Despite being wrapped in a technical, enhancement-driven discourse, the discussion on the internalization of quality assurance is in fact as multifaceted as it is politi- cally sensitive. This paper has demonstrated that there is no straightforward way to understand why actors in universities fail to routinize QA practices in their activities and subsequently use them to generate quality improvements, since the mechanisms at play are manifold. The analysis of the Romanian case has shown that problems revolve around the process of policy-making, with underlying causes at both the macro level (top-down failure) and the micro level (bottom-up failure). Indeed, the inconsistency and ambiguity of national regulations—not linked to teaching and learning in any substantive way - determine actors in universities to feel burdened by QA and confused as to how they should implement and make use of its activities. Moreover, there is some discordance between central-level narratives focused on quality enhancement and accountability and those of actors in univer- sities, who generally feel no ownership over their IQA systems and fail to see the purpose of the multiple evaluation procedures. Therefore, actors on the ground reject QA practices as unnecessary and infringing upon university autonomy, which is why they subsequently perform them in a superficial manner—as a form of passive dissent. In the end, there can be no talk of improving QA processes in the Romanian higher education system without direct involvement and support from the people for whom they are effectively designed.

In light of the conceptual clarifications presented earlier in this paper, our findings may appear less surprising. Undeniably, it is difficult to separate the ‘internal’ from the ‘external’ when it comes to quality assurance. Academics are inclined to perceive all evaluations as‘external’, regardless if they are conducted by governmental agencies/international bodies or their own institutions. At the same time, professional evaluators may miss the specificities of individual departments

and disciplines, touching upon the sensitivities of local actors who thus become less open to move beyond ritualistic compliance with QA requirements. The issue hence returns to the second conceptual element mentioned, namely for whom is QA supposed to produce‘accountability’ and ‘improvement’? For individual academics in the universities that we visited, the answer is‘not for us’. On the contrary, the government is seen as the main beneficiary of all evaluation procedures, followed perhaps by the university management to a lesser extent. As long as they don’t see it in their best interest, actors in universities have no motivation to internalize quality assurance—which as a result fails to deliver on the promised quality enhancement objective.

Open AccessThis chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

Apple, M. W. (2005). Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47(1–2), 11–29.

ARACIS. (2013). Self-evaluation report. Bucharest: The Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.http://www.aracis.ro/fileadmin/ARACIS/Informatii_publice/SER_2013.

pdf.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro and micro implementation of social policy. In The RAND Paper Series P-6071.http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6071.html.

Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2012). Capitalist diversity on Europe’s periphery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.

Bruszt, László, & Stark, David Charles. (1998). Postsocialist pathways: Transforming politics and property in East Central Europe., Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burawoy, M. (2001). Neoclassical sociology: From the end of communism to the end of classes. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 1099.

Dill, D. D., & Beerkens M. (2010). Public policy for academic quality - analyses of innovative policy instruments. Dordrecht: Springer.http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/

higher+education/book/978-90-481-3753-4.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M (Ed.) (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Elmore, R. F. (1978). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185–228.

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2005). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education Area (1st ed.). Helsinki. European University Association (EUA). (2003). Graz declaration 2003. forward from Berlin:

The role of the Universities. EUA Geneva.http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/COM_PUB_

Finlayson, A., Bevir, M., Rhodes, R. A. W., Dowding, K., & Hay C. (2004). The interpretive approach in political science: a symposium. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 6(2), 129–164

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). Editors’ introduction. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 1–17). London: UCL Press. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms.

Political Studies 44(5), 936–957.

Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.

Hjern, B., Hanf, K., & Porter, D. O. (1978). Local networks of manpower training in the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden. In K. Hanf & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making: limits to coordination and central control. London: Sage.

Kopstein, J. (2003). Post communist democracy: Legacies and outcomes. Comparative Politics, 35 (2) (January 1), 231–250.

Lipsky, Michael. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services., Publications of Russell Sage Foundation New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mahoney, James. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.

Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2)(April 1), 145–174.

Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and public policy: With a new postscript. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations, 5(2), 225–254.

Palumbo, D. J., & Calista, D. J. (1990). Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box. New York: Greenwood Press.

Păunescu, M., Florian, B., & Hâncean, G.-M. (2012). Internalizing quality assurance in higher education: Challenges of transition in enhancing the institutional responsibility for quality. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads (pp. 317–337). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Păunescu, M., Vlăsceanu, L., & Miroiu, A. (Eds.). (2011). Calitatea Învăţământul Superior Din România. O Analiză Instituţională a Tendinţelor Actuale (The Quality of romanian higher education. An institutionalist analysis on current trends). Iaşi: Polirom.

Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pratasavitskayaa, H., & Stensaker, B. (2010). Quality management in higher education: Towards a

better understanding of an emerging field. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1)(April 14), 37–50. doi:10.1080/13538321003679465.

Scott, P. (2002). Reflections on the reform of higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 27(1–2), 137–152.

Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1999). Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British higher education. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(4)(December 1), 557–575.

doi:10.2307/2661148.

Strathern, Marilyn (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy. London and New York: Routledge.

Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

UEFISCDI. (2010). Romanian Research Assessment Exercise (RRAE) general assessment methodology. Bucharest: UEFISCDI.

Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process a conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445–488

Vlăsceanu, L., Miroiu, A., Păunescu, M., & Hâncean, M.-G. (Ed.) (2011). Barometrul Calităţii 2010. Starea Calităţii În Învăţământul Superior Din România (The Barometer on Quality 2010. The State of Quality in Romanian Higher Education). Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania.

Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (pp. 405–416). Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis.

In document Higher education reforms in Romania. Between the Bologna process and national challenges (Page 64-68)

Outline