**5. Focus of a QA framework in higher education**

"People" in the context of the PPP framework for higher education is taken to refer to the coverage of internal and external stakeholders in quality assurance activities of higher edu‐ cation institutions. In a typical university context in Ghana, internal stakeholders include the governing council members, management team members, senior academic and administra‐ tive members, senior staff, junior staff, and junior members (students). External stakeholders on the other hand include graduates, employers of graduates, professional representatives, regulatory authorities representatives, and funders [30]. Given that quality has multiple per‐ spectives which demand alignment of different perspectives [28], quality assurance activities within higher education institutions ought to cover and involve all these key stakeholders. Enhancing quality in higher education demands qualified and highly motivated staff mem‐ bers who are committed to quality outcomes [31]. This involves staff participation in quality assurance activities through effective and efficient top‐down and bottom‐up communication channels and rigorous staff recruitment processes, development, and incentive systems [31]. It also requires qualified, highly motivated, and empowered students who provide feed‐ back on their learning experiences to inform improvement activities [32]. Equally, achieving quality also involves information from all key internal and external stakeholders through

"Programme" in the context of the PPP framework for higher education represents all the processes, procedures, and activities within an institution. This includes curricular design, teaching and learning, governance systems, leadership and management func‐ tions, professional development of staff, research and outreach activities, student assess‐ ment, staff recruitment, student admissions, institutional ceremonies, student support services, and partnership and cooperation. A quality assurance framework of a higher education institution ought to cover all these in addition to other operational areas and activities of the institution in order to sufficiently guarantee and enact stakeholders'

"Place" on the other hand stands for space and facilities of an educational institution. It has been argued that maintaining and improving quality in higher education is directly pro‐ portional to the quality of facilities and space [33, 34, 35]. Appropriate space and facilities are required to support every activity of any higher education institution [35]. The quality of learning, teaching, research, and community service of a higher education institution is dependent on space and facilities of the institution [35]. Therefore, place ought to attract equal attention in a quality assurance framework of any higher education institution just like people and programmes. The common physical facilities which are usually under the microscope of QA activities are teaching and learning, residential, recreational, and transportation facilities, in addition to space for physical facilities development. The inter‐ play of people, programme, and place supports positive outcomes in higher education. Quality is maintained and enhanced at the intersection of the circles containing the PPP as depicted in **Figure 1**. Quality cannot be maintained and enhanced by giving negligible attention to any part of the PPP framework discussed so far because high‐quality educa‐ tional outcomes depend on quality people and their involvement, quality programmes,

feedback loops [31].

32 Global Voices in Higher Education

expectations of quality.

and quality facilities.

We argue that a resilient quality assurance framework in higher education must meet the basic condition of stability if it is to achieve quality enhancement or improvement. A stable QA framework (internal or external) is a balanced framework where all the key components receive equal attention at some point, as represented in **Figure 1**. This framework offers quality assurance and enhancement opportunities for the institution.

However, a quality assurance framework in higher education institutions could become unstable as a result of less attention to one of the key components. In such a situation, the framework may look like **Figures 2**, **3**, or **4**, depending on which component is receiving the least attention. In **Figure 2**, it is evident that place receives the least attention in the quality assurance practices of the institution. In this instance, the assumption is that optimum atten‐ tion has been given to all the three key operational areas but there are quality concerns with people and programmes, which have necessitated a shift of attention from place. In **Figure 3**, programme receives the least attention in quality assurance practices, and in **Figure 4**, people receive the least attention, suggesting that in these instances, prevailing quality concerns have warranted the shift of attention.

**Figure 2.** An unstable QA framework—least attention to place.

**Figure 3.** An unstable QA framework—least attention to Programme.

**Figure 4.** An unstable QA framework—least attention to People.

When such situations happen, there is the need to stabilise the quality assurance frame‐ work by increasing attention to the component that is receiving the least attention. We argue in this conceptualisation that this balance is a necessary condition for any resilient qual‐ ity assurance framework in higher education because our operational definition of quality assurance is "mechanisms put in place by institutions to guarantee and enact stakeholders' expectations of quality" [28]. It stands to reason that at any particular point, there is likely to be disproportionate attention given to the three (people, programme, and place) areas of the quality assurance framework depending on the quality concerns of a particular higher education institution. However, stability of the framework is a pointer to an assurance of quality. In practical terms, policies and activities of an internal quality assurance framework of a higher education institution must focus on balancing the focus of the framework in order to facilitate quality enhancement.
