Mimicry in an Era of Autonomy? Quality Assurance Policies in Swedish Universities

Author(s):

Joakim Lindgren(presenting / submitting)Linda Rönnberg(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 06 B, Policies and Practices of Evaluation of Quality in Education (Part 2)

Paper Session continued from 23 SES 05 B

Time:

2017-08-23

15:30-17:00

Room:

K4.15

Chair:

Peter Kelly

Contribution

There is a rich body of research on Europeanisation in education governance providing evidence that quality assurance (QA) policies–the external QA regulatory regime (Gornitzka & Stensaker, 2014)–has produced institutional pressure for convergence and uniformity, through for instance practices of diffusion, borrowing, exchange, norm-setting and standardisation by the use of soft governance, in the forms of networks, seminars, reviews and expert groups, etc. (Rosa & Amaral, 2014; Brady & Bates, 2016; Enders & Westerheijden, 2014; Maassen & Stensaker, 2011; Toots & Kalev, 2016). Even if not regulated by formal law, but rather by way of the ’soft’ principle of the Open Method of Coordination (Gornitzka, 2006), external QA ”has developed over the years at the European level, and national agencies and HE sectors have started to develop some basic beliefs about how this activity should be organised or conducted” across national contexts (Stensaker, 2014: 144).

At the same time, the work of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) is explicitly based on the principle of ”diversity”. According to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) in the European Higher Education Area 2015, adopted by the Ministers responsible for HE in the European Higher Education Area, the role of QA is to support higher education systems and institutions in responding to changes where they ”become more diverse” (ENQA, 2015: 6).

In Sweden, reforms implemented in 1993 and in 2011 both cherished ideas on organisational diversity. The so called Autonomy reform in 2011 was argued to provide greater autonomy for the Higher Education institutions (HEIs). The national QA system, also from 2011, focussed on quality in terms of results and the question of how to achieve quality became a matter for HEIs to decide. The current national QA system, in operation from 2017 and onwards, takes these ideas of autonomy and diversity one step further, by decentralizing even more responsibility for QA to the HEIs themselves, in line with “fashionable” (Stensaker, 2007) ideas on ”enhancement” (see Saunders, 2014). Under the banner of ”ownership”, the main focus of the 2017 QA system is on the HEI’s internal quality assurance systems (IQAs), that are supposed to be complying with national regulations and to be based on ESG. Following the same ‘diversity rationale’ as for instance the ESG, it is emphasised that ”[t]he design of these systems are decided by each and every university and accordingly they will be able to vary between and within different universities” (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2016:7).

Whether the IQAs actually will be diverse or not however remain to be explored: How Swedish HEIs actually have handled the leeway offered by the international and national levels, along with how local histories, conditions, resources, knowledge, beliefs and discretion frame the work with IQA, has not yet been researched. This paper is an empirical analysis of a selection of IQAs, designed to achieve ‘quality’ in the studied HEIs. Especially, the paper aims at exploring and analysing issues of uniformity and diversity in the dynamics between QA-policy and systems put in place to assure quality in particular HE-contexts.

In order to explore these issues we draw on Harvey and Stensaker (2008) who outline a model based on grid-group theory particularly adapted to analysis of “quality cultures” in HEIs, identifying four ideal typical forms of such quality cultures – responsive, reactive, regenerative and reproductive – which we use as a heuristic device in our empirical exploration. We also draw on institutional theory, in particular with regards to isomorphism and mechanisms through which homogeneity occurs (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Method

We argue that a productive way to explore the issues is to pinpoint the processes through which these ideas and systems are formed, and not only to study ideas and systems as facts. This argument is connected to our methodological approach and the data we used for this study. We draw on empirical data from four case studies in four HEIs. The cases have been selected as a part of a wider research project (Segerholm et al, 2016) to represent different overall outcomes in the national evaluations in operation 2011-14 (as share of study programmes judged as “inadequate”) and different institutional characteristics (University or University College, old established institution or younger). In brief, Orion is a large old university with several faculties and subject areas that overall did well the evaluations on an aggregate level, Hercules is an old and specialised university with one faculty and mainly professional programmes that did not do as well, Virgo is a comparably recently established university college with mainly professional programmes that did well in the national evaluations, and Pegasus is a comparably recently established university with both professional and academic programmes and courses that overall did not succeed very well in the national evaluations. Thus, the cases are characterised by different contextual conditions as well as different outcomes of the national quality evaluations. In these four HEIs, we have interviewed vice chancellors and/or pro-vice chancellors and persons responsible for QA from faculties and departments (N=20), and our questions aimed at the actors’ views’ on the processes taking place regarding their work on and design of the internal QA systems. We have also collected and analysed different documents produced by the HEIs in these processes. In addition, we have studied documents from central stakeholders such as ENQA, The Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) and The Association of Swedish Higher Education (SUHF). Taken together, these sources provide information about ideas and systems of QA and their formation in a Swedish context.

Expected Outcomes

This paper is work in progress and the results are preliminary. Earlier analysis of preparation work of Swedish HE-institutions, before the new national QA system, displayed local differences related to organizational structures and histories (Segerholm et al., 2016). However, similarities also seemed to evolve through “policy learning”, cooperation and exchange of experience of QA work. HEIs, understood as quality cultures, generally tend to gravitate towards the grid-side of the theoretical model since external QA, at least as we know them in Sweden, has evolved in response to external demands. Our tentative results indicates that ENQA and ESG are strong homogenising forces in the studied HEIs, whereas formal laws and regulations, the national QA system, the national agency for HE (UKÄ and The Swedish Association of Universities (SUHF) are important national influences for the HEIs in the work with IQA. These different forms of formal and informal pressures by outside organisations on HEIs, upon which they are dependent for legitimacy, produce coercive isomorphism. Mimetic isomorphism is derived from vague definitions of quality – for example the fact that ESG does not contain prescriptive procedural rules for national QA systems – which produce organisational sameness. Finally, we identify certain forms of ‘professionalization through networks’ that produce common norms within SUHF and the Swedish HE-sector that eventually result in homogeneity by processes of normative isomorphism. The growing cadre of professionals engaged in matters of QA in the HE sector at different levels; their background, norms and work are important components when it comes to understanding potential homogeneity regarding QA systems on different levels, including the institutional-, university-, national- and European. This paper thus hopes to contribute to raise important questions on evolving European HE policy and policy enactment, relevant also beyond the Swedish case and national setting.

References

Brady, N. & Bates, A. (2016). The standards paradox: How quality assurance regimes can subvert teaching and learning in higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 155– 174. DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Enders, J. & Westerheijden, D. F. (2014). Quality assurance in the European policy arena. Policy and Society, 33(3), 167–176. ENQA. (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Retrieved from http://www.enqa.eu/index.php/home/esg/ Gornitzka, Å. (2006). The Open Method of Coordination as practice - A watershed in European education policy? ARENA working papers no 16. Oslo: ARENA. Gornitzka, Å. & Stensaker, B. (2014). The dynamics of European regulatory regimes in higher education – Challenged prerogatives and evolutionary change. Policy and Society, 33(3), 177–188. Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: Understandings, boundaries and linkages. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 427–442. Maassen, P. & Stensaker, B. (2011). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 61(6), 757–769. Rosa, M. J. & Amaral, A. (eds) (2014). Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Contemporary debates. London: Palgrave. Saunders, M. (2014). Quality Enhancement: An Overview of Lessons from the Scottish Experience. In Rosa, M.J. & Amaral A. (Eds.) Quality Assurance in Higher Education (pp. 117–131). London: Palgrave. Segerholm, C., Lindgren, J., Hult, A., Olofsson, A. & Rönnberg, L. (2016). Enacting a National Reform Interval. Paper presented at ECER, 22-26 August in Dublin, Ireland. Stensaker, B. (2007). Quality as Fashion: Exploring the Translation of a Management Idea into Higher Education. In: Westerheiden et al (Eds.) Quality Assurance in Higher Education (pp. 99–118). Dortrecht: Springer. Stensaker, B. (2014). European Trends in Quality Assurance: New Agendas beyond the Search for Convergence? In Rosa, M. J. & Amaral, A. (eds) (2014). Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Contemporary debates. (pp. 135-145). London: Palgrave. Toots, A. & Kalev, L. (2016). Governing in the shadow of Bologna: return of the state in higher education quality assurance policy. International Journal of Public Policy, 12(1-2), 54–70. Utbildningsdepartementet (2016). Förslag till nytt nationellt kvalitetssystem för högre utbildning. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet. Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Conclusions and Further Challenges. In: Westerheiden et al (Eds.) Quality Assurance in Higher Education (pp. 247–262). Dortrecht: Springer.

Author Information

Joakim Lindgren (presenting / submitting)

Umeå university, Sweden

Linda Rönnberg (presenting)