Critical perspectives on quality assurance in Higher Education1

Elisabeth Simbrger2

Documento de Trabajo CPCE N 20 http://www.cpce.cl/ Noviembre, 2010

1Lasopinionesvertidasenlsondelaexclusivaresponsabilidaddelaautoraynocomprometenalasinstitucionesmencionadas.LapreparacindeestaponenciacontconelapoyodelProgramaAnillo(SOC01)enPolticasdeEducacinSuperior.

2InvestigadoradelCentrodePolticasComparadasenEducacin,UniversidadDiegoPortales;PhDenSociologa,UniversityofWarwick(ReinoUnido).Correodecontacto:elisabeth.simbuerger@mail.udp.cl

1

2

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. THERISEOFQUALITYASSURANCE:TRANSFORMATIONSOFHIGHEREDUCATIONLANDSCAPES 4

3. QUALITYASSURANCEINBRITISHHIGHEREDUCATION 5

4. THEIMPACTOFQUALITYASSURANCEONACADEMICWORKINGCONDITIONS 6

5. GENDERANDQUALITYASSURANCE:ANEQUALPARTNERSHIP? 8

6. QUALITYASSURANCEANDITSIMPACTONTHERELATIONSHIPBETWEENTEACHINGANDRESEARCH 10

6.1 THEDEVALUATIONOFTEACHINGASACONSEQUENCEOFUNEQUALREWARDSFORRESEARCHANDTEACHINGINBRITISHHIGHEREDUCATION 10

6.2 DECLININGREADERSHIPSANDAUDIENCESFORACADEMICPUBLISHING 11

6.3 TEACHINGASAWAYOFREACHINGOUTTOBIGGERANDMOREDIVERSIFIEDAUDIENCES12

6.4 MISTAKINGQUALITYASSURANCEFORQUALITYIMPROVEMENT:THECASEOFSTUDENTCENTEREDEVALUATIONSOFTEACHING 13

6.5 WAYSOUTOFTHEQUALITYASSURANCECRISIS:REWARDINGGOODTEACHINGPRACTICEANDRESEARCHBASEDLEARNING 14

6.6 THEEPISTEMOLOGICALIMPACTOFQUALITYASSURANCEONTHEINTELLECTUALFOUNDATIONSOFDISCIPLINES 15

7. IMPLICATIONSFORCHILE:PRELIMINARYREFLECTIONS 17

7.1 KEYFEATURESOFCHILEANHIGHEREDUCATION ERROR!MARCADORNODEFINIDO.

7.2 RESEARCH 19

3

7.3 TEACHING 20

7.4 ACADEMICWORKINGCONDITIONS 20

4

1. IntroductionThisreportaimstoprovideacriticalassessmentofqualityassurance inHigherEducation in its impactonuniversitylife,lookingatthefollowingdimensions:workingconditionsofacademics,gender,theintellectualshape of disciplines, the relationship between research and teaching, and students relationship to theuniversity.InthisanalysiswemainlydrawontheexperienceoftheUnitedKingdom.TherationaletocarryoutaUKcenteredanalysisisthattheUKhasoneofthemostrigidsystemsofqualityassuranceinHigherEducation.Qualityassurancewas implemented in thebeginningof the1980s.Asaconsequence, theBritishcaseofqualityassurancehasbeenbothsubjecttothoroughacademicanalysisandcritique.InadditionthecurrentreportalsoconsidersliteratureuponqualityassurancesystemswhichbearsimilaritieswiththeBritishcasesuchasAustralia.According toHarvey andNewman,quality assurance inHigherEducation canbedifferentiated into fourtypesofactivity:accreditation,audit,assessment,andexternalexamination (HarveyandNewton,2004).Accreditationrefers toaprocessresulting inadecision thatwarrantsan institutionorprogramme;auditexploresinternalprocesses;assessmentpassesajudgement(oftenwithagrading)usuallyaboutthequalityof teaching or research subject area; and external examination checks standards (be they academic,competence,serviceororganisational)(HarveyandNewton,2004:150). Inthecurrentreportweconfineourselves to analysing the impact of quality assurance in research and teaching on academic life in itsvariousdimensionsasoutlinedabove.Finally,weseektoestablishtheconditionsandlimitationsuponwhichthecriticismtowardstheBritishHEquality assurance system can bear relevance for Higher Education in Chile. For this purpose the keyspecificitiesoftheChileanHigherEducationsystemwillbeoutlinedwithregardtothedifferentdimensionsofuniversitylifeshapedbyqualityassuranceasdiscussedthroughoutthisreport.

2. Theriseofqualityassurance:transformationsofHigherEducationlandscapesAccordingtoMichaelPoweran[]auditisariskreductionpracticewhichbenefitstheprincipalbecauseitinhibits thevalue reducingactionsbyagents (Power,1999:5).For theAmericanAccountingAssociationauditingis[]asystemprocessofobjectivelyobtainingandevaluatingevidenceregardingassertionsabouteconomic actions and events to ascertain the degree of correspondence between those assertions andestablishedcriteriaandcommunicatingtheresultstointerestedusers(ASOBAC,1973citedinDunn,1996).Similarlytoevaluation,theideaofauditingistomakethingsaccountable,yetwithastrongeremphasisonfinancial aspects.However, inPowersopinion there isa gapbetweenwhatevaluation and auditing aresupposed tobe in theoryand inpractice. In fact []manysocalledauditsare research,evaluationordatagathering(Power,1997:6).Moreover,accordingtoShoreandWright,theuseofthewordauditanditsmeaningisanexampleofconceptualinflation(ShoreandWright,2000:59)as[]auditmigratedfromitsoriginalassociationwith financialaccounting intonewdomainsofprofessional life,and in theprocesscame toacquireanew setofmeaningsand functions (ShoreandWright,2000:59).Asa consequence,MichaelPowerthuslabelstheemergenceofauditingandqualityassuranceinallareasoflifeastheriseoftheauditsociety(Power,1997).

5

Foralongtime,academicsarguedthattheirworkcannotbeaccessedandjudgedbythegeneralpublicduetoitscomplexity.Insteadthequalityofworkhadbeenmeasuredagainstthecriteriaofpeers(WeingartandWinterhager,1984).However,thelimitsoftraditionalpeerreviewhavebecomeincreasinglyapparentwithsuchextraordinarycasesastheSokolfraudinthe1990s(Nowotny,2002).FollowingGibbonsetal.,scarcityofstatefunding,alongwithanincreaseddistrustofscientificauthorityfromascientificallybetterinformedpublic,haveresultedinamorediverselandscapeofknowledgeproducinginstitutions(Gibbonsetal.,1994).Hence,moreactorsaimtobeinvolvedinthedefinitionofresearchproblemsandclaimforuniversitiestobemore accountable. These transformations and universities ceasing to be the primary site of knowledgeproductionconstitutethekey featuresofwhatGibbonsetal.describeasashift fromMode1toMode2productionofknowledge(Gibbonsetal.,1994).Besides,universitiesbecamemoredependentonprivatesponsorship (SlaughterandLeslie,1997).As theriseoftheauditsocietycanbeexplainedbythedesiretoreducerisk(Power,1997),neitherstate,privatesponsorsnorstudentsand taxpayerswant torun theriskofnotgettingwhat theyhadpaid for (Wright,2004).Allofthesedevelopmentshavetiedacademiaclosertotherequirementsofbusinessand industry,namelyefficiencyandcostbenefitanalysis.

3. QualityassuranceinBritishHigherEducationTheexpansionistandlaissezfairephaseofBritishhighereducationofthe1960sand1970scametoanendwith Margaret Thatchers severe public expenditure cuts from 1979 onwards. Shattock notes thatuniversitieswereamongstthefirstinstitutionstosufferfrombudgetrestrictionsofabout100m(Shattock,2008).Thesedevelopmentswenthandinhandwithdemandsforaccountabilityandincreasedefficiencyforuniversity resources (Lucas, 2006). In the following decades, UK Higher Education has been subject tonumerous restructuring processes by government and university funding bodies. Since the 1980s,marketisationandprivatisationofpubliclyfundededucation,theimplementationofperformanceindicatorsfor research and teaching and restrictionsonunitsof fundingper student and capital expenditurehavebrought about a cultural change in British Higher Education (Deem and Hillyard and Reed, 2007: 39).Commentatorssaythatwhilethisprocessofnewgovernance,managerialismandaccountabilitystarted intheThatcherera, itdidfind itscontinuationwithNewLaboursince1997(Jenkins,2006;Shattock,2008).3ThereareanumberofauditsthatregulatethequalityofteachingandresearchinBritishHigherEducation.ThemostimportantonesaretheResearchAssessmentExercise(RAE)andtheTeachingQualityAudit(TQA).ThepurposeoftheResearchAssessmentExercise(RAE)istoassessthequalityofuniversityresearchbasedonthejudgementofacademicpeers.Productivityofresearchersinteachingandresearchandtheworkofdepartments are assessed in detail (Parker, 2008).Universities are thereby increasingly treated as costcentres with academics as work units (Shore and Wright, 2002: 67). The rating of departmentsdetermines the amountof funding allocatedby the state touniversities anddepartments (Lucas,2006).With socalled objective criteria active researchers can be discerned from less active researchers

3WiththeelectionofthegovernmentofConservativesandLiberalDemocratsinspring2010,BritishHigherEducationisfacingthemostseverecutsinitshistory.InOctober2010thegovernmentannouncedfundingcutsof3.2bnforteachinginHigherEducation,equallinga79%cutfromteachingand1bnfromresearch.Besidesthegovernmentwillremovethecapontuitionfees,resultingintuitionfeesashighas9000.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education11550619[accessed15October2010].

6

measuringtheirresearchoutput(Willmott,2003:134).Willmottcriticisesthatevaluatorsarenotrequiredto revealhow they reached their conclusions andwhich criteria theyhad applied (Willmott, 2003). Thiswouldstandinstrongcontrasttotheassumptionthatevaluationisgovernedbyprocessesoftransparency(ShoreandWright,2000).Todate,therehavebeensixRAEsintheUKin1986,1989,1992,1996,2001and2008.Overtheyears,theprocedureof theRAE changed considerably, inparticular after the firstRAEwhena commonevaluativescalewasestablishedaswellassubjectpanelsandcriteriaput intoplaceaccordingtowhichpublicationsweretobesubmittedfortheRAE(Tapper,2003).Considerablechanges intheprocedureoftheRAEhavebeendiscussedafterthelastRAEin2008.Theresearchassessmentexercisewillbereplacedbythesocalledresearchexerciseframework(REF).Researchfundingwillthenbebasedonnumericalindicatorsofquality,suchascitations, insteadofpeerreview.4Thismovetowardstheemploymentofnumerical indicatorshasbeenwidelycriticised.5 TheevaluationofteachingandlearninginBritishHigherEducationinstitutionsisaresultofthe1992FurtherandHigherEducationAct.TheQualityAssuranceAgency (QAA) is responsible forassessing thequalityofteaching in UK Higher Education institutions. In order to respond to the requirements of the QAA,universitiesallacrossthecountryhaveputeffortintoimprovingthestatusandrewardsforteaching.Mostuniversitiesnowhaveteachingand learningstrategiesand implementednewfundingschemesandbetterprofessional training in order to increase the quality of teaching. Regardless of this, the results of theTeachingQualityAudit(TQA)donothaveasmucheffectontheHigherEducationlandscapeastheresearchassessment exercise (RAE). Rather, the RAE has served to increase the hierarchy between research andteachingand creates the riskof further increasing thedividebetween researchand teachinguniversities(Lucas,2006)Whileresearchandpublicationsoftenarerequirementsforpromotion,this isfar lesssothecasewithteaching,inparticularinresearchintenseuniversities(Parker,2008).Somepeoplearguethatagainstthebackgroundofdepartmentspreparingforthenextresearchassessmentexerciseformonths[]thecostintimeandeffortofevaluationoftenoutweighsitsbenefits(Evans,2002:49). ForHughWillmott this isparticularly striking as costbenefit analysis is the centralparadigmwithinauditing and cutting down expenditures to make university systems more efficient (Willmott, 2003).Willmott furtherspecifies that theRAEexemplifies thereplacementof theoldhumanistparadigmby theproduction of knowledge workers (Willmott, 2003) who fulfil industry needs and obey the dogma ofefficiencyandsellabilityinsteadoftruth(Lyotard,1984).Takenasawhole,thesedevelopmentshavetobeconsideredasanelementofwhatiscalledtheknowledgesociety,inwhichknowledgeisperceivedasakeyproductionfactor(Stehr,1994).

4. TheimpactofqualityassuranceonacademicworkingconditionsThefollowingchapterwillshedlightonthemajorchangesinacademicworkoverthelastdecadesandtheimpactofqualityassuranceonacademicwork.Themovetowardsamasshighereducationfromthe1960sonwards,theauditingofresearchoutputandadministration, and a career oriented transfermarket changed the institutional climate of professionalacademic laboursubstantially.The traditionalselfunderstandingofacademics, theagreementonwhat is

4TimesHigherEducationSupplement,Despitelosingtheirpunch,someplayersstillwonbigprizes.19thMarch2009.

5TimesHigherEducationSupplement,KeeppeerinputinREF.8thJanuary2009.

7

supposedtobeatthecoreoftheacademicprofession,theacademicethos,theimportanceofthedisciplineand the faculty have been challenged (Henkel, 2000). A line of publications tackling issues of academicidentitybetween commercialisation and academic ideals bearswitness to this development (Parker andJary, 1995). The old days of the ivory tower are over since short term contracts have been dominatingacademia (Barry and Chandler and Clark, 2001). With an annual turnover rate of contract researchersbetween35%and50%,BritishacademiahasthehighestpercentageofcontingentworkcomparedtoothersectorsintheUK(BrysonandBarnes,2000citedinHockey,2004).Inthiscontext,youngeracademicsseemto be especially vulnerable (Collinson, 2000). While the requirements for an academic position areconstantlyrising,theeffortacademicsputintotheiremployabilityisdevaluedbythemerenumberofhighlyskilledcompetitors(BrenemanandYoun,1988;BrownandScase,1994).Fromthe1960sonwards,thenumberofstudentsatuniversitieswentupwitharisingteachingworkloadasaresultofit(Martin,1999).Moreoverscarcityofstatefundingforcedacademicstoacquireadditionalfundsfromprivatesponsorsandfundinginstitutions(Hockey,2004;ShoreandWright,2000).Themostimportantchanges in academicworking conditions are related to the implementation of the ResearchAssessmentExercise(RAE). Ithas involvedrisingpressuretopublishwhileteaching iscomparativelydevalued(Henkel,2000).Accordingto theUniversityCollegeUnion, TheRAEhashadadisastrous impacton theUKHigherEducationsystem,leadingtotheclosureofdepartmentswithstrongresearchprofilesandhealthystudentrecruitment. The RAE has been responsible for job losses, discriminatory practices, widespreaddemoralisationofstaff,thenarrowingofresearchopportunitiesthroughtheoverconcentrationoffundingandtheunderminingoftherelationshipbetweenteachingandresearch,withaconsequentreductioninthequalityofHigherEducationavailabletostudents.[]Thecurrentexerciseisstimulatingevenmoregameplaying,victimisationof individualmembersofstaff,competitiverecruitment,departmentalclosuresandrestructuringdrivenpurelybyattempts,illfatedorotherwise,tomaximiseRAEincome.Theexercisewillfurtherdistortanddisruptthesystemanddevaluetheprofessionalcontributionofmanystafftoteachingandresearch[.](UCU,2005). 6 Infact,MarilynStrathern identifiedtheRAEasoneofthemostpowerfuldiscourses in British academia (Strathern, 2000). The RAE could also be seen to be at the forefront ofsociologistsreflectionsabouttheirwork,asSimbrgerfoundoutinaqualitativestudyofthirtysociologistsinEngland(Simbrger,2008).Mostrespondentsreportedtofindthemselvesinaconstanttensionbetweenmoreextantcontrol,increasingworkloadandthepressuretosatisfythesedemands.FortheUK,Willmottarguesthatthesignificanceoftheresearchassessmentexercisedoesnotconsistintherationalisationofresearchresources inthefirstplace.Rather, it isameansof legitimisationtorestructurehigher education reducing the amountof state funding (Willmott, 2003). In a similar vein,Devaney andWeberstatethat theclosureofmanydepartments in theUKasaresultofevaluationover the lastyearsdoes not necessarily coincide with them having been far less innovative but probably less profitable(Devaney andWeber, 2003). Furthermore, forWillmott, the distinction between active and inactiveresearchersoftheBritishResarchAssessmentExerciserepresentsaviolationoftheethicofcollegialityassomepeoplearecategorisedasa loweracademicclassusingpeerreview(Willmott,2003).Thequantifiedevaluation approach turns out to be problematic as the intellectual contributions and creativity of staffmembers to thework of their departments other than publications and research grants are neglected(Willmott,2003).ThephenomenadescribedabovefortheBritishcontextsuchasincreasingmassificationoftheuniversitiesfrom the 1960s onwards, scarcity of state funding and marketisation of universities as well as theimplementationofqualityassurance instrumentsarebynomeansconfinedtotheUnitedKingdom.InthecontextofglobalmarketisationofHigherEducation,universitiesareincreasinglyshapedbytheprinciplesofnew publicmanagement. Slaughter and Leslie labelled the arrival of new publicmanagement inHigherEducationas theemergenceof academiccapitalism (SlaughterandLeslie,1997).Similarly,EveChiapello

6http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm[accessed23September08].

8

andNorman Faircloughpointouthow []newmanagement ideology ispartof thebroader ideologicalsystem of the new spirit of capitalism. It is the part addressed to managers and people occupyingintermediate levels inbig companies. It focuseson explaining and justifying theway the companies areorganized, or should be organized (Chiapello and Fairclough, 2002: 187). The audit culture in HigherEducationandtheurgetomeasureandcompartmentalise intellectual labourcanbeseenas indicativeofmuch wider developments in society. Frederick Taylors major objectives in order to reach maximumprosperitywere applying principles of scientificmanagement to labour. By separating conception fromexecution,managementacquirescontrolovereverytaskwithinthelabourprocess(Taylor,1967).DominelliandHoogveltarguethattransferringTaylorsprinciplesofscientificmanagementto intellectualworkas ithasbeenthecasewithperformancemeasurementandperformanceorientedpayinHigherEducation,hasresulted indegradingthecomplexityofacademicwork:CompetenceshavebecomethevehiclethroughwhichtheTaylorizationof intellectual labourandhencetheprivatizationofserviceprovisions ismanaged[] Consequently, a complex critical activity has been reduced to deskilled, fragmentedworkwhich nolongermerits an academic award (Dominelli and Hoogvelt, 1996: 79). In a similar spirit,Massimo deAngelisandDavidHarviecriticisehowthequantification,standardisationandsurveillanceofacademicworkhave resulted inacademicworkbeingdegradedandautonomyhavingbeen reduced.Bothauthorsarguethat the implementation of quality assurancemeans that capitalmeasures have now been brought toHigher Education that are indicative of thewider processes of the capitalistmode of production in allspheresofsociety(deAngelisandHarvie,2009).According to Miller, acquiring grants in order to get good assessment marks in audits and to secureemploymentoftenshapetheworkingstructureofresearcherstoahigherextentthantheefforttoextendknowledge (Miller, 1995). Studying academicsBarry, Chandler and Clark found out that they are caughtbetweenresistanceandadaptiontowardsanexistingsystemofrules:Academicswilljumpthroughhoopsasoneintervieweeputit,topleasetheirexternalaudiencesasfundingcomesincreasinglytorelyonagoodreview.Theyfeltforcedtoplaythegamewithintheirowninstitutions,tocomplyforthepresent,asthestatus quo depended on their accommodation (Barry and Chandler and Clark, 2001: 92). The deskillingargumentinacademiaisalsosupportedbySteveFuller.Accordingtohim,duetoscienceandaccountabilitymeasuressetfromoutsideacademia,scientistsdonotcompletelydisposeoftheirresearchanymore(Fuller,2002). In addition, assessment measures would not do justice to scientific expertise and lead to adevaluationofacademicskills,turningacademics intoalienatedknowledgeproducers(Fuller,2002).Thus,accordingtoFullerlossofautonomyanddeskillingprocesseswouldgohandinhandwitheachother(Fuller,2002).Underthecurrentconditionsresearchersaredisciplinedtoproducescientificoutputwithinrestrictedformsofautonomybothintermsoftimeandmoney.Youngerresearchersareparticularlyvulnerableinthisrespect since [] for such newcomerswith little experience of anything except the ideotext of RAEability,thereisnothingtoresisttheyjoinedthepeformativityorganisingprocessinmidflow(Keenoy,2004cited inSymonetal.,2005).Thuspressuresarenotperceivedasexternallyenforcedonacademicsanylongerbutaspartofacademicculture.Althoughtherearestrongindicatorssupportingthedeskillingandfragmentation thesis of intellectualwork (Miller, 1996; Thompson andWarhurst, 1998), the changes inhigher education simultaneously creating reskilling processes do not allow us to prematurely categoriseacademiclabourasentirelytaylorised.Withthemassificationofhighereducationacademicswererequiredtohavenewteachingskillsinordertoadjusttobiggroupsandtorespondtothecustomerrelationshipwithstudentsbyactinginmoreserviceorientedway(Miller,1995).

5. Genderandqualityassurance:anequalpartnership?Having analysed the relationship between academic working conditions and quality assurance, specialattentionneeds tobepaid togender.LouiseMorley states thatat theoutsetboth feminismandquality

9

assurancemovementswould have a lot in common as both [...] have called formore transparency inprocedures, accountability from elite professional groups and the privileging of the student experience(Morley,2001:465).Yet,asMorleyfurtherelaborates, itneedstobequestionedwhethertheyareratherdiametricallyopposedtoeachother.AccordingtoMorley,thiscanbeseenwithgenderequitynotbeingaperformance indicator inUKqualityaudits.Different startingpositionsatworkwouldnotbe reflected inqualityassurance.Womenare stillunderrepresented in theacademyandmoreoften find themselves inlowerpositionsthat involveaheavyteaching loadanddonot leavemuchtimeforresearch.Besidestheyare more likely to face more precarious contractual arrangements (Blackmore, 2002; Morley, 2001).Consequently,withouthaving sufficient researchopportunities and thus theopportunity topublish, it ismore difficult for women to compete for prestigious research grants that also facilitate promotion.Furthermore, neither periods of childcare nor part time work are taken into consideration for qualityassuranceprocedures.Followingqualitativeresearchwith femaleacademicswhoparticipated intheUKteachingsubjectreview,Morley furtherquestions the gendered implicationsofqualityassurancewithparticular reference to theassessmentof teachingand learning in theUK (Morley,2001:465).Femaleacademicshadmostlybeeninvolved in the length somepreparations for thedepartmental subject teaching review.Yet itwas finallymaleadministratorsoracademicsthatwereselectedtorepresenttheinstitutiononthedayoftheexternalassessment. This further reinforces gender inequities in departments. Itmakesmale performancemorevisibleandexcludeswomen frompositionsofauthoritywhere theycanspeak for themselves.Morley: Itcouldalsobearguedthatthetwomajoraccountingsystems intheUKreproducethegendereddivisionoflabour in theacademy,withwomenplayingacentral role in thedomestic labourofqualityassuranceofteachingandlearning(Morley,2001:477).AtthesametimeMorleypointsoutthatwomenoftenseemtoconsider involvement in quality assurance procedures as a gate opener towardsmore senior positions.Thosepositionswouldoftenbeoutofreachotherwiseduetoalackofresearchopportunities.Puttingintheadditionaladministrativeeffortfortheteachingsubjectreviewwouldhencepotentiallypayoffforwomen.Morleyseesthisdevelopmentasadoubleedgedswordandstatesthatwomenacademicsprecariousandpredominantly juniorpositions intheacademymakethemmorevulnerabletobullying,manipulationandcompliancewhengettinginvolvedwithsuchmanagerialtasks(Morley,2001:476).WithregardtoAustralianuniversities,CarmenLukeidentifiesarangeofpositiveandnegativeconsequencesofqualityassuranceforwomen(Luke,1997).LukestatesthatqualityassuranceinAustralia[]canbeusedstrategicallyforapoliticsoftransformationintheinterestsofwomen(Luke,1997:434).Thiscouldbeseenwith equity programs having becomemore important as a consequence of quality assurance andwithinstitutions now annually reviewing their equity performance in the course of the quality assuranceprocedures.Womens low representation in senioracademicpresentation isalsooftenattributed to theunderlyingmasculine culture and hidden networks of universitieswhich oftenmakes female academicsadvancementmoredifficult.Lukearguesthatfemaleacademicsshouldusethoseambivalentinstrumentsofqualityassurancetotheirownadvantageratherthanrefusingthemaltogether:Itismyviewthatafeministpoliticsof interventionmust remain vigilantand criticalof reproductiveprocessesofmarginalisationbutalsoseizeopportunitiesforchangethroughcontradictoryandalternativereadingsofwhathastendedtobe dismissed as a monolithic and seamless discourse of managerialism, corporatism, and economicrationalism(Luke,1997:438).Amongstthenegativeconsequencesofqualityassurance,Lukementionsthedrive towards standardisationandquantificationof teachingpractices.Theseapproacheswouldnot takeinto account more alternative teaching and learning styles (Luke, 1997). Taking this argument further,Blackmoreconsiderstheincreasedaccountabilityinuniversitiesasnewrisksforacademicswhoseteachingisconceptualisedinawaythatchallengesbeliefsandwaysofviewingtheworld.Thiswouldbeparticularlydamaging for feminists,asbeingcontentiousandchallengingtraditionalviews isnowrisky forteachersevaluatedonthegroundsofstudentsatisfaction.Lessacceptableinaclientdrivenacademyareargumentsaboutuniversitiesassitesofformationofcriticalprofessionalsorcitizens,wherecriticalityisthekeyaspectofnewknowledgework(Blackmore,2002:432).

10

Themovetowards increasedperformancemeasurementofresearchalsoturnsouttobedisadvantageousforscholars in thesocialsciencesandhumanities.Socialscientificresearch isoftenmore timeconsumingthan in thenaturalsciences.However,output isgenerally lessquantifiable thanknowledgeproduction inthesciences.Moreover,aswomentendtobemoreconcentratedinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences,thishighly affects female scholars (Luke, 1997). While Blackmore agrees with Lukes position that qualityassurancehas the capacity tomakeprocessesandproceduresmore transparent, shewarns that qualityassuranceoraudits,withtheemphasisonprocedure,donotaskdifficultquestionsaboutpractices,ignoringimplementation failures and the limited effects of equal opportunity policies (Blackmore, 2002: 428).Speaking of universities in theAnglosaxonworld,Blackmore also observes a [] shift in language fromequitytodiversitywhichhasaccompaniedcorporatisation,andhowthishaseffectivelycooptedwomensintellectual labour to do the work of the entrepreneurial university (Blackmore, 2002: 419). Mostimportantly, Blackmore states a gap between the theory and practice of quality assurance. While thediscoursesuggeststhatqualityassuranceisalso[]aboutdiversityandequalopportunityemployment,thepractices encourage new forms of academic performativity which exacerbate the worst aspects of oldhierarchies,butwithsignificantshiftsthatraisenewproblemsforequity(Blackmore,2002:427).Blackmoreobserves the backlash effects of the interaction of the processes of globalisation and corporatisation ofuniversitiesforgenderrelationsandtheir implicationsforgenderequitywork intheacademy.Shearguesthat thecorporationofhighereducationpairedwithnewsocialconservativism inpoliticsput thegenderequityworkofthelatertwentiethcenturyatrisk:Feminismandallitspostmoderntrajectorieshavebeencentral to theproliferationofnewknowledgebases in theacademyand to critiquesof foundationalism,caughtbetweentheneedtobemade legitimatebytheestablisheduniversity,andthedesiretogaintherecognitionandvaluingof feminismanddifference thatpostmodern timesoutside theacademy require(Blackmore,2002:422).

6. QualityassuranceanditsimpactontherelationshipbetweenteachingandresearchInthischapterwewillinvestigatehowqualityassurancehasimpactedontherelationshipbetweenteachingandresearchandhowacademicsapproachacademicpracticeinthecourseofthat.BesideswewilllookathowmarketisationofHigherEducationhasresultedinstudentsidentitiesshiftingtowardsmoreconsumerorientedmodelsof learningandstudying.Finally,wewillbrieflydiscusswaysofrewardinggoodteachingand of creating incentives to develop good teaching practicewithin a quality assurance system. In thiscontextwewill look at pedagogies such as researchbased teaching and learning and their potential toenablestudentstobecomeproducersofknowledgeratherthanmereconsumers.

6.1 Thedevaluationofteachingasaconsequenceofunequalrewards forresearchandteaching inBritishHigherEducation

IntheUK,qualityassurancewasimplementedforbothresearch(ResearchAssessmentExerciseRAE)andteaching(TeachingQualityAssuranceTQA)(Harvey,2005).AsdepartmentsanduniversitiesresultsintheRAE have an impact on the amount of state funding the institution receives, the RAE has substantiallyalteredworkingconditions foracademics,puttingstrongeremphasisonresearchandpublications (Miller,1996). Yet, the pressure to publish stands in contrast to teaching having become themain business ofuniversities due to the massification of universities from the 1960s onwards (Martin, 1999). However,performingwellinteachingdoesnothavethesamestatusasexcellinginthespheresofresearchoutputandpublications(Skelton,2004).Infact,leavingasideoccasionalprizesforexcellentteachingpractice,therearehardlyanystructuralincentivesforengaginginteachingintheUK(Skelton,2004).Thisdisparityinrewards

11

becomesmostapparentinpromotionalmatters.AccordingtoGibbs,only12%ofpromotiondecisionsaremade on the basis of teaching excellence (only 10% in old universities) and in 38% of universities nopromotionsatallaremadeonthegroundsofqualityofteaching(Gibbs,1995:148).Whiletheemphasisonresearchrelated outputmakesmaintaining a position or advancing ones career particularly difficult foryoungerscholars,institutionalaffiliationisanothervariablethatshouldbetakenintoaccount(Sikes,2006).Besides,thestartingconditionsforcompetingwithintheRAEareverydifferentforacademicsinpost1992universities compared to those in pre1992 institutions (former polytechnics). Traditionally, mostuniversitiesofthelattertypehavebeenstronglyresearchbasedandexcelledinpreviousRAEs,whereasthesocalled new universities have mainly focused on teaching. With the traditionally researchedbasedinstitutions having a strong track record of research that facilitates their success with research grantapplications, the gap between old and new universities iswidening. Hence, the chance of successfullyparticipating in the researcharena iscomparativelymoredifficult foracademics inpost1992universitiesthanfortheircolleaguesinpre1992universities.Thefactthatresearchisrewardedmuchmorethanteachinghasresultedinthedevaluationofteaching.AsSimbrger analysed for sociologists in England, this has also led to academics being under pressure toconformtotherequirementsoftheRAEandtobebadlylookedatforbeinginvestedinteaching(Simbrger,2008;2010).However,thedevaluationofteachingisnotconfinedtosociologybutconcernsalldisciplinesinUKHigherEducation.Basedona studyofgeographydepartments in theUK, Jenkins concludes that thecurrentfundingarrangementshaveencouragedindividuals,departmentsandinstitutionstomakeresearchapriorityattheexpenseofteaching(Jenkins,1995).Youngsresearchonsocialpolicylecturersperceptionsof the status and rewards for teaching and research reached similar conclusions. Unanimously, herrespondents suggest that the status of teaching can only rise as its importance becomes reflected inappraisalssimilartotheRAE(Young,2006).Inhercasestudyofsociology,Englishandbiologydepartments,Lucas investigated the impact of the RAE on departmental life (Lucas, 2006). She describes the gamecharacterof theRAEand identifieshowaccommodatinganddeviating from the requirements setby theassessmentexercisearenegotiatedatthedepartmental levelamongstacademics,playingoutdiscipliningand selfdisciplining mechanisms (Lucas, 2006). According to her analysis, academics who deliberatelydecidetofocusonteachingmayelicitmixedreactionsfromtheirpeersasthismayputthedepartmentalperformanceintheResearchAssessmentExerciseatrisk.

6.2 DecliningreadershipsandaudiencesforacademicpublishingIthasalsobeenwidelycriticisedthattheoveremphasisonresearchpublicationsstands innorelationshipwiththeaspirationofdisseminatingonesresearchwidely.Overthelastfifteenyears,thestrongerfocusonresearch andpublications has led to amassive expansion of the publishingmarket (Nixon, 1999)whilstreadershipsforeachpublicationareconstantlydeclining.AsNixonfoundfromastudyofsenioreditors intheUKpublishing industry, the academicpublishingmarkethas alsobecomemoreprofessionalised andfragmented.Accesshasbeenincreasinglyrestrictedevenatuniversitiesandamoregeneralpublicishardlyaddressed (Nixon,1999). IainPirieanalysedthepoliticaleconomyofacademicpublishingandarguesthatthecapitaliststructuresofthejournalindustrywouldstandincontrasttotheinitialaimsoftheuniversitytocontributetopublicdiscourse(Pirie,2009).Moreover,Piriepointsouttheunevenimpactofthehighpriceofjournalsonusers.AccordingtoPirieonlyalimitednumberofresearchbasedliteuniversitiesintheUSwouldenjoyunlimitedaccess toallkindsof journalarticles thatwouldbenefit theirwork.However, thebiggestaccessdifficultiesPirielocatesincountriesofthedevelopingworldwherelibrariescannotaffordtofundaccesstoanappropriatenumberof journalswiththose journalsbeingoverpriced.Theconsequencesofalackofaccessforthedevelopmentofresearchaswellasforitsdisseminationinthosecountriesneedtobe considered. Finally Pirie criticises that the general public would literally have no access to readingacademicjournalarticles.Asresearchoftenispubliclyfunded,citizenswouldbedeniedtheopportunityto

12

engageinkeydebates.Yet,thisisparticularlyrelevantinanageofincreasedaccountabilityofthestatetothetaxpayer(Pirie,2009:43).With thedevelopmentof rankingsand indexmeasuresof top journals,RAEpublishing requirementsareabout toenter thenext stage thatwill severelyaffectacademicpublishing in theUK.7 Withonly journalarticles in recognised journals and research monographs contributing to the RAE, the spectrum of allresearchcontributionsand formatsofexpressions thatdonotcount isverybig indeed.8Knowing thatsolittleofwhat ispublished isread,makes itevenmoredifficultto justifythecurrentemphasisonresearchand publishing.More specifically, against the background of declining audiences and readership (Nixon,1999), the implicationsof theemphasison researchandpublications for theacademicprofessionand itscallingtodisseminateitsresearchwidely,havetobediscussed.The highly selective principles of what counts as a quality medium towards the Research AssessmentExercise have beenwidely criticised.With the rise of electronicmedia and additional opportunities todisseminateonesresearchthenotionofthepublic intellectual inEdwardSaidsunderstandingofmakingacademically driven interventions in public life has experienced increased popularity (Fuller, 2005).However,therearehardlyany institutional incentivesforacademicstodisseminatetheirresearch inwaysthatreachmuchbiggeraudiences,suchasinnewspapersorpopularperiodicals.

6.3 TeachingasawayofreachingouttobiggerandmorediversifiedaudiencesAgainstthebackgroundofdecliningreadershipsofresearchjournalsandscholarlypublicationsontheonehand and thedevaluationof teaching in comparison to research as a resultof anemphasison researchpublications on the other hand, many academics have been suggesting to see the massification ofuniversitiesasanopportunitytodisseminatetheirresearch.ThesociologistMichaelBurawoyemphasisedthenecessitytoseethechallengesofthemassuniversityinanewlightandtoconsiderstudentsasthefirstpublicofacademics(Burawoy,2005).Theargumentofpurveyingcriticalthinkingthroughteachingcanbefurthersubstantiated in the lightof thewideningofHigherEducationand increasinglydiversifiedstudentpopulations.Infact, insystemswithrigidqualityassurancesuchastheUK,manyacademicsdoexperienceteachingasthe last realmof academic activity thatdoesnot seem futile. Providing studentswith the skills to thinkcritically for themselves is experienced as a rewarding activity, in spiteof a lackof appropriatematerialrecognition across all institutions, as Simbrger found out in her study of British sociologists academicidentitiesTheargumentofpurveyingcriticalthinkingthroughteachingcanbefurthersubstantiated inthelightof thewideningofHigher Education and increasinglydiversified studentpopulations. In fact,manyrespondentsfrompost1992universitieswithstudentpopulationsfrom lowersocioeconomicbackgroundsreportedon theirencounterswith students fromnontraditionalbackgroundsasaparticularly rewardingexperience. Especially those respondents who had also been the first ones in their families to go touniversity,emphasised the significanceof teaching in theiracademic lives,havingan impacton thenext

7However,ascanbeseenfromarankingbyimpactfactorforjournalsofsociologyindexedbyThomsonReutersinitsJournalCitationsReportforthesocialsciencesfor2007,onlytwoofthetentopjournalsarebasedintheUK(TimesHigherEducationSupplement,11September2008;Availableat:www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=403493(accessedon11September2008).

8Itcoversmorefrequentformatsofdisseminationsuchasmorepopularjournalsandnewspapers,aswellasformatsofdisseminationthatmakeuseofnewmediasuchasonlinepublications,exhibitionsorfilms.

13

generation (Simbrger,2010).These responsesalso feed inwith recent researchacrossotherdisciplines(Hannan and Silver, 2000; Young, 2006).Notwithstanding the systematic devaluation of teaching, thesestudiesonacademicsandtheirrelationshipwithteachingandresearchsuggestthatmanyacademicsremaincommitted to teaching. The discourse on teaching in public and seeing students as our first public is awelcome change to the researchdrivenmentalityofacademicsanduniversity structures.Yet,unless thematerialconditionsforteachingchange,thestatusofteachingwillremainaslowasitis.

6.4 Mistakingqualityassuranceforqualityimprovement:Thecaseofstudentcenteredevaluationsofteaching

AccordingtoLeeHarveyandJethroNewtonqualityassurancehardlyeverleadstobetterqualityinteachingand learningbut tomoremonitoring (HarveyandNewton,2004).AsHarveyandNewton furtherexplain,the rhetoric and documentary preambles inmany countries refer to quality evaluation as a process ofimprovement,yetall theemphasesareonaccountability, complianceand, in some cases, controlof thesector(HarveyandNewton,2004:151).ThesedevelopmentshavetobecontextualisedwithwhatNaidooandJamiesondescribeasashiftinstudentsidentitiestowardsanorientationofconsumption(NaidooandJamieson,2005).ThenarrativeofstudentsasconsumersasawayofdescribingcurrentstudentpopulationsintheirapproachtoHigherEducationhasenjoyedincreasingpopularityinHigherEducationdiscourseintheUKinrecentyears(NaidooandJamieson,2005).Theemergenceofthisnarrativehastobeseeninthelightofstudentspayingtuitionfeesandincreasinglyhavingtoworkwhilststudyinginordertofundtheirstudies.Ithas thusbeenobserved that the value formoneyparadigm impactson studentsapproaches towardslearning (Newson, 2004). Key states that consumerism implies that studentswillwant to see obvious,tangiblebenefitsfromtheirstudies,whetherintermsofaninherentlyvaluablequalification,orasaroutetoaparticular formofemployment (Keyetal.,2005:3).Withstudentspaying fees therehasbeena risingdemandformorecompartmentalisedteachingdeliverablesandshortcourses.Theunderlyingassumptionisthat higher education services that are below standard will be rejected, thus forcing higher educationprovidersto improveor loseouton customersandrevenue.AccordingtoNaidooandJamieson, [...]thestudentconsumerthusemergesasthefocusofcompetitionandamodernizingforcethatwillbringaboutincreasedefficiency,diversityandflexibilitytothehighereducationsector.Consumerismcanalsobeseentoberelatedtonewmanagerialismthroughthedeploymentofperformanceindicatorsandleaguetableswhich strengthen thehandof consumersbyproviding information to aid choice (Naidoo and Jamieson,2005: 4). This opens up the question of themarket power of students and their forces in shaping thecurriculum.NaidooandJamiesonconcludethatthepedagogicrelationshipislikelytobetransformedintoone that is dependent on the market transaction of the commodity. Education is likely to bereconceptualizedasacommercialtransaction,thelecturerasthecommodityproducerandthestudentasthe consumer. [] consumeristmechanismsmay be seen as a device to reform academic values andpedagogicrelationshipstocomplywithmarketframeworks.(NaidooandJamieson,2005:5).However,thenarrativeofthestudentasconsumeralsoseemstobeusedtofurtherjustifyexistingandsocalledconformistwaysof teachingand to justifystagnation inanemptyvesselconsumerorientedmodelbecauseofstudentsdemandsandthepowerofmarketforces(NaidooandJamieson,2005).AccordingtoNewson, strongly technology supported teaching, what she coins as technopedagogies would ratherreinforceconsumeristapproachestoeducationthanchallenge it.Basedonqualitativeresearchwithinherfacultyandanexaminationofthetechnopedagogicdiscoursesheconcludesthatthis[]discoursetendstojustifytechnologybasedteachingandlearningparadigmsintermsoftheircostefficiency,accountability,andproductivityallofwhichare criteriaofevaluation thatbelong tobudgetbased rationalizationandmarketabilityassessmentratherthantopedagogicgoalsandvalues(Newson,2004:229).Inasimilarspirit,Naidoo and Jamieson emphasise that [] attempts to restructurepedagogical cultures and identities tocomply with consumerist frameworks may unintentionally deter innovation, promote passive and

14

instrumentalattitudes to learning, threatenacademic standardsand furtherentrenchacademicprivilege(NaidooandJamieson,2005:267).Students evaluation of teaching and their potential dissatisfactionmay not be a valid indicator for badteachingquality(Blackmore,2009).Quitethecontrarycanbethecase if innovativeteachingmethodsareusedthatintendtotakestudentsoutoftheircomfortzoneandmayleavethemdissatisfiedasaresultofhaving been challenged. Hence, evaluation of teaching quality that is entirely student centered mayconstrain academic freedom and put the mission of the university to educate critical citizens at risk.Blackmorecriticisesthatmostteachingevaluationsdonotfocusonpedagogy.BesidesBlackmoredeploresthatproviding assistance inorder to improve thequalityof teachingwouldhardlyeverbe the resultofmonitoring.Rather,pedagogicalrelationshavebecomecontractualisedwithafocusonstudentsatisfaction,exemplified in consumeroriented generic evaluations of teaching (Blackmore, 2009: 857). FollowingBlackmore,itwouldbemoreimportanttointensifythedebateonimprovingpedagogies,learningandhowacademics and students canwork together instead ofmerely focusing on accountability andmarketing.Hence, the dynamics of the student as consumer and hermarket power in demanding certainways ofteachinghavetobetakenintoaccountinanycriticalattempttoimplementqualityassuranceforteaching.

6.5 Waysoutof thequalityassurancecrisis: rewardinggood teachingpracticeand researchbasedlearning

Onewayofgivingteachingthesignificanceitdeserveswouldbetoreflectitsvalueinadequateinstitutionalrewards,comparabletothecreditsacademicsgetforresearch.AsGibbssuggests,thiscouldbeachievedbyimplementingpeer reviewof teaching (Gibbs,1995). In addition, thediscourseon teachingpractice andpedagogiescanbeintellectuallysustainedanddisseminatedbyawardingacademicfellowshipsandnationalteachingfellowshipstoacademicswhoaimtodeveloptheirteachingfurther.Thisgivesthemallocatedtimeandfundsfordevelopingtheirpedagogies,comparabletoaresearchgrant.Moreover,astheexperienceoftheUKandtheUSshow,awards forteachingarealsoconsideredasacademiccredentials. Irrespectiveoftheproblemsthatmayarisefromattemptingtomeasuregoodteaching,strategiesfortheenhancementofthestatusofteachingthatdisregardresearchmayfurthersegregatewhatHumboldtonceenvisionedasaunit.Oneof thebackdropsofqualityassurance is that ithasweakenedclassicscholarship inHumboldtssensewithacloseintertwiningbetweenresearchandteachingevenmore.Initiativessuchasthefoundationof 74HEFCEfunded Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) in the UK can be seen asinstitutionalisedincentivesforgoingbeyondthisseparationandthinkingandlivingresearchandteachinginrelationtoeachother(Bell,NearyandStevenson,2009;Lambertetal,2007;).In the1990sErnestBoyer recognised the imbalance in research and teaching activitiesofuniversities inAmerica and argued for an end to the research versus teachingdebate;proposing amore fluid viewofscholarshipthatallowsalluniversityactivitiestobe equallyvaluedandmutuallysupportive.He identifiedfour typesof scholarship thatmustbe recognised inuniversities to improveHE; scholarshipofdiscovery(research), scholarship of integration (interdisciplinary connections), scholarship of applications andengagement(knowledgeappliedtowidercommunities)andfinallyscholarshipofteaching(Boyer,1990:1525).Boyersworkhasbeenwidelyusedasareferencepointbyscholarswhoaimtoconnectteachingandresearch,andintegratingundergraduatesintothescholarshipofuniversities.Asdocumentedbyagrowingbodyof literature, researchbased learninghasbecomeabig fieldof inquiry forsociologistsofeducationandpractitionersover the last twentyyears (Boyer,1990;Healeyand Jenkins,2009;Barnett2005;Brew,2006).Thekeybenefitsofresearchbased learningaresummarisedasstudentsexperiencingthemselves inmoremeaningful ways by producing research beyond their time at the university. Besides, research based

15

learningwouldallowthemtoleavebehindtheimageofthestudentsasconsumer,animagethatdoesnotcapturetheheterogeneousrealityofcontemporarystudent lifeandfurtherperpetuatesanunderstandingofthestudentasapassiveentity,comingtouniversitytocollectadegree(NaidooandJamieson,2005).Inresponsetothis,MikeNearyetal.framedthenotionofthestudentasproducer.Thisnotionwouldcapturestudentsrealitiesinmoresubtleways,doingjusticetostudentsconditionsofworkandstudyandviewingstudentsasactiveandknowledgeablebeings (Nearyetal.,2008).Nearyetal.havedrawnon ideas fromCriticalPedagogyontheonehandandWalterBenjaminsarticletheartistasproducerontheotherhand.Forateachertotransformastudentfromaconsumertoaproduceritwouldbenecessaryto1.)providethestudentwiththespacethatallowshertoproduceorasBenjaminsaystoinduceotherstoproduceand2.)toprovideherwiththebestknowledgeandtoolsthatenablehertobecomeaproducerherself.TakingBenjamin further, through teaching students can potentially turn from consumers into producers andtherefore gain agency for themselves.Neary et al. have identified undergraduate research as away ofprovidingstudentswithagency(Nearyetal.;2009).Learninghowtoinvestigateaproblemandtocarryoutresearch themselvesevenonasmallscalecangivestudentsmoreownershipover theirwork.Moreover,research skillsand critical thinking canalsobe consideredas importantadditional skillsand can increaseemployability for graduates on a tighter andmore competitive labourmarket. In 2008 the relationshipbetweenresearchbasedlearningandtheeconomywasfurtheremphasisedbytheUKministerforbusiness,innovationandskillsasheportrayeduniversitiesaspartoftheeconomysmachinerythatcanunlockBritishtalent (Denham, 2008). In short, the British government is considering arguments which presentundergraduateresearchexperiencesascrucialtocreatingaskilledworkforcethatcansecureBritainsplaceintheglobaleconomy.Inthecourseofthisdebate,BritisheducationalistPaulRamsdenadvocatedtheneedto create aworkforcewith a rangeof skills,by redesigning the curriculum, so the student experiencebecomesanongoingdialoguebetweenstaffandstudents (Ramsden,2009:16).Ramsdenargues that forthistobeachievedtheacademicviewofteachingneedstochangeandbevaluedmorehighly(Ramsden,2008:9).Anotheracademic,NigelThrift,recommendedthattheUKgovernment,universitiesandresearchcouncils adopt sophisticatedmeasures tounderstand the supply anddemandof researchers inorder toguarantee the UK research base for the future and thus Britains position as a leader in knowledgeproduction(Thrift,2008:1).In the context of a critical analysis of quality assurance for research and teaching, the discourse uponresearchbased learning presented above should serve as one example for how the void in the qualityassurance discussion can be filled with real content about quality, namely about how we can teach,research,learnandstudyintheacademyratherthanentirelyfocusonmonitoringandcontrol.

6.6 TheepistemologicalimpactofqualityassuranceontheintellectualfoundationsofdisciplinesFollowingasociologyofknowledgeapproachandtheassumptionthatthematerialconditionswithinwhichacademicknowledgeproducationisorganisedshapethenatureofdisciplines(Gouldner,1970),thischapterwillinvestigatetheimpactofqualityassuranceregulationsontheintellectuallifeworldsofdisciplines.Nowotnyobserves thatresearchers increasinglyhave toadapt theirresearch interests to thedemandsofthe market, to commissioners and funding bodies (Nowotny, 2002). As Rappert puts it Relevance,accountabilityandusersarenowprominentterms inthepoliciesofpublicresearchfundingagencies(Rappert, 1999: 705). However, according to Rappert, the framework ofmany funding programs rarelyallowsforamoregeneralapproachtosocietaltopicsanylonger(Rappert,1999).MoreoverEvansconsiderstheshorttermismoffundingtohaveaneffectonthechoiceofresearchtopics:Thereisadrifttowardsrewardingofcompliancewithexpectations,coupledwithaconcentrationonselectiveresearch lines,anincreased tendency to choose research topics which are easy and yield results which can be neatlypresented inareportorthesis.[And] it isnormallydesignedtoconformtothedominantparadigmrather

16

than to challenge it and establish an alternative view of the world (Evans, 2002: 84). Furthermoreacademics who attract many grants and funding seem to be more likely to get longer contracts andpromotions(Evans,2002).AccordingtoPapouschekandPastner,risingpressuretorespondtothedemandsofthemarketandthetopicssetbycommercialagendasandfundinginstitutionsexacerbatedeviatingfrommainstreamperceptionsofresearch(PapouschekandPastner,1999).Howeververyofteneconomicsuccessdoesnotnecessarily gohand inhandwith intellectual creativity. In2003, theCommissionon the SocialSciences for the UK expressed concerns that research has become a minor category within everydayacademic working routine and sociology would thus run the risk of producing rendundant knowledge(CommissionontheSocialSciences,2003).WhattheCommissionmeantwasthatwhilstresearch ishighlyrewarded in academia, the different requirements within current academic life such as teaching andadministrationwould oftennot allow for research tobe pursued in amanner that results in innovativeknowledge rather than in the reusage of previously published material. As a consequence of this, theCommissiondiagnosesthatthequalityofresearchisdecreasing.One of the main concerns with regard to quality assurance in Higher Education and in particular theassessment of research output relates to the epistemological effectsof quality assurance ondisciplines.ChrisShoreandSusanWrightanalysedtheeffectsofauditcultureontheBritishHigherEducationsystem,payingparticularattentiontotheirowndiscipline,anthropology(ShoreandWright,1999).ShoreandWrightcriticise that thesenewaudit technologiesare typically framed in termsof quality, accountabilityandempowermentasthoughtheywereemancipatoryandselfactualizing(ShoreandWright,1999:557)eventhoughthetwokey instrumentsofqualityassurance intheUK,theResearchAssessmentExerciseandtheTeaching Quality Assurance would have been disciplining academic freedom and underminingprofessionalism.Aseach institution is forced to improve itspositionon the league tables,academicsareincreasingly under pressure to play the game and to correspond to accountability rules rather than topractisethevaluesofopenandcriticalscholarship.ForShoreandWright []the logicofauditscoerciveaccountability,whether in higher education or the health service, is that no one dares to say that thatstandardshavedeclinedbecausetoadmitthisistantamounttoanadmissionoffailure,andinaregimeofcompetitiveallocationofdecliningfunds,failuremustbepunishedifexcellenceistoberewarded(ShoreandWright,1999:569).Academicswould therefore find themselvesbetween twodiametricallyopposedideasofprofessional identity, theold ideaofthe independentscholarand inspiringteacher,andthenewmodeloftheauditable,competitiveperformer(ShoreandWright,1999:569).AsHarleyandLee(1997)foundoutforeconomicsandbusinessstudiesintheUK,thedeliberateselectionofjournals that are considered as core journals for the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) putsadditional constraints on academics and leads to mainstreaming effects in the discipline: Researchproductivityandqualityjudgedbypeerreviewhasalwaysbeencentraltotheacademiclaborprocessintheolduniversities in theUKand isbeginning tobecomeso in thenew.Whathaschanged is thecontext inwhichresearchisproducedandhierarchicalmanagerialcontrolstowhichitisnowsubjected.Whatisnewisthat the selfrefereeing quality of the academic labor process has been harnessed to managerial endsthrough a centrally organized andbureaucraticallycontrolled research selectivity exercise. Informal peerreviewwithinacollegiatesystemofcontrol isverydifferentfrom institutionalizedpeerreview linkedtoarankingsystemdesignedforfundingpurposes(HarleyandLee,1997:1429).Asthefailuretocomplywiththesedemandsmeansthatresearchersrisknotgettingpublished,losingfundingoreventheirjobs,Willmottpointsoutthatthe likelyconsequencesforthe intellectualbehaviourofresearchersshouldbeconsidered(Willmott, 2003). For sociology, Simbrger observed a similar effect. Simbrger concludes that Britishsociology isgettingmoremainstreambyquality assurance systems clearly regulating thatpeople shouldpublishinsocalledworldleadingjournals,evenifthekeydiscoursesfortheirfieldofresearcharelocatedelsewhere.Moreover,especiallythosesociologistswhoworkattheboundarieswithotherdisciplineswouldface restrictions as academic journalsdonotencourage the submissionofwork thatmaynotbe clearlyallocabletoaparticulardiscipline(Simbrger,2008).Thismaybeduetothefactthat,asBecherexplains,academiaisstillpredominantlyorganisedinclearcutdisciplines,oracademictribesandterritories(Becher,2001).This isalsoconfirmedbyWrights,ThompsonsandChannersresearchonblack femaleacademics

17

and theadditionalpressures theyareexposed towithin theResearchAssessmentExercise (Wrightetal.,2007).Yet,facingdifficultiespublishingonesworkcannotonlybeperceivedasaknocktotheego,itcanhavefarmorematerial consequences. In a timewhenpublicationoutput is inextricably linkedwith theResearchAssessment,notgettingpublishedintherightjournalsmaybedetrimentaltoonescareerprogress.ThisisechoedbyWillmott,whodiscussesthereinforcingeffectsoftheBritishRAEthatiscoupledwiththecredooftheneedsoftheindustryandtheuseofpeerreviewtolegitimizethisprocess(Willmott,2003:130).Asthefailuretocomplywiththesedemandsmeansthatresearchersrisknotgettingpublished,losingfundingor even their jobs, Willmott points out that the likely consequences for the intellectual behaviour ofresearchersshouldbeconsidered(Willmott,2003).

7. ImplicationsforChile:preliminaryreflectionsIn this report we provided critical perspectives on quality assurance in British Higher Education. Wediscussedthenegativeconsequencesofqualityassuranceonmultipleaspectsofuniversitylifesuchastherelationship between teaching and research, academic working conditions, gender, the intellectualdevelopmentofacademicdisciplinesandtheacademysaimtodisseminateresearchtovariouspublics.TherationaleforchoosingtheUKasasiteofcritiquewasthat it isacountrywitha longstandingtraditionofquality assurance in Higher Education, going back to the 1980s. As such, not only has theUK been aninterestingpointofreferenceforothercountries interested inHEqualityassurancebutalsoarichsubjectfor critical investigations on an international scale. In this final chapterwewould like to reflect on theimplicationsofour critiqueofquality assurance inBritishHigher Education forChile. Turning toChileanHigherEducation,wedonot intendtocarryoutacomparisonbetweenqualityassurance intheUKand inChile.9 Rather, based on the critical analysis of the impact of quality assurance in the UK on variousdimensionsofuniversitylife,wewillshedsomelightonafewoftheseareasforChile.Thesereflectionsareofpreliminarycharacterand serve thepurposeofhighlighting thematicareas that requiremoredetailedinvestigationsinthefuture.

7.1 KeyfeaturesofChileanHigherEducationIn his article The end of quality? LeeHarvey points out that in developing quality assurance systems,attentionwouldneedtobepaidtothespecificnatureofaHigherEducationsystem(Harvey,2002).ChilehasahighlydiversifiedHigherEducationsystemwithpublicandprivateuniversities,professionalinstitutes(institutosprofesionales)andcentersfortechnicalformation(centrosdeformaciontecnica).Between1987and 1990 alone, the number of private universities increased from 3 to 40 institutions,while institutosprofesionalesexperiencedarisefrom18institutesin1984to80in1990andcentrosdeformaciontecnicaincreased from 102 in to 168 in 1990 (Brunner, 2009: 228). Brunner outlines that in spite of the rapidincreaseoftheHEsectoroverthelastfewyearsthe,[]provisionofhighereducationinChilehasalwayshadacoregroupofinstitutionsatthecenter,i.e.thetraditionaluniversities,publicandprivateinnaturebutbothwith assured, regular, state funding (Brunner, 1997: 225).Between 1842 and 1980 eight of theseuniversitieshadbeenerected(Brunner,1997).With87%ofallFondecytprojectsbetween1982and1990havingbeencarriedoutbytheeighttraditionaluniversities(Brunner,2009:242),therigiddivisionoflabourbetweentraditionaluniversitiescarryingoutresearchandteachingandnewlyfoundedprivate institutions

9ForasystematicanalysisoftheChileanHigherEducationsystemanditsdevelopmentovertime,seeBrunner,2009.

18

onlyundertaking teaching, isstillpresent (Bernasconi,2006). Inaddition,Brunnersees thekeycriteriaofdistinctionamongstChileanuniversitiessetonafourfieldschemeformedbydichotomiesofpublic/privateuniversities in combinationwith their being selective or nonselectivewith regard to students (Brunner,2009:377382).Themassification of universities is also reflected on the level of students.While in 1983 only 110.133studentswere registered at Chilean universities, by 2009 this number is five times higherwith 576.600matriculatedstudentsatChileanuniversities(MinisteriodeEducacion,2010).Educationisperceivedasthegateopenertosocioeconomicupwardmobility.Studentssocioeconomicbackgroundshavebecomemorediverse since the late 1990s, with many students being the first generation of their families to go touniversity, reflecting an international trend towards more heterogeneous student populations (Archer,HutchingsandRoss,2003).Withmostprivatenontraditionaluniversitiesentirelydependingonstudentstuitionfees,HigherEducationadvertisinggainsasignificantrole.Someofthenewerprivatenonselectiveuniversitiesinparticulartrytoattracttheirmoredeprivedstudentpopulationswithgenerousstudentloansandcredits(LarranandZurita,2008).Moreover,universitieswebpagesandmissionstatementsprovidekeyinsightsintohowuniversitiespositionthemselves(Bernasconi,2006)andareusedasanothertooltoreachfuturecustomers.ChilesHigherEducation systemhasmoved a longway from state andprofessional and towardsmarketcoordination(Brunner,1997).ThekeychangesgobacktothePinochetregimeanditseducationalreforms.Whilethefirstrepressionsagainsttheuniversityinthe1970sweretargetedtowardsundoingtheuniversityreforms of 1967 and eliminating and controlling critical voices, the 1980swere devoted to a completerestructuring of the university sector that aimed to [] (a) open up the traditional system throughunregulatedmarketprovisionofprivatehighereducationwithnopublic subsidies;b.)diversify supplyofhigher education through differentiated institutions based on a functional hierarchy of educationalcertificates; and c.) partially transfer the cost of state financed institutions to students (cost recovery),stimulatetheseinstitutionstodiversifytheirfundingsources,andthusreducethestatecommitmenttothefinancingofhighereducation (Brunner,1997:226).Themove towardsaneoliberal reorganisationof theeducationsystem isbynomeansconfinedtoChilebutalsoneedstobeseen inthecontextofneoliberalglobalisation (Torres and Schugurensky, 2002). While these changes have been praised by some asneoliberal successes as part of global developments and a turn towards more efficiency (Fried andAbuhadba, 1991), others point out the unequal and authoritarian sides of how this story of presumedsuccesswasimplementedinChile(Taylor,2002;Torche,2005).Therapidincreaseinnewuniversitiesandtheeasewithwhichuniversityaccreditationcanbeachieved,haspromptedintensediscussionsaboutqualityassuranceinChileanHigherEducation(Brunner,2009;GonzalezandEspinoza,2007).TheCommissionforHigherEducation(ComisiondeEstudiodelaEducacinSuperior)concluded in1990 thatChileanHEneededquality assurance,more equality,promotionof research andresearchtraining,morefundingforstudentsandmoreregionalisation(Brunner,2009).Themovetowardsqualityassuranceseemstobedrivenbyboththenecessitytocreatestandardswithinaverydiversifiedandhierarchical university landscape and students and parents demands for more transparency andcomparabilityof the servicesofferedbyuniversities (BrunnerandMeller,2004).Over the last few yearsChilehasmainlybeenoccupiedwithissuesofinstitutionalaccreditationasaresultoftherapidlyincreasingnumber of Higher Education institutions. Institutions are obliged to provide a clear university mission,organise theirmechanismsofgovernance, carryout selfevaluationandpresent their case to theHigherEducationaccreditationagencyinordertobeaccreditedforalimitedamountoftime.Themainfunctionofaccreditation, in particular for the newly founded private universities, does not merely consist in thepossibility of obtaining further university funding. Rather, accreditation mainly serves the purpose ofestablishing trust towards the universitys key customers students. For both students and parents,accreditation is one indication for the university being able to fulfill its educativemission and to grant

19

degreecertificates.10 While institutionalaccreditationhasbeenthemainfieldofeffort intermsofqualityassurance in Chilean Higher Education, the development of quality assurance instruments that directlytargetacademicsandtheirwork inresearchandteachinghasbeengainingmoregroundoverthe lastfewyears.11 Incorrespondencewiththekeythemesofthisreport,inthefollowingwewillraisequestionsaboutthepotential implicationsofqualityassurance for research, teachingandacademicworkingconditions inChile.

7.2 ResearchChileanuniversitiescanbecharacterisedbyastrongfocusonteaching.Morethan80%ofallpubliclyfundedresearchinChileisundertakenatoneoftheeighttraditionaluniversities(Bernasconi,2006;Brunner,2009).Over the last few years, an increasing number of universities have been developing human resourcemanagement programs that reward the production of academic articles in ISI rated journals. In someuniversities,academicsevenreceiveabonusforeveryISIratedpublication.Thiscanbeseenasastrategyfor enhancing research in Chile as well as a manifestation of Chiles aim to play a bigger role in theinternationalscienceandtechnologymarket.Measuringresearchoutput isa legitimatepracticeas longasstructuralprerequisitesforthepublicationofresearcharetaken intoaccount.Researchfunding,sufficienttimeforresearch,accesstoresearchdatabasesandlibrariesareamongstthekeyprerequisitesforcarryingoutresearch.FutureresearchcouldexploretheextenttowhichChileanacademicshaveaccesstoresearchfunding, libraries and databases andworking time in order to be research active. The commitment toenhance research activity and theparticipation in global researchnetworks runs the riskof turning intoempty rhetoric if the burden of producing international research publications is placed on individualacademicswithoutverifyingthenecessarystructuralconditionsforresearch.Moreover,accesstodecentresearchjournalsanddatabasesisscarceinChileanuniversities.Onlyaminorityofuniversitiesisabletoprovideitsacademiccommunitywithaccesstoawiderangeofacademicjournalsand databases. Whereas de Angelis and Harvie point out that academics often find ways amongstthemselvestosharecopies(DeAngelisandHarvie,2009),pursuinghighqualityresearchisfarmoredifficultunder these conditions. As a consequence of limited access to academic journals and databanks inuniversities,evenacademicaudiencesmaynotalwaysbeable toaccess the researchof theirpeers.Themajorityof ISI rated journals ispublished inEnglishwhereas journals inSpanishareanexception.This isproblematic for several reasons. English language skills are not equally distributed amongst Chileanacademics.Chileanacademicsfromolderbirthcohortsorfromlowersocioeconomicbackgroundsarelesslikelytobe incommandofEnglishasanacademic languagetotheextentthattheywouldbeabletoreadANDwriteacademictexts.Whilethereareno figures,experience fromChileanconferencesandseminarssuggests that only a minority of Chilean academics has sufficient language skills in order to produceacademicresearchoutputinEnglish.Asaconsequence,confiningperformancemeasurementofresearchtomostlyEnglish ISIratedpublications,doesbynomeansdo justicetotheactualresearchthat isproducedeveryyear.Rather,thesemeasurespotentiallydevalueresearchpublicationsinSpanishandmakethemlessvisible.Under thesecircumstances itmaynotbe thecase that theuniversitycando justice tooneof its

10IrrespectiveofthefactofuniversityaccreditationbeingakeyissueinthedevelopmentofqualityassuranceinHigherEducation,incorrespondencewiththeanalysiscarriedoutinthisreportthefollowingdiscussionofimplicationsforChilewillbeconfinedtosomeofthethemesthatwerediscussedthroughoutthereport:research,teachingandworkingconditionsinuniversities.

11Thisisindicatedbyariseinacademicconferencesonthetopicofqualityassurance.SeeforexampletheactivitiesoftheprogrammeAnillodeinvestigacionenpoliticassobreeducacionsuperior,basedattheCentrodePoliticasComparadasenEducacinattheUniversidadDiegoPortales,Santiago.

20

longstandingmissionsofdistributingknowledgeaswidelyaspossible.Ultimately,thequestionofwhattheuniversityisforandwhomtheuniversityisproducingitsknowledgefor,needstoberaised.

7.3 TeachingAstrongemphasisonparticular formatsofresearchoutputstands instarkcontrasttoteachingbeingthemain business ofmost Chilean universities.Given the current focus on teaching in Chile, improving thequality of teaching could be a path worthwhile exploring. Research upon the status of teaching inuniversities,developmentofpedagogiesandtrainingandacademicsperceptionsabouttheroleofteachingwould be desirable. One of the key insights from this report is that quality assurance in teaching andlearningdonotnecessarily improve thequalityof teachingunlessmonitoringprocessesgohand inhandwith trainingandan intensediscourseabout teachingand learning. In the caseofChile, future researchwouldneedtoexploretherelationshipbetweenmeasuresthatmonitorandimprovethequalityofteachingatuniversities.GiventhetremendousmassificationofuniversitiesinChileoverthelasttwentyyearsandtheenormousincreaseinstudents,whatisneededisadiscourseonthepurposeofeducationandinparticularteachingasoneofthekeyfunctionsoftheuniversityinshapingfuturegenerations.

7.4 AcademicworkingconditionsAlthoughtherearenoofficialfiguresabouttheproportionofcasualteachingstaffasopposedtopermanentacademic staff in Chilean universities, research suggests that a significant amount of teaching that isdelivered inChileanuniversities isdonebypart time staff that ispaidper course (Bernasconi,2006).AsAndresBernasconiexplains, Inahighereducationsystemwhere facultywithgraduatedegreesarestillaminority,and fundingonly through tuitionmakes it impossible tohire largegroupsof fulltimestaff, it isimpossible for big universities to maintain large percentages of dedicated and qualified professors(Bernasconi, 2006: 325). Yet, as Bernasconi further elaborates, some of the catholic private universitieswouldfinditeasiertokeepthecostoftheirstafflowastheyfindhighlyqualifiedmemberswithintheirownbeliefcongregationswhoarewillingtoteachforlittleornomoneyatall.Ifqualityassurance inChileaimstoenhancethequalityofresearchandteaching, itwillcertainlyneedtoconsiderthedistributionoftheacademicworkforceinfulltimestaffandparttimeandcasualstaff.Futureresearchcouldexplorehowmanythousandpeopleteachclassesatuniversitiesonacasualcontractbasis.Anyreformsthataimtoimprovethequalityofteachingwillhavetoconsiderthefactthatacademicworkismostlycarriedoutbyaproletariatofacademicworkers.ThesupposedlyhighnumberofcasualacademicworkersatChileanuniversitiesand theirnotbeing regularly involved indepartmentalactivitiesand stafftraining is problematic. This also implies that any attempt to implement teaching quality assurancemeasureswillbe futileunless thediversityofChileanacademic staffandnonstaff is taken intoaccount.Rather,initiativesthataimtofosterbetterteachingandmoreinnovativeteachingpractice,willalsoneedtoreflectonthechallengeofconveyingthosetrainingprogramstoacademicswhoonlyworkfortheuniversityonanhourlybasiseveryweek.

21

Bibliography:

Archer,L.andHutchings,M.andRoss,A.,2003.HigherEducationandSocialClass.IssuesofExclusionandInclusion.London:Routledge.

Barry, J.andChandler, J.andClark,H.2001. Betweenthe IvoryTowerandtheAcademicAssemblyLine.JournalofManagementStudies38(1):87101.

Becher,T. andTrowler,P.2001.AcademicTribes andTerritories: IntellectualEnquiry and theCultureofDisciplines. 2nd Edition. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education&OpenUniversityPress.

Bell,L.,Stevenson,H.,andNeary,M.(eds.)2009.TheFutureofHigherEducation:Policy,PedagogyandtheStudentExperienceContinuum:London.

Bernasconi,A.2005. Universityentrepreneurship inadevelopingcountry: thecaseof theP.UniversidadCatlicadeChile,19852000.HigherEducation50(2):247274.

Bernasconi,A.2006.DoestheaffiliationofuniversitiestoexternalorganizationsfosterdiversityinprivateHigherEducation?Chileincomparativeperspective.HigherEducation52(2):303342.

Bernasconi,A.2008.IsthereaLatinAmericanmodeloftheuniversity?ComparativeEducationReview52(1):2752.

Blackmore,J.2009.Academicpedagogies,qualitylogicsandperformativeuniversities:evaluatingteachingandwhatstudentswant.StudiesinHigherEducation34(8):857872.

Blanco,R.2008.ReflexionesentornoalaevaluacindelacalidadeducativaenAmericaLatinayelCaribe.Organizacinde lasNacionesUnidaspara laEducacin laCienciay laCultura.Santiago:OREALC/UNESCOSantiago.

Boyer,E.1990.ScholarshipReconsidered:Prioritiesof theProfessoriate.TheCarnegieFoundation for theAdvancementofTeaching.

Breneman,D.W.andYoun,T. I.K (eds.)1988.AcademicLaborMarketsandCareers.NewYork;London:Falmer.

Brew,A.2006.ResearchandTeaching.BeyondtheDivide.Palgrave:Macmillan.

Bryson,C.andBarnes,N.2000. Working inHigherEducation. In:M.Tight (ed.)AcademicWorkandLife:WhatItIstoBeanAcademic,andHowThisisChanging.Amsterdam:Elsevier:187242.

Brown, P. and Scase,R. 2001.Higher Education&CorporateRealities.Class,Culture and theDeclineofGraduateCareers.London:UCLPress.

Brunner, J. J.1993. Chile'sHigherEducation:BetweenMarketandState.HigherEducation25 (1)HigherEducationinLatinAmerica1:3543.

Brunner,J.J.1997.FromStatetoMarketCoordination:TheChileanCase.HigherEducationPolicy.10():225237.

22

Brunner,J.J.2005.ComparativeResearchandPublicPolicy:FromAuthoritarianismtoDemocracy.PeabodyJournalofEducation80(1):100106.

Brunner,J.J.2009.EducacinsuperiorenChile.Instituciones,mercadosypolticasgubernamentales(19672007).Santiago:EdicionesUniversidadDiegoPortales.

Brunner,J.J.,Elacqua,G.,Tillett,A.,Bonnefoy,J.,Gonzlez,S.,Pachecho,P.andSalazar,F.2005.GuiarelMercado.InformesobrelaEducacinSuperiorenChile.SantiagodeChile:UniversidadAdolfoIbaez.

Brunner,J.J.andMeller,P.2004.OfertaydemandadeprofesionalesytecnicosenChile.SantiagodeChile:RILEditores.

Barnett, R. (ed.) 2005. Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Teaching andScholarship.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Burawoy,M.2005.2004AmericanSociologicalAssociationPresidentialAddress:ForPublicSociology.TheBritishJournalofSociology56(2):259294.

Chiapello, E. and Fairclough,N. 2002. Understanding thenewmanagement ideology: a transdisciplinarycontributionfromcriticaldiscourseanalysisandnewsociologyofcapitalism.Discourse&Society185208.

Collinson, J. A. 2000. NOTES AND ISSUES. Social Science Contract Researchers in Higher Education:PerceptionofCraftKnowledge.Work,EmploymentandSociety.14(1):159171.

Commission on the Social Sciences, [2003]. Great Expectations: the Social Sciences in Britain. Online.Availablefrom:http://www.theacademy.org.uk/[accessed5April05].

De Angelis,M. and Harvey, D. 2009. Cognitive capitalism and the ratrace: how capitalismmeasuresinmateriallabourinBritishuniversities.HistoricalMaterialism17:330.

Deem,R.andHillyard,S.andReed,M.2007.Knowledge,HigherEducation,andtheNewManagerialism.TheChangingManagementofUKUniversities.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Dominelli, L. and Hoogvelt, A. 1996. Globalization, Contract Government and The Taylorization ofIntellectualLabourinAcademia.StudiesinPoliticalEconomy49:71100.

Evans, G.R. 2002. Academics and the Real World. Buckingham: The Society for Research into HigherEducation&OpenUniversityPress.

Fairclough,N.1993.Criticaldiscourseanalysisandthemarketizationofpublicdiscourse:theuniversities.Discourse&Society4:133168.

Fairclough,N.2003.AnalysingDiscourse:TextualAnalysisforSocialResearch.London:Routledge

Fernndez,E.andBernasconi,A.2007. Los lmitesde ladiversidad:elEstado,elmercadoyelprestigiocomo fuentes de isomorfismo organizacional en las universidades chilenas. El caso de las carreras demedicina.Fondecytproyecto1085320.Adjudicacin:diciembrede2007

Fillipakou, O. and Tapper, T. 2008. Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education:ContestedTerritories?HigherEducationQuarterly62(1/2):84100.

23

Fried,B. andAbuhadba,M.1991. Reforms inHigherEducation:TheCaseofChile in the1980s.HigherEducation21(2):137149.

Fuller,S.2002.KnowledgeManagementFoundations.Boston:ButterworthHeinemann.

Fuller,S.2005.TheIntellectual.Cambridge:IconBooks.

GarcaGuadilla, C. (ed.) 2008. Pensamiento universitario latinoamericano. Pensadores y forjadores de laUniversidadlatinoamericana.UniversidadCentraldeVenezuela:IESALCUNESCO/CENDES.

Gibbons,M.andLimoges,C.andNowotny,H.andSchwartzmann,S.andScott,P.andTrow,M.1994.TheNewProductionofKnowledge.TheDynamicsofScienceandResearch inContemporarySocieties.London:Sage.

Gibbs,G.1995. TheRelationshipBetweenQuality inResearchandQuality inTeaching.Quality inHigherEducation1(2):147157.

Gonzlez, L. E. and Espinoza,O. 2007. Calidad de la Educacin Superior en Amrica Latina y el Caribe:Concepto yModelos. Caracas: IESALC/UNESCO. En CD ROM anexo a UNESCO/IESALC, Tendencias de laEducacinSuperiorenAmricaLatinayelCaribe.Caracas.UNESCO/IESALC.

Grady, J.2007. Advertising imagesassocial indicators:depictionsofblacks inLIFEmagazine,19362000.VisualStudies22(3):211239.

Halsey,A.H.1995.DeclineofDonnishDominion.TheBritishAcademicProfessionintheTwentiethCentury.ClarendonPress:Oxford.

Hannan,A.andSilver,S2000.Innovating inhighereducation: learning,teachingand institutionalcultures.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Harley,S.andLee,F.1997.ResearchSelectivity,Managerialism,andAcademicLaborProcess:TheFutureofNonMainstreamEconomicsinU.K.Universities.HumanRelations50(11):14271460.

Harvey,L.andNewton,J.2004. Transformingqualityevaluation.Quality inHigherEducation10(2):149165.

Harvey,L.2005. Ahistoryandcritiqueofqualityevaluation intheUK.QualityAssurance inEducation13(4):263276.

Healey,M.andJenkins,A.2009.Developingundergraduateresearchandinquiry.York:HEAcademy

Henkel,M.2000.AcademicIdentitiesandPolicyChangeinHigherEducation.London:JessicaKingsley.

Hockey, J.2004. Working to return toemployment: the caseofUK social science contract researchers.StudiesinHigherEducation.29(5):559574.

Humboldt,W.von(1970).OnthespiritandorganizationalframeworkofintellectualinstitutionsinBerlin.Minerva8242267.[original1810].

Jenkins,S.2006.ThatcherandHerSons.ARevolutioninThreeActs.London:AllenandLane.

24

Jenkins,A.1995. TheResearchAssessmentExercise,FundingandTeachingQuality.QualityAssurance inEducation3(2):412.

Knoll,J.H.andSiebert,H.1967.Humboldt.PoliticianandEducationalist.Internationes,BadGodesberg.

Lambert,C,andSimbrgerE.(2008;2009).SociologistsTalking.Aninteractive,sitespecificexhibitiononsociologistsrelationshiptothediscipline,teachingandresearch;Soundexhibitsandonlineexhibitiondocumentationavailableat:www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/rsw/undergrad/cetl/filmspublications/sociologiststalking/

Lambert,C.andParker,A.andNeary,M.,2007. EntrepreneurialismandCriticalPedagagogy:ReinventingtheHigherEducationCurriculum.TeachinginHigherEducation12(4):525537.

Larran,C.andZurita,S.2008.ThenewstudentloansysteminChileshighereducation.HigherEducation55:683702.

Letelier,M.andCarrasco,R.2004.HighereducationassessmentandaccreditationinChile:stateoftheartandtrends.29(1):119124.

Lucas,L.2006.TheResearchGameinAcademicLife.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Luke,C.1997.QualityassuranceandwomeninHigherEducation.HigherEducation33(4):433451.

Lyotard,JF.1984.ThePostmodernCondition:AReportonKnowledge.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Martin,E.1999.ChangingAcademicWork.DevelopingtheLearningUniversity.TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducationo&OpenUniversityPress.

McLean,M.2008.PedagogyandtheUniversity.CriticalTheoryandPractice.Continuum:LondonandNewYork.

Miller,H.1996.AcademicsintheirLabourProcess.InC.SmithandD.KnightsandH.Willmott(eds.)WhiteCollarWork.TheNonManualLabourProcess.StudiesintheLabourProcess.London:MacmillanPress:109138.

Miller,H.1995. States,Economiesand theChangingLabourProcessofAcademics:Australia,CanadaandtheUnitedKingdom. InJ.Smyth (ed.)AcademicWork.TheChangingLabourProcess inHigherEducation.Buckingham:SocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation&OpenUniversityPress:4059.

Morley,L.2003.QualityandPowerinHigherEducation.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Morley, L. (2001). Subjected to Review: EngenderingQuality inHigher Education. Journal of EducationPolicy16(5):465478.

Naidoo, R. and I. Jamieson 2005. Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a researchagendaontheimpactofconsumerisminhighereducation.JournalofEducationPolicy20(3):267281.

Newson,J.2004.DisruptingtheStudentasConsumerModel:theNewEmancipatoryProject.InternationalRelations18(2):227239.

25

Newton,J.2002.Viewsfrombelow.Academicscopingwithquality.QualityinHigherEducation8(1):3961.

Nixon,J.1999.Teachers,Writers,Professionals.IsThereAnybodyOutThere?BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation20(2):207221.

Nowotny,H.2002. TheAudit andAcccountabilityCulture inResearch. InMaxPlanck Forum6, Sciencebetween evaluation and innovation: a conference on peer review. RingbergSymposium, April 2002.DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft.

Parker, J. 2008. Comparing Research and Teaching in University Promotion Criteria. Higher EducationQuarterly62(3):237251.

Parker,M.and Jary,D.1995. TheMcUniversity:Organisations,ManagementandAcademicSubjectivity.Organization2:319338.

Papouschek,U.andPastner,U.1999.UeberdieEntwicklungderBildungundBerufsausuebungvonFraueninOesterreich.Hochschulbericht,Band3,BundesministeriumfuerWissenschaftundVerkehr,Wien.

Pirie,I.2009.Thepoliticaleconomyofacademicpublishing.HistoricalMaterialism17:3160.

Pitton, V. 2007. Disentangling Chiles authoritarian neoliberalism and its effects: the downfall of publichighereducationanditsimplicationsforequitableaccess.CriticalStudiesinEducation48(2):249267.

Poole,B.2010.Frommentoringtomonitoring:theimpactofchangingworkenvironmentsonacademicsinAustralianuniversities.

Power,M.1997.TheAuditSociety.RitualsofVerification.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Ramsden,P.2008.TheFutureofHigherEducationTeachingandtheStudentExperience.TheDepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills.

Rappert,B.1999.TheUsesofRelevance.ThoughtsonaReflexiveSociology.Sociology33(4):705723.

Shattock,M.2003.ManagingSuccessfulUniversities.TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducationandtheOpenUniversityPress:MaidenheadandNewYork.

Shattock, M. 2008. The Change from Private to Public Governance of British Higher Education: ItsConsequencesforHigherEducationPolicyMaking19802006.HigherEducationQuarterly66(3):181203.

Shattock,M.(ed.)2009.EntrepreneurialisminUniversitiesandtheKnowledgeEconomy:DiversificationandOrganisationalChange inEuropeanHigherEducation.TheSociety forResearch intoHigherEducationandtheOpenUniversityPress.MaidenheadandNewYork.

Shore,C.andWright,S.2000.CoerciveAccountability:theRiseofAuditCultureinHigherEducation.InM.Strathern(ed.)AuditCultures.AntrophologicalStudies inAccountability,EthicsandtheAcademy.London:Routledge:5789.

Sikes,P2006.Workinginanewuniversity:IntheshadowoftheResearchAssessmentExercise?.StudiesinHigherEducation31(5):555568.

26

Simbrger,E.2008.Againstandbeyondforsociology.AstudyontheselfunderstandingofsociologistsinEngland.UnpublishedPhDthesis.UniversityofWarwick.

Simbrger,E.2010.Critiqueandsociology:towardsanewunderstandingofteachingasanintegralpartofsociological work. EliSS Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences. Vol. 3 (1) Available online:http://www.eliss.org.uk

Skelton, A. 2004. Understanding Teaching Excellence in Higher Education: a Critical Evaluation of theNationalTeachingFellowshipsScheme.StudiesinHigherEducation29(4):451468.

Slaughter,S.andL.Leslie1997.AcademicCapitalism:Politics,Policies,andtheEntrepreneurialUniversity.Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.

Sparkes,A.2007.Embodiment,Academics,andtheAuditCulture:AStorySeekingConsideration.QualitativeResearch7(4):521550.

Stehr,N.1994.KnowledgeSocieties.London:SagePublications.

Strathern,M.(ed.)2000.AuditCultures.AnthropologicalStudiesinAccountability,EthicsandtheAcademy.London:Routledge.

Symon,G. andBuehring,A. and Johnson, P. andCassell,C. [2005]. TheContemporaryAcademic LabourProcess, the Institutionalisation of Research Practices and Qualitative Research. Paper for CriticalManagement Conference 2005, Cambridge. Open Stream. Online. Available from:http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/research/ejrot/cmsconference/2005/proceedings/open/Symon.pdf[accessed3/08/05].

Tapper, T. 2003. The Governance of British Higher EducationTheStruggleforPolicyControl.Amsterdam:Springer.

Taylor,F.W.1967.ThePrinciplesofScientificManagement.NewYork:NortonLibrary.

Taylor,M.2002.SuccessforWhom?AnHistoricalMaterialistCritiqueofNeoliberalism inChile.HistoricalMaterialism10(2):4575.

Thompson,P.andWarhurst,C. (eds.)1998.Workplacesof theFuture.CriticalPerspectivesonWorkandOrganisationSeries.London:MacMillanPress.

Torche, F. 2005. Privatization Reform and Inequality of Educational Opportunity: The Case of Chile.SociologyofEducation78(4):316343.

Torres,C.A.andSchugurensky,D.2002.ThePoliticalEconomyofHigherEducationintheEraofNeoliberalGlobalization:LatinAmericainComparativePerspective.HigherEducation43(4):429455.

Weingart, P. and Winterhager, M. 1984. Die Vermessung der Forschung. Theorie und Praxis derWissenschaftsindikatoren.Frankfurt/M/NewYork.Campus.

Willmott, H. 2003. Commercialising Higher Education in the UK: the State, Industry and Peer Review.StudiesinHigherEducation28(2):129141.

27

Wright,S.2004. Markets,Corporations,Consumers?NewLandscapesofHigherEducation.LearningandTeachingintheSocialSciences1(2):7193.

Young,P.2006.Outofbalance:lecturersperceptionsofdifferentialstatusandrewardsinrelationto

teachingandresearch.TeachinginHigherEducation11(2):191202.

1. Introduction2. The rise of quality assurance: transformations of Higher Education landscapes3. Quality assurance in British Higher Education4. The impact of quality assurance on academic working conditions 5. Gender and quality assurance: an equal partnership?6. Quality assurance and its impact on the relationship between teaching and research7. Implications for Chile: preliminary reflections