Transcript Quality – a virtuous project?

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 selfimprovement
 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 neverending project
 It requires vigilant and resilient leadership:
who would be a PVC for quality matters?
