The Complex, Multi-layered Business of Developing Quality Professional Education in Universities

  • Sara HammerEmail author


This concluding chapter looks back over the illustrations of quality practice presented in this first book and argues that developing quality professional education in universities is inherently complex. Firstly, it contends that developing quality professional curricula that are fit for purpose requires both careful interpretation, and assurance of, professional standards. Secondly, the chapter claims that increasing pressure on professional degrees to deliver particular outcomes for graduates, places universities at the centre of sometimes conflicting, institutional, professional, and societal forces. It reviews the international case studies presented in this book and briefly examines each according the particular complexities that inform them, whether these are conceptual, social, political, economic or cultural. It concludes that the successes relayed in author case studies within this book are all the more impressive given the multi-layered negotiation of meaning and context required for their achievement.


Curriculum Complexity Higher education Professions Transformation 


  1. AACN. (2017). Fact sheet: The impact of education on nursing practice [Press release]. Retrieved from
  2. Australian Government. (2015). Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011: Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015, C.F.R.Google Scholar
  3. Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215–241. Scholar
  4. Derven, M. (2014). Leveraging diversity & inclusion for a global economy E. Gundling & P. Leri, (Eds.). Washington, DC: Info-line. Retrieved from^B&bookid=66702
  5. ENQA. (2009). ENQA report on standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. Helsinki, Finland: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  6. Feigenbaum, A., & Iqani, M. (2015). Quality after the cuts? Higher education practitioners’ accounts of systemic challenges to teaching quality in times of ‘austerity’. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(1), 46–66. Scholar
  7. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing, a guide to teaching and learning methods (p. 134). London: Further Education Unit.Google Scholar
  8. Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes? Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 17–29. Scholar
  9. Hammer, S., Chardon, T., Collins, P., & Hart, C. (2012). Legal educators’ perceptions of lifelong learning: Conceptualisation and practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(2), 187–201. Scholar
  10. Hammer, S., McDonald, J., & Forbes, M. (2014). Three perspectives on a collaborative, whole-of-program process of curriculum change. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 5(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henard, F., & Leprince-Ringuet, S. (2008). The path to quality teaching in higher education. Retrieved from Paris,
  12. Holt, D., Mackay, D., & Smith, R. (2004). Developing professional expertise in the knowledge economy: Integrating industry-based learning with the academic curriculum in the field of information technology. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 5(2), 1–8. Retrieved from
  13. Hughes, C., & Barrie, S. (2010). Influences on the assessment of graduate attributes in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 325–334. Scholar
  14. Hurlimann, A., March, A., & Robins, J. (2013). University curriculum development—Stuck in a process and how to break free. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 35(6), 639–651. Scholar
  15. King, S. (2006). Emotional dimensions of major educational change: A study of higher education PBL curriculum reform. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference: ‘Engaging Pedagogies’, Adelaide, South Australia. Retrieved from,-35,792
  16. Mathews, M. R. (2004). Accounting curricula: Does professional accreditation lead to uniformity within Australian bachelor’s degree programmes? Accounting Education, 13 (Suppl. 1), 71–89. Scholar
  17. Michelsen, S., Vabø, A., Kvilhaugsvik, H., & Kvam, E. (2017). Higher education learning outcomes and their ambiguous relationship to disciplines and professions. European Journal of Education, 52(1), 56–67. Scholar
  18. O’Meara, J., & MacDonald, D. (2004). Power, prestige and pedagogic identity: A tale of two programs recontextualizing teacher standards. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 111–127. Scholar
  19. Oliver, B., Hunt, L., Jones, S., Pearce, A., Hammer, S., & Whelan, B. (2010). The graduate employability indicators: Capturing broader stakeholder perspectives on the achievement and importance of employability attributes. Paper presented at the Australian Quality Forum 2010—Higher Education in Uncertain Times, Gold Coast. Retrieved from
  20. Oliver, B., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2018). Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond: Recommendations for Australian higher education providers. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 821–836. Scholar
  21. TEQSA. (2015). TEQSA and quality-assurance. Retrieved from
  22. Traulsen, J. M., & Bissel, P. (2004). (9) Theories of professions and the pharmacist. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 12(2), 107–114. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations