Introduction
Pitsoe and Letseka (2018) recently pointed out that the discussion about quality—particularly quality management systems (QMS) or what is also known as total quality management (TQM)—lacks an analytical framework based on the ideology, ontological and ontological-epistemological problems it represents. Deming (1994) called for a system of profound knowledge (SPK) to act as a theoretical map to understand organisations; however, the literature on quality has focused on application rather than underlying principles. This limitation eventually creates challenges in looking at the deeper reciprocal influences shaping the meaning of quality by an individual, an organisation and a community.
One area where the lack of an understanding of what quality represents in terms of ideology, ontology and epistemology is professional education. A discussion of quality in relation to preparing students to enter into professions is per force a conversation about the nexus between higher education institutions (HEIs), professional associations or organization, (oftentimes parallel) government regulatory or accrediting bodies and employers. Each has a different view, often tacitly shaped by ideology of what a profession is and what a professional should do to benefit society. Schumpeter (2003) said that a capitalistic culture, higher education increases the supply of professionals beyond “the point determined by cost-return considerations” (p. 152). Today the sentence is completed by placing the considerations on individual students as well, employers, governments and professional associations. Context and notions of quality differ between these entities based on expectations, intentions, needs and preferences related to the transformation of someone wanting to be a professional becoming a professional (Reeves & Bednar, 1994; Rogers, 2014; Taylor, 2009; Yielder, 2004).
Per Noordegraaf (2011), professional education “is a resource for producing content (knowledge, skills, norms, rituals, subjectivities, etc.) and an actor in professionalization processes (selection, credentials, operation of closure regimes, symbols, etc.” – p. 470, italics in original). Thus, upon graduation, individuals reflect job values that are a composite of personal achievement goals and job values shaped by their educational experience (Bråten & Strømsø, 2008). The value of the credentials within professions is both an endogenous and exogenous motivator in the sense that personal values driving motivation often work alongside extrinsic factors such as status, employability and compensation. All told, this reflects the transformative effects from changing a frame of reference as suggested by Mezirow (1997). Quality is more than a managed set of processes based on pre-determined standards and performance indicators; it is a reflection of a moral level commitment to a profession and professional practice on the part of those teaching in the programs and program graduates (Cheng, 2016).
For the remainder of the chapter, the focus is on defining quality within professional education settings. First discussed is how curriculum reflects quality FOR purpose—the one concept typically discussed in the quality literature—and quality OF purpose driving the rationale for quality. Then discussed are intrinsic attributes of quality shaping how quality is defined and treated. Finally, there is an overview discussion of how the perception of quality is shaped in professional education programs.
Quality FOR Purpose and Quality OF Purpose in a Professional Education Context
Curricula in professional fields and their constituent bodies of knowledge are vehicles for the initiation of new recruits (Jarvis, 1999). Features in defining quality for professional education programs include:
- The demonstration of the effectiveness of the identification and clarification of how the transformation of professional practice into adequate curricular elements in a manner that facilitates the learner’s ability to integrate into the profession (Dall’Alba, 2009; Westbroek, Klaassen, Bulte, & Pilot, 2010). The curriculum crafted by higher education institutions (HEIs) includes introductory, reinforcing and extending ‘expertise’ coursework to begin the transformative journey of becoming a professional.
- The changing of the learner’s frame of reference in reference to meaning through the contextualizing information and knowledge into a personal theory of action characterizing individual practice once performing the duties of the professional (Mezirow, 1997). The four elements from ‘Prospect Theory’ established by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and Tversky and Kahneman (1992) act as potential bounding elements in this transition as these help explain the ecosystem influences on learners as suggested by Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006): reference dependence, loss aversion, diminishing sensitivity and probability weighting.
- The workforce implications relating to the preparation of professionals; namely, the degree of expertise and the benefits that expertise provides end-users (clients or employers), the overall addition to the nation’s intellectual capital and broader social contribution based on achievement (community service and taxes). Experiences and preferences defined by professional bodies and/or regulatory bodies (depending on the professional field) inform and influence curriculum content through their benchmarks, criteria or standards. These entities shape in-class and co-curricular practices as their input represent the ever-changing expectations resulting from changing socio-economic needs (e.g., personal qualities and dispositions, organisation of work and workplaces), new technologies and the dynamics of job churning (Askenazy & Galbis, 2007; Billett, 2010; Press & Padró, 2017). All of the identified players add to but are not solely responsible for identifying preferred and required professional craft knowledge (technical or ‘hard” skills—Higgs & Titchen, 2001; Kemmis, 2005) and the ‘soft’ skills such as collaboration, creativity/innovation, emotional intelligence, ethics, and leadership potential. Nevertheless, the triadic relationship does not always achieve expected results automatically. As Ericsson (2008) noted, ‘superior performance does not automatically develop from extensive experience, general education, and domain-related knowledge’ (p. 993).
Ultimately, the principal underlying element in establishing the presence of quality is the notion of fitness. Juran and Gryna (1970) made the case that the notion of ‘fitness for use’ is the basic meaning of the term ‘quality.’ Juran and Godfrey (1999) later distinguished between ‘fitness for use’ and conformance to focus on two types of decision-making related to the product, that of meeting needs versus those of conformance to specifications. Harvey and Green’s (1993) definition of quality for higher education identifies ‘fitness for purpose’ as one of the five elements that make up quality for HEIs and the broader tertiary and higher education sectors. “Fitness for purpose” under Harvey and Green (1993) again seems to combine the aspects of meeting customer needs and conformance; however, the note the difficulty is how to frame ‘fitness for purpose’ as a concept. They noted how the students, for the most part, do not specify the product. They also noted how student satisfaction affects the curriculum and program offerings; yet, control of the curriculum and programs is in the hands of the providers. It seems that the unique features of the tertiary and higher education sectors challenging how quality can be determined was the reason why Harvey and Green (1993) decided to combine conformance and satisfaction in their definition in contrast to the approach taken by Juran—one of the seminal figures in the field of Quality—and his colleagues.
Swan (1998) suggested that due to quality neither being a ‘thing’ or a unidimensional characteristic, quality for HEIs should be seen in terms of ‘fitness of purpose’ and ‘fitness for purpose.’ For him, ‘fitness of purpose’ is about HEIs doing the ‘right thing’, things like ‘pursuing knowledge and truth, cultivating intellect, creating individuality, teaching effectively and provoking critical and creative thinking’ (p. 273). The implication is regarding whether HEIs are doing what they should be doing rather than looking at performance from a process perspective. Implicit, yet, in keeping with the literature there is a sense of considering the link between HEI mission, its programs and stakeholders (e.g., Harvey & Green, 1993). This is in contrast to the guarantee- or warranty-based view of ‘fitness for purpose’ as meeting intention. Looking at the distinction between ‘fitness FOR’ and “fitness OF” provides a broader basis of understanding as it potentially provides a prospective, transformative view similar to ...