**7. Results and discussions**

We present and discuss the results under the major themes of people, programme, and Place, and in line with the two key parts of the research questions: what receives attention in the quality assurance frameworks and what receives the least attention and why?

#### **7.1. What receives attention?**

#### *7.1.1. People*

Collectively, stakeholders mentioned by respondents as involved in the case universities quality assurance policies and practices include senior members (academic), senior members (administration), students, senior staff, graduates, employers of graduates, professional bodies, regulatory bodies, and funding bodies but variations exist among universities. In university A, a respondent said, "*Here in this University, stakeholders involved in quality assurance practices are senior members (both academic and administration), students, senior staff, alumni, employers of our graduates, professional bodies, NCTE, NAB, and donor agencies*." In university B, a respondent made this claim, "*We involve senior members (both academic and administration), students, senior staff, professional bodies, and NAB in our quality assurance practices*." In university C, a respondent had this to say "In terms of people, our quality assurance practices involve *every member of staff and our external stakeholders such as, employers of our graduates, professional bodies, and NAB*."

These responses were cross‐examined through the quality assurance policy documents of the universities. In the quality assurance policy document of University A, it was stated that *in the effective implementation of this policy, there must be conscious efforts for collaboration internally (management, staff and students) and externally (other universities, industry and development partners).* University B's policy document states that the principles of its quality assurance include *external peer review, and ownership and involvement of staff and students of the quality assurance process.* In the policy document of University C, it is stated that *there will be regular external evaluations, involvement of professional bodies, potential employers and other relevant sections of the society, all staff, temporary and permanent, and all categories of students.*

It is clear from the interview responses and policy documents that relevant stakeholders are involved in the quality assurance policy and practice of the universities. The list of stakehold‐ ers from the policy documents which aligns with practice according to the interview data seemed comprehensive. This is consistent with best practice as reported in the literature [30, 31, 45] that all key stakeholders (both internal and external) must be responsible for achieving quality in higher education. However, we did not explore the nature of involve‐ ment of stakeholders mentioned by respondents and the policy documents due to the focus of the study, even though we acknowledge that it is important. For example, if staff and students' involvement in quality assurance is only about validating their qualifications and results, respectively, then it is not enough because they should also be involved in provid‐ ing feedback for continuous improvement [31].

#### *7.1.2. Programme*

The sub‐themes present under people were internal stakeholders and external stakeholders who were involved in quality assurance practices of the universities. Programmes sub‐themes were leadership and management practices, teaching and learning activities, student assess‐ ment, curriculum, professional development activities, research, staff recruitment, student admissions, and student support services. Place sub‐themes were space, teaching/learning infrastructure, research infrastructure, and social amenities. These themes and sub‐themes

We present and discuss the results under the major themes of people, programme, and Place, and in line with the two key parts of the research questions: what receives attention in the

Collectively, stakeholders mentioned by respondents as involved in the case universities quality assurance policies and practices include senior members (academic), senior members (administration), students, senior staff, graduates, employers of graduates, professional bodies, regulatory bodies, and funding bodies but variations exist among universities. In university A, a respondent said, "*Here in this University, stakeholders involved in quality assurance practices are senior members (both academic and administration), students, senior staff, alumni, employers of our graduates, professional bodies, NCTE, NAB, and donor agencies*." In university B, a respondent made this claim, "*We involve senior members (both academic and administration), students, senior staff, professional bodies, and NAB in our quality assurance practices*." In university C, a respondent had this to say "In terms of people, our quality assurance practices involve *every member of staff and* 

*our external stakeholders such as, employers of our graduates, professional bodies, and NAB*."

*society, all staff, temporary and permanent, and all categories of students.*

These responses were cross‐examined through the quality assurance policy documents of the universities. In the quality assurance policy document of University A, it was stated that *in the effective implementation of this policy, there must be conscious efforts for collaboration internally (management, staff and students) and externally (other universities, industry and development partners).* University B's policy document states that the principles of its quality assurance include *external peer review, and ownership and involvement of staff and students of the quality assurance process.* In the policy document of University C, it is stated that *there will be regular external evaluations, involvement of professional bodies, potential employers and other relevant sections of the* 

It is clear from the interview responses and policy documents that relevant stakeholders are involved in the quality assurance policy and practice of the universities. The list of stakehold‐ ers from the policy documents which aligns with practice according to the interview data seemed comprehensive. This is consistent with best practice as reported in the literature [30, 31, 45] that all key stakeholders (both internal and external) must be responsible for

quality assurance frameworks and what receives the least attention and why?

are presented and discussed below.

36 Global Voices in Higher Education

**7. Results and discussions**

**7.1. What receives attention?**

*7.1.1. People*

Programme areas of coverage by the quality assurance frameworks of the case universi‐ ties include leadership and management practices, teaching and learning activities, student assessment, curriculum, professional development activities, research, staff recruitment, student admissions, and student support services. However, these were not uniform across all the case universities. These programme areas represent collective responses that were coded. In University A, a respondent reported, "*Our quality assurance activities cover: Teaching and learning activities, Student Assessment, Professional development activities, Research, Staff recruitment, and Student admissions*." In University B, a respondent said, "*Our quality assurance activities cover: Leadership and management practices, Teaching and learning activities, Research, Staff recruitment, and Student admissions*." Responses from University C were similar to University B.

These responses were explored further through the quality assurance policy documents of the universities. University A's policy document indicates that it shall *develop strong quality assurance and planning mechanisms that apply to all programmes, processes, procedures, support services and structures across the University*. In the case of University B, it is stated that quality assurance activities shall be used to *advise the Academic Curriculum, Quality and Staff Development Committee on the determination and maintenance of acceptable levels of academic standards with respect to teaching, learning and research.* University C on the other hand has captured in its policy document that quality assurance shall focus on:

*developing and maintaining, through enhanced support processes, quality academic programmes appropriate to the academic strengths of the University where a recognizable market has been clearly identified and ensure that all programmes are of high standard and of continued relevance to graduate labour markets and the needs of the workforce in the country.* It adds that *the University shall develop and refine internal quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms that are appropriate and shall apply such mechanisms systematically across all programmes offered by the University, all services rendered to society and all support services provided to students and staff.*

It is clear that the policy documents tend to provide the general framework to guide the practice of quality assurance and in most cases, do not define exact details of what the prac‐ titioners should do. For example, in University A, the policy document states that "it shall develop strong quality assurance and planning mechanisms that apply to all programmes, processes, procedures, support services and structures across the University." This, according to the interview data, was implemented to focus on "Teaching and learning activities, Student assessment, Professional development activities, Research, Staff recruitment, and Student admissions." Nonetheless, the alignment between policy and practice is discernible, just that some key programme areas such as student support services and institutional safety were conspicuously missing in quality assurance practice.

#### *7.1.3. Place*

Respondents from all the case universities indicated that their quality assurance practices cover physical facilities and locations even though there were differences in the type of facilities that were given attention to in their quality assurance practice. At University A, a respondent said, "*in our quality assurance practice, we check teaching and learning facilities, residential facilities, recreational facilities and spaces*." A respondent from University B indicated, "*Our quality assurance practices cover only teaching and learning facilities because we are concerned with academic quality*." At University C, a respondent stated, "*Our quality assurance practices focus on teaching and learning and research facilities*."

We explored the quality assurance policy documents to find out if facilities and locations are captured. In University A's quality assurance policy document, a focus on facilities and locations is captured as "*the policy covers infrastructure and learning resources, social amenities and information dissemination structures*." There was no clear evidence of quality assurance of facilities in the quality assurance policy document of University B, except that the scope and application section of the policy indicate that the policy applies to all aca‐ demic areas and aspects of the University's operations. The policy document of University C captures facilities and location this way: "*we shall continually monitor and regularly assess the appropriateness and adequacy of support services provided for students and staff, especially in respect of adequacy and quality of Study materials, space and teaching/learning infrastructure; Social amenities, including health, catering, recreational and other services*." Under the cover‐ age of facilities and locations (place), there is a reasonable alignment between policy and practice. However, in practice, more facilities appear to be covered than indicated in the policy document.

We have so far analysed and discussed data on what receives attention in the quality assur‐ ance frameworks of the universities selected for this study. This is supposed to feed into the analysis and discussion on the second part of the research question that guided the study. This second part of the research question is "what receives the least attention and why," which is the focus of the next section.

#### **7.2. What receives the least attention and why?**

One of the assumptions of this study was based on the fact that quality assurance frame‐ works of universities may not provide attention to key operational areas equally, usually for strategic reasons. In this section, we present, analyse, and discuss findings on which key operational areas of the universities involved in this study receive the least attention in quality assurance frameworks. This part of the research question is addressed with findings mainly from the interviews because the focus is to examine what pertains in quality assurance prac‐ tice rather than written policy. As usual and in line with the conceptual framework of this study, the findings were coded into key operational areas of people, programme, and place.

Respondents compared attention given to people, programme, and place in the practice of quality assurance in their universities. In two of the universities of this study, programme receives the greatest attention in quality assurance practice followed by people before place, Balancing the Focus of Quality Assurance Frameworks of Higher Education Institutions in Africa: A Ghanaian Context http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68665 39

implying that place receives the least attention. At University A, this is what a respondent had to say

*7.1.3. Place*

38 Global Voices in Higher Education

policy document.

which is the focus of the next section.

**7.2. What receives the least attention and why?**

*focus on teaching and learning and research facilities*."

Respondents from all the case universities indicated that their quality assurance practices cover physical facilities and locations even though there were differences in the type of facilities that were given attention to in their quality assurance practice. At University A, a respondent said, "*in our quality assurance practice, we check teaching and learning facilities, residential facilities, recreational facilities and spaces*." A respondent from University B indicated, "*Our quality assurance practices cover only teaching and learning facilities because we are concerned with academic quality*." At University C, a respondent stated, "*Our quality assurance practices* 

We explored the quality assurance policy documents to find out if facilities and locations are captured. In University A's quality assurance policy document, a focus on facilities and locations is captured as "*the policy covers infrastructure and learning resources, social amenities and information dissemination structures*." There was no clear evidence of quality assurance of facilities in the quality assurance policy document of University B, except that the scope and application section of the policy indicate that the policy applies to all aca‐ demic areas and aspects of the University's operations. The policy document of University C captures facilities and location this way: "*we shall continually monitor and regularly assess the appropriateness and adequacy of support services provided for students and staff, especially in respect of adequacy and quality of Study materials, space and teaching/learning infrastructure; Social amenities, including health, catering, recreational and other services*." Under the cover‐ age of facilities and locations (place), there is a reasonable alignment between policy and practice. However, in practice, more facilities appear to be covered than indicated in the

We have so far analysed and discussed data on what receives attention in the quality assur‐ ance frameworks of the universities selected for this study. This is supposed to feed into the analysis and discussion on the second part of the research question that guided the study. This second part of the research question is "what receives the least attention and why,"

One of the assumptions of this study was based on the fact that quality assurance frame‐ works of universities may not provide attention to key operational areas equally, usually for strategic reasons. In this section, we present, analyse, and discuss findings on which key operational areas of the universities involved in this study receive the least attention in quality assurance frameworks. This part of the research question is addressed with findings mainly from the interviews because the focus is to examine what pertains in quality assurance prac‐ tice rather than written policy. As usual and in line with the conceptual framework of this study, the findings were coded into key operational areas of people, programme, and place. Respondents compared attention given to people, programme, and place in the practice of quality assurance in their universities. In two of the universities of this study, programme receives the greatest attention in quality assurance practice followed by people before place, *Regularly, about fifty percent of our quality assurance activities is devoted to programme operational areas of the university. We also give about thirty percent of our quality assurance activities to people involved in the university's operations while we devote the remaining twenty percent of our QA activities to our physical facilities. Teaching and learning activities formed the majority of our quality assurance activities regularly but we sometimes also look at curriculum, governance, research, student support services, professional development activities, student admissions and staff recruitment.*

At University B, a similar response was provided. However, at University C, the greatest attention is given to people, followed by programme while place receives the least attention as a key operational area for quality assurance concentration. This is what was said at University C: "*We give about forty‐five percent of our quality assurance activities to stakeholders involved in the university's operations and then thirty‐five percent of attention is given to programme operational areas. The remaining twenty percent attention is given to our facilities*."

The two Universities that give the greatest attention to programme as an operation area in their quality assurance practices provided the following reasons:

*Programmes are the back bone or life‐wire of the institution that needs much concentration because of the image it gives to the institution and without it, the University will not function. In addition, programme quality and activities related to it ensure competitiveness. Therefore, much attention is devoted to its coverage using experts and experience.*

*The core mandate of any institution centres on good programmes. The quality of programmes therefore seems imperative to be monitored. The core mandate of the university is teaching, learning and research. Without programmes, the university will fail to exist. Therefore, very much efforts are put into ensuring programmes are of standards.*

The university that gives greatest attention to people also has these reasons to provide

*The university recognizes that stakeholders are the most important aspect of quality assurance so they are included to ensure total quality management. Institution practice a culture of quality, there must be environments that all stakeholders must be involved in quality implementation to achieve what we call Total Quality Management. To a very great extent, both academic and administrative senior members are very much involved in the internal quality assurance practices that contribute to the quality of our programmes. Employers of our graduates, professional bodies, NCTE, NAB, some donor agencies, alumni and students also contribute to our quality assurance activities. However, some of these stakeholders are less involved in the quality assurance activities of the institution because they are not experts in the field of ensuring quality so we involve them only when we require their attention.*

Place appears to receive the least attention even though all the respondents recognise it as a key operational area which must be given attention in quality assurance practice. These were some of the comments made by respondents:

*Physical facilities are found to be factors of quality measurement and therefore contribute to quality practices. (University A response)*

*Efforts are put in to ensure convenient and comfortable physical facilities for the smooth running of the programmes, thus complementing quality assurance. (University B response)*

*Most of the facilities are key and strongly needed in the school to facilitate teaching and learning. In other words, teaching and learning facilities as well as residential facilities support student learning hence quality delivery cannot be effective without these physical facilities. Nonetheless, facilities form part of any quality assurance measure of every institution hence, their monitoring is a major concern though requires minimum concentration. That aside, there has been progress in recent times concerning the physical facilities of the institution and the massive build‐up give credence to the assertions on percentages made in this area. (University C response)*

From the responses, the importance of giving attention to place by quality assurance frame‐ works is not debatable. It is, however, intriguing that place receives the least attention in quality assurance practice. The reason provided for giving the least attention to place in their quality assurance frameworks is not consistent with the principle of equity in quality assurance prac‐ tice to indicate that place has obtained optimum attention to the extent that attention could be shifted. It should be noted that quality higher education outcomes depend on quality people, programme, and Place [33–35].
