The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) applies ISO 9000-style inspection to universities. Various authors have explored links of this approach to the corruption of ethical and academic standards at British universities. Try these:
Stone M, Starkey M. The possible impact of university corruption on customers’ ethical standards. Database marketing & Customer Strategy Management 2011 18,154-170. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/dbm/journal/v18/n3/full/dbm201118a.html
Charlton, BG, Andras, P. Auditing as a tool of public policy: the misuse of quality assurance techniques in the UK university expansion European Political Science 2002; 2, 24-35. http://www.scm.keele.ac.uk/staff/p_andras/CAEPS.pdf
The Times Higher Education reports the sort of excuses that the QAA puts up when its monopoly is threatened. Expect similar defensive nonsense from UKAS once people realise what has been going on.
In its response to the consultation on the future of quality assessment in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the QAA rejects the proposal to abolish institutional reviews for established providers and to replace them with increased reliance on vouching by governing bodies and checks by the funding councils on student outcomes data.
The QAA, which conducts institutional reviews and is yet to have its role in a future quality assessment system defined, acknowledges that the current process is “complex and at times too mechanistic for institutions with a strong track record”.
The reputation of UK higher education “is enhanced by the system of external review by academics and students”, according to the QAA, which says that such an approach “reassures providers that judgements are made by those with deep relevant knowledge and understanding of the sector”.
Stating that a UK-wide structure of quality assurance “avoids fragmentation” and ensures that nations’ higher education systems form a “coherent brand”, the QAA argues that the best approach would be for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to adopt a review model based on the Scottish approach of quality enhancement.
With a focus on teaching and learning, assessment and the student experience, this would ensure that reviews are “progressive in nature, and not an impediment to other activity, overly burdensome or a ‘tick box’ exercise”, the QAA says.
However, it says that institutions with “demonstrated quality assurance capacity” should have a “significantly extended cycle” under a “risk-based process that tailors the intensity and frequency of external review to each provider”.
Therefore quantitative and qualitative data should still be collected, but responsibility for monitoring and analysing this information should sit with an “external quality agency” that is separate from the role of “funder and regulator”, the response says.
Anthony McClaran, the QAA’s chief executive, said that UK higher education “must take care not to lose” the benefits of external review. It should “hold on to those elements of our current system that work” and “leave behind those that, collectively, we agree aren’t serving us well”.