Abstract
The present book uses the Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education (QAUE) as an example to reveal the impact of quality assurance system on institutional transformation in China. This chapter presents an analysis of the QAUE’s outcomes and discusses the reasons why it can or cannot cause genuine change in the evaluated institutions. Both the external and internal forces for change are discussed. Drawing on the empirical findings from the QAUE, a model is proposed to describe how external quality assessment causes university change. The ideal conditions in which quality assessment can generate university change are proposed; meanwhile, the limitations of quality assessment, as an external force, to cause university change, are indicated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Argyris, C. (1999). On organisational learning (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press.
Danø, T., & Stensaker, B. (2007). Still balancing improvement and accountability? Developments in external quality assurance in the Nordic countries 1996–2006. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 81–93.
Ewell, P. T. (2002). A delicate balance: The role of evaluation in management. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 159–171.
Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming quality evaluation: Moving on. In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Middlehurst, R., & Woodhouse, D. (1995). Coherent systems for external quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 1(3), 257–268.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance indicators in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2/3), 277–310.
Thune, C. (1996). The alliance of accountability and improvement: The Danish experience. Quality in Higher Education, 2(1), 21–32.
Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309–324.
van Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (1994). Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 28(3), 355–371.
Westerheijden, D. F. (1990). Peers, performance, and power: Quality assessment in the Netherlands. In L. C. J. Goedegebuure, P. A. M. Maassen, & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Peer review and performance indicators: Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education. Lemma: Utrecht.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Is there a logic in the development of quality assurance schemes? From comparative history to theory. Paper presented at INQAAHE Conference, 2–5 April, 2007, Toronto.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liu, S. (2016). Quality Assessment and University Change in China. In: Quality Assurance and Institutional Transformation. Higher Education in Asia: Quality, Excellence and Governance. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0789-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0789-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0787-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0789-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)