Chilean universities and institutional quality assurance processes

Page 1

Quality Assurance in EducationChilean universities and institutional quality assurance processesDaniel A. López Maria J. Rojas Boris A. López Daniel C. López

Article information:To cite this document:Daniel A. López Maria J. Rojas Boris A. López Daniel C. López , (2015),"Chilean universities andinstitutional quality assurance processes", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 166 - 183Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0024

Downloaded on: 23 April 2015, At: 08:21 (PT)References: this document contains references to 61 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 27 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Rahel Schomaker, (2015),"Accreditation and quality assurance in the Egyptian higher educationsystem", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 149-165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0034Noha Elassy, (2015),"Student involvement in the Egyptian quality assurance system", QualityAssurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 123-148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0021Robert Wamala, Vincent A. Ssembatya, (2015),"Productivity in academia: An assessment of causallinkages between output and outcome indicators", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp.184-195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0002

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byToken:JournalAuthor:156069C5-B51F-41C4-BDB1-8C55C60B6D2F:

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 2

Chilean universities andinstitutional quality assurance

processesDaniel A. López

Center for Advanced Studies, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso, Chile

Maria J. RojasFaculty of Education, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso, Chile

Boris A. LópezDepartment of Aquaculture & Agrifood Resources,

Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Chile and Faculty of Marine Sciences,Universidad Católica del Norte, Osorno, Chile, and

Daniel C. LópezDacmal Consultants, Santiago de Chile, Chile

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to conduct a quantitative analysis of the universityaccreditation processes in Chilean universities. The aim is to determine the effects of the differentvariables, especially the type of institutions (state- and privately owned, with and without statefinancial support) on the results obtained.Design/methodology/approach – Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis of official data.Findings – Results indicate consistency in the accreditation processes in Chilean universities, as thosevariables directly associated with the processes accounted for approximately 70 per cent of the variation inthe length of accreditation periods (between 0 and seven years), these variables being the ones that definedthe type of universities. High dispersion was found in six state-owned universities that behaved as if theywere private universities and in two private universities that behaved as if they were state universities.However, a high percentage of the universities included in the analysis maintained their affiliation to theircorresponding legal group, when their performance in accreditation processes was analyzed.Originality/value – The results of the university accreditation processes in Chile have been the focus of aintense debate due to the legal and economic conflicts between the different types of universities. This studyconstitutes the first scientific analysis of the results of these processes, especially in terms of the performanceof the different types of universities, thus enabling a better interpretation of the results. This information isuseful not only in the terms of the legal reforms that are being carried out in Chile, but they also help theunderstanding of the processes of accreditation of higher education in other Latin American countries.

Keywords Quality assurance, Chile, Institutional accreditation, Types of universities

Paper type Research paper

The authors are grateful to the Center of Advanced Studies, the Higher Education Research Groupand the Doctorate Program in Educational Management and Policies of the University of PlayaAncha, Valparaíso Chile. The collaboration of Jorge Ramirez, Cecilia Arriagada and MargaritaRivas is also recognized. Finally, the authors thank the two anonymous referees, whose commentscontributed to improving the manuscript.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

QAE23,2

166

Received 29 May 2013Revised 9 October 201319 May 2014Accepted 11 November 2014

Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 23 No. 2, 2015pp. 166-183© Emerald Group Publishing Limited0968-4883DOI 10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0024

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 3

1. IntroductionThe concern for quality and management in higher education institutions (HEIs) hasbecome a widespread phenomenon (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Improvement andquality assurance processes in universities have been implemented in nearly everycountry of the world, following different procedures and achieving different results (e.g.Kells, 1992; Van Vught and Westerheijden, 1993; Frederiks et al., 1994; Ratcliff, 1996;Thune, 1998; Shore and Wright, 2000; Brennan and Shah, 2000a; Yonezawa, 2002; Mollisand Marginson, 2002; Schwarz and Westerheijden, 2004; Brooks, 2005; Al Bandary,2005; Hoecht, 2006; Gvaramadze, 2008; Michavila and Zamorano, 2008; Huusko andUrsin, 2010; Cret, 2011; Hou, 2011; Shah et al., 2011).

In nearly all Latin American countries, substantial progress has been made in termsof the development of a “culture of evaluation in HEIs”, largely overcoming the conflictsraised in the early 90’s due to the inevitable trade-offs between university autonomy,assessment and accreditation (Fernández-Lamarra, 2007; CINDA, 2007; De La Garza,2008; Espinoza, 2010). Institutional accreditation has been promoted as a qualityassurance mechanism conceived to avoid proliferation of new universities.

Trends in quality assurance combine self-evaluation, external peer evaluation andthe use of performance indicators (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Self-evaluation processeshave evidenced contradictory results in terms of the benefits achieved, often evenleading to resistance in certain academic sectors (Brennan and Shah, 2000b; Salter andTapper, 2000; Newton, 2002; Hoecht, 2006). In terms of external evaluation, the effects ofthe different methods used and the perceptions of their impact in different areas havebeen evaluated (Stensaker et al., 2011). Finally, in terms of the use of performanceindicators, accreditation in HEIs emerged in response to specific political and economiccircumstances that emphasize the importance of assessing the quality of servicesthrough performance indicators (Power, 1997). However, this was also in response to therapid expansion of higher education.

In Chile, quality assurance processes through accreditation of HEIs began in the late1990’s with the implementation of an experimental trial in the absence of a nationalregulation framework. Despite this, most of the universities participated in the process(CNAP, 2007). In 2006, to regulate both the organization and procedures of theaccreditation process, the bill creating the national system of quality assurance waspassed. Institutional accreditation in Chile was conceived as an analytical process forevaluating the procedures existing in educational institutions to assure quality,considering both the mechanisms, their applications and their results (Bernasconi andRojas, 2004; Lemaitre, 2009; Espinoza and González, 2013). Over the past 30 years, thenumber of universities in Chile has increased (from 8 to 60), resulting in a consequentexponential increase in the number of programs and students (Bernasconi and Rojas,2004; Brunner, 2009; Espinoza and González 2011, 2013). The most relevant eventinfluencing this increase was the creation of “new private universities” which, unlike theexisting ones, i.e. those belonging to the Council of Rectors, which are traditional, andthose derived from traditional universities, both public and private, do not receive directfinancial support from the government. These new private universities are veryheterogeneous in nature, provide a wide range of formative programs, and theiradmissions have exceeded half of the total admissions at national level.

A decade after the beginning of the formal institutional accreditation process, the roleof the different types of universities and the factors determining the results of

167

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 4

accreditation need to be evaluated. Institutional accreditation processes have beenstrongly questioned due to economic problems and corruption. Despite the recognizedimpact of the accreditation processes on the improvement of the HEIs, the results havegenerated controversial opinions. Research on the topic has only focused on the broadcontext, examined the coverage of the accreditation processes and the accreditationprocedures (e.g. Lemaitre, 2005; Espinoza and González, 2011; Zapata and Tejeda, 2009;Espinoza and González, 2013), but there is a lack of specific studies.

“Massive increases” in higher education and the procedures used to assure qualityhave also produced intense conflicts relative to funding allocation and the quality ofhigher education. Student movements in 2011 kept many universities closed andoccupied for a whole semester. The current conflict has revealed the real situation. Therelative proportions of public and private expenditure on Chilean Higher Education isthe lowest in the world, lower than that of South Korea or Japan, and exactly the oppositeproportions seen in Germany and France. Chilean families, most of them of low ormiddle income, shoulder a greater percentage (73 per cent) of the total cost of education,compared to the average of 16 per cent among the countries in the Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Public expenditure per student isUS$6,500, 40 per cent less than the OECD average. The expansion of the Chilean highereducation sector has been possible, in part, due to the proliferation of the new privateuniversities. The tuition fees paid in them are very high and families struggle to pay,finding themselves with unserviceable debts. The relative cost of having a degree inChile is one of the highest in the world and, on graduation, a student’s debt can be as highas $50,000 or even higher, in a country where a significant proportion of families have atotal income of about US$70,000 per year. In addition, the interest rate on private loansis 5.6 per cent, versus 2 per cent for state loans. Some universities do make a profit,taking advantage of the weaknesses of law enforcement system by using subsidiarycompanies in which they invest surpluses commercially. Hence, a more effectiveregulatory system is necessary as is the need to implement adequate and appropriateaccreditation processes.

The present study aims to evaluate the quality assurance procedures (institutionalaccreditation) in Chile, and to evaluate the differences between the types of universities.

2. Methods2.1 General background of the institutional accreditation processes in ChileIn Chile, the Chilean higher education sector, institutions are classified into threecategories: universities, professional institutes and technical training centers. To date,there are 60 universities, 44 professional institutes and 73 technical training centers,with an estimated 987,643 enrolled students, of whom 51 per cent were enrolled inuniversities. Traditional universities, and those derived from them, belong to theCouncil of Rectors of Chilean Universities (CRUCH is the Spanish acronym). TheCRUCH is an organization comprising all the state universities and private universitiesthat receive direct economic contributions from the state. To date, the Council hasregistered 25 universities; 16 of those are state-owned universities and 9 areprivate-owned that receive state support through different instruments (e.g. directallocation or contestable funding). Additionally, since the introduction of the newprivate universities in 1981, they have proliferated, and to date, there are 35 privateuniversities receiving no direct financial support from the state. Also, all professional

QAE23,2

168

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 5

institutes and technical training centers are privately owned. Since 2006, HEIs havebeen subject to the Quality Assurance Law (Act No. 20129) that regulates theaccreditation processes in HEIs. However, most HEI have gone through theaccreditation process voluntarily since the implementation of an experimental trial,without a general normative framework, in 1999. At the same time, accreditationprocesses were being developed for undergraduate and graduate programs.

Fifty-eight of 60 universities were included in the analysis. Two private universitieswere excluded from the analysis, as one of them was in process of closing down and, theother, was in the process of getting institutional autonomy.

Institutional accreditation involves a self-assessment process and an external peerevaluation in two mandatory areas: institutional management and undergraduateteaching. Alternatively, universities can apply to be accredited in research, graduatecourses and community engagement. Institutional accreditation decisions are issued bythe National Commission of Accreditation (CNA is the Spanish acronym). The CNA is astate agency, created in 2006, responsible for the accreditation of institutions andpostgraduated programs. Institutional accreditation is awarded for a period of betweentwo and seven years, based on merit, and under exceptional circumstances, it could beawarded for only one year. If accreditation is denied, universities must wait two yearsbefore reapplying.

2.2 Statistical analysisInstitutional accreditation outcomes for the period 1999-2011 were analyzed,considering only the two mandatory areas. The most commonly observed aspects in theaccreditation decisions, both favorable and unfavorable, were established. Universitieswere classified into three groups according to their legal status: those belonging to theCRUCH and receiving direct state financial support were classified as state-owned(Group A) and privately owned (Group B); and the third group (Group C) consisted ofthose both privately owned universities without direct state financial support.

To analyze the outcomes of the institutional accreditation in Chile, the followingvariables were included in the analysis (data updated as of 2010) for those universitiesthat were under the accreditation process at that point in time. These variables wereclassifies into two groups as follows:

(1) Institutional variables not associated to accreditation processes:• Seniority: The date when the University was awarded autonomy status. Also,

the current status was considered. Data source: CNA(www.cned.cl).• Number of students: Total number of students enrolled at the institution.

Data source: National Information System of Higher Education (SIES is theSpanish acronym) (www.divesup.cl/sies)

• Number of faculty members: Relative to the number of full teachers declaredby the institution. Data source: SIES (www.divesup.cl/sies)

• Number of graduate programs: Those leading to the accomplishment of thefirst academic degree after secondary education. It includes technical,professional, licentiate (four to six years) and baccalaureate (two years). Datasource: SIES (www.divesup.cl/sies/)

169

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 6

• Number of postgraduate programs: Master’s and PhD Programs. Datasource: http://estudios.universia.net/chile/institucion and universities’ Webpages.

• Number of campuses: Premises in which teaching, research and extensionactivities are located in a city. Data source: universities Web pages.

(2) Variables directly associated to accreditation processes:• Number of accredited graduate programs: Those programs accredited by the

CNA in as of September 2010. Data source: CNA (www.cnachile.cl).• Number of accredited postgraduate programs: Those Master’s and PhD

programs accredited by the CNA in as at September 2010. Those accreditedprograms belonging to more than one university were considered as aprogram in each institution. Data source: CNA (www.cnachile.cl).

• Number of areas accredited: Both, obligatory areas (institutionalmanagement and graduate teaching) and optional areas (research,community linkage, postgraduate programs) as at August 30th, 2010, wereconsidered. Data source: CNA (www.cnachile.cl).

• Average length of institutional accreditation: Average amount of years ofaccreditation awarded in different areas. Data source: CNA(www.cnachile.cl).

• Length of the last period of institutional accreditation: Number of yearsawarded in the last period of institutional accreditation according to therecords of the National Commission on Accreditation record. Data source:CNA (www.cnachile.cl).

To identify which variables explained the average length of the accreditation period,a multiple linear regression analysis (equation [1]) was performed. The averagelength of institutional accreditation was considered as the dependent variable (Y)and all of those variables previously described, except the one related to the lengthof the accreditation in the last process, were considered as independent variables(X):

Y � X1 � X2 � X3 � X4 � X5 � X6 � X7 � X8 � X9 � Constant. (1)

Where:

Y � Seniority;X1 � Number of students;X2 � Number of teachers;X3 � Number of programs;X4 � Number of accredited programs;X5 � Number of postgraduate courses;X6 � Number of accredited postgraduate programs;X7 � Number of campuses; andX8 � Number of accredited areas.

QAE23,2

170

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 7

A standard analysis procedure was first used and a stepwise procedure (forwardselection; Manly, 2005) was later used to establish the degree of importance of thedifferent variables.

The average values, standard deviations and coefficient of variation for each ofthe variables were determined for each university. A one-way ANOVA test was usedto compare the variables among three groups of universities. Normality was testedusing a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and homoscedacity was tested using a Levenetest. Also, a posteriori Tukey test was performed (Mendenhall et al., 2008).

To test the hypothesis that there are no differences among the variables associated ornot associated with the accreditation among the groups previously defined, amultivariate discriminant analysis was performed to determine which variablesdetermined the difference between groups (Manly, 2005).

All statistical analyses were carried out using the statistic software STATISTICA8.0 (Statsoft, 2007).

3. ResultsIn Chile, during the study period, 118 institutional accreditation processes were carried out inthe 58 universities studied. Only one process was audited in eight universities (14.5 per cent);two were audited in 35 universities (63.6 per cent), three (14.5 per cent) were audited in eightuniversities; and four (7.2 per cent), in four universities. At the time of the research, only sixof the 58 universities were not accredited (10.34 per cent), one was accredited for a one-yearperiod (1.72 per cent); six for a two-year period (10.34 per cent); 14 for three years (24.13 percent), eight for four years (13.79 per cent); 15 were accredited for five years (25.86 per cent); sixfor six years (10.34 per cent) and only two (3.44 per cent) received accreditation for sevenyears. The nine private universities that received state financial support, were accredited foran average of 5.5 years; the 16 state-owned universities, for 4.04 years; and the 33 privateuniversities without state financial for an average of 3.23 years.

In terms of the length of the institutional accreditation (average years ofaccreditation), the results of the multiple linear regression using the nine dependentvariables, showed a moderate adjustment level; (r2 � 0.711; F � 13.164; d.f. � 9; 48;p � 0.001). Of the nine variables, only one, the number of accredited areas wassignificant, showing a moderate association degree (r � 0.57) (see Table I).The multiple regression analysis (stepwise forward procedure) indicated that thenumber of accredited areas account for 60.3 per cent of the variation in the averagelength of the accreditation processes, while the number of accredited programsaccounted for 6 per cent; and the number of graduate programs accounted for nearly 2.5per cent. All other variables were not significant and, therefore, were excluded from themodel.

The variables showed a wide range and high dispersion both between and within theuniversity groups (see Table II). The greatest variations within the three groups ofuniversities were detected for the following variables: accredited graduate programsand number of graduate programs. The variables with lowest variation, among thegroups, were: for Groups A and B, average length of accreditation, and in Group C, theinstitutional seniority.

Significantly statistical differences were apparent for most of the variables understudy among the types of universities, except for two variables: number of studentsand number of campuses (see Table III). In general terms, universities with state

171

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 8

financial support, both state-owned and private-owned, showed similarities in termof the variables assessed; nevertheless, the private institutions not belonging toCRUCH showed similarities with the state-owned universities, particularly in termsof those variables such as the number of full-time teachers, number of postgraduateprograms and number of accredited postgraduate programs (see Table III).

The discriminant analysis showed that the first discriminant factor or function wasstatistically significant (Eigenvalue � 1.955; R canonica � 0.813; Wilks Lamda � 0.268;�2 � 65.82; df �22; p � 3.10�6) accounting for 88.17 per cent of the variation of thediscrimination among the type of institutions. The variables influencing the firstdiscriminating function according to the values of the standardized coefficient were thenumber of students, the number of full-time teachers, the number of accreditedprograms, the number of accredited graduate programs, the average length ofinstitutional accreditation and the length of accreditation in the last process (seeTable IV).

The quadratic distances of Mahalanobis between the centroids of the groupsestablished by the discriminant analysis suggested that the state-owned universitieswere closer to the private universities without state financial support than those privateuniversities with state financial support.

However, all groups of universities proved to be statistically different (seeTable V).

The classification analysis among the types of institutions suggested a higher levelof homogeneity among private institutions without state financial support (97 per cent)than those with state financial support (63-89 per cent). Nevertheless, the highpercentages obtained suggested that institutions were adequately engaged to the groupwhere they legally belong. However, six state-owned universities behaved like privateuniversities, four as the group of private universities with state economic support andtwo as private without state economic support. Of these state-owned universities, twowere located in Santiago, the capital of Chile, and four were not. Two private universitiesbehaved like state-owned institutions; one of them belonging to CRUCH, but not theother (see Table VI). Therefore, within all three groups of universities, there wereinstitutions whose behavior, in terms of the institutional and accreditation variablesevaluated, differed from the one expected according to the group to which they legally

Table I.Multiple regressionfor the dependentvariable (institutionalaccreditation averagelength in years forChilean universities)(N � 58)

Variables Pearson R � Coefficient p

Constant 1.1791 0.0047Seniority �0.0881 �0.0051 0.6561Number of students 0.1977 0.0001 0.3241Number of full-time teachers �0.1429 �0.0008 0.6024Number of graduate programs �0.208 �0.0174 0.1255Number of accredited programs 0.3158 0.0744 0.0579Number of postgraduate programs 0.0976 0.0064 0.5116Number of accredited postgraduate program 0.0951 0.0127 0.6974Number of campuses 0.0221 0.0102 0.8595Accredited areas 0.5718 0.6843 0.0001

Note: N � Number of universities

QAE23,2

172

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 9

Table II.Variables and statics

per groups

Typ

eof

univ

ersi

tyV

aria

bles

Stat

istic

sG

roup

A(N

�16

)G

roup

B(N

�9)

Gro

upC

(N�

33)

Tot

al(N

�58

)

Seni

ority

Ave

rage

43.1

8859

.889

10.1

526

.98

SD47

.353

36.7

174.

0834

.60

Ran

ge17

-167

18-1

221-

191-

167

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

109.

661

.308

40.1

912

8.24

Num

ber

ofst

uden

tsA

vera

ge8,

300.

8111

,233

.78

7,14

4.9

8,00

0.94

SD6,

012.

296,

556.

646,

727.

36,

568.

54R

ange

2,27

5-25

,229

4,71

5-22

,848

708-

25,1

6764

5-25

,229

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

72.4

3058

.365

94.1

582

.10

Num

ber

offu

ll-tim

ete

ache

rsA

vera

ge48

3.17

367

5.76

257.

4839

4.06

SD40

5.05

650

9.17

427

5.94

38.,7

1R

ange

172-

1,83

624

9-1,

721

19.8

-1,1

3719

.8-1

,836

.89

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

83.8

375

.348

107.

1698

.89

Num

ber

ofgr

adua

tepr

ogra

ms

Ave

rage

51.9

3853

.444

37.1

243

.74

SD22

.54

17.3

524

.33

23.8

2R

ange

25-9

923

-79

6-96

6-99

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

43.3

9832

.464

65.5

454

.45

Num

ber

ofac

cred

ited

prog

ram

sA

vera

ge12

.813

20.7

785

9.60

SD8.

126

8.75

84.

18.

52R

ange

3-37

13-3

90-

150-

39V

aria

tion

coef

ficie

nt(%

)63

.420

42.1

5082

88.7

5N

umbe

rof

post

grad

uate

prog

ram

sA

vera

ge25

.063

45.5

5611

.28

20.5

6SD

39.8

9636

.973

17.2

330

.68

Ran

ge0-

167

5-11

10-

810-

167

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

159.

183

81.1

5915

2.7

149.

22N

umbe

rof

accr

edite

dpo

stgr

adua

tepr

ogra

ms

Ave

rage

8.68

816

.889

0.34

5.29

SD21

.064

22.2

291.

0315

.13

Ran

ge0-

860-

630-

50-

86V

aria

tion

Coef

ficie

nt(%

)24

2.44

131.

618

302.

9428

6.01

Num

ber

ofca

mpu

ses

Ave

rage

2.62

52.

556

4.18

3.5

SD1.

746

1.50

95.

564.

37R

ange

1-8

1-5

1-23

1-23

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

66.5

1459

.037

613

3.01

124.

85(c

ontin

ued)

173

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 10

Table II.

Typ

eof

univ

ersi

tyV

aria

bles

Stat

istic

sG

roup

A(N

�16

)G

roup

B(N

�9)

Gro

upC

(N�

33)

Tot

al(N

�58

)

Acc

redi

ted

area

sA

vera

ge3.

125

3.55

61.

362.

18SD

1.5

1.87

81.

191.

68R

ange

0-6

0-6

0-4

0-6

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

4852

.812

87.5

77.0

6A

vera

gele

ngth

ofin

stitu

tiona

lacc

redi

tatio

nA

vera

ge3.

365

5.11

12.

222.

93SD

1.61

41.

219

1.84

2.01

Ran

ge0-

73.

5-7

0-5.

50-

7V

aria

tion

coef

ficie

nt(%

)47

.964

23.8

5182

.88

68.6

0Le

ngth

ofth

ela

stpe

riod

ofin

stitu

tiona

lacc

redi

tatio

nA

vera

ge3.

755.

222

2.33

3.17

SD1.

807

1.30

12.

042.

14R

ange

0-7

3-7

0-6

0-7

Var

iatio

nco

effic

ient

(%)

48.1

8724

.914

87.5

567

.50

Not

es:

Gro

upA

:sta

te-o

wne

dun

iver

sitie

s;G

roup

B:p

riva

teun

iver

sitie

sre

ceiv

ing

stat

efin

anci

alsu

ppor

t;G

roup

C:pr

ivat

eun

iver

sitie

sw

ithou

tst

ate

finan

cial

supp

ort;

N�

Num

ber

ofun

iver

sitie

s

QAE23,2

174

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 11

Table III.One-way ANOVA

test results for eachvariable studied and

a posteriori Tukeytest.

Variable df F p Group A Group B Group C

Seniority 2;55 14.64 �0.001*** a a bNumber of students 2;55 1.70 0.192 a a aNumber of full-time teachers 2;55 6.88 �0.01** ab a bNumber of programs 2;55 3.24 �0.05* a a bNumber accredited programs 2;55 25.35 �0.001*** a b cNumber postgraduate programs 2;55 5.60 �0.01** ab a bNumber of accredited postgraduateprograms 2;55 5.70 �0.01** ab a bNumber of campuses 2;55 0.92 0.401 a a aAccredited areas 2;55 13.62 �0.001*** a a bAverage length of institutionalaccreditation 2;55 11.18 �0.001*** a b aLength of the last period of institutionalaccreditation 2;55 9.32 �0.001*** a a b

Notes: Freedom degrees (df), F-values (F) and p-value (p) for each group are shown; the statisticaldifferences are indicated by lower-case letters; Group A: state-owned universities; Group B: privateuniversities with state financial support; Group C: private universities without State financialsupport; ***p �0.001; **p �0.01; *p �0.05

Table IV.Variables evaluated

in the institutionalaccreditation

analysis

VariablesFirst discriminant

factorSecond discriminant

factor

Seniority �0.5324 0.0306Number of students 1.5806* �0.0734Number of full-time teachers 1.4801* 0.0866Number of programs 0.0735 0.5752Number of accredited programs �1.2595* �0.5057Number of postgraduate programs 0.2737 �0.5768Number of accredited postgraduate programs 1.4719* 0.6687Number of campuses �0.4611 �0.4108Accredited areas 0.1827 0.8538Average length of institutional accreditation �2.4145* �3.2299Length of the last period of institutional accreditation 2.2447* 2.8017

Notes: Standardized coefficients by discriminant factor; * higher standardized coefficient; p �0.05

Table V.Mahalanobis

distances betweencentroids established

for the groups ofChilean universities

and differenceprobabilities (p)

among groups ofuniversities

Type of University Group A Group B Group C

Group A –Group B 5.8206

p � 0.0153–

Group C 3.9805p � 0.0028

13.9176p � 0.000001

–

Notes: Group A: state-owned universities; Group B: private universities with State financial support;Group C: private universities without State financial support

175

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 12

belonged. This happened mainly in the state-owned universities. However, 86 per cent ofthe institutions grouped into the different groups, maintained the affiliation to theiroriginal group when the variables associated to the institutional accreditation wereconsidered.

4. DiscussionAccreditation processes in Latin American universities followed different procedures.Consequently, different outcomes are to be expected (Fernández-Lamarra, 2005;Espinoza, 2010; Vizcarra et al., 2011). However, no evidence was available in terms of thereal impacts of these processes. Difficulties in isolating causes and effects have beenrecognized due to the great variety of factors influencing the quality of HEIs, qualityassurance being only one of them (Ribeiro, 2001; Stensaker, 2003). Also, universitiestypically adopt measures to adapt to these regulatory processes (Ewell, 2007).Therefore, quality assurance processes did not necessarily lead to real meaningfulchanges in quality. In Chile, university accreditation has been perceived as a processleading to positive changes, that may also generate changes in academic managementprocedures (Lemaitre, 2005; Brunner and Uribe, 2007; González, 2008; Espinoza andGonzález, 2013). However, evaluations of the results of these processes have onlyfocused on individual cases or only partial analyses have been performed (Letelier andCarrasco, 2004; CNAP, 2007; OECD, 2009; Minte and López, 2009; Zapata and Tejeda,2009; Schrager and Aravena, 2010; Domínguez and Meckes, 2011).

In this context, some aspects that have generated great controversy are those relatedto the allocation of public funding, student’s access to information when choosing anuniversity to study in, quality-cost relationships and the application of the samestandard for different types of institution. (Lemaitre, 2005; Lemaitre, 2011; Zapata andTejada, 2009; Espinoza and González, 2013).

For the accreditation to be awarded, universities must consider the following aspects:establish clear institutional purposes and objectives, define policies and formalmechanisms according to the purposes declared in their institutional mission;demonstrate that quality assurance policies and mechanisms are systematicallyapplied; demonstrate consistency between results and purposes stated and showcapability in carrying out the necessary changes to improve quality and achieve those

Table VI.Universities groupedaccording to theirlegal status

University Group according to legal status Group according to variables used in the study

1 A B2 A B3 A B4 A C5 A C6 A C7 B A8 C A

Notes: Group A: state-owned universities; Group B: private universities with state financial support;Group C: private universities without state financial support and according to the classification analysisaccording to the variables used in the analysis

QAE23,2

176

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 13

purposes. The institutional Self-Evaluation Report and the Peer Evaluation Report(based on a peer visit to the institutions and the study of the Self-Evaluation Report)contain the analytical components and the evidence supporting the resolutions onaccreditation issued by an Independent Council (Zapata and Tejeda, 2009). A detailedstudy of the institutional accreditation resolutions reveals that decisions are based ongeneral qualitative judgments; therefore, both the experience and the capability of thepeers and the council to interpret the facts are decisive factors. The most recurrentpositive aspects in the management of universities make reference to the definition ofthe institutional purpose, objectives and mission. Implementation was, however, limiteddue to several factors. However, as a consequence of the accreditation processes thathave been implemented in Chilean universities, standards and procedures for anadequate organizational structure have been defined. The most frequently mentionednegative aspects of the accreditation resolutions were related to a general assessment ofhuman resources, differences in the daily work routines among internal units, internalcoordination processes and articulation among organizational levels. Medium- andlong-term planning difficulties were also mentioned, as well as inaccurate resourceallocation and limitations of the information systems, mainly in terms ofdecision-making.

Results achieved after more than 10 years of accreditation processes in ChileanUniversities show consistency, despite the differences in terms of type of universities.The length of the accreditation period awarded to the universities is mostly determinedby those variables associated with these processes, such as the number of areasaccredited, and to a lesser extent, the number of programs accredited. This means thatuniversities accredited for a longer period were those recognized by their researchactivities and graduate programs. At the time of this research, there were 15 universitiesaccredited for research and 10 for postgraduate programs, i.e. 28.8 and 19.2 per cent ofthe total number of universities, respectively. These results indicated that thosevariables not directly associated with the accreditation processes were negligible, i.e. didnot influence the length of the accreditation period. Of the six variables influencing thediscriminant function of groups of universities, four were variables associated withaccreditation. On the other hand, most of the variables were significantly differentamong the groups of universities, but those showing greater variation were the numberof postgraduate programs and the number of accredited postgraduate programs. It isimportant to notice that institutional accreditation processes for graduate andpostgraduate programs were independent processes in terms of responsibilities forprocesses and results, falling to the National Agency on Accreditation and privateagencies (Zapata and Tejeda, 2009).

Two particular circumstances have gained special relevance in the analysis ofinstitutional accreditation process results in Chilean universities: the differencesbetween types of universities and the increase in the number of HEIs in the past decades,which have led to the increase in the number of undergraduate programs (Espinoza andGonzález, 2011). The private universities have strongly increased the supply of theseprograms. Among Chilean universities, three main groups were identified:

(1) state-owned universities;(2) private universities receiving state financial support; and(3) private universities without direct financial support from the state.

177

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 14

These groups of universities were heterogeneous and each one of them had distinctivecharacteristics. Even though the state-owned universities received economic supportfrom the state, most of their funding came from the private sector. However, they havestrong external administrative and financial controls imposed by the state. Most of theacademic staff work full-time with indefinite contract terms. The academic staff vote tochoose their leadership. As a consequence, their response to changes was slower andmore complex. Most of these universities carry out research activities and, for thoselocated in cities other than the capital, research is strongly related to the cultural, socialand economic development of the communities nearby. There are also privateuniversities which receive state funds, but they are not subjected to state administrativeand financial controls. As the state-owned universities had full-time teachers andresearchers that were able to carry out research and some of them choose theirleadership directly. In others, e.g. those associated with Catholic Church, indirect choicemechanisms prevail. A new group of private universities was founded in the past 30years This group does not receive direct financial support from the state, and theirbudget depends only on the tuition fees payments. Therefore, they are not subjected tothe same regulations as the state-owned universities, the accreditation processes beingthe only regulatory mechanism operated by the state. With some exceptions, mostof their teachers worked part-time and carried out very little or no research. Eventhough, officially, these are not profit organizations, some of them behaved as if theywere for profit.

The results indicated that the research accreditation was the only variable thatexplained the length of the institutional accreditation. This was probably the reasonwhy private universities without state financial support had shorter accreditationperiods compared to the state-owned universities, i.e. private universities had aninsufficient number of full-time academics. In fact, those universities that were awardedlonger accreditation periods were those that had overcome these limitations.

Private universities with state financial support had fewer controls and less politicallimitations than the state-owned universities. This seemed to make it easier when itcame to improvement and ensuring quality. Schwartzman (1996) noted that instate-owned universities, there were administrative consequences in the decision-making procedures, due to the political role of the academic oligarchies. Also, the rigideconomic control of state or private funds that these universities received generated lesscapacity to improve their performance quality.

The existence of different types of universities, both state-owned and private (withand without direct state financial support) enabled the exponential increase in graduateprograms and student numbers (Brunner and Uribe, 2007). Therefore, verifying possibledifferences in the results of the institutional accreditation processes among the types ofuniversities constitutes an important mechanism for an accurate interpretation of thisphenomenon. Despite the differences between and within university groups, for almostall variables studied, paradoxically state-owned institutions were more similar toprivate institutions without state support than to those receiving the support from thestate. The analysis of variables associated with the accreditation processes, and thosenot associated with it, revealed that nearly all universities were grouped in the correctgroup according to their legal status. The state-owned universities showed higherdispersion, as six of them behaved like a private university. A possible explanationcould be the change in the governance regimens of the state-owned universities from

QAE23,2

178

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 15

collegial to enterprise, caused by the economic context of the universities (Brunner,2011). This could be due to the effects of public and private roles in the Chilean system,which has been the source of debate (Atria, 2011; León, 2011), and to the componentsconsidered in the institutional accreditation processes.

This debate has been associated with the funding provided by the state, particularlyafter recent government announcements regarding future plans to prioritize funding forstate-owned universities. As a response to this announcement, some sectors argued thatprivate universities (with and without state financial support) provided as many publicgoods as the state-owned universities. Therefore, the factors determining thedistribution of the economic benefits should be the quality of education and economicstatus of the students and not the type of university. On the other hand, there are severalcases, where profit in private non-profit universities resulted in accusations of breakingthe law by operating as profit organizations. Indeed, illegal economic andadministrative practices have led to the closure of one private university, highlightingthe need for the state financial scrutiny of other private institutions. This is a topic toconsider in the implementation of new policies, considering that the fees of Chileanuniversities exceed 40 per cent of gross domestic product per capita and publicexpenditure on higher education is 40 per cent less than the average expenditure ofcountries in the OECD. Therefore, it was proposed that they supply of cost-freeeducation associated with high-quality institutions. Results show that due to budgetrestrictions and the lack of regulation, state-owned universities have adopted strategiesthat were similar to those seen in private universities without direct state financialsupport. This is evident in the results of institutional accreditation. The state-owneduniversities were probably limited in responding fully to the tasks that are required ofsuch institutions as the unrestricted practice of pluralism and the development ofacademic and cultural activities of national interest.

The results obtained in this study suggested that the state-owned universitiesshowed more similarities to new private universities than to traditional universities.The results showed high variations between and within universities groups, but alsorevealed consistency. The largest deviations occurred within the state-owned universitygroup.

The role of the different types of universities (public/private) in the Latin Americahas been traditionally recognized (Rama, 2006). The emergence of the so-called “thirdwave” of private universities in the past few decades, has laid on them an importantresponsibility as far as the “massive increase” of the higher education is concerned(Garrido and López, 2007; Brunner, 2008). Hence, they have been linked to the qualityassurance processes and quality improvement as a way of balancing the deregulatedprivatization of higher education (Lemaitre, 2011). Therefore, special considerationshould be given to the different types of universities existing in Chile, in terms of theirlegal status and their relationship to the state, when analyzing the results of institutionalaccreditation processes.

Regardless of the actual differences among countries in terms of quality assurancemechanisms, standard procedures have frequently been applied in public universities.This leads to the consideration of factors such as research, the proportion of PhD in thefaculty, or a strictly selective-oriented prism where the emphasis is on “magnifying” thesupply. This is the case for many new private universities. The debate has not beenfocused on the standards, but on which of them and how they have to be applied. In

179

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 16

Chile, the market influence has been significant (Brunner, 2007; Brunner and Uribe,2007) and the “marketization” of higher education has influenced the interpretation ofstandards of institutional accreditation, generating an intense public debate.

ReferencesAl Bandary, M.S. (2005), “Meeting the challenges: the development of quality assurance in

Oman=s Colleges of Education”, Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 181-195.

Atria, R. (2011), “Chile: la débil distinción público/privado en un sistema de Educación Superior demodernización avanzada”, in Brünner, J.J. and Peña, C. (Eds), El conflicto De LasUniversidades: Entre Lo Público y lo Privado, Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales,Santiago de Chile, pp. 161-186.

Bernasconi, A. and Rojas, F. (2004), Informe sobre La Educación Superior en Chile: 1980-2003,Editorial Universitaria, Santiago de Chile.

Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000a), “Quality assessment and institutional change: experience from14 countries”, Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 331-349.

Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000b), Managing Quality in Higher education: Society for Research intoHigher Education, Open University Press, Buckinham.

Brooks, R.L. (2005), “Measuring university quality”, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 1-21.

Brunner, J.J. (2007), Universidad y Sociedad en América Latina, Instituto de Investigaciones enEducación, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz.

Brunner, J.J. (2008), “El sistema de Educación Superior en Chile. Un enfoque de economía políticacomparada”, Avaliacao, (Campinas), Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 451-486.

Brunner, J.J. (2009), “Chile=s higher education system: a comparative political economy focus”, inLópez Segrera, F., Brok, C. and Dias Sobrinho, J. (Eds), Higher Education in Latin Americaand the Caribbean, IESALC, Caracas, pp. 205-234.

Brunner, J.J. (2011), “Regímenes de gobernanza universitaria: un estudio tipológico y detendencias”, in Brunner, J.J. and Peña, C. (Eds), El Conflicto de la Universidades: Entre LosPúblico y lo Privado, Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago de Chile, pp. 187-226.

Brunner, J.J. and Uribe, E. (2007), Mercados Universitarios, El Nuevo Escenario de la EducacionSuperior, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago de Chile.

CINDA (2007), Acreditación y Dirección Estratégica en las Universidades, CorporaciónInteruniversitaria del Desarrollo (CINDA), Santiago de Chile.

CNAP (2007), El modelo chileno de Acreditación de la Educación Superior (1997-2007), ComisiónNacional deAcreditación de Pregrado, Santiago de Chile, p. 119.

Cret, B. (2011), “Accreditations as local management tools”, Higher Education, Vol. 61 No. 1,pp. 415-429.

De la Garza, J. (2008), “Evaluación y Acreditación de la Educación Superior en América Latina yel Caribe”, La Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe a Diez Años de laConferencia Mundial de 1998, Cap IV IESALC/UNESCO, Colombia, pp. 175-222.

Domínguez, M. and Meckes, L. (2011), “Análisis y propuestas para la acreditación de pedagogíasen Chile”, Calidad en la Educación, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 165-183.

Espinoza, O. (2010), “Los Sistemas de Aseguramiento de la Calidad en América Latina”,Akademeia, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-22.

QAE23,2

180

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 17

Espinoza, O. and González, L.E. (2011), “Impacto de la acreditacion en instituciones y actores: elcaso de chile”, in Servetto, A. and Saur, D. (Eds), Sentidos de la Universidad, EdicionesUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba.

Espinoza, O. and González, L.E. (2013), “Accreditation in higher education in Chile: results andconsequences”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 20-38.

Ewell, P. (2007), “The quality game: external review and institutional reactions over three decadesin the US”, in Westerheijden, D., Stensaker, M.B. and Rosa, M.J. (Eds), Quality Assurance inHigher Education: Trends in Regulation and Transformation, Higher EducationDynamics, Springer, Dordrecht.

Fernández-Lamarra, N. (2005), “La evaluación y la acreditación de la calidad en la EducaciónSuperior en América Latina: situación actual, experiencias y desafíos”, available at:ww.iesalc.unesco.org.ve/ (acessed 10 January 2012).

Fernández-Lamarra, N. (2007), Educación Superior y Calidad en América Latina y Argentina. LosProcesos de Evaluación y Acreditación, EDUNTREF, Buenos Aires.

Frederiks, M.M.H., Westerheijden, D.F. and Weusthof, P.J.M. (1994), “Effects of qualityassessment in Dutch Higher Education”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 95-110.

Garrido, O. and López, D. (2007), “La educación superior chilena: hechuras y transformaciones”, inGarrido, O., Nordenflycht, M.E. and Baldivieso, S. (Eds), Diseño Curricular PorCompetencias: Innovación en la Formación Profesional, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno,pp. 11-40.

González, L.E. (2008), El Impacto del Proceso de Evaluación y Acreditación en las Universidades deAmérica Latina, CINDA-IESALC/UNESCO, Buenos Aires.

Gvaramadze, I. (2008), “From quality assurance to quality enhancement in the European HigherEducation area”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 443-455.

Harvey, L. and Knight, P.T. (1996), Transforming Higher Education, Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press Buckingham.

Hoecht, A. (2006), “Quality assurance in UK higher education: issues of trust, control, professionalautonomy, and accountability”, Higher Education, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 541-563.

Hou, A.Y. (2011), “Quality assurance at a distance: international accreditation in Taiwan highereducation”, Higher Education, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 179-191.

Huusko, M. and Ursin, J. (2010), “Why (not) assess? Views from the academic departments ofFinnish universities”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 7,pp. 859-869.

Kells, H.R. (1992), Self-Regulation in Higher Education: A Multi-National Perspective onCollaborative Systems of Quality Assurance and Control, Higher Education Policy seriesNo. 15, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London and Philadelphia.

Lemaitre, M.J. (2005), Aseguramiento de la Calidad en Chile: Impacto y Proyecciones:Aseguramiento de la clidad: Impacto y Proyecciones, Serie de Seminarios InternacionalesCap. I, Consejo Superior de Educación, Santiago de Chile, pp. 55-69.

Lemaitre, M.J. (2009), “Nuevos enfoques sobre aseguramiento de la calidad en un contexto decambios”, Calidad en la Educación, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 170-189.

Lemaitre, M.J. (2011), “Aseguramiento de la calidad para la educación superior privada”, inBrunner, J.J. and Peña, C. (Eds), El Conflicto de Las Universidades: Entre lo Público y loPrivado, Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago de Chile, pp. 365-388.

León, J.J. (2011), “El conflicto de las universidades desde una perspectiva jurídica: lo público y loprivado en el debate en el debate sobre la autonomía universitaria”, in Brunner, J.J. and

181

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 18

Peña, C. (Eds), El Conflicto de Las Universidades: Entre lo Público y lo Privado, EdicionesUniversidad Diego Portales, Santiago de Chile, pp. 299-330.

Letelier, M. and Carrasco, R. (2004), “Higher Education assessment and accreditation in Chile:state-of-the art and trends”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 119-124.

Manly, B.F.J. (2005), Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer, 3rd ed., Chapman & Hall/CRC,Boca Raton, FL, p. 214.

Mendenhall, W., Beaver, R.J. and Beaver, B.M. (2008), Introduction to Probability and Statistics,13th ed., Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, p. 746.

Michavila, F. and Zamorano, S. (2008), “Survey of the quality guaranty systems in Europe: atransnational vision for the accreditation”, Revista de Educación, (Special issue),pp. 235-263.

Minte, A. and López, D. (2009), “Modelo de respuesta a la acreditación institucional: la experienciade la Universidad de los Lagos”, Calidad en la Educación, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 145-165.

Mollis, M. and Marginson, S. (2002), “The assessment of universities in Argentina and Australia:Between autonomy and heteronomy”, Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 311-330.

Newton, J. (2002), “View from below: academics coping with quality”, Quality in Higher Education,Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 39-61.

OECD (2009), La Educación Superior en Chile, Ministerio de Educación, OECD, Gobierno de Chile,London.

Power, M. (1997), The Audit Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Rama, C. (2006), La Tercera Reforma de la Educación Superior en América Latina, Fondo de

Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires.Ratcliff, J.R. (1996), “Assessment, accreditation and evaluation in the US”, Quality in Higher

Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-19.Ribeiro, J.L. (2001), “Avaliacao das universidades breasileiras as possibilidades de avaliar e as

dificuldades de ser avaliado”, Avaliacao (Campinas), Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-71.Salter, B. and Tapper, T. (2000), “The politics of governance in higher education: the case of

quality assurance”, Political Studies, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 66-87.Schrager, J. and Aravena, M.T. (2010), “Impacto de las políticas de aseguramiento de la calidad en

programas de Educación Superior: un estudio exploratorio”, Calidad en la Educación,Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-42.

Schwartzman, S. (1996), “El papel de la universidad en el desarrollo social”, Revista de EducaciónSuperior, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 99-104.

Schwarz, S. and Westerheijden, D.F. (Eds) (2004), Accreditation and Evaluation in the EuropeanHigher Education Area, KluwerAcademic, Dordrecht.

Shah, M., Nair, S. and Wilson, M. (2011), “Quality assurance in Australian Higher Education:historical and future development”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 475-483.

Shore, C. and Wright, S. (2000), “Coercive accountability: the rise of audit culture in highereducation”, in Strathern, M. (Ed.), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability,Ethics and the Academy, Routledge, London, pp. 57-89.

Statsoft Inc. (2007), “STATISTICA (data analysis software system), Version 8.0.”, available at:www.statsoft.com

Stensaker, B. (2003), “Trance, transparency and transformation: the impact of external qualitymonitoring in higher education”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 151-159.

QAE23,2

182

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)

Page 19

Stensaker, B., Langferldt, L., Harvey, L., Huisman, J. and Westerheijden, D. (2011), “An in-depthstudy on the impact of external quality assurance”, Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 465-478.

Thune, C. (1998), “The European systems of quality assurance: dimensions of harmonization anddifferentiation”, Higher Education Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 9-25.

Van Vught, F.A. and Westerheijden, D.F. (1993), Quality Management and Quality Assurance inEuropean Higher Education: Methods and Mechanisms, Office for Official Publications ofthe Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Vizcarra, N., Boza, E. and Monteiro, E. (2011), “La no neutralidad en la evaluación de la calidad ymodelos de evaluación de la Educación Superior, casos de: Colombia, Argentina y Brasil”,Avaliacao (Campinas), Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 291-316.

Yonezawa, A. (2002), “The quality assurance system and market forces in Japanese HigherEducation”, Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 127-139.

Zapata, G. and Tejeda, I. (2009), “Impactos del aseguramiento de la calidad y acreditación de laEducación Superior: Consideraciones y proposiciones”, Calidad en la Educación Superior,Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 192-209.

About the authorsDaniel A. López, PhD, is a professor in university management postgraduate courses, Vice-rectorin Research and Graduate Studies at the University of Playa Ancha, and ex-principal of theUniversity of Los Lagos, Chile. He is also the ex-president of the Network of Latin AmericanRegional Universities, and the author of numerous book and articles on Higher Educationmanagement and scientific-technological research. Daniel A. López is the corresponding authorand can be contacted at: [email protected]

Maria J. Rojas, PhD, is an Assistant lecturer in Educational Policy and Management at theUniversity of Playa Ancha, Chile.

Boris A. López is a PhD Student, Biologist. He is an Assistant lecturer in Ecology andBiostatistics at the University of Los Lagos, Chile. He is also the author of various mainstreamarticles on Ecology and Aquaculture.

Daniel C. López is a journalist, graduate in Social Comunication, Director of Dacmal Consultant(educational management), and an ex-member of the open lecture “Solidarity”. NationalUniversity of La Plata, Argentina.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

183

Chileanuniversities

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

octo

r B

oris

Lop

ez A

t 08:

21 2

3 A

pril

2015

(PT

)