Research motivation  

The Bologna process, with its primary goal to unite universities, led to creating the range of standards, among which were quality regulations (Kehm, Huisman, & Stensaker, 2009). They gradually evolved into accreditation entities, like the European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education with external control functions.  Engineering programmes are supposed to be more open and flexible due to high demand on the labour market in both developing and in developed nations (WEF 2016; 2017). Professional mobility of engineers was firstly supposed to be facilitated via unified standards across the countries (Reyes, 2008). Nowadays, there are some concerns about the standards being an obstacle to globalisation of the engineering profession due to a surplus of regulations (Sánchez-Chaparro, 2022). Therefore, there is a tendency to lift at least part of the regulations, which will supposingly increase the quality of engineering educational programmes (Hakeem et al, 2014; Kans, 2021). In case if regulations are removed, quality culture will be operationalised on programme level, the basis of which is a programme directors’ quality perception. 

However, the dynamic micro-level of programmes is more flexible than the slower meso-level of university (Celis et al, 2022). In engineering programmes, interaction with industrial partners is one of the central points of implementation. Industry in its turn is a source of rapid changes for programmes (Jackson et al, 2022). Programme directors’’ are those who are  in touch with industry and know what potential employers need, embedding these needs into curriculum design, quality assurance and other aspects (Kans, 2021). This may lead to a situation when quality frame on the programme level  is not in line with the one offered by university.. The underpinned quality perception, previously shaped by existing standards and regulations, in situations of attention shift from external regulation to internal quality work, is at a risk of quality concepts to be interpreted in a naive, non-structured way. Whether it’s good or bad - is a point of further discussion. Considering this possibility, analysing the case where quality is not well-defined by regulatory bodies, we can trace the evolution of naive quality perception via bottom-up approach to see if it matches the overall conceptual understanding of quality in general. 

Russia is an example of the country where the regulatory paradigm in education is blurry and excessive (Knyaginina et al, 2022), and quality work is not institutionalised per se. Analysing quality perception of  Russian programme directors’ might provide some insights into how the quality landscape may look once the regulations are lifted.

Objective 

The aim of the study is to grasp the program directors’ quality perception. We then intend to see if the perception models preliminary derived are in line with conventional European quality interpretation. The latter is supposed to provide some insights into whether quality work without external regulations will still be constructed in conventional ways. 

Theoretical framework

The frame of conventional quality understanding we mean to use is the most recent frame, where everything published on the topic of quality interpretation in European terms before is gathered (Schindler, 2015). The concept of quality, according to (Schinlder et al, 2015) can be broken into four main types: excellence, transformation, fit for purpose and accountability. 

Sampling The study is based on 15 in-depth interviews with graduate programme directors in engineering in 6 leading Russian universities. Convenience sampling was employed. We first contacted the university leaders in official and semi-official ways to reach out for the directors of chosen programmes. Then team members got in touch with prospective interviewees to agree on a date and time of the interview. All the respondents received a letter with a brief description of the research prior to the interview. The average timing of the interview was between 40 and 60 mins. Methods The interview guide consisted of 9 parts: factual information, enrollment process, general managerial scheme, content of the programme, structure of the programme, quality assurance, project work, faculty, role of industrial partners. In the part related to following topics were covered: Programme directors’ overall quality understanding Quality assurance system (present/not present) Internal and external quality assurance practices Quality assurance and decision-making processes connection Students’ role in quality assurance Alumni’s role in quality assurance Data analysis: The method we used to analyse the data was phenomenological analysis, which aims to find out how in a certain context a particular concept is perceived (Creswell, 2013). Step 1 Identifying everything that was said on the topic of quality in interview transcripts. Other parts of interviews, initially not directly related to the quality issues. We then generalised the data selected into raw quality perception models. Step 2 Matching raw perception models to quality conceptualisations offered by Schindler et al, 2015 to see how the quality perceptions reflected in the interviews correlates to the conventional quality interpretation.

Findings As the result of our study, we made a provisional generalisation of the data and organised it into 4 models of programme directors’ quality perception: Student-centred approach Career-oriented approach Mixed approach Evidence-based approach All approaches include the elements of internal quality assurance. In two of them there is evidence of external quality assurance. We preliminary identified the correspondence of quality perception models to the quality conceptualisation framework of (Schindler et al, 2015) as follows: Student-centred approach - fragments of excellence and transformation Career-oriented approach - fragments of excellence, transformation, accountability Mixed approach - fragments of excellence, fit for purpose and accountability Evidence-based approach - fragments of excellence and transformation The most widespread quality conceptualisations are excellence and transformation. There are no cases of using a single conceptualisation in quality perception models, it’s normally a certain combination of them, a conceptual mix. Conclusion There was no solid focus on quality and quality assurance in programme management identified. Each model of quality perception is based on a certain combination of quality conceptualisations, and normally does not cover all the elements conceptualisation consists of (Schindler et al, 2015). A conclusion is that there are some traces of conventional European quality understanding, even though it seems to be fragmentary. Thus, lifting unnecessary regulations in the context where initially those regulations were heavy and quality is not institutionalised, is a strategy worth trying. A step that might contribute to structured quality interpretation on micro-level is a flexible frame imposition from university, with enough space for manoeuvre and common outlines to follow at the same time. There are also some practical implications of the study: solid quality work has a potential to make programme stand out from other engineering programmes. It is a valuable competitive advantage, considering that the amount of programs is growing significantly from year to year.

1. Celis, S., Véliz, D. (2022). A Decade of Chilean Graduate Program Accreditation: A Push for Internationalization and Issues of Multidisciplinarity. Higher Education Policy, 35, 133-154. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00198-7 2. Creswell, John W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Third edition. Washington DC: Sage. 3. Jackson D. & Rowe A. (2022) Impact of work-integrated learning and co-curricular activities on graduate labour force outcomes, Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2145465 4. Hakeem, M. A., and Thanikachalam. V (2014) ‘A multi-dimensional approach in developing a framework for internal quality assurance of second cycle engineering programmes”, European Scientific Journal 5. Kans, M. (2021), "Engineering education development – a business modelling approach", Higher Education Evaluation and Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-02-2020-0003 6. Kehm, B. & Huisman, J. & Stensaker, B. (2009). The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target. 10.1163/9789087907143. 7. Knyaginina, N., Jankiewicz, S. and Tikhonov, E. (2022) ‘Principles of the "regulatory guillotine" and methods of computational law used to analyze the requirements for the quality of higher education’, Public Administration Issues, 4, pp. 78 – 100 (in Russian) 8. Reyes, N R, Candeas P Vera, Cañadas F , Reche P, and García Galán S . ‘Accreditation and Quality Assurance of Engineering Education Programs in the European Higher Education Area’, n.d. 9. Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Remaud B., Gómez-Frías, V., Duykaerts C. & Jolly A-M. (2022) Benefits and challenges of cross-border quality assurance in higher education. A case study in engineering education in Europe, Quality in Higher Education, 28:3, 308-325, DOI: 10.1080/13538322.2021.2004984 10. Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., & Crawford, L., Welzant, H., (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5 (3).DOI:10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244 11. World Economic Forum. 2016. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 . https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017- 1 12. World Economic Forum. 2017. The Africa Competitiveness Report 2017: Addressing Africa’s Demographic Dividend. Geneva: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ACR_2017.pdf.