This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 09 November 2014, At: 18:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further andHigher EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

An Evaluation of EarlyDevelopments in HigherEducation QualityManagementLaurie Lomas aa Christ Church College , CanterburyPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Laurie Lomas (1996) An Evaluation of Early Developmentsin Higher Education Quality Management, Journal of Further and HigherEducation, 20:3, 60-69, DOI: 10.1080/0309877960200306

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877960200306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.

Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

An Evaluation of Early Developments inHigher Education Quality Management

Laurie LomasChrist Church College, Canterbury

AbstractThis paper contends that the growth of Quality Management (QM) has beenfuelled by the government's concern for greater accountability and the rise inmanagerialism in higher education institutions. It also notes that some members ofthe academic community have perceived certain aspects of QM to be a challengeto traditional academic autonomy. The differing QM roles of the Higher EducationFunding Council for England and the Higher Education Quality Council areexamined and various stakeholders' initial concerns with early QM structures andsystems are explored. Harvey and Green's (1993) typology is used as an analyticalframework to uncover the rationale for the blend of QM that is developing. Therehas been the tendency to utilise more mechanistic systems such as ISO 9000 andTotal Quality Management because of the problems of measurement with morequalitative approaches. The paper concludes by warning that there needs to be fargreater agreement amongst stakeholders on the nature of quality and the QMstructures and systems if the objective of an effective, consumer-orientated formof higher education is to be achieved.

The Rise in ManagerialismIn the mid-1980s, many members of the ruling Conservative party were

concerned that previous funding mechanisms, such as that administered by theUniversity Funding Council, had been manipulated by the producer interestswhich it was supposed to oversee (Tapper and Salter, 1995). As a result, there hasbeen a growing emphasis in all phases of the education sector to be moreresponsive to their customers and consumers: the Government and employers andthe students. Also, there has been a drive towards greater accountability andincreased value for money for taxpayers. In 1993 the cost of higher education tothe tax-payer was £5 billion per year which represents approximately 1 % of GrossDomestic Product (Ellis, 1993). Currently, the cost is of a similar order. TheGovernment believes that,

. . . the real key to achieving cost effective expansion lies in greater competitionfor funds and students (HM Government, 1991 para.l 7).

Concern over the quality of student learning has become an issue of great publicinterest and is no longer the sole preserve of the academic community. According

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

LAURIE LOMAS 61

to Barnett (1992), notions of liberal education, based on the view that learningshould take place without reference to the economic and social requirements of theState, are under attack. The start of this attack can be traced back to Prime MinisterCallaghan's Ruskin College speech of 1976 (Maclure, 1989).

There has been an increase in the level of managerialism in education and thisincrease has been fuelled by the necessity to do more with less. Governmentrestrictions on public expenditure have exerted pressure on educational institutionsto be far more cost effective. Strengthening management through greater use ofmanagement techniques has been seen as an aid to achieving this objective (Scott,1989). Lessons in management have been sought from the private sector and thenapplied to the public sector as the budget-capping of the 1970s gave way to aninsistance on commercial models of management in the 1980s (Barnett, op. cit.).Scott (op. cit.) also views the adoption of the notions of line management as asubstitute for those of professional responsibility. The development of linemanagement, together with strategic planning, mission statements, objectives,action plans and performance indicators are examples of the development ofmanagerialism in the educational sector. A re-definition of higher education istaking place. This still includes the intellectual development of students butaccountability is no longer restricted to the academic community. Greateremphasis is placed on meeting the needs of society, the economy and the State.There has been a consequent increase in both the number and range of the peopleand institutions to which universities and colleges of higher education are nowaccountable (NATFHE, 1992).

Quality Management has only recently started to impinge upon and influencethe operation and development of universities and colleges of higher education asthe public sector has adopted management techniques utilised by the privatesector. There has been an assumption that QM systems and structures which havebeen applied in the private sector can be used unaltered in public sectorprofessions such as education. For example, in 1993 Wolverhampton Universityregistered for the international quality standard ISO 9000 and was concerned todevelop a 'do-it-right-first-time' organisational culture by adhering to therequirements of ISO 9000 at all times. Wolverhampton University, together withAston and South Bank universities, have also developed TQM approaches (Hartand Shoolbred, 1993). The University of Luton has recently become the firstorganisation in the higher education sector to be awarded Investors in Peoplestatus for the successful linkage of staff development to its Mission Statement.

The 1992 Further and Higher Education Act established as a quasi-autonomousnon-governmental organisation ('QUANGO') the Higher Education FundingCouncil for England (HEFCE) and gave it the responsibility for assessing qualityin Higher Education. The Act also created the Higher Education Quality Council(HEQC) to which was assigned the task of auditing higher education institutions'procedures and mechanisms for monitoring, controlling and assessing quality. This

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

62 AN EVALUATION OF EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONQUALITY MANAGEMENT

involves examining whether the systematic processes by which an institutionassesses, maintains and reports on the quality of its programmes are workingsatisfactorily.

The quality audit purports to address issues of 'Fitness for purpose'. It is notconcerned with excellence or whether higher education colleges or universitiesmeet particular standards. This is part of HEFCE's remit.

HEFCE is concerned principally with institutional and departmental outcomes,conducting quality assessments of the teaching and learning in college anduniversity departments. Its Quality Assessment Division is in the forefront,helping the HEFCE to discharge its statutory duty with regard to quality assurance.As set out in Circular 3/93, its key function is to,

. . . ensure that all education for which the HEFCE provides funding is ofsatisfactory quality or better, and to ensure speedy rectification of unsatisfactoryquality; . . . encourage improvements in the quality of education through thepublication of assessment reports (and)... inform funding and reward excellence(HEFCE, 1993 Section A paragraph 5).

In addition to rewarding excellence, HEFCE is able to apply financial sanctionswhen the quality of education is at the other end of the scale:

Where education is confirmed to be unsatisfactory, the institution will be ineligiblein the first year after the assessment for any funding allocated by the Council forgrowth. It will also be informed that if the quality does not improve, core fundingand places will be successively or immediately withdrawn (HEFCE, 1993 SectionA paragraph 27).

There are no set criteria nor is there a checklist against which to assess qualityof teaching and learning. However, because there is an infinite number ofdefinitions of quality, HEFCE stresses specific aspects and details certain featuresof student learning experience which it regards as 'good practice'. A definition of'good practice' will emerge and develop from HEFCE reports, focussing on issuesrelated to the need for up-to-date curricula and syllabuses, effective curriculumdelivery, a well-organised programme of teaching, appropriate assessmentmethods and feedback to students and sufficient support for staff and students(HEFCE, 1993). HEFCE aims to form very clear judgements about a particularprogramme area in an institution and to provide a summative evaluation. Thisevaluation is central to the external accountability process (CHES, 1994).

The HEQC was established in May 1992 and is paid for by the colleges anduniversities. Its mission is to,

. . . contribute to the maintenance and improvement of quality at all levels ininstitutions of higher education in the United Kingdom (HEQC, 1994a p . [iii]).

HEQC is formally independent from Government and, unlike HEFCE, its quality

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

LAURIE LOMAS 63

management function is not linked with the funding of institutions of highereducation. Whereas HEFCE is concerned with the quality assessment of pro-gramme areas in particular institutions, HEQC is involved with the quality auditof the institutions themselves. As members of HEQC are largely drawn fromcolleges and universities, it conducts peer audits. The methodology of the audit issimilar to that utilised in accountancy. It uses sampling, triangulation and trailingand an HEQC quality audit is defined in the same way as the British Standard 4778for Quality Audit,

. . . quality audit is a systematic and independent examination to determinewhether quality activities and related results comply with planned arrangementsand whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable toachieve objectives.

The audit is concerned with Quality Assurance and the development of systemswhich clarify institutional roles, enable aims and objectives to be met, involves allstaff, specifies standards and acceptable evidence and promotes continuousimprovement (HEQC, 1994b).

Although there are no direct penalties which HEQC can impose on an institutionwhose systems are not of an appropriate standard, the Higher Education Charter(1993) does guarantee students the right to see Quality Audit reports. Also,institutions have to refer to audit reports in their marketing literature. In effect,publicity is operating here as a regulator. Within a year of the report, an action planis required to address the issues raised in this report. It could be argued that thesetwo factors ensure that the audit reports influence colleges and universities to suchan extent that systems for course validation and evaluation are fit for the purposefor which they are designed. However, it could be considered that HEQC'sfunding by the colleges and universities which it audits, and the lack of explicitsanctions, limit its ability to do this.

HEFCE's principal task is that of scrutinising the quality of teaching on a depart-mental basis. To help achieve this, it employs a four-point numerical grading scalefor six aspects of HE provision. On the basis of this, a profile of assessment isconstructed for a particular institution. There is a firm link between funding andHEFCE assessment with the ultimate sanction of the withdrawal of funds if aprogramme is assessed as unsatisfactory and subsequent remedial action fails tobring about sufficient improvement. Funding arrangements reward quality andinstitutions are inspected to ensure the State is getting good value for money. TheGovernment, as a major customer, has made it clear that individual highereducation institutions had the responsibility for quality.

The prime responsibility for maintaining and enhancing the quality of teachingand learning rests with each individual institution. At the same time, there is aneed for proper accountability for the substantial public funds invested in highereducation (DES, 1991 p. 58).

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

64 AN EVALUATION OF EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONQUALITY MANAGEMENT

HEFCE also influences curriculum through its funding mechanism. For example,its decision to reduce Band 1 fees from £1,850 to £1,300 per student had the effectof discouraging expansion in arts and humanities and made it more attractive forHE colleges and universities to enrole Band 2 students, such as those studyingscience and technology (McCulloch, 1993).

QM in higher education is in its infancy and, inevitably, there are going to beteething problems. Certain members of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors andPrincipals (CVCP) have expressed the view that the HEFCE quality assessment isin need of reform. They point to a number of inconsistencies such as the greatdisparity in the assessments of various subjects. An examination of the firstseventy-one HEFCE assessment reports showed that twice as many departmentsin law and history had been assessed as excellent in terms of teaching provisionthan was the case for chemistry and engineering departments (Sanders, 1994).They also believed that the ratings were skewed in favour of the traditional, long-established universities and there was insufficient sensitivity to the differingmission statements of traditional universities, the recently-established universitiesand colleges of higher education. Their analysis of the assessment reports has ledto a call for the checking of the HEFCE's instruments and calibrations (Sanders,op.cit.). The procedures of HEQC and HEFCE will develop and evolve in the lightof experience and in response to evaluations.

CVCP and The Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) have expressed apreference for a revamped HEQC taking over the assessment and audit functionsat present discharged by HEFCE and HEQC. This preference is founded on thedesire for a combined system which is based on peer review rather than externalscrutiny. Such a preference on the part of senior managers of higher educationinstitutions is not surprising. However, much of the opposition to externalaccountability is due to the perception that HEFCE has failed to respect academicautonomy in its own proposal for a future system of assessment and audit. TheHEFCE proposal, say SCOP, would involve only token institutional involvementand influence (Santinelli, 1995).

QM is now widely seen by Government and senior managers as highly relevantand appropriate to higher education in England and Wales. It involves the creationof an organisational structure and culture where it is the aim of all members of staffto 'delight the customer' (Sallis, 1993). Student evaluations are used to elicit viewson the quality of courses which, in some cases, have led to quality awards tolecturers who are highly regarded by their students. The University of Ulster hassuch a scheme (Thomas, 1993). As in industry, lecturers who have won Pilkingtonand other teaching awards have found themselves to have enhanced promotionopportunities as colleges endeavour to reward good teaching (HEQC, 1994b).

Definitions of QualityHarvey and Green (op. cit.) provide a useful framework for attempting to define

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

LAURIE LOMAS 65

quality by suggesting that quality can be viewed as perfection, as transformative,as fitness for purpose or as value for money. These four different definitions ofquality will be discussed below, particularly in the context of quality in highereducation.

a. Quality as PerfectionQuality can be equated with excellence. In the higher education sector, it is

HEFCE which endeavours to identify excellence. Indeed, 'excellent' was one ofthe three original assessment categories it used when it first inspected a particularuniversity or higher education college department. Although assessment is now ona five point scale across many discrete aspects of higher education, the notion ofperfection still exists. Just as a Rolls Royce car is universally regarded as a'quality' car because of the standard of its components and the high standard ofengineering and finishing, so it is possible for a college or university to be viewedin the same way.

b. Quality As Fitness for PurposeIn Higher Education, teaching quality is concerned with teaching effectiveness

(the outcomes of the teaching process) and teaching efficiency (the use made ofinputs to the teaching process). Teaching effectiveness is linked to the meeting ofcourse aims and objectives whereas teaching efficiency is related to the resourceswhich are used in order to meet the stated aims and objectives (Williams andLoder, 1990). Thus, quality can be viewed as requiring the definition ofworthwhile learning goals and then enabling students to achieve them. Theachievement of these goals should also involve the efficient use of resources forteaching and support services.

The Charter for Higher Education (1993) is another of the many charters whichmake up the Citizen's Charter. The Charter for Higher Education promisesstudents clear and accurate information about courses, how they will be taught andassessed, course entry requirements, quality of provision and facilities and grantsthat are available.

The Charter states clearly the responsibility of universities and colleges to be,

. . . more aware of the need to deliver high-quality services, responding to theneeds and demands of customers (DfE, 1993 p.l).

Regular audits by the HEQC of the quality assurance systems of universities andcolleges are reported and, by these means, students and potential students have thenecessary details to make informed decisions about which college or university toattend and which courses to pursue. HEQC audits are complemented by regularHEFCE reports on the quality of education. Students have a right to thisinformation and also they have a right to expect prompt and efficient service. TheCharter clearly outlines the grievance procedure should students wish to complain

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

66 AN EVALUATION OF EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONQUALITY MANAGEMENT

about a university or college. These grievances may be dealt with through auniversity's or college's internal procedure. Serious grievances which cannot beresolved through this means can be passed to someone outside the organisationsuch as a senior judge. Then they are passed to the HEQC if they are specificallyabout misleading information in a prospectus and cannot be resolved within theinstitution concerned.

c. Quality as Value for MoneyQuality is assessed in terms of return on investment or expenditure. The notion

of accountability is at the centre of this approach to QM. Public services areexpected to be accountable to their funders and, in education, HEFCE is the majorfunder. Thus, accountability in terms of assuring value for money is generally tothe government through the HEFCE. However, where there is self-funding, it isdirectly to the student.

As with aspects of quality in other contexts, terms used in charters such as'efficiency', 'effectiveness' and 'equity' are capable of various interpretations. Isreducing the level of service in the health service, local government or education— with a consequent saving of money — an improvement? What is clear is thatthe issue of public sector quality has become a policy issue and thus a politicalmatter.

d. Quality as TransformationQM can be viewed in broader terms by taking a transformative and qualitative

view of change. There is an exploration of how a service can transform thecustomer by enhancing and empowering him/her. In the context of education,quality is defined by the Government as the effect it has on students in terms ofvalue added. This value is measured by the degree to which the service hasdeveloped the knowledge, abilities and skills of the students (HM Government,1992). As students undertake undergraduate and postgraduate courses to developthese attributes and obtain a qualification, quality is — once again — aboutmeeting what the Government perceives as the students' needs.

Supporters of more mechanistic approaches have argued that it is impossible tomanage what cannot be measured (Horovitz and Panak, 1992; Oakland, 1993).Measuring quality in terms of value added can be as mechanistic and relativelystraightforward as is the case with 'zero defects' and 'getting it right first time'. Astudent's starting academic value can be seen as the qualifications with which(s)he enters the institution of higher education. The value added can be calculatedby deducting this input value from the output value — the final degree result.

The qualitative nature of the value that is added leads to problems of measure-ment. The transformation in education not only involves developments which canbe measured in terms of examination performance but it also often involvescognitive transcendence with the provider 'doing something to the customer rather

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

LAURIE LOMAS 67

than just doing something for the customer' (Harvey and Green, op. cit., p.24). Therelationship between provider and customer is dialectical whereas quality isholistic and based on a more subjective perspective (Pirsig, 1976). Developingcritical thinking might well be regarded as a desirable outcome resulting from thetransformation of a student and an indication of value having been added.However, although possible, it is very difficult to assess the improvement in astudent's ability to think critically. Oral examinations such as viva voce may beused but assessments are qualitative rather than quantitative and thus more likelyto be subjective than objective. In addition, as Pring (1992) points out, learning isan incremental process and not something which can be defined in absolute terms.With knowledge being acquired slowly over a period of time, it is difficult to besure when and how it has developed. Deming (1986) argues that quality oflecturing is related to bringing about changes in students' attitudes by giving themdirection and inspiration. However, he acknowledges, along with others, that themeasurement of these attitudinal changes is problematic.

ConclusionThe four categories of quality point out the wide range of views as to what

constitutes quality management in higher education. Despite these varyingdefinitions of quality, it is clear that QM is regarded as one of the ways of bringingabout radical change to create effective, flexible and high quality systems forcourse structure, course delivery frameworks and for curriculum development(Training Enterprise and Education Directorate, 1990). QM is part of a changestrategy designed to help Higher Education institutions cope with consumer-led,rather than producer-led, markets and to respond rapidly to the perceived demandsof consumers.

The Government, as a major customer of higher education through its fundingof colleges and universities through HEFCE, is concerned to secure value formoney. However, many academics concerned about professional autonomy(Russell, 1994; Siegrist, 1994; Squires, 1990 ) and cognitive development, preferto view quality largely as a matter of transformation. Quantitative measuresassociated with gauging quality as value for money are problematic (Deming, op.cit.; Pirsig, op. cit.; Pring, op. cit.) and can be misleading if not complemented bymore qualitative assessment.

If QM approaches are to contribute towards a consumer-led service in highereducation that is able to respond quickly to met their identified needs, then it isimportant that there is greater agreement amongst the various stakeholders as towhat constitutes quality. Detailed discussion and the participation of all interestgroups can ease the way towards clear and agreed goals. Although this is a time-consuming process, unless and until it happens, the lack of agreement will createtension and discord between these groups. Such tension will severely hamperprogress towards the achievement of a responsive, effective higher educationsector in the United Kingdom.

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

68 AN EVALUATION OF EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONQUALITY MANAGEMENT

BibliographyBarnett, R. (1992) Learning to Effect, Buckingham, Open University Press.Centre for Higher Education Studies (1994) Assessment of the Quality of Higher Education: A

Review and an Evaluation, Bristol, HEFCE.Deming, W. (1986) Out of Crisis, Massachusetts, MIT Press.Department of Education and Science (1991) Higher Education: A New Framework, London,

HMSODepartment for Education (1993) Charter for Higher Education, London, HMSO.Ellis, R. (Ed.) (1993) Quality Assurance for University Teaching, Buckingham, Open University

Press.Hart, C. and Shoolbred, M. (1993) 'Organisational culture, rewards and quality in higher educa-

tion' Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.22-29.Harvey, L. and Green D. (1993) 'Defining Quality' Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.9-34.Higher Education Funding Council for England (1993) Assessment of the Quality of Education —

Circular 3/93, Bristol, HEFCE.Higher Education Quality Council (1993) 'Quality Audit Report on the University of Lancaster',

March pp.10-17.Higher Education Quality Council (1994a) Guidelines on Quality Assurance, London, HEQC.Higher Education Quality Council (1994b) Learning from Audit, London, HECQ.HM Government (1991) Higher Education: A New Framework, London, HMSO.HM Government (1992) Further and Higher Education Act, London, HMSO.Horovitz, J. and Panak, M. (1992) Total Customer Satisfaction, London, Pitman.Maclure, S. (ed.) (1989) Education Reformed (2nd edition) London, Hodder and Stoughton.McCulloch, M. (1993) 'Total Quality Management: its relevance for higher education' Quality

Assurance in Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.5-11.National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) (1992) A

Discussion Paper — A Question of Quality, London, NATFHE.Oakland, J. (1993) Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance (2nd

Edition) Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.Pirsig, R. (1976) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, London, Corgi.Pring, R. (1992) Academic Respectability and Professional Relevance: An Inaugural lecture

delivered before the University of Oxford 58/5/91, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Russell, C. (1994) Academic Freedom, London, Routledge.Sallis, E. (1993) Total Quality Management in Education, London, Kogan Page.Sanders, C. (1994) 'Assessors miss mark', Times Higher Education Supplement, 25th March

1994, p. 1.Santinelli, P. (1995) 'Colleges want new HEQC' Times Higher Educational Supplement, 4th

August 1995Scott, P. (1989) 'Accountability, responsiveness and responsibility' in Glatter, R. (eds.)

Educational Institutions and their Environments: Managing the Boundaries, Milton Keynes,Open University Press.

Siegrist, H. (1994) "The professions, state and government in theory and history' in Becher, T.(ed.) Governments and Professional Education, Buckingham, Open University Press.

Squires, G. (1990) First Degree, Buckingham, Open University Press.Tapper, E. and Salter, B. (1995) 'The changing idea of university autonomy' Studies in Higher

Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp.59-72.Thomas, E. (1993) 'The First Distinguished Teaching Award in the United Kingdom in Ellis, R.

(ed.) Quality Assurance for University Teaching, Buckingham, Open University Press.Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate (1990) Higher Education Developments,

Sheffield, Department of Employment.

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

LAURIE LOMAS 69

Williams, G. and Loder, C. (1990) 'The Importance of Quality and Quality Assurance' in Loder,C. (ed.) Quality Assurance and Accountability in Higher Education, London, Kogan Page.

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

07 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014