Higher Education Policy

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 341–359 | Cite as

Stakeholders in Higher Education Quality Assurance: Richness in Diversity?

Original Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

quality assurance governance stakeholders engagement consultation collaborative governance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, I. and Braithwaite, J. (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomgren Bingham, L. (2010) ‘Collaborative Governance’, in M. Bevir (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Governance, Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 386–401.Google Scholar
  9. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. and Hart, P.T. (2008) ‘Does public accountability work? An assessment tool’, Public Administration 86(1): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Burrows, J. (1999) ‘Going Beyond Labels: A Framework for Profiling Institutional Stakeholders. Contemporary Education’, 70(4): 5.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardoso, S. and dos Santos, S.M. (2011) ‘Students in Higher Education Governance: The Portuguese case’, Tertiary Education and Management 17(3): 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diamond, R.M. (2008) Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical guide (3rd ed), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2015) Better regulation guidelines. Commission staff working document. SWD(2015) 111 final, Strasbourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  20. Gunningham, N. and Sinclair, D. (1999) ‘Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection’, Law and Policy 21(1): 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey, L. and Newton, J. (2004) ‘Transforming quality evaluation’, Quality in Higher Education 10(2): 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005) ‘Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as governance, London, Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Michels, A. and Meijer, A. (2008) ‘Safeguarding public accountability in horizontal government’, Public Management Review 10(2): 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2002) Responding to student expectations, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. OECD (2012) Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. QQI (2014) Review of Reviews: Report of the Independent Review Team: QQI.Google Scholar
  34. Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E. and Arnal, E. (2008) Tertiary Education for Knowledge Society: Volume 1 (Governance, Funding, Quality). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. Schillemans, T. (2008) ‘Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies’, Public Organization Review 8(2): 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state, and higher education, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sørensen, E.V.A. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making Governance Networks Effective And Democratic Through Metagovernance’, Public Administration 87(2): 234–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stensaker, B. and Vabø, A. (2013) ‘Re-inventing Shared Governance: Implications for Organisational Culture and Institutional Leadership’, Higher Education Quarterly 67(3): 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watson, D. (2012) ‘Who runs our universities?’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 16(2): 41–45.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Public AdministrationLeiden UniversityThe HagueNetherlands
  2. 2.EKKA-Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational EducationTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations