The increasing digitalization of higher education impacts the understanding of quality in teaching and the requirements for teaching competencies. This study (Allmendinger et al., 2025) explores the concept of “good” digital higher education and presents a typological analysis showcasing different patterns of quality perspectives in digital teaching. Using a grounded theory approach, this study captures the views of university lecturers and develops a typology that highlights their diverse perspectives.

Central to this research is the question: How can the quality of digital higher education be understood from the perspectives of different lecturers, and what implications does this have for the development of contemporary and complexity-aware higher education? Theoretical frameworks by Harvey and Green (2000), examining quality as exceptionality, perfection, fitness for purpose, transformation, and value for money, provide a basis for evaluating these perspectives. Additionally, Kember's (1997) research on teaching and learning orientations—ranging from teacher-centred/content-oriented to learner-centred//learning-oriented—shapes the analysis.

This study employs a qualitative research design rooted in Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), aiming to explore lecturers’ perspectives on the quality of digital higher education. Data were collected through an open-ended written survey. This approach enabled participants to articulate their views and provide detailed responses in their own time, fostering depth and reflection. Following the identification of central dimensions, individual cases were examined for patterns and structures to uncover qualitative connections between dimensions. An iterative approach was key, comparing two dimensions at a time to identify meaningful links and differences. A traditional clustering approach across multiple dimensions proved less effective due to the limited sample size (69 cases) and the lack of distinct patterns. Furthermore, the dimensions often displayed conjunctive characteristics, where multiple expressions co-occurred, increasing the complexity of potential combinations. Instead, a formal concept analysis approach (Ganter & Wille, 1996) was adopted. Each identified expression was treated as a node within a network, with qualitative correlations between dimensions represented as undirected edges. Graph-theoretical methods were applied to analyze this network, revealing three distinct subnetworks representing prototypical orientations toward digital teaching. This analysis provided a nuanced understanding of how quality in digital higher education is conceptualized by lecturers, offering critical insights into their pedagogical orientations.

The study identifies distinct typologies of lecturers based on their quality perspectives and teaching orientations in the context of digital higher education. Findings suggest that conceptions of "good" digital teaching vary significantly, influenced by both individual experiences with technology and pedagogical beliefs. Lecturers with a learner-centred orientation tend to view digital technologies as opportunities for fostering independent and active learning. In contrast, teacher-centred lecturers often adopt a cautious and structured integration of digital tools. The study argues that recognising and addressing these diverse perspectives is crucial for developing effective and inclusive higher education practices in an increasingly digital and complex educational landscape.

Allmendinger, H., Arnet, P., Gallner, S., & Portmann, M. Quality Perspectives on Digital Higher Education: A Grounded Theory for Capturing the Concept of 'Good' Digital Teaching. Lucerne: University of Teacher Education Lucerne. Forthcoming 2025. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (2000). Defining Quality. In Education for Quality (pp. 12-30). Kember, D. (1997). A Reconceptualisation of the Research into University Academics' Conceptions of Teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. Ehlers, U.-D. (2020). Future Skills, Zukunft der Hochschulbildung – Future Higher Education. Springer.