Knight and Trowler (2000) separate conceptions of quality in Higher Education into Type I and Type II. Whereas Type I has a maintenance function and is based on the achievement of specified targets and the need for assurance, Type II concentrates on creativity and enhancement. Another distinction is that Type I has a managerial focus and emphasises compliance and accountability (Hodson & Thomas 2003) and Type II is much more collegial in its outlook. Biggs (2003) summarises Type I as retrospective, requiring conformity to externally imposed standards. On the other hand, Type II is prospective, continually striving to improve teaching and learning. Knight and Trowler’s typology provides a helpful conceptual framework when considering quality assurance in Higher Education Institutions in Europe. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to compare academic conceptions of quality from the perspective of Type I and Type II in English and Finnish universities. This paper starts with brief histories of the development of the English and Finnish Higher Education systems and then moves to an analysis of the literature to determine the balance of Type I and Type II. By means of a consideration of the results of small-scale empirical studies in English and Finnish universities, the authors then ascertain the perceptions of a sample of staff in these universities concerning the blend of the two types of QA. The implications for universities of the perceived balance of Type I and Type II approaches are discussed, particularly the tension between the de jure situation as gleaned from the literature and the de facto situation highlighted by the empirical studies.

The research in English universities involved in-depth interviews with twenty randomly selected academic staff. The interviewees were drawn from both modern (post-1992) and traditional universities in England. In Finland, twenty-five semi-structured interviews with university staff and students were conducted. Each respondent’s comments were noted and then the collected qualitative data was analysed using the Constant Comparative Method (Strauss and Corbin 1998).

The empirical research suggested that both managerial (Type I Quality) and collegial (Type II Quality) exist in English and Finnish higher education. However, over time the blend of managerial and collegial approaches to quality has come to favour the former but much more so in England than in Finland, which continues to prefer a largely enhancement-led agenda. This trend towards a managerial model has been in response to the changing purpose of higher education in England which is well-illustrated by the key messages from the two major reports (Robbins and Dearing Reports) into higher education. The Finnish system is predicated on a welfare state ideology which does not favour notions of performativity or the student as a customer. However, there has been a rise in managerialism manifested by increased quality monitoring and accountability and the emergence of a ‘profitability doctrine’. From the perspective of European higher education, the question is whether to follow the English Type I approach on quality assessment or to adhere to the Finnish system’s more enhancement-led Type II approach.