From functional quality apparatus to meaningful enactment: UNISA as example
| Published date | 14 October 2019 |
| Date | 14 October 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2019-0031 |
| Pages | 384-400 |
| Author | Britta Zawada |
| Subject Matter | Education,Educational evaluation/assessment |
From functional quality apparatus
to meaningful enactment: UNISA
as example
Britta Zawada
College of Human Sciences, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explorethe concept of a culture of high quality and show how a
culture of high or exceptionalquality goes beyond the functional apparatus of qualityassurance, the so-called
props on the stage, to the enactment andultimately to the shared meaning-making and webs of significance
for both the institution and its staff, as well as for the studentsand the communities they come from and will
ultimatelyserve.
Design/methodology/approach –In addition to a general literature review,the paper is a conceptual
exploration using a desktop study with examples from UNISA’s (University of South Africa) practice, to
develop a conceptual understanding of the concept of a quality culture in higher education. The types and
nature of the evidence required for the different quality loci and units of analysis are explored. Areas for
improvement are indicated and linked to strategic imperatives in the South African context such as
pedagogicalrenewal and curriculum transformation.
Findings –Conceptually, a quality culture can be found in four different loci, namely, in the input or
functional apparatus, through the enactment to, the individual outcomes and the communal outcomes of
institutional activities. Thepaper also shows that there are different levels of a quality culture that may be
found in each of these loci, namely, compliancefor accreditation, academic peer review and communities of
practice and ultimately transformative meaning-making that leads to innovation and excellence. The
conceptual discussionalso indicates that in higher education, a regenerative clan culturewould likely be the
most conducive to ensuring a culture of highacademic quality. The case study of UNISA indicates that all
the functionalquality apparatus is in place with supporting evidence, but that more attentioncould be paid to
the meaningfulenactment of a quality culture in in all of the above loci andlevels.
Originality/value –This paper makes a conceptual contribution to developing the concept “quality
culture”to include meaning making, communities of practice and ultimately communal, rather than only
individual, webs of significance. The paper identifies loci and levels of quality and quality cultures and
exploreswhat may count as evidence of high quality in a distance-educationsetting.
Keywords Quality culture, Higher education, Quality Assurance, Distance Education,
Quality Enhancement, Evidence of Quality
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Distance education (DE) is a form of education (from primary schooling right through to
higher-education level) in which students are geographically separated from their teachers
and their fellow students, and learning takes place at the time and pace of the individual
student. In this paper the focus will, however, be on DE in higher education.In DE, learning
material is carefully pre-designed by experts and through its one-and-a-half centuries’
history, various forms of technologies have been used to bridge the transactional gap
between student and teacher, and between student and fellow-students. These technologies
ranged from pen and paper and the various incarnations of a changing postal system
through the industrial development of the twentieth century, to mass media (such as radio,
QAE
27,4
384
Received25 March 2019
Revised15 May 2019
4 June2019
Accepted4 June 2019
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.27 No. 4, 2019
pp. 384-400
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-03-2019-0031
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
broadcasting, and satellite links) and finally to the twenty-first century digital Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The use of mass media in the late twentieth
century, and specifically the inception of the Open University in the United Kingdom,
started the open movement in DE, and the establishment of so-called ODL (Open Distance
Learning) universities globally. The ubiquitous use of the internet and digital technologies
in recent years, have further led to the coining of the concept ODeL (Open Distance and e-
Learning) at the African VirtualUniversity (Dzvimbo and Kariuki, 2006).
Internationally, DE has always been uniquely challenged to provide evidence of the
quality of its programmes, as opposed to the traditional face-to-face (f2f) or contact
programmes and universities. However, in South Africa, the University of South Africa
(UNISA) is in the globally unique situation of havingbeen a dedicated DE institution for all
of its 146 years, as well as havingbeen accredited since its inception. UNISA was founded in
1873 and as the University of theCape of Good Hope received its accreditation by virtue of a
royal charter from Queen Victoria (UNISA, 2018). UNISA went from examining body to
correspondence university, and eventually cycled through some, if not all, of the various
phases of DE (from correspondence, to openness with a social-justice mandate, using
various telematic modes of delivery and communication alongside print and regional
support centres for students, to now using the affordances of a new generation of ICTs) to
have now become thé African ODeL university shaping futures in service of humanity in
UNISA2030 (UNISA, 2016a). Some of the characteristic features of UNISA in the second
decade of the twenty-first century,such as its openness and its comprehensiveness,have not
been there since its inception 145 years ago, but what has remained a constant is its nature
as a dedicated DE institutionand its accreditation both nationally andinternationally.
The size and shape of UNISA ensures that it has a major impact on the South African
higher-educationlandscape. Since 2011 it has enrolled between 328 000 and 355 000 students
per annum in its eight substantive colleges (Accounting Science, Agriculture and
Environmental Science, Education, Economic and Management Sciences, Human Sciences,
Law, and Science Engineering and Technology, and the School of Business Leadership),
with a ninth college to support Graduate Studies. Of the 337 612 students enrolled in 2015,
71.9 per cent were African and63.8 per cent were female. In 2014, 37 896 students graduated
from UNISA with accredited certificates,diplomas and degrees. UNISA, as a comprehensive
university, offers a wide range of programmes across the faculties or colleges mentioned
above, starting with higher certificates rightup to doctoral degrees, including a wide range
of non-formal programmes. In 2015, UNISA employed 6 218 permanent staff members of
which 55.3 per cent were female, and 63.9 per cent were African; 35.8 per cent were
instructional and research staff with 55.3 per cent non-professional administration as
reported in UNISA’s Annual Report for 2015 (UNISA, 2016b). UNISA also employs a
significant number of part-time adjunct faculty in the form of e-tutors, face-to-face tutors
and outside markers.
As a publically-funded higher-education institution in South Africa, UNISA receives its
accreditation from the three interlinked regulatory bodies of higher education in South
Africa, that also accredit all face-to-face higher-education institutions, both public and
private, in South Africa, namely the national government Department of Higher Education
and Training (DHET), the Council of Higher Education (CHE) and the South African
Qualifications Authority (SAQA). The complex ways in which these regulatory bodies in
South Africa function to accredit higher-education institutions will not be the focus of this
paper. Instead, it will be argued, that to maintain its accreditation, UNISA as a large and
complex institution, apart from the basic requirements and compliance, has to ensure that
Functional
quality
apparatus
385
To continue reading
Request your trial