher Education, Christopher Hill and Rawy Thabet explore key challenges and obstacles to doctoral student research publication in the United Arab Emirates, developing an understanding of the value of the doctorate. Hill and Thabet highlight the need for greater engagement of doctoral students in their own professional development. In a paper focusing on Turkish higher education, Gonca Uludağ, Salih Bardakcı, M. Dilek Avşaroğlu, Funda Çankaya, Sena Çatal, Fatma Ayvat, Ayhan Koçer, Sibel Aksu Yıldırım and Muzaffer Elmash investigate the participation of students’ attitudes and engagement with quality assurance. They have found that higher education institutions in Turkey, unlike those in many other national higher education sectors, have not thus far engaged students actively in quality assurance processes.

Reflection on how quality assurance provisions are applied in practice is a continuing concern of much work that is published in Quality in Higher Education. In this issue, Pamela Clovine Dottin explores the status of quality assurance provisions for online education in the Anglophone Caribbean region and compares current global trends. Dottin has found that, despite the existence of a regional framework policy, the provisions of the external quality assurance agencies and those of online institutions are misaligned. Clearly, there is a need for greater harmonisation between national, regional and international quality assurance standards. In a study of Aotearoa New Zealand, Sheelagh M. Matear analyses the responses of universities to recommendations made in the most recently completed cycle of academic audits using so-called ‘artifacts’ or one-year-on follow-up reports on responses to recommendations. Matear has found that impact has been greatest in areas of leadership and management of teaching and learning and research student supervision. Matear’s paper highlights the importance of understanding the impact of quality assurance processes and makes valuable suggestions for assessing such impact.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.