Quality assurance has been defined as a means of “control over the standards, delivery, and validation of higher education” (Brock, 2007, p. 25). Over the past twenty-five years (one could say 2500 years) calls for quality assurance have caused tension inside and with regards to the outcomes of higher education. These tensions stem from differing purposes, perceptions, and processes for quality assurance on the part of the groups that compete to control these elements. In essence, it is a matter of language and power (Ewell, 1989), that is, whoever defines the language of quality assurance purposes, perceptions, and processes has the power to control higher education. Inside higher education those in different disciplines may have quite divergent views of quality assurance. Often these views are divided along the lines of the sciences and humanities, as characterized by Snow (1961). In addition, the more applied or profession-oriented disciplines, such as engineering, business, health professions, and teacher education, have their own expectations related to the standards, delivery, and validation of higher education. It is often the case that faculty and administrative cultures within an institution have differing views related to purposes, perceptions, and processes of quality assurance.
The QUEECA Experience