Collegial or Managerial? Academics' Conceptions of Quality in English and Finnish Universities

Abstract

Two specific forms of quality are identified: Type I, which has a managerial focus and stresses fitness for purpose and accountability, and Type II, which is collegial and concerned with enhancement. Through an analysis of the literature on quality in higher education and small-scale empirical research with a sample of academic staff, this article compares conceptions of quality assurance in the English and Finnish higher education systems. The authors highlight the similarities and differences in the two countries and possible reasons for them. Over time the blend of managerial and collegial approaches to quality has come to favour the former but much more so in England than in Finland, which continues to prefer a largely enhancement-led agenda. Both are signatories to the Bologna Declaration, and the implications for other European countries of convergence in quality assurance systems by 2011 through this Declaration are considered.

From professional bureaucracy to competitive bureaucracy – redefining universities’ organization principles, performance measurement criteria, and reason for being

“…Performance-oriented public sector reforms and their adoption in universities have been the focus of many studies (Hood, 1995; van Gestel and Teelken, 2006; Upping and Oliver, 2012; Akbar et al , 2015). These studies have covered, for instance, changes concerning PM practices (ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012; Teelken, 2015), accounting and finance in higher education (HE) institutions (Edwards et al , 1999; Torres, 2004; Upping and Oliver, 2012; Hammerschmid et al , 2013), scholarly identity and ethos (Ylijoki and Ursin, 2013; Kallio et al , 2016) and conceptions of quality in scholarly work (Lomas and Ursin, 2009; Kallio et al , 2017). The aforementioned perspectives are important for understanding changing academia and academic work; however, an important yet often forgotten aspect of these recent changes is their influence on the organizational configurations of HE institutions.…”

Assessment in Higher Education (Finland)

“…This debate is still on going as HEIs are developing larger and more multidisciplinary study modules that also require new forms of assessment. Third, although the enhancement-led assessment culture is still strong in Finnish higher education, there are more and more indications of assessment becoming more outcome-oriented (Lomas and Ursin 2009). This is partly due to the funding model by which the government allocates basic funding to HEIs.…”

Higher Education Reforms in Finland

“…First, as Finland was implementing many Bologna goals at the same time, such as two-tier degree structure and establishment of system of credits, it was relatively easy to introduce a more systemic ways of assessing quality of higher education in the form of QA systems. Second, Finland agreed to continue in the audits 'enhancement-led approach' of assessment which in practice means a low-stake approach to assessment (as opposed to UK, for example, see Lomas & Ursin 2009). In other words, even if the institutions fail in the audit it has no financial consequences.…”