Quality at Monash: Values and Principles

Executive Summary

Quality at Monash: Values and Principles makes explicit some of the core values and principles that underpin the university’s approach to quality. Important contextual issues for quality assurance and improvement are outlined in terms of:

Monash as a large, complex, diverse and international organisation;

• Monash values, aspirations and directions;
• the external context for quality (including the national quality process);
• research and scholarship contributing to an understanding of quality.
• Seven Core Values and Principles (CVPs) concerning quality are outlined:
  
  creating the agenda (fitness for purpose);
• quality as a professional responsibility;
• encouraging the development of a learning organisation;
• valuing diversity, devolution and comparable treatment;
• an open and informed approach to quality;
• a planned and systematic approach to quality;
• valuing self-reflection and external reference.
• Three major aspects of the Monash approach to quality are elaborated:
  
  fundamental questioning of purpose in terms of ‘fitness for purpose’;
• a generic form of the Monash planning and review cycle (a quality cycle);
• the importance of feedback.

1. Purpose

The purpose of Quality at Monash is to make explicit some of the core values and principles that lie behind the university’s approach to quality. It is intended to inform the ‘quality debate’ within the university at a time when the importance of quality has never been greater. 

There is widespread recognition that ‘quality’ is critical in achieving the Monash vision. But what is ‘quality’ and what does it mean for the large and complex organisation that is Monash? Quality at Monash seeks to inform staff at all levels on these and other issues and thereby encourage their participation.

Monash has an excellent record on quality, with international recognition and top scoring (with the other ‘Group of Eight’ universities) in the national quality rounds of 1993-95. The documentation for that era clearly spelled out the quality procedures and processes that were then in place and these have continued to develop since that time. However, documentation to date has notelaborated the values and principles that lie behind the university’s many processes and procedures. With the conviction that quality is a major issue for the university to follow its chosen direction, and with a new national quality process under development, this represents a good opportunity to declare the university’s position on a number of important aspects of quality. 

Quality at Monash is not a quality manual. It does not describe fine-level procedures to be followed, nor does it define operational standards or present checklists. Its purpose is to inform the thinking of all members of the Monash community as they consider their own quality assurance and improvement issues. A thoughtful and empowering approach to quality is seen 
as being entirely appropriate for an organisation with learning and the development of knowledge as its core concern, and a necessary condition for the development of a ‘learning organisation’.

2. Internal Context

For quality assurance and improvement processes at Monash to be effective, they must reflect the values, aspirations and nature of the organisation. Monash’s emerging vision is of: 

“a self-reliant, broad-based, global university and learning organisation, conducting innovative teaching and research of international quality and relevance, and engaged actively with the diverse regions, communities, industries and professions which it serves.” 

Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 4

.Quality assurance and improvement at Monash must take into account organisational characteristics such as size, complexity, diversity and the international dimension of operations. In order to achieve its vision, Monash does not seek to replicate all aspects of the university in each part of its network, but to identify and capitalise on diverse strengths across the 
organisation. The whole being greater than the sum of the parts should similarly be reflected in Monash’s approach to quality. That approach must include sufficient flexibility for distinctive components to blend together and complement one another, rather than the mechanistic application of a particular formula.

Monash as a university is committed to particular qualities and values including:

• “willingness to take on a challenge and to pursue new opportunities . . . ;

• the value of free and rational inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge as a key to understanding, tolerance and improvement of the human condition . . . ;

• (being) spirited and ready to take the initiative, self reliant, open and egalitarian, and contemporary and international in perspective.”

Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 6..

The defining themes of innovation, engagement and internationalisation “permeate and give direction to the activities of Monash at every level” (Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 5). Of particular importance for quality assurance and improvement are commitments to:

• “Consciously building a culture of innovation and removing constraints to imaginative and high quality developments;
• Embracing new directions, new ideas, new opportunities and improved methods of operating across all of Monash’s activities, whilst maintaining and preserving existing strengths . . . ;
• Deliberately seeking opportunities for Monash to engage further with the communities it serves and the professions and industries which employ its graduates and support and use its research.”

Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 6.

The values and themes of Monash University match the values and principles that inform a progressive approach toward quality.  They suggest that personal autonomy, responsibility and proactive engagement are central to the development of quality.  Rather than a backward looking, adaptive and conservative approach, Monash encourages risk taking in the development of new ventures and the constant improvement of more established activities. The university cannot assume that quality as defined by single-campus, domestic institutions with a mainly school-leaving student cohort, will be appropriate for Monash.

In order to deliver “rigorous quality standards” (Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 5) . . . and . . . “the highest quality in teaching, learning, research and a wide range of professional and community activities” (ibid p 6), Monash therefore places major importance on individuals and work teams taking responsibility for their own quality assurance and improvement processes. Such an approach is consistent with the needs of a large, diverse, international and knowledge-based organisation.

3. External Context

There is clear acknowledgement within the university that commitment to quality assurance and improvement is critical to Monash’s success. This commitment is displayed in planning, policy, decision-making and practice throughout the university. 

This internal commitment is further supported by a number of external factors. First, as a truly international university, Monash faces accreditation tests as it develops a global presence. Monash has achieved significant success in gaining the approval of overseas governments in order to build offshore campuses in Malaysia and South Africa, from which to deliver Monash programs. Monash programmes delivered internationally in partnership arrangements or through distance education have also been successful in gaining international professional accreditation.

As internationalisation continues to develop, so too will the influence of national accreditation, audit and quality agencies in most countries of the world. It is imperative that Monash’s strengths in quality assurance and improvement also continue  to develop and keep pace with international practice. The more the university debates and develops its own understandings with regard to quality, the more likely this is to be the case.

Nationally, the announcement of an Australian University Quality Agency (AUQA) on the 10th of December 1999, signalled a new era for ‘quality’ in Australia. For the first time since the quality rounds of 1993-95, Monash, like all other Australian universities, will have the opportunity of demonstrating the strength of its quality processes to an external, national audit. The national process will also provide a valuable developmental opportunity for Monash to benefit from an external perspective on the university’s approach to quality. 

The drive to international accreditation and quality audit reflects a number of trends. These were identified in two reports (Anderson et al 2000; Harman and Meek, 2000) and referred to in the announcement of AUQA. At that time, the Minister highlighted the following as providing a context for a focus on quality (Kemp, 1999):

• the massive growth in higher education both in Australia and internationally;

• the influence of information technology in the delivery of education;

• the internationalisation of education, including the emergence of new providers;

• a greater focus on good management.

Such factors affect higher education institutions worldwide. National quality responses have varied from highly intrusive attempts to measure ‘quality’ directly (as in the United Kingdom), to audits of a university’s own quality processes and systems (as in New Zealand). The former approach has attracted severe criticism from UK higher education institutions and seems likely to be reformed (see The Times Higher Education Supplement, 23/3/01). The latter approach represents the model presently being adopted in Australia (see, for example New Zealand Academic Audit Unit http://www.aau.ac.nz). 

So, while Monash continues to develop quality processes because these are necessary to meet its vision and objectives, such processes need to align with the requirements of both the national quality agency and with international understanding of quality as developed through research and scholarship. 

4. Research and Scholarship on Quality

Quality at Monash is informed not only by the nature and aspirations of the organisation and by important external factors, but also by international scholarship. ‘Quality’ is an extraordinarily interesting word. It offers many interpretive possibilities and has an uncanny ability to resist attempts to use definition as a means of enforcing discipline and control. Some differing conceptions of quality are briefly outlined in Appendix I.

A major theme in the literature has been the tension between quality as a vehicle for management control and quality being ‘owned’ and driven by individuals and work teams throughout an organisation. There is general agreement that ‘imposed’ management systems with little or no ownership by staff are doomed to failure and that quality is everyone’s responsibility (see Appendix I).

5. Values and Principles for Quality at Monash University

The preceding discussion ‘sets the scene’ and raises a number of issues concerning values and principles for quality at Monash. The most important of these are now drawn together into to a number of values (V) concerning quality assurance and improvement, followed by a principle (P) for guiding action. Together they form seven CVPs – core values and principles.

CVP 1. Creating the agenda (fitness for purpose)

Values

Just as Monash values bold action, innovation and risk taking, so too does it value creating the agenda in terms of quality. Monash takes seriously the perspective of quality as ‘fitness for purpose.’ This means that the university must create its own quality agenda for its own unique situation. 

Principle

Monash will learn from quality approaches and practices in other university and external contexts but will not be afraid to create its own agenda and act on the needs of Monash as a unique and innovative organisation. 

CVP 2. Professional Responsibility

Values

Monash recognises and values the professional responsibility of each individual and work team for quality assurance and improvement. It values participation and empowerment as better able to deliver quality assurance and improvement than formal and imposed quality systems and controls. 

Principle

While the university as a whole develops and agrees general policy for quality, responsibility for delivering quality is best located with those closest to each particular university activity.

CVP 3. Learning Organisation

Values

Monash values collaboration and the sharing of ideas for quality assurance and continuous improvement within the university. It values a long-term view of quality through organisational learning and the development of staff. Monash values staff creativity at all levels, including their ability to learn and solve problems.

Principle

The best way to effect quality assurance and accountability is through continuous quality improvement and the development of a learning organisation.

CVP 4. Diversity, Devolution and Comparable Treatment

Values

Monash values diversity and acknowledges the need for devolved decision making concerning quality assurance and improvement. Monash also values the need for appropriate and comparable treatment in all areas. The university acknowledges and values the creative tension caused by the need for devolution and the need for consistency and comparable treatment.

Principle

Central policy is developed to assure comparable treatment in all areas, leaving room for different areas to develop implementation for each particular context. (Note: good examples of this principle in operation are policies concerning subject evaluation policy and academic review.)

CVP 5. Open and Informed Approach

Values

Monash values an open and informed approach to quality throughout the university. It values rational and open discussion on ways of improving. Monash values and is informed by local, national and international research, scholarship and practice. 

Principle

Monash will continue to develop an approach to quality that is thoughtful, informed and flexible. It will not slavishly or mechanistically implement a particular quality formula or system.

CVP 6. Planned and Systematic Approach

Values

Quality is too important to be left to chance. Because of the importance of quality assurance and improvement to Monash, the university places high value on a planned and systematic approach to quality. 

Principle

The university will systematically plan, monitor and evaluate its activities, and ensure that the results of monitoring and evaluation are fed back in order to effect improvement.

CVP 7. Self-Reflection and External Reference

Values

Monash values self-reflection by groups and individuals in order that they continue to learn and improve. Monash also values external points of reference as providing valuable perspectives for further reflection and action.

Principle

Monash encourages external reference in many shapes and forms, including systematic collection of stakeholder’s views, benchmarking and external input to review processes.

6. The Approach to Quality at Monash

These core values and principles underpin three important features of the approach to quality at Monash, which are:

• fundamental questioning to establish purpose;

• systematically meeting purposes (quality cycle); and,

• feedback.

These three features are likely to remain of importance over time and for all levels (from the whole university, through the various units of the university, to the work of the individual).

(i) Fitness for Purpose and Quality Questions

In line with the requirements of Monash as an organisation, the international literature and the developing national quality scheme, the conception of quality at Monash is primarily that of ‘fitness for purpose.’ Fitness for purpose implies that it is worthwhile taking some time to establish and agree purpose at all levels.

The raising of fundamental questions concerning the purpose of operations and associated quality processes is a necessary condition for the development of a learning organisation (CVP 3). With quality recognised as a professional responsibility (CVP2) - as everybody’s business - Monash encourages all staff to consider the following questions concerning purpose and fitness for purpose. Again, each question can be asked of the individual, the work team, unit, faculty/division, or of the university as a whole.

• What are you trying to do? What are your core objectives, what are the core objectives for your work team or unit, how are these planned and determined, what are the outcomes you wish to produce or attain?

• Why are you trying to do it? Why are these objectives and outcomes important, how do they fit into university, faculty, divisional or unit priorities, how do you decide which objectives and outcomes are a priority?

• How are you trying to do it? What processes do you use to meet these objectives and outcomes, how does your normal pattern of work contribute to these objectives?

• Why are you doing it this way? What makes you use these particular processes, what other processes or ways of working are possible, how could you work differently?

• How do you know it is working? What information or data do you collect formally or informally to monitor this work, how do you systematically review the results of your work, how do you access external reference points including stakeholder feedback?

• How do you improve it? How do you learn from the monitoring and review information you develop and turn that learning into action for improvement?

• How do you improve? As well as improving organisational processes, how do you (for example as an individual or as a work team) learn and develop?

These questions ensure that the whole issue of purpose and fitness for purpose is debated. In themselves, however, they do not provide a guide to action. A way of conceptualising action that is sufficiently general to translate to different contexts, and yet is powerful enough to ensure that the major aspects of action are considered, is provided in the notion of a quality cycle.

(ii) Monash Planning and Review Cycle

The Monash Planning and Review Cycle (Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 18 and Leading the Way. The Monash Plan 1999-2003, p 47) explicitly recognises the cyclical nature of planning, implementation, performance assessment, review, revision and updating. A generic version of these processes is described by the notion of a quality cycle, as follows.

• Plan: denotes formal planning at all levels including university level planning, faculty and divisional planning, school, departmental or unit planning, course or work team planning. At the individual level it reflects the planning that people do either by project, or over time, including yearly or daily planning.

• Act: includes all the intentional activities that are undertaken to meet objectives, implement plans and produce outcomes. 

• Evaluate: includes two major aspects – monitoring and review. Monitoring is a short and medium term activity mainly for developmental or formative purposes. It may use formal or informal methods and make use of existing data, or generate new data. Action and monitoring usually develop together, informing each other, hand-in-hand. Review is a longer term and more formal process that has both formative and summative purposes.

• Improve: identifies the process by which the results of evaluation - both monitoring and review - are fed back in order to generate improvement. Often this causes modification to an existing plan or development of a new plan, and thus the cycle commences once more.

The idea of a quality cycle is based on action research cycles (Lewin, 1946; Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988) which have been used to develop systematic and practical action in order to effect improvement.

An advantage of thinking about quality in terms of a cycle is that there is no ‘right’ place to enter. While some may start with planning, others will be preparing for review. Also, having completed a cycle as described, the next phase may be thought of as a spiral, or series of spirals, if other actions are generated out of the first sequence (see McNiff, 1988). 

The quality cycle attempts to integrate some of the key aspects of quality assurance and improvement practice, without being overly prescriptive. It should be stressed that successful use of the quality cycle largely depends on integration of the values and principles outlined earlier. In particular, CVP 2 (professional responsibility) and CVP 3 (development of a learning organisation) both highlight the need for participation and ownership at all levels.

(iii) Feedback

The third important aspect of the Monash approach to quality is a focus on feedback. Feedback often means seeking evidence of stakeholder’s experiences. Feedback therefore provides data for the evaluation phase of the quality cycle, both in terms of monitoring and review. However, it is of such crucial importance for a responsive approach to quality, that feedback is elaborated here in its own right. 

Stakeholders include direct or internal participants, mainly students and staff, together with those whose contact with the university is indirect or external (eg employers, community groups, government) (Lindsay, 1994). Sometimes stakeholders are also customers. Whether or not students are (or are only) customers continues to provide fertile ground for debate (eg Baldwin and James, 2000) with some discussion identifying a number of interactions where students are customers, clients, citizens and subjects with obligations, among other things (Sharrock, 2000). Certainly in the support services of the university, students and staff are clearly customers and clients, and customer focus is critical as part of a balanced approach in this area.

The point is that stakeholders have legitimate concerns that need to be heard before they can be addressed. This does not mean that all feedback is uncritically accepted and actioned but that a process for weighing and evaluating feedback needs to be in place. It does mean that appropriate stakeholders for each of the university’s operations need to be identified, together with effective measures to allow their experiences to be expressed.

(iv) Summary

The three aspects of quality identified provide good insight to the functioning of the approach to quality at Monash. With ‘fitness for purpose’ accepted as the major concept of quality, there is obviously a need to establish purpose at all levels. This leads to fundamental questioning of purpose and current processes for ensuring that purposes are met.

The quality cycle provides a way of thinking about work in a systematic yet generic way. Having established or clarified purpose, it highlights the need for a plan, action and evaluation. It emphasises that evaluation in the form of monitoring occurs alongside action. It also highlights the need for the results of evaluation activity to be fed back to effect improvement. Feedback is singled out for special consideration as a crucial aspect of the quality approach because of its importance in establishing stakeholder satisfaction and developing the responsiveness of the organisation. Together these three aspects aim to provide a useful and flexible framework upon which to develop Monash’s approach to quality.

Appendix I

Conceptions of Quality

Far from converging on an unproblematic definition of quality, the international quality discourse has exposed the multi-dimensional and contested nature of ideas and practices concerning quality (Barnett, 1992; Lindsay, 1992; Goodlad, 1995; Harman, 1998; Brennan and Shah, 2000). Harvey and Green (1993) identified a number of conceptions of quality and these form the basis for the following observations.

Quality as excellence. This conception regards quality as exceptional. It is the preserve of the very best. What constitutes ‘best’ tends to be assumed somewhat uncritically and conservatively, which works against institutions and activities that are innovatively non-traditional. Quality as excellence is a persistent theme in any discussion of university quality.

Quality as zero errors. This idea comes from quality being seen as the elimination of faulty units from the production line. It is often thought to have little relevance for higher education. This is surprising given that many processes (for example collection, marking, accurate recording of marks and return of assignments) assume zero errors. The term ‘quality control’ is strongly associated with ‘quality as zero errors.’

Quality as standards. Standards usually refer to fairly concrete, conservative and measurable production or performance targets. Institutional approaches to quality may include standards but also need processes for dealing with the consequences of applying standards, for learning from experience and for improving systems, which means that ‘quality’ is not synonymous with ‘standards’.

Quality as fitness for purpose. Rather than a single ‘gold standard’ upon which all judgements anywhere can be based, fitness for purpose defines quality relative to a specific purpose. Different universities, faculties or support services may have different missions and objectives, and it is against these that they should be judged. Purpose itself then becomes critical, and this is seen as being developed out of the needs of stakeholders of all kinds. As fitness for purpose appears to imply that ‘anything goes’, an associated notion of fitness of purpose has also been discussed, whereby the comprehensiveness and relevance of purpose is a legitimate area for evaluation.

Attempting to understand ‘quality’ in higher education is problematic because the notion of higher education itself is the subject of considerable debate. Barnett (1992) suggests that there are clear general and stakeholder-related differences in how the purpose of higher education is conceived (eg as producer of a qualified workforce, trainer for research, teaching management system and, extender of life chances). To these essentially ‘external’ notions he adds ‘internal’ interests concerned with the development of autonomy, intellectual integrity, general intellectual ability including breadth of vision and the ability to engage in discourse and social commentary. 

It is clear that modern universities must meet multiple goals and navigate multiple agendas. It is no longer possible to think of a university defining its purpose and ways of operating without paying attention to the views of stakeholders such as students, staff, employers, professional groups, community groups, State and Federal Government. It is also true that many stakeholder groups tend to have an essentially conservative view of quality and so it is the responsibility of innovative universities to lead the discussion of quality in the context of their new operating environments.

In terms of accommodating the varying goals of stakeholder groups (and bearing in mind the need to lead the quality discussion in new operating environments), the ‘quality literature’ has stressed the need for participation. This raises the issue of ‘control and compliance’ as opposed to ‘empowerment’.

Quality: Control or Empowerment

Almost every contribution to the ‘quality’ literature discusses the tension between quality as a vehicle for management control and quality being ‘owned’ and driven by individuals and work teams. Barnett’s (1992) ‘What’s wrong with quality assurance’ (including a critique of ‘The check-list culture’) is a good example of the generally accepted argument that ‘imposed’ management systems with little or no ownership by staff are doomed to failure and that quality is everyone’s responsibility.

The vesting of responsibility for quality in terms of individual responsibility and devolution fits well with the idea of ‘professionalism’ and the associated valuing of autonomy and self-direction. It also converges with the understandings and values of many who work in universities. Such a view encourages an interpretation of work as ‘reflective practice’ (Schön, 1983) where experience and the process of working through with others the multifaceted problems that confront us every day, are highly valued.

But there is also agreement that leadership and management are important. Total Quality Management (TQM) (Deming, 1986) attempts to bring together both the participatory nature of organisation-wide quality assurance and improvement, and the leadership and management challenge to ensure conditions under which they can thrive. These include: establishing a common purpose; customer focus; adopting a long-term approach; emphasising staff development including leadership; and, focusing on systematic and continuous improvement (see Nightingale and O’Neil, 1994, for an interpretation within the university setting).

However, the interpretation of TQM within universities is not unproblematic. For example, Lindsay (1994) identifies some of the major issues confronting TQM in universities as being “widely dispersed power, loosely defined roles and structures, and fundamental conflict about organisational goals and processes” (p 63). This means that the role of leadership and management in motivating, mobilising and helping organise the efforts of individuals and teams to deliver and develop quality is extremely important (see for example Meade, 1995). In fact it is central to the notion of a ‘learning organisation’, where:

“people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” Senge (1990) p 3 . . . and where . . . “the organisations that will truly excel in the future will be the organisations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels” Senge (1990) p 4.

Characteristics of a learning organisation are:

• encouragement and support for members of the organisation to learn and to share their knowledge with others;

• encouragement of innovation and discovery, providing opportunities for staff to take responsibility for action, try new approaches and take risks;

• linkage of individual or local learning to organisational learning;

• support of formal and informal staff learning and development.

The challenge is to develop the university not only as an organisation for learning, but also as learning organisation. In so doing, the commitment, professionalism and communication that are encouraged through participation achieve focus and alignment through good leadership and management.

References

Anderson, D, Johnson, R and Milligan, B (2000) Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Australian Higher Education: An Assessment of Australian and International Practice. Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Baldwin, G and James, R (2000) The Market in Australian Higher Education and the Concept of Student as Informed Consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol 22, No 2, pp 139-148.

Barnett, R (1992) Improving Higher Education. Total Quality Care. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

Brennan, J and Shah, T (2000) Managing Quality in Higher Education. An International Perspective on Institutional Assessment and Change. Buckingham, UK: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press.

Carr, W and Kemmis, S (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: Falmer Press.

Deming, W (1986) Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goodlad, S (1995) The Quest for Quality. Sixteen Forms of Heresy in Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

Harman, G (1998) The Management of Quality Assurance: A Review of International Practice. Higher Education Quarterly, Vol 52, No 4, pp 345-364.

Harman, G and Meek, V L (2000) Repositioning Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Australian Higher Education. Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Harvey, L and Green, D (1993) Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 18, No 1, pp 9-34.

Kemmis, S and McTaggart, R (eds) (1988) The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press.

Leading the Way. Monash 2020. Monash University 1999.

Lewin, K (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, Vol 2, pp 34-46.

Lindsay, A W (1992) Concepts of Quality in Higher Education. Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, Vol 14, No 2, pp 153-163.

Lindsay, A W (1994) Quality and Management in Universities. Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, Vol 16, No 1, pp 55-68.

McNiff, J (1988) Action Research: Principles and Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Meade, P (1995) Utilising the University as a Learning Organisation to Facilitate Quality Improvement. Quality in Higher Education, Vol 1, No 2, pp111-121.

New Zealand Academic Audit Unit http://www.aau.ac.nz

Nightingale, P and O’Neil, M (1994) Quality Learning in Higher Education. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Schön, D A (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Senge, P M (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. New York: Doubleday.

Sharrock, G (2000) Why Students are not (Just) Customers (and other reflections on Life After George). Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol 22, No 2, pp 149-164.

The Times Higher Education Supplement 23/3/01 No 1479. “LSE leads revolt against QAA” Phil Baty p 1, and “Universities are sinking under inspection load” Roderick Floud p 16.