Internal academic quality audit in UK higher education: part II ‐ implications for a national quality assurance framework
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| Pages | 46-54 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156585 |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Author | Norman Jackson |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Introduction
In the last few years there have been ever-
increasing efforts devoted to the evaluation of
quality and standards in higher education and
other public services. Increasing emphasis on
self-evaluation (Jackson, in press) is reflected
in staff appraisal schemes, peer evaluation of
teaching quality, the expansion of internal
review processes at many different levels of
operation, e.g. module, programme, scheme,
subject, department, learning support and
administrative support units, and the expan-
sion of internal academic quality audit (Jack-
son, 1996). Increasing external evaluation
activity is reflected in the external quality
review processes of quality audit and quality
assessment which are managed respectively by
the Higher Education Quality Council
(HEQC) and the Higher Education Funding
Councils of England, Wales and Scotland.
This increasing emphasis on evaluation in
higher education can also be recognized in
other national systems (Dill et al., in press).
There are two main reasons for this consid-
erable expenditure of resources and directed
effort. First, it is widely recognized (cf. Kells,
1992, 1995) that self-regulation, if it is to have
credibility, must be based on robust and
effective mechanisms for institutional and
independent evaluation of the quality and
standards of provision. As a formative
process, self-evaluation enables individuals
and groups of individuals to make themselves
accountable for their work and demonstrate
how they might improve themselves by
reflecting on their own practice and perfor-
mance. As a formative process, external
evaluation helps institutions/individuals/
groups to compare their practices and perfor-
mance with reference to one or more external
perspectives; as a summative process, it pro-
vides an assurance mechanism for indepen-
dently checking and verifying that expecta-
tions (society, Government, sector) are being
met and responsibilities are being discharged
effectively.
Second, it is also recognized that in a con-
stantly changing environment, such as has
46
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · pp. 46–54
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
Internal academic
quality audit in UK
higher education:
part II – implications
for a national quality
assurance framework
Norman Jackson
The author
Norman Jackson is Assistant Director, Quality Enhance-
ment Group at the Higher Education Quality Council,
London, UK.
Abstract
Suggests that the expansion of academic quality audit
methodologies within higher education institutions is a
significant development in UK quality assurance. It reflects
increasing demands for accountability and also a desire for
more dynamic and efficient methods for review and
evaluation. The adoption of common regulatory frame-
works and centrally defined procedures and protocols; the
more explicit specification of intentions and expectations;
and the increased use of self-assessment in quality review
processes, have all assisted in creating an environment in
which audit methodologies are more acceptable, appropri-
ate and useful. Argues that the development of an audit
capacity is essential to the notion of institutional self-
regulation. Such a capacity could form the basis for a type
of national quality assurance framework different from
that currently operated or proposed, in which there is a
much closer articulation of internal and external audit
processes.
The article is published with the permission of the
Higher Education Quality Council but the views
expressed are my own and not necessarily the views
of the Council. I would like to thank my colleagues
Roger Brown and Robin Middlehurst for their
constructive comments in the development of the
article.
To continue reading
Request your trial