Student perspectives on quality in higher education

1

Student perspectives on quality in higher education

The study provides an insight into student perspectives on quality in higher education, using

Harvey & Green conceptualizations as the point of departure, and exploring the linkages

between the views on quality, the developments of the Bologna Process and related national

reforms, as well as students’ motivation for and expectations from higher education. Using the

data collected in a survey of the student population in several European countries, the study

shows that students have a multi-faceted perception of quality in higher education, very

homogenous with regards to ‘quality as transformation/added-value’ perspective, but rather

polarized with regards to ‘quality as value for money’ perspective. Students seem to prefer

perspectives that put them in the centre of the process, though not necessarily only as active

participants and co-creators of the higher education experience, but potentially also as passive

consumers. The results show some blurring of the boundaries between the more traditional

Humboldtian and the consumerist view on higher education among students.

Keywords: quality, students, Bologna, Humboldt, consumerist

Introduction

Quality of higher education is ‘stakeholder relative’ (Harvey and Green 1993, 28). The fact

that it is primarily ‘in the eye of the beholder’ turns the issue of quality in higher education into a

so-called ‘wicked problem’, difficult to theorize and measure, in particular in situations in which

multiple stakeholders across multiple levels of governance are expected to be involved in quality

assurance practices, for accountability and/or enhancement purposes (Krause 2012).

The issue of quality, and in particular assurance thereof has been high on the policy agenda, in

some European countries since the 1980s (e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK) as part of

the reform package aimed at transforming steering in higher education, while in some other

countries in early 1990s as a reaction to mushrooming private higher education (Central and Eastern

Europe, in particular Poland, see Schwarz and Westerheijden 2004). Later on, assurance of quality

and European cooperation in that respect became one of the main action lines of the Bologna

Process, resulting in (1) a set of 23 European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in

Higher Education (ENQA 2005, hereinafter referred to as ESG) for internal and external quality

2

assurance of higher education institutions and external quality assurance of QA agencies, (2) the

strengthening of ENQA and establishment of EQAR, as well as (3) a plethora of institutional,

national and cross-national projects focusing on developing robust, transparent and effective QA

mechanisms1. Many of these projects (like the ESG itself) highlight the importance of student

participation, reflecting the more general Bologna principle of including students as ‘full members

of the academic community’ (Prague Communiqué 2001, 1).

The policy focus on quality in higher education has been mirrored by the scholarly

community. Some of the interest is focused on whether various quality assurance approaches indeed

improve the quality of higher education (Stensaker 2003; Westerheijden et al. 2007). There is also

considerable work being done on exploring how quality can be defined and how it is perceived by

different actors in higher education, essentially underlying ambiguity and multifacetedness of the

concept and, by extension, ambiguity of quality assurance practices. In their much cited paper2 on

the concept of quality in higher education, Harvey and Green (1993, 9) offered five ‘discrete but

interrelated categories’: quality as exception, perfection, fitness for purpose, value for money and

transformation. Research so far identified that academic staff can have different understandings of

what quality of higher education is, with some variance being linked to disciplinary differences

(Kekäle 2002; Pompili 2010). The perception of quality (and how it can be ensured in higher

education) changes as higher education becomes massified (Lomas 2002), and some argue there is a

‘cultural divide’ between quality assurance specialists and academic staff with regards to what is

understood as quality (Poole 2010).

However, compared to significant attention to the notion of quality in higher education and

the perspectives of academic and administrative staff, student perspectives on the same issue have

1 From 2001 onwards more than 20 European events have been specifically focused on quality assurance, some of

which with the official “Bologna seminar” label, and the European stakeholder organization participated in more than

30 projects thus far, in most cases with EU funding. Just in the TEMPUS IV programme of the EU (2007-2013) more

than 40 projects focusing on quality were funded.

2 According to a Google Scholar search performed in late February 2014, since its publication the paper has been cited

more than 1000 times, with half of the citations in the last five years (from 2009 onwards).

3

been the subject of surprisingly few studies. While Sarrico and Rosa (2014) or Wiers-Jenssen et al.

(2002) analyse student satisfaction with different aspects of higher education (in Portugal and

Norway respectively), they do not link this specifically to the different understandings of what

quality in higher education is. In general, studies on the students’ view on the issue focus on quality

of lecturers or student involvement in quality assurance (e.g. Coates 2005) or take as their starting

point that students are consumers which, as Cardoso (2012) demonstrated, does not reflect students’

multidimensional identity. Such lack of scholarly focus on students’ perspectives on quality of

higher education in Europe stands in stark contrast with the fact that within the Bologna Process

both quality assurance and student participation are very high on the agenda. The European

cooperation in the area of quality assurance was one of the initial action lines of the Bologna

Process, while student participation was highlighted at the next ministerial summit in 2001 and

underlined again in the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher

Education in 2005 (ENQA 2005). Although the Bologna Process and related reforms received much

scholarly attention, and while therefore one would expect that two prominent issues – quality and

student participation – will also be in the focus of higher education research, at present we do not

have a solid account on how students in Europe view quality in higher education, and whether the

student population in Europe is homogeneous in their views or not, in particular given the

massification of higher education and diversity of students’ socio-economic backgrounds,

motivations for and expectations from higher education.

Partly in response to such lack of scholarly attention, the European Students Union launched

in 2010 a project called “Quest for quality for students”, aiming to explore the concept of quality

that corresponds to the idea of student-centred learning.3 As part of this project, a survey was

conducted in several European countries, focusing on student motivations and expectations from

higher education, their views on the purposes of higher education, their opinions about different

conceptualizations of quality in higher education (based on the five dimensions by Harvey&Green)

3 See http://www.esu-online.org/projects/archive/quest/ (page accessed 21 November 2014).

4

and student awareness about quality assurance mechanisms on the institutional, national and

European level (see method section for more detail about sample and survey). This article will use

the data collected within this survey with an aim to answer the following questions:

1. What are the patterns in how students perceive quality of higher education?

2. What are the similarities and differences in student views on quality in relation to the

context (higher education system) and students’ socio-economic background?

3. What are the similarities and differences in student views on quality in relation to

their motivation for and expectations from higher education?

The article will proceed with a theoretical discussion about conceptualizations of quality,

multi-facetedness of contemporary European and national policies on quality in higher education,

heterogeneity of the student population and implications this all has for studying students’

perspectives on quality. This will be followed by a brief presentation of the data used and methods

employed, after which results will be presented and discussed. The final section provides a

summative answer to the research questions, a reflection on the relevance of the Harvey&Green

conceptualizations of quality and some ideas for further research.

The analytical framework

Point of departure: Harvey & Green conceptualizations of quality

The key message of the Harvey and Green (1993) article on defining quality was that quality is a

relative concept and its relativeness has two facets: (1) it is in the eye of the beholder (i.e. it is

stakeholder relative) and (2) it can be measured in absolute and relative terms. They suggested five

main conceptualizations of quality in higher education and elaborated some of them in more detail,

as summarized in Table 1. These five conceptualizations include: quality as exception, quality as

perfection, quality as fitness for purpose, quality as value for money and quality as transformation.

5

Although the different conceptualizations of quality are inter-related, they also imply differences

with regards to what aspect of higher education is in focus, what are the perspectives on the role of

students, whether such quality is attainable or not, etc.

Table 1 – Summary of H&G’s (1993) conceptualizations of quality in higher education

Main

conceptualization Refined conceptualizations Implications

Exception – quality

is something special

Quality as distinctive (“traditional

notion”, 11)

Quality is self-evident, no need for any form of

assessment

Resonates more with elite HE

Quality as excellence (“exceeding

high standards”, 12)

Excelling in input and output

Related to reputation

Rarely attainable

Quality as “passing a set of required

(minimum) standards” (11)

Passing a set of quality checks

Attainable

Conforming to (negotiated) standards

Perfection – quality

is doing things

consistently

Quality as “zero defects” (15)

Focus on reliability and consistency

Conforming to a particular specification

Focus on prevention instead of inspection

Quality as “doing things right the

first time” (16)

Related to the concept of a ‘quality culture’

Everyone involved responsible for quality

Democratizing and relativizing quality

Fitness for purpose –

quality is

corresponding to the

purpose

Quality as corresponding to customer

specification

Customer (students, government, employers) in

focus

Assessment depends on the customer as well

Quality in relation to “clearly stated

mission” (19) of the HE institution

Focus on whether the mission is fulfilled and

good management practice

Challenge to define what the mission is

Value for money –

quality in relation to

the cost

Quality as being efficient and

effective

Focus on performance indicators

Accountability to the funders

Related to New Public Management

Transformation –

quality is about

change

Quality in relation to enhancing the

student

Focus on added value

Learners in the centre

Quality in relation to empowering

the student

Focus on critical thinking and self-awareness of

the student

For example, quality seen in terms of ‘value for money’ focuses on the efficiency of the

process, treating the initial conditions and outcomes as secondary concerns, while in the

6

‘transformation/added-value’ perspective the difference between the input (student knowledge and

competence before higher education) and output (student knowledge after) is of primary concern.

These two perspectives also differ with regards to the implied role of the student. When seeing

quality as ‘value for money’ the student is assumed to be predominantly a passive consumer while

if quality is seen as ‘transformation’ the student can have more agency, s/he is more of an active

participant and a contributor to the higher education process.

Additional distinctions exist between the refinements of specific conceptualizations. For

example, while specifying ‘quality as exception’ in the form of ‘excellence’ suggests that such a

situation is rarely attainable, specification in the form of ‘achieving minimal standards’ does just the

opposite – these standards should be attainable by most higher education institutions and

programmes. In addition, the different conceptualizations of quality also resonate with different

principles. If the focus is on ‘value for money’ efficiency matters regardless of the purpose, if the

focus is on ‘fitness for purpose’, the purpose should first be defined and only in relation to such

(agreed upon) purpose can quality be assessed.

Finally, the different conceptualizations of quality also rely on different epistemological

foundations. For example, quality as value for money implies a positivistic view on the process of

higher education: it assumes that value is possible to be measured and that there exists a clear causal

link between money invested and value obtained. In contrast, quality as ‘added value/empowering

the student’ essentially implies a critical-dialectical view of higher education (for these points see in

particular Harvey 2007).

Sources of multi-facetedness of European and national policies on quality

These conceptualizations, as stressed by the authors themselves, are ideal types. They are useful in

structuring the analysis of quality and quality assurance in higher education, and may be used as

metaphors for advocating specific policy preferences. However, the actual policies and policy

7

instruments, on the European, national and institutional level, always reflect more than one of these

conceptualizations.

To use the European developments as an example, the ESG include a set of 23 standards for

internal and external quality assurance (QA) of higher education institutions and for QA of QA

agencies. Some of the standards stress the importance of processes being ‘fit for purpose’ (standard

2.4 and to a lesser extent standard 3.5), while others come closer to the ‘value for money’ idea

through stressing accountability (e.g. standards 1.7, 2.5 and 3.8). The idea of reliability and

consistency, related to ‘quality as perfection’ conceptualization, permeates a number of standards

concerning the existence of formal policies and procedures for all three aspects of quality assurance

in the ESG (see standards 1.1, 2.3 and 3.7). The ESG also have elements which resonate with

‘quality as something special’, in particular the focus on fulfilling minimum standards, as evident in

the understanding of the purposes of the ESG with regards to accreditation of institutions and

programmes (see Part 2 and Part 3 of the ESG which focus on external QA of HE institutions and

QA agencies, respectively). While a more detailed analysis of the ESG with regards to different

conceptualizations of quality is beyond the scope of this paper, the above examples illustrate that

the understanding of quality within the formal documents of the Bologna Process is multi-faceted.

This may not come out as big surprise, given that the ESG is a result of consultations between

several stakeholder organizations,4 as well as discussions between the ministers responsible for

higher education in the countries participating in the Bologna Process. At the same time, within the

Bologna Process there is a very strong preference towards including students and their

representatives in various aspects of higher education governance in general (Klemenčič 2012), and

4 The 2005 version of the ESG was developed by the so-called E4 group consisting of European University Association

(EUA), European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE), European Students’ Union (ESU) and

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). The same organizations, joined by

Education International (EI), BusinessEurope and the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) developed a

proposal for the revised ESG, which was endorsed by the Bologna Follow-Up Group in October 2014 and will be

subject of approval at the upcoming Bologna Ministerial Conference in Yerevan, Armenia in May 2014.

8

it has been noted that student involvement in quality assurance often comes prior to their

involvement in other aspects of higher education governance (Jungblut 2011).

Similar multi-dimensionality of quality exists within national policies and instruments, partly

as a consequence of the multi-facetedness of quality within the Bologna Process and its impact on

national approaches to quality assurance (Stensaker et al. 2010). In addition, multi-dimensionality

of quality in national contexts is also a consequence of the inherent ambiguity of purpose in higher

education (Clark 1983) and the involvement of a multitude of interest groups with different interests

in decision-making, in particular in systems where a corporate-pluralist steering approach

(Gornitzka and Maassen 2000) is dominating.

Finally, and most relevant for this study, multi-facetedness of quality can be linked to the fact

that there is no reason to assume a priori that any of the interest groups involved in higher

education has a homogeneous perception of quality. On the contrary, heterogeneity of the academic

staff in relation to their disciplinary affiliation has already been identified (Kekäle 2002). One could

also argue that higher education institutions will also differ with regards to which perspective on

quality they most readily embrace, in particular in more stratified higher education systems (Harvey

and Green 1993). Employers’ perspectives on quality may also differ, depending on the sector or

size of company. In the same manner, there is no reason to assume that the student population is

homogeneous with regards to perspectives on quality, in particular given its heterogeneity in

various other aspects.

Heterogeneity of students and implications for their perspectives on quality

Higher education systems across Europe can be labelled as massified. Even though the most

significant waves of massification took place in the second half of the 20th

century, the systems are

still expanding, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. The gross-enrolment ratio (GER) within Europe

as a whole increased from almost 50% in 1999 to close to 70% in 2012, according to the UNESCO

Institute of Statistics. Amongst other, the increase in the GER implies a more diverse student

9

population in terms of their socio-economic background, though students whose parents do not have

higher education remain under-represented to some degree in all European countries.5

The relationship between the different elements of the students’ background and their

experience of higher education has already been the focus of a large body of research. So far we

have learned that students’ socio-economic background has an effect on access, progress and

completion of higher education, both in absolute terms (e.g. do they drop out or not) and in terms of

disciplinary focus and type of higher education institutions (academic vs. vocational) (Lucas 2001;

Thomas 2002; Vukasovic and Sarrico 2010; Yorke and Thomas 2003). Students’ socio-economic

background also influences their choice of field and type of higher education institution, as well as

expectations from higher education. For example, Troiano and Elias (2014) found that working

class students in Spain tend to be more instrumental in their choices and focus more on the likely

relevance of their future degrees for the labour market, while for students from higher social classes

such instrumentality is not so prominent. Similarly, connections between elements of the socio-

economic background of students and their attitudes towards taking risks have also been identified ,

in particular in cases in which going to higher education requires a financial investment in the form

of a tuition fee (see e.g. Vossensteyn and De Jong 2006).

Once in higher education, various elements of students’ background also influences how

satisfied they are, though some of the effects differ depending on the context. For example, Sarrico

and Rosa (2014) and Wiers-Jenssen et al. (2002) found that students tend to become less satisfied

the more time they spend in higher education and that satisfaction varies with study field and type

of HEIs in both Norway and Portugal. They had opposing findings concerning who seems more

satisfied – while in Norway it was the females and those who did move to study who were more

satisfied, in Portugal it was the opposite.

5 According to the data available in the EUROSTUDENT database: http://www.eurostudent.eu/results/data (page

accessed 21 November 2014).

10

Taking the multi-facetedness of the concept of quality and heterogeneity of the student

population as the backdrop, in this study the explicit focus is on the relationship between different

perspectives on quality and various elements of students’ socio-economic background and their

motivations for and expectations from higher education. Concerning the former, the elements of the

background of particular interest for this study are, similar to other studies focusing on student

background: age, gender, education of both parents and work situation. This study also focuses on

students’ participation in student unions on various levels, primarily in order to explore the linkage

between the increased focus on student participation introduced by the Bologna Process (as

discussed above) and student union activists’ views on quality.

Concerning motivations for and expectations from higher education, the study builds on the

distinction between what Troiano and Elias (2014) refer to as instrumental motivation –

employability, higher earnings etc., and expressive motivation – interest in the subject as such and

expanding one’s own knowledge, as well as their finding that working class students tend to have a

more instrumental motivation. Acknowledging that the two motivations are not mutually exclusive,

this study conceptualized the motivations for and expectations from higher education in relation to

two sets of basic principles of higher education: (1) the Humboldtian principles of unity of teaching

and research and the importance of Bildung and critical thinking (cf. expressive motivation) as

opposed to (2) a focus on the relevance for the labour-market, accountability and efficiency, or what

is sometimes referred to as a consumerist approach to higher education (cf. instrumental motivation

but also ‘value for money’ perspective on quality). This distinction permeates the discussions about

the Bologna Process and its influence on national reforms. While some warn about the connections

between the Bologna Process and erosion of academic values in higher education (e.g. Tomusk

2004), others underscore that both Humboldt and Bologna are subject to path-dependant domestic

translations (Michelsen 2010). However, the underlying distinction between a more consumerist

approach to higher education which stresses the economic relevance of higher education and an

approach that stresses the role of higher education in preparing students for active citizenship

11

remains. While the former is linked to the idea of knowledge based economy championed by

OECD, World Bank and is also prominent in some of the EU policy documents (Komljenovič and

Miklavič 2012), the latter is particularly highlighted by the Council of Europe and European

Students Union. With this in mind, this study also explores the homogeneity of the student

population in terms of their subscription to Humboldtian vs. consumerist principles in higher

education and how this may be related to their perceptions of what is quality higher education. Of

additional interest is the relationship between the Humboldtian vs. consumerist approach to higher

education and the different conceptualizations of quality (as defined by Harvey&Green, hereinafter

referred to as: H&G); in other words how the different conceptualizations resonate with the basic

principles of higher education. For example, one question would be whether the students who

subscribe to a more consumerist approach are more inclined to see quality as ‘value for money’,

while those advocating a Humboldtian approach to higher education will see quality as

predominantly an issue of transformation and added value?

Data and method

As already indicated, the data used for this article as well as the results presented and discussed here

are part of a larger survey. Due to resource limitations, the survey targeted students in eight

European countries (France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Norway, Slovenia, Spain and the UK). The

chosen countries were selected to represent the diversity of European higher education, both in

terms of the diversity within the system as well as in relation to approaches to quality assurance.

The following criteria were used: size of higher education system, regional balance and historical

circumstances. Thus, both very large systems such as Germany and Poland, and rather small

systems such as Latvia and Slovenia were included. Furthermore, the targeted countries include

different geographic regions (Scandinavia, different parts of Western Europe and Southern Europe,

Central and Eastern Europe/Baltic and South-East Europe). In order to cater for differences in

historical circumstances three post-Communist countries were included. The targeted population

were bachelor students in specific study programmes of the largest public universities which

12

together constitute at least 25% of the overall student population (the selection was done starting

from the largest institution onwards until the 25 % target was reached). The students were targeted

in four specific study programmes following the soft-pure, soft-applied, hard-pure and hard-applied

categorization (Becher 1994), in order to provide sufficient breadth of disciplinary differences. For

the specific list of targeted study programmes see Jungblut and Vukasovic (2013, 24-25).

The survey was organized as an online questionnaire, piloted first on a group of bachelor

level students of one of the faculties of a university included in the study. After this it was adjusted

and translated into the local languages to correspond as closely as possible to the local terminology

concerning higher education and its quality. The responses were collected during the second half of

2012 and early in 2013. Due to problems with participation from universities, data from France,

Spain and the UK had to be discarded from further analysis because of a very low response rate in

relation to the number of institutions and students in these countries. The response rate for the other

countries was between 11% and 13% of the targeted sample (see Table 2). While the non-inclusion

of the three countries does pose a challenge for the analysis, the authors believe that the remaining

five countries, while perhaps not representative of the pioneers in the area of QA, are nevertheless

representative with regards to the issues important for this analysis, in particular the size and

structure of the higher education system and differing approaches to QA. The total number of

analysed responses is 6643. Overall, the demographic characteristics of the respondents (e.g.

education of parents), as well as basic aspects of their higher education experience (type of

programme, full-time vs. part-time, non-mobile vs. mobile students) correspond well to the

characteristics of the European student population, based on EUROSTUDENT IV data (for more

information see Jungblut and Vukasovic 2013, 29-32).

Table 2 – Overview of responses per country

Number of respondents % of total respondents Response rate in relation to targeted sample

Germany 3480 52.4 11.7%

Latvia 283 4.3 11.5%

Norway 329 5.0 11.4%

13

The parts of the survey relevant for this article included the demographic characteristics of

students, a set of statements corresponding to the five conceptualizations of quality, a set of

questions and statements concerning motivations for and expectations from higher education as well

as questions related to knowledge of various QA mechanisms on different levels (institutional,

national and European). Levels of agreement with different statements were measured using a 5-

point Likert scale: from -2 for strong disagreement, up to 2 for strong agreement or from 1 for no

knowledge at all to 5 for in-depth knowledge. The survey did not include items corresponding to the

‘quality as perfection’ conceptualization because the students can be considered to be less likely to

have a perspective on quality that goes beyond their own individual experience (see Table 1 on

elements of this conceptualization). At the same time, the conceptualizations of ‘quality as

exception’ and ‘quality as transformation’ was addressed both in more general terms and more

specifically in terms of excellence and added-value respectively. The survey did not include open

ended questions, primarily because it would be unfeasible to analyse such data adequately given

diversity of languages and the size of the data set. The authors are however confident that the

formulation of different statements, the piloting and the careful translation into local languages and

context provided sufficient room for the respondents to express their views.

Appendix 1 includes the parts of the survey that are relevant for this article, as well as

clarifications of the connection between items in the survey and concepts relevant for the analysis.

The analysis included both univariate and bivariate statistics (done in SPSS) and, where necessary,

combining several statements into one composite (mean) score for a particular perspective on

higher education or quality thereof.

Poland 1897 28.6 13.1%

Slovenia 654 9.8 11.8%

Total 6643 100.0 n/a

14

Presentation and discussion of results

Patterns of agreement/disagreement with different conceptualizations of quality

According to the survey results, students’ perspective on quality is multi-faceted: students in

general support all of the different conceptualization of quality, although to a varying degree (Table

3). While this supports the initial H&G claim that their conceptualizations are interrelated it is

interesting to note that statements connected to the ideas of ‘quality as transformation’ (both in

general and more specifically in terms of added-value) and ‘quality as fitness for purpose’ exhibit

very high levels of agreement, while the disagreement is strongest with the statements connected to

‘quality as value for money’. Recalling the summary of the conceptualizations of quality by H&G

(Table 1), the high level of agreement with ‘transformation’ and ‘fitness for purpose’ views

indicates that students prefer notions of quality that put them in the centre of the process, although

not necessarily only as an active participant (transformation), but also as a somewhat passive

customer (fitness for purpose). The difference in agreement with the more general conceptualization

of ‘quality as exception’ and agreement with its specification – ‘quality as excellence’ – is very

small; the same goes for the general ‘quality as transformation’ and the more specific ‘quality as

added-value’, indicating a good-fit between the more general conceptualizations of quality and

some of the possible specifications offered by H&G.

Table 3 – Levels of agreement or disagreement with specific conceptualizations of quality

Conceptualization of quality Agreement (in %)* Disagreement (in %)**

Quality as exceptional, in general 63.4 10.9

Quality as exceptional, specifically – excellence 61.35 13.8

Quality as fitness for purpose 83.3 6.55

Quality as value for money 44.7 33.55

Quality as transformation, in general 93.8 1.5

Quality as transformation, specifically – added-value 92.5 2.35

* agree or strongly agree, ** disagree or strongly disagree

15

Furthermore, with regards to the ‘value for money’ perspective the respondents’ opinions

were highly polarized. Compared to almost uniform agreement with ‘quality as transformation’, 12

times more agreement than disagreement with ‘quality as fitness for purpose’ and five-six times

more agreement than disagreement with ‘quality as exceptional’, the students were very divided

between in favour and against ‘quality as value for money’: 1.3 to 1. Such highly polarized view of

‘quality as value for money’ indicates a division within the student population with regards to how

much importance is given to efficiency and effectiveness.

To explore this further, Figure 1 shows the levels of agreement and disagreement with this

statement, relative to the total number of respondents per country. As can be seen, the polarization

of respondents is least pronounced in Latvia and Slovenia (in both cases the respondents tend to

agree more than disagree), and most pronounced in Germany. The case of Latvia is particularly

interesting, given that amongst the countries studied, the highest percentage of first cycle students

(55%) pay a tuition fee which is rather high (from 900 to 5000 EUR per year).6 The highest

proportion of those who disagree with this statement can be found in Norway, which may be related

to a strong tradition of free higher education, i.e. the students themselves do not invest directly in

their higher education and therefore they are not inclined to see ‘value for money’ as an important

aspect of quality. This essentially links the different perspectives on quality students with overall

conditions for studying, in particular with regards to tuition fees and study support systems, as well

as type of studies (e.g. the German sample includes a large distance learning institution, see next

section).

6 According to Eurydice (2013). Compare also to Bates and Kaye (2014) on how the introduction of a new fee regime in

the UK changed students’ expectations towards more ‘value for money’ approach.

16

Figure 1 – Levels of agreement or disagreement with the ‘quality as value for money’ perspective for different countries

(relative to the total number of respondents per country)

Views on quality and students’ background

The next step in the analysis was to unpack this composite view of quality in relation to students’

characteristics, such as age, type of studies, education of parents, work during studying and activity

in student unions. Table 4 presents correlations between these characteristics and H&G’s

conceptualizations of quality.7

A number of correlations are significant at p=0.01 and, while being somewhat weak, they do

uncover some interesting tendencies. For example, students who are/were active in student unions

(10.5% of the respondents) agree with statements corresponding to each of the dimensions to a

lesser extent than do their colleagues who have not had such experience. The tendency is in

particular pronounced for the ‘quality as fitness for purpose’ and ‘quality as transformation/added-

value’ dimension, which is surprising, given that student unions in general often have policy

preferences resonating with such conceptualizations of quality. For example, within the Bologna

7 All correlation coefficients are Kendall’s tau-b. This is a better measurement of correlation, compared to the often

used Pearson coefficient, when variables are on the ordinal level of measurement, as they are in this case (see Agresti

and Finlay 2009 for elaboration of this point).

17

Process it is ESU that stresses the fitness for purpose approach and pushes for more focus on the

social dimension and equal access to higher education (Yagci 2014), which could be seen as

conducive to a ‘quality as transformation/added-value’ perspective. This (somewhat unexpected)

result could be related to knowledge about quality. Our analysis shows that those active in the

student union are in general more aware of the various aspects of quality in higher education:

correlations between activity in the student union and better knowledge of various QA mechanisms

(see Appendix 1 for related questions) were all positive and significant at p=0.01 (strongest for

European level mechanisms such as the ESG).8 Thus, less support for different conceptualizations

of quality by those active in the student unions may be indicative of specific views on quality that

may not be captured by H&G’s conceptualizations, given that the knowledge these respondents

have on quality and quality assurance approaches also implies that they have developed views on

the matter. The framework adopted for this study does not allow for further exploration of this, but

it can be subject of studies in the future (see conclusions).

Table 4 – H&G quality conceptualizations in relation to elements of students’ background

Quality as… Exceptional Excellence Fitness for

purpose

Value for

money Transform. Added-value

Age -.021* -.065

** .045

** -.013 -.015 -.030

**

Full-/part-time -.014 -.039**

.020 .021 -.016 -.048**

Semester -.054**

-.067**

.012 -.041**

-.016 -.049**

Mother education .003 .043**

-.028**

.037**

.020 .018

Father education -.010 .017 .017 .021* .031

** .015

Paid job -.002 -.037**

.055**

-.018 -.029* -.033

**

Student union -.054**

-.059**

-.101**

-.041**

-.083**

-.094**

* = significant at the 0,05 level, **= significant at the 0,01 level, 2-tailed test, Kendall’s tau-b

8 The respondents in general were rather poorly informed about the different quality assurance mechanisms; approx.

60% had no or very limited knowledge about processes and procedures on the programme and institutional level, while

for the European level mechanisms the proportion of those with no or limited knowledge reached almost 80%.

18

Furthermore, the results indicate that, though small in effect strength, the student status seems

to have an influence on the view of ‘quality as excellence’ and ‘quality as added-value’: full-time

students are slightly more inclined towards the excellence view while part-time students are more

inclined towards an added-value view. This is not very surprising given the background of part-time

students in the data set: 85% of them are not of the traditional age for higher education (18-25).

They are often students who either return to their studies after a period on the labour market or

divide their time between studying and working. For them, higher education is somewhat less about

reputation of their higher education institution (Kendall’s tau-b=-0.099 at p=0.01).

Apart from this, ‘quality as excellence’ and ‘quality as value for money’ correlate positively

(yet weakly) with the educational attainment of the mother, suggesting that respondents whose

mothers are better educated are slightly more inclined to agree with the statements stressing the

excellence and value for money aspects of quality. The opposite is the case for ‘quality as fitness for

purpose’: respondents with better educated mothers are slightly less inclined to agree with the

statements stressing this aspect of quality. Respondents who have a paid job are somewhat more

inclined towards the view of quality as fitness for purpose and somewhat less inclined towards the

view of quality as excellence, compared to respondents who do not have a paid job. These results fit

with what was presented earlier – more traditional students, with better education parents (i.e. from

more privileged background) tend to have a more elitist position towards higher education, and

strengthen the claim that the socio-economic background is strongly linked with various aspects of

the students’ higher education experience, including their views on what quality in higher education

is.

The semester students are currently enrolled in seems to have a rather small, yet significant

negative influence on perspectives of quality: the higher the number of semesters (i.e. the longer the

student has spent in HE), the less inclined the student is to agree with the perspective of quality as

excellence, as exceptional, as value for money and as added-value, which confirms previous

findings (Sarrico and Rosa 2014; Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2002). The situation is similar when it comes

19

to age of respondents, though in this case a small positive influence is visible for ‘quality as fitness

for purpose’ (older students tend to agree more with this) and no statistically significant influence

exists for ‘quality as value for money’. This should not be taken as an indication that students in

general see their higher education as being of less quality as they progress, but rather that, similar to

situation with those active in student unions, their view on what quality of higher education is

becomes more complex through time and experience and thus not easily captured through H&G

categories.

Having in mind the polarization of the respondents with regards to the ‘value for money’

perspective, a more in-depth analysis in relation to various background characteristics of students

was conducted (Figures 2 and 3). In general, the differences in levels of agreement and

disagreement with the ‘value for money’ perspective are rather similar across the different

categories. However, those active in the student union seem a bit more polarized in their view than

those who are not. In addition, those whose parents have secondary education or less are also more

polarized compared to students whose parents have higher vocational education or more.

Polarization amongst the students active in student unions may be linked to what was already

highlighted – their richer experience in the matter and thus more refined and complex views on

quality (see above). With regards to polarization amongst students whose parents have lower

education attainment, one possible link to explore is the linkage between assessing the value-for-

money in the first place and differences in the level of risk aversion that are related to certain socio-

economic characteristics, like education of parents.

The polarization of views with regards to ‘quality as value for money’ points to the next interesting

question – how are views on quality of higher education related to students’ motivations for and

expectations from higher education.

20

Figure 2 – Levels of agreement or disagreement with the ‘quality as value for money’ perspective for different elements

of students’ background (relative to the total number of respondents per category)

Figure 3 – Levels of agreement or disagreement with the ‘quality as value for money’ perspective for different elements

of students’ background (relative to the total number of respondents per category)

Students’ motivations for and expectations from higher education and their views on

quality

The questionnaire used in this study also included 12 statements related to students’ motivations

and expectations. As presented in Appendix 1, some of these statements corresponded to a more

Humboldtian view on higher education (what Troiano and Elias 2014 refer to as expressive

motivation), while the others corresponded to a more consumerist view (instrumental motivation).

21

Overall, the respondents showed very high levels of agreements with both views on higher

education, though the agreement with the Humboldtian perspective was somewhat more

pronounced (Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Levels of agreement or disagreement with Humboldtian and consumerist view on higher education (relative

to the total number of respondents per category)

There are some small variations with regards to countries (Figure 5). Only in Poland and

Germany is there a notable group of those who disagree with the consumerist point of view, while

Latvian respondents are the only ones who actually agree more with the consumerist point of view

than a Humboldtian one. While this exceptionality of Latvia may also be linked to the significant

direct investment in the form of high tuition fees, it should be noted that in the opposite situation in

which students do not pay tuition fees and also receive study loans (Norway), both views on higher

education – Humboldtian and consumerist – are equally supported. This shows that as far as the

students are concerned the two views on higher education are not opposing and mutually exclusive,

as they are sometimes presented in the literature (see theoretical discussion above) and that the

predominantly consumerist point of view promoted by some of the international actors is not the

only perspective the students may adopt.

22

Figure 5 - Levels of agreement or disagreement with the Humboldtian/consumerist views on higher education for

different countries (relative to the total number of respondents per country)

In order to explore the relationship between agreement/disagreement with these two views on

higher education and different conceptualizations for quality, a set of correlations were also

calculated. The results are presented in Table 5. Here, all correlations are significant at p=0.01 and

comparatively stronger than correlations between students’ characteristics and different

perspectives on quality. In general, the more students agree with either of the perspectives on higher

education, the more they also agree with different perspectives on quality.

Table 5 – H&G perspectives on quality in relation to Humboldt/consumerist perspective on HE

Quality as… Exceptional Excellence Fitness for

purpose

Value for

money Transform. Added-value

Humboldtian .160**

.186**

.144**

.046**

.245**

.226**

Consumerist .160**

.175**

.099**

.122**

.084**

.155**

**= significant at the 0,01 level, 2-tailed test, Kendall’s tau-b

However, there are also some interesting variations. While for some perspectives on quality

the distinction between Humboldtian and consumerist view on higher education is not significant

(see results for ‘quality as exceptional/excellence’) the distinction is much more evident for quality

as ‘fitness-for-purpose’, ‘value for money’, ‘added value’, and most of all for ‘quality as

23

transformation’. While respondents who agree with the views of ‘quality as exceptional’ and

‘quality as excellence’ are, more or less, equally likely to exhibit both Humboldtian and

consumerist expectations from higher education, the situation is different with regards to other

conceptualizations. Respondents who have more Humboldtian expectations from higher education

agree more strongly with the quality as ‘fitness for purpose’, ‘added-value’ and ‘quality as

transformation perspectives’ than those who have a more consumerist view. The situation is the

opposite, as can be expected, with regards to ‘quality as value for money’: those more oriented

towards the consumerist view more strongly agree with this perspective than those of a more

Humboldtian persuasion. In addition, while there was quite a similarity with regards to basic

agreement or disagreement with the more general and the more specific conceptualizations of

quality (see in Table 3 ‘quality as exception/excellence’ and ‘quality as transformation/added-

value’), it seems the Humboldtian vs. consumerist view on higher education introduces some

nuances. This is particularly the case for the ‘quality as transformation’ and ‘quality as added-value’

perspectives: those of consumerist persuasion seem to be more supportive of the added-value

perspective (the more specific conceptualization) than the transformation perspective (the more

general one).

Conclusion

As presented above, students have a multi-faceted perception of quality in higher education. On

average, they agree to some extent with all the different conceptualizations of quality developed by

H&G, though there is some notable variation. The student population seems very homogenous with

regards to ‘quality as transformation’ and ‘quality as added-value’ perspectives, and somewhat less

homogenous with regards to ‘quality as fitness for purpose’ perspective. However, it is rather

polarized with regards to ‘quality as value for money’ perspective, and this polarization is most

notable in Germany and least in Latvia where, relatively speaking, the ‘value for money’ has

proportionally the most support compared to other countries in the study. Students prefer

24

perspectives that put them in the centre of the process; both “quality as transformation” and “quality

as fitness-for-purpose” were highly supported. However, while the former clearly puts the student

in an active role (thus corresponding to the student-centred learning paradigm), the latter can also

imply a more passive position. The fact that these two perspectives essentially co-exist amongst the

respondents also points to the necessity of more systematic exploration of the linkages between the

various conceptualizations of quality and the perspectives on students and their role and position in

higher education.

In general, different elements of the students’ background seem to be related to H&G

perspectives on quality in a statistically significant though relatively weak manner. The strongest

relationship identified exists between participation in student union activities and lower support to

all of the conceptualizations of quality by H&G, in particular to ‘fitness for purpose’,

‘transformation’ and ‘added value’ perspectives. When it comes to the relationship between

conceptualizations of quality and motivations for and expectations from higher education, stronger

agreement with any of the conceptualizations is linked with stronger agreement with both the

Humboldtian and the consumerist view on higher education. However, there is some variety; those

of a more Humboldtian persuasion are more likely to agree with the ‘quality as transformation’ and

‘quality as added-value’ conceptualization, while those of a more consumerist persuasion are more

likely to agree with ‘quality as value for money’.

The countries that were in the focus of this study provide a solid mixture of higher education

systems with regards to size, geographical and historical diversity. Therefore, although the data

used in this study does not allow for strong generalizations to the entire student population of

Europe, it can be said that the patterns and relationships found in this study are indicative of

tendencies in higher education in Europe. While further studies into the matter are surely necessary

(some are suggested below), the data presented here offers a first insight into the perspective on

quality of higher education by one of the major stakeholder groups in higher education – students.

25

While in general H&G conceptualizations of quality offer a wide spectrum of perspectives,

most of which seem to resonate with the students’ views, the study identified a number of ways for

elaborating H&G’s conceptualizations of quality so the multifacetedness of students’ perspectives

(and perhaps also perspectives of other stakeholders) can be better captured. The first set stems

from our conceptual analysis and concerns the relationship between the five general

conceptualizations and their refinements as offered in the original article from 1993. Some of the

refinements of the same general conceptualization point into two opposite directions; e.g.

specification of ‘quality as exceptional’ in the form of ‘excellence’ suggests that such a situation is

rarely attainable, while specification in the form of ‘achieving minimal standards’ does just the

opposite. In such cases, developing two distinct understandings of quality may be more useful.

Related to this, the study showed that H&G’s conceptualizations of quality may not adequately

capture the entirety of students’ views about quality so further exploration of the variety of student

views on quality is necessary, in particular given the overall focus on both quality assurance and

student participation in the Bologna Process and national higher education reforms related to it.

Second, the strong polarization with regards to ‘value for money’ perspective points towards

the necessity to provide a more nuanced and refined conceptualizations of the more instrumental,

efficiency oriented understandings of quality of higher education. One way of doing this is to link

the different conceptualizations of quality to more general views on the purpose and principles of

higher education, in the case of this study the Humboldtian and consumerist views. This is even

more pertinent given the lack of stronger distinction in support for these two general views which

may be indicative of blurring of boundaries between more traditional ‘ivory tower’ views on higher

education and marketization of higher education. The study provided some indication that the

Humboldtian view on higher education indeed resonates more strongly with ‘transformation’ and

‘added-value’ views on quality, though further studies in this direction are necessary, not only with

regards to students’ perspectives on quality, but also concerning the relationship between more

26

general views on higher education and concrete manner in which students engage in higher

education.

In terms of possible further research, one approach would be to compare and contrast the

perspectives of the different stakeholder groups in higher education, in particular the academic staff

and the students. Although there are studies addressing each of these groups individually, a

systematic and explicit investigation of these two groups with most other important factors

(institution, system) kept constant would provide a more refined and nuanced analysis of different

perspectives on quality in higher education. Furthermore, one aspect which was not covered in this

study due to incomplete data on this aspect (although it was part of the sample stratification)

concerns significance of disciplinary differences for students’ views on quality and a more nuanced

analysis of how students’ perspectives on quality change over time. This study as well as the further

studies suggested here are of specific relevance for policy and practice, particularly in relation to

how instruments for assessing students are constructed, what they actually measure and how they

may, or may not, contribute to improving quality of higher education.

Acknowledgements

The data presented and analysed in this paper are the outcome of the European Students’ Union (ESU) project “Quest

for quality for students”, which was funded through the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission. In

addition, Martina Vukasovic acknowledges the financial support from the Odysseus programme of the Flemish Science

Foundation (FWO).

References

Agresti, Alan, and Barbara Finlay. 2009. Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Bates, Elizabeth A., and Linda K. Kaye. 2014. "“I’d be expecting caviar in lectures”: the impact of the new fee regime

on undergraduate students’ expectations of Higher Education." Higher Education 67 (5):655-73.

Becher, Tony. 1994. "The significance of disciplinary differences." Studies in Higher Education 19 (2):151 - 61.

Cardoso, Sónia. 2012. "Students' Perceptions of Quality Assessment: Is There an Option Besides Treating Them as

Consumers?" In Managing Reform in Universities: The Dynamics of Culture, Identity and Organizatonal

Change, ed. B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa and C. S. Sarrico. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Clark, Burton R. 1983. The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley,

Calif.: University of California Press.

Coates, Hamish. 2005. "The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance." Quality in Higher

Education 11 (1):25-36.

27

ENQA. 2005. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European

Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.

Eurydice. 2013. "National Student Fee and Support Systems." Brussels: Eurydice.

Gornitzka, Åse, and Peter Maassen. 2000. "Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education."

Higher Education Policy 13:267-85.

Harvey, Lee. 2007. "Epistemology of quality." Perspectives in Education 25 (3):1-13.

Harvey, Lee, and Diana Green. 1993. "Defining Quality." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1):9-34.

Jungblut, Jens. 2011. "Student Participation in Higher Education Governance. A Practitioner's View on the Role of

Student Organizations and Higher Education Institutions." Leadership and Governance in Higher Education.

Handbook for Decision-makers and Administrators 2011 (2):65-86.

Jungblut, Jens, and Martina Vukasovic. 2013. "Quest for quality for students: Survey on students' perspectives."

Brussels: European Students Union.

Kekäle, Jouni. 2002. "Conceptions of Quality in Four Different Disciplines." Tertiary Education and Management 8

(1):65-80.

Klemenčič, Manja. 2012. "The Changing Conceptions of Student Participation in HE Governance in the EHEA." In

European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A.

Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu and L. Wilson. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Komljenovič, Janja, and Klemen Miklavič. 2012. "Imagining Higher Education in the European Knowledge Economy:

Discourse and Ideas in Communications of the EU." In The Globalisation Challenge for European Higher

Education: Convergence and Diversity, Centres and Peripheries, ed. P. Zgaga, U. Teichler and J. Brennan.

Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Krause, Kerri-Lee. 2012. "Addressing the wicked problem of quality in higher education: theoretical approaches and

implications." Higher Education Research & Development 31 (3):285-97.

Lomas, Laurie. 2002. "Does the Development of Mass Education Necessarily Mean the End of Quality?" Quality in

Higher Education 8 (1):71-9.

Lucas, S.R. 2001. "Effectively Maintained Inequality: Education Transitions, Track Mobility, and Social Background

Effects." American Journal of Sociology 106 (6):1642-90

Michelsen, Svein. 2010. "Humboldt Meets Bologna." Higher Education Policy 23 (2):151-72.

Pompili, Gioia. 2010. "Quality in Search of Meanings: The Case of Italian Universities." Quality in Higher Education

16 (3):235-45.

Poole, Brian. 2010. "Quality, semantics and the two cultures." Quality Assurance in Education 18 (1):6-18.

Prague Communiqué. 2001. "Towards a European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the meeting of European

Ministers in charge of Higher Education in Prague on May 19th 2001."

Sarrico, Cláudia S., and Maria J. Rosa. 2014. "Student satisfaction with Portuguese higher education institutions: the

view of different types of students." Tertiary Education and Management:1-14.

Schwarz, Stefanie, and Don F. Westerheijden. 2004. Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education

area. Vol. 5. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Stensaker, Bjørn. 2003. "Trance, Transparency and Transformation: The impact of external quality monitoring on

higher education." Quality in Higher Education 9 (2):151 - 9.

Stensaker, Bjørn, Lee Harvey, Jeroen Huisman, Liv Langfeldt, and Don F. Westerheijden. 2010. "The Impact of the

European Standards and Guidelines in Agency Evaluations." European Journal of Education 45 (4):577-87.

Thomas, Liz. 2002. "Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus." Journal of Education Policy

17 (4):423-42.

Tomusk, Voldemar. 2004. "Three bolognas and a pizza pie: Notes on institutionalization of the European higher

education system." International Studies in Sociology of Education 14 (1):75-96.

Troiano, Helena, and Marina Elias. 2014. "University access and after: explaining the social composition of degree

programmes and the contrasting expectations of students." Higher Education 67 (5):637-54.

Vossensteyn, Hans, and Uulkje De Jong. 2006. "Student Financing in the Netherlands: A Behavioural Economic

Perspective." In Cost-Sharing and Accessibility in Higher Education: A Fairer Deal?, ed. P. N. Teixeira, B.

Johnstone, M. J. Rosa and H. Vossensteyn: Springer Netherlands.

Vukasovic, Martina, and Claudia Sarrico. 2010. "Inequality in Higher Education: Definitions, Measurements,

Inferences. The Serbian Case." In Understanding Inequalities in, through and by Higher Education, ed. G.

Goastellec: Sense Publishers.

Westerheijden, Don F., Bjørn Stensaker, and Maria João Rosa. 2007. Quality assurance in higher education: trends in

regulation, translation and transformation. Edited by D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker and M. J. Rosa.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Wiers-Jenssen, Jannecke, Bjørn Stensaker, and Jens B. Grøgaard. 2002. "Student Satisfaction: Towards an empirical

deconstruction of the concept." Quality in Higher Education 8 (2):183-95.

Yagci, Yasemin. 2014. "Setting Policy Agenda for the Social Dimension of the Bologna Process." Higher Education

Policy 27 (4):502-28.

Yorke, Mantz, and Liz Thomas. 2003. "Improving the Retention of Students from Lower Socio-economic Groups."

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25 (1):63-74.

28

Appendix 1

Survey items Analysis related comments

Demographic information

1. Indicate which country, institution, programme you are studying in.

2. Which semester/trimester are you currently in?

3. Are you a full-time or a part-time student?

4. Do you pay a tuition fee, do you receive a loan from a public or private source, do you receive a grant from a public or private

source?

5. What is your gender?

6. How old are you?

7. What is the education level of your parents? (include both information for mother and father)

8. Do you have a paid job besides studying?

a. Is this job related to your field of study?

b. Do you spend more than 15 hours per week in that job?

9. Have you ever been active in the student union /acted as a student representative in a decision-making structure?

a. On what level (department/faculty, university, national, European)?

For education of parents, several

choices were possible: no or incomplete

primary education, only primary

education, secondary education, higher

vocational education, higher university

education (first degree), higher

education (second degree), higher

education (PhD)

Perspectives on quality

Using the scale on the right please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements

a. A good programme offers something that others don't.

b. Good programmes offer novel approaches to core topics in a field.

c. The quality of a study programme only depends on its academic excellence.

d. Programmes need to be taught by teachers who are exceptional experts in their fields.

e. It is clear to me what the purpose of my study programme is.

f. The courses are well structured so they ensure that the aim of the programme is achieved.

g. The higher the costs for a study programme the more I expect of it.

Statements(a)–(j) are related to 5

dimensions of quality as proposed by

Harvey&Green: (a) +(b) to quality as

something special in general, (c)+(d)

more narrowly to excellence, (e)+(f) to

quality as fitness for purpose, (g)+(h) to

quality as value for money, and (i) to

quality as transformation in general,

29

h. I am willing to pay more for my education if the quality of the study programme is very high.

i. A good study programme has to broaden the horizon of the students.

j. A good study programme provides the students with additional competencies.

k. A programme is of high quality if it significantly increases the students’ knowledge.

while (j)+(k) more narrowly to added-

value.

Motivations and expectations from higher education

The following section is about your expectations from higher education. Please indicate using the scale on the right how much you

agree with the following statements:

a. I am expecting higher education to provide me with knowledge and personal growth.

b. I am expecting the higher education programme I am pursuing to have an interesting topic.

c. I am expecting higher education to provide me with experience of being part of the academic community.

d. I am expecting higher education to contribute to the development of my abilities for critical thinking/reasoning.

e. I am expecting higher education to prepare me to be an active citizen in a democratic society.

f. I am expecting as a student to be an integral part of the scholarly community.

g. I am expecting to benefit from training that is relevant for the labour market.

h. I am expecting that a higher education degree will ensure me a higher salary later on.

i. I am expecting to have better employment opportunities after completing higher education.

j. I am expecting my study programme to be constructed in such a way as to ensure timely and successful completion.

k. I am expecting my study programme to prioritise skills relevant for future employment over theoretical knowledge.

l. I am expecting my higher education institution to maintain close links with business and industry.

Statements (a) – (f) are connected to the

predominantly Humboldtian perspective

on higher education, stressing the

freedom to learn, teach and research,

stressing the knowledge for its own

sake etc.. Statements (g) to (l) are

related to the consumerist perspective

on higher education, stressing the

importance of employability and

economic returns from investment into

higher education.

Likert scale was used for each

statement: 1 – strongly disagree, 2 –

disagree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree,

4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree.

Knowledge of different mechanism of quality assurance

How would you rate your knowledge of the following aspects of quality assurance processes in higher education?

a. The ways in which the quality of your study programme is ensured?

b. The ways in which your institution works on quality assurance?

c. The ways in which students can get involved in quality assurance in your institution?

d. The ways in which the quality of your institution is ensured?

e. The ways in which the quality of higher education in your country is ensured?

Likert scale for each of the questions:

1 – no knowledge at all, 2 – very

limited knowledge, 3 – some

knowledge, but not in depth, 4 – rather

good knowledge, 5 – in-depth

knowledge

30

f. The ways in which students can get involved in quality assurance in your country?

g. The work of your national union of students (student parliament, student association) in general.

h. The work of your national union of students (student parliament, student association) on quality assurance in higher

education.

i. European initiatives in the area of higher education

j. European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG)

k. European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR)

l. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)

m. The work of the European Students’ Union in general

n. The work of the European Students’ Union on QA in HE