Reexamining Relationship between National Quality Assurance Agencies and Governments under Neoliberalism: What are their Emerging Roles: Extended Arms, Regulator, or Partner?

• In Event: Government relationship with higher education

Proposal

Reexamining Relationship between National Quality Assurance Agencies and
Governments under Neoliberalism: What are their Emerging Roles: Extended Arms, Regulator, or Partner?

Angela Yung Chi Hou
Professor, National Chengchi University

Abstract

Several trends in higher education, including massification, digitalization, international and marketization have led to the changing partnership between national quality assurance agencies and governments over years. Four major concerns proposed by David Woodhouse (2016), QA profession, internationalization of QA, emergence of new types of higher education providers, and quality standards and student outcomes are being challenging most quality assurance agencies. Therefore, quality assurance agencies need to actively interact with varying higher education stakeholders and even transform their sole roles in order to find the better solutions for the issues.

Quality assurance as a political instrument and policy tool
Since the 90s, neoliberal practices and ideology have been adopted by higher education policy making, being placed in national agendas (Davies and Bansel 2007; Saunders 2010; Margison, 2011). Originating in 1970s, neoliberalism has more emphasis on “marketization, privatization, deregulation with competition as a key characteristic”. As Shin (2017) argued that “states prefer to use quality assurance as a strong driver to reform higher education while universities prefer to maintain their prestige without strong state influences” (p.2). Westerheijden, et.al. (2014) also pointed out that “The adoption of quality assurance schemes becomes a process of copying instruments and policies that exist elsewhere, or to legitimate political action regardless of its actual effect” (p.3).
As mentioned above, “quality assurance” has different meanings in varying context, but inevitably it is often used a policy tool and intertwined with politics under neoliberalism (Westerheijden, et.al, 2014; Shin, 2017). Truly, different political purposes shed more light on the logics underlying QA concept, methods and design (Orsingher, 2006; Shin, 2017). Due to the different logics and concepts, the relationships among quality assurance agencies, government and higher education institutions might vary. Olsen (2007) developed four governance models for quality assurance schemes in terms of relationship with government and universities, including institutional led, state control, democratic corporatist, and super market oriented. In addition, Westerheijden, et.al. (2014) identified four roles and categories for quality assurance schemes, as “a tool of pedagogic progress”, as “part of a struggle for power and influence over the sector”, as “a global fashion”, and as a “political instrument”. For example, most Asian nations might adopt a compulsory QA approach in order to “protect national consumers and make sure that higher education provision related to national development objectives in one way or another” (Martin & Stella, 2007). Here, quality assurance acts like a strong “political instrument” as well as “arms race”. In comparison, US model tends to be on a voluntary basis though there is indirectly linked with federal student loan program. It seems that US QA scheme has established “harmonic relationships between government, society and institutions” (Westerheijden, 2014, p.4). Yet, with hidden political force, higher education institutions would be still pressured or coerced to comply with national standards of education.

Continuity and transformation of quality assurance at national and international context
In recent years, the trends mentioned have exerted great impacts on the structural transformation, role changes and autonomy of national quality assurance agencies in well-developed nations. Take American accreditors for example, Federal government expected obviously that all accreditors should set a minimum standards of student learning outcomes, particularly in retention rate and graduation rate. One of national accreditors has been withdrawn its recognition status due to the failure in this request by US Department of Education. Australian government restructured the former quality assurance agency “Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA)” into “Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TESQA)” in 2011 in order to enhance the quality of international education. Requested by UK government, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) started to downsize, moving toward multi-functions and roles in quality education. In Asia, most quality assurance agencies under government control are expected to classify and categorize quality assurance modes of varying higher education providers. For example, MQA, NIAD-QE and HEEACT are in the transitional process.
In 2016, The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) and Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) published the new guidelines and principles respectively, which will likely become a new framework for the development and evolution of well-established national quality assurance systems (CHEA, 2018). Both international quality assurance networks pay greatest attention to quality enhancement of quality assurance agencies in terms of their emerging roles and relationships with government, higher education institutions and society.

Research aim and questions
The study aims to realize the relationship among national quality assurance agencies and governments and their new emerging roles by applying INQAAHE GGP and CHEA principles. Six national quality assurance agencies in US, UK, Australian, Japan, Malaysia and Taiwan are selected as case studies. First of all, legal status, governance, organizational reforms of six selected quality assurance agencies in response to accountability and public demand are presented comparatively. A balance between autonomy and accountability of quality assurance agencies would be discussed by applying INQAAHE GGP and CHEA Principles. Under neoliberalism, the emerging roles of six quality assurance agencies and the challenges they would encounter are presented as a conclusion. Based on the three themes, the research questions are as follows:
1. What were the legal status, organization and governance of six quality assurance agencies and the relationships with the government?
2. How did six quality assurance agencies strike a balance between autonomy and accountability according to INQAAHE GGP and CHEA Principles?
3. What emerging roles of six quality assurance agencies are developing under neoliberalism?

Research Method
This study adopted qualitative document analysis and in-depth interviews to explore the relationship between quality assurance agencies and government among six national quality assurance agencies. The quality regulations, documents and accreditation handbooks from respective quality assurance agencies and governments were collected and analyzed according to INQAAHE GGP and CHEA Principles. Between Aug. 2017 and Aug. 2018, 17 senior administrators from quality assurance agencies, and 9 higher education experts from Asian, UK and USA provided their opinions through semi-structured interviews. The coded qualitative data was then triangulated with the document analysis results. The initial findings of documents and interviews were examined closely by cross-verification. Subsequent consistent data and information would directly contribute to final conclusions and findings. Those deemed inconsistent were marked and perceived as discussion point.

Key words: quality assurance agency, neoliberalism, INQAAHE GGP, CHEA principles

References
Council for Higher Education (CHEA) (2018). Announcing the CIQG quality award. Retrieved 1, Oct. 2018 at https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/CIQG-Quality-Award-July-2018-Award-Requirements_0.pdf
Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, (3), 247-259.
Marginson, S. (2011). Imagining the global. In Handbook on globalization and higher education, ed. R. King, S. Marginson and R. Naidoo, 10–39. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Olsen, J. P. (2007). “Institutional dynamics and European Universities” in University Dynamics and European Integration (Vol.19) ed. Maassen, P., and Olsen, J. P., 25-54. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Orsingher, C. ( 2006). Assessing Quality in European Higher Education Institutions: Dimension, Methods, and Procedures. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, (1), 42-77.
Shin, J.C. (2017). Quality assurance systems as a higher education policy tool in Korea: International convergence and local contexts. International Journal of Educational Development, in press.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., Rosa, M.J. & Corbett, A. (2014). Next generations, catwalks, random walks and arms races: conceptualizing the development of quality assurance schemes. European Journal of Education, 49 (3). pp. 421-434.
Woodhouse, D. (2016). Global trend in quality assurance. Presented at International quality assurance conference, University of Nottingham, Liverpool.

Author

• Angela Yung Chi Hou, National Cheng Chi University