Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholders in Higher Education Quality Assurance: Richness in Diversity?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement has become a norm in higher education governance in Europe, particularly in the area of quality assurance. Diverse expectations and experiences of various stakeholder groups are expected to contribute to a more effective and comprehensive quality assurance system. This paper examines empirically the assumption that stakeholders differ in their expectations. Twelve focus group interviews with main stakeholders (university rectors, employers, academic staff, government officials, students) in Estonia demonstrate that the groups indeed have somewhat different perspectives on quality assurance, according to a predictable pattern. We link the results to a theoretical discussion on stakeholder engagement, concluding that the diversity in expectations may enrich the system, but it may also force the quality agency to clarify the limits of a public quality assurance system. Furthermore, an engagement process itself may help align the diverse expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alves, H., Mainardes, E.W. and Raposo, M. (2010) ‘A relationship approach to higher education institution stakeholder management’, Tertiary Education and Management 16(3): 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aucoin, P. and Heintzman, R. (2000) ‘The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(1): 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I. and Braithwaite, J. (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., Dragojevic, D., Findlay, P., Hering, S., Lauri, L., Lynch, O. and Udam, M. (2014) Transparency of European Higher Education Through Public Quality Assurance Reports (EQArep): Final report of the project, Occasional report 21, Brussels: ENQA.

  • Beerkens, M. (2015a) ‘Agencification problems in higher education quality assurance’, in E. Reale and E. Primeri (eds.) The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries, Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 43–62.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beerkens, M. (2015b) ‘Quality assurance in the political context: In the midst of different expectations and conflicting goals’, Quality in Higher Education 21(3): 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benneworth, P. and Jongbloed, B. (2010) ‘Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation’, Higher Education 59(5): 567–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomgren Bingham, L. (2010) ‘Collaborative Governance’, in M. Bevir (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Governance, Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 386–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. and Hart, P.T. (2008) ‘Does public accountability work? An assessment tool’, Public Administration 86(1): 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000) Managing quality in higher education: an international perspective on institutional assessment and change, Buckingham England; Philadelphia, PA: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

  • Burrows, J. (1999) ‘Going Beyond Labels: A Framework for Profiling Institutional Stakeholders. Contemporary Education’, 70(4): 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, S. (2012) ‘Students’ perceptions of quality assessment’, in B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa and C. Sarrico (eds.) Managing Reform in Universities: The Dynamics of Culture, Identity and Organisational Change, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 135–155.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, S. and dos Santos, S.M. (2011) ‘Students in Higher Education Governance: The Portuguese case’, Tertiary Education and Management 17(3): 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danø, T. and Stensaker, B. (2007) ‘Still Balancing Improvement and Accountability? Developments in External Quality Assurance in the Nordic Countries 1996–2006’, Quality in Higher Education 13(1): 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, H., Enders, J. and Schimank, U. (2007) ‘On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany’, in D. Jansen (ed.) New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations: Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration, Dordrecht: Sprinder, pp. 137–152.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, R.M. (2008) Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical guide (3rd ed), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J. and Klijn, E.-H. (2006) ‘Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 417–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015) Better regulation guidelines. Commission staff working document. SWD(2015) 111 final, Strasbourg: European Commission.

  • Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N. and Sinclair, D. (1999) ‘Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection’, Law and Policy 21(1): 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. and Newton, J. (2004) ‘Transforming quality evaluation’, Quality in Higher Education 10(2): 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopbach, A. (2014) ‘Recent trends in quality assurance? Observations from the agencies’ perspectives’, in M.J. Rosa and A. Amaral (eds.) Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Contemporary Debates, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 216–230.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005) ‘Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C. (2008) ‘Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda’, Higher Education 56(3): 303–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as governance, London, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, A. and Meijer, A. (2008) ‘Safeguarding public accountability in horizontal government’, Public Management Review 10(2): 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.L. and Kreuger, R.A. (1993) ‘When to use focus groups and why’, in D.L. Morgan (ed.) Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, London: Sage, pp. 3–19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2002) Responding to student expectations, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2012) Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J.P. (1988) ‘Administrative reform and theories of organization’, in C. Campbell and B.G. Peters (eds.) Organizing governance, governing organizations, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • QQI (2014) Review of Reviews: Report of the Independent Review Team: QQI.

  • Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E. and Arnal, E. (2008) Tertiary Education for Knowledge Society: Volume 1 (Governance, Funding, Quality). Paris: OECD.

  • Schillemans, T. (2008) ‘Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies’, Public Organization Review 8(2): 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. and Westerheijden, D.F. (2004) Accreditation in the Framework of Evaluation Activities: A Comparative Study in the European Higher Education Area, Dordrecht: Spinger.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state, and higher education, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeby, J.-C. and Stensaker, B. (1999) ‘National quality assessment systems in the Nordic countries: Developing a balance between external and internal needs?’, Higher Education Policy 12(1): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E.V.A. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making Governance Networks Effective And Democratic Through Metagovernance’, Public Administration 87(2): 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stensaker, B. and Vabø, A. (2013) ‘Re-inventing Shared Governance: Implications for Organisational Culture and Institutional Leadership’, Higher Education Quarterly 67(3): 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. (2012) ‘Who runs our universities?’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 16(2): 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, K. and van Thiel, S. (2012) ‘Autonomous Agencies and Perceptions of Stakeholder Influence in Parliamentary Democracies’, Journal of Public Administration Research Theor 22(1): 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, The Hague, Netherlands

    Maarja Beerkens

  2. EKKA-Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education, Tallinn, Estonia

    Maiki Udam

Authors
  1. Maarja Beerkens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maiki Udam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarja Beerkens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beerkens, M., Udam, M. Stakeholders in Higher Education Quality Assurance: Richness in Diversity?. High Educ Policy 30, 341–359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0032-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0032-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation