1. HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY-BUILDING IN THE KURDISTAN REGION OF IRAQ: PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATIVES Namam Palander Master of Arts Sociology in Education Comparative, International and Development Education

2. IRAQ’S EDUCATION SYSTEM DURING SADDAM’S REGIME IRAQ’S EDUCATION SYSTEM AFTER SADDAM’S REGIME 1.In the 1970s to early 1980s: Iraq’s education system was recognized as one of the best in the Middle East 2.In the 1980s to late 1990s: Iraq’s education was devastated by different wars 3.Saddam enforced one-single curricular system with little transparency, democracy or accountability 1.Forced students and academics to follow his political ideology, philosophy and leadership  Many professors fled the country in the 1990s 1.After the US-led coalition in 2003, Iraq was transformed into a unified federal democracy that is market oriented 2.Democratic process began in 2005  a positive period in Kurdistan Region 1.Kurdistan has successfully created its own autonomous regional government (KRG)  building the foundation for economic growth, infrastructure, governance & private sector 2. A new Higher Education policy was developed in 2010 and was implemented in 2011

4. Research Goal Examining the perceptions and operational assumptions of university representatives with regard to the new higher education policy-making in Kurdistan. It explores the policy’s first priority, the aim to bridge the gap between quality and quantity in higher education This will help identify what type of quality culture in higher education is being encouraged and if it will enable higher education to serve as a bridge for Kurdistan to the global knowledge economy

5. Reforming Teaching to Ensure Quality Source: MoHESR-KRG, 2010

6. Sub-Questions 1.How was the quality of higher education during Saddam Hussein’s regime? How different is it now? 2.How is the new quality culture promoted within institutions of higher education? What are the main elements of such a culture? 3.How do university representatives react to the new quality policy that aims to reform teaching to achieve quality through quality assurance? Do they adopt, resist or make and shape this quality policy and these quality initiatives?

7. Methodology Fieldwork was conducted in one of the universities in the Kurdistan Region (UKR) from April to June 2012 UKR: the first university to implement the quality assurance procedures This is a mixed-methods case study

8. Methods 1.First interview  The Director of Quality Assurance from the Ministry of HE 2.Second set of interviews  Nine university representatives selected from UKR 3.Survey  Administrated to a random sample of 305 faculty members that faithfully reflected those in the whole population of 1460, within a 30% range

9. Findings: Director of QA QA initiatives are implemented in order to end conventional teaching methods, update resources & meet the demands of the market economy The Ministry faced many challenges and criticisms from the university representatives about the program Director views quality in terms of excellence, achieving high academic standards, value for money, judged against return on investment, and as a transformation process

10. Findings: Interview and Survey perceptions of university representatives on quality teaching QuestionInterviewSurvey Quality of education during Saddam  Infrastructure and academic life devastated by wars  Many fled the country in 1990s, but returned after the changes  Majority support changes  believe in developing quality in HE in order to accommodate to the world changes in science & market demands  70% of participants began teaching after 2003  Quality of Education before 2003: 30% said it was above average & 39% said it was average  After 2003: 31% said it is above average & 34% said it is average

11. Question InterviewSurvey Support of quality policy and the initiatives  Support QA procedures, but less supportive of the management structure and process, arguing that it is centralized  54% support new quality culture  18% support the implementation and management process Findings: Interview and Survey perceptions of university representatives on quality teaching

12. QuestionInterviewSurvey Focus of the quality teaching: Economic integration vs. political and cultural cohesion?  QA is more concerned with economic integration  The process is created only to serve the market needs  Believe reforms on teaching that are imposed on the basis of external demands do not reflect the cultural and historical context of UKR  Different than interview result, as 44% believe that quality teaching focuses on economic integration and political cohesion Findings: Interview and Survey perceptions of university representatives on quality teaching

13. QuestionInterviewSurvey If QA standards are addressing the recurring issues in HE such as teaching, curriculum, institutional autonomy, academic freedom, etc.?  More concentrated on teaching and curriculum  Region has not reached the level of modernization and progress founded in Western countries  57% selected teaching and 50% selected curriculum Findings: Interview and Survey perceptions of university representatives on quality teaching

14. QuestionInterviewSurvey Issues with QA Evaluation tools: student feedback, external evaluators, continuing education, peer- review, teacher’s portfolio, self- assessment  Majority are for all except strongly opposing student feedback, external assessors & peer-review Parallel findings as the interview results:  44% agreed to self- assessment  32% supported student feedback  22% supported peer-review  34% supported external assessors  43% favoured continuing education Findings: Interview and Survey perceptions of university representatives on quality teaching

15. QuestionInterviewSurvey Curriculum Development: more focused on teaching or research? Have you received professional development training? Has it shifted your traditional teaching methods?  More focused on teaching  Few received teacher training, thus traditional teaching methods were not shifted  34% selected teaching as the main focus of the new curriculum  47% said it concentrates on teaching & research  59% received training Findings: Interview and Survey perceptions of university representatives on quality teaching

16. Would institutional autonomy maintain good quality education?  Institutional autonomy should be established immediately since the Ministry takes long time to review their comments and suggestions  No faculty autonomy in program planning  78% said yes  60.1% faculty or department are not autonomous in their program planning

17. Discussion: Conceptual Framework What does quality education means to university representatives? –Newton’s (2007) formal meanings of ‘quality’ in the early 1990s to situated perceptions of ‘quality’ of front- line academics in 2012

18. Used Harvey and Stensaker’s (2008) Weberian ideal- types of quality culture to understand the reality of quality culture for faculty members and the Ministry of HE Model’s two dimensions: if individual behaviour is group-controlled or if it is prescribed by external rules and regulations Weberian ideal-types of quality culture: responsive, reactive, regenerative and reproductive modes Discussion: Conceptual Framework

19. The Ministry of HE: Regenerative Mode Quality culture is internally established Created its own internal regeneration process Accountability Offer different learning opportunities Different methods of evaluation

20. Faculty Members: Reactive Mode Lack of involvement with the external demands Hesitant to accept most forms of quality evaluation Favour opportunities where action is connected to reward Quality culture is externally constructed, directed and imposed The Ministry has complete ownership

21. Conclusion Majority of the university representatives support the new quality policy but oppose the management process Rigid centralization with some political interference are identified as central issues embedded in the management process

22. Major Changes Needed Policy framework: state centric or neoliberal model? –New policy: a mix of neoliberal and neoconservative principles Lack of clear definition of “quality”