Ascribing Meaning To Quality Cultures in The Portuguese Context PDF

Quality Assurance in Education
Ascribing meaning to quality cultures in the Portuguese context

Amélia Veiga Maria João Rosa Sónia Cardoso Alberto Amaral
Article information:
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:11 30 September 2015 (PT)
To cite this document:

Amélia Veiga Maria João Rosa Sónia Cardoso Alberto Amaral , (2014),"Ascribing meaning to quality
cultures in the Portuguese context", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 255 - 272
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0020
Downloaded on: 30 September 2015, At: 00:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 90 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ulf Daniel Ehlers, (2009),"Understanding quality culture", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp.
343-363 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880910992322
Hairuddin Mohd Ali, Mohammed Borhandden Musah, (2012),"Investigation of Malaysian higher education
quality culture and workforce performance", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 289-309 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240330
Sónia Cardoso, Maria João Rosa, Cristina S. Santos, (2013),"Different academics' characteristics, different
perceptions on quality assessment?", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 96-117 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684881311293089
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
Ascribing meaning to quality Quality cultures

in the Portuguese
cultures in the Portuguese context
context
Amélia Veiga 255

Research Unit, A3ES – Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of
Higher Education and CIPES – Centre for Research into Higher Education Received 6 May 2013
Revised 15 October 2013
Policies, Lisbon, Portugal Accepted 17 February 2014
Maria João Rosa
Universidade de Aveiro and CIPES – Centre for Research into Higher
Education Policies, Aveiro, Portugal, and
Sónia Cardoso and Alberto Amaral
Research Unit, A3ES – Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of
Higher Education and CIPES – Centre for Research into Higher Education
Policies, Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to discuss Portuguese academics’ views on quality assessment
and the elements that are important for a better understanding of what ascribes meaning to “quality
cultures” in Portuguese higher education.
Design/methodology/approach – The discussion was based on the results of a survey run in 2010
among Portuguese academics on quality assessment objectives and purposes. Descriptive statistics
was used to investigate academics’ support to what quality assessment was supposed to guarantee (its
purposes) and which should be its objectives. Furthermore, a factorial analysis using Promax rotation
(oblique) was performed to investigate if the different purposes could be grouped according to the
different areas they address in terms of quality assessment, helping to uncover a rationale that could
explain the answers obtained. Theoretically, the results have been analysed in the light of the “quality
culture” concept.
Findings – Perceptions of Portuguese academics that support internal processes of quality assurance
correspond either to the responsive quality culture or the regenerative quality culture. The viable form
of ideal cultures is analytically limited, and the perceptions gathered encourage “quality cultures”
biased by stronger group control.
Originality/value – The paper offers new insights into academics’ perceptions on quality
assessment, a theme that so far has been relatively absent from higher education quality assurance
studies. Furthermore, the results obtained could be useful to policymakers and quality assurance
agencies when setting up evaluation and accreditation systems capable of balancing improvement
associated with the group dimension and accountability coupled with the grid dimension.
Keywords Quality culture, Quality management, Quality assurance, Quality systems, Quality
assessment, Perception of Portuguese academics, Portuguese academia
Paper type Research paper
Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2014
The research was supported by a grant from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under the pp. 255-272
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
framework of the project Perceptions of Higher Education Institutions and Academics to 0968-4883
Assessment and Accreditation (PTDC/ESC/68884/2006). DOI 10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0020
QAE Introduction
Although quality assessment and accreditation systems have been in operation for a
22,3 number of years, there are no extensive studies either on their effects on teaching quality
or on the different reactions linked to academic tradition or to the norms and values of
disciplines, schools or higher education institutions (HEIs). This might be explained
because isolating the effects of assessment from those of other processes impinging on
256 higher education is rather difficult (Harvey and Newton, 2004; Stensaker, 2003).
At the European level, the Bologna process and the initiatives undertaken under its
quality framework resulted in the progressive development of European accreditation
systems. Portugal was no exception, and a new accreditation system was implemented,
replacing the old system owned by HEIs (Rosa and Sarrico, 2012). The new system is
characterised by the implementation of assessment and accreditation of both study
programmes and institutions, coordinated by a new independent body – the Higher
Education Assessment and Accreditation Agency (A3ES). Accreditation assumed a
preponderant role as a way to assure that study programmes and institutions
accomplish minimum requirements granting their official recognition. Hence, this
implementation might challenge academics, as decisions may have more concrete
consequences than in the previous system. Furthermore, this period entailed other
significant changes to the national legal framework, including a new law on the
governance of HEIs, which strengthened organisational rationales increasing the power
of managerial bodies, to the detriment of collegial bodies, the centralisation of
decision-making processes and the presence of external stakeholders at central- and
middle-management levels (Amaral et al., 2013). Therefore, the governance reform has
resulted in the decline of institutional policies and strategies aiming at reinforcing social
capital, including collegial decision-making processes with possible impacts on the
involvement of Portuguese academics in the implementation of the new quality
assessment system.
The transition from the old quality assessment system dismantled in 2005 to the new
accreditation system created in 2008 and beginning operation in 2009/2010 offered an
opportunity to analyse how Portuguese academics perceived quality assessment.
Previous research focusing on the impact of the Portuguese quality assessment system
showed the low influence of the organisational environment on academics’ perceptions
about quality assessment, probably due to the influence of disciplinary cultures (Veiga
et al., 2011). Nevertheless, as the transition phase is bringing changes to institutional
processes and structures, it is expected that quality culture and quality assurance will be
debated.
The concept of quality culture in an institution
[…] reflects not only an orientation towards the needs of its stakeholders, but also an
internality that supports its staff in the fulfilment of their duties (whether these are internally
– or externally – directed) (Yorke, 2000, p. 21).
The internal dynamics within HEIs emerge at the crossroads of stimulating internal
quality assurance processes and responding to the requirements of external quality
assurance systems requirements.
The results from a European survey conducted by the Examining Quality Culture
project showed that only 14.4 per cent of the surveyed universities recognised that the
concept of an institutional quality assurance system was introduced as the result of
various consultations with the academic staff (Loukkola and Zhang, 2010). Previous Quality cultures
research with regard to the Portuguese context (Veiga et al., 2013) indicated that the lack
of academics’ involvement generated disagreement about the existence of internal
in the Portuguese
processes of quality assurance. This brings to the fore the question of which are the context
quality culture or cultures supported by academics to further understand the way the
inner dynamics evolve to implement internal quality assurance systems.
This article starts by establishing the link between quality culture and quality 257
assurance resorting to cultural theory to describe the existence of four organisational
biases that support the “quality cultures” (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008) to be found in
HEIs. In the second part, starting from the assumption that academics’ perceptions
contribute to understanding their interpretation of quality assessment systems’
objectives and purposes, research findings will be analysed to explore the extent to
which these perceptions are ascribing meaning to “quality cultures”.
This study could be considered as a follow-up to earlier studies on the impacts of the
Portuguese quality assessment system (Rosa et al., 2006; Veiga et al., 2011; Veiga et al.,
2013) exploring a new dataset.
Quality culture and quality assurance

Quality culture is a set of group values that guide how improvements are made to
everyday working practices and the consequent outputs (Harvey, 2004-13). Quality
culture interacts with the concept of academic identity. Following Kogan “individual
has unique individuality framed within moral and conceptual frameworks” (Kogan,
1999, p. 73) and the individual academic:
[…] contributes to communities or institutions with their own ways of working, carrying a
range of roles strongly determined by communities or institutions of which he or she is a
member (Kogan, 1999, p. 73).
In this sense, quality culture relates to the inside of both the individual and the workings
of the institution. But quality culture also deals with the organisation’s responsiveness
to the needs of the society. This perspective brings in accountability, for instance, as a
concern of the “Evaluative State” (Neave, 1998) along with the efficiency and
effectiveness of the internal workings of the institutions.
The definition of quality culture is thus complex and multifaceted. In HEIs, this
complexity appears to derive from both the relationships established between
academics, students and the management staff and external regulation defined by the
State and other organisations such as quality assurance agencies. Relationships
established within institutions and with external regulation configure two dimensions
(group and grid) that generate ideal cultures on which Harvey and Stensaker (2008)
ground the concept of “quality cultures”.
Group and grid dimensions derive from the cultural theory, initially proposed by
Douglas (1970) and further developed in policy analysis (Thompson, et al., 1990;
Thompson et al., 1999). This theory assumes that the combination of grid and group
does generate five ideal cultures. The grid dimension refers to externally defined
regulation and narrows the field of action, i.e. the set of rules and norms that regulate the
interactions of individuals. The group dimension is based on the sense of boundaries,
assuming that actions are driven by the concern of the benefit of the group, i.e. the extent
to which the life of individuals relies on group membership. For Thompson et al. (1990),
QAE the combination of grid and group originates five “ways of life”, cultures or
organisational bias: fatalist – high grid/low group; individualist – low grid/low group;
22,3 hierarchical – high grid/high group; and egalitarian – low grid/high group, and an
additional way of life, which corresponds to the autonomous or hermit – deliberate
exclusion. This type was not taken into consideration in this article because the
autonomous are viewed as irrelevant, as they reject the social environment (Thompson,
258 et al., 1990).
Altman and Baruch (1998) contended that the cultural theory could be used in a
large diversity of situations, ranging from theatre to geology (Douglas, 1982), from
ecology (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983) to industrial safety (Gross and Rayner,
1985) and risk behaviour (Douglas, 1992). The cultural theory has also been used in
education. For instance, Maassen (1996) compared specific values and beliefs of
German and Dutch academics; Frølich (2005) analysed the implementation of New
Public Management in Norwegian universities; Jackson and George (2005) studied
organisational culture; and Veiga and Amaral (2008) analysed how the Bologna
process coped with the national traditions of HEIs. In the field of higher education
quality assurance, Harvey and Stensaker (2008) got a step ahead by developing the
concept of “quality cultures” anchored in the cultural theory.
Within the assumptions of the cultural theory, there is the idea that to be meaningful,
grid and group dimensions should be stable and continuous. Another postulate
highlights that individuals should support their culture. Only when the conditions
related to grid and group dimensions change will individuals adapt their preferences.
Furthermore, the cultural theory assumes that the four cultural biases coexist
(Thompson, et al., 1990) and that viable forms of social solidarity “will be found, in
varying strengths and patterns of interaction, in any social system” (Thompson et al.,
1999, p. 2) The analytical added value of this approach is the limited number of “quality
cultures” that are to be found in HEIs, reducing the intricacy of the concept.
According to Harvey and Stensaker (2008), four “quality cultures” are to be found in
HEIs (see Table I). The fatalist organisational bias promotes a reactive quality culture
establishing informal quality assurance processes and superficial quality commitment.
This ideal-type reacts to external demands and is driven by compliance. The quality
culture promotes little or no sense of ownership. The hierarchical bias induces a
responsive quality culture by promoting centrally managed quality assurance processes,
inducing high-quality commitment driven by external demands. This ideal type has an
improvement agenda for quality assurance aware of both accountability issues and
compliance requirements to deal with an issue created externally. The responsive quality
culture appears to succeed in the adoption of good practices. The individualist bias
develops a reproductive quality culture, promoting quality assurance processes that
encourage individual action and overlook quality commitment. This quality culture
grounds in a sense of a job well done that is used to perpetuate the status quo and reflects
the expertise and individual ambition of members. The egalitarian bias endorses a
regenerative quality culture based on internal developments and high-quality
commitment based on membership and aligned with the aspirations of all the members.
This ideal type takes the improvement agenda as a re-conceptualisation process to
frame future direction, and improvement is seen as taken for granted, generating
autonomy for reflective review.
Grid ⫹/group ⫺ Grid⫹/group ⫹
Quality cultures
in the Portuguese
Fatalist Hierarchical
Isolate, informal, superficial connection Controlled and centrally managed, tasks are context
previously defined
Reactive quality culture Responsive quality culture
Reacts, rather than engages with external Led by external demands the institution has the
demands opportunity (or is forced) to review practices
259
Grid⫺/group⫺ Grid⫺/group ⫹
Individualist Egalitarian
Open, the system emerges spontaneously Enclave, closed, built based on fellowship, respect
from individual action for all members
Reproductive quality culture Regenerative quality culture Table I.
Focus on reproducing the status quo and Focus on internal developments, albeit fully aware Combination of
minimising impacts of the external context and expectations grid/group, ways of life
and ideal types of “quality
Source: Adapted from Thompson et al. (1990) and Harvey and Stensaker (2008) culture”
To understand which “quality cultures” are held by Portuguese academics, this paper
analyses their views on the objectives and purposes of quality assessment. Both
objectives and purposes underline different dimensions of quality assurance and of
“quality cultures”, addressing the responsiveness to the society’s needs and the internal
dynamics of HEIs. Objectives are the aims that could be accomplished through the
implementation of a quality assessment system and purposes assemble a set of
intentions that might support the development of such a system.
Method and data

To analyse the perceptions of Portuguese academics of higher education quality
assessment, generically, and the new Portuguese quality assessment and accreditation
system in particular, a questionnaire was designed and sent to all HEIs (public and
private, universities and polytechnics). A set of questions was presented requesting
agreement on a scale from 1-totally disagree to 5-totally agree (the option “I do not know”
was also available). Questions were organised in five major groups:
(1) quality assessment objectives;
(2) quality assessment purposes;
(3) the Portuguese quality assessment system’s priorities, i.e. the priority aspects to
be addressed by this system;
(4) the Portuguese quality assessment system’s parameters in relation to the
operation of institutions; and
(5) the Portuguese quality assessment system’s parameters in relation to the results
of the institutions’ activities.
For the purpose of this paper, only the first two groups of questions were taken into
consideration. The questions included in them (5 for the objectives – see Table I, and 29
QAE for the purposes – see Table AI in Appendix 1) were chosen to address the research
question related to this paper.
22,3 A census was the chosen strategy to collect data. All Portuguese HEIs (more
precisely their rectors and presidents) were approached and asked to distribute
information on the research project, including a link to the online questionnaire, among
their academics. A total of 1,782 answers were obtained, corresponding to a response
260 rate of around 5 per cent. In terms of sample distribution (excluding missing data), the
four higher education sub-systems were represented, although with an
overrepresentation of the public system (90.4 per cent), especially public polytechnics
(45.4 per cent), in relation to the population distribution. Furthermore, the sample
comprised both female (44 per cent) and male (56 per cent) academics, from different age
groups (the most significant being the 40-49 – 36 per cent – followed by the 30-39 – 28 per
cent), with different academic degrees (academics holding a doctoral degree are the most
strongly represented: 46.9 per cent), levels of involvement in quality management
activities within their institutions (only 25.5 per cent had been engaged) and belonging
to different scientific areas (although mostly from Engineering and Technology – 26 per
cent – and Social Sciences – 28 per cent).
According to the available data (GPEARI/MCTES, 2010) for the Portuguese
population of academics (36,215), we can say that the sample characteristics reproduced
the population for gender and age groups (56 per cent of Portuguese academics are male,
while 44 per cent are female, whereas the highest percentage was found for the age
group 40-49 years old – 34 per cent – followed by the group 30-39 – 29 per cent). However,
the academics’ distribution by the four sub-systems presented a clear
over-representation of the public sector in the sample (in the population, 41 per cent of
the academics belong to public universities, 28 per cent to public polytechnics, 19 per
cent to private universities and 12 per cent to private polytechnics). For the remaining
characteristics, there was no data available for the population.
Although the response rate is low and the sample is not representative of the
Portuguese academic population, which poses some limitations regarding the
generalisation of results to the overall academics’ population, the size of the sample and
the detail of the data gathered provide a rich source to explore the way Portuguese
academics perceive higher education quality assessment.
Descriptive statistics were used to investigate academics’ support for what quality
assessment was supposed to guarantee (its purposes) and which should be its
objectives. Furthermore, a factorial analysis using Promax rotation (oblique) was
performed to investigate if the different purposes could be grouped according to the
different areas they addressed in terms of quality assessment, helping to uncover a
rationale that could explain the answers obtained. The reason to opt for an oblique
rotation lay in the fact that the factors extracted were correlated.
Empirical analysis
Higher education quality assessment objectives
All the objectives for higher education quality assessment suggested in the
questionnaire were supported to a certain extent by the academics (all means were
approximately 2.9 or higher) (see Table II). The perceptions gathered revealed that
academics tended to totally agree with quality assessment as a way to ensure the
continuous development of higher education quality (mean of 4.2 and median of 5.0).
Conversely, the establishment of a system of penalties and rewards based on quality Quality cultures
assessment results was the objective displaying lower agreement (mean of 2.9 and
median of 3.0).
in the Portuguese
Agreement with propositions related to continuous improvement and innovations context
generated within HEIs brought to the fore the implementation within institutions of
more or less formalised internal quality assurance processes and systems. In a number
of European countries, including Portugal, an effort has been made by the national 261
assessment and accreditation agencies to prepare and adopt guidelines for institutions
to set up such systems (most of them in consultation with the institutions and other
interested parties). This was especially the case where institutional audits of internal
quality assurance systems were in place. Additionally, the European Standards and
Guidelines for quality assurance, with an associated set of guidelines for each one of the
seven standards for internal quality assurance, also provided indications for the
institutions to set up their own systems.
In the Portuguese case, institutional audits of internal quality assurance systems
were set in the law on quality passed in 2007, although they had not yet been
implemented when the questionnaire was run. These systems will be certified by the
A3ES, and most HEIs were already developing (or intended to do so in the near future)
their own internal quality assurance systems, trying to comply with the national
legislation. Therefore, it will be interesting to analyse this aspect as the answers of
Portuguese academics, which, although showing agreement with the statement that the
adequacy of the higher education system to European rules is an objective of quality
assessment, did not emphasise its importance (responses with a mean of 3.4 and a
median of 3).
Higher education quality assessment purposes

Overall, academics tended to show agreement with all the higher education quality
assessment purposes presented in the questionnaire (all mean scores are ⬎ 3 and the
medians vary between 3 – for six purposes – and 5 – for one purpose), although
differences between agreement levels did exist (see Table AI in the Appendix 1).
According to the academics, quality assessment purposes should be focused on
internal dynamics, allowing the academic community to know and reflect on the
Assessing the quality of higher education has

the following objective: N Mean SD Median Min Max
The higher education system’s adequacy to

European rules 1,598 3.4 1.2 3 1 5
The continuous development of higher
education quality 1,722 4.2 1.0 5 1 5
The establishment of a system of penalties
and rewards based on quality assessment
results 1,642 2.9 1.3 3 1 5 Table II.
Accountability to society on higher education Academics’ perceptions
quality 1,692 3.6 1.2 4 1 5 on higher education
The development of innovations generated quality assessment
within HEIs 1,777 3.5 1.2 4 1 5 objectives
QAE institutions’ quality, facilitating the definition of strategies for its improvement (this was
the purpose with the highest mean – 4.3 – and median – 5). The contribution to the
22,3 collective and shared identification of institutional strengths and weaknesses, the
promotion by the management and governance bodies of HEIs of continuous
improvement processes for the teaching quality, the implementation of internal quality
assurance systems as well as the development of teaching staff skills also attracted high
262 agreement (means of 4.2 and medians of 4).
Providing students with information on the teaching quality to allow them to make
choices, providing the management and governance bodies with information on
institutions’ quality so they could take decisions, improving links between teaching and
research and promoting the improvement of student support systems, also mustered a
strong agreement among academics (means of 4.1 and medians of 4). Finally, increasing
academics’ involvement in teaching and learning issues and facilitating the adoption of
new methodologies for teaching and learning, were also purposes receiving significant
acceptance (means of 4.0 and medians of 4).
The topics gathering less agreement were mainly focused on aspects that reinforced
regulation instruments enacted either by the Government or by the institutions’
management and governance bodies (all with medians of 3). This was the case, for
example, of quality assessment allowing the Government to allocate resources to each
institution based on the assessment results (mean of 3.4), promoting the cooperation
between academic and non-academic staff, allowing governance bodies to define
sanctioning policies for inadequate practices, having effects on the HEIs’ criteria for
student selection (all three with means of 3.3) or providing the State with instruments
to control the higher education network and having effect on HEIs’ criteria for
non-academic staff recruitment and promotion, both presenting the lower mean
scores (3.2).
Trying to uncover links between the different purposes, we have used factor analysis
to identify which factors could explain most of the variance observed in the academics’
answers. The factor analysis conducted on the data collected revealed five factors with
eigenvalues ⬎ 1 (corresponding to 60.8 per cent of total variance explained). Factor
analysis resulted, then, in a purposes scale, consisting of 29 items (the sentences
designed to materialize the different purposes of quality assessment) and five subscales,
each one corresponding to one of the five extracted factors (see Table III and Table AI in
Appendix 1). The items for each subscale were selected based on their loadings on each
one of the extracted factors. All loadings ⬎ 0.3 were considered to be significant
(according to Hair et al., 1998, this is the threshold value when sample sizes are ⬎ 350).
Whenever an item presented loadings ⬎ 0.3 in more than one factor, the decision was to
allocate it to the factor where the loading was higher. Nevertheless, the analysis of each
Purposes subscales N Items Min Max Mean SD Cronbach’s ␣

Table III.
Academics’ perceptions Quality assurance processes 1,740 10 1 5 4.0 0.72 0.90
on higher education Quality monitoring and control 1,744 6 1 5 3.4 0.89 0.84
quality assessment: Quality improvement of teaching and learning 1,750 5 1 5 4.0 0.80 0.84
statistics for the five Quality commitment of institutional actors 1,730 5 1 5 3.6 0.90 0.82
purposes subscales Trustworthiness 1,749 3 1 5 3.7 0.91 0.66
one of the five subscales took into consideration not only the items allocated to it but also Quality cultures
the ones with loadings ⬎ 0.3.
Table III presents the statistics computed for each one of the five purposes subscales.
in the Portuguese
These subscales are formed by combining all items loading highly on the factor and context
using their mean as a replacement variable – the subscale (Hair et al., 1998). Internal
consistency (Cronbach’s ␣) of the scale was 0.85, while for the five subscales it ranged
from 0.66 to 0.90 (see Table III). 263

Correlations between the subscales varied between 0.32 and 0.68 (Pearson’s r), and all
were significant at p ⱕ 0.01 (two-tailed), which allowed the conclusion that the five
factors were highly correlated (see Table AII in Appendix 1). Furthermore, t-tests for
paired samples revealed the existence of statistically significant differences (for a
two-tailed significance level of 0.05) among the mean scores of the subscales
(considering all possible combinations), the only exception being between the quality
assurance processes and quality improvement of teaching and learning subscales. This
means that there were, in fact, differences to be considered among academics’ support
for the five subscales of purposes (see Table AIII in Appendix 1).
It was interesting to look at the results of this analysis, as they allowed us to see the
“data doing the talking”. The underlying variables (sentences) in subscale 1 were the
tools and processes used to define, measure and enhance quality. The communality in
subscale 1 referred to formal quality assurance processes. In subscale 2, the common
aspects were to be found in issues focusing on monitoring and control. Although these
were tools and processes usually applied to measure and assess quality, as were the ones
covered in subscale 1, here these mechanisms were centrally managed, putting
emphasis on a managerial element of measuring and evaluating quality. In subscale 3,
the underlying variables focused on enhancement of quality, reflecting the awareness of
individual commitment to improve the quality of teaching and learning. In subscale 4,
common attributes were ascribed to quality commitment of institutional actors. The
engagement with quality was to be found in the activities developed by academic staff,
non-academic staff and students. Finally, in subscale 5, the underlying variables
referred to quality assessment as a way to promote trustworthiness, making higher
education accountable to society.
Table III shows that Portuguese academics tended to agree more with purposes of
quality assessment reflecting quality assurance processes and quality improvement of
teaching and learning than with purposes linked with quality monitoring and control,
quality commitment of institutional actors and trustworthiness. Looking at the
objectives of quality assessment gathering higher agreement, the continuous
development of higher education quality emerged as the aim that should be accomplished
through the implementation of a quality assessment system. This aim was then
deployed into a set of intentions behind the development of a quality assessment system
that appeared to be more related with quality assurance processes and quality
improvement of teaching and learning.
Ascribing meaning to “quality cultures”

Starting from the assumption that the academics’ perceptions contribute to
understanding their interpretation of the objectives and purposes of quality assessment
systems, the analysis explored how these perceptions appear to ascribe meaning to
“quality cultures”.
QAE The reproductive quality culture promotes quality assurance processes to replicate
what the institution does best, encouraging individual action and the expertise of its
22,3 members. (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008, p. 437). Looking at the objectives of quality
assessment systems, the establishment of a system of penalties and rewards based on
quality assessment results is aligned with this “quality culture”. Rewards allow
reproducing the status quo, while penalties minimise the impact of external factors. In
264 the perception of our respondents, the reproductive quality culture was less supported.
Apparently, they did not credit this “quality culture” as a result of a system generating
consequences. Looking at the purposes, the same conclusion can be drawn because the
quality monitoring and control subscale was the one less supported. This subscale
encompasses a significant number of purposes aligned with the reproductive quality
culture: quality assessment should:
• allow governance bodies to define sanctioning or rewarding policies for inadequate
practices;
• have effects on the HEI’s criteria for academic recruitment and promotion; and
• promote the existence of control mechanisms of the performance of academics.
In this vein, the academics surveyed would not support a “quality culture” aiming at
perpetuating the current state of affairs.
The reactive quality culture develops ad hoc quality assurance processes
grounded on unplanned relationships envisaging quality commitment. The
objectives of quality systems promoted by a reactive quality culture are related to the
adequacy of externally driven norms and rules. Portuguese academics did not
strongly agree that higher education system’s adequacy to European rules is an
objective of higher education quality assessment. Hence, the quality culture
supported by the academics surveyed would avoid being driven just by compliance.
Interestingly, the set of intentions behind the development of quality assessment
systems taken in the trustworthiness subscale overlaps elements of reactive and
responsive quality cultures. Other subscales also embrace elements of different
“quality cultures” as will be argued later. The idea that quality assessments systems
should allow for the closure of study programmes that have no quality based on its
accreditation and allow the government to allocate resources to institutions based on
the assessment results facilitates ascribing meaning to this “quality culture”. At the
same time, the perceptions gathered revealed less agreement with regard to these
purposes behind quality assessment, reflecting disagreement about a quality
culture that simply reacts to external demands.
The responsive quality culture might evolve as:
[…] something created to deal with the evaluation problem, a solution to an issue created by
others. This is likely to be exacerbated internally by a lack of buy-in to a quality culture as a
way of life and lack of feeling of ownership, or of any real control (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008,
p. 436).
Developments led by external demands and the implementation of an improvement
agenda for quality assurance were elements of this quality culture. With regard to
the objectives of higher education quality systems, ingredients of the responsive
quality culture were supported. The objectives of continuous development of higher
education quality associated with an improvement agenda and of accountability to Quality cultures
society on higher education quality reflecting developments driven by external
requirements were the most favoured. The purposes that may be behind the quality
in the Portuguese
assessment systems are included in the quality assurance processes subscale. The context
ones reflecting that quality assessment systems should allow the academic
community to know and reflect on the institution’s quality so strategies to improve
can be defined and allow HEI governance bodies to promote continuous quality 265
improvement processes for teaching/learning contributed to ascribe meaning to the
responsive quality culture. The regenerative quality culture “tends to be widespread,
with clear overall goals, in a state of flux as activities and events evolve” (Harvey
and Stensaker, 2008, p. 437). The objective of quality assessment systems fitting the
development of innovations generated within HEIs is oriented towards continual
improvement processes engaged with the re-conceptualisation of what is known,
thus endorsing this quality culture. The perceptions gathered underlined the
importance of quality commitment of institutional actors as the purposes subscale
contributing more to ascribe meaning to this quality culture. Internal developments
are coordinated towards internal regeneration and focusing on the renewal of
quality assessment processes. Hence, the intentions behind quality assessment
systems addressing the improvement of the links between teaching and research and
the reward of academics’ innovative practices promote the regenerative quality
culture.
The perceptions gathered also revealed that the purposes of quality assessment
systems subscales are made of ingredients associated with different “quality cultures”.
Actually, it was not possible to identify purposes subscales featured by elements of a
single quality culture.
The quality assurance processes subscale includes elements of the responsive, the
regenerative and reproductive quality cultures. The engagement with external
demands (e.g. provide information about the institution to an external entity for
accreditation purposes), the internal regeneration behind the purpose of contributing
to the collective and shared identification of the institution’s strengths and
weaknesses and the reproduction of status quo allowing governance bodies to allocate
resources, based on quality assessment results, ascribe meaning to these “quality
cultures”, respectively.
The Quality Improvement of Teaching and Learning subscale also took in
elements of the reproductive, the regenerative and the responsive quality cultures.
The purpose behind the quality assessment system favouring the development of
academics’ individual skills promoting what the institution does best, the promotion
of institutional policies for the development of new technologies and learning
practices emphasising the re-conceptualisation and the improvement of student
support systems under the framework of an enhancement agenda, contributes to
understand how the Quality Improvement of Teaching and Learning triggers
elements of the three quality cultures.
The subscales quality monitoring and control and quality commitment of
institutional actors, although they include elements of different “quality cultures”,
are dominated by elements of a single quality culture. While the quality monitoring
and control subscale is mostly dominated by elements of the reproductive quality
culture, the quality commitment of institutional actors is characterised by more
QAE elements of the regenerative quality culture. The quality monitoring and control
subscale appears to be associated with the reproduction of the status quo (e.g.
22,3 promote the existence of control mechanisms of the performance of the academics)
and the quality commitment of institutional actors is driven by internal
developments and the introduction of new practices (e.g. promote the cooperation
between academic and non-academic staff).
266
Conclusions
Perceptions of Portuguese academics that support quality assessment systems are to be
found in two “quality cultures”: the responsive quality culture – e.g. the continuous
development of higher education quality objective and purposes such as to allow the
academic community to know and reflect on the institution’s quality so strategies to
improve can be defined – and the regenerative quality culture – e.g. the development of
innovations generated within HEIs objective and the purpose of contributing to the
collective and shared identification of the institution’s strengths and weaknesses. The
forms of ideal cultures are analytically limited, and the perceptions gathered encouraged
“quality cultures” biased by stronger group control. The reproductive and the reactive
quality cultures stem from weak group control and were less supported by Portuguese
academics.
Research findings contributed to understanding which dynamics were currently
feeding the quality culture concept in the Portuguese context. Interestingly, we could not
find evidence of elements promoting a single “quality culture” within the purposes
subscales. Rather, different components of the four ideal types of “quality cultures” were
valued by Portuguese academics within the same purposes subscale. It is possible that,
as the survey included questions related to the four ideal types of “quality culture”, it has
induced a fragmented view on academics’ perceptions across the five purposes
subscales.
From a theoretical point of view, “quality cultures” stemming from the cultural
theory framework brought in the potential for a plurality of solutions and not the
adoption of a single pattern within HEIs. Similar to public management systems
“more likely to keep “hunting around” among the various types, as surprises and
disappointment over the capacity of one approach to deliver satisfactory results
leads to increasing support for one of the other options” (Hood, 1995, p. 111), in
quality assessment the development of a “quality culture” was expected to promote
a plurality of elements featuring it. This observation is particularly relevant for the
ongoing set up of the assessment and accreditation system by the Portuguese
agency that is foreseeing the possibility of implementing a “light touch” system
together with the promotion of internal quality assurance systems (Amaral et al.,
2013a). Nevertheless, the quality commitment of institutional actors subscale that
contributed to ascribe meaning to the regenerative quality culture did not gather
much agreement compared with other purposes. This finding challenges the
development of internal dynamics within HEIs to reinforce group control
mechanisms, while reducing the intensity of external rules.
From a different angle, unintended effects of “quality cultures” can be expected if a
specific quality culture is taken to the limits. The responsive quality culture could be seen
as a way to respond to an issue created by others (e.g. accreditation, implementation of
internal quality assurance systems) and “likely to be exacerbated internally by a lack of
buy-in to a quality culture as a way of life and lack of feeling of ownership or of any real Quality cultures
control” (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008, p. 437). However, the regenerative quality culture
has an intrinsic subversive potential “if regeneration stalls or is interfered with
in the Portuguese
externally, be it by a higher layer of management or by an external force” (Harvey and context
Stensaker, 2008, p. 437). Hence, the promotion of strong group-control mechanisms,
grounded on monitoring and control instruments of individual behaviour, for instance,

are at stake at both the institutional and national levels to sustain the equilibrium of 267
these “quality cultures”. Furthermore, the intensity of external rules of these “quality
cultures” should be kept weak to induce the regenerative quality culture and could be
stronger to encourage the responsive quality culture.
The extent to which the group-control mechanisms and the intensity of external rules
will be reinforced by the initiative of the central administration of HEIs or by the activity
of national quality agencies will be something worthwhile to further explore to see how
far group-control mechanisms sustain the “quality cultures” supported by the
perceptions of the academics surveyed.
References
Altman, Y. and Baruch, Y. (1998), “Cultural theory and organizations: analytical method and
cases”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 769-785.
Amaral, A., Rosa, M.J. and Fonseca, M. (2013), “The Portuguese case. Can institutions move to
quality enhancement?”, in Land, R. and Gordon, G. (Eds), Enhancing Quality in Higher
Education. International Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Amaral, A., Tavares, O. and Santos, C. (2013a), “Higher education reform in portugal: a historical
and comparative perspective of the new legal framework for public universities”, Higher
Education Policy, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Douglas, M. (1970), Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology, Pantheon Books, New York, NY.
Douglas, M. (1982), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Douglas, M. (1992), Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory, Routledge, London.
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1983), Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of
Technological and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, London.
Frølich, N. (2005), “Implementation of new public management in Norwegian universities”,
European Journal of Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 223-234.
Gross, J.L. and Rayner, S. (1985), Measuring Culture, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Harvey, L. (2004-13). “Analytic quality glossary”, Quality Research International, available at:
www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/.
Harvey, L. and Newton, J. (2004), “Transforming quality evaluation”, Quality in Higher Education,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Harvey, L. and Stensaker, B. (2008), “Quality culture: understandings, boundaries and linkages”,
European Journal of Education, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 427-442.
Hood, C. (1995), “Contemporary public management: a new global paradigm?”, Public Policy and
Administration, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 104-117.
QAE Jackson, S. and George, P. (2005), “Organizational culture and the management of technological
change: a theoretical perspective”, ECIS 2005 Proceedings, Paper No. 149, availble at: http://
22,3 aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2005/149.
Kogan, M. (1999), “The culture of academe”, Minerva, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Loukkola, T. and Zhang, T. (2010), Examining Quality Culture: Part 1 – Quality Assurance
Processes in Higher Education Institutions. European Universities Association, Brussels.

268 Maassen, P. (1996), Governmental Steering and the Academic Culture-The Intangibility of The
Human Factor in Dutch and German Universities, CHEPS, Twente.
Neave, G. (1998), “The evaluative state reconsidered”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 265-284.
Rosa, M.J. and Sarrico, C.S. (2012), “Quality, evaluation and accreditation: from steering, through
compliance, on to enhancement and innovation?” in Neave, G. and Amaral, A. (Eds), Higher
Education in Portugal 1974 –2009: A Nation, a Generation, Springer, Dordrecht,
pp. 249-264.
Rosa, M.J., Tavares, D. and Amaral, A. (2006), “Institutional consequence of quality assessment”,
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 145-159.
Stensaker, B. (2003), Trance, Transparency and Transformation: The Impact of External Quality
Monitoring on Higher Education, Vol. 9, Routledge.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R. and Wildavsky, A. (1990), Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Colorado.
Thompson, M., Grendstad, G. and Selle, P. (1999), Cultural Theory as Political Science,. Routledge,
London.
Veiga, A. and Amaral, A. (2008), “How does the Bologna process challenge national traditions of
higher education institutions?” in Välimaa, J. and Ylijoki, O.-H. (Eds), Cultural Perspectives
on Higher Education, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 238-256.
Veiga, A., Rosa, M.J. and Amaral, A. (2011), “Understanding the impacts of quality assessment: an
exploratory use of cultural theory”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Veiga, A., Rosa, M.J., Tavares, D.A. and Amaral, A. (2013), “Why is it difficult to grasp the impacts
of the Portuguese quality assurance system?”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 454-470.
Yorke, M. (2000), “Developing a quality culture in higher education”, Tertiary Education and
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-36, doi: 10.1080/13583883.2000.9967008
Appendix 1. Higher education quality assessment purposes scale

The sentences presented in Table AI reflect different purposes a quality assessment system may
have. Purposes have been defined as a set of intentions that may be behind the development of a
quality assessment system. Academics have been asked to score each one of them in a scale
ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree. Statistics have been computed for the
answers given to each question and are presented in Table AI where the sentences appear grouped
in the subscales resulting from the factorial analysis (for all questions, the minimum and
maximum scores given by the respondents were 1 and 5, respectively). Furthermore, Table AI
presents information on the results of the factorial analysis, namely, the loadings of each variable
(sentence/QA purpose) on each one of the extracted factors (subscales) for the final factor solution
(after oblique rotation – Promax).
Table AII shows Pearson correlation coefficients between the five subscales emerging from the
factorial analysis (correlations are significant for a 0.01 significance level) and Table AIII shows
paired sample t-tests for statistical significant differences among the five subscales emerging
from the factorial analysis (t-value and p-value for each one of the ten pairs)
Quality assessment purposes N Median Mean SD Subscale 1 Subscale 2 Subscale 3 Subscale 4 Subscale 5
Quality cultures
Subscale 1. Quality assurance processes
in the Portuguese
Allow HEI governance bodies to context
promote continuous quality
improvement processes for
teaching/learning 1,720 4.0 4.2 1.0 0.645 0.066 0.469 ⫺0.242 ⫺0.017
Provide students with information
on the quality of teaching and
269
learning so that they can make
choices 1,698 4.0 4.1 1.0 0.395 ⫺0.014 0.085 0.111 0.366
Allow the governance bodies to have
information on the HEI’s quality so
they can take decisions 1,689 4.0 4.1 1.0 0.662 0.118 0.090 ⫺0.192 0.239
Allow the academic community to
know and reflect on the institution’s
quality so strategies to improve it
can be defined 1,700 5.0 4.3 0.9 0.720 ⫺0.125 0.237 ⫺0.071 0.052
Provide information about the
institution to an external entity, for
accreditation purposes 1,662 4.0 3.8 1.1 0.476 0.291 ⫺0.232 0.099 0.115
Contribute to the collective and
shared identification of the
institution’s strengths and
weaknesses 1,699 4.0 4.2 0.9 0.764 ⫺0.097 0.078 0.050 0.022
Contribute to the definition of new
routines and procedures 1,673 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.675 ⫺0.031 0.018 0.262 ⫺0.164
Promote the creation of quality
assurance internal systems 1,692 4.0 4.2 0.9 0.807 ⫺0.069 0.009 0.116 ⫺0.065
Contribute to the convergence of
teaching, research and management
processes and practices 1,676 4.0 3.9 1.1 0.469 ⫺0.064 0.059 0.455 ⫺0.097
Allow the governance bodies to
allocate resources, based on quality
assessment results 1,659 4.0 3.6 1.2 0.364 0.315 ⫺0.208 0.191 0.130
Subscale 2. Quality monitoring and control

Promote the existence of control
mechanisms of the performance of
academics 1,717 4.0 3.5 1.2 ⫺0.111 0.865 0.187 ⫺0.051 ⫺0.038
Have effects on the HEI’s criteria for
academic recruitment and promotion 1,640 4.0 3.5 1.1 ⫺0.140 0.751 0.173 0.110 0.052
Have effects on the HEI’s criteria for
non-academic staff recruitment and
promotion 1,575 3.0 3.2 1.2 ⫺0.175 0.531 0.188 0.422 ⫺0.070
Allow governance bodies to define
sanctioning policies for inadequate
practices 1,677 3.0 3.3 1.2 0.073 0.553 ⫺0.228 0.290 0.015
Allow governance bodies to define
rewarding policies for good practices 1,668 4.0 3.7 1.1 0.325 0.350 ⫺0.126 0.265 0.045
Provide the State with instruments Table AI.
to control the higher education Portuguese academics’
network 1,701 3.0 3.2 1.3 0.008 0.867 0.092 ⫺0.251 ⫺0.064 perceptions on quality
assessment purposes
(continued) (descriptive statistics)
QAE Quality assessment purposes N Median Mean SD Subscale 1 Subscale 2 Subscale 3 Subscale 4 Subscale 5
22,3 Subscale 3. Quality improvement of teaching and learning
Favour the development of
academics’ individual skills 1,727 4.0 4.2 0,9 ⫺0.204 ⫺0.156 0.512 0.285 0.496
Facilitate the adoption of new
methodologies for teaching and

270 learning 1,713 4.0 4.0 1.1 ⫺0.067 0.104 0.679 0.235 0.017
Promote the improvement of
student support systems 1,710 4.0 4.1 1.0 0.122 0.032 0.624 0.164 0.024
Allow governance bodies to
promote policies for the
development of new teaching
and learning practices 1,675 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.365 0.204 0.600 ⫺0.075 ⫺0.123
Increase academics involvement
in teaching and learning 1,701 4.0 4.0 1.1 0.222 0.025 0.576 0.224 ⫺0.099
Subscale 4. Quality commitment of institutional actors

Promote cooperation between
academic and non-academic
staff 1,622 3.0 3.3 1.2 ⫺0.056 0.004 0.304 0.679 ⫺0.066
Have effects on the HEI’s
criteria for student selection 1,571 3.0 3.3 1.2 ⫺0.079 0.247 ⫺0.028 0.616 0.065
Reward academics’ innovative
practices 1,666 4.0 3.9 1.1 0.067 0.029 0.283 0.506 0.043
Improve the links between
teaching and research 1,692 4.0 4.1 1.1 0.183 ⫺0.215 0.171 0.620 0.069
Increase students’ involvement
in teaching and learning issues 1,664 4.0 3.7 1.2 0.102 ⫺0.043 0.356 0.594 ⫺0.113
Subscale 5. Trustworthiness
Allow for the closure of study
programmes that have no
quality, based on its
non-accreditation 1,690 4.0 3.8 1.2 0.019 ⫺0.045 ⫺0.108 ⫺0.019 0.812
Publicly assure the
accountability of a higher
education system 1,714 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.059 0.028 0.163 ⫺0.027 0.694
Allow the government to
allocate resources to institutions
based on the assessment results 1,695 3.0 3.4 1.2 ⫺0.059 0.410 ⫺0.042 ⫺0.110 0.522
Notes: The most significant loadings for each item are signalled in bold; in italics we have signalled for each item the
remaining significant loadings. All loadings ⬎ 0.3 were considered to be statistically significant because our sample is ⬎ 350
Table AI. Source: Hair et al., 1998
Quality cultures
in the Portuguese
context
Quality Quality Quality improvement Quality commitment
assurance monitoring of teaching and of institutional

processes and control learning actors Trustworthiness
271
Quality assurance
processes 1 0.600 0.688 0.685 0.494 Table AII.
Quality monitoring Pearson correlation
and control 1 0.434 0.544 0.560 coefficients between the
Quality improvement
five subscales emerging
of teaching and
learning 1 0.711 0.319 from the factorial analysis
Quality commitment (correlations are
of institutional actors 1 0.345 significant for a 0.01
Trustworthiness 1 significance level)
Quality Quality Quality improvement Quality commitment

assurance monitoring of teaching and of institutional
processes and control learning actors Trustworthiness
Quality assurance
processes – 36.2 (0.000) ⫺0.4 (0.703) 24.6 (0.000) 15.6 (0.000) Table AIII.
Quality monitoring Paired sample t-tests for
and control – ⫺29.8 (0.000) ⫺12.0 (0.000) ⫺16.1 (0.000) statistical significant
Quality improvement
differences among the five
of teaching and
learning – 25.1 (0.000) 13.3 (0.017) subscales emerging from
Quality commitment the factorial analysis (t-
of institutional actors – ⫺3.1 (0.002) value and p-value for each
Trustworthiness – one of the 10 pairs)
About the authors

Amélia Veiga has a PhD degree in Education Sciences from the University of Porto, Portugal. She
is a researcher at A3ES and at the Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES). She
is a member of Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER). Her main research interests
are in the field of higher education studies, in particular European integration, governance and
quality assurance. She has been involved in national and international projects about the
implementation of the Bologna process, internationalisation, Europeanisation and globalisation
of higher education, quality assurance, governing and governance in higher education.
Amélia Veiga is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: amelia.veiga@a3es.pt
Maria João Rosa has a PhD degree in Industrial Management and is Assistant Professor at
the Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering, University of
Aveiro, and a researcher at CIPES. Her main research topics are quality management and
quality assessment in HEIs. She is a member of CHER and of the Executive Committee of
EAIR. She is co-editor of Cost-Sharing and Accessibility in Higher Education: A Fairer Deal?,
2006; Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation, 2007 and Essays in Supportive
Peer Review, 2008.
QAE Sónia Cardoso has a PhD degree in Social Sciences by the University of Aveiro, Portugal. She
is a researcher at both the Development and Analysis Office of A3ES and the CIPES. She is a
22,3 member of CHER. Her main research interests and publications aim at the perceptions and the
relationship of students and academics with the quality assurance of higher education. She has
also been involved in national and international research projects on these topics.
Alberto Amaral is Full Professor at University of Porto, former Director of CIPES and is
currently the President of the Executive Board of A3ES. His main research interests lie in the areas
272 of governance, funding and quality assurance of higher education systems and their institutions.
He is member of the board of Institutional Management in Higher Education programme of the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (IMHE/OECD), former chair of CHER,
former Vice President of the steering committee of the IEP-EUA audit programme and life
member of International Association of University Presidents. He is author and co-editor of a
number of books, including: Reform and Change in Higher education: Analysing Policy
Implementation, 2005; From Governance to Identity, 2008; Essays on Supportive Peer Review, 2008;
European Integration and Governance of Higher Education and Research 2009; Higher Education
in Portugal 1974-2009. A Nation, a Generation, 2011.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Ascribing Meaning To Quality Cultures in The Portuguese Context PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ascribing Meaning To Quality Cultures in The Portuguese Context PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Quality Assurance in Education

Ascribing meaning to quality cultures in the Portuguese context

To cite this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Ascribing meaning to quality Quality cultures

Amélia Veiga 255

Quality culture and quality assurance

Method and data

Higher education quality assessment purposes

Assessing the quality of higher education has

The higher education system’s adequacy to

Purposes subscales N Items Min Max Mean SD Cronbach’s ␣

from 0.66 to 0.90 (see Table III). 263

Ascribing meaning to “quality cultures”

grounded on monitoring and control instruments of individual behaviour, for instance,

Processes in Higher Education Institutions. European Universities Association, Brussels.

Appendix 1. Higher education quality assessment purposes scale

Subscale 2. Quality monitoring and control

methodologies for teaching and

Subscale 4. Quality commitment of institutional actors

assurance monitoring of teaching and of institutional

Quality Quality Quality improvement Quality commitment

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi