Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Quality and Evaluating Performance in Higher Education: Worlds Apart or Complementary Views?

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reflects on quality assessment and performance evaluation in higher education, namely by analysing the insufficient link between those two aspects. We start by reviewing the current state of the art regarding different processes and mechanisms of quality assessment and performance evaluation and discuss some of the major issues regarding the implementation of some of them. In particular, we analyse the current limitations regarding data collected, available and publicised on the performance of HEIs and the problems those limitations bring to a fair evaluation of higher education. Through this analysis we intend to contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms of evaluation in higher education and the way these may lead to the promotion of better quality assessment practices and institutional management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Advanced Quantitative Methods to Evaluate the Performance of Public Sector Research conducted under the PRIME—Policies for Research and Innovation in the Move towards the European research area, EU Network of Excellence.

References

  • Amaral, Alberto, Airi Rovio-Johansson, Maria J. Rosa, and Don F. Westerheijden (eds.). 2008. Essays on supportive peer review. New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmur, Douglas. 2007. The public regulation of higher education qualities: rationales, processes and outcomes. In Quality assurance in higher education. Trends in regulation, translation and transformation, eds. Don F. Westerheijden, Bjorn Stensaker, and Maria J. Rosa, 15–45. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, John, and Tarla Shah. 2000. Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: Open University Press & SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cave, Martin, Stephen Hanney, Mary Henkel, and Maurice Kogan. 1996. The use of performance indicators in higher education. The challenge of the quality movement, 3rd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, David, and Maarja Soo. 2004. Transparency and quality in higher education markets. In Markets in higher education: rhetoric or reality?, eds. Pedro N. Teixeira, Ben Jongbloed, David Dill, and Alberto Amaral, 61–85. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, James H., James L. Gibson, and John M. Ivancevich. 1997. Fundamentals of management, 10th ed. Boston: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J.R., A.J. Arthurs, R.H. Green, L. McAulay, M.R. Pitt, P.A. Bottomley, and W. Evans. 1996. The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: Analysis of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies. Omega 24: 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, David, and Mark Gittoes. 2004. Statistical analysis of performance indicators in UK higher education. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 167: 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Diana. 1994. What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice. In What is quality in higher education?, ed. Diana Green, 3–20. Buckingham: SRHE & OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, David W., and Stanley Lemeshow. 2000. Applied logistic regression, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Norman, and Helen Lund (eds.). 2000. Benchmarking for higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesson, David, and David Mayston. 1990. Information, accountability and educational performance indicators. In Performance indicators, ed. Carol T. Fitz-Gibbon, 77–87. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, Guy. 1988. On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986–1988. European Journal of Education 23: 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neave, Guy, and Frans van Vught (eds.). 1991. Prometheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. London: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massy, William F. 2003. Honoring the trust. Quality and cost containment in higher education. Bolton: Anker Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil Jr., Harold F., Estela Bensimon, Mike Diamond, and Mike Moore. 1999. Designing and implementing an academic scorecard. Change 31: 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, Maria J., Diana Tavares, and Alberto Amaral. 2006. Institutional consequences of quality assessment. Quality in Higher Education 12: 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, Maria J., and Alberto Amaral. 2007. A Self-assessment of higher education institutions from the perspective of the EFQM excellence model. In Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation, eds. Don F. Westerheijden, Bjorn Stensaker, and Maria J. Rosa, 181–203. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico, Cláudia S. 1998. Performance measurement in uk universities: Bringing in the stakeholders’ perspectives using data envelopment analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick.

  • Sarrico, Cláudia S., S.M. Hogan, Robert G. Dyson, and A.D. Athanassopoulos. 1997. Data envelopment analysis and university selection. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48: 1163–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico, Cláudia S., and Robert R. Dyson. 2000. Using DEA for planning in UK universities–an institutional perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51: 789–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico, Cláudia S., Pedro N. Teixeira, Maria J. Rosa, and Margarida F. Cardoso. 2009. Subject mix and productivity in Portuguese universities. European Journal of Operational Research 197: 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbach, Victor J., and Wayne D. Rosamond. 2000. Understanding the fundamentals of epidemiology: An evolving text. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.epidemiolog.net/evolving/FundamentalsOfEpidemiology.pdf. Accessed 18 February 2010.

  • Schwarz, Stefanie, and Don F.D. Westerheijden (eds.). 2004. Accreditation and evaluation in the european higher education area. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism—Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, Pedro N., David Dill, Alberto Amaral, and B. Ben Jongbloed (eds.). 2004. Markets in higher education. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, Martin. 1996. Trust, markets, and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy 9: 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroeijenstijn, A.I. 1995. Improvement and accountability. Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, Burton A., Jeffrey P. Ballou, and Evelyn D. Asch. 2008. Mission and money—Understanding the university. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, Don F., Bjorn Stensaker, and Maria J. Rosa. 2007. Introduction. In Quality assurance in higher education. Trends in regulation, translation and transformation, eds. Don F. Westerheijden, Bjorn Stensaker, and Maria J. Rosa, 1–11. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemsky, Robert, William F. Massy, and Gregory R. Wegner. 2005. Remaking the American university—Market-smart and mission-centered. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SACSJP, Universidade de Aveiro & CIPES, SACSJP, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Cláudia S. Sarrico

  2. DEGEI, Universidade de Aveiro & CIPES, DEGEI, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Maria J. Rosa

  3. FEP, Universidade do Porto & CIPES, FEP-Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-464, Porto, Portugal

    Pedro N. Teixeira

  4. ICBAS, Universidade do Porto, CIIMAR & CIPES, ICBAS-Universidade do Porto, Largo Prof. Abel Salazar, 2, 4099-003, Porto, Portugal

    Margarida F. Cardoso

Authors
  1. Cláudia S. Sarrico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria J. Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro N. Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margarida F. Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria J. Rosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sarrico, C.S., Rosa, M.J., Teixeira, P.N. et al. Assessing Quality and Evaluating Performance in Higher Education: Worlds Apart or Complementary Views?. Minerva 48, 35–54 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9142-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9142-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation