Quality pp 47-106 | Cite as

Quality Perspectives

  • Peter Dahler-LarsenEmail author


The previous chapter showed that, in its totality, the concept of quality is enormously rich. It carries a number of meanings, some of which are in tension with each other. Although its ever-present connotation of something good is always attractive in social use, the concept of quality in toto is, if explicated, too big and unhandy to move around with. The only place where all meanings of quality meet is in the dictionary. In practice, people do not look up all these meanings; they usually talk about something less.


  1. Andresen, Emilie, and Maj Fjordside. 2015. Uklare Begreber, Store Forventninger og Nye Roller: Et Studie af Hverdagsrehabilitering som et Eksempel på Samskabelse [Unclear Concepts, Big Expectations and New Roles: A Study of Everyday Rehabilitation as an Example of Cocreation]. Thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  2. Antal, Ariane B., Michael Hutter, and David Stark. 2015. Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baier, Vicki E., James G. March, and Harald Sætren. 1986. Implementation and Ambiguity. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies 2 (3/4): 179–212.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, Martin W. 2016. A Word From the Parting Editor, 4760 Pages Down the Line. Public Understanding of Science 25 (2): 130–134.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1983. Industrialism, Consumerism and Power. Theory, Culture and Society 1 (3): 32–43.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, Carl. 2002. Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Bergh, Andreas. 2011. Why Quality in Education – and What Quality? – A Linguistic Analysis of the Concept of Quality in Swedish Government Texts. Education Inquiry 2 (4): 709–723.Google Scholar
  9. Beuscart, Jean-Samuel, and Kevin Mellet. 2013. Competing Quality Conventions in the French Online Display Advertising Market. Journal of Cultural Economy 6 (4): 402–418.Google Scholar
  10. Biesta, Gert. 2007. Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research. Educational Theory 57 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the Demos. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  12. Brunsson, Nils. 1989. The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Brunsson, Nils, and Bengt Jacobsson, eds. 2000. A World of Standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chavarro, Diego, Puay Tang, and Ismael Ràfols. 2017. Why Researchers Publish in Non-mainstream Journals: Training, Knowledge Bridging, and Gap Filling. Research Policy 46 (9): 1666–1689.Google Scholar
  15. Cheney, George, Jill J. McMillan, and Roy Schwartzman. 1997. Should We Buy the “Student-As-Consumer” Metaphor? The Montana Professor 7 (3): 8–11.Google Scholar
  16. Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 1986. The Causal Assumptions of Quasi-Experimental Practice: The Origins of Quasi-Experimental Practice. Synthese 68 (1): 141–180.Google Scholar
  17. Dahlberg, Magnus, and Evert Vedung. 2001. Demokrati och Brukarutvärdering [Democracy and User Evaluation]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  18. Dean, James W., Jr., and David E. Bowen. 2000. Management Theory and Total Quality. In The Quality Movement & Organization Theory, ed. R.E. Cole and W.R. Scott, 3–21. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Dewey, John. 1931. Philosophy and Civilization. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  20. DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 147–160.Google Scholar
  21. Dörner, Dietrich. 1996. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  22. Droitcour, Judith A., and Mary G. Kovar. 2008. Multiple Threats to the Validity of Randomized Studies. In Fundamental Issues on Evaluation, ed. N.L. Smith and P.R. Brandon. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Eisner, Elliot W. 1976. Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: Their Form and Functions in Educational Evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic Education 10 (3/4): 135–150.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2003. Educational Connoisseurship and Educational Criticism: An Arts-Based Approach to Educational Evaluation. In International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, ed. T. Kellaghan, D.L. Stufflebeam, and L.A. Wingate. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Espeland, Wendy N., and Michael Sauder. 2007. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fountain, Jane E. 2001. Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service. Governance 14 (1): 55–73.Google Scholar
  28. Funnell, Sue C., and Patricia J. Rogers. 2011. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Furusten, Staffan. 2000. The Knowledge Base of Standards. In A World of Standards, ed. N. Brunsson and B. Jacobsson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Furubo, Jan-Eric, Ray C. Rist, and Rolf Sandahl. 2002. International Atlas of Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Galbraith, Jay R. 1983. Strategy and Organization Planning. Human Resource Management 22 (1–2): 63–77.Google Scholar
  32. Gawande, Atul. 2014. Being Mortal, Medicine and What Matters in the End. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  33. Hallström, Kristina T. 2000. Organizing the Process of Standardization. In A World of Standards, ed. N. Brunsson and B. Jacobsson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harvey, Lee, and Diana Green. 1993. Defining Quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1): 9–34.Google Scholar
  35. Harvey, Lee, and Bjørn Stensaker. 2008. Quality Culture: Understandings, Boundaries and Linkages. European Journal of Education 43 (4): 427–442.Google Scholar
  36. Hermann, Stefan. 2007. Magt og Oplysning. Folkeskolen 1950–2006 [Power and Enlightenment. The Public School 1950–2006]. Copenhagen: Unge Pædagoger.Google Scholar
  37. Husz, Orsi. 2012. The Morality of Quality: Assimilating Material Mass Culture in Twentieth-Century Sweden. Journal of Modern European History 10 (2): 152–181.Google Scholar
  38. Julnes, George, ed. 2012. Promoting Value in the Public Interest: Informing Policies for Judging Value in Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 133. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Kreutzmann, Gladys. 1994. Börn og Unges Anbringelser uden for Hjemmet [Children and Young People’s Placements Outside the Home]. Nuuk: Direktoratet for Sociale Anliggender og Arbejdsmarked.Google Scholar
  40. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Stony Stratford: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2004. Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30 (2): 225–248.Google Scholar
  43. Mathison, Sandra. 1991. Role Conflicts for Internal Evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning 14 (3): 173–179.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 2011. Internal Evaluation, Historically Speaking. New Directions for Evaluation 132: 13–23.Google Scholar
  45. Meyer, John W. 2008. Building Education for a World Society. In Changing Knowledge and Education, ed. M.A. Pereyra, 31–49. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  46. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.Google Scholar
  47. Meyer, John W., John Boli, and George M. Thomas. 1994. Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account. In Institutional Environments and Organizations, ed. W.R. Scott and J.W. Meyer, 9–27. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Noordegraf, Mirko. 2016. Reconfiguring Professional Work. Changing Forms of Professionalism in Public Services. Administration and Society 48 (7): 783–810.Google Scholar
  49. Olsen, Niklas. 2016. Velfærdsstatens krise og neoliberalismens indtog i Danmark i 1970’erne [The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Arrival of Neoliberalism in Denmark in the 1970s]. Slagmark 74 (Fall): 119–138.Google Scholar
  50. Øvretveit, John. 2005. Public Service Quality Improvement. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn Jr., and C. Pollitt. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Pflueger, Dane. 2016. Knowing Patients: The Customer Survey and the Changing Margins of Accounting in Healthcare. Accounting, Organizations and Society 53: 17–33.Google Scholar
  53. Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Power, Michael. 1996. Making Things Auditable. Accounting, Organizations and Society 21 (2/3): 289–315.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 1997. The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Prewitt, Kenneth, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf. 2012. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  57. Reeves, Carol A., and David A. Bednar. 1994. Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications. Academy of Management Review 19 (3): 419–445.Google Scholar
  58. Roberts, John. 2018. Managing Only with Transparency: The Strategic Functions of Ignorance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 55: 53–60.Google Scholar
  59. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2009. Demokratin som Problem [Democracy as the Problem]. Hägersten: TankeKraft Förlag.Google Scholar
  60. Røvik, Kjell A. 2005. Moderne Organisasjoner: Trender i Organisasjonstenkningen ved Tusenårsskiftet [Modern Organizations: Trends in Organizational Thinking at the Millennium]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  61. Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  62. Schwandt, Thomas A. 2002. Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  63. Schwandt, Thomas A., and Holli Burgon. 2006. Evaluation and the Study of Lived Experience. In The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation, ed. I.F. Shaw, J.C. Greene, and M.M. Mark, 99–118. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Sennett, Richard. 2008. The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  65. Sismondo, Sergio. 2008. Science and Technology Studies and an Engaged Program. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 13–31. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sower, Victor E., and Frank K. Fair. 2005. There Is More to Quality than Continuous Improvement: Listening to Plato. QMJ 12 (1): 8–20.Google Scholar
  67. Sørensen, Eva M., and Søren K. Foged. 2015. Mål- og Resultatstyring i Kommunerne Efter Krisen [Target and Performance Management in the Municipalities After the Crisis]. Økonomi og Politik 88 (1): 46–56.Google Scholar
  68. Stake, Robert E. 2004. Standard-Based and Responsive Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Stark, David. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance, Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Stern, Elliot, Nicoletta Stame, John Mayne, Kim Forss, Rick Davies, and Barbara Befani. 2012. Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations: Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department for International Development, DFID Working Paper 38. London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  71. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.Google Scholar
  72. Strang, David, and John W. Meyer. 1994. Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. In Institutional Environments and Organizations, ed. W.R. Scott and J.W. Meyer, 100–112. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Vattimo, Gianni. 2005. Nihilisme og Emancipation. Etik, Politik, Ret [Nihilsm and Emancipation. Ethics, Politics, and Law]. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vedung, Evert. 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  75. Wallenburg, Iris, Julia Quartz, and Roland Bal. 2016. Making Hospitals Governable: Performativity and Institutional Work in Ranking Practices. Administration & Society: 1–27.Google Scholar
  76. Weick, Karl E. 2000. Quality Improvement: A Sensemaking Perspective. In The Quality Movement and Organization Theory, ed. R.E. Cole and W.R. Scott, 155–172. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the Process of Sense-making. Organization Science 16 (4): 409–421.Google Scholar
  78. Wimbush, Erica, Steve Montague, and Tamara Mulherin. 2012. Applications of Contribution Analysis to Outcome Planning and Impact Evaluation. Evaluation 18 (3): 310–329.Google Scholar
  79. Young, Joni J. 2006. Making Up Users. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (6): 579–600.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations