On quality in education
| Date | 11 July 2008 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810886268 |
| Pages | 255-265 |
| Published date | 11 July 2008 |
| Author | Geoffrey D. Doherty |
| Subject Matter | Education |
On quality in education
Geoffrey D. Doherty
University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss some key aspects of quality in education in the
light of over 30 years practical experience of doing quality assurance (QA).
Design/methodology/approach – Reflection on three concepts, which are still the subject of
debate, namely: “quality”; “total quality management (TQM)”; and “autonomy”.
Findings – As this is not a research paper, it presents no findings. There are some research
implications, if only to deter researchers from digging up old ground. More research into the diversity
of and interactions between cultures in academia might prove useful.
Practical implications – There are lessons to be learnt from the past. Doing quality improves
quality. Talking about it or trying to impose it does not. Managers and leaders need to reflect more
carefully than is their wont on the purposes and procedures of QA in education.
Originality/value – This paper makes a contribution to the debate about quality in education in
universities and schools and suggests that a clearer understanding across the education system of the
scope and purpose of QA, the nature of TQM and the limitations of autonomy might lead to better
embedded and more effective continuous improvement.
Keywords Education, Qualityassurance, Total quality management,Quality indicators
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
The quality debate still rages on in academia. What a good thing this is for the quality
business in general, which nowadays provides quite a decent living for a not
inconsiderable cadre of administrators, academics and experts, and in particular for
journals likethis, which has been kept in businessfor over 15 years. I use the languageof
the market placedeliberately because this highlightsone of the main bones of contention.
The quality assurance (QA) methods currently used in education demonstrably derive
from industrial applications. To many academics, this is an anathema.
I would like to offer a few reflections on this debate, in which I first became
consciously involved about 30 years ago. Before I retired, I made some contributions to
this journal. For instance, I was its first guest editor – for a volume focusse d on
assessment, quality and continuous improvement in higher education (HE) (QAE,
1997) and elsewhere. This is almost certainly the last paper I shall ever write and I want
to make it clear that that it is not research based. I am primarily concerned to attempt
some clarifications of contested issues and to make some suggestions as to why so
many academics are pathologically averse to what, in my opinion, they incorrectly
perceive QA to be.
What are my credentials for this exercise? I first became actively involved in quality
matters, on the one hand, as a member of several Council for National Academic
Awards (CNAA) committees and working parties – the education committee; the files
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
The paper is a reflection of his long association with the quality movement in education by the
author, a member of the journal’s editorial board.
On quality
in education
255
Received 10 January 2008
Revised March 2008
Accepted March 2008
Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 16 No. 3, 2008
pp. 255-265
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880810886268
To continue reading
Request your trial