Higher Education

, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 79–95 | Cite as

The perceived impact of external evaluation: the system, organisation and individual levels—Estonian case

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of how the employees of higher education institutions perceive the impact of external evaluations. The study was conducted using the concurrent mixed method and involved 361 employees from Estonian universities and professional higher education institutions. The results indicated that evaluation is mostly deemed necessary at the levels of the organisation and the system; from the personal viewpoint of an employee, positive effects of external evaluations are perceived to a lesser degree. The negative influences mentioned were increased bureaucracy, extra work and stress. Top managers of institutions most often saw the positive influences from external evaluations since they help to implement reorganisations and development activities within an organisation. Managers perceived the positive effects of external evaluations on their everyday work as well, more than other employees did. Researchers felt the positive effects of external evaluations least. Nearly a quarter of all employees of higher education institutions do not perceive the effects of external evaluations on their everyday work at all. Employees of professional higher education institutions perceive the positive effects of external evaluations to a greater extent than employees of universities do, indicating that external evaluation has contributed to the development of their organisations. The differences in opinions of the employees of higher education institutions regarding perceived positive and negative impacts of external evaluations—whether on individual, organisation or system points of view—indicate that employees do not identify closely enough with the organisation and its strategic goals.

Keywords

Employees of higher education institutions Attitudes Perceived impact of external evaluation Universities Professional higher education institutions Concurrent mixed method 

References

  1. Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving policy, enhancing performance. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  2. Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2010). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications (2nd ed.)., Springer Series in Statistics New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Cardoso, S., Rosa, M.J., & Dias, D. (2013). Obstacles to quality in higher education institutions: The views of academics. 8th European Quality Assurance Forum. Sweden http://www.eua.be/Libraries/EQAF_2013/IVa_3_Cardoso_Rosa_Dias_1.sflb.ashx. Accessed July 13, 2015.
  4. Carr, S., Hamilton, E., & Meade, P. (2005). Is it possible? Investigating the influence of external quality audit on university performance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(3), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Cremonini, L., Epping, E., Westerheijden, D. F., & Vogelsang, K. (2012). Impact of Quality Assurance on Cross-Border Higher Education. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS). http://www.utwente.nl/bms/cheps/publications/Publications%202012/Cremonini,%20Epping,%20Westerheijden%20C12DW012%20Publicatie%20inqaahe_case_study_report-final-0201.pdf. Accessed August 01, 2015.
  7. Cret, B. (2011). Accreditations as local management tools. Higher Education, 61(4), 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (4th ed.). New York, NY: McCraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organisational change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(9), 1843–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giugėre, G. (2006). Collecting and analyzing data in multidimensional scaling experiments: A guide for psychologists using SPSS. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 21(1), 26–37.Google Scholar
  11. Grifoll, J., Leiber, T., Moldt, C., Salado-Rasmussen, J., & Sørensen, M. (2012). Measuring the impact of external quality assurance—or: Preparing external quality assurance for a greater impact on higher education. In N. Ryan (Ed.), How does quality assurance make a difference? A selection of papers from the 7th European Quality Assurance Forum (pp. 27–35). Tallinn: Tallinn University Estonia.Google Scholar
  12. Kumar, J. R., & Triandis, H. C. (1997). Management of research and development organisations: Managing the unmanagable. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Langfeldt, L., Stensaker, B., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2010). The role of peer review in Norwegian quality assurance: Potential consequences for excellence and diversity. Higher Education, 59(4), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laughton, D. (2003). Why was the QAA approach to teaching quality assessment rejected by academics in UK HE? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu, S. (2013). External quality audit in the UK: An impact analysis. External Quality Audit. Has it improved quality assurance in universities? A volume in Chandos Learning and Teaching Series. PP. 117–129.Google Scholar
  16. Manatos, M., Sarrico, C., & Rosa, M. (2014). Perceptions of academics on ESG implementation in Portugese universites. In EAIR 36th Annual Forum in Essen, Germany. http://eairaww.websites.xs4all.nl/forum/essen/PDF/1478.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2015.
  17. Newman, J., & McNeil, K. (1998). Conducting study research in the social sciences. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  18. Oakland, J. S. (2003). TQM: Text with cases (3rd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Paewai, S. (2013). Multiple views of quality audits in New Zealand: A case for advancing systemic understanding. In M. Shah & C. S. Nair (Eds.), External quality audit: Has it improved quality assurance in universities?. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Rosa, M., Sarrico, C., & Amaral, A. (2012). Academics’ perceptions on the purposes of quality assessment. Quality in Higher Education 18(3), 349–366. Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 7, 2015.Google Scholar
  21. Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Shah, M. (2012). Ten years of external quality audit in Australia: Evaluating its effectiveness and success. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 761–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels: Belgium.Google Scholar
  24. Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and teaching in European universities. Brussels: EUA.Google Scholar
  25. Tashakkori, A., & Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tight, M. (2007). Bridging the divide: A comparative analysis of articles in higher education journals published inside and outside North America. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 53(2), 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Udam, M. (2013). Meeting state, market and academic concerns: Challenge for quality assurance of higher education institutions: Estonian case. Dissertations on Social Sciences. Tallinn University.Google Scholar
  28. Van Kemenade, E., & Hardjono, T. W. (2010). A critique of the use of self-evaluation in a compulsory accreditation system. Quality in Higher Education, 16(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veiga, A., Magalhães, A. & Amaral, A. (2015). Differentiated integration and the Bologna process. Journal of Contemporary European Research 11(1).Google Scholar
  30. Vilgats, B. (2009). The impact of external quality assessment on universities: Estonian experience. Dissertations on Social Sciences. Tallinn University.Google Scholar
  31. Vilgats, B., & Heidmets, M. (2011). The impact of external quality assessment on universities: The Estonian experience. Higher Education Policy, 24(3), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wainwright, D., & Calnan, M. (2002). Work stress: The making of a modern epidemic. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Zoqaqi, P. (2011). Impact of quality assurance on higher education. Regulating and improving impact. Royal University of Woman. http://www.anqahe.org/files/abu_dhabi_2011/FullPapers/Parsa_Zoqaqi.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2014.
  34. Zou, Y., Du, X., & Rasmussen, P. (2012). Quality of higher education: Organisational or Educational? A content analysis of Chinese university self-evaluation reports. Quality in Higher Education, 18(2), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riin Seema
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maiki Udam
    • 1
  • Heli Mattisen
    • 1
  • Liia Lauri
    • 1
  1. 1.Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)TallinnEstonia
  2. 2.School of Educational SciencesTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations