'Feeding the beast or improving quality?'

When the word 'quality' is mentioned in academic circles, it can evoke a wide range of thoughts, emotions and actions. It may provoke strong arguments or may result in apathetic responses. "Feeding the beast or improving quality? Academics' perceptions of quality assurance and quality monitoring" (Newton, 2000), "Achieving Quality" (Higher Education Council, 1992), "Achieving quality learning in higher education" (Nightingale & O'Neil, 1994) and "Quality assurance in Teaching" (Annesley, King & Harte, 1994) are just a few examples of publication that look at Australian higher education with a focus on quality. Then there are terms such as 'Total Quality Management', 'Benchmarking', 'Performance Indicators', 'Outcomes Assessment' and 'Accreditation'. So what is quality in higher education?

Quality can be seen as a 'fitness for purpose' and this means different things at different times...Discussions about the quality of higher education start from the premise that no single, workable 'definition' of quality is possible....In essence, the council's advise is based on the question: what is it that universities do, and how do we (the community) and they (the universities) know that they do it well? (Higher Education Council, 1992, p. 6).

With that broad view, the Higher Education Council (1992) in Australia argued that the interests and perspectives of all stakeholders - academic staff, students, administrators, employers, governments, the community generally, professional associations and the international research and scholarly community - should be considered when discussing what constitutes quality outcomes. Some of the multiple perspectives of quality were identified in a project that attempted to develop a means to measure the quality of higher education in the United Kingdom. Stakeholders' perspectives included: quality - equals high standards, as consistency or zero defects, as fitness for purpose, as value for money and as transformative (Harvey et al., as cited in Nightingale & O'Neil, 1994).

At the institutional level, quality assurance is always a complex process due to the large number of factors that can influence quality. These factors include individual (staff and student) perspectives and actions as well as departmental and institutional policies and practices (Annesley, King & Harte, 1994).

Other aspects of the quality debate include the issue of funding and the fear of 'lowering standards' in order to look good. There is also the fear that academic freedom will become a thing of the past.

Faculty [academics] routinely insist they know academic quality when they see it and should retain the primary responsibility for assessing and rewarding. But such autonomy is always purchased by providing measures of accountability for results and resources to the public and to policy makers (Gaither et al., 1995).

With the pressure for accountability coming from funding bodies such as governments, most institutions of higher education have complied with quality audits and generally have set in place a number of processes to not only assure quality but also improve it.

So, how are we (UWA) doing?

• Annesley, F., King, H., & Harte, J. (1994). Quality Assurance in teaching at James Cook University of North Queensland. Townsville: James Cook University.
• Gaither, G. et al. (1995). Measuring up: The promises and pitfalls of performance indicators in higher education. Retrieved November 13, 2000, from http://www.ed.gov/databses/ERIC_Digests/ed383278.html.
• Higher Education Council (1992). Achieving Quality. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
• 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).
• Nightingale, P., & O'Neil, M. (1994). Achieving quality learning in higher education. London, UK: Kogan Page.