The Inter-Jurisdictional Language of Quality Assurance: Comparing Theory and Practice

Abstract

This is a comparative study of two reports on the assurance of quality in higher education that appeared contemporaneously in two similar and closely connected jurisdictions. Using NVivo summative content analysis software, documentary analysis, archival records, WTO submissions, and focus groups and interviews the paper identifies and compares several recurring areas in which nomenclature is at least nominally mutual, such as: the boundary line between academic support services and student services, balancing commonality and diversity, the institution versus the basic academic unit as the focus and scope of assurance, self-regulation versus system regulation, the assurance of quality versus the enhancement of quality, the role of league ranking, performance indicators, and benchmarking, aggregation. Seen in terms of theory-driven evaluation, the study suggests that finding a trans-jurisdictional common ground for quality assurance is more advanced in theory than in practice.