| Abstract: | This study investigated what constitutes the key elements and attributes of an effective Quality Assurance (QA) system in Higher Education (HE) for Small States. Currently, there is a lack of conceptual and operational rigour in supporting a sustainable quality assurance system in higher education for Small States (Stella, 2010). Tackling this problem requires a system-wide holistic approach situated within a broader national and International system of QA in higher education with a view to capture the implications for Small States. To investigate this, the research reported here drew on a systems theory (Pidwimy, 2006b) to investigate the
systematic characteristics of quality assurance in higher education. The aim was to understand the underlying principles, as well as the emerging themes in quality assurance systems in higher education. The study could serve as a useful reference for policy makers, practitioners and professionals alike. The research was a qualitative case study based on the constructionist paradigm and includes the use of document analysis and interviews for data collection. It drew upon a case study in the Maldives, to explore possible linkages, similarities, challenges, issues and quality assurance options that emerged and are relevant to that of Small State contexts. Interviews and document analysis were used to collect data from 16 participants from four stakeholder groups in the Maldives. The data were analysed using a content analysis approach which involved an inductive process of breaking down data into segments that were then categorised, ordered and examined for connections, patterns and propositions. Five findings were derived from the study and may be regarded as critical aspects of a higher education quality assurance system, especially, with respect to Small States. First, the need for legislation within a regulatory framework emerged as paramount for the establishment of HE QA system. Legislation offers a clear description of the roles and responsibilities for the whole system. Second, a QA agency which is strong and independent was marked as a key feature of a HE QA agency. A strong QA agency in line with principals of a one-tier system facilitates the independence of the agency. Third, issues related to the regulatory board of a HE QA agency, appears to influence the overall organisational effectiveness of the agency. These issues include, equal representation of board membership and conflict of interest. Fourth, a lack of minimum standards and guidelines is a major hurdle Small States are facing in strengthening HE QA systems. Fifth, the complete circle of QA services starting with registration of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and moving on to accreditation of both the institution and programmes for a certain period of time, which is then followed by academic audit, is rare in many systems, especially Small States. Intricate details of these findings as well as the data analysis from which the findings were drawn from are explained in the body of the thesis (Chapters Four and Five). There is recognition that an ideal procedure for a holistic QA system for higher
education is critical. The findings show that Small States have limitations such as slow speed in doing things, human resource capacity and funding constraints. The study concludes by making suggestions for key considerations in an optimum QA model for Small States. |
