Written by Dr J.P. Nel, MD of Mentornet (Pty) Ltd

One of the quality criteria that Higher Education Quality Assurance Bodies (HEQABs) love to check when evaluating Higher Education Learning Institutions (HEIs) applying for accreditation is if they have an agreement with other learning institutions to conduct external quality assurance of their student performance. This is a type of peer review. The second type of peer review that they make use of is to have members of accredited (HEIs) evaluate applicants for accreditation against certain quality criteria.

The above sounds like a good system, right? Wrong, it is a quality assurance system that ignores every single principle of quality assurance.

To begin with, the approach is unfair. HEQABs should not make it compulsory for HEIs to close agreements with peers. Peer review should always be a voluntary process. Peer review group members should be contracted only by the bodies responsible for the activation and administration of reviews. They should never be contracted by the institution being evaluated. Requiring HEIs to arrange their own performance peer review by closing agreements with other learning institutions is a form of capillary power in which learning institutions are seduced into policing themselves.

Secondly, the approach is not transparent. Peers should be independent and of equal standing as the institution being evaluated. This means that the institution being evaluated must know who the peer is and have sufficient opportunities to discuss quality issues with the evaluator. Bodies responsible for the activation and administration of peer reviews should publish clear and transparent guidelines regarding the selection of reviewers and the criteria and processes to be used. Peer review should always include a site visit and should include discussions with and feedback to the institution being quality assured. In practice, site visits seldom take place and discussions with the people who did the peer review is not allowed. In fact, it is sometimes impossible to find out from the HEQAB who actually conducted the evaluation.

Thirdly, the approach is not developmental. Peer review should lead to mutual learning for both parties and should never be a one sided affair. Peer review should achieve transparency, visibility and comparability of equal standards. It should be a focused exchange of experiences and knowledge. In addition, peers should always count among their number independent, external experts who possess appropriate skills and who are competent to perform their evaluation functions. Some HEQABs refuse to accept their responsibility to provide guidance and support to learning institutions applying for accreditation. Mutual learning is not possible because the applicant does not even know who the peer or peers are. One actually gets the impression that these HEQABs try to catch applicants out rather than to add value to the educational system. Is it possible that they do not have the capacity to do what is expected of them? Feedback by peers should always be critical yet sympathetic. HEQAB feedback is often limited to a vague and unsubstantiated written report.

Fourthly, the approach is not sufficient. Peer review should never be used just because the quality assurance body does not have the capacity to conduct quality assurance. Some HEQABs rely entirely on peer review as an evaluation approach, making it a subjective and one-sided process.

Fifthly, peer review should be valid, authentic and reliable. Peer review can easily become an abusive relay of power if the HEQAB has political motives in mind. The involvement of public universities to evaluate private higher education learning institutions can become a strategy to ensure that private learning providers do not become competition for such universities. This is especially valid in the current South African environment with students rioting on many different grounds, thereby threatening the future existence of public universities.

Six, peer review should be flexible and practicable. Peer review based on a large number of different quality standards or criteria can easily lead to a compliance culture and generate excessive bureaucracy. In addition, only evidence of compliance submitted online is accepted. There are no alternative methods to submit evidence, making it impossible to submit the bulk of evidence which a reputable quality assurance body would consider. The viability of a qualification can, for example, not be evaluated without checking the contents of the learning materials.

In closing, peer review should be based on voluntary cooperation between HEIs. It is most certainly not a way in which quality assurance bodies can overcome lack of capacity. Peers should do the following:

• Use common instruments and criteria.
• Strengthen open communication in the interest of protecting and promoting the interests of the students.
• Increase the relevance of higher education through systematic involvement of all relevant partners.
• Identify and launch projects of common interest to improve the quality of learning offered by both parties involved in peer review.

Adapted from an article written by Jonathan Jansen

Yet another culture shift that has shaken the ground under us has to do with changing attitudes among many students towards public universities. Whereas before universities were treasured as engines of economic growth and gateways for social mobility, they are now seen as little more than welfare organisations representing an extension of the duty of the state to care for the poor. The notion of a university as a site of excellence for research and a competitive space in the global economy of higher education has been reduced to one of low-quality production machines that churn out semi-literate graduates.

Most alarming is the observation by most employers that graduates fresh from university do not have knowledge or skills that will add value to the workplace.

It is now acceptable for students to publicly abuse university leaders, who are seen as little different from municipal managers, the institutional face of the welfare state. And if the militant minority does not get its way, well then, incinerate libraries or computer centres or lecture rooms. These are no longer sporadic events; such behaviour represents the new normal. Plans are already under way for the 2017 disruptions. Our universities will never be the same.

The only solution would be Private Higher Education Institutions offering work integrated learning and providing students with financial incentives based on academic performance. Government, read the Council on Higher Education, knows this and yet they deliberately do their utmost not to accredit private learning institutions. Is government really serious about the development of the youth of South Africa?

Post-structuralism grew out of, and in response to, the philosophy of structuralism. It is a loose connection of authors and ideas, holding the general view that “structures” are not easily discovered and not discoverable as such. Post-structuralism is closely linked to with the postmodernist paradigm.

Post-structuralism is a critical point of view that questions the validity in structures, such as culture and language. Text as a construction of human beings is therefore fallible and the original meaning of the author cannot be determined. Post-structuralism is applied mainly in the field of languages and linguistics (a relative postmodernism). However, it also has an influence in other disciplines, for example art, culture, history and sociology.

For post-structuralism, disruption is often seen as a having a positive meaning because disruption can lead to renewal and change. The task is to continually “deconstruct” the text, which is a constant stream of interpretations rather than fixed meaning.

Post-structuralism should be adopted with great caution because it is interpreted and, therefore, used in many different ways by different people to support controversial points of view. Post-structuralists (if there is such a thing) can overturn assumptions about purity in morals, about essences in terms of race, gender and backgrounds, about values in art and politics and about truth in law and philosophy.

In closing, post-structuralism is often criticised and rejected because of the underlying structure or text that is slippery and deep; and authorial intentions hard to unravel. It argues about limits, but the limits are not defined or even explained. It presupposes a core, but the core is not defined, let alone explained, making it easy to bend arguments to fit personal preferences or points of view be labelling it post-structural. The end-results of this approach is that no link can be found between the core and the limits and the researcher can actually set her own limits and core without paying much attention to coherence or corroborated truth.

Written and presented by Dr J.P. Nel

INTRODUCTION

Five leadership qualities are needed in quality assurance:

1. Visionary thinking.
2. Professional conduct.
3. Ethical conduct.
4. Regular and open communication.
5. Innovation.
6. Personal example.

 VISIONARY THINKING

Visionary thinking is the ability to foresee the implications of our actions and intentions. A leader in quality should, for example, understand that education and training should be oriented internationally. This is important to ensure that the education and training offered in South Africa is on par with, if not better than, education and training offered in countries with mature and advanced educational systems.

A leader in quality assurance should motivate and inspire quality assurance practitioners as well as role players in education and training, i.e. learning institutions.

A balanced approached to quality should be maintained. This stretches from micro issues, such as a library or training aids, to macro issues, such as infrastructure and financial planning.

As education and training, quality assurance should also be contextualised to the values and culture of learning institutions. It is a known fact that people learn better if they are familiar and comfortable with the culture, including language, in which learning content is offered.

Quality aims should be embedded in a vision, mission and strategic goals if long term growth is to be achieved.

 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Quality in higher education is not dependent on quality criteria only, but also on the situational context, i.e. cultural considerations as well as the nature of the learning offered.

Leaders in quality assurance should set the example and ensure that all quality assurance officials act in a professional manner. One should guard against a “one size fits all” approach to the evaluation of quality. Quality measuring instruments should be flexible enough to cater for different situational contexts, taking cultural considerations, learning content, historical issues, political issues and academic issues into consideration.

 ETHICAL CONDUCT

There is no room for dishonesty in quality assurance. Quality assurance should have as aims the enhancement of the learning experience, protection of the image of the educators and learning institution. However, most importantly, quality assurance should be done with the aim of protecting and promoting the interests of the students.

REGULAR AND OPEN COMMUNICATION

A leader in quality assurance will see to it that those who are on the receiving end of evaluation will not be kept in the dark. Guidance and support is a critical part of quality assurance and this should be communicated with learning institutions. Feedback should be honest, valid and properly motivated.

Establishing and sustaining a quality culture involves an on-going commitment, at all levels, to the underpinning believes, values and knowledge that drive quality in higher education.

Leadership in quality assurance means working with other people to set and achieve objectives, and to organise and co-ordinate the implementation of strategies.

It also entails delegation and control, doing evaluation and providing feedback.

It is the responsibility of the leader to establish a constructive quality culture and to replace resistance with a spirit of cooperation and trust. This requires an on-going commitment at all levels in the learning process.

INNOVATION

Quality assurance and the development of higher education are fundamental instruments in supporting the transition to a knowledge-based society. Quality assurance is driven by values, believes and knowledge.

Negative quality assurance will lead to performitivity. How many of you have not witnessed learning institutions that generate stacks of paper because they know that the quality assuror confuses volume with quality? An emerging private provider whom we helped to build capacity once complained to me about a verifier that visited them. They did not offer much training yet, so they put all the exam papers and practical assignments in a box. The verifier came into the office, picked up the box, weighed it in his hands and said: “I cannot endorse your assessments – the box is not heavy enough” – then he left.

The same applies to huge buildings, libraries with thousands of books that are outdated or irrelevant. A professor from one of our universities did a site visit at Mentornet some five years ago. During the tea break he went outside to where a number of delegates who were attending a one-day workshop were having tea. He walked up to one of the delegates and asked him: “How often do you visit the library?” Fortunately the delegate clicked what was going on, so he replied: “At least one hour per week.” He has been one of our best facilitators ever since.

Leadership in quality assurance is strongly situational. Therefore, quality assurance always needs to be done in the right context, taking into consideration the size of the provider, the type and number of courses they offer, the profile of the students, etc. When I studies for a second doctoral degree I visited the university library three times. I could find only two books that were relevant to my studies in the entire library and I could not find more than one or two paragraphs that I could use in each of the books.

PERSONAL EXAMPLE

Keep in mind that, every time you evaluate a learning institution they also evaluate you.

Quality assurors and quality assurance will always be regarded with suspicion. People don’t always trust anybody who will judge them and we need to gain their trust by showing them that we are there to help them and not to persecute.

Quality assurance must always be done in a positive and supportive manner. Ruling by fear can never be acceptable. If learning institutions fear quality assurance they will resist it and perhaps even try to destroy the system.

Quality assurance should be conducted with the intention of enhancing the learning experience and to protect the image of the learning institution as well as the individuals involved in the institution. More importantly, though, is the protection and promotion of the interests of the students.

One of the primary responsibilities of a leader in quality assurance is to establish a constructive quality culture, i.e. to replace the resistance that people might have to quality assurance with a spirit of cooperation and trust.

 CLOSE

The roles of leaders in quality assurance are crucial to improving mutual trust. Keep in mind that a leader always deals with people with their individual characteristics and capabilities, problems and individual perceptions. We cannot divorce people from leadership and leaders have a responsibility to serve.

Leadership in quality assurance requires a shared and supporting approach – it requires cooperation, the ability to manage quality, a well-structured organisation and the support of all stakeholders in higher education.

Leaders in quality assurance should always set the example. You cannot require learning institutions to maintain quality if you don’t.

Most importantly, remember that quality assurance is about protecting and promoting the interests of the students.

Written by Dr J.P. Nel

Last week was absolutely hectic with the results that I could not post the next article on research paradigms. I wonder if anybody noticed? You might well wonder what significance research paradigms hold for doing research. The point is, you need to decide in advance with which paradigm (read ‘value system’) you will align the contents, especially your findings, of your dissertation or thesis. It is possible that you might favour elements from different paradigms. However, you need to know this, show it in the first part of your research paper and then consistently do so. Let’s discuss structuralism.

Structuralism is a form of critical research. It focuses on the systems (structures) within society and the power relations within and among the parts (subsystems) as a whole. In formalised structures, one can easily see the hierarchy of positions and levels of power. In utilising structuralism as a research method, the channels of power are laid bare as the researcher critically analyses and maps the relations and interplay among the parts. Structuralism does not emphasise the uniqueness of each of the parts, but rather seeks to reveal how some common aspects of the parts relate those parts to the larger whole. Structuralism posits that no part in a particular system has any significance in and of itself – its identity is defined in terms of its relationship between all the parts of the system.

In social research structures have the characteristic of dealing with transformation of power positions or the maintenance and reproduction thereof in society. As a structure can only sustain itself by perpetuating a continuous sameness of its parts, structures actively strive to preserve their position, thus extending the oppression and power of the system. In other words, positions of power in society give people control over others (e.g. adults over children, managers over workers). It is rather common practice for those in power to be unwilling to relinquish their power to others. That is how injustices are spread, as we in South Africa experience almost every day.

Within this approach education is criticised for its social reproduction function where traditional power relations are maintained and nourished. Any form of discrimination is an example of this. The aim of the structuralist endeavour is to expose these power relations through critique of the system.

According to structuralism, underlying “structures” or “essences” determine the meaning of an event or phenomenon. For example, unchanging structures of grammar underpin all language (linguistics); economic structures or organisation determine social beliefs and behaviours (economics); hidden structures of the unconscious mind control behaviour (psychology; psychoanalysis).

In closing, there are numerous interesting issues in the South African social environment that can and probably should be researched by following a structuralist approach. Examples that come to mind are the lack of political leadership, the #free-education drive, corruption and many more.

I introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This articles deals with Postmodernism.

Postmodernism gradually became popular from the 1950s onwards. It brought with it a questioning of the premodernism and modernism. Instead of relying on one approach to knowing, postmodernists support a pluralistic epistemology which utilises multiple ways of knowing. This can include elements of premodernism and modernism along with many other ways of knowing, for example intuition, relational and spiritual. Postmodern approaches seek to deconstruct previous authority sources of power, for example the church and government. Because power is distrusted, postmodernists try to set up a less hierarchical approach in which authority sources are more diffuse.

Postmodernism is applied mainly in the artistic and social sciences. It consists of a loose alliance of intellectual perspectives which collectively pose a challenging critique of the fundamental premises on which modernism, specifically the scientific research method, is based. It is a broad term that encompasses many different approaches, most of them valuing uncertainty, disorder, indeterminacy and regression rather than progress. Even proponents of postmodernism do not always agree on what it really means. There are progressive and conservative postmodernists. Some postmodernists seek reaction while others seek resistance. Then there are those who strive for reform and others who like to disrupt the status quo.

Postmodernism is more than just a philosophical movement. Postmodernism is open to notions of discontinuity and rupture. It rejects the notion that science can be viewed as objective. Science, according to postmodernists, is not universal and will, therefore, not help us overcome conflict. Science is also, according to them, not the paradigm of all true knowledge.

Postmodernists reject the idea of a fixed, universal and eternal foundation to reality. They argue that because reality is in part culturally dependent and culture changes over time and varies from community to community, we can logically assume that reality is not the same for everybody. Knowledge is fundamentally fragmented and unstable. Narratives of truth and knowledge are deconstructed. Convention is challenged, research styles are mixed, ambiguity is tolerated, diversity is emphasised, innovation and change are embraced, and multiple realities are focused on. Postmodernism rejects the possibility that we can have objective knowledge. Postmodernism values the subjective and multiple opinions of individuals and communities rather than predetermined rules for action. It assigns value to multiple meanings rather than the single, authoritative voice of the expert researcher. This is because what we call knowledge has to be made with the linguistic and other meaning-making resources of a particular culture, and different cultures can see the world in different ways. Language is fluid and arbitrary and rooted in power or knowledge relations. Meaning is, therefore, also fluid and “messy”. Following on from this reasoning, postmodernists caution that we should be careful with generalisations, even when it comes to words such as “many”, “most” or “often”.

Postmodernism rejects the emphasis on rational discovery through the scientific method. Postmodernism replaces rational discovery through scientific research with respect for difference and a celebration of the local and at the expense of the universal. It accepts that reality is socially constructed, but claims that it does not exist objectively in the external environment, simply to be copied in our thoughts. Reality is a human creation.

Generally, postmodernism accept the basic ontological assumption of relativism and claims that there can be no “objective” or final truth as all “truth” is a socially constructed entity. This does not mean that just anything can be accepted as truth. All knowledge of reality bears the mark of human culture, personality and biology, and these cannot be separated from what a specific group of people or culture would call knowledge. In addition, it is asserted that we construct reality in accordance with our needs, interests, prejudices and cultural traditions. Although some postmodernists would like us to believe that reality is entirely a human construct, such a statement stand in contrast to the propositions put forward by other postmodernists.

Postmodernism views “facts” and “values” as interactive. If we accept that reality is in part socially constructed then we can postulate an interactive view of reality consisting of “facts” and “values” with no sharp fact-value distinction. All factual statements reflect the values they serve, and all value beliefs are conditioned by factual assumptions. What we call facts are only somewhat less value-determined, but they are not independent of values. Stated differently, our endeavour is not to find absolute truths or facts, but the best approximation of truth as it applies to a specific group in a specific situation and a specific time. To some degree this corresponds with Foucoult’s notion that knowledge and power cannot be separated, since knowledge embodies the values of those who are powerful enough to create and disseminate it.

Reason and science are seen as simply myths created by man. Postmodernism argues that what we call knowledge is a special kind of story that puts together words and images in ways that portray the perspective of a particular culture or some relatively powerful members of that culture. For this reason we have to deconstruct text to uncover the hidden or intended meanings and discourse. Universal, objective truth does not exist. All judgements of truth exist within a cultural context. This sometimes also called “cultural relativism”.

The idea of a socially constructed reality leads directly to a radical shift in the idea of method. Some postmodernists hold that a method not only discovers a part of reality, it simultaneously constructs it. No longer do we see ourselves as seeking to uncover a pre-existing reality, but rather as involved in an interactive process of knowledge creation. As researchers we are part of developing a “working understanding” of reality and life, and what we arrive at is in part autobiographical: it reflects our “personal narrative”, our particular “site and voice” in the world. The knowledge thus constructed refers more to probability than to certainty. It is constantly changing as each individual or group gives a particular interpretation to it, reflecting distinctive needs and experiences.

In closing, not all researchers support the idea of postmodernism. According to the opponents of postmodernism the approach is too tentative, too inconclusive and too frivolous.

I introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This article deals with Modernism.

Modernism was the dominant philosophy, at least in the Western world, between approximately 1650 and the 1950s. It manifested in a movement from the mythical to the logical. Two new approaches to knowing (the epistemology) became dominant in the modern period. The first was empiricism (knowing through the senses) which gradually evolved into scientific empiricism or modern science with the development of modernist methodology. The second epistemological approach was reason or logic. Often, science and reason were collaboratively or in conjunction with each other.

In a modernist approach reason and science is said to provide an accurate, objective, reliable foundation of knowledge. Science is regarded as the paradigm of all true knowledge. Modernism, thus, celebrates the world of science and the scientific method; the authority of the expert; the singularity of meaning; truth and objectivity. The practice of structuring learning into units of learning (subjects, modules, learning programmes, qualifications on different levels, etc.) is typical of a modernistic approach.

Modernism favours hierarchy, order and centralised control. Even so, attempts are made and supported to predict trends and future events based on reason and information that is independent of the environment. The modernist view of time is linear, with one event happening after the other, with no other purpose than to keep going in a particular direction. Deep rather than superficial information in terms of meaning, value, content are collected and used. Therefore, the description given by modernism of how the world is to be understood supports certainty, order, organisation, prediction, rationality, linearity and progress.

The discovery of empirical facts is sought. With this in mind, reason transcends and exists independently of our existential, historical and cultural contexts. Even so, prior theory plays an important role for the purpose of coming to valid conclusions based on the available information.

Acquired knowledge is regarded as universal and true. It is believed that, because knowledge is universal, reason can help us overcome all conflicts. Furthermore, it is postulated that all cultures will embrace the truth because it is universal. Mass culture, mass consumption and mass marketing forms part of the modernistic system. Even so, modernism is associated with modern societies, developed states and Western nations (as opposed to pre-modern societies). The family is seen as the central unit of social order – it serves as a model of the middle-class.

Language is transparent, meaning that a one-to-one relationship exists between what is written or said and the concept that is investigated.

Reason and human independence and freedom are inherently linked – just laws conform to the dictates of reason, leading to trust in the accuracy of the research findings. Trust, therefore, exists independent of human consciousness and can be known through the application of reason. Reason leads to a progressive movement towards civilisation, democracy, freedom and scientific advancement. All conclusions leading to better understanding develops from trust and is regarded as a means of building a better society.

I introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This articles deals with Premodernism.

Premodernism, modernism and postmodernism can be seen as periods of time and as philosophical systems. We will largely discuss and use them as paradigms or philosophies. Premodernism, which was the dominant philosophy approximately until 1650, was based upon revealed knowledge from authoritative sources. It was believed that ultimate truth could be known and the way to this knowledge is through direct revelation. This direct revelation was believed to come from a god with a church as the primary authority source.

Premodernists see the world as a totality with a unified purpose. The human being is seen as part of the whole, which is greater than its parts. Premodernists strive to progress away from historical developments. As part of the whole human beings also share the blame for the mistakes that the collective made through history. The rationale for this is that each individual is personally and collectively responsible to act morally correct. However, there is no distinction between individual and collective responsibility.

Premodernism, postmodernism and modernism as such are philosophical approaches to life and the manner in which people and the world in which they live interact with one another. The researcher will inevitably follow one of the paradigmatic approaches even if not intentionally. More likely, though, you will position your research at a point where elements of different paradigms are found in your approach with an emphasis towards one or two of them.

I introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This articles deals with Behaviourism.

The foundation of behaviourism is that all human behaviour can be understood in terms of cause and effect. Both human and animal behaviour can be explained in terms of external stimuli, responses, learned histories and reinforcement.

Social researchers may conduct research on behavioural and social processes. In addition to this, and regardless of whether behaviour and social processes are studied, the researcher need to keep in mind that research as such can inherently pose psychological and social challenges to the target group for the research. The latter means that the researcher needs to understand behavioural and social risks and take specific steps to ensure that the research does not pose a threat to the physical or psychological health of the people or even animals included in the target group for the research.

A behavioural approach to research can lead to the reinforcement of ideas of philosophies. This would be positive reinforcement. The opposite is also true – behaviourism can actually also refute ideas, which would mean negative reinforcement. Researchers mostly express their ideas as a hypothesis that needs to be proven or refuted through research.

Biological organisms have systems that perform various specialist and survival functions; similarly, social institutions “function” in a systematic and coherent way through their constituent elements to ensure their survival and optimal functioning. The mental state rather than the internal constitution of the researcher is important. This implies that motivation plays an important role in what the researcher would be willing to do to achieve success, i.e. the purpose of the research project.

Role differentiation and social solidarity are key elements in the smooth functioning of any organisation. This means that functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. Society is more than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the contributions of all members of a society contribute to the performance of the society as a whole. Each individual plays an important part and the absence, or inability of each individual to contribute, detrimentally affects the performance of the community as a whole.

According to functionalism, an institution only exists because it serves an important role in the community. An individual or organisation that does not play a role in the community will not survive. This applies to individuals and groupings on all levels in society. The individual, families, clubs, schools, suburbs, cities, countries, etc. all will only survive if they add value to the community.

Organisations and societies evolve and adjust to changing conditions in order to ensure the continued, smooth, integrated functioning of all elements of the organisation or society. When new needs evolve or emerge, new organisations will be created to satisfy the new needs. When any part of the society is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates problems for the society as a whole, which leads to social change.