Quality Assessment as a Global Education Policy

Although myriad quality mechanisms have been introduced in multiple organizations in various sectors within the past three decades (Bigalke & Neubauer, 2009), quality remains an elusive concept. The definitions, meanings, and implications vary depending on stakeholders, their epistemology, and the policy contexts.

Furthermore, it is argued that the meaning of quality evolves over time (GUNI, 2007, p. 5). Several authors have attempted to scope down the working definition of quality. When the discussion of QA became more prevalent at the international level during the 1980s, Ball (1985) defined the quality of higher education as fitness of purpose. For higher education to obtain quality, the institution must achieve its stated mission and purpose to the students. As the concept of quality continued to be a contested issue, Sanyal and Martin (2007) expanded the notion of fitness of purpose and aptly identified ten definitions relating to quality and higher education (p. 5):

-providing excellence, -being exceptional,

-providing value for money, -conforming to specifications, -getting things right the first time, -meeting customers’ needs, -having zero defects -providing added values -exhibiting fitness of purposes, -exhibiting fitness for purposes

The introduction of quality policy shares one thing in common: an obsession with market-based reform. Neave (1988) argues that the rise of QA has been tightly coined with such concepts as accountability, efficiency and enterprise. These terms have become “the New Theology” mandating policy change in higher education (p. 7). Similarly, one can argue that the global march for QA and a National Qualification Framework (NQF) marks the dawn of a new era for New Public Management (NPM), which attempts to remove the barriers between public and private sectors. NPM tries to instill private values and practices of auditing and assessing the quality of the practice based on the achieved outcomes (Brown, 2004). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) identify this changing landscape as academic capitalism whereby the market rationale dominates the policy discourse, universities become enterprises, faculties become entrepreneurs, and students become customers. Even though the concept of quality remains elusive, complex, and contested, Ozga, Dahler-Larsen, Segerholm, and Simola (2011) persuasively argue that quality is shorthand for something “measurable, statistical and standard-based” (p. 3). Given the current discourse on quality as a measurable and manageable thing, it contests the traditional concept that links quality with academic discipline. The contest between what quality is, who controls it, and how to manage therefore becomes a politicized process. In this vein, Sanyal and Martin (2007) argue, “The definition of quality is in itself a political process” (p. 14). Despite the potential clash between differing stakeholders on the

perception of quality policy, Neave (2004) persuasively argues that partisan politics and its relationship to the institutionalization of quality has been “strangely ignored” as a “taken for granted” factor (p. 213). The politics of quality is one of the major aspects of the literature review.

The recent talk of QA only began in the 1980s. Neave (2004) points out that the creation of the National Evaluation Committee in France in 1985 marked the beginning of the modern “hype” on quality policy in higher education (p. 212). During this time, which can be classified as an early adoption period, a few countries in Western Europe,

such as France, Finland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, as well as New Zealand (van Vaught & Westerheijden, 1994) institutionalized the policy. By the mid 1990s, QA experienced an explosive growth. During this period, many countries, especially those in Eastern and Central Europe, began to introduce QA (Brennan & Shah, 1997; Tomusk, 1995). By the 2000s, the impetus for QA became global (Billing, 2004). As of the summer of 2002, Neave (2004) reported that at least 30 national governments have established QA-related agencies. Throughout the decade, many more countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have jumped on this global bandwagon (Billing, 2004; Harman, 1998; Mok, 2000). Vidovich (2002) aptly argues the explosive growth of quality assessment during the 1990s to the 2000s as “one of the key globalizing practices … in both developed and developing countries” (p. 391). Unequivocally, QA became a new facet of higher education regulation across the globe.

Parallel to the QA trend, many countries have actively introduced the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). Sinlarat, Thirapichitra, and Chaodamrong (2009) explain that NQF is a standardized or internationally recognized framework, aiming to correlate the level of educational attainment to that of students’ learning outcomes. It can also be understood as a credit system based on students’ academic attainment (p. 11). Funded by the Thailand Office of Education Council, Sinralat et al. review the NQF of England, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. Similar to the QA movement, there have been three major waves in the global march for NQF. The early adopters began to implement NQF between 1990 and 1999. During this period, at least eight countries and the European Union introduced NQF in their countries. The second wave of NQF took place between 2000 to 2004. Countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, France, Germany, and Latvia introduced the framework. Many more countries have jumped onto this global bandwagon since 2005. The late adopters include Ukraine, Iceland, the Netherlands, Austria, Georgia, Greece, Romania, Russia, Lithuania, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and Thailand (pp. 12-13).

Interestingly, Thailand is considered to be a late adopter of both the QA and NQF movements. As the discussion will illustrate, Thailand only formally introduced QA in 1999 as part of overall education reform, while the research on NQF only began to take place in 2005. The implication of Thailand being a late adopter in the global model provides an interesting case to understand globalization.