Full Chapter Quality Work in Higher Education Organisational and Pedagogical Dimensions Mari Elken PDF
Full Chapter Quality Work in Higher Education Organisational and Pedagogical Dimensions Mari Elken PDF
Full Chapter Quality Work in Higher Education Organisational and Pedagogical Dimensions Mari Elken PDF
https://textbookfull.com/product/mentoring-in-higher-education-
case-studies-of-peer-learning-and-pedagogical-development-clare-
woolhouse/
https://textbookfull.com/product/conceptualizing-and-
contextualizing-higher-education-with-chinese-characteristics-
ontological-and-epistemological-dimensions-jian-li/
https://textbookfull.com/product/cross-border-higher-education-
and-quality-assurance-commerce-the-services-directive-and-
governing-higher-education-1st-edition-maria-joao-rosa/
https://textbookfull.com/product/quality-assurance-in-vietnamese-
higher-education-policy-and-practice-in-the-21st-century-cuong-
huu-nguyen/
Socially Just Pedagogies, Capabilities and Quality in
Higher Education: Global Perspectives 1st Edition
Melanie Walker
https://textbookfull.com/product/socially-just-pedagogies-
capabilities-and-quality-in-higher-education-global-
perspectives-1st-edition-melanie-walker/
https://textbookfull.com/product/entrepreneurial-universities-
exploring-the-academic-and-innovative-dimensions-of-
entrepreneurship-in-higher-education-1st-edition-marta-peris-
ortiz/
https://textbookfull.com/product/enriching-higher-education-
students-learning-through-post-work-placement-interventions-
stephen-billett/
https://textbookfull.com/product/super-dimensions-in-
globalisation-and-education-1st-edition-david-r-cole/
https://textbookfull.com/product/ethnography-in-higher-education-
clemens-wieser/
Higher Education Dynamics 54
Quality Work
in Higher
Education
Organisational and Pedagogical
Dimensions
Higher Education Dynamics
Volume 54
Series Editors
Peter Maassen, Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Science,
University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, Norway
Johan Müller, School of Education, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch,
South Africa
Editorial Board
Alberto Amaral, CIPES and Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Akira Arimoto, Hyogo University, Kakogawa, Japan
Nico Cloete, CHET, Pretoria, South Africa
David Dill, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA
Jürgen Enders, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
Patricia Gumport, Stanford Institute for Higher Education, Stanford, USA
Mary Henkel, Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
Glen Jones, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Scope of the Series
Higher Education Dynamics is a book series intending to study adaptation processes
and their outcomes in higher education at all relevant levels. In addition it wants to
examine the way interactions between these levels affect adaptation processes.
It aims at applying general social science concepts and theories as well as testing
theories in the field of higher education research. It wants to do so in a manner that
is of relevance to all those professionally involved in higher education, be it as
ministers, policy-makers, politicians, institutional leaders or administrators, higher
education researchers, members of the academic staff of universities and colleges,
or students. It will include both mature and developing systems of higher education,
covering public as well as private institutions.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
The researchers who contributed to this book have been part of a large project called
“Quality of Norwegian Higher Education: Pathways, Practices and Performances.”
The project was funded by the Research Council of Norway (grant number 237960),
and it was carried out in 2014–2018. The editorial team includes leaders for the two
main empirical work packages in the project. Peter Maassen and Agnete Vabø lead
the sub-project examining the organizational dimensions of quality work, while
Monika Nerland and Tine S. Prøitz lead the work on the pedagogical dimensions of
quality work. They have been involved in planning the contributions from the work
packages to this book. Mari Elken acted as the overall project leader during the
completion of the project and has together with Bjørn Stensaker been involved in
writing the introductory and concluding chapters for this book. All of the editors
have been involved in the two internal review processes of the chapters in this book.
v
Contents
vii
viii Contents
Mari Elken is a senior researcher and the deputy head of research at the Nordic
Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) in Oslo. She has
an interdisciplinary background and holds a PhD from the Faculty of Educational
Sciences at the University of Oslo. She has been employed at NIFU since 2013 and
has been primarily working on themes related to governance and organisation of
higher education. In the QNHE project, she functioned as the project leader in the
final stages of the project.
ix
x About the Editors
Introduction
M. Elken (*)
The Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU),
Oslo, Norway
e-mail: mari.elken@nifu.no
B. Stensaker
Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to 1
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
M. Elken et al. (eds.), Quality Work in Higher Education, Higher Education
Dynamics 54, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41757-4_1
2 M. Elken and B. Stensaker
(see, e.g. Harvey 2004–2017 for a glossary). This multiplicity of perspectives can be
seen as an indication that some aspects of quality in higher education have, thus far,
not been systematically captured. This introductory chapter builds on and expands
the conceptualisation of quality work (Elken and Stensaker 2018). This emphasis
reflects a recent shift in organisational studies towards emphasising ‘work’ in creat-
ing, maintaining, and disrupting institutions. In line with this emphasis, quality
work is defined as ‘activities and practices within higher education institutions that
address the quality of its educational provision’ (Elken and Stensaker 2018, p. 190),
implying that this kind of emphasis includes a focus on both formal organisational
structures and the more informal and routine work that is not always explicitly
associated with quality enhancement within the institutions. Quality thus not only
concerns assurance and enhancement, but also maintenance and routine practice. At
a time where debates about quality are sometimes dominated by discussions of how
to achieve teaching excellence, this emphasis deliberately shifts emphasis on the
local routine practices which, as is argued in this book, also constitute an important
aspect of quality in higher education. The emphasis thus also follows earlier studies
that would warn against simplified judgments of teaching quality based on institu-
tional status and prestige (see, e.g. McLean et al. 2018). Focus on quality work
emphasises the necessity to analyse practices and actors within higher education
institutions while maintaining that these practices need to be analysed in their
organisational context. Thus, quality work represents a concept that could link the
organisational and pedagogical dimensions of quality.
We argue that coupling organisational and pedagogical perspectives has several
important implications. First, it takes attention away from defining quality through
various outcomes (e.g., relevance, efficiency, and standards) to analysing processes
and practices associated with the enhancement of quality, which is a more process-
oriented view. While attempts to define quality have been important in attempting to
establish a conceptual basis for studies of quality in higher education (Harvey and
Green 1993), we need to move on from acknowledging the complexity of the con-
cept to a better understanding of the conditions creating and affecting quality.
Through this perspective, the goal is to develop a more thorough understanding of
the transformative potential of quality (Harvey and Green 1993).
Second, we also need to build a more inclusive empirical basis where the unfor-
tunate tendency of either seeing quality as something dealt with by management or
a cultural artefact would be overcome (Elken and Stensaker 2018). While quality
work can, indeed, have managerial and cultural characteristics, there is a danger of
analytical fragmentation. As such, the quality work concept has the potential to con-
nect research traditions that have previously been disconnected. The current book is
novel in that it brings together studies of governance and organisation in higher
education and the analysis of teaching and learning processes in higher education.
Empirically, we explore the notion of quality work through a wide range of different
settings in several higher education institutions utilising a variety of different
data sets.
1 Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education 3
Identifying the main drivers of complexity associated with the quality agenda in
higher education is a relatively easy task. As national governments are still in charge
of designing and regulating higher education systems around the world, the sector
has been exposed to the same reform attempts as other public sectors (Dill and
Beerkens 2010). Hence, it is possible to explain the increasing emphasis on quality
as a result of the evolving public governance of higher education and the need to
provide improved efficiency and effectiveness. How such governance changes have
played out in national contexts differs between countries where higher education
and ‘quality’ have been more tightly regulated and countries where the public steer-
ing of higher education has been more deregulated and exposed to market-like con-
texts (Stensaker and Harvey 2011).
Another driver of complexity in the area of quality stems from the idea that
higher education is expected to contribute to advancing a knowledge economy
(Slaughter and Leslie 1997). While it is by no means a new expectation and is even
an expectation closely intertwined with public reform attempts, studies have been
reporting how universities have been slowly and steadily modernised to be more
coherent and complete organisations that interact with their environment in a pur-
poseful manner (Krücken and Meier 2006). In the European context, the inspiration
for this call to modernise universities can be traced to the perceived success of
American universities (Olsen and Maassen 2007), where the view of universities as
market actors has been much more predominant. This view of academic activity as
a form of ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie 1997) implies universities’
knowledge production is an aspect of their competitive position in the marketplace,
as well as the relevance of the outcomes produced. Such a view of the university as
an economic actor also impacts how quality is conceptualised and the most relevant
means to assess quality.
The third driver of complexity is related to the inherent characteristics of higher
education institutions, as organisations that are a target of reform attempts and
exposed to market forces. The argument made by Clark (1983) that universities are
still characterised by strong sets of values and norms has been found to be valid
despite the many reform attempts directed at the sector (Douglass 2016; Olsen and
Maassen 2007; Stensaker et al. 2012). While universities have, indeed, been increas-
ingly turned into agencies (Christensen et al. 2019), it is by no means certain that
formal changes affect the underlying logic of these institutions (Stensaker 2019).
Universities have proved to possess a great adaptive capacity and an ability to trans-
late societal demands in ways that fit their institutional norms and values. As such,
the current excellence agenda, which is often associated with the economic role of
higher education and the need for more entrepreneurial agency (Deem et al. 2008),
can also be considered closely intertwined with more traditional academic norms
4 M. Elken and B. Stensaker
and values (Ramirez and Tiplic 2014) where discovery, originality, and more elitist
functions of higher education comes to the fore.
In terms of quality, the changes outlined above suggest higher education per-
forms an increasing multiplicity of functions in society, where the emphasis varies
between efficiency and effectiveness, employability and relevance, and more tradi-
tional forms of academic excellence. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that these drivers
have also impacted university life, and the ‘living’ autonomy of universities cannot
be understood by simply examining formal organisational charts and prescribed
governance schemes (de Boer and Enders 2017; Enders et al. 2013; Maassen et al.
2017). This does not mean that formal structures do not matter; it is merely stressing
that the regulative, financial, and organisational constraints and conditions are inter-
preted and balanced by individuals working inside universities, and understanding
these constraints and conditions are of utmost importance for improving quality.
How has research contributed to informing us about the constraints and conditions
affecting educational quality? A key observation is that there is certainly no short-
age of studies using the label ‘quality’. A review of the studies making use of this
label reveals that the existing literature is extremely broad, but it is quite path-
dependent and fragmented. As such, it is a paradox that the ‘quality’ construct,
which often collapses the boundaries between distinctively different dimensions of
higher education research, has resulted in a research field consisting of different
tribes and territories (cf. Becher and Trowler 2001).
Although conducting a review of the quality literature is not our objective as
such, some illustrations of the current fragmentation in the research conducted in
this field are required. One strand in the literature on quality related to explorations
concerns the introduction, functioning, and impact of quality assurance schemes in
the sector (see, e.g. Brennan and Shah 2000; Frederiks et al. 1994; Kis 2005; Leiber
et al. 2015; Stensaker 2008; Westerheijden 2007) and attempts to identify produc-
tive means for quality enhancement (Bollaert 2014; Massaro 2010; Massy 1999;
Newton 2000). This subset of the literature can be tightly linked to changes in the
governance of higher education and how new, intermediate quality assurance agen-
cies have affected the way in which universities are accountable to their environ-
ment. However, a weakness within this literature is that it is rarely linked to the
specific activities directly affecting teaching and learning (Mårtensson et al. 2014;
Newton 2000). As such, we know fairly little about how external quality assurance
schemes impact the ways in which teaching is conducted or how students learn.
Another strand of the literature addresses how ‘quality’ is managed within uni-
versities. This literature tends to focus on the establishment of formal governance
within universities and is sometimes linked to changing external conditions sur-
rounding higher education institutions, including external quality assurance
(Pratasavitskaya and Stensaker 2010), and how ‘quality’ concerns are infusing a
1 Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education 5
and that even an action taken to change an institution is still embedded within the
same institutional norms (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006, p. 220).
With this broader view of institutional work in mind, how can ‘quality work’ be
understood, and how is it positioned vis-a-vis the perspectives that have, thus far,
been employed in studies of quality in higher education? In our earlier conceptuali-
sation, we emphasised six key dimensions (Elken and Stensaker 2018). In our
understanding, individual and collective actors within organisations engage in insti-
tutional work to maintain education as an institution. To be termed quality work,
there also needs to be some form of intentionality to engage with the issues of qual-
ity. However, this perspective focuses not only on specific quality enhancement
processes but also processes through which practices undertaken to provide high-
quality education are reproduced and maintained. Actors within higher education
are shaped by existing institutional norms and socialised into an understanding of
what it means to be an academic, an administrative staff member, or a student.
These actors also have agency to shape the institution through their practices. It fol-
lows from this that (1) quality work is negotiated and dynamic, where specific prac-
tices must be tested and weighed against the established values and norms associated
with educational delivery, and seeks to find a (2) balance between multiple expecta-
tions, including those derived from the environment.
Contrary to the more distinct role of particular individuals, such as leaders
(Selznick 1957), a quality work perspective does not assume that those occupying a
managerial position are necessarily more important than other actors with respect to
quality improvement. Conversely, a focus on quality work is an acknowledgement
of how (3) individuals may function as local problem-solvers and innovators within
their own area and that problem-solving does not always have to be dramatic and/or
radical. Quality work also recognises the small routine changes and daily work
within institutions (Elken and Stensaker 2018).
Furthermore, the number of small changes, the incremental accumulation of
actions resulting from implemented practices and routines, may also lead to (4)
open-ended outcomes, as a result of imperfect imitation processes or because
problem-solving is driven by the need to find (5) pragmatic solutions to pressing
issues. Linking back to the issue of local problem-solving, this may sometimes lead
to surprising results and outcomes.
However, for quality work to be negotiated and individuals to function as
problem-solvers, a quality work perspective also assumes that (6) individuals need
to possess some autonomy in how tasks are performed to solve problems and the
means used to exercise their responsibility. Such discretion is achieved due to inad-
equate or incomplete rules and regulations or because different administrative log-
ics collide when specific tasks are to be performed or decisions made.
10 M. Elken and B. Stensaker
While one could interpret these six dimensions as activities disintegrating uni-
versities and educational delivery, as well as being in opposition to traditional
organisational coordination mechanisms, such as quality management and quality
culture, our argument is that quality work is also an integrative tool by virtue of
being the invisible glue of organisational life. Methodologically, this implies that
researchers need to look for areas where different organisational logics can be
expected to collide, areas where tensions are found, actions taken where problems
were solved, and not least, individuals having or taking autonomy to negotiate and
find practical solutions. As such, a quality work perspective would explore ‘interest-
ing practices’, where individuals and groups coordinate and balance different inter-
ests while delivering education, instead ‘best practices’.
Aggregating and examining how different practices are coordinated and how this
shapes the institutions in which actors are embedded are important in the analysis of
quality work. By engaging in quality work, actors are not only shaped by existing
notions of quality in their domain, they also continuously shape the conceptualisa-
tion of what quality means. As such, a quality work perspective complements tradi-
tional approaches used to analyse quality enhancement.
The discussion has, so far, explained why quality work is more than just manage-
ment or culture, how different expectations tend to create tensions and conflict in
practice, and that outcomes are often the result of pragmatic, negotiated, and quite
dynamic processes where both local practices and individual agency matter. While
a quality work perspective acknowledges the importance of both quality manage-
ment and quality culture, it recognises the specificity of how small groups and indi-
viduals may develop and adopt their own ideas, routines, and practices within this
larger context. Hence, while a quality work perspective recognises the importance
of differentiating between formal and informal dimensions (e.g., management and
culture), it adds value by acknowledging the importance of local routines and prac-
tices, thus reflecting the diversity of disciplinary contexts and the specificity of the
many different teaching and learning settings found in higher education. Figure 1.1
illustrates the key dimensions captured by the concept of quality work.
However, Fig. 1.1 also illustrates the many potential dilemmas involved in qual-
ity work as at least six areas of conflict and tensions can be identified. The first
dilemma, which has been studied repeatedly in the literature, is the tension that
might arise between establishing formal and institutional-wide systems of quality
assurance (1), reflecting the values and norms that many institutions may have
developed regarding the generic cultural properties of how teaching and learning
should be conducted (2). Typical tensions that tend to arise in such an analysis are
the intrusiveness of formal rules and regulations and how they may be perceived as
limiting or even transforming historical and institutionalised perceptions of ‘how
things should be done’.
1 Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education 11
GENERIC
FORMAL INFORMAL
SPECIFIC
The second dilemma is addressing the problems of how generic systems and
management procedures (1) may pose challenges for organisational units and sub-
structures at lower levels in the organisation (3). Here, tensions are associated with
organisational delegation and the degree of formal autonomy given to faculties and
departments, as well as how much discretion should be given to lower levels in
developing their own standards and rules.
The third dilemma may occur when generic systems and management proce-
dures and technologies (1) meet the specific teaching and learning settings and prac-
tices of a study programme or even at the course level (4). While some of these
tensions can be seen as similar to those where generic systems and management
procedures crash with quality culture, tensions may also arise as generic pedagogi-
cal or technological ideas, scripts, and templates are to be introduced or translated
into existing programmes and courses.
The fourth dilemma can be identified when an established quality culture (2)
associated with particular institutional identities are seen as hindering experimenta-
tion and innovation in teaching and learning practices (4). As student-centred learn-
ing and similar concepts are in the process of being introduced into higher education,
conflict may arise when existing teacher and student roles may be challenged, and
new pedagogical designs are to be introduced.
The fifth dilemma may be detected when an existing quality culture (2) is chal-
lenged by local quality standards, regulations, and routines (3). Here, attempts at
creating coherent programmes and educational offerings may be seen as challeng-
ing the key characteristics of institutional cultures, especially in areas concerning
individual autonomy.
Finally, the sixth dilemma may develop at the local level in a higher education
institution when increased formalisation with respect to educational offerings (3)
are seen as intrusive conditioning of individual autonomy regarding teaching and
learning practices (4). Conversely, tensions may also arise as individual and local
practices are perceived as limiting the possibilities for organised learning and more
coherent programme development work.
12 M. Elken and B. Stensaker
While it should be noted that these dimensions and dilemmas are exploratory
heuristics, the ambition is that they can still function as an integrative tool for under-
standing the dynamics of what quality work implies in practice. We will return to
possible insights and implications derived from each of the empirical chapters in
our concluding chapter.
1
The project’s two central partners were NIFU and the Department of Education at the University
of Oslo (IPED/UiO), with NIFU as the formal project owner. The international partners included
the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy at Århus University, Denmark, and
the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education at the University of Helsinki,
Finland. In addition, contributions were made to the project by researchers from University of
Tromsø–Arctic University of Norway and Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences.
1 Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education 13
quality in higher education (generic quality systems that meet local practices and
autonomy, or the balance between existing identities and attempts at educational
innovation). In the final chapter, we further reflect on some of these ideas and their
generic value for broader discussions on quality.
The chapters present a range of elements typically associated with quality man-
agement and development in higher education. In this book, we address these as
settings in which quality work takes place. We, therefore, emphasise that both the
organisational and pedagogical dimension are important and should be seen as dis-
tinct but related dimensions of quality in higher education.
References
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environ-
ments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their
effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the
culture of the disciplines. London: Routledge.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Bollaert, L. (2014). Quality assurance (QA) in Europe (2005–2015). Internal and institutional to
external and international. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 3, 1–24.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education. An international perspec-
tive on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Christensen, T., Gornitzka, Å., & Ramirez, F. O. (2019). Reputation management, social embedded-
ness, and rationalization of universities. In Å. Gornitzka & F. O. Ramirez (Eds.), Universities
as agencies (pp. 3–39). Cham: Springer.
Clark, B. R. (1983). Higher education systems: Academic organization in cross-national perspec-
tive. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Damşa, C., de Lange, T., Elken, M., Esterhazy, R., Fossland, T., Frølich, N., et al. (2015). Quality
in Norwegian Higher Education. A review of research on aspects affecting student learning.
Oslo: NIFU. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2360199.
de Boer, H., & Enders, J. (2017). Working in the shadow of hierarchy: Organisational autonomy
and venues of external influence in European universities. In I. Bleiklie, J. Enders, & B. Lepori
(Eds.), Managing universities: Policy and organizational change from a Western European
comparative perspective (pp. 57–83). Cham: Springer.
Deem, R., Mok, K. H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image?
Exploring the concept of the /‘world-class/’ university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education
Policy, 21(1), 83–97.
Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, M. (2010). Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative
policy instruments (Vol. 30). Cham: Springer Science & Business Media.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional
patterns organizations culture environment (pp. 3–21). Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.
Douglass, J. A. (2016). The new flagship university: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to
national relevancy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137500489.
Elken, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). Conceptualising ‘quality work’ in higher education. Quality in
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2018.1554782.
Enders, J., de Boer, H., & Weyer, E. (2013). Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform
of higher education re-visited. Higher Education, 65(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-012-9578-4.
1 Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education 15
Frederiks, M. M. H., Westerheijden, D. F., & Weusthof, P. J. M. (1994). Effects of quality assess-
ment in Dutch higher education. European Journal of Education, 29(2), 181–199.
Frølich, N., Huisman, J., Slipersæter, S., Stensaker, B., & Bótas, P. (2013). A reinterpretation
of institutional transformations in European higher education: Strategising pluralistic organ-
isations in multiplex environments. Higher Education, 65(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-012-9582-8.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency:
An introduction to the special issue. London: Sage.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five
accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.
Harvey, L. (2004–2017). Analytic quality glossary. http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/
glossary/. Quality Research International.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
18(1), 9–34.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91.
Hwang, H., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Problematizing actors and institutions in institutional work.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 62–66.
Kis, V. (2005). Quality assurance in tertiary education: Current practices in OECD countries and
a literature review on potential effects. Tertiary Review: A contribution to the OECD thematic
review of tertiary education, 14(9).
Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. S. Drori,
J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization: World society and organiza-
tional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Land, R., & Gordon, G. (Eds.). (2016). Enhancing quality in higher education: International per-
spectives. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg,
C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies
(Vol. 2, pp. 215–254). London: Sage.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institu-
tional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work. Actors and
agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional stud-
ies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.
Leiber, T., Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2015). Impact evaluation of quality assurance in higher
education: Methodology and causal designs. Quality in Higher Education, 21(3), 288–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1111007.
Maassen, P., Gornitzka, Å., & Fumasoli, T. (2017). University reform and institutional autonomy:
A framework for analysing the living autonomy. Higher Education Quarterly, n/a–n/a. https://
doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12129.
Manatos, M. J., Sarrico, C. S., & Rosa, M. J. (2017). The integration of quality management
in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 28(1–2), 159–175.
Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Stensaker, B. (2014). From quality assurance to quality practices: An
investigation of strong microcultures in teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education,
39(4), 534–545.
Massaro, V. (2010). Cui bono? The relevance and impact of quality assurance. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 17–26.
Massy, W. F. (1999). Energizing quality work: Higher education quality evaluation in Sweden and
Denmark. Project 6, quality and productivity in higher education. Stanford: National Center
for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University, School of Education.
McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2018). Quality in undergraduate education: How powerful
knowledge disrupts inequality. London: Bloomsbury.
16 M. Elken and B. Stensaker
Nerland, M., & Prøitz, T. S. (Eds.). (2018). Pathways to quality in higher education: Case studies
of educational practices in eight courses. Oslo: NIFU.
Newton, J. (2000). Feeding the beast or improving quality?: Academics’ perceptions of quality
assurance and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 153–163.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management
Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.
Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European University. In P. Maassen &
J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (Vol. 19, pp. 25–54).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Olsen, J. P., & Maassen, P. (2007). European debates on the knowledge institution: The modernisa-
tion of the university at Europan level. In J. P. Olsen & P. Maassen (Eds.), University dynamics
and European integration (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pratasavitskaya, H., & Stensaker, B. (2010). Quality management in higher education: Towards a
better understanding of an emerging field. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 37–50. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679465.
Ramirez, F. O., & Tiplic, D. (2014). In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European
higher education research. Higher Education, 67(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-013-9681-1.
Schatzki, T. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. V. Svavigny
(Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organisations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organisations. Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Politics, policies and the entrepreneur-
ial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stensaker, B. (2008). Outcomes of quality assurance: A discussion of knowledge, method-
ology and validity. Quality in Higher Education, 14(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13538320802011532.
Stensaker, B. (2019). Socially embedded universities and the search for meaning. In T. Christensen,
Å. Gornitzka, & F. O. Ramirez (Eds.), Universities as agencies. Reputation and professional-
ization (pp. 251–269). Cham: Palgrave McMillan.
Stensaker, B., & Fumasoli, T. (2017). Multi-level strategies in universities: Coordination, contesta-
tion or creolisation? Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 263–273.
Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (Eds.). (2011). Accountability in higher education: Global perspec-
tives on trust and power. London: Routledge.
Stensaker, B., Välimaa, J., & Sarrico, C. (2012). Managing reform in universities: The dynamics of
culture, identity and organisational change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to
teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.
Westerheijden, D. F. (2007). States and Europe and quality of higher education. In
D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education
(Vol. 20, pp. 73–95). Dordrecht: Springer.
Whitchurch, C. (2012). Reconstructing identities in higher education: The rise of ‘third Space’
Professionals. New York: Routledge.
Mari Elken is a senior researcher and the deputy head of research at the Nordic Institute for
Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) in Oslo. She has an interdisciplinary back-
ground and holds a PhD from the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Oslo. She
has been employed at NIFU since 2013 and has been primarily working on themes related to
governance and organization of higher education. In the QNHE project, she functioned as the
project leader in the final stages of the project.
1 Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education 17
Bjørn Stensaker is a professor at the Department of Education at the University of Oslo and
since 2017 he has been the director of LINK – the Centre for Learning, Innovation & Academic
Development. His main research themes are change in knowledge organisations; governance, lead-
ership and management in higher education: and quality and evaluation in higher education.
Published more than 200 articles, book chapters, books and reports. Around 150 of these have
appeared in refereed journals and book series.
Chapter 2
Quality Systems in Higher Education
Institutions: Enabling and Constraining
Quality Work
Introduction
The concern for quality is not a new phenomenon, since achieving quality has
always been at the core of the academic enterprise. The novelty of the quality debate
in the last three decades lies in the explicit and direct policy interest in enhancing
quality in higher education through new policy instruments and external account-
ability mechanisms (Brennan and Shah 2000; Westerheijden et al. 1994, 2007).
While the expectation of accountability has been enhanced, there is also a continu-
ous concern for quality assurance systems to maintain an effective balance between
accountability and improvement (Danø and Stensaker 2007).
The expansion of external quality assurance and changing governance arrange-
ments have created a demand for having internal capacity to produce relevant infor-
mation. Formalised internal quality systems are a result of such demands. An
important task for internal quality systems is to address external demands and
expectations, and to hold higher education institutions accountable to public author-
ities and society. At the same time, the systems that are established become inter-
linked with the internal life of higher education institutions, by also having the
potential to provide relevant information to internal stakeholders (Brennan and
Shah 2000). The appropriate audience for such information is institutional and fac-
ulty leadership, study program leaders and educational practitioners, as well as stu-
dents and other stakeholders. While all having a legitimate interest in the quality of
the educational provision, these stakeholders have diverse needs. For example,
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to 19
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
M. Elken et al. (eds.), Quality Work in Higher Education, Higher Education
Dynamics 54, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41757-4_2
20 M. Elken et al.
1
QNHE: Quality in Norwegian higher education project, see Chap. 1 for more information.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
müheloser Arbeit — sind die Europäer doch mit sich selbst
beschäftigt — das tausendjährige Reich knechtet und ausbeutet.
Denn was vom Japs zu erwarten ist, das hat er während der
Revolution in Südchina in seiner ganzen brutalen Rücksichtslosigkeit
gezeigt und bewiesen: daß ihm die chinesische Staatshoheit nichts
weiter als ein leerer Begriff ist.
Das Leben auf dem Flusse zeigt das gewöhnliche Bild. Heiß
strahlt die Sonne vom Himmel herab auf die gelben Wellen. Schwer
beladene, rotgestrichene Petroleum-Dschunken, auf denen die
Blechtinns sich bis unter die Segel häufen, kommen stromaufwärts,
andere mit Häuten, Holz und Vieh ziehen nach See zu. Vom Westen
tauchen Rauchwolken auf, die sich in schneller Fahrt der Stadt
nähern. — Kriegsschiffe — Kanonenboote. Bald verrät die Form sie
als die beiden Franzosen „Vigilante“ und „Argos“. Wie werden sie
sich verhalten, wenn sie hier in der Nähe des deutschen
Kriegsschiffes vor Anker liegen? — Jetzt sind sie querab. Schrille
Pfiffe tönen auf allen drei Fahrzeugen. Die Mannschaften an Deck
unterbrechen die Arbeit und machen Front, Kommandanten und
Offiziere berühren mit der rechten Hand leicht zum Gruß die Mütze.
Ein erneuter Pfiff hüben und drüben, und in schneller Talfahrt, ohne
Unterbrechung, sausen die Franzosen weiter. Sollte die Unruhe in
Europa etwa die Cantonesen angesteckt haben und das
südchinesische Pulverfaß wieder vor einer Explosion stehen?
Weitere Telegramme treffen im Laufe des Tages ein. Die
Schicksalsstunde Europas bricht herein, kurze Zeit nur noch kann es
dauern, bis der erste Schlag fällt.
S. M. S. „Tsingtau“ ist seeklar. Am 1. August gleitet sie beim
Morgengrauen in einer bisher unübertroffenen Geschwindigkeit
stromabwärts nach Canton. Die vierhundert Kilometer bis dahin
sollen in einem einzigen Tagesmarsch zurückgelegt werden.
Weiter und weiter treten die Berge zurück, bis sie schließlich in
blauer Ferne verdämmern. Gewaltig dehnt sich der Spiegel des
Stromes, wo früher Reisfelder sich breiteten. Wie Inseln ragen
dunkelgrüne Bambushaine, Tempelbauten und Pagoden aus dem
Wasser hervor. Zahlreiche Flüchtlinge haben sich mit ihrem Vieh
hierher gerettet. Aus kümmerlichen Schilfmatten haben sie sich
notdürftige Unterkunftsstände, die ihnen Schutz gegen die Unbilden
der Witterung bieten, geschaffen. Schwere Tage für die Armen. So
unvermutet und plötzlich ist das Wasser hereingebrochen, daß sie
kaum das nackte Leben zu retten vermochten. An Lebensmittel
konnte keiner denken; nun dürfen sie hungern, bis das Wasser
abfließt. Von der Regierung kommt ihnen keine Hilfe.
Um einen vorspringenden Huck kommt einer der flachgehenden
Flußdampfer in Sicht. Von weitem schon kündet sich das Brausen
an, mit dem klatschend die riesigen Schaufelräder das Wasser hinter
sich drücken. Nur langsam kommt er gegen den Strom an. Eine
ungeheure Rauchwolke quillt aus dem Schornstein, zieht nach Land
zu und scheint sich als eine endlose schwarze Fahne zu verlieren.
Als die beiden Schiffe noch etwa anderthalb Seemeilen voneinander
entfernt sind, gehen auf dem vordersten Mast des Dampfers
Signalflaggen hoch. Noch sind sie nicht auszumachen, da der
Westwind sie nach achtern auswehen läßt. Jedenfalls aber ist das
Signal für die „Tsingtau“ bestimmt, die nun etwas nach Steuerbord
ausschert, um das Signal ablesen zu können. Weithin leuchten die
riesigen chinesischen Schriftzeichen: Dampfer „Whampoa“ aus
Hongkong ... also ein Engländer. Am Heck flattert die rote Fahne mit
dem Union-Jack. Der Steuermannsmaat, der das internationale
Signalbuch eifrig wälzt, hat jetzt das Signal gefunden: „Habe
wichtige Post für Sie.“ Die Schiffe nähern sich, und „Tsingtau“
schlägt einen Bogen, um sich auf der Höhe des „Whampoa“ zu
halten. Beide Schiffe sind aus der Strömung in ruhigeres Wasser
gelaufen, um so das Anbordnehmen der Post zu erleichtern. Gleich
darauf stößt auch vom Engländer ein von Chinesen bedientes Boot
ab; am Heck hat ein Europäer Platz genommen. In wenigen Minuten
ist das Boot geschickt längsseit gebracht, und der Sekretär des
deutschen Konsulats in Canton kommt mit Post für den
Kommandanten an Bord. Kaum ist das kleine Fahrzeug wieder
drüben aus dem Wasser geheißt, als auch schon die Räder mit
voller Kraft zu schlagen beginnen und der Dampfer seine Fahrt
stromaufwärts fortsetzt, während „Tsingtau“ nach Osten jagt.
Während Kapitänleutnant von Möller die Post öffnet, umringt die
Mannschaft den an Deck stehenden Konsulatsbeamten, um ihn
nach neuesten Nachrichten, die aus Europa eintreffen,
auszuforschen. Was er erzählt, läßt kaum noch einen Zweifel zu.
Krieg mit Frankreich, Krieg mit Rußland, mit Serbien. Englands
Haltung ist heute wohl noch unbestimmt, aber ... Während in den
sofort sich bildenden Gruppen alle Möglichkeiten, was aus „Tsingtau“
und ihnen selbst werden soll, erörtert werden, erscheint der
Kommandant auf der Brücke und läßt „Klar Schiff“ anschlagen.
„Tsingtau“ macht gefechtsklar. Also Krieg! — Auch hier im fernen
Osten! Nach einer halben Stunde etwa sind die Vorbereitungen
beendet, und „Tsingtau“ ist bereit, einem Gegner, der sich ihr auf
dem Strom stellt, die Zähne zu zeigen. Ohne Zwischenfälle aber
geht die Fahrt weiter. Die Dunkelheit bricht herein, die Lichter von
Canton tauchen auf, und gleich darauf auch blitzen unter grünen
Bäumen die erleuchteten Häuser von Shamien, der
Fremdenniederlassung auf der gleichnamigen Insel, im Süden der
Stadt herüber. Zahlreiche Dampfer liegen auf dem Strom vor Anker.
An ihnen vorbei gleitet „Tsingtau“. Scharfe Augen spähen durch die
Nacht. Richtig, drüben, kaum hundert Meter ab, liegen die beiden
französischen Kanonenboote. Deutlich sind alle Einzelheiten an
Deck drüben zu erkennen. Offiziere und Mannschaften tauchen aus
dem Innern an Deck auf und verfolgen aufmerksam das Schiff, das
langsam an ihnen vorüberzieht. Eisiges Schweigen hüben und
drüben. Kein Pfiff ruft die Mannschaft zur militärischen
Ehrenbezeigung, keine Hand hebt sich zum Gruße. — Feinde! In der
Heimat, Tausende von Meilen entfernt, brüllen wohl schon die
Geschütze, dröhnt das Hurra der stürmenden Kameraden.
Wenige Minuten später liegt S. M. S. „Tsingtau“ vertäut an ihren
Bojen. Von Land stoßen Boote ab. Weitere Nachrichten kommen,
die aber an den Entschlüssen des Kommandanten nichts mehr
ändern. Still und ruhig liegt das Schiff. Nichts unterscheidet es
äußerlich von dem Bilde, das es von früheren Tagen bot. Aus den
auf dem Oberdeck liegenden Messen und Wohnräumen blitzt
mitunter ein Lichtstrahl auf das dunkle Wasser des Cantonflusses
hinaus, eine Tür öffnet sich, schließt sich rasch wieder; desto reger
aber ist das Leben im Innern des Schiffes. Eifrig kramen und suchen
die Leute an ihren Kleiderspinden, schnüren Bündel, packen ein und
wieder aus. Eine schwere Arbeit, unter dem Vielen, das sich trotz
des beschränkten Raumes angesammelt hat, das Wertvollste
herauszufinden. Nur zu oft wandert so manches Stück aus dem
Spinde heraus, um schließlich doch mit einem Seufzer schweren
Herzens wieder zurückgelegt zu werden. Es geht nicht. Nur das
Notwendigste darf mitgenommen werden, lautet der Befehl.
Dunkel, in tiefer Stille brütet die Nacht über dem Strom. Aus
weiter Ferne nur klingt gedämpft das Rattern einer Winde, das
dumpfe Tuten einer Dampfpfeife herüber. Vier Glas, zwei Uhr
morgens. Unter Deck ist die Mannschaft angetreten. Der
Kommandant will sich von ihnen verabschieden. Wer weiß für wie
lange? Für immer vielleicht? — Schwere Minuten, die jedem
Einzelnen von ihnen unauslöschlich im Gedächtnis bleiben werden.
„Achtung!“ Gedämpft klingt es diesmal, nicht scharf, schneidig,
wie sonst.
Der Kommandant.
„Zusammenschließen! Rührt euch!“
Der Abschied. Lange haftet der Blick Kapitänleutnants von Möller
an den Leuten, deren jeden einzelnen er genau kennt. Sie merken,
wie unendlich schwer ihm das wird, was er sagen will, wie es in
seinem Innern arbeitet, wie er nach Worten sucht, um sie fühlen zu
lassen, wie inhaltsvoll der Augenblick ist.
„Kameraden! Ihr wißt wohl Alle, zu welchem Zweck ich euch
hierher befohlen habe. Unser Allerhöchster Kriegsherr hat gestern
die Mobilmachung von Heer und Flotte angeordnet. Trotz aller seiner
Friedensliebe ist es ihm nicht gelungen, den Ausbruch des Krieges
zu verhindern. Vom Westen und Osten stürmen die Feinde auf uns
und unsern treuen Verbündeten Österreich-Ungarn ein. Noch hat
England sich nicht entschieden, jede Stunde aber kann es in die
Reihe unserer Gegner führen. Wir sind allein. Das
Kreuzergeschwader steht in der Südsee, wir sind nur auf uns
angewiesen. Ihr wißt alle, daß wir mit unserm Schiff keine
Gelegenheit haben können, dem Feinde im Kampfe
gegenüberzutreten. Untätig zuzusehen, wie die Kameraden sich für
Deutschlands Ehre und Ruhm schlagen, ist aber nicht deutschen
Seemanns Art. Die Heimat ist unerreichbar, zu weit. Ein Stück
deutscher Boden aber liegt auch hier im fernen Osten. Ihr sollt
versuchen, euch nach Tsingtau durchzuschlagen. Sollte es auch dort
zum Kampfe kommen, so werdet ihr sicher bald Gelegenheit finden,
zu beweisen, daß auch ihr für die deutsche Flagge zu kämpfen und
zu sterben wißt. Ihr seid von der „Tsingtau“! — Vergeßt das nicht.
Haltet zusammen. Ich weiß, daß ich nur Gutes von euch hören
werde. Und nun geht mit Gott!“ — — —
Der Morgen graut, dichte Nebel liegen über dem Flusse, leise,
geräuschlos lösen sich mehrere Boote von dem Schiff und streben
dem nahen Lande zu ....
Am 19. August, bei Bekanntwerden des japanischen Ultimatums
ist die ganze Besatzung schon mehr als zweitausend Kilometer von
ihrem Schiff entfernt, um das Stück Heimat, das Stückchen
Deutschland im fernen Osten, das ihrem Schiffe seinen Namen
gegeben hat, mit ihren Leibern und mit ihrem Blute gegen weiße und
gelbe Habgier und Raublust zu verteidigen.
Nach Manila