Quality assurance (QA) in higher education is important for maintaining academic standards, improving teaching and learning, and ensuring that education meets societal and labor-market needs (ENQA, 2015; Harvey & Green, 1993). QA is especially important for work-integrated learning (WIL) and cooperative education, as these programs depend on close cooperation between universities, industry, and other stakeholders (Khampirat & Rudzinska, 2025; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017).

QA systems are usually developed based on national regulations and institutional priorities, with a focus on curricula, teaching and learning processes, and learning outcomes (Stensaker, 2008; Vlasceanu et al., 2007). Although higher education is becoming more international, many QA studies still focus on single-country contexts. Comparative research, particularly on quality culture and stakeholder involvement, remains limited (Alzafari & Ursin, 2019). This shows the need for studies that look beyond formal QA procedures and examine how stakeholders take part in QA processes (Leal et al., 2025).

In Europe, QA is often criticized for focusing more on accountability and compliance than on real quality improvement, which may limit its developmental role (Harvey, 2024; Deem et al., 2007). In contrast, studies from Asian higher education systems show that quality culture can support institutional improvement. Research from Taiwan and other Asian contexts suggests that shared values, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement can strengthen QA and complement external quality requirements (Hsu, 2023; Lim, 2018).

Against this background, this study compares QA culture and stakeholder involvement in higher education in Latvia and Thailand. The comparison helps explain how quality assurance is understood and practiced in different contexts, and how stakeholder engagement can be improved to support meaningful quality improvement.

Objectives

This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of Quality Assurance (QA) systems and Quality Culture (QC) in the higher education in Thailand and Latvia, with particular attention to stakeholder involvement in QA processes.

Research Questions

RQ1 What are key similarities and differences between quality culture in higher education in Thailand and Latvia.

RQ2 How does stakeholder involvement in QA in higher education in Thailand and Latvia differ.

Theoretical Framework and Context

- This study is grounded in Quality Assurance (QA) theory, which emphasizes continuous improvement, stakeholder involvement, and accountability as core principles for enhancing educational quality (Tetteh et al., 2021). QA is viewed not only as a system of control but also as a developmental process that supports learning improvement and institutional effectiveness.

- In Latvia, as a member of the European Union, higher education quality assurance follows the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). The ESG promotes student-centered learning, internal quality culture, and periodic external quality reviews (Academic Information Centre, 2019; ENQA, 2015).

-  In Thailand, quality assurance is guided by the Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd), which focuses on learning outcomes, curriculum alignment, and stakeholder engagement to support educational relevance and employability (Khampirat et al., 2020).

-  This comparative study examines QA systems and quality culture in these two contexts to better understand how different frameworks shape stakeholder involvement and quality enhancement in higher education.

This study adopts a qualitative document analysis approach to compare quality assurance (QA) systems, quality culture, and stakeholder involvement in higher education in Thailand and Latvia. Document analysis is a systematic method for reviewing and interpreting written materials, enabling an in-depth understanding of policy frameworks, governance structures, and practices shaping QA systems across different contexts. This approach is appropriate for comparative research, as it allows the examination of similarities and differences in official policies and regulatory arrangements without direct intervention in institutional settings. The research process began with the identification, collection, and screening of relevant policy documents. Documents were selected based on their relevance, official status, and public availability. Representative documents were then chosen for comparative content analysis to ensure coverage of both national QA frameworks and key institutional mechanisms. Data Collection The data consist of publicly available documents, including national QA frameworks, policy reports, accreditation guidelines, and relevant legislation. For Latvia, the main sources include the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and reports published by the Academic Information Centre (AIC), which is responsible for external quality assurance and accreditation in higher education. The ESG serves as a widely recognized benchmark for QA in Europe, emphasizing transparency, stakeholder participation, and student-centered learning (Alzafari & Ursin, 2019). AIC reports provide additional insights into the implementation, strengths, and challenges of QA practices at the national level. For Thailand, the primary documents analyzed include the Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd) and policy documents issued by the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC). The TQF: HEd focuses on learning outcomes, competency-based education, and alignment with labor-market and industry needs, reflecting global trends in higher education quality assurance. OHEC publications outline standards for internal and external quality assurance, program accreditation, and external quality audits, which have been examined in previous studies (Khampirat et al., 2020). Analytical Approach The analysis follows a thematic analysis approach, which involves identifying, organizing, and interpreting recurring patterns across documents (Nowell et al., 2017). Key themes guiding the analysis include quality culture, stakeholder involvement, and QA governance mechanisms. The study also considers contextual factors, such as regulatory environments and cultural differences, to support a nuanced comparison between the two higher education systems.

The findings show that QA systems in Thailand and Latvia differ in governance and stakeholder involvement, while sharing a commitment to educational quality. In Thailand, QA operates through a combination of internal and external mechanisms mandated by national legislation. Key national bodies include the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC), which oversees higher education policy, and the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA), responsible for external quality assessment. Stakeholder involvement is strongly emphasized at the institutional level. Students, graduates, employers, academic staff, and community partners are encouraged to participate in internal QA processes through feedback mechanisms, committee membership, and consultations. Thailand’s Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) guidelines promote institutional networks and collaborative practices for developing quality indicators and assessing outcomes. Although external QA conducted by ONESQA incorporates stakeholder input, formal governance roles for external stakeholders are less explicitly defined. In Latvia, QA is strongly shaped by the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) and national regulatory frameworks. The Academic Information Centre (AIC), through the Quality Agency for Higher Education (AIKA), oversees accreditation and licensing, while the Higher Education Quality Assurance Council serves as a key governance body. Stakeholder involvement is highly formalized, with employer organizations and student representatives holding permanent seats on QA councils. This structure supports transparency and accountability but places less emphasis on broad stakeholder participation in routine internal QA processes. Overall, Latvia’s QA culture prioritizes alignment with European standards, international recognition, and student mobility, whereas Thailand’s QA culture emphasizes national development goals, participatory internal processes, and capacity building.

Academic Information Centre. (2019). Development of higher education quality assurance system in Latvia. https://www.aika.lv/en/aika-about/development-of-higher-education-quality-assurance-system-in-latvia/ Alzafari, K., & Ursin, J. (2019). Implementation of quality assurance standards in European higher education: Does context matter? Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1578069 Attree, K. J. (2026). Stakeholder engagement in accreditation and quality assurance via the program advisory board: Contributions and benefits. Quality Assurance in Education, 34(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2025-0112 European Commission. (2025). The ESF+ in Latvia. https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/support-your-country/esf-latvia Harvey, L. (2024). What have we learned from 30 years of Quality in Higher Education: Academics’ views of quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 30(3), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2024.2385793 Hsu, Y. P. (2023). Developing quality culture in higher education in Taiwan: The changes within quality assurance mechanisms. Studies in Higher Education, 48(11), 1741–1753. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2212270 Khampirat, B., & Rudzinska, I. (2025). A comparative analysis of quality assurance and quality culture in career development and work-integrated learning: Thailand and Latvia. Paper presented at ECER 2025, Belgrade, Serbia. Khampirat, B., Hastindra Na Ayudhaya, N., & Bamrungsin, P. (2020). Pedagogy and quality assurance in Thai higher education institutions. In H. Flavian (Ed.), From pedagogy to quality assurance in education: An international perspective (pp. 129–153). Emerald Publishing. Leal Filho, W., Sigahi, T. F. A. C., Anholon, R., et al. (2025). Promoting sustainable development via stakeholder engagement in higher education. Environmental Sciences Europe, 37, Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01101-0 Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia. (2025). Education. https://www.izm.gov.lv/en/education-0 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 OECD. (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC). (2025). Vision and mission. https://vec.go.th/Engishpage/VisionandMission.aspx Tetteh, G. A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Twumasi, J. (2021). Developing a quality assurance identity in a university: A grounded theory approach. Quality Assurance in Education, 29(2/3), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2020-0141 Westerheijden, D. F., & Kohoutek, J. (2014). Implementation and translation: From European standards and guidelines for quality assurance to education quality work in higher education institutions. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education (pp. 1–11). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-494-9 Additional policy document Concept Report on the Implementation of Institutional Accreditation in Latvia. (2022). Report developed within the ERASMUS+ K3 project Road Map for Implementation of Institutional Assessment (Project No. 899137 – RoadMap – EPLUS2020-EHEA09-2019).