Sky’s the Limit: Harnessing Human Potential for Airline Success
December 4, 2023
Visibility Matters: Lessons from Nursing Leadership & Educational Leadership
January 4, 2024
Important Topics
Have you ever wondered why some institutions in higher education continually excel in quality improvement, while others seem to stagnate or decline over time? We try to address this question briefly and explore the critical role of leadership in quality assurance within higher education, emphasizing the importance of responsibility in quality assurance. Highlighting shared commitments and collective maintenance as some of the key components for effective benchmarking practices within higher education, we warmly invite the reader to reflect on fundamental questions about benchmarking that are sometimes overlooked by decision-makers, educational leaders, educators, and other stakeholders in higher education.
Accessible on mobile and desktop
Estimated reading time: 8 minutes
Why do some institutions in higher education continually excel in quality improvement, while others seem to stagnate or decline over time? Benchmarking, a systematic and ongoing process, a pathway to excellence in higher education, offers a powerful lens through which we can explore this question.
As Kempner (1993) defines it, benchmarking involves the measurement and comparison of work processes in one organisation to those in another. In the context of higher education, this approach brings an external perspective to internal activities, functions, and operations. This thought-provoking concept prompts us to consider how benchmarking can play a pivotal role in deciphering the secrets behind the persistence of positive organisational changes, shedding light on the strategies and practices that lead to enduring excellence, and the factors that hinder progress in others. Through benchmarking, institutions can unlock valuable insights, ultimately shaping the future landscape of higher education quality improvement.
In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, the questions posed by Kempner in the 1990s continue to resonate with a profound sense of relevance in 2023. These queries serve as guiding beacons, illuminating the path towards quality enhancement and benchmarking excellence.
- How good do we want to be?
- Who is doing it the best?
- How do they do it?
- How can we adapt what they do to our institution?
- How can we be better than the best?
These fundamental queries inspire a return to the core principles of benchmarking, reminding us that progress often begins with a thorough examination of the basics.
The concept and practice of benchmarking is not new
As aptly articulated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1998, ‘For most institutions of higher education, the desire to learn from each other and to share aspects of good practice is almost as old as the university itself.’ In the dynamic landscape of higher education, the enduring wisdom of benchmarking lies in its ability to facilitate cross-institutional learning and improvement.
For most institutions of higher education, the desire to learn from each other and to share aspects of good practice is almost as old as the university itself.
Likewise, in a noteworthy publication from 2007 titled “Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction,” authored by Dr. Sanjaya Mishra, a prominent scholar in open, distance, and online learning, Dr. Mishra elucidates how higher education institutions aspire to elevate academic excellence by customising their processes to align with the distinct characteristics of both the institution and the nation it serves.
Dr. Mishra underscores the paramount importance of the concept of quality, emphasising that benchmarking serves as a vital tool for investigating, comparing, and analysing quality within other educational institutions. This process enables institutions to acquire new approaches, tools, and techniques, thereby empowering them to take meaningful steps toward enhancing the quality of their own educational services.
However, the term “quality” remains a captivating enigma, provoking profound questions about its essence and significance in various aspects of life. What, indeed, constitutes quality, and why should we concern ourselves with the relentless pursuit of it in our endeavours?
What, indeed, constitutes quality?
To exemplify the challenging and elusive character of quality, along with the accompanying perplexity, numerous authors (Nigvekar 1996, Warren et al. 1994, and Sallis 1996) have alluded to the widely acknowledged words of Pirsig from 1974:
Quality… you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self- contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about it. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes, it doesn’t exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist… So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it? (p. 171).
Multifaceted quality and excellence
In their seminal work published in the journal “Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education” titled “Defining Quality,” Harvey and Green (1993) present a comprehensive classification of quality in higher education, encompassing five distinct conceptions:
- Quality as an exceptional phenomenon: This conception perceives quality as something exceptional and comprises three variations:
- Traditional Vision of Quality: Emphasises exclusivity, elitism, and distinction, such as the education provided by institutions like Oxford and Cambridge.
- Quality as Excellence: Defines quality as surpassing established standards and includes excellence in inputs, processes, and outputs.
- Quality as Fulfilment of Requirements: Focuses on conforming to set standards and involves scientific quality control.
- Quality as Perfection or Coherence: This perspective underscores the importance of flawless adherence to specifications and processes. Unlike excellence, it is accessible to all and hinges on consistency with standards, promoting a culture of quality and shared responsibility within institutions.
- Quality as Fitness for Purpose: This conception posits that quality exists when a product or service meets the satisfaction demands for which it was designed. It centers on functionality and acknowledges that the purpose can be defined by clients, suppliers, or process objectives.
- Quality as a Cost-Benefit Relation: Quality, in this context, is intertwined with economic efficiency, emphasising the accountability of costs to financiers, including government and taxpayers. Performance indicators are employed to measure quality in this perspective.
- Quality as Transformation: Quality here is closely linked to qualitative change. In the realm of education, it emphasises the transformation of the student, shifting the focus from what is done for the student to what is done to empower the student. It encompasses enhancing students’ capacities, adding value in terms of knowledge and skills, and fostering self-confidence and critical reasoning.
Within the context of benchmarking and quality in higher education, Harvey and Green’s conceptual framework offers valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of excellence. They eloquently underline that excellence should not be limited to merely surpassing standards; rather, it should be approached holistically, encompassing inputs, processes, and outputs. For instance, in their conception of quality as excellence, they aptly illustrate that a university’s pursuit of excellence goes beyond the recruitment of distinguished professors, including Nobel Prize winners, or the acquisition of top-tier physical resources like laboratories and libraries. As I reflect on Harvey and Green’s framework, their comprehensive approach to quality highlights that excellence in higher education should prioritise a holistic perspective, moving beyond notions of perfection.
Their multifaceted understanding encompasses various dimensions, from precision and functionality to economic efficiency and transformative impact, reinforcing the idea that excellence should embrace the diverse and dynamic aspects of educational quality.
Quality improvement disparities in higher education
As we embark on our exploration of quality improvement disparities in higher education, I would like to invite the reader to consider revisiting the fundamental question that has driven our inquiry: ‘Why do some institutions in higher education continually excel in quality improvement, while others seem to stagnate or decline over time?
As we attempt to address this question and delve deeper into the examination of quality improvement disparities in higher education, it is paramount to underscore the central role of responsibility in this endeavour. Responsibility rests upon the shoulders of numerous stakeholders within higher education organisations, including educational leaders, educators, curriculum developers, product developers, and policy developers, among others. Regardless of the benchmarking principles and approaches institutions adopt or the theoretical frameworks they employ, the degree to which they feel accountable for sustainable and ongoing quality improvement significantly influences their growth and their broader impact on society. A deep and unwavering sense of responsibility serves as a prerequisite for excelling in quality improvement, as it drives institutions to continually strive for excellence through a holistic approach, ensuring that they not only meet established standards but also nurture a culture of continuous improvement across all facets of their educational mission.
At the heart of this responsibility lies the concept of quality assurance, a fundamental element in our quest for excellence.
The responsibility imperative for quality assurance
In the work done by Dr. Sanjaya Mishra, as introduced earlier to the reader, Dr. Mishra highlighted that the concept and practice of benchmarking is not new. As we delve into his work, “Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction,” it becomes evident that the notion of “responsibility” is intricately woven into the fabric of the quality assurance process. This perspective emphasises the critical role that responsibility plays in the pursuit of benchmarking practices within higher education. Dr Mishra refers to Quality Assurance “the process of maintaining standards reliably and consistently by applying criteria of success in a course, programme or institution.” (p.88). In exploring this further, Dr Mishra also refers to the work of Frazer (1992), who proposes an important question: how can quality be assured?
Frazer (1992), akin to a guiding torch, illuminates the paramount significance of responsibility, drawing our attention to its imperativeness. It is my belief that responsibility serves as a foundational cornerstone for quality assurance, quality improvement, and effective benchmarking.
From the work of Frazer, four key components emerge, underscoring the importance of a shared commitment to quality across the entire enterprise:
- Shared Responsibility for Enhancement: Every individual within the institution bears a collective responsibility for actively contributing to the improvement of the educational product or service.
- Collective Responsibility for Maintenance: Just as enhancement is a shared duty, maintaining the established quality standards is a responsibility that all members of the enterprise must uphold.
- Ownership of Quality Systems: A crucial aspect of effective quality assurance lies in the universal understanding, utilisation, and sense of ownership of the systems designed to maintain and enhance quality. This ownership fosters a culture of continuous improvement and accountability.
- Regular Management Validation: Management plays a pivotal role in quality assurance by regularly validating the effectiveness of the systems in place for checking quality. This ongoing evaluation ensures the reliability and validity of the quality assurance process.
Sources and helpful links: Refer to the full article here for the complete list of helpful references and sources
