Governing the quality of academic activities at the institution level is a challenging task. Literature shows that the model of academic governance considers quality but still lacks proper standardization of academic functions and risk minimization in higher institutes. In the current chapter, the authors present a conceptual framework of academic governance, different arrangements settings, and exploring nexus of governance in education sector: how it operates to support the quality of academic activities. Using literature content and qualitative analysis, firstly the chapter explores a few factors of academic gover- nance such as expectations of regulators, standards, and quality, and secondly, it presents influences due to pandemic on academic governance. At the last, this chapter draws inferences to act as a starting point for the study on academic governance, refers knowledge, infuses more research practices, and answers a few questions that might surface from the implementation of academic governance in assuring quality.
The history of academic governance is something related to faculty governance. The famous author in the area of academic governance, argues that prior to the modern times, universities across the world changed during nineteenth century. In the past, the institutional governance was mainly the governance led by
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8279-4.ch006
Copyright © 2022, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
governing boards, faculty board, and committees appointed. In this sense, the academic governance has been autocratic in nature (Gerber, 2014). Gerber also mentioned that academic governance seen reforms with a lack of professionalization among the teaching staff, who were quite young in their age, had no advanced experience, and specialized expertise in teaching related activities (Pham et al., 2020). It is also evident from his studies that the concept of academic governance was not expected to engage in original research where people did not find themselves for teaching as a long-term career but rather as a form of temporary employment. In the end of nineteenth century, education sector has seen the emergence of the large, medium types of universities across the globe. Many of the universities had predicted on the increasing professionalization on academic specialization, graduate education, and research.
As Gerber’s theories in the context of education in western countries, also highlights the relationship between professionalism and academic freedom. Generally, faculty in the academic areas claims based on their own competencies and teaching expertise, often argues about their relative teaching strength as compared to other staff to contribute in institutional governance processes. In the early Twentieth cen- tury, expansion in the education systems, with an increased faculty role in institutional governance, and also with high professionalization, faculty members, and top management were closely associated. This time also saw a unique trend of increased involvement of faculty members in institutional governance by different ways of enabling their participation, professionalism, and unionism. The role of administrative head of the university systems also found critique with varying but limited executive powers.
The academic governance during the Second World War to the mid-1970s seen tremendous growth and rising global presence but without use of internet technologies. During this time an academic board that seen provided consensus that “faculty should exercise primary responsibility over all academic mat- ters. After this time period, new challenges for faculty governance including emergence of multi-campus systems were seen, that had changed the perspective of national economy of many countries. Many theories of academic governance linked with faculty governance were proposed, de-professionalism of faculty, included faculty unionism, the variation in faculty responses (Gerber, 2014). A few of the aca- demic governance related studies were also mentioned by Gerber were oriented towards market model of governance, shared governance, a robust system of shared governance in the education sector. It is seen understood from the reforms that professionalism in academic governance can be articulated in more than one way, may be in the form of an ideal public service, that it is compatible with unionism, and that it can provide an effective basis for mobilization and making political claims.
The concept of academic governance is a highly challenging concept which includes different arrangement focused on collective efforts of an academic entity towards a dedicated goal of education and learning. In the broader sense, it refers to internal environment of the educational entity, or an organization, and management, particularly in higher education institutes (Hanne Kvilhaugsvik, 2021). The term ‘academic governance’ basically refers to governing process in an academic environment. Generally, the process of academic governance focuses on both the internal as well as external governance in the institutions. Internal governance mainly caters decision making and governmental process related arrangements within the institutes, for example, authority, to increase quality of teaching and related decisions (Cardoso et al., 2015). A few other areas of decision making could be financing at institute levels, also at academic programme and staffing levels. In contrast to internal, external governance in academics environment refers to the institutional arrangements.
Unlike a broad framework, the structure of academic governance is governed structures, relation- ships, processes, and overall nature of the system. Basically, it provides top management of institution to control academic activities (teaching, learning, research, and research training) (Kennedy, 2003). The framework can easily understand as an integrated and inclusive responsibility of an academic institution often utilized by an internal entity i.e. academic board (Duryea, 2000; Ehrenberg, 2005). The board may work with or without sub-committees due to their diverse structures.
Figure 1. The Basic Structure of Academic Governance
The concept has interrelated connection with business and corporate governance, can also be under- stood from different aspects of academic functions at micro and macro levels. There is other intercon- nection such as innovation, quality, resource utilization which can be expanded further through systems approaches of universities and academic institutions (Refer Figure 1). However, there could be multiple ways of understanding academic governance for e.g. effective implementation of rules and regulations, decrees, arrangements for funds to run institutions and evaluations of teaching programmes and feed- back of students. There are different models of academic governance across the countries. For example, academic research is the most important goals of a university, to assist in building a local entrepreneurial ecosystem (Anderseck, 2004). It is evident that typical academic governance model has been based on a collegial shared form of governance.
The collegial matter of academic governance basically needs the effective participation and coordina- tion among academic and administrative staffs, who works overall interest of the students. However, a little away from it, the main purpose of academic governance is to provide valuable recommendations and academic contribution of its board (Association of Governing Board of Universities and Colleges, USA). The collegial form governance is seen both in public and private universities until last four de- cades. The culture of shared governance lies on the fact that a teacher should hold a main position in the academics and decision making in addition to his leading coordination with stakeholders. Generally, stakeholders in academic institution include top level of executives such as Vice chancellor, President, and Director, a few staff from the administration, including the student community. A faculty board or senate (in some places different names, mostly exists all the higher academic institution in India). Dif- ferent levels of engagement, leadership styles and academic interests of faculty board seen in education sector of India, Europe and the rest of the world as they operate as most suitable medium for faculty engagement and involvement at organizational level (Gayle et al., 2011).
The basic structure of the academic governance in an institution can be seen from figure 1. It is ob- served that an academic institution may constitute a board of faculty members, committees of teaching and learning sometimes refereed as course curriculum committee. In the last few decades, the existence of faculty board is seen quite often under broad concept of entrepreneurial university (Amaral et al., 2002). The concept is based on non-profit public universities which promotes the academic institutions (both higher and school levels), should functions as a business in order to address both the students and business needs. Main purpose of their function is to run academic activities on self-sufficient budgets available to them. This caters academic institutions to prepare to work in synergy with need of industry to achieve a few of objectives.
There are difference approaches to quality assurance in governing the academic institutions. According to Asif and Raouf (2012), the meaning of quality assurance varies according to different activity. Dif- ferent countries are seen suing different quality assurance models for their higher education systems. Nevertheless, in all activities related to quality assurance across the world, there lies a common unify- ing thread that laces together the basic concepts. It is also evident that an academic institution has been facing growing challenges with the alignment of activities for their strategic and operational plans. There are many factors observed for performance of academic governance. In response to COVID-19 pandemic, several measures were taken. Institution’s thinking is oriented towards strategic, operational, and academic activities to overcome from pandemic challenges. Therefore, understanding the gaps to the current study, there is need to improve expectations of both institution and their stakeholders, and also the decision-making how the recent times of pandemic can shape help improvements in academic governance, operational plan to operate in the market.
Academic governance can be improved by self-practices by the institutions and support academic staff by identifying, designing, and providing professional skills development towards their academic role. Such activities are focused on developing skills of faculty members and enhanced development, known as the academic staff development. In this connection, development of staff aims to enhance excellence across the range of academic practices. The National Education Policy (NEP) in India also advises academic institutions and governing bodies to work closely with their academic boards for hu- man resource development (NEP, Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, 2020). This is to ensure them
that academic governance is effective in their academic institutes. Academic institutions should focus on quality implementation in charters, articles, and in academic governance.
National Accreditation Board for Education and Training, an apex body of Quality Council of India provides quality assurance to different academic programmes to higher and technical institutions in India. The NBA accreditation recognizes the innovations and achievements of higher learning institutes and aims various academic courses accredited by NBA, indicates the commitment to excellence, promotes new and innovative methods associated fields education system, and also provides consultation and guidelines for educational programmes. The accreditation body gives feedback to educations institutes for the improvement of educational programmes. Through this feedback mechanism, educational in- stitutes come to know their strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. It also helps them to get financial assistance from government agencies, private bodies and caters intra and inter-institutional interactions. In today’s context, academic universities, and institutions focus on development to enhance skills and practice in leadership and management, development of professional skills, promote research, learn- ing, and teaching development and create a tailored, holistic approach to promote the opportunities that they provide. The academic staff development also works in the interests of human resources to support and contribute towards institute policy in overall interests of progression, promotion, and performance enhancement. In addition, staff development also promotes the research to various stages of researchers,
help in practice of research, research, and development, across the university.
There is direct connection of academic governance with university governance. Academic board under- stands the responsibility for strategic direction and accepts responsibility for risk. They monitor overall performance and engage in the development of a strong relationship among different stakeholders. There is a balance approach required between compliance with regulatory matters and keeping a performance at institution or university level. The academic board generally responsible for all actions and decisions, therefore, there must of a structure for overseeing risk and managing internal controls. Good governance for higher universities and institution need academic board should work toward developing a greater understanding of the trade-off between risk and rewards. Improving academic governance includes appointing qualified persons at the top levels. A skilled chairperson creates trust between the board, faculty members, and other managers; therefore, they need excellent leadership, communication, and interpersonal skills. Finally, academic board needs to work on developing their board director skills and knowledge of governance.
University governance in support to academic governance, include inputs and feedback from other stakeholders. Universities have accountability towards public thus, it is important to understand the public’s needs and orderly involvement of students, employees and citizens-at-large in discussions about new policies, plans and practices. Feedback from students and the community will help both academic as well as university governance to identify trends and emerging opportunities and prioritize their tasks. There is high importance of the academic committee as most of the institutions focuses on a range of is- sues, such as curriculum, course offerings, evaluation policy, degree requirements, faculty qualifications, and accreditation requirements. Universities need to take the advice and recommendations of academic committee and suitably adopt for their overall strategic plan.
There are multiple factors those govern academic governance such as adverse. One of the important factors is quality infusion in delivery of academic programmes and may be quality function at the board level of aspiring mission and vision. Different kinds of approaches, methods, and styles are used as they help in effectiveness of academic delivery, especially with the focus on quality. Often, the framework of academic governance show regulatory regime in which rules and regulations of academic governance are presented, with the set of regulatory structure including regulations for their administrative staff and students (Hoedegebuure and Hayden 2007).
It is evident that due to pandemic there are unclear expectations and requirements in academic gov- ernance which further leads to unpredictable consequences. Skill creation to govern academic activities, creating quality of processes and outcomes, are the focused areas for making them consistent. Moreover, the inappropriate decision making at top level in academic institution may also cause insufficient academic advice. For example, if the academic board makes decisions without sufficient information on academic activities, then same may cause to reputational risks. Another factor of insufficient vigilance and moni- toring, particularly the research and development related activities inevitably lead to some major threat to institutional fall out. The ownership could be another factor in broad academic governance system which influences various academic activities, and can cause both positive and negative influence in the institution. As per the Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance, benchmarking, academic achievement, and quality assurance are the important factors in the broad concept of academic arrangements (Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance, 2008).
The current focus of academic institution is to develop minds of graduates, and government-sponsored research and development in higher education. But pandemic has altered and devastated the traditional ways of academic governance that in-turn affected the governance at the institutional level. Many of the research studies predictable pandemic related challenges to survive in the education market (Nea- mtu and Neamtu, 2013). Two fundamental priorities are seen in university leaders in the reference of pandemic. First one is operational challenge such as ability to manage increased risk, controlling costs, and also to manage people and human aspects in governing the academic activities. Second priority is scenario planning, risk management and cost containment (as per the PwC’s survey). Often challenges are also emerged from other areas in academic governance, particularly from industry (Johansen, 2003). Academic institutions have seen stopped non-essential spend but without thinking what is essential for them to survive, where close financial management is the key to survival. Simultaneously, it is very difficult to make a stock on mix of skills on the board therefore, and to confirm how to inculcate human skills. Such human related challenges eventually lead to poor performance in all the academic activities; consequently, can spoil the brand image of the academic institutes.
As indicated above, pandemic fragment performance of academic governance which is essential to improve further. Therefore, in the absence of a capable system of academic governance to tackle uncertainties caused by pandemic, it is difficult for an institution (particularly for an institution dealing in higher education) to operate and assure itself of the quality of its educational activities. In the event, institutes also loose academic leadership in the education market. Such challenges can be overcome through setting benchmarks, policy frameworks, and scrutinizing academic functions very closely.
In summary, academic governance system takes a core position to own capabilities. At central level, assurance in academic functions arises from multiple aspects of governance that may have a more di- verse influence in the institutions. For example, through the institutional policy framework that guides individual academic activities, thus show a central level of its policy importance in the academic institu- tion. Further another factor which prospers the academic activities is ‘standards’ through benchmarking external performing parameters for governance. Therefore, the current Chapter aims to address following concerns of academic governance:
In this Chapter we are concentrating on the concept of academic governance, its basic definition, and first to understand how academic governance works in education environment basically to appreciate why there is focus to increase quality. The Chapter presents select review on academic governance and reflects those theoretical aspects, its board framework, nexus with university governance various models and institutional mechanism, quality standards in academic functions, current, and future challenges to need of new education system. A few of major factors that affect the academic governance system are also discussed. Lastly, the chapter highlights implications that represent offering of solutions to meet the current challenges to academic governance, support increased competitiveness in the pandemic situation of education market in the years to come. A few benefits to stakeholder of higher education institution that could accelerate future academic governance are also presented.
Many a times, the concept of academic governance is mixed with corporate governance due to its close nexus with academic matters policy and procedures. Main reason of confusion arises as it is not clear that for whom it is conducted. Conceptually, academic governance has two main functions, first one is
governance, and second one is overseeing. There is effective coordination and balance required in between both the functions. Under the head of governance, an academic policy, practice, and outcomes are the focus of the board and top management, while overseeing is focused on executing the responsibilities for academic matters, and delegation of proper academic officially and as per the expectations of suitable rules, regulations and policies (Morley, 2006).
The subject of academic governance focuses academic expertise and experience that should minimum to provide ability in faculty board and top level of leader to judge properly and scrutinize at the level of academic activity concerned. Previous literature generally shows different arrangements in academic governance in terms of institutional approach to set and benchmark operation plans, academic poli- cies, procedures and making a suitable to be remain in the completive market. A few of arrangements also includes ethical conduct and academic integrity in academic governance, setting for students, and implementation of academic standards, including designing of relevant curriculum with clear-cut focus on performing governmental processes (Bennetot and Estermann, 2018).
A select studies on academic governance include; Student motivation by Stukalina (2014); student involvement by Elassy (2013); Challenges to higher education by Lomas (2003); Growth of cross boarder education by OECD (2002, 2003a & 2003b); Quality assurance in higher education by Asif and Raouf (2012) and Newton (2002); Student learning by Carmichael et al., (2001); Funding and research by Vaughn (2001).
The arrangement is also not limiting to important academic function of assessment, and examinations where admission is linked with other criteria to improve the academic governance. In the recent years of educational development, there has been tremendous shift in expectations on the part of regulators of education sector. Their prime concerns are what are the objectives and their efficacy of academic gover- nance. Therefore, it is one the main gaps to study academic governance as what is expected of it, has not attracted more attention from those most concerned (Japan University Accreditation Association 2004). It is also evident that literature on normal academic functions focus on thorough inspection and review and feedback of other stakeholders of academic institutions. Previous models of academic governance are mainly focused on academic activities which include teaching, research and administrative respon- sibilities and decision making, along with uncertainties managed by faculty members and staffs. Such activities also include the provisions of academically-informed decision making and further monitoring. For example, an approval of a new course (in line with the ongoing challenges of industry and cater workforce through educational programmes), and an relevant research analyses in the larger interest of
the students and industries.
Academic governance can also be understood from the views of corporate governance related organi- zational structures. Since long time, there is debate that academic governance that cannot be understood totally from the perspectives of corporate governance, at least in academic institutions and universities where culture and motive is different. However, there were a few studies shown inter-related functions of various activities in corporate and academic governance (Bennetot and Estermann, 2018).
Operating norms and quality in academic activities are main focus of current education institutes to adopt suitable academic standards which can meet the current needs of learning and catering education (Ryan, 2015). For example, the institutional framework of higher education in India includes several
institutions and one of the key objectives here is to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education to 30% by 2020 (National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore, 2015).
Sometimes, ability of faculty board and senate is also linked with performance of individual and leadership style. In this regard, the need of competent and independent framework of academic gover- nance leftovers a critical challenge to make the arrangements very relevant to the governmental process. Literature also shows that roles of faculty board need to be defined and distinct.
Kennedy (2003) argued that quality consideration in academic governance is a key quality policy in new requirements to quality assurance in today’s context. While autonomy also leads to further im- provements in quality functions of academic governance. In addition, the financial crisis has brought new governance challenges. In this reference, the biggest debate that is seen in the literature can quality assurance adequately address governance arrangements. It is seen that quality guidelines in academic activities could play the role of governance arrangements, while some risks do exist.
According to a recent survey of Price Water Coopers, risks in academic governance is also high. It is evident that faculty board and top management leaders focuses on inclusive planning, and risk man- agement in addition to cost containment. Their efforts are to improve financial status. Unfortunately, due to these priorities, universities response to the pandemic took top-down approach of management rejecting the shared governance structures and collegial practices of the institutions. The pandemic has accelerated the openness to change by creating an emergency or steering response team led by universi- ties presidents and provosts, with sub-teams focusing on operations and other academic advisory groups working together to deal with the fast-rising scenarios. The consequence is a clear flow of information and strong communication across the institution which sequentially builds on mechanisms to respond to the secondary effects of the pandemic. Moreover, universities are continuously facing challenges with their strategic alignment of business objectives in order to have a diverse educational system in response to the pandemic.
Literature review witness that there is a lot of expectations form academic governance, but unfortunately, has not attracted the stakeholders by most of the institutions. In this regard, the objectives of academic governance can be achieved through drawing attention of regulators. Regulator generally focuses on academic activities and they also have different expectations to meet the objectives of academic gover- nance. The regulations of higher education in few countries focus how to design academic governance arrangements for making effective decisions.
Regulations in academic governance show status in terms of charters, rules, regulations and articles, and also functioning of governing bodies. Such bodies are accountable for the key activities of teach- ing, learning, and research and also regulate omissions of higher education. Also, well-known effective academic governance assumed new significance to higher institutions. Therefore, top management of the academic institutions must ensure quality of teaching and effective learning. Their current efforts are for increasing standards that are used to significant academic accomplishment, but are subject to effectual omission. Regulators expect from committee and academic advisory bodies to work in close
coordination with senates, and academic boards. Overall expectations can be met through actively and critically engaged in academic plan, creating proper arrangements of ease of doing academic activities, operations including human and other resources.
Standards maintain quality in academic governance. Fundamentally, the standards are guidelines and connected with corporate governance within the institutional autonomy of an institution. The main purpose of the standards is to establish a system focused on quality in academic activities so that it can provide a suitable academic environment and monitor quality parameter. The standards in higher education industry consist of accountability and processes for quality assurance of academic activities. For example, the school system in India has four levels: lower primary, upper primary, high, and higher secondary, according to age of the students registered in a particular level. At each level, focus of quality important parameter that is further linked to institutional quality assurance systems which draw attention to increase levels of quality in academic functions.
In order to govern the institution in a better way, standards norms also focus to information dissemi- nation and management. This is essential characteristics of the standards applicable in academic gover- nance embraces the standards for various functions. It is evident that it is difficult to monitor and follow standards in academic functions like research and research training. In addition, the academic governance arrangements linked with standards those may are connected with in a number of other standards. Not only this, arrangement of academic governance encompasses standards beyond local monitoring within Institution. Sometimes, it focuses on standards of an individual course or sometime standards in process engaged into approving accrediting courses, framing new academic policies, providing leadership to the institute, offering academic advice, and also academic activities of the students in academic governance (North Central Association of Colleges and School, Chicago, 2008).
There are numerous ways to maintain quality in academic environment. Different institution follows different quality standards. One of the main models is operative model where quality in academic governance becomes fundamental and detrimental parameter for academic governance. The quality assessment has significant influence on relationships between regulators, governing bodies, and people working at top managements in the institutions. In this reference, the quality guidelines may be used for purposes to main the standards of academic functions. This also helps in building up the confidence of stakeholders in academic governance. Generally, the risk of complacency is high when governance is appraised against criteria. Generally, such criteria determine accreditation and can be benchmarked for quality and standards in academic governance
Standards in academic governance works in the interest of institutional activities from bottom to top levels, students to teacher’s performance to performance of the Institution as whole. Here, higher institu- tions activities should be of high quality, also meet as per the institutional policies, expected outcomes for students. Unfortunately, risks are inbuilt in the process of increasing the quality in academic activi- ties and institutions do not need to have all the solutions to all the risks they face. They should be more proactive to manage increased threats affecting them and take proper actions to avoid prepare for inferior scenarios. Ahead, institutions should consider developing a “venture” approach to risk management, as
opposed to plans that exist within specific divisions or units to deal with risks specific to their function or mission. Through the framework of risk enabled risks, institutions can focus on establishing, and sustaining quality and ensuring quality learning experiences and outcomes for students.
A good academic governance model could increase autonomy and accountability which may turn into implementation quality policy (Shattock, 2008). Literature witnessed that there is less understanding for identifying an appropriate and alternative model of academic governance in the higher institutions (Huisman, 2009). In the event, numerous risk associate with the process of academic governance and thus, quality guidelines could be a way forward and focused area to top management support academic functions. As per the report of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a clearer improvement in academic governance through quality consideration should focus on improved performance which is generally ignored and difficult to achieve in the education area (OECD, 2015). For example, the role of quality in teaching and learning outcomes is difficult to increase further but still achievable. The operative model work beyond the expectation under academic governance area, particularly, other external stakeholders those want to enter into the education sector.
Due to COVID-19, academic institutions have been facing growing challenges with the alignment of their University Governance for their strategic and operational plans. According to PwC US Global Pulse Survey, the two highest ranking priorities for university leaders at present are “scenario planning and risk management” and “cost management” (Cummings and Finkelstein, 2009). Unfortunately, due to these priorities, universities response to the pandemic took top-down approach of management rejecting the shared governance structures and collegial practices of the institutions. The pandemic has acceler- ated the openness to change by creating an emergency or steering response team led by universities presidents and provosts, with sub-teams focusing on operations and other academic advisory groups working together to deal with the fast-rising scenarios. The consequence is a clear flow of information and strong communication across the institution which sequentially builds on mechanisms to respond to the secondary effects of the pandemic. Moreover, institutions are continuously facing challenges with their strategic alignment of business objectives in order to have a diverse educational system in response to the pandemic.
New approaches to governance, particularly the qualitative models of academic governance can combine many forces of education industry and markets in new ways. Higher institutions across the globe are gaining mush of autonomy to govern as per their new desired norms. It is clearly visible that public funds are being utilized on proximate basis and governmental need is increasing tremendously (Quality Assurance for Higher Education, Gloucester, 1999). In search for better autonomy with quality in focus, policy makers in higher institutions explore institutions to account, link funding to performance and further assessing quality. Higher education institutions also found to work hard meet funding and regulatory criteria to increase quality in governmental processes, at the same time to strengthen their
governing positions in the education sector. There is a current focus on institutional strategy, and a shift in power of institution away from individual committee working internally (Kaplan, 2006). Therefore, external members normally dominated by academic interests. Senior managers are selected for their leadership skills as well as for their academic prowess. Such changes generally create adverse forces. With regards to this, academic institutions need to develop a right balance between academic activities, quality parameters, and expectations by regulators, and traditional values. Academic institutes also have to balance the support of fineness with the support of equity.
In view of the above, the future time of academic governance is going to change according to the new market. Therefore, students should be ready according to expanding and changing needs of higher institutions. This need is more demanding in nature that the internal academic governance and should be reassessed. Therefore, higher institutions need to develop clear and decisive strategies if they want to survive in the highly dynamic and competitive world of higher education. In response to COVID-19 pandemic, universities around the globe have also taken numerous extraordinary measures and imple- mented changes to their strategic, operational, and academic activities. There is a transformation from the emergency decision-making of the early stages of the pandemic towards reflection and resolution on how the past months can shape governance and strategy.
As a remedial solution to have sharper focus on financial management, the pandemic has accelerated openness to change, as per PwC Canada, “We saw a lot of incident response teams led by university presidents and provosts, with sub teams focused on operations and academic advisory groups working alongside. There was a clear flow of information and strong communications across institutions. Now we’re trying to build on these mechanisms to respond to the secondary effects of the pandemic. These could be new approaches to collaborating on inclusion issues such as accessibility, or ensuring that students have the right resources to be able to study online”.
This chapter presented conceptual model of academic governance and its nexus with quality and stan- dards in higher education institutions. It is evident that governmental institutions have a significant role in recognizing efforts of academic fraternity, academic boards, and committee operating in such institutions. This chapter presented different various factors affecting academic governance, different models and nexus of academic governance, where the academic entities and their powers understood in the education markets. Quality is found critical parameter to focus on academic activities to support academic. Literature showed that effectiveness of standards implementation is the main driving factor to higher academic institutions that have adopted relevant standards. Through this study, the Chapter judged the effectiveness of academic governance, particularly how academic institutions maintain qual- ity and standards in academic activities so that internal and external stakeholders can work in the larger interests of the academic institutions.
The focused study found beneficial to add value and creating transformational changes in higher universities and institutions through different team mindset of academic leaders, understand quality from the perspectives of students and academic board, develop institutional understanding of the cost of quality, solve various problems of academic functions such as research and development, and employ strong process and discipline in the higher institution. Not only this, the board framework and different models presented in the Chapter can help in understanding how the concept of academic governance is
understood by top management bodies such as governing board or faculty committees, quality assurance committee, and how are they to judge its overall effectiveness.
The Chapter noticed the pandemic influence on academic governance processes and related activities. Thus, the risk management related model of academic governance can help in measuring quality assur- ance for academic governance to suggest means for improvement in higher institutions, particularly in a post pandemic situation. Academic resources such as qualitative information access to academic board can also help in making appropriate strategies, and competences required to adopt quality in implement- ing academic governance. Using the study given in the Chapter, one can generate a sense of ownership among the academic staffs so that they are motivated enough to institutional goals. Higher education regulators, government policy, and accreditation bodies must have quality assurance plan at primary, secondary and higher levels of education that need to review academic standards. Such approach can add value to early child care and education at school level, plan financial literacy numeracy, universal access to education, curriculum, and pedagogy in school, testing and assessment, teacher education, and equitable and inclusive education. The same plan should be checked regularly to maintain quality and govern academic activities both at students and institution levels.
AGB. (2007). AGB Statement on Board Accountability. Association of Governing Boards of Universi- ties and Colleges.
Anderseck, K. (2004). Institutional and academic entrepreneurship: implications for university gover- nance and management. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 193-200.
AQA. (2008). Focus Audit. Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance.
Asif, M., & Raouf, A. (2012). Setting the course for quality assurance in higher education. Quality & Quantity, 1–16.
Bennetot Pruvot, E., & Estermann, T. (2018). University Governance: Autonomy, Structures and Inclu- siveness. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77407-7_37
Cardoso, S., Rosa, M., & Stensaker, B. (2015). Why quality in Higher Education Institutions is not achieved? The view of academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1052775
Carmichael, R., Palermo, J., Reeve, L., & Vallence, K. (2001). Student learning: The heart of qual- ity in education and training. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(5), 449–463. doi:10.1080/02602930120082023
Claudia, N. A., & Liviu, N. (2013, July). Academic Governance and Product Design in Relation to the Requirements of the Educational Market. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83(4), 552–556. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.105
Cummings, W. K., & Finkelstein, M. (2009). Global trends in academic governance. Academe, 31–34.
Duryea, E. D. (2000). The academic corporation: A history of college and university governing boards
(Vol. 23). Taylor & Francis.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (Ed.). (2005). Governing academia. Cornell University Press.
Elassy, N. (2013). A model of student involvement in the quality assurance system at institutional level.
Quality Assurance in Education, 21(2), 162–198. doi:10.1108/09684881311310692 FINHEEC (2007). Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher Education. Author.
Gayle, D. J., Tewarie, B., & White, A. Q. Jr. (2011). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Vol. 14. Governance in the Twenty-first-century University: Approaches to effective leadership and strategic management. John Wiley & Sons.
Gerber. (2014). The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance: Professionalization and the Modern American University. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goedegebuure, L., & Hayden, M. (2007). Overview: Governance in higher education—concepts and issues. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 1–11. doi:10.1080/07294360601166778
Huisman, J. (Ed.). (2009). International perspectives on the governance of higher education: Alternative frameworks for coordination. Routledge.
IUQB. (2007). A Framework for Quality in Irish Higher Universities. Concerted Action for Institutional Improvement. Irish Universities Quality Board and Irish Universities Association.
Johansen, L. N. (2003). Recommendations for Good University Governance in Denmark. Committee- University Boards in Denmark.
JUAA. (2004). University Standards and Explanation. Japan University Accreditation Association.
Kaplan, G. E. (2006). Institutions of academic governance and institutional theory: A framework for further research. In Higher Education (pp. 213–281). Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_5
Kennedy, K. J. (2003). Higher Education Governance as a Key Policy Issue in the 21st Century. Edu- cational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 55-70.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371–399. doi:10.1080/00221546.2004.11772264
Kvilhaugsvik. (2021). Bridging higher education and the world of work? Employer panels in Nordic university governance. European Journal of Higher Education. . doi:10.1080/21568235.2021.1886138
Lomas, L. (2003, September). Embedding quality: The challenges for higher education. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg.
Morley, L. (2006). Establishing the Needs of Employers and Related Organizations for Information about Quality and Standards of Higher Education Provision and Student Achievement in England. HEFCE.
NAAC. (2007). Institutional Accreditation. Manual for Self-Study of Universities. National Assessment and Accreditation Council.
Newton, J. (2002). Views from below: Academics coping with quality. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 39–63. doi:10.1080/13538320220127434
OECD. (2002). The growth of cross-border education. Education Policy Analysis, 2002, 89–115. OECD. (2003a). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2003. OECD.
OECD. (2003b). Reviews of National Policies for Education – Tertiary Education in Switzerland. OECD. OECD. (2015). Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Education. OECD/UNESCO.
Pham, H., & Nguyen, C. (2020). Academic staff quality and the role of quality assurance mechanisms: The Vietnamese case. Quality in Higher Education, 26(3), 1–22. doi:10.1080/13538322.2020.1761603
QAA. (1999). Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Educa- tion. Section 3: Students with Disabilities. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Reed, M. I., Meek, L., & Jones, G. A. (2002). Introduction. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. xv–xxxi). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ruhanen, L., Scott, N., Ritchie, B., & Tkaczynski, A. (2010). Governance: A review and synthesis of the literature. Tourism Review, 65(4), 4–16. doi:10.1108/16605371011093836
Ryan, P. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(4). Advance online publication. doi:10.18870/hlrc.v5i4.257
Shattock, M. (2008). Managing good governance in higher education. Open University Press.
Stukalina, Y. (2014). Identifying predictors of student satisfaction and student motivation in the framework of assuring quality in the delivery of higher education services. Business. Management in Education, 12(1), 127–137. doi:10.3846/bme.2014.09
Vaughn, D. L. (2001). Status on Research Funding at the University of Missouri, Office of Planning and Budget. University of Missouri.
