The paper aims at developing a holistic understanding of quality in higher education which reveals the current debates about accreditation or quality process standards as insufficient, and proposes an enhanced model for quality culture in educational or-ganisations.

1. Ehlers, U.-D. (2009): Understanding Quality Culture. In: International
Journal for Quality Assurance in Education. Emerald
Understanding Quality Culture
Purpose
The paper aims at developing a holistic understanding of quality in higher education
which reveals the current debates about accreditation or quality process standards as
insufficient, and proposes an enhanced model for quality culture in educational
organisations.
Design/methodology/approach
The conceptual framework is based on relevant research in the field of quality
development for education, and integrates it with a series of previously published
works related to quality methodologies, quality literacy and quality as a
multidimensional concept. Quality is approached from an educational science
perspective, and is understood as a relationship among all the participants and
resources of an educational scenario.
Findings
The paper establishes the foundation for a comprehensive understanding and analysis
of quality culture in organisations, focussing on higher education. While this
understanding of quality as part of the organisational culture seems to gain more
importance there is still a lack of fundamental research and conceptual understanding
of the phenomenon in itself. Quality development in higher education is often limited
to bureaucratic documentation, and disregards the development of quality as an
organisation’s holistic culture. However, there is a needs to focus on promoting a
quality culture which is enabling individual actors to continuously improve their
educational practice.
Originality/value
The original value of the paper is to approach quality development in higher
education from an organisation’s cultural perspective. When the conceptual
foundations for empirical research are worked out, the professionals can benefit by
understanding the interrelated nature of educational quality and organisational culture
in higher education institutions.
Paper Type: Conceptual Paper
Keywords: Quality culture, higher education, quality, education, quality
management, organisational culture
1

2. Introduction: A Culture of Quality in Higher Education
We are entering a new era in quality management for higher education. While it is
difficult to mark its exact beginning, it is clear that it is moving away from a
mechanistic to a holistic and cultural view of quality in education. It is characterised
by an emerging understanding that quality development, in essence, demands for the
development of an organisational culture based on shared values, necessary
competencies and new professionalism. Whereas, much attention has been paid to
mastering instruments of quality control or accreditation in the past decade, the focus
is more and more on mastering change, allowing ownership for individual
development, promoting champions in organisations and enabling professionals in
higher education contexts (Wolff 2004).
Concepts like quality control, assurance and management are often perceived as
technocratic top-down approaches which frequently fail in higher education (Sursock,
2004, F9.1). For a long time quality development has followed a modularistic
approach by singling out organisational processes, describing and quality assuring
them. The new generation – or era – focuses on change more than on control,
development rather than assurance, and innovation more than compliance. The
former – traditional – understanding of organisational management, promoted by
theorists like Michael Porter (1985, pp. 11-15), inherently represents the belief that
strategies can be pre-determined and precisely planned. The latter and new generation
of approaches, promoted most prominently by Henry Mintzberg (1994, p. 112),
affirms that change in organisations is emergent and resulting from employees’
competences and organisational culture. In this understanding aspects like quality
management systems and instruments, competencies and individual and
organisational values are not seen as separate entities any longer, but are combined in
holistic concepts. None of them is superior to the other. In this new view educational
quality can not be normatively pre-defined by experts but has to emerge in open
negotiation and through stakeholder participation. From such an organisational
cultural perspective it is important to approach quality holistically and combine
cultural elements, structural dimensions and competencies into one holistic
framework, enabling stakeholders to develop visions, shared values and beliefs. The
paper shows that communication, participation and the combination of top-down and
bottom-up interaction is of key importance to a successful development of quality
culture.
A main problem which is addressed is that even though sometimes effective
organisational processes have been implemented, the educational quality (e.g.
answering the question “what is good learning?”) is still lagging behind, and teaching
strategies of educators or learning strategies of students have not been improved. The
development of an education oriented and comprehensive concept for educational
quality in organisations is still underdeveloped (Newton, 2000, pp.153). In earlier
works, the elements of a new and more comprehensive understanding of quality for
education have been spelt out. It has been suggested that quality development in
2

3. education has to focus on incorporating new values, skills and attitudes into
professional educators’ behaviour in order to have an impact on the teaching and
learning processes (Ehlers, 2006a, 2007, 2007a). The author proposed that
educational quality is the result of a co-production process in an actual learning
situation (Ehlers, 2006, 2005, 2004), and observed that in contrast to that many
quality strategies follow the implicit logic that the quality of educational processes is
a direct result of a ‘faultless flow’ of planning, preparation, and teaching process. The
author was then emphasizing the importance of competences rather than mere process
definitions in order to enable educators and students to act as competent quality
developers of their own improved educational environments. The so-called quality
competences have been described as the concept of quality literacy (Ehlers, 2006a,
2007, 2007a, 2007b).
In view of the deficits in current quality research and management practices, we will
take further steps in this article and combine the elements of process oriented quality
management and the concept of quality literacy in order to develop a comprehensive
concept of quality culture for educational organisations, focussing on higher
education. Quality culture as such focuses on organisations’ cultural patterns, like
rituals, beliefs, values and everyday procedures while following processes, rules and
regulations. In the next section we will show that quality in higher education moves
from a debate about regulations to a more holistic debate on organisational culture.
We will then (in the following section) answer the question “what is organisational
culture?” by discussing and examining the state-of-the-art research in organisational
culture. In the current section we discussed approaches for organisational culture and
compared them. We then show (in the subsequent section) the relationship between
quality and culture for higher education organisations. The final section introduces a
new model of quality culture embedded into research findings in the field of
educational quality and is followed by final conclusions.
Moving from Regulation to Culture in the Quality Business
In the past 25 years, the concept of organisational culture has gained wide
acceptance as a way of understanding human systems. From an “open-systems”
perspective, each aspect of organisational culture can be seen as an important
environmental condition affecting the system and its subsystems. However, only little
efforts have been made so far to transfer the concepts to the field of quality culture
for higher education. Mabawonku (2003, pp. 117) defines culture as the “definitive,
dynamic purposes and tools (values, ethics, rules, knowledge systems) that are
developed to attain group goals.” Kinuthia and Nkonge (2005, pp. 2613) define these
knowledge systems as “pertinent to people’s understanding of themselves, their
world, and influences on education.” Taking a closer look at the very meaning of the
3

4. word culture we can establish that it is stemming from the Latin term cultura which
in turn is coming from colere, meaning ‘to cultivate’. Today it generally refers to
patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give them their meaning
(Williams, 1983: 87). There are, however, different definitions of culture which
reflect different theoretical basis of understanding human behaviour. Kogan (1999)
states that a common description or agreed on definition can hardly be found, given
the vast and diverse coverage in literature. In the field of higher education, he argues,
often an uncritical approach has been followed and introduced the concept in a rather
unreflected way. However, it appears that for quality – and organisational –
development in the field of education, the term bears so far unseen capabilities to
combine individual and organisational conditions of professional behaviour and
development.
Jean Monnet, an important figure in the European unification process, once said “If I
would again start with the unification of Europe, I would start with the culture and
not with the economy.” (Haas and Hanselmann, 2005: 463 and 464) A similar
observation can be made when looking at the introduction of quality management
strategies in higher education. Too often instruments and tools are introduced without
respecting given cultural situations. While the quality of teaching and learning
interaction between students and educators in higher education is influenced by a
variety of factors, including attitudes and skills of teachers, abilities and motivation of
learners, organisational backgrounds, contexts and values and the existing structures,
such as rules, regulations, legislation and alike, the majority of approaches to assess,
assure, manage or develop quality is only partially taking these factors into account.
Quality approaches are rather directed towards improvement or regulation of
organisational processes (in the case of process oriented quality management
approaches), the assessment of the outcomes of activities (in case of assurance or
evaluations approaches) or to development of individual abilities (in case of quality
development through professional training approaches).
Two opposing developments in higher education quality regimes can be observed. On
the one hand structures, accreditation, rules and regulations gain importance, mainly
with the rise of New Public Management approaches (Hood 1998: 212). On the other
hand the interest in culture as underlying concept for organisational improvement in
higher education performance is a dominant theme in much of the available
management literature (Löffler, 2005). In essence, the important emerging message is
that an emphasis on values, norms and culture in an organisation is easily combined
with question of organisational accountability and performance (Martin et al. 2000;
Stratton 2006). While the awareness for the networked and “total systems” character
of quality as a holistic concept in higher educational is starting to spread (Wirth,
2006; Harvey 2006), the basis for empirical research and conceptual development is
missing to date.
Thus, there is a need to introduce an understanding of quality in education from a
more comprehensive perspective than just analysing single isolated factors. In
4

5. industry this has been done already through the concept of total quality management,
understanding quality as a characteristic of an organisational culture, seeing quality in
the wholeness of organisational factors interplaying when striving for improvement.
For higher education (and education in general) the idea of a total quality
management has so far had only little impact because of the complexity of factors
influencing quality in education, like attitudes and skills of teachers, abilities and
motivation of learners, organisational backgrounds, contexts and values, and the
existing structures, such as rules, regulations, legislation and the like. Thinking of
quality in terms of a culture, rather than limiting it to criteria and/or processes, is
therefore of high relevance. Such a deep understanding of quality in higher education
– understood as the “constitution, measured against the needs and expectations of the
stakeholder groups.” (Seghezzi, 2003, p. 13) has at least two dimensions: a structural
dimension (quality management handbooks, process definitions, instruments, tools)
and the dimension of values of an organisation (relating to the commitment of its
members, the underlying values, skills and attitudes).
Quality culture is naturally connected to elements such as the organisation of work,
technology, organisational structure, business strategy and financial decision-making.
Through its networked and interdependent character it gains complexity which has
the effect that it is often reduced to an everyday cliché that does not explain anything
anymore. The next section will explore some models of organisational culture in
order to construct a comprehensive model later to analyse it from a perspective of
quality considerations.
Overview of different concepts of organisational culture
In this section we will provide an overview on concepts of organisational culture by
different authors. The approaches are selected according to their influence on the
scientific debate, and secondly according to the diversity of approaching the field of
organisational culture.
Organisational Culture according to Edgar H. Schein
Edgar Schein is one of the most prominent theorists of organisational culture. He
defines culture as “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group has learned
as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”
(Schein, 1992: 373) As groups evolve over time, they face two basic challenges:
integrating individuals into an effective whole, and adapting effectively to the
external environment in order to survive. As groups find solutions to these problems
over time, they engage in a kind of collective learning that creates the set of shared
assumptions and beliefs that we call culture. According the Schein, organisational
culture is the learnt result of group experiences, which is to a large extent,
unconscious (Schein, 1992). He claims that culture is largely an invisible influence
factor. It functions in a way that members of organisations live their values and act in
5

6. their routines without consciously thinking about them. This aspect becomes
interesting for the question if and how culture can be manipulated or influenced.
Especially the assumptions are invisible and unconscious, whereas rituals, values and
symbols can partly be explicit. This characteristic also differentiates the culture of an
organisation from the management or the quality system of an organisation. Whereas
a system can be over time, described, analysed and measured, the culture is evolving
largely without measures through interaction and to a large extent unconsciously
developed. Schein considers culture to be a three-layer phenomenon (see figure 1).
1. Underlying assumptions: Underlying assumptions relate to the group’s learned
solutions to problems relating to external adaptation and internal integration. These
solutions gradually become self-evident assumptions that cannot be called into
question later. Schein (1985, 1992) also distinguishes so-called deeper underlying
assumptions, which relate, for example, to views of human nature as well as to the
nature of information and the human activity in question. These are strongly
influenced by national culture, but an organisation always forms its own view of them
in its operations. In other words, they influence how the members of an organisation
perceive, think and feel in matters relating to the organisation. Underlying
assumptions function as an unconscious basis for action and a range of decisions that
shape the culture further. Culture is not static, it is in an epistemological sense, the
creation and recreation of shared reality. In Weick’s terms it can be said that
organisational reality is an ongoing accomplishment (Weick, 1993).
Figure 1
2. Espoused Values: The second layer in the Schein model consists of the
organisation’s espoused values. These are apparent in, for example, the organisation’s
official objectives, declared norms and operating philosophy. Espoused values,
however, do not always reflect a company’s everyday operations. Most important in
terms of operations is the culture’s deepest level, namely its underlying assumptions
(Figure 1) (Schein 1985, 1992).
6

7. 3. Observable Behaviour: The third layer of culture consists of visible
organisational processes and various artefacts. For example, dress codes and the
general tidiness of the workplace are artefacts that tell something about the
organisation’s culture. This level, according to Schein, is difficult to interpret,
however, because it represents the most superficial cultural phenomena, i.e. only
reflections of the true corporate culture.
Schein states that even though underlying assumptions may direct the actions of
organisations’ members, an organisation’s underlying assumptions cannot be directly
deduced from these actions. Rather, the actions are always influenced by situation-
specific and individual factors (Schein, 1999). Espoused norms and the official rules
may be in conflict with everyday actions. They can also be in conflict with the
underlying assumptions, which in the end direct these actions. Organisations may not
necessarily perceive this conflict themselves or they may even actively deny its
existence. Schein (1999) emphasises that an organisation’s culture is not merely a
single new variable which describes organisations and which can be examined
separately from the other variables that affect organisations’ activities, such as the
structure, strategy, market orientation and the technology it uses. Organisational
culture as a scientific concept strives to describe and explain activity in the
organisation as a whole.
Organisational culture according to Geert Hofstede
Hofstede was conducting empirical research to analyse differences in style and the
diversity of thinking and acting of humans. The studies were involving responses
from over 100,000 participants and were largely conducted in the field of business
(Hofstede, 1991, 1997). He concluded that there is no such thing like a universal
theory or approach to management for organisations, and that organisational
management can not be viewed or analysed as a separate process. Rather, it is
interacting with the very context in which it is situated. Hofstede referred to culture as
the “software of the mind” (ibid). He defined culture as “mental coding”, which every
member of a society, organisation or group experiences and according to which
everyone can act coherently. In his research Hofstede (1997) understands culture as a
set of typical attributes / behaviours (manifestations of culture) with four different
impact depths: symbols, heroes, values and rituals (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) –
which are shown in figure 2, the cultural onion. The centre of the onion is formed by
values. They are learnt from the beginning of life and are the most stable element –
resistant against changes over time. The stability over time of the other elements of
Hofstede’s cultural model sinks from the core to the periphery of the onion. New
rituals can be learnt over time, heroes established quickly and symbols installed in
organisations. Hofstede emphasizes that practices are concerned with all parts of the
model. “Practices are the visible part of cultures. New practices can be learned
throughout our lifetime” (ibid, p. 12). Practices represent culturally motivated
behaviour on the basis of values, rituals, heroes and symbols. The four elements are
briefly described follows:
7

8. Figure 2
1. Symbols: “Symbols are words, gestures, pictures or objects which carry a
particular meaning only recognized as such by those who share a culture.”
(Hofstede, 2005, p. 7) Cultural Symbols can quickly change or disappear or new
symbols are created or adopted from other cultures. Of course there are differences in
the stability of symbols: Religious symbols and long introduced traditions usually
have a higher stability against change and force higher sensibility in their use than
those used by advertisements or as corporate labels.
2. Heroes: “Heroes are persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess
characteristics that are highly prized in a culture and serve as models for
behaviour.” (ibid, p.7) Heroes also can change in their value and role as a model for
human behaviour but are more persistent than Symbols because individuals can
identify themselves them.
3. Rituals: “Rituals are collective activities, technically superfluous to reaching
desired ends, but which within a culture are considered as socially essential. They
are therefore carried out for their own sake.” (ibid, p.8) Such rituals concern the
usual way how people deal with each other (way of greeting, how to pay respect for
each others, how to eat properly, when, how and what to speak about). For example
in rather formal business situations rituals play a big role, and influence strongly the
way people behave. Rituals may be different in different situations.
4. Values: “The core of culture is formed by values. Values are broad tendencies to
prefer certain states of affairs over others. …Values are acquired early in our lives.”
8

9. (ibid) Values are the primary source of evaluation of our surrounding environment
and bring about the basic idea for the way how to behave and decide in situations.
They set the basic understanding of good and bad, natural and unnatural, moral and
immoral and other judgements.
Organisational Culture according to Johannes Rueegg-Stuerm
In accordance with Geert Hofstede and Edgar H. Schein, Rüegg-Stuerm (Rüegg-
Stürm, 2004: 50pp) describes the following elements as central for a corporate culture
of businesses: Norms and values, opinions and attitudes, stories and myths about
important changes, and events of an organisation, patterns of thought, arguments and
interpretation, language habits and conducts, collective expectations and background
convictions. He draws an interesting comparison between organisational culture and
the semantics and grammar of a language. Culture is for an organisation what
semantics and grammar is for the language. He elaborates that a meaningful
interaction and communication has always been based on semantic and grammatical
rules and agreements even though nobody would explicitly notice it. “A four year old
child can make itself understood without ever having been exposed to explicit
teaching of grammar or semantics” (Rüegg-Stürm, 2004: 56).
In addition these rules and regulations are unfolding explicitly only in those moments
when they are used, i.e. when communicating in a language, and are in that specific
moment reproduced and updated. An organisations’ culture is therefore comparable
with grammar rules and semantic regulations of a language (ibid: 56). Members of an
organisation, belonging to the same community of practice, are fulfilling a constant
collective, common, communicative interpretation process from the perspective of
their specific contexts. They are making active influence on the differentiation of the
organisation’s cultural patterns through their discourse which is then, in turn, forming
the new cultural structure and symbols.
Organisational Culture According to Gareth Morgan
Gareth Morgan describes culture as “an active living phenomenon through which
people jointly create and recreate the worlds in which they live” (2002, p. 141). For
Morgan, the three basic questions of cultural analysis are:
• What are the shared frames of reference that make organisation possible?
• Where do they come from?
• How are they created, communicated, and sustained?
According to Morgan culture is expressing social realities. He explains that talking
about culture usually means to refer to patterns of development which are manifesting
in the knowledge, the beliefs, the values, the legislation and the everyday rituals of a
society (ibid: 156). Different societies and organisations have different patterns of
social development. Morgan emphasises that culture is a social and collective
phenomenon which refers to the ideas and values of a social group and is influencing
9

10. their action without them noticing it explicitly. Organisations are described as
socially constructed realities which are existing in the heads and through the ideas of
its members as well as in very concrete realities and relations (ibid: 186). Morgan
emphasises that organisations’ behaviour can only insufficiently be described through
rational explanations and mechanisms or objective reasoning but rather functions
according to prevailing symbolic and subjective ways of interpreting reality. To
understand and influence organisational culture it is important to analyse how
meaning is constructed in organisations and what are collective ways of interpreting
reality.
A Summary of Elements of Organisational Culture
Schein (1992) states that organisational culture is the response to the challenges an
organisation has and to fulfilling its purposes (Ouchi, 1981 argues in the same lines).
It can be observed in the way the organisation’s members communicate, in their
shared beliefs, shared values, symbols and rituals. It can be compared to the implicit
unspoken rules of communication which are never touched upon but everybody is
aware of. The culture of one organisation is distinct from other organisations, and its
members have to undergo a phase of enculturalisation when they enter the
organisation. Organisational culture is not uniform and there can be subcultures and
subgroups within an organisation which have partly or totally different cultural
patterns than others. Table 1 shows a summary of all elements which could be
identified as important in the different approaches to organisational cultures.
Although organisations can have different cultural patterns, it is important to
harmonise them in order to create a sense of direction. Therefore communication and
participation becomes important within organisations to harmonise different
(sub)cultures and establish collective commitment. Figure three shows that the quality
culture identifies communication and participation as a crucial element of
organisational culture.
The approaches described have some elements in common and can be compared in
the following dimensions:
• Quality culture is part of the overall organisational culture. Both can not be
separated but rather quality culture is a part of organisational cultures. Different
subcultures can be observed in organisations, like communication cultures,
management cultures, and quality cultures. An analytic focus on an organisation’s
quality culture can be established through the asking in which way an
organisation is responding to its quality challenges and is fulfilling its quality
purpose.
• Organisational culture is a multifactorial phenomenon and consists of several
elements (depending on the approach chosen) which can be described and
identified. For the previously presented approaches they are summarised in table
1. Quality culture builds on these elements and represents configurations of these
elements under the focus of organisational quality enhancement.
10

11. • Considering the above described approaches some common elements of culture
can be identified and used in a quality culture model: All approaches are
emphasizing shared values as a central element for organisational a culture. Most
of them consider shared basic and underlying assumptions and shared beliefs and
symbols, rituals and patterns as important. Quality culture is a socially mediated
and negotiated phenomenon leading to shared results of meaning construction
which is largely unconscious and only in some elements directly visible to the
outside.
• Organisational culture – and thus quality culture – is always there, and not a
phenomenon which has to be established first. In all four presented approaches
the view of culture as something an organisation is – rather than has – has been
expressed. It is important to realise that the quality of educational processes is
always using underlying assumption of what good teaching and learning is.
• Quality cultures have tangible and intangible, visible and invisible parts. A culture
of quality can be further developed best when tangible, structural elements, like
quality management mechanisms, tools and instruments are developing in
parallel with intangible elements like commitment, values, rituals and symbols.
• Organisational culture is a social and collective phenomenon and individuals
contribute and constitute culture through negotiation and interaction by
establishing shared values, rituals and alike.
• Culture is not a uniform but a diverse phenomenon – in organisations usually
several cultures, amongst them also quality cultures, can be observed.
Table 1: Different approaches to organisational culture
Author Approach Cultural Elements
Edgar Culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions • Values
Schein that the group learned as it solved its problems of • Artefacts
(1992) external adaptation and internal integration that • Assumptions
has worked well enough to be considered valid
Gerent Culture is mental coding which allows acting • Symbols
Hofstede coherently; it can be described according to • Heroes
(1991) symbols, heroes, values and rituals. • Rituals
• Values
Johannes Culture is comparable with grammar rules and • Norms and values
Rüegg semantic regulations of a language, resp. a • Opinions and attitudes
Stuerm community. • Stories and myths
(2002)
• Patterns of thought
• Language habits
• Collective expectations
Gareth Culture is a social and collective phenomenon • Values
Morgan which refers to the ideas and values of a social • Knowledge
(2002) group and is influencing their action without • Belief
them noticing it explicitly.
• Legislation
• Rituals
11

12. A Model of Quality Culture for Higher Education
In the following section a model for quality culture is presented. It is composed of
four important elements:
1. A structural element which is representing the quality system of an
organisation. This can be e.g. an existing quality management approach for
higher education, the tools and mechanisms in place to assure and enhance the
quality of the organisation.
2. The Enabling Factors which are representing those factors enabling
organisations to incorporate quality regimes into their culture.
3. The quality culture element which represents the manifested artefacts,
symbols, rituals of an organisation.
4. Transversal Elements which link different components to each other through
participation, trust and communication.
Quality culture is embedded into the organisational context and the organisational
cultures. As seen in the above theories about organisational culture there is broad
agreement that culture is not something which an organisation has or has not but
rather that it is an element of every organisation – be it consciously perceived or not.
Organisational culture can be supported and further developed but does not have to be
developed or established from scratch (like marketing slogans of consulting
companies suggest sometimes). The distinction between different types or kinds of
organisational cultures should, however, not be seen too fundamental: Describing a
quality culture of an organisation is strongly connected to analysing also other
“types” of culture, like management culture, communication culture, the
organisational culture as a whole. A good way of finding an analytic approach to
different types of cultures is suggested in the definition of Schein (1992) who states
that an organisations culture is the answer to the challenge an organisation has in a
certain field. The way things are done in an organisation related to a certain challenge
or problem. For the field of quality in higher education, an analysis of quality culture
would start with the question about how a higher education organisation is realising
the challenge of enhancing quality in a certain field, e.g. the area of teaching and
learning or the area of research. The model of quality culture is then giving a
framework of concepts which helps to analyse concepts and developments in
different areas which are of importance to quality culture and identify strength and
weaknesses.
12

13. Figure 3
In figure 3 we show our model of quality culture for education with the different
components of quality culture. It takes into account existing research and models and
further develops them with a strong focus on quality and education. It is a conceptual
and structural model which identifies the structure and different components of the
concepts of quality culture and relates them to each other. However, it is not giving a
clear direction of impacts or effects the different components have in their
interdependency, thus it is not a flow graph. In the following, the different
components are described in detail and related to previous research work.
Component 1: Structures
The structural elements of quality in higher education are represented through quality
management approaches. They relate to systems, tools, and mechanisms to assure,
manage, enhance or accredit quality in a suitable way. A variety of concepts exist in
this field. In previous works we have developed classification schemes (Ehlers and
Pawlowski, 2004, 2006; Ehlers et al., 2005; Ehlers et al., 2004) and electronic
databases to collect and make available quality approaches and strategies. In recent
times there have been many efforts to design and implement instruments for quality
development in education in general and e-learning in particular. Several publications
systematically describe and explain these approaches and their respective
backgrounds (see Gonon et al., 1998; Riddy et al., 2002, Srikanthan and Dalrymple,
13

14. 2002: 216)1. The various existing publications reveal a large number of different
concepts and approaches for quality management in the educational sector. Already a
smaller study by the Danish Institute for Evaluation identifies and analyses up to 34
quality assurance agencies in 24 countries (Danish Evaluation Institute, 2003: 17). A
CEDEFOP study by Bertzeletou (2003) even identifies 90 national and international
quality approaches for quality certification and accreditation. 2 Woodhouse (2004)
lists more than 140 quality approaches that are associated with the International
Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (called INQAAHE).
Most of these certification and accreditation bodies follow their own quality
approaches and have their own evaluation, certification and accreditation offerings.
Most of the studies mentioned and papers published address traditional certification
and accreditation frameworks for higher education, only few include newer quality
approaches that specifically focus on recent educational innovations and e-learning.
To compare different concepts and approaches to assure and develop quality within
each is difficult because of their different scope and nature. However, there are
attempts to develop reference models, like the European Quality Observatory Model
(Ehlers et al., 2004) or by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO/IEC,
2005). Wirth (2006) suggests a simple but effective method to categorise different
quality approaches and instruments. Figure 4 shows that he uses the well known
Deming-Circle terminology (see for example Seghezzi, 2003: 13) for categorisation.
• Field 1 represents large international organisations can be identified which
drive standardisation and the development of generic quality management
approaches (Bötel et al., 2002; Dembski and Lorenz, 1995; Gonon, 1998).
Their transferability to the educational sector is still being discussed and is
controversial. Therefore recently three developments have been initiated (ISO
10015, DIN PAS 1032, DIN PAS 1037) which were focussed specifically on
the educational context.
• In field 2, recommendations, guidelines (i. e. Open and Distance Learning
Quality Council 2001) or criteria catalogues and checklists (American Council
on Education, 2001) are listed.
• Field 3 represents accreditation and certification approaches which focus on
different educational aspects and levels.
• Finally – in field 4 – awards and prices are summarised.
1 See also the European Initiative ‚European Quality Observatory’ (http://www.eqo.info)
2 CEDEFOP is the European Center for the Development of Vocational Education and Training in
Thessaloniki, Greece
14

15. Figure 4
Component 2: The Enabling Factors
The enabling factors component comprises those elements which enable individuals
and groups to take up the new processes, regulations, mechanisms and rules which
are inherently represented in quality systems and incorporate them into their own
actions. In principle three groups of factors can be identified which support and
enable actors and groups in these processes: a) commitment, b) negotiation and c)
general and specific competences for quality development.
1. Individual and collective commitment describes the degree of identification with
the organisation’s goals and working processes. Ownership and being an
important part of the organisation’s processes determine the elements of these
factors (European University Association, 2006). The European University
Association is advocating this factor in their approach to quality culture of
universities and is stressing the fact that commitment is at the same time a
necessary condition of quality culture as well as a result of a quality culture
(ibid).
2. Negotiation is an important element for successful quality development in higher
education organisations. As educational quality is not an inherent characteristic of
any educational material or teaching offering, but has to be developed in
negotiation between learners and the educational environment (in our case the
higher education organisation, the lecture room, the seminar, the project, etc.), the
element of negotiation becomes a crucial element for a quality development
process. Providing a successful process of negotiation between students and
educational providers is a pre-condition for any quality development process
which focuses on educational quality. In earlier works the author has developed
this aspect in extensive research and publication (Ehlers, 2006, 2005, 2004). It is
important to understand that quality first and foremost is a potential which can be
realised through negotiation in educational scenarios but which is not
automatically represented as a characteristic of an educational environment
(ibid.). The potential exists on the part of students as well on the part of
15

16. educational providers (e.g. the higher education institutions). Negotiation is thus
of crucial importance to any successful quality development.
3. General and specific competences are a basis for any quality development
process. General competences are constituted through the three elements of
knowledge, skills and attitudes (Adelsberger et al., 2007; Ehlers and
Schneckenberg, 2007; Ehlers, 2007c; Ehlers, 2005a). Any quality development
process which is directed towards enhancing educational processes needs to build
the capacity of professionals. Quality development which aims to have an effect
on educational processes has to support teachers and other stakeholders in
professionalisation processes. In literature this has been described as quality
through professionalisation of teaching and learning processes (e.g. Arnold,
1997, 1999). Ehlers has added to this the focus on the learner (Ehlers, 2005).
Professionalisation processes have to affect not only teachers but also learners and
other stakeholders, for successful quality development. Professionalization – in
the sense of building knowledge, skills and attitudes of stakeholders in the higher
education organisation – is thus one important element when building quality
cultures in organisations.
Figure 5
Apart from general competences the author has elaborated a set of specific
competences (Ehlers, 2007). Under the label quality literacy a set of four
competences is described which are specifically important to the processes of
educational quality enhancement: Quality Knowledge, Quality experience,
Quality innovation, Quality Analysis.
a. Quality knowledge: This dimension addresses the “pure” knowledge about
the possibilities of today’s quality development and up-to-date quality
strategies in e-learning and education.
b. Quality experiences: This dimension describes the ability of using quality
strategies with a certain intention.
16

17. c. Quality innovation: This dimension relates to the ability which goes
beyond the simple use of existing instruments and strategies. It refers to
the modification, creation and development of quality strategies and/or
instruments for one’s own purpose. An innovative and creative aspect is
important for this dimension
d. Quality analysis: This dimension relates to the ability to analyse the
processes of quality development critically in the light of one’s own
experiences and to reflect upon one’s own situation and context. It enables
actors to evaluate different objectives of quality development and
negotiate between different perspectives of stakeholders. To “analyse
critically” means the ability of differentiation and reflection of existing
knowledge and experiences in the light of quality development challenges.
Table 2 summarises the key factors of the four dimensions of quality literacy and
gives some examples.
Table 2: Dimensions of quality literacy (Ehlers 2007)
Quality Literacy Questions/ Examples
Dimension
Dimension 1: Quality Knowledge
What is a quality approach? What is evaluation, quality
Information
management, quality assurance, quality development?
How can an evaluation questionnaire be applied in an
Instrumental/ Qualification educational context, eg. a classroom? How can a benchmark be
used to assess one system against another?
Dimension 2: Quality Experience
How can I use quality strategies in a certain way to improve the
Intentional Use
educational process?
Dimension 3: Quality Innovation
How can a certain quality management concept be extended to a
Adaptation number of processes and categories in order to adapt it to the
organisations’ specific needs?
Create an evaluation questionnaire for the assessment of a course
when existing tools fail to analyse the desired questions.
Creation/ Innovation
Create a new method to consult with learners before a course
starts in order to assess their needs and goals.
The concept is highly relevant today because research indicates reservations
towards the effectiveness of quality strategies to improve the quality of the
learning processes - in general and for e-learning in particular (Eaton, 2003;
Franz, 2004: 107; Fröhlich and Jütte, 2004: 12; Leef, 2003; Simon, 2001: 155).
Often it is argued that there is a danger of certified input, process and output
processes to become inflexible; dictatorial rules may stifle future innovations and
real quality improvements. With regards to the use of e-learning, Tulloch and
Sneed conclude that even the traditional quality systems in higher education
17

18. mislead many institutions to imitate classical face to face trainings instead of
fostering and leveraging strategic advantages of media supported learning
scenarios (Tulloch and Sneed, 2000: 9). Meyer in particular draws a negative
picture of accreditation: „Accreditation has become a battlefield between those
who would use traditional accrediting standards to forestall the changes wrought
by distance education and those who would change accreditation” (Meyer, 2002:
9). Friend-Pereira et al. (2002: 22) agree to this by concluding that quality
accreditation may become dangerous if it only serves for legitimation purposes.
They point to moving to a stage of quality development in which the stakeholders
change their behaviour and reflect upon their professional values and attitudes, as
a result of a quality development process. Quality development understood in this
sense becomes a matter of further developing a professional attitude stimulated by
a set of processes, rules and values which are understood and incorporated and
lead to improved behaviour in educational contexts – both of the provider as well
as the clients (see also section 5 for an exact account on how clients and providers
are co-producing quality).
Recently, an empirical study by Lagrosen et al. (2004: 65) indicated that internal
quality evaluation gains more and more in importance compared to external
quality assessments. This is also confirmed and further elaborated by an
international study by Ehlers et al. (2005) which shows that a distinction can be
made between so called explicit quality strategies – official instruments and
concepts of quality development, designed either externally or internally – and
implicit procedures, in which quality development is left to individuals and is not
part of an official strategy:
• Quality strategies or instruments coming from externally adopted
approaches (e.g. International Standards Organisation - ISO, European
Foundation for Quality Management - EFQM, British Learning
Association Quality Mark - BAL Quality Mark) (explicit)
• Quality strategies that are developed within an organisation (explicit)
• Quality development is not part of an official strategy but is rather left to
individuals’ professional activities (implicit).
The survey shows also that about one third of all organisations develop quality
strategies internally (35 %) and a quarter externally (26 %). One quarter of the
respondents (24 %) work in institutions in which quality development is left to
the staff. Around one out of six (15 %) uses no quality strategies for e-learning.
Overall therefore, around four out of ten respondents (39 %) do not use any
official quality strategy.
Component 3: The Quality Cultures Component
Quality development leaves visible and invisible imprints in the organisational
quality culture(s). The cultural elements which are influenced through quality
development processes are summarised in the outer rim of the presented model.
Quality development processes can thus have manifestations in the existing
assumptions about quality and teaching, newly discussed and shared values, rituals
18

19. and tangible cultural artefacts. Heroes represent particular successful quality
enhancement processes in higher education (e.g. expressed in awards given to them)
and can be the promoters of quality development within the organisations. Values
about teaching and learning (e.g. “what is good and successful learning?”) are agreed
upon, and are documented. The organisation has shared symbols, practices, stories
and patterns.
Quality culture is not necessarily a uniform concept for a complete higher education
organisation. It is most likely to occur in plural form – Quality cultures, especially in
such diverse organisations like higher education institutions. Quality cultures can
vary from department to department, might have a few elements in common while
others being different. For higher education the situation of quality cultures is in
many respects different from more homogenous organisations, like, for example
typical business enterprises. The heterogeneous nature of universities which are
structured in different chairs, institutes and schools, often find their reward systems
not inside the organisation but outside from the peers. This suggests that culture is a
category which is rather applies to sub-units of the organisation than to universities as
a whole. Quality culture is always a part of the organisations culture as a whole and is
situated in the organisational context (represented through the contextual frame in the
figure 3). It is a context specific concept and only visible through actual performance
in those elements which are described as cultural factors above. It can be perceived,
but not directly and mechanistically installed in an organisation; it is the result of
individual and collective involvement and interaction against the background of an
existing quality system. Quality culture as an artefact can not be transferred directly
to other organisations but it can be studied and learned from.
Component 4: The Transversal Elements
The model of quality culture contains three elements which are transversal in nature.
They are necessary to provide a link between concepts and cultural representation.
Organisations can have different cultural patterns. Therefore it is important to
harmonise them in order to create a sense of direction. Therefore communication and
participation becomes important within organisations to harmonise different
(sub)cultures and establish collective commitment. A cultural representation of
concepts is established through participation of stakeholders and mediated and
agreed on through communication between them internally and with others
externally. Trust is the necessary condition for the stimulation of individual and
collective efforts which are in turn the prerequisite for turning quality potentials into
culturally rooted quality realities, expressed in symbols, artefacts, values, rituals and
other elements of quality culture. It is important to notice that especially these
elements suggest that development of a quality culture can not be totally externally
steered and managed. It is relying on a high identification and ownership of
individual actors of an organisation. Only the conditions for the creating a quality
culture can be management and communication, and participation can be encouraged
to stimulate trust throughout the organisation.
19

20. Summary and Conclusions
Can quality in higher education be explained as a result of a well defined process or is
it rather a mater of a comprehensive culture? Setting out this question at the
beginning, the article started by outlining the main challenges which current practices
of quality management for higher education. It concludes that concepts like quality
control and quality management are often perceived as technocratic top-down
approaches which frequently fail in higher education. It is suggested that in recent
times the field of quality management in higher education has changed. The new
generation – or era – uses different and more holistic quality approaches in order to
develop an organisational culture of quality. It is focussing on change instead of
control, development rather than assurance and innovation more than standards
compliance. In this process quality management systems and instruments,
competencies, and individual and collective values, are not seen as separate entities of
quality development but are combined into a holistic concept – the concept of quality
culture. Quality culture for higher education has not yet received a lot of attention
from research or management literature. Therefore the article’s purpose is to shed
light on its constituents – however, not on the question how to develop a quality
culture in higher education. Cultural change in an organisation is undoubtedly a
difficult process and requires specific and long term efforts. The development of a
conceptual model for quality culture, as it has been presented in this article, will help
management strategies to support the advancement of quality cultures. The
constituents are clear, now suitable supporting approaches have to be developed.
In the research work presented we use organisational culture as a conceptual bridge
to develop quality culture. Therefore thorough an analysis of existing cultural
concepts from literature forms the basis for this article. From there quality culture has
been constructed as a concept with four basic components: A structural component
which represents the quality management system in itself, covering instruments,
rules, regulations. A second component is representing the enabling factors. These
are generic and specific quality competences, and commitment and the concept of
negotiation as a basic concept for any quality development. The third component is
representing the cultural factors, like values, rituals, symbols and the like. All three
components are linked through communication and participation of individuals and
groups in social interaction with the aim to build trust. It is important to emphasize
that viewing quality in the light of a cultural perspective means taking a holistic stand
point: Quality culture combines cultural elements, structural dimensions and
competences into one holistic framework, supporting stakeholders to develop visions,
shared values and beliefs. Communication, participation, and the combination of top-
down and bottom-up interaction, is of key importance to the success of quality
culture.
The development of a quality culture, and its implementation in organisational
contexts, as a part of the overall organisations culture, has not yet developed a strong
tradition in research and theory. Although there seems to be ample evidence that
20

21. quality development demands a broader, a “cultural” view, up to now only little work
has been published in this very field. It is with this intent that we want to close this
article by suggesting to now move on to the field of empirical research and try to find
evidence, good practices and methodologies to stimulate quality development and
root them in holistic approaches of organisational culture. Necessary strategies could
evolve from these efforts and can help universities to improve educational quality.
References
1. Adelsberger, H., Ehlers, U.-D. and Schneckenberg, D. (2007), „Stepping up the
Ladder”, Competence Development Through E-Learning, Proceedings of the
World Conference on Educational Media ed-media, Vienna.
2. Arnold, R. (1997): Qualität durch Professionalisierung – zur Durchmischung von
Utilität und Zweckfreiheit in der Qualität betrieblicher Weiterbildung. In: ders.
(ed.) Qualitätssicherung in der Erwachsenenbildung. Opladen, S.51-61.
3. Arnold, R., Wieckenberg, U. (1999): Qualitätsverständnis und Qualitätssicherung
bei kirchlichen Trägern der Erwachsenenbildung. Pädagogische Materialien der
Universität Kaiserslautern, Heft Nr. 6, Kaiserslautern
4. Bertzeletou, T. (2003), “Accreditation Bodies”, available at:
http://cedefop.communityzero.com/content?go=199198&cid=161784 (accessed
29 September 2008).
5. Bötel, C., Seusing, B. and Behrensdorf, B. (2002), „Qualitätssicherungs- und
Qualitätsmanagementsysteme bei Weiterbildungsanbietern: Ergebnisse der CATI-
Befragung“, in C. Balli, E. M. Krekel and E. Sauter (Eds.), Qualitätsentwicklung
in der Weiterbildung – Zum Stand der Anwendung von Qualitätssicherungs- und
Qualitätsmanagementsystemen bei Weiterbildungsanbietern, Bundesinstitut für
Berufsbildung, Bonn, pp. 25–44.
6. Danish Evaluation Institute (2003), Quality procedures in European Higher
Education: An ENQA survey, ENQA Occasional Papers 5, available at:
http://www.enqa.net/files/procedures.pdf (accessed 30 September 2008).
7. Dembski, M. and Lorenz, T. (1995), „Zertifizierung von
Qualitätsmanagementsystemen bei Bildungsträgern“, Renningen-Malmsheim.
8. Eaton, J. S. (2003), Before You Bash Accreditation, Consider the Alternatives.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(25), available at:
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i25b01501.htm (accessed 30 September 2008).
9. Ehlers, U.-D. (2004), „Heterogenität als Grundkonstante
erziehungswissenschaftlicher Qualitätsforschung. Partizipative
Qualitätsentwicklung im E-Learning“, in Bos, W. Lankes, E.-M., Plaßmeier, N.
and Schwippert, K. (Eds.), Heterogenität. Eine Herausforderung an die
empirische Bildungsforschung, Waxmann Verlag, Münster, New York, München,
Berlin.
10. Ehlers, U.-D. (2005), “A Participatory Approach to E-Learning-Quality. A new
Perspective on the Quality Debate”, LLine - Journal for Lifelong Learning in
Europe, Vol. XI/2005.
21

22. 11. Ehlers, U.-D. (2005a), “Bringing Collaboration to E-Learning. Making
Competence development Possible”, Proceedings of EDEN Conference 2005,
Helsinki.
12. Ehlers, U.-D. (2006), „Bildungsrelevante Qualitätsentwicklung.
Qualitätskompetenz als Grundlage für Partizipation im Qualitätsprozess“, in
Sindler, A. and Carstensen, Qualitätssicherung im E-Learning, Münster.
13. Ehlers, U.-D. (2006a), “Quality Literacy – Between Reference Models and
Professionalisation”, Proceedings of EDEN Conference 2006, Vienna.
14. Ehlers, U.-D. (2007), “Quality Literacy - Competences for Quality Development
in Education and E-Learning”, Quality of E-Learning (2007) Journal Educational
Technology & Society, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
15. Ehlers, U.-D. (2007a), “Turing Potentials into Reality: Achieving Sustainable
Quality in E-Learning through Quality Competence”, in Adelsberger, H.H.,
Collis, B. and Pawlowski , J.M. (Eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies
for Education and Training, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
16. Ehlers, U.-D. (2007b), „E-Learning Standards nachhaltig anwenden - Potenziale
ausschöpfen durch Qualitätskompetenz“, in Back, A., Baumgartner, P.,
Reinmann, G. and Schulmeister, R. (Eds.), Zeitschrift für E-Learning, Lernkultur
und Bildungstechnologie, Vol. 2/2007, Innsbruck, Wien.
17. Ehlers, U.-D. (2007c), “Making the difference in E-Learning: Towards
Competence Development and E-Irritation”, in Bernath, U. (Eds.) (2007),
Research in distance education and online learning, ADSF Series, Oldenburg.
18. Ehlers, U.-D., Hildebrandt, B., Görtz, L. and Pawlowski, J. (2005), Quality in E-
Learning. Use and Dissemination of Quality Strategies in European E-Learning.
A Study by the European Quality Observatory, Thessaloniki.
19. Ehlers, U.-D., Hildebrandt, B., Pawlowski, J.M. and Teschler, S. (2004),
„Metadaten zur Analyse und Auswahl von Qualitätsansätzen für Aus- und
Weiterbildung“, Proceedings of Multiconference Wirtschaftsinformatik at the
University of Duisburg-Essen, 3 March 2004, Essen.
20. Ehlers, U.-D. and Pawlowski, J.M. (2004), “E-Learning-Quality: A Decision
Support Model for European Quality Approaches”, in Fietz, Gabriele, Godio,
Christina, Mason and Robin (Eds.) (2004), eLearning für internationale Märkte.
Entwicklung und Einsatz von eLearning in Europa, Bertelsmann Bielefeld.
21. Ehlers, U.-D. and Pawlowski, J. M. (2006), Handbook for Quality and
Standardisation in E-Learning, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
22. Ehlers, U.-D. and Schneckenberg, D. (2007), „Webucating the Reflective
Practitioner. Towards Competence Development in E-Learning”, Proceedings of
the Conference Changing Faces of Learning, Swiss Center for Innovation and
Learning, St. Gallen.
23. European University Association (EUA) (2006), Quality Culture in European
Universities: a bottom-up approach, European University Association, Brussels.
24. Franz, H.-W. (2004), „"Nur systematisch muss es sein?": Ein Plädoyer für mehr
Einheit in der Vielfalt der Qualitätsansätze“, in C. Balli, E. M. Krekel and Sauter,
E. (Eds.), Qualitätsentwicklung in der Weiterbildung – Wo steht die Praxis?,
Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp. 107–121.
22

23. 25. Friend-Pereira, J. C., Lutz, K. and Heerens, N. (2002), European Student
Handbook on Quality Assurance in Higher Education, available at:
http://www.unizg.hr/fileadmin/rektorat/dokumenti/ured_za_kvalitetu/dokumenti/
QA_handbook_2003.pdf (accessed 30 September 2008).
26. Fröhlich, W. and Jütte, W. (2004), „Qualitätsentwicklung in der
wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung“, in W. Fröhlich, Jütte, W. (Eds.),
Qualitätsentwicklung in der postgradualen Weiterbildung: Internationale
Entwicklungen und Perspektiven, Waxmann, Berlin, München, Münster, New
York, pp. 9–17.
27. Gonon, P. Hügli, E., Landwehr, N., Ricka, R. and Steiner, P. (1998), Die neue
Qualitätsdiskussion in Schule und Bildung – Analyse und Perspektive, 2nd ed.,
Aarau, Schweiz.
28. Haas, H.-S. and Hanselmann, P. G. (2005), „Qualitätsmanagement im Kontext
der Gestaltung sozialer Dienste in Europa“, in Linbach, Lübking, Scholz and
Schulte (Eds.), Die Zukunft der sozialen Dienste vor der Europäischen
Herausforderung, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, pp. 463-pp.
29. Harvey, L. (2006), “Understanding quality”, in Purser, L. (Ed.) (2006), EUA
Bologna Handbook: Making Bologna work, Brussels and Berlin, available at:
http://www.bologna-handbook.com (accessed 29 September 2008).
30. Hofstede, G. (1991), Kulturen und Organisationen, Wiesbaden.
31. Hofstede, G. (1997), Lokales Denken, Globales Handeln. Kulturen,
Zusammenarbeit und Management, Verlag C. H. Beck, München.
32. Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G., J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations.
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, revised and expanded
2nd edition, McGraw-Hill Publishers, USA.
33. Hood, C. (1998), The art of the state. Culture, rhetoric, and public management,
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
34. ISO/IEC (2005), ISO/IEC 19796-1:2005, Information Technology - Learning,
Education, and Training — Quality Management, Assurance and Metrics— Part
1: General Approach, Final Draft International Standard (FDIS), available at
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=33934 (accessed 29
September 2008).
35. Kinuthia, W. and Nkonge, B. (2005), “Perspectives on Culture and e-Learning
Convergence”, in Richards, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-
Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, AACE,
Chesapeake, VA. pp. 2613-2618.
36. Kogan, M. (1999), “The culture of academe”, Minerva, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 63–74.
37. Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R. and Leitner, M. (2004), Examination of the
dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol.
12 No. 2, pp. 61–69.
38. Leef, G. C. (2003), Accreditation is no Guarantee of Academic Quality. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 49 No. 30.
39. Löffler, S. (2005), “Qualitätsmanagement unter genderrelevanten Aspekten
Bericht über die Prüfung von ausgewählten Qualitätsmanagementsystemen an
Hochschulen auf die Berücksichtigung genderrelvanter Aspekte”, created for
23

24. Center for Higher Education Research, School of Education, Psychology and
Sports, Mannheim.
40. Mabawonku, A. O. (2003), Cultural framework for the development of science
and technology in Africa. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 117-125.
41. Martin, D., Williams Petty, J. and Petty, W. J. (2000), Value Based Management:
The Corporate Response to the Shareholder Revolution, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston.
42. Meyer, K. A. (2002), “Quality in Distance Education: Focus on On-Line
Learning”, in ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1-121.
43. Open and Distance Learning Quality Council (ODLQC) (2001). Standards in
open and distance education, available at: http://www.odlqc.org.uk/st-int.htm
(accessed 29 September 2008).
44. Mintzberg, H. (1994), The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Hemel,
Hempstead.
45. Morgan, G. (2002), Bilder der Organisation, Klett-Cotta.
46. Newton, J. (2000), Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality?: academics'
perceptions of quality assurance and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher
Education, Vol. 6 No. 2., pp. 153–63.
47. Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese
Challenge, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
48. Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York.
49. Riddy, P., Fill, K., Wolf, K. D., Rosato, S. and Balasca, N. (2002), MECA-ODL:
Compendium of Reference Materials on Quality in Open and Distance Learning
available at: http://www.adeit.uv.es/mecaodl/docs/compendium_english.pdf
(accessed 29 September 2008).
50. Rüegg-Stürm, Johannes (2004), “Das neue St. Galler Management-Modell”, in
Dubs, Rolf et. al. (Eds.), Einführung in die Managementlehre, 1st. ed., Haupt-
Verlag, Bern.
51. Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San-
Francisco.
52. Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-
Bass, San-Francisco.
53. Schein, E.H. (1999), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense
about Culture Change, Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco.
54. Seghezzi, H. D. (2003), Integriertes Qualitätsmanagement – Das St. Galler
Modell, Hanser Wirtschaft, St. Gallen.
55. Simon, B. (2001), E-Learning an Hochschulen: Gestaltungsräume und
Erfolgsfaktoren von Wissensmedien, Lohmar, Köln.
56. Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J. F. (2002), “Developing a Holistic Model for
Quality in Higher Education”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp.
215–224.
57. Stratton, R. (2006), The Earned Value Management Maturity Model.
Management Concepts, Vienna.
58. Sursock, A., (2004), „Qualitätskultur und Qualitätsmanagement“, in Benz, W. et
al. (Ed.), Handbuch Qualität in Studium und Lehre, Raabe Verlag, Berlin.
24

25. 59. Tulloch, J. B. and Sneed, J. R. (2000), Quality enhancing practices in distance
education: Teaching and learning, DC: Instructional Telecommunications
Council, Washington.
60. Weick, K.E. (1993), “Sensemaking in organizations: Small Structures with Large
Consequences”, in Murnigham, J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations:
Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
61. Williams, R. (1983), Keywords, Oxford University Press, New York.
62. Wirth, M. (2006), Qualität in eLearning: Konzepte und Methoden zur
Beurteilung der Qualität eLearning-gestützter Aus- und
Weiterbildungsprogramme, Eusl-Verlag, Paderborn.
63. Wolff, K.-D. (2004), „Wege zur Qualitätskultur. Die Elemente der
Qualitätsentwicklung und ihre Zusammenhänge“, in Benz, Kohler and Landfried
(Eds.) (2004), Handbuch Qualität in Studium und Lehre, C 2.1, Berlin, pp. 1-20.
64. Woodhouse, D. (2004). The quality of quality assurance agencies. Quality in
Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp., 77-87.
25