1. Exploring how Academics Perceive the Impact of Quality Audit on their Work MING CHENG PhD student University of Bristol England

2. Objective of my research To explore how academics in England perceive impact and effect of quality audit on their work (workload, UG classroom teaching practice, power relation between academics and students, curriculum)

3. Research questions What perceived impact have external quality assurance mechanisms (QAA, external examining, PSRBs, 2005 NSS) had on the work of academics? What perceived impact have internal quality assurance mechanisms (peer observation, student course evaluation, APR, ASNRPU) within institutions had on the work of academics?

4. Research methods Case study of a research-intensive pre- 1992 university in England 1. 64 semi-structured interviews with academics, 7 subjects, rank, position, and gender 2. 30 interviews via emails 3. Documents, meeting minutes 4. Data analysis: Nvivo software and content analysis

5. Theoretical framework Audit is an idea, control of control, and impression management (Power, 1994, 1999) Audit is a culture of control. It embodies a new rationality and morality and is designed to engender among academics new norms of conduct and professional behaviour (Strathern, 2000)

6. Literature review Increased workload, distrust of academics, lack of improvement in quality of teaching and learning (Goslingi & D’Andrea, 2001; Harvey, 2005; Kogan et al., 2000; Morley, 2003; Newton, 2000, 2002; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003; Trow, 1994, etc)

7. Theme 1. increased workload of academics 65% respondents: workload is heavy, quality audit is one factor but not the main one to it.

8. Factors to heavy workload Administrative burdens and bureaucracy of quality audit contribute to the increased workload Among the academics without administrative jobs, some felt their teaching and research workload was very high. One prevalent view among respondents is that they have a heavy teaching load which has put off their research or admin.

9. Theme 2. Improved undergraduate classroom teaching practice? 53% respondents: cynical about quality audit, little impact on teaching 40% respondents: quality audit useful in raising importance of teaching in this research – intensive university, changed some teaching practice 6 % respondents: neutral to quality audit 1 % respondents: no comments

10. Theme 2.1. Perceived changed undergraduate teaching practice supporting and developing notions of good teaching among academics helping to get rid of bad teaching practice increasing reflection on the teaching practice diversifying teaching style

11. Theme 2.2. Perceived impact of the individual quality assurance on teaching The external quality assurance mechanisms hardly affected teaching The student course evaluation is more likely to reveal the teaching inadequacy than the peer observation, because peer observation is relative complimentary

12. Theme 3. Curriculum affected by quality audit? Except for the PSRBs which controls and validates the curricula, the other quality assurance mechanisms have had little impact on the curricula. The perceived impact of the PSRBs on the curricula varies with the subjects.

13. Theme 4. New power relation between academics and students? Two third respondents: academics still have power over students in spite of all the evaluation processes, but academics have become more responsive to needs of students. One third respondents: power relation between academics and students will be changed towards becoming more equal in the future.

14. Various attitudes towards potentially changed power relations Weeding out some bad teaching practice, because students want more clarity. Worry that students would become more demanding in terms of lectures, units, teaching styles, and pastoral care. Fear that academics will become secondary to students, because of high demand for accountability.

15. Conclusion 1 The quality audit is perceived to have changed the work of the academics interviewed in both positive and negative ways. Some respondents see the quality audit provide them new paradigms to think about and improve their work. The audit has engendered among them new norms of conduct and professional behaviour.

16. Conclusion 2 The quality audit is perceived to have contributed in some degree to the increase of academics workload, but little impact on the curricula. Worry that the quality audit might reverse the power relation between academics and students in the future.

17. The end Ming Cheng PhD student Thank You ! University of Bristol England