define quality assurance in higher education

• IIEP Buenos Aires

• A global institute
• Governing Board
• Expert directory
• 60th anniversary
• Monitoring and evaluation

Latest news

• Upcoming events
• PlanED: The IIEP podcast
• Partnering with IIEP
• Career opportunities
• 11th Medium-Term Strategy
• Planning and management to improve learning
• Inclusion in education
• Using digital tools to promote transparency and accountability
• Ethics and corruption in education
• Digital technology to transform education
• Crisis-sensitive educational planning
• Rethinking national school calendars for climate-resilient learning
• Skills for the future
• Interactive map
• Foundations of education sector planning programmes
• Online specialized courses
• Customized, on-demand training
• Training in Buenos Aires
• Training in Dakar
• Preparation of strategic plans
• Sector diagnosis
• Costs and financing of education
• Tools for planning
• Crisis-sensitive education planning
• Supporting training centres
• Support for basic education quality management
• Gender at the Centre
• Teacher careers
• Geospatial data
• Cities and Education 2030
• Learning assessment data
• Governance and quality assurance
• School grants
• Early childhood education
• Flexible learning pathways in higher education
• Instructional leaders
• Planning for teachers in times of crisis and displacement
• Planning to fulfil the right to education
• Thematic resource portals
• Policy Fora
• Network of Education Policy Specialists in Latin America
• Publications
• Briefs, Papers, Tools
• Search the collection
• Visitors information
• Planipolis (Education plans and policies)
• IIEP Learning Portal
• Ethics and corruption ETICO Platform
• PEFOP (Vocational Training in Africa)
• SITEAL (Latin America)
• Policy toolbox
• Education for safety, resilience and social cohesion
• Health and Education Resource Centre
• Interactive Map
• Search deploy
• The institute

Defining and measuring the quality of education

Strategic_seminar1.jpg.

What is the quality of education? What are the most important aspects of quality and how can they be measured?

These questions have been raised for a long time and are still widely debated. The current understanding of education quality has considerably benefitted from the conceptual work undertaken through national and international initiatives to assess learning achievement. These provide valuable feedback to policy-makers on the competencies mastered by pupils and youths, and the factors which explain these. But there is also a growing awareness of the importance of values and behaviours, although these are more difficult to measure.  

To address these concerns, IIEP organized (on 15 December 2011) a Strategic Debate on “Defining and measuring the quality of education: Is there an emerging consensus?” The topic was approached from the point of view of two cross-national surveys: the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ)*.

Assessing the creativity of students

“Students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and apply this creatively in novel situations is more important than what the students know”, said Andreas Schleicher, Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division at the Directorate for Education, OECD, and in charge of PISA. This concept is reflected in current developments taking place in workplaces in many countries, which increasingly require non-routine interactive skills. When comparing the results obtained in different countries, PISA’s experience has shown that “education systems can creatively combine the equity and quality agenda in education”, Schleicher said. Contrary to conventional wisdom, countries can be both high-average performers in PISA while demonstrating low individual and institutional variance in students’ achievement. Finally, Schleicher emphasized that investment in education is not the only determining factor for quality, since good and consistent implementation of educational policy is also very important.

The importance of cross-national cooperation

When reviewing the experience of SACMEQ, Mioko Saito, Head a.i of the IIEP Equity, Access and Quality Unit (technically supporting the SACMEQ implementation in collaboration with SACMEQ Coordinating Centre), explained how the notion of educational quality has significantly evolved in the southern and eastern African region and became a priority over the past decades. Since 1995, SACMEQ has, on a regular basis, initiated cross-national assessments on the quality of education, and each member country has benefited considerably from this cooperation. It helped them embracing new assessment areas (such as HIV and AIDS knowledge) and units of analysis (teachers, as well as pupils) to produce evidence on what pupils and teachers know and master, said Saito. She concluded by stressing that SACMEQ also has a major capacity development mission and is concerned with having research results bear on policy decisions.  

The debate following the presentations focused on the crucial role of the media in stimulating public debate on the results of cross-national tests such as PISA and SACMEQ. It was also emphasized that more collaboration among the different cross-national mechanisms for the assessment of learner achievement would be beneficial. If more items were shared among the networks, more light could be shed on the international comparability of educational outcomes.

* PISA assesses the acquisition of key competencies for adult life of 15-year-olds in mathematics, reading, and science in OECD countries. SACMEQ focuses on achievements of Grade 6 pupils. Created in 1995, SACMEQ is a network of 15 southern and eastern African ministries of education: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (Mainland), Tanzania (Zanzibar), Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

• Quality education: Reflecting on six years of sustainable transformation of professional practices 15 May 2024
• Customized training to strengthen educational planning and management in Pakistan 06 May 2024
• IIEP holds first Education Leadership Seminar on implementation and leading change 02 May 2024
• PISA Website
• Andreas Schleicher's presentation pdf, 2.3 Mo
• Mioko Saito's presentation pdf, 1.6 Mo

• Privacy Notice

Quality Cultures in Higher Education Institutions—Development of the Quality Culture Inventory

• Open Access
• First Online: 01 August 2018

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Christine Sattler 5 &
• Karlheinz Sonntag 5  

Part of the book series: Knowledge and Space ((KNAS,volume 12))

6 Citations

Quality assurance and quality management are central challenges in the governance of higher education institutions. In this context, the importance of promoting an institution-specific quality culture has drawn increasing attention. The concept of quality culture expands traditional approaches to quality assurance by focusing on aspects of organizational psychology, such as shared attitudes and commitment to quality. Despite growing discussion of quality culture, sound empirical approaches that capture this key construct have not been developed systematically. This chapter summarizes the theoretical background and selected results of the heiQUALITY Cultures project, which aimed at creating an empirical instrument that operationalizes quality culture within institutions of higher education. Extensive research resulted in the development of the Quality Culture Inventory (QCI), the first approach to allow institutions of higher education to assess their current state of quality culture empirically. The results of the QCI constitute a solid basis for reflecting on quality culture and developing focused measures for improving it.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Quality Assurance and Quality Culture at a Public Higher Education Institution: A View from Within

Evolution of quality culture in an HEI: critical insights from university staff in Bangladesh

From Central Regulation to Quality Culture

• quality culture
• quality management
• operationalization
• higher education

Theoretical Background

The implementation of quality tools and procedures of quality management represents one of the major challenges of today’s globally operating universities. Higher education institutions face an increasingly competitive environment, leading to elevated demands for quality in teaching and research as well as in service and administration . Quality assurance and quality development have therefore been central issues of policy discussions in higher education for many years now, especially since the beginning of the Bologna Process in 1999. The main objective of the Bologna Process is to create a European higher education area by improving mobility, instituting comparable university degrees and credit point systems , and developing comparable criteria and methods for quality assurance (Bologna Declaration, 1999 ). Framed in that context, the design and implementation of measures to ensure quality constitute key aspects of the Bologna Process.

Extensive debates on quality assurance have served as a starting point for introducing the concept of quality culture, which expands on classical approaches of quality assurance by drawing on organizational psychology , adding that field’s perspective to the structural-formal side of quality management . It is no longer only a question of assessing quality by means of hard facts, such as the number of publications or the amount of third-party funding, but also of discerning the extent to which quality is actually subscribed to and lived by members of a higher education institution. Whereas academics disagree on the comparability of quality criteria (e.g., bibliometric indicators), quality culture could well become a concept with which they can all identify, regardless of their discipline.

The quality culture approach is closely related to the well-known concept of organizational culture . According to Schein ( 2010 ), organizational culture comprises three distinct levels:

Artifacts: tangible elements of culture (e.g., furniture, dress code), which are visible to nonmembers of an organization

Espoused values of an organization (e.g., customer orientation)

Shared basic assumptions: unconscious beliefs that guide the behavior of organizational members and that are difficult to decipher

Schein’s conceptualization of organizational culture provides valuable information about different levels that need consideration when cultural aspects of an organization are being operationalized . To assess quality culture, it is essential not only to take account of visible quality artifacts within an organization (e.g., quality assessment tools) but also to analyze its quality values and shared basic assumptions (e.g., commitment) pertaining to quality . The quality culture approach thereby goes far beyond classic ranking procedures, which are limited primarily to the assessment of artifacts that distinguish quality.

The first comprehensive definition of quality culture relating to the construct of organizational culture was given by the European University Association ( 2006 ):

Quality culture refers to an organizational culture that intends to enhance quality permanently and is characterized by two distinct elements: on the one hand, a cultural/psychological element of shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitment towards quality and, on the other hand, a structural/managerial element with defined processes that enhance quality and aim at coordinating individual efforts. (p. 10)

In this definition quality culture consists of two distinct levels. First, it is objectively tangible in terms of the tools and procedures (artifacts) of quality management . Second, quality culture encompasses organizational-psychological aspects (e.g., espoused values, expectations, and commitment to quality, that is, shared basic assumptions), which are rather difficult to capture.

Despite the increasing number of qualitative research papers on quality culture (e.g., European University Association, 2005a , 2005b ; Loukkola & Zhang, 2010 ), empirical approaches operationalizing this phenomenon have not been developed sufficiently. This chapter summarizes selected results from the project entitled “ heiQUALITY Cultures ,” which aimed to create an empirical instrument for the organizational diagnosis of quality culture within the context of higher education (Sonntag, Stegmaier, & Schaper, 2016 ).

The heiQUALITY Cultures Project

The heiQUALITY Cultures Project (“Development and Testing of an Instrument for the Description and Assessment of Quality Cultures at Higher Education Institutions”) was carried out between April 2012 and May 2015. The foremost objectives of the research project were to:

develop a comprehensive definition and assessment model that considers structural-formal and organizational-psychological aspects of quality culture;

develop a Quality Culture Inventory (QCI) that enables higher education institutions to analyze their current state of quality culture autonomously and empirically;

analyze strengths and developmental potential of current quality cultures within the higher education context; and

derive target-oriented recommendations for quality development and improvement.

The following section offers a detailed overview of the methodology used in the heiQUALITY Cultures Project in order to achieve these objectives.

The heiQUALITY Cultures Project represents the first empirical approach operationalizing quality culture within the higher education context. Milestones of the project are presented in Figure 9.1 .

Milestones of the heiQUALITY Cultures Project. Source: Adapted from Sattler, Sonntag, and Götzen ( 2016 , p. 46).

In the first step a comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify previous qualitative and empirical studies focusing on quality culture and its operationalization . The literature review included one interdisciplinary and two disciplinary databases—with a focus on organizational psychology and other branches of that field—including publications up to December 2012. Strikingly, only 3 out of 786 publications focused on the operationalization of quality culture directly (Ali & Musah, 2012 ; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009 ; Zeitz, Johannesson, & Ritchie, 1997 ). These studies applied very heterogeneous methodological approaches, underscoring the relevance of our research objective of promoting additional empirical research in this field (for a detailed review of additional literature, see Sattler et al., 2016 ).

The literature review served as a sound basis for developing a previous assessment model of quality culture, which was subsequently challenged and discussed in 41 international expert interviews. In order to qualify for an expert interview , prospective partners had to meet at least one of the following criteria:

Practical experience working for an accredited quality assurance agency (e.g., evalag Footnote 1 )

Practical experience working for an independent organization of higher education (e.g., the European University Association , the European Students Union)

Practical experience concerning quality assurance, quality management , or both within higher education institutions (e.g., quality managers)

Research publications addressing quality culture within the context of higher education

Most of the interviews were face-to-face ( n = 35). For practical reasons (e.g., travel time) the remaining expert interviews ( n = 6) were conducted by telephone. Women accounted for 37% of the sample ( n = 15); international interview partners, for 17% ( n = 7). Almost all the interviews ( n = 40) were audiotaped and professionally transcribed for further systematic analyses. The interview length averaged 60 minutes, resulting in approximately 41 hours of material.

All interviews followed a semistructured guideline based on an approach that had been used in the “learning culture” project by Sonntag, Stegmaier, Schaper, and Friebe ( 2004 ) and Sonntag, Schaper, and Friebe ( 2005 ). Table 9.1 shows sample topics and corresponding questions of the interview guideline.

When asked to elaborate on relevant dimensions of quality culture, 39 experts (95.1%) referred to quality-oriented leadership and communication. More than 70% of the experts emphasized the importance of commitment , participation, and the development of quality objectives. Quality values, mutual trust, individual responsibility, recognition, and information ranked among the ten most frequently mentioned elements of quality culture, with an agreement rate of more than 65% (for details on additional results of the expert interviews, see Sattler et al., 2016 ).

Experts’ suggestions led to minor revisions in the initial model of quality culture, resulting in the final model for assessing quality culture (Fig. 9.2 ). According to this model, quality culture can be described on a structural-formal and an organizational-psychological level. The structural-formal level comprises normative , strategic, and operative elements, which represent heterogeneous aspects of quality assurance and quality management . In the model by Bleicher ( 2011 ), normative aspects of quality management are expressed by an organization’s quality goals, its mission statements, or both. Responsibilities for quality assurance are defined at the strategic level (e.g., a quality assurance unit). Specific quality tools and measures (e.g., student evaluation, controlling) are located at the operative level. It is assumed that all these structural-formal aspects are important in order to adopt approaches to quality assurance and quality management successfully.

Final model for assessing quality culture. Source: Adapted from Sattler et al. ( 2016 , p. 49).

The organizational-psychological level is made up of collective and individual elements. The individual level is characterized by commitment to, responsibility for, and engagement in quality . At the collective level it is hypothesized that trust and shared values function as a mutual basis for quality-oriented leadership, communication, and participation. The latter three elements are illustrated as an arrow, representing a dynamic connection between the structural-formal and individual levels. For example, participation in the development of quality assurance measures is likely to enhance individual commitment to these measures. The final model for assessing quality culture served as an empirical basis for the development of the QCI, which is presented in detail in the following section.

Operationalization of Quality Culture

The QCI consists of two questionnaires , one for the structural-formal level of quality culture; the other, for the organizational-psychological level. Both questionnaires are based on comprehensive literature reviews focusing on previous questionnaires that operationalized the proposed dimensions of quality culture.

Structural-Formal Questionnaire

The structural-formal questionnaire focuses on the operationalization of structural-formal aspects of quality culture. The questionnaire is used as a guideline for structured interviews with subject-matter experts on quality assurance within higher education institutions. Seventy-three items were constructed on the basis of a sound literature review focusing on normative, strategic, and operative aspects of quality assurance . The chief objective of the structural-formal questionnaire is to describe the status quo of quality assurance within higher education institutions. It covers six core areas: general information, institutional structures, teaching and learning, research, young scientists, and administration and service (see Table 9.2 ). The structural-formal survey was piloted and positively evaluated by four quality assurance experts within the higher education context.

Organizational-Psychological Questionnaire

Unlike the structural-formal questionnaire , the organizational-psychological questionnaire is addressed to all members of higher education institutions (HEI members): the university leaders, academic staff (professors, academic assistants ), and nonacademic staff (administrators, secretaries, and service personnel). The questionnaire contains a set of 53 items about various aspects of quality culture. The individual dimensions (commitment , engagement, and responsibility) are represented by 4 items each. So are participation, shared values, and trust, which represent collective elements of quality culture. Leadership is assessed by 12 items; communication, by 9. We also developed 8 items assessing “global aspects” of quality culture, which require the respondent to evaluate aspects of quality culture that pertain to the entire institution of higher education. Using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( does not apply at all ) to 6 ( fully applies ), respondents indicated their level of agreement with the statements about quality culture. Table 9.3 presents sample items of the organizational-psychological questionnaire.

To answer relevant scientific and practical questions related to the construct of quality culture, the survey additionally includes several demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender) along with potentially moderating and dependent variables (e.g., conscientiousness, satisfaction with quality culture). The online questionnaire contains 97 items (duration: approximately 15 minutes).

Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

The QCI was piloted and conducted at three institutions of higher education in Germany , each representing a different type: (a) universities, (b) universities of applied sciences , and (c) cooperative or dual universities . Footnote 2 These higher education institutions differ considerably, with their educational tasks allowing for differentiated analyses of institution-specific quality cultures.

Participants were contacted via email distribution lists. In the first step the QCI was administered to participants in a pilot sample ( N = 93 HEI members) and slightly modified after evaluation. The main investigation was completed by 789 HEI members (see Table 9.4 ).

As expected, academic staff represented the largest participating target group (17.5% professors, 36.6% academic assistants ), followed by administrators (20.5%), service personnel (14.3%), and secretaries (10.6%). The sample was characterized by a significantly higher share of female participants (59.4%; χ 2 (1, N = 727) = 25.817, p < .001) than male. In total, 37.1% of the respondents held a temporary employment contract. The duration of employment varied from less than one year (5.8%) to 1−4 years (26.8%), 5−9 years (27.8%), 10−19 years (23.1%), and more than 20 years (16.4%), representing heterogeneous knowledge and experience with the quality culture of the participating institutions.

Selected Results: Evaluation Options

Data from the organizational-psychological survey offer the opportunity to create differentiated profiles of individual (e.g., commitment , engagement) and collective (e.g., leadership, communication) elements of quality culture. These profiles of quality culture allow for institution-specific analyses of strengths and developmental potentials. Figure 9.3 illustrates the profiles of quality culture in different departments within a higher education institution.

Example of quality culture profiles (* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001). Source: Design by authors.

In this example profiles of quality culture differed significantly from one department to the next. Whereas department B reported the highest level of participation, it scored lowest in quality-oriented leader behavior and leader expectations. These results indicate that heterogeneous characteristics of quality culture may exist even within one institution. Creating awareness about the existence of such differences may lead to the development of department-specific interventions addressing heterogeneous developmental needs and potential. In our example the quality culture of department B is likely to benefit from leadership-oriented interventions, whereas interventions focusing on participation may be more beneficial within departments A and C.

Another interesting option of evaluation is to find out the extent to which our groups differed in their scores on individual items (e.g., commitment). Figure 9.4 shows a sample analysis of an item operationalizing quality commitment .

Quality Commitment : Group Comparison. Level of high (green), middle (yellow), and low (red) agreement, whereby χ 2 (4) = 26.591, p < .001. Source: Design by authors.

The comparison between professors , academic assistants , and administrators shows significant differences between their levels of agreement. Whereas professors and administrators indicated a similarly high level of agreement, academic assistants were more likely to show an intermediate level of agreement. This result may be due to a relatively high share of temporary employment contracts across the members of this staff group (66.5%).

Whereas the level of commitment to quality tended to be very high among all HEI members, the rates of agreement with statements assessing the overall quality of an institution’s culture (“global aspects”) turned out to be considerably lower (see Fig. 9.5 ). Again, academic assistants showed significantly lower levels of agreement than did the other two groups.

Global aspects of quality culture. Level of high (green), middle (yellow), and low (red) agreement, whereby χ 2 (4) = 12.706, p < .05. Source: Design by authors.

Data of the organizational-psychological questionnaire may be used for various further analyses, too. Demographic characteristics allow for the creation of differentiated profiles of quality culture for gender, age, or duration of affiliation, for instance. The questionnaire also provides valuable information about the level of satisfaction with quality culture. These results serve as an empirical foundation on which to base target-oriented recommendations for improving quality.

The structural-formal questionnaire of the quality culture inventory allows for a systematic assessment of quality-oriented structures within an institution of higher education. The questionnaire differentiates between core areas of these institutions: the institutional level, teaching and learning, research, young scientists, and administration and service. It contains items about the definition of competencies and quality goals, for instance. The questionnaire also assesses the existence of quality assurance concepts and quality control loops. As with the organizational-psychological questionnaire, results of the structural-formal questionnaire make it possible to create structural-formal profiles for specific institutions (see Fig. 9.6 ).

Example of structural-formal profiles. Source: Design by authors. Note . QA = Quality Assurance.

In this example competencies in assuring quality are defined at almost all levels of the higher education institution. At the same time, information about quality assurance and for the definition of quality goals is available at almost all levels of the higher educational institution. Potential for structural-formal development can be identified for applying concepts of quality assurance and using quality-control loops. A regular evaluation of quality goals might represent a useful strategy for improvement at the structural-formal level.

Data of the structural-formal questionnaire may also be used for numerous other analyses. For example, the questionnaire gives a systematic overview of quality assurance measures that are applied within a higher education institution (see Table 9.5 ).

The questionnaire also allows for a differentiated insight into options that different status groups have to contribute to measures for developing quality. Furthermore, it is possible to assess quality-oriented communication structures. The results of the structural-formal questionnaire offer a sound foundation for analyses of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) followed by an optimization of structural-formal aspects of quality culture.

Discussion and Future Prospects

The QCI represents a sound, economic tool with which to describe the current state of quality culture within institutions of higher education. The results lay an empirical foundation for discussions about strengths, weaknesses, and potential measures for improving quality. So far, three institutions of higher education have taken part in the QCI, bringing about intense exploration of quality culture. Within a relatively short time, the instrument has generated valuable data on this subject, contributing to a focused discourse about enhancing quality at the participating institutions. Using the QCI requires the openness of all participants and the willingness to debate controversially, but fairly, about the institution’s quality culture. It is therefore critically important to promote acceptance of the QCI by addressing both the institution’s leaders and staff before administering the questionnaire. The leaders need to be convinced of the great gains possible through the QCI , and it is essential that staff members know their answers will be taken seriously and can make a difference. Fortunately, the motivation to meet both of these requisites can grow from the distinctly practical benefits that the QCI offers. It facilitates the analysis of the status quo of quality culture and quality-oriented leadership as well as the analysis of strengths and weaknesses of quality culture profiles. It can effectively guide the formulation of recommendations for quality improvement and can thereby shape quality assurance and quality development .

None of these advantages will come of their own, however. Continued effort is needed to reap them. The number of higher education institutions included in future studies of the kind presented in this chapter must increase if the QCI is to provide a valid benchmarking option. Moreover, the QCI needs to be professionally translated into English in order to broaden the range of international institutions of higher education and for-profit organizations that assessments of quality culture can reach. Lastly, longitudinal investigations are desirable in order to identify antecedents and consequences of quality culture. With this clear agenda for further conceptual and empirical work on the QCI, the prospects for this instrument’s future—and that of the people and institutions it may serve—look dynamic indeed.

Evaluationsagentur Baden-Württemberg .

Dual universities offer students the opportunity to combine their academic studies with professional work (dual studies).

Ali, H. M., & Musah, M. B. (2012). Investigation of Malaysian higher education quality culture and workforce performance. Quality Assurance in Education, 20, 289−309. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240330

Article   Google Scholar  

Bleicher, K. (2011). Das Konzept Integriertes Management. Visionen—Missionen—Programme [Integrated management: Visions—Missions—Programs]. Campus: Frankfurt.

Google Scholar  

Bologna Declaration. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/OFFDOC_BP_bologna_declaration.1068714825768.pdf

Brodbeck, F. C., Anderson, N., & West, M. (2000). TKI: Teamklima-Inventar [Team climate inventory]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

European University Association (2005a). Developing an internal quality culture in European universities: Report on the quality culture project, 2002−2003 . Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/QC1_full.1111487662479.pdf

European University Association (2005b). Developing an internal quality culture in European universities: Report on the quality culture project, Round II—2004. Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/QCII%20Report%2030.03.05.1115967574238 .pdf

European University Association. (2006). Quality culture in European universities: A bottom-up approach: Report on the three rounds of the quality culture project 2002–2006 . Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Quality_Culture_2002_2003.1150459570109 .pdf

Heinitz, K., & Rowold, J. (2007). Gütekriterien einer deutschen Adaptation des Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) von Podsakoff [Psychometric properties of a German adaption of the Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) by Podsakoff]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O , 51, 1−15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.51.1.1

Jackson, P. R. (2004). Employee commitment to quality: Its conceptualisation and measurement. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 21 , 714−730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710410549073

Loukkola, T, & Zhang, T. (2010). Examining quality culture: Part 1—Quality assurance processes in higher education institutions . Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from http://aic.lv/bolona/2010/Reports/Examining%20Quality%20Culture%20Part%201.pdf

Sattler, C., Sonntag, K., & Götzen, K. (2016). The Quality Culture Inventory (QCI)—An instrument assessing quality-related aspects of work. In B. Deml, P. Stock, R. Bruder, & C. M. Schlick (Eds.), Advances in ergonomic design of systems, products, and processes (pp. 43−56). Heidelberg: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sonntag, K., Schaper, N., & Friebe, J. (2005). Erfassung und Bewertung von Merkmalen unternehmensbezogener Lernkulturen [Assessment of organizational learning cultures]. In Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung e.V./Projekt Qualifikations-Entwicklungsmanagement (Eds.), Kompetenzmessung im Unternehmen: Lernkultur- und Kompetenzanalysen im betrieblichen Umfeld (pp. 19−340). Münster: Waxmann.

Sonntag, K., Stegmaier, R., & Schaper, N. (2016). Organisationsdiagnose: Strukturale und kulturelle Merkmale [Diagnosis of organizations: Structural and cultural features]. In K. Sonntag (Ed.), Personalentwicklung in Organisationen: Psychologische Grundlagen, Methoden und Strategien (pp. 255−294). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Sonntag, K., Stegmaier, R., Schaper, N., & Friebe, J. (2004). Dem Lernen im Unternehmen auf der Spur: Operationalisierung von Lernkultur [Learning in organizations: Operationalizing learning culture]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32, 104−127. Retrieved from http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=5809

Staufenbiel, T., & Hartz, C. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messinstruments [Organizational citizenship behavior: Development and validation of a measurement instrument]. Diagnostica, 46 , 73−83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.46.2.73

Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organisational culture, job satisfaction and higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. The TQM Journal, 21 , 382−399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910965083

Zeitz, G., Johannesson, R., & Ritchie, J. E. (1997). An employee survey measuring total quality management practices and culture: Development and validation. Group and Organization Management, 22 , 414−444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601197224002

Download references

Acknowledgments

The heiQUALITY Cultures Project was funded by the Innovation and Quality Fund of the Ministry of Sciences, Research, and Arts, Baden Württemberg, Germany (Innovations- und Qualitätsfonds (IQF) des Ministeriums für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst, Baden-Württemberg, Deutschland). Term: 04/2012−05/2015.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Christine Sattler & Karlheinz Sonntag

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Sattler .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Geography, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Peter Meusburger

School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Michael Heffernan

Laura Suarsana

Rights and permissions

<SimplePara><Emphasis Type="Bold">Open Access</Emphasis> This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.</SimplePara> <SimplePara>The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.</SimplePara>

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Sattler, C., Sonntag, K. (2018). Quality Cultures in Higher Education Institutions—Development of the Quality Culture Inventory. In: Meusburger, P., Heffernan, M., Suarsana, L. (eds) Geographies of the University. Knowledge and Space, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75593-9_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75593-9_9

Published : 01 August 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-75592-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-75593-9

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What Is Web Governance On Higher Education Websites And How To Implement It

Sign up for our newsletter

Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:00 AM

How a higher-ed institution's website is managed can significantly impact its ability to engage students, faculty, and alumni.

In a recent webinar, Hannon Hill 's CEO Kat Liendgens and Georgy Cohen , Director of Digital Strategy at OHO Interactive , examined the importance of web governance in higher education and how the concept can empower institutions to better manage their digital presence.

Watch The Webinar Today

What is web governance

Web governance encompasses the systems, processes, and policies that manage and maintain an organization's digital presence in an orderly and purposeful manner.

"Governance creates an insurance policy for the investment you've made in your digital platform, providing structure and accountability toward the achievement of your communication goals." - Georgy Cohen

It involves establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and procedures to guide digital initiatives.

This framework ensures that activities on digital platforms such as websites align with the organization's communication goals and overall strategy.

By setting governance structures, organizations can create accountability, enhance efficiency, and optimize the use of resources across their digital landscapes.

Through web governance, organizations aim to prevent chaotic digital practices by regulating content creation, access permissions, and the deployment of digital projects, ensuring that each element supports the strategic objectives and effectively engages the intended audience.

Web governance in higher education

Web governance on higher-ed websites is crucial to ensuring that an institution's digital presence aligns seamlessly with its organizational goals and user expectations.

Traditional practices, where "this is the way we've always done things," often clash with modern needs for agility and user-centered design.

Many higher education institutions grapple with legacy platforms and outdated processes that have been in place since their websites were first launched, sometimes as far back as the 1990s.

These entrenched practices can create significant challenges in adapting to current digital standards.

“Web governance isn't just about setting limits and restricting abilities and access. It's also about educating and empowering your content creators." - Kat Liendgens

Elements of web governance

Understanding the key elements of web governance can greatly assist organizations in making informed decisions about their digital strategy.

Governance Models

The governance model determines how a website is managed, ranging from centralized to decentralized models.

Centralized models involve a specific team managing all aspects of the website, ensuring uniformity across digital outputs.

Decentralized models distribute responsibilities across departments, promoting specialized content but requiring careful coordination to maintain coherence.

Hybrid approaches mix both, with some aspects managed centrally and others distributed.

Success in any model requires appropriate resources, support systems, and a strong connection to the overall brand.

Authoritative and Core Content

Determining the hierarchy of content based on business importance is crucial.

Authoritative content like tuition fees and program descriptions must be centrally managed due to its critical nature, ensuring accuracy and quality.

Core content, such as admissions, may be managed by specific departments but follows organizational guidelines.

Non-core content, such as parking services, requires less oversight but still needs basic support to meet general standards.

This strategic categorization helps maintain a balanced and effectively managed website that aligns with organizational objectives and user needs.

Web governance through the CMS

Cascade CMS plays a crucial role in implementing web governance by offering tools that:

• Automate Compliance : Ensuring accessibility standards are met and SEO best practices are followed.
• Manage User Permissions : Tailoring access based on user roles to safeguard the integrity of the website.
• Enhance Content Management : Utilizing templates and structured workflows to streamline content creation and maintenance.

CMS Features to Reinforce Web Governance

The following include some of the features within Cascade CMS that reinforce web governance:

• Role-Based Access Control : Limiting editing capabilities to authorized users to prevent unauthorized changes.
• Workflow Management : Automating the review and approval process to ensure content meets established criteria before publication.
• Content Scheduling and Archiving : Allowing for the timely publication of content and the removal or archiving of outdated material.

Roles and responsibilities

In web governance, defining roles and responsibilities is critical to ensure efficient website management and maintain high standards of content quality.

Below is a streamlined approach to understanding roles within web governance:

• Role Definition : Different users may occupy similar roles, such as editors or publishers, but it's crucial to manage these roles effectively, often grouping them to streamline management. For instance, roles can be specific to certain sections of a site, ensuring that editors only have access to relevant areas.
• Online and Offline Roles : Responsibilities extend beyond just online actions like editing or publishing; they include offline duties such as legal approvals or content reviews. Consider both aspects when defining roles to cover all governance bases.
• Customization of Roles : Default roles provided by platforms like CMSs may not fit all organizational needs, especially in varied settings like small centers or large universities. Customize roles to reflect internal terminologies and responsibilities that make sense to your team members.
• Accountability and Ownership : Clearly defined responsibilities, not just role titles, are necessary. Specify the scope of influence and expectations for each role, ensuring that these are part of formal job descriptions. Assign clear content ownership to enhance accountability and keep contributors invested.
• Task Management and User Training : Use features like task managers to assign and track responsibilities. Continuous training in web writing, SEO, and accessibility is crucial to empowering users and improving their proficiency in managing web content effectively.

By clearly defining and managing roles and responsibilities, organizations can create a structured environment that supports effective web governance, leading to a more coherent and user-focused digital presence.

Publishing workflow

The publishing workflow is a structured process that guides content creation, review, approval, and management.

Here's how this process typically unfolds:

• Content Creation : This is where it all starts. Content creators develop the initial drafts that form the base of web content.
• Review and Approval : Content must undergo rigorous checks for accuracy, relevance, and brand alignment by designated reviewers or overseers.
• Publishing : Once approved, content is published. Remember: publishing is not the end but the beginning of the content lifecycle.
• Monitoring and Auditing : Post-publication, the content's performance is tracked using tools like Google Analytics. Insights gained from this data inform future content strategies.
• Continuous Audit and Update : Regular audits ensure content remains accurate and relevant. Schedule reviews of important pages to maintain content quality and relevance.

This structured approach helps ensure that content aligns with strategic goals, maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the website.

Content quality assurance

Ensuring high content quality is a pivotal component of web governance.

Here are key strategies to maintain and enhance content standards:

• Automated Tools : Utilize CMS-integrated tools or third-party applications to monitor issues like broken links, spelling errors, SEO, and accessibility. These tools help maintain baseline quality and identify areas for improvement.
• Ongoing Content Audits : Schedule regular audits to ensure content remains current and aligned with brand and user needs.
• Preventive Measures : Before publishing, leverage CMS features to check for common errors that could impact user experience and SEO. This proactive approach helps avoid future corrections and maintains content integrity.
• User Education and Empowerment : Continually educate contributors on best practices in content creation. Tools like readability checkers and SEO tips can guide users to produce better-quality content autonomously.

Kat Liendgens emphasizes the importance of actionable feedback in quality assurance, stating,

"You always want to show your users action items. You don't ever want to overwhelm your users with reports that point out issues they can't do anything about. We call this technical terror, and we want to avoid that to encourage buy-in to your web governance strategy."

This approach ensures that contributors understand the issues and are equipped to address them effectively.

Training, guidelines and community

Effective web governance relies heavily on comprehensive training, clear guidelines, and a supportive community.

These elements are critical to ensuring that all team members understand and can effectively contribute to the organization's web initiatives, regardless of their role.

• Training is essential for all governance models but particularly crucial in decentralized settings. Training should be regular, accessible, and mandatory and cover CMS usage and brand expression, accessibility, AI, and web content best practices.

Georgy Cohen emphasizes the importance of training being a cultural expectation:

"Training should really be a cultural function and expectation around the web, regardless of the size of your team."

• Guidelines : Develop and maintain a variety of guidelines, such as brand guidelines, web writing best practices, voice and tone guidelines, and editorial criteria. These documents help standardize practices across the organization and clarify decision-making processes for content.
• Community : Foster an internal content community to provide peer support and share best practices. This community can serve as a platform for celebrating successes, disseminating updates, and soliciting feedback on upcoming changes.

By integrating training, guidelines, and community into web governance, organizations can enhance the effectiveness and cohesion of their web operations, leading to a more robust and aligned digital presence.

Next steps / Action Items

If you're looking to bolster your web governance or unsure where to begin, here are practical steps to get started:

• Start Small : Focus on one aspect at a time—whether it's enhancing training programs, refining homepage editorial criteria, or utilizing untapped CMS features. This approach prevents overwhelm and ensures progress.
• Document and Inventory : Begin by documenting your web content request workflow and how access to the CMS is granted. Inventory all existing training materials, documentation, and website-related policies. This 'intake phase' helps establish a baseline understanding of your current governance structure.
• Identify Gaps and Liabilities : Within a few weeks, identify gaps or liabilities in core content ownership. Conduct surveys with content editors to pinpoint their challenges and pain points.
• Engage Leadership : Share reports, data, and concepts to start discussions about governance with leadership. This engagement is crucial for gaining support for upcoming changes.
• Conduct Audits and Analyses : Perform content audits to assess quality and consistency across your digital presence. Use the findings to propose targeted governance improvements and optimize content workflows.

Georgy Cohen emphasizes the importance of taking the initiative:

"You can't boil the ocean. You just gotta pick one corner and start there."

As you've learned, effective web governance is crucial for the success of higher education institutions in the digital age.

By establishing clear rules, roles, and processes through tools like Cascade CMS, institutions can ensure their websites are compliant and compelling and effective communication tools.

To discover how Cascade CMS can elevate your institution's web governance, fill out the form below to learn more and watch the webinar today.

Chris Rapozo Marketing Specialist