Quality – a virtuous project? Ronald Barnett Institute of Education, University of London Presentation to Krakow Forum, 20 February, 2004

A story to start with ‘ The progression of my thesis was followed with much care … Nevertheless, I often got the impression that the technical-rational side of the doctoral studies could get into the way, tainting the intellectual pleasure and enthusiasm … Although I … understood the value of supervisory logs, their presence never stopped me feeling uneasy while they were being compiled. I had the impression that they were mainly bureaucratic tools that were there to ‘ record ’ my progress for audit exercises rather than for my own benefit. ’ Roberto Di Napoli, Learning Matters, Dec.2003

The issue Is the quality debate just a procedural matter – just a matter of the determination of a set of procedures – or is there here a set of substantive issues? - a set of substantive issues, that is to say, help to move matters forward? ie, is there a progressive agenda here?

Matters for regret – the case for the prosecution Quality procedures have impinged unduly in academic life The performance indicators lack validity The procedures themselves are unreliable - eg, they lack academic substance; numerical scores lead to different features being assimilated in ‘ total ’ scores The procedures are unduly expensive The outcomes are uninformative There is no obvious improvement in quality The policy framework is thin.

The case for the defence Accountability Transparency Comparative judgements Improved public understandings Enhanced academic quality procedures

Further counters from the prosecution ‘ Excellence ’ is an empty concept Quality assurance has become ‘ performative ’ in character Academic identity itself has been distorted Academic life itself is distorted Judgement: –The quality movement stands condemned, even if there are some mitigating circumstances (eg, the academic community never did quality seriously.)

Quality as Ideology A project with its own agenda Gain momentum from dominant interests Journals/ associations/ units/ senior appointments/ national bodies/ a procedural literature. A discourse that forbids critique (who could not be for ‘ quality ’ ?) Procedures that demand compliance Surplus commitment

Legitimation crisis The quality project is devoid of a legitimation; it lacks legitimacy Part of that lack lies in the ‘ mystification ’ that surrounds Q – and this mystification is part of the ideology And part of that lack, too, lies in the apparent difficulty of legitimising quality Just how might quality be legitimised?

Beguiling options Switch from external assessment to internal assessment (+ transparency) Switch from quality inspections to quality audit Switch from numerical indicators to profiles - All these have right on their side but, still, the systems would lack legitimacy.

A missing story What is it all about? Why the concern with quality? It is a set of external agendas (the state; the consumer; the customer) that seek, through Q, to reposition higher education. As such, the conceptual thinness that attaches to ‘ quality ’ is of its essence.

Where’s the interest in quality? Where ’ s the conceptual interest? What are the values implicit in ‘ quality ’ ? Can we legitimately inject hopes for higher education? Can we bring to bear ideas and even ideals of higher education?

Quality: a virtuous project To say of quality that it is an ideology is to be pejorative about it It is to say that ‘ quality ’ is pernicious Can we find ways of turning quality as a pernicious ideology into quality as a virtuous ideology (even an idealogy)? Can ideological circles be squared?

From assurance to enhancement? From accountability to collective self- improvement The development of a professionalism in relation to teaching A discourse of improvement/ of moving forward/ of student development (moves uneasily between a market discourse and a therapeutic discourse)

Practical matters Can single systems/ agencies fulfil both roles? How do we now persuade colleagues to invest of themselves in quality enhancement? (Academics are rather busy – with research and income generation.) How is quality enhancement to be funded? (who is going to write for the L&T magazine, how will it be funded, and do we recognize such effort in eg, professorial promotions?)

Missing dimensions (1) Care – about students Empathy Feedback to students – but what words might one use? Engagement Developing a ‘ learning community ’ – we give of ourselves ie, ontological and communicative dimensions Being ‘ inspirational ’ A language of delight/ joy/ and even love.

Mission dimensions (2) Skill Craft – a praxis of quality Personal investment How much time should one devote to commenting on an essay? Does one have a responsibility to advise on matters of ‘ academic literacy ’ ? Responsibility Care again.

The legitimation of quality So we search, if at all, for a legitimation of quality through the human qualities present in academic activities when they are ‘ excellent ’ Qualities of practice, of communication, of human becoming. None of this can be brought about by systems (remember our opening quotation) It can only be brought about by human beings, and exemplify these excellences in their own academic lives; and by associated forms of academic leadership.

Conclusion: ‘Quality is a Philosophical Concept’ (Diana Green, What is Quality in Higher Education?) In ‘ quality ’ can stand hopes of higher education, of its possibilities, of its value to human beings; –and hopes of academic collegiality; But not just ‘ hope ’ but a vibrant and never- ending project It requires vigilant and resilient leadership: who would be a PVC for quality matters?