Perceptions of quality in higher education: a comparative study of Turkish and Australian business academics

Finding a common definition of ‘quality’ in studies of quality and quality improvement in higher education institutions is very important. This study identifies the views of a key stakeholder group, academics, with reference to their beliefs (what is currently occurring) and their attitudes (what ought to be occurring) in relation to quality in their departments. The focus of this paper is on the collection of data from 64 business administration academics in Turkish universities. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using an instrument titled ‘Quality in Accounting Education Survey’. The questionnaire was developed by Watty and is based on the conceptions of quality framework, developed by Harvey and Green. The results are compared with the beliefs and attitudes of Australian accounting academics as reported in an earlier paper by Watty. The findings show that academics from Turkey adopt the perspective of quality as excellent or élitist, both in their beliefs (current situation perception) and in their attitudes (desired situation perception). This compares with the findings that Australian academics’ attitudes reflect a quality perspective as fitness for purpose in the current situation and beliefs that reflect a transformational quality perspective as the desired situation (what ought to be).

[1]  Ken Richardson,et al.  Fit for What , 2010 .

[2]  Elizabeth M. Pybus Living Philosophy: An Introduction To Moral Thought , 1989 .

[3]  Roger Lindsay,et al.  Total quality management in education , 2006, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[4]  John Hughes,et al.  Transforming Higher Education , 1997 .

[5]  Taina Saarinen What I Talk About When I Talk About Quality , 2010 .

[6]  Lynn Clouder Reflective Practice in Physiotherapy Education: A critical conversation , 2000 .

[7]  D.G. STEPHENSON Fit for what? , 1981, Nature.

[8]  Andrew Jones Defining quality. , 2010, The Health service journal.

[9]  L. Lomas,et al.  Does the Development of Mass Education Necessarily Mean the End of Quality? , 2002 .

[10]  Paul Gibbs,et al.  An Exploratory Use of the Stakeholder Approach to Defining and Measuring Quality: The Case of a Cypriot Higher Education Institution , 2009 .

[11]  Christopher Ball,et al.  Fitness for purpose : essays in higher education , 1985 .

[12]  K. Watty Want to Know About Quality in Higher Education? Ask an Academic , 2006 .

[13]  H S Barrows,et al.  The essentials of problem-based learning. , 1998, Journal of dental education.

[14]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[15]  J. C. Smart,et al.  Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , 2001, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.

[16]  M. Fianchini,et al.  Fitness for purpose , 2007 .

[17]  Ronald Barnett,et al.  The Idea Of Higher Education , 1991 .

[18]  Kim Watty,et al.  When will Academics Learn about Quality? , 2003 .

[19]  Simon Marginson,et al.  Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: rise of the Confucian Model , 2011 .

[20]  Norman E. Wallen,et al.  How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education , 1990 .

[21]  H. James Harrington Excellence the IBM Way , 1988 .

[22]  Everard van Kemenade,et al.  More Value to Defining Quality , 2008 .

[23]  美克 五十嵐,et al.  Robert M.Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"--「クオリティ」と「無分別」の関係性を探る , 2009 .

[24]  Lee Harvey,et al.  Fifteen Years of Quality in Higher Education , 2010 .

[25]  Brian Chalkley The quality era , 1994 .

[26]  Darwin D. Hendel,et al.  Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe , 2010 .

[27]  Lesley Vidovich,et al.  Changing accountability and autonomy at the 'coal-face' of academic work in Australia , 1998 .