Quality as Compliance

Compliance is often the first step to achieving quality of outcomes, as it requires institutions to adhere to regulations and/or standards imposed upon them externally. However, although compliance may be advantageous to efforts to achieve quality, unintended consequences, such as tensions between academic and managerial staff often arise as a result (Cardoso et al., 2015). This arises from the paradox between a superficial quality culture enforced through compliance and formalism, and a genuine quality culture committed to enhancing the learning and teaching provided by the HEI (Land and Rattray, 2014, p.21). This observation is supported by Westerheijden and Kohoutek (2014) who note that an increased focus on institutional compliance, as opposed to seeing the regulations as a source of guidance, could potentially transform HEIs into "slaves" to the QA agency involved, thereby reducing QA to a culture of ‘box-ticking’ rather than engagement in actual quality improvements. This could also prevent academics from facilitating discussions, reflection, and debate (Bellingham, 2008; Blackmur, 2004). Furthermore, Land and Rattray (2014) contend that a top-down managerial approach could generate a compliance culture and/or a high risk of rejection, hence acting as a barrier to QA implementation.

Achieving compliance within an HEI context is further complicated by the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders and the need to develop specific tools, criteria, and procedures to measure improvements in different subjects and areas (Damian et al., 2015). Disciplinary differences were also found to be important as they entailed different approaches to QA (Vukasovic, 2014). In the sciences, for example, academics emphasise quantification and technical elements of internal QA, whereas in the humanities, they tend to focus on procedures and the application of qualitative methods. Moreover, while Dos Santos Martins et al. (2013) identified facilities, such as labs, as the major unit for determining quality in engineering departments, this may have far less relevance in other disciplines wherein a more theoretical approach to study is taken.

In addition to different perceptions and approaches to quality compliance, defining and measuring outcomes that demonstrate quality is also challenging. In this context, Noaman et al. (2017) have drawn upon data from a large Saudi university to outline five criteria for measurement of quality. These include relevance of scientific topics for students, alignment of the curriculum with the needs of the labour market, academic qualifications, the role of the curriculum in improving student skills and self-capabilities and the professional experience of staff. These imply that quality standards would be beneficial for HEIs in terms of enhancing their teaching and learning. Quality standards are usually developed by a national body with the remit to oversee quality, such as QAA in the UK and NCAAA in KSA. However, HEIs can find it challenging to interpret and implement government strategies, initiatives and policies to institutional objectives due to their individual targets (Westerheijden and Kohoutek, 2014). For example, a study conducted in North America by Skolnik (2016) identifies challenges pertinent to the implementation of national level generic quality standards across various institutions and disciplines, whereas Johnson et al. (2002) note that, in the Australian context, important but non-essential tasks such as compliance with QA standards serve to fragment the time

available for work, thereby producing frustration and reduced job-satisfaction amongst academics.

Standards compliance is usually monitored through accreditation with an external agency. This serves to confirm that standards are being met and people can trust what is being offered (Darandari and Cardew, 2013). In short, national and/or international accreditation, which according to Harvey (2004) is about establishing the ranking, legality and suitability of a programme and/or an institution. Through accreditation, a regulator protects students, employers and the public by assessing if institutions fulfil predefined standards of educational quality (Schierenbeck, 2013). However, there is considerable debate over the usefulness of QA accreditation, especially when it has an accountability focus (Harvey and Williams, 2010).

Harvey (2004), for example, sees accreditation as a politicised process, in which power shifts from academics to managers, while failing to include all the other affected individuals. This view positions accreditation as just one part of a continuous processes that requires compliance and accountability, representing managerialism infringing on academic freedom and autonomy and thus harming the experience and skills of academics. Although QA, which includes accreditation, is confined to bureaucratic formalities (Ehlers, 2009), the enhanced accountability, compliance and surveillance regimes are considered detrimental to traditional academic freedom, and thus to genuine quality achievement (Morrish and Sauntson, 2016). For some, accreditation is just an additional burden besides assessment, audit and other kinds of standards and outcome monitoring (Harvey, 2004). However, this view is challenged by the findings of a study conducted in the Netherlands involving 226 academics across 18 university departments, which found that accreditation played a positive role in the improvement of HEIs

(Kleijnen et al., 2011). Therefore, the role of accreditation in quality has also attracted some debate.

The situation in KSA is less complicated, as all public HEIs are funded by the MoHE, and are expected to comply with the NCAAA standards (Onsman, 2010), since this commission is under the supervision of MoHE. Additionally, although the Saudi HE reform agenda strives to facilitate flexible decision-making at the university level, there is a traditional compliance-focused culture in the KSA, marked by an absence of institutional autonomy (Smith and Abouammoh, 2013). This leads to a lag in the implementation of autonomous self-governance in HE, for despite devolved decision- making to HEIs, the KSA government nonetheless monitors the academic institutions, thereby sustaining the centralised approach. This means that HEIs in KSA are more likely to be inclined towards a compliance approach to quality, though this aspect needs to be further explored.

However, this does not mean that compliance should be the only approach worth considering. Darandari and Cardew (2013) have argued that whilst compliance with the NCAAA regulations and efforts to acquire accreditation are important, in fact it is the maintenance of a quality learning organisation on a daily basis that should be the overarching objective for the HEIs. For instance, through a case study conducted in two colleges of a comprehensive Saudi university, Alghamdi (2016) found that the process of becoming accredited was hindered by staff resistance and inadequate resources. Additionally, Onsman (2010) suggests that to establish the overall impact of compliance with QA requirements in HEIs, the KSA government will need to monitor graduate quality over a specified period of time. Quality may, therefore, be linked to consistency.