Purpose – This paper seeks to analyze the internationalization of quality practices in higher education. In light of insufficient theorization about quality in the global dimension, the paper presents a model for value construction in higher education. Design/methodology/approach – The authors reviewed different models for quality in higher education vis-à-vis emerging international quality practices in higher education. Findings – After reviewing quality models and international quality practices, the authors argue that, in order to evaluate and improve quality in higher education, a model of value in higher education that connects quality with relevance, access, and investment is necessary. Research limitations/implications – Thus far, quality in higher education has been explored in isolation from access, relevance, and investment. The integrative approach suggested here may prove generative for researchers and help address complex educational interrogations. Practical implications – Higher education leaders are faced with decisions about quality; these leaders may benefit from connecting quality decisions with the demands on relevance, access, and investment that their local settings dictate. Originality/value – The concept of value is largely absent from conceptual discussions about quality in higher education; additionally, many discussions about quality in higher education seem to be isolated from their context. This paper addresses both these issues.

No abstract

In this article, we explore commodities and consumption, two concepts that are central to critiques of the neoliberal university. By engaging with these concepts, we explore the limits of neoliberal logic. We ground this conceptual entanglement in Marxist and post-Marxist traditions given our understanding of neoliberalism both as an extension of and as a meaningfully different form of capitalism. As colleges and universities enact neoliberal economic assumptions by focusing on revenue generation, understanding students as customers, and construing their faculty as temporary service providers, the terms commodity and consumption have become commonplace in critical higher education literature. When critiques concerning the commodification and consumption of higher education are connected with these theoretical and conceptual foundations, they not only become more effective but also provide a more meaningful guide upon which current and future scholars can build.