What is Internal Quality Assurance?

What is Internal Quality Assurance?

　In the world of higher education one hears the term "Internal Quality Assurance" (naibushitsu hosho) frequently used. Moreover, in various places, one sees special attention to issues of quality assurance and debates on how to move forward to improve it as such. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is also active in issues of internal quality assurance. However, I myself do not particularly like the term "Internal Quality Assurance." When asked why, it is because of the term's lack of external explanatory ability. This is not to say that the idea of internal quality assurance is meaningless nor do I think it is not necessary. Indeed, I fully recognize the importance of it.

　However, at the risk of being misunderstood, I worry that in the process of invoking the "Importance of Internal Quality Assurance" or rushing to implement anything seemingly associated with "Internal Quality Assurance," we risk associating the term with irresponsibility and unrealistic expectations. Regardless, when people invoke "Internal Quality Assurance" it comes to sound more like an empty slogan, more similar to an empty Buddhist chant than anything that can actually be realized in practice.

　Therefore, what is real quality assurance? Moreover, what is the thinking behind the "internal" quality assurance so frequently used in Japanese higher education? Let's try to summarize the issue in brief.

　According to the Japan University Accreditation Association homepage, the main points of "Internal Quality Assurance" are as followed. In terms of definition, "Internal Quality Assurance," is characterized as a "continual and permanent process of internal institutional improvement in the quality of education, learning and other services as set by certain agreed upon sets of criteria; it is a process set by the university itself and is one where the responsibility to explain and provide evidence for this quality also lies with the institution; the process of improvement is in turn realized through appropriate planning methods such as the PDCA cycle." In this way, an approach such as the PDCA cycle (PDCA: "Plan-do-check-act") initiates a constant repetition of practical improvement initiatives based on the four stages of planning, implementation, assessment and reform ("acting"). In particular, such a internal quality assurance process demands two things: 1) the creation of a mechanism that can reform and improve university education in a real, substantial way 2) the ability/responsibility to explain/substantiate these improvements in university education to institutional stakeholders in through a clearly defined set of criteria.

　Seen in this way, the use of the term "quality assurance" actually has four levels to it: 1) to insure that the undergraduate or graduate program is continuing to adhere to the standards it promised when it received initial accreditation to establish itself; 2) that it is realizing the learning outcomes that are expected of its students from society at large in terms of overall academic/professional ability; 3) that it is conducting academic research and education on the level of other similar international institutions; 4) that it is accomplishing the stated institutional goals and ideals of the University. The first criteria of adhering to the basic standards promised in a program's founding is the bare minimum of an institution. On this base is the second expectation built. While achieving the 3rd expectation, it is also expected that the institution will also articulate its unique aspects and characteristics as demanded in the 4th expectation. In this way, the different aspects of university quality assurance could be said to interrelate to each other.

　The first three polices are already formalized into law; how does one therefore address issues of assessment? In fact, if a university already has the Three Policies already, it naturally follows that an assessment policy is operating de facto in the university already.

　According to a recent survey by the Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation of Private Schools of Japan, only 14% of private universities have established Assessment policies. The low number likely reflects this state of affairs. Although variations may exist, it is likely that most places do enact methods of evaluation, grading and graduation conferral that could be seen as "Assessment Policy." However, such approaches are not always addressed and dealt with at the University level.

　Planning and Doing in a PDCA cycle are important, but there are also many instances of universities not taking steps to include the "CA" of "checking" and "acting" (reforming) as well. For some universities, there is a direct step from checking to spurring new planning. This might be a result of good practices encouraged by MEXT itself. In some ways, the process of checking and acting on it takes time and labor. In contrast, creating a new plan can sometimes get support (and monetary resources) and even monies from the national government budget.

　But this raises a fundamental issue. If the government does not itself reward adherence to the full PDCA cycle, should one actually trust in the "PDCA cycle" to begin with? Is it really an established system?

　Is the diploma policy of a University being achieved appropriately? Is the content/methods of a curriculum policy actually being enacted? Moreover, are the goals of the diploma policy useful even when they are achieved? Is the admissions policy actually being carried out as stated? Additionally, is the admission policy contributing to and assisting in the realization of the diploma policy and to the operation of the curriculum policy? What is the policy that verifies all of this? Is it a reliable process? To be sure, the number of researchers who have already noted that a PDCA cycle is not in itself the establishment of a system of quality assurance are not small.

　On what basis is the PDCA cycle "checking" university policies? It is something that remains unclear. Despite this, can one really expect to ask of external stakeholders that they trust what they are saying? We may think we are firmly integrating internal quality assurance into a broader institutional system. But even if we ask broader society to trust us, they will not readily do so. The feelings of believing in us are still quite limited.

　Unless institutional assessments are rendered more visible, it is unlikely we will be able to convince external stakeholders to are assertions of quality. And yet, the number of universities that are actually implementing an assessment policy are extremely small. It is possible we have come to the point where we need to reconsider the original meaning of assessment policy.

　We cannot no longer simply rely on invoking the term "internal quality assurance." There is no future for universities that simply want to argue and extend introspective discussions of quality assurance.

The Existential Crisis of Universities

　What is happening right now in South Korean universities? Does anyone in Japan know? At present, if a university cannot fill at least 40% of its incoming class, the government will not give that university's students any financial assistance. And in the near future, this threshold will be raised to 60% of capacity. In other words, students will not receive financial assistance to attend any university with under 60% enrollment. Any university that falls into this situation will see its students rapidly decline. Eventually such a university will see its operations decline and no longer be able remain open.

　"Internal Quality Assurance" is not attracting the trust of external stakeholders, thus leaving the government as the only one providing uniform measures of quality. As a result, it will lead to the clear separation of "good universities" and "bad universities." This type of fate is something that is not irrelevant to our country either. Japanese universities, however, are very far behind in rendering quality assurance visible to external stakeholders.

　As mentioned in the introduction, the Japanese government is already introducing mechanisms to cut dramatically the amount of financial aid available to private universities and junior colleges that have declining education quality and poor administrative management. At the same time, the obstacles to quality assurance are not limited to just problems regarding external stakeholders, there is also the problems related to stubbornness in university faculty bodies that also seek to thwart education reform. However, when it comes to imagining the future of an entire university, if internal stakeholders are not convinced it is unlikely that faculty bodies will be convinced either. This is another reason why rendering visible the processes of internal quality assurance remains necessary.

　As mentioned in the introduction, I mentioned how sports has referees and judges. Education institutions also have something similar. But do we engage in qualitative assessment or assessment based on wins and losses? Perhaps we can only understand our learning growth and what we excel at based on evaluating our qualitative performance.

　I once participated in a working group focused on the future of education convened for the Central Education Deliberative Council. The universal understanding in that committee was that even with the massification of higher education and other problems that reasonably contributed to the slow-down of education reform, the level of implementation of quality assurance within Japanese higher education remained insufficient.

　To be sure, there are definitely universities that are actively working to reform and improve their education quality just as there are other universities whose efforts so far has been insufficient. Indeed, the polarization of Japanese higher education seems to be advancing. Whether one looks at surveys of education reform or surveys by the Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation of Private Schools of Japan, the available data indicates that education reform in Japanese higher education remains at a standstill.