Quality as a concept has migrated from the industrial and commercial settings of the 1980s into the domain of higher education (Newton, 2002). However, quality is a contested concept (Barnett, 1994). It is relative to stakeholders in the higher education sector (Harvey & Green, 1993). The stakeholders refer to individuals or groups who are regarded as having a legitimate interest in the quality of higher education, such as, funding bodies, students, staff and employers of graduates (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003). Harvey and Green (1993) interpret quality as: exception; perfection; fitness for purpose; value for money; and transformation. The notions of ‘fitness for purpose’ and ‘value for money’ have become the most widely accepted concepts adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (Barnett, 2003; Ottewill & Macfarlane, 2004). However, these two notions imply that the term ‘quality’ has become utilitarian response to economic needs. The wide use of quality as fitness for purpose suggests that quality has become a management concept for the government and an organizing concept for the institutions (Power, 1997). There are some other ways to understand quality in the higher education sector, such as, quality as power (Morley, 2003), and quality as bureaucratisation, impression management and conformity (Newton, 2002). These interpretations provide valuable insights into how academics used quality as a pejorative term which can be perceived as academics’ protest against audit. The pejorative use of the term quality does not really explain what quality is in the higher education sector but reveals that there is lack of academics’ shared definition of quality. In order to explore the meaning of quality, this researcher interviewed 17 academics in the University of Brighton in England. The paper examines how academics understood quality. It first identifies how the academics achieved good teaching practices to benefit students learning in the university. The paper then explores the perceived differences between good teaching practice and quality.

This research adopts Appreciative Inquiry approach (Ludema et al., 2001) to explore good teaching practice and quality. The research is developed around two research questions: 1. What is quality from the view of academics? 2. Are there perceived differences between good teaching practice and quality? This article draws predominantly on 17 in-depth interviews with academics from 6 different subject areas. 15 were Teaching Excellence Award winners and 2 were panel members of the Award. These academics were different in ranks of position, ranging from professor and principle lecturer to senior lecturer.

None of the respondents related the term ‘quality’ with utilitarian response to economic needs or treated quality as a management concept. 11 respondents interpreted quality as the transformational experience in developing student as a learner and as a person (Harvey & Green, 1993). There was a concern that it was hard to set up standards for quality. However, respondents expressed their wish to make quality relevant with the standard of either their professional body or that of their subject. There were five other perceived key factors to quality: enthusiasm; an environment which is conducive to learning; student-centred teaching practice; relate teaching with research; and updated teaching material. 12 out of 17 respondents believed that good teaching practice differed from quality because it was part of quality. Good teaching practice was perceived as a process of empowering students’ learning, while quality was interpreted as the positive outcomes of students’ learning.