Authors : Nedejje Halima; Isabirye Mohammed

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 9 - September

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26sep1379

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This paper critically examines the internal quality assurance (IQA) mechanisms that higher education institutions use to govern teaching and learning, research, and community engagement. Drawing on a documentary analysis of peerreviewed scholarly literature, it identifies and evaluates key IQA instruments: student evaluation of teaching, peer observation of teaching, programme and departmental reviews, performance appraisals, internal quality assurance cells, research ethics committees, research output assessments, and community partnership frameworks. The analysis reveals a persistent tension between the developmental and accountability-oriented functions of IQA. Teaching-focused instruments are frequently co-opted for administrative surveillance rather than pedagogical improvement; research quality assurance remains heavily output-driven, with limited attention to process integrity; and community engagement, though increasingly recognised as a core mission, lacks robust internal metrics for assessing impact and reciprocity. The paper argues for an integrated, culture-based approach to IQA that aligns quality mechanisms with institutional mission, fosters professional trust, and positions internal quality assurance as a catalyst for transformation rather than mere compliance. Recommendations include strengthening formative feedback loops, decoupling evaluative metrics from punitive administrative decisions, and developing context-sensitive indicators for community engagement.

Keywords : Internal Quality Assurance, Higher Education, Teaching and Learning, Research Governance, Community Engagement, Quality Culture.

References :

1. Agasisti, T., Barbato, G., Dal Molin, M., & Turri, M. (2019). Internal quality assurance in universities: Does NPM matter? Studies in Higher Education, 44(6), 960–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1450854
2. Bendermacher, G. W. B., oude Egbrink, M. G. A., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2017). Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. Higher Education, 73(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0042-1
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
4. Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1036867
5. Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2017). Internal quality assurance systems: ‘Tailor made’ or ‘one size fits all’ implementation? Quality Assurance in Education, 25(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2016-0015
6. de Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv038
7. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
8. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
9. Mengel, F., Sauermann, J., & Zölitz, U. (2019). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(2), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx057
10. Mgaiwa, S. J. (2021). Leadership initiatives in response to institutional quality assurance challenges in Tanzania’s private universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9), 1206–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1908022
11. Mitchell, K. M. W., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651800001X
12. Prakash, G. (2018). Quality in higher education institutions: Insights from the literature. The TQM Journal, 30(6), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2018-0019
13. Rahnuma, N. (2020). Evolution of quality culture in an HEI: Critical insights from university staff in Bangladesh. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09302-8
14. Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., Martinaitis, Z., & Leitner, K.-H. (2017). An intellectual capital framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.013
15. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
16. Stroebe, W. (2016). Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616650282
17. Tavares, O., Sin, C., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2017). Academics’ perceptions of the impact of internal quality assurance on teaching and learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1235588
18. Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
19. Wanjiru, I. R., & Liu, X. (2021). Evaluating university–community engagement through a community-based lens: What indicators are suitable? Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 25(4), 35–55. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1342694.pdf
20. Wingrove, M., Jones, T., Haines, S., Cowley, L., Dunbar, E., & Young, S. (2018). Leading developmental peer observation of teaching in higher education: Perspectives of observers and observees in an Australian university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1372558
21. Archvadze, E., Kurdadze, E., & Demetradze, N. (2025). Developmental Approach to Peer Observation. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 10(2), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.v10i2.339
22. Barton, C., Anderson, D. M., Gerber, L. R., Kelman, C. C., & Arízaga, M. (2024). A Scorecard for Designing and Evaluating University Partnerships (pp. 238–264). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003459217-23
23. Bueger, C. (2013). Pathways to practice: praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review, 6(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773913000167
24. Calamet, F. A. (2022). An Extensive Literature Review on the Predominant Conceptualizations of Quality in Higher Education and Its Main Components. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22(7). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v22i7.5280
25. Cartwright, M. J. (2007). The rhetoric and reality of “quality” in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880710773174
26. Chávez, K., & Mitchell, K. M. W. (2019). Exploring Bias in Student Evaluations: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity. PS Political Science & Politics, 53(2), 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096519001744
27. Colbeck, C. L. (2002). Integration: Evaluating faculty work as a whole. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(114), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.45
28. Daraio, C., Glänzel, W., Leuven, E., KU, & Gorraiz, J. (2025). Advancing Responsible Bibliometric Practices in Research Assessment. https://doi.org/10.51408/issi2025_159
29. Fawcett, S. B., Boothroyd, R. I., Schultz, J. A., Francisco, V. T., Carson, V., & Bremby, R. (2003). Building Capacity for Participatory Evaluation Within Community Initiatives. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 26(2), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/j005v26n02_03
30. Gagliardi, A. R., Chen, R. H., Boury, H., Albert, M., Chow, J. C. L., DaCosta, R. S., Hoffman, M. M., Keshavarz, B., Kontos, P., Liu, J., McAndrews, M. P., & Protze, S. (2023). DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact to assess the performance of researchers in biomedical institutions: Review of published research, international best practice and Delphi survey. PubMed Central, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270616
31. Hare, R. M., Wagner, A. M., Løvetand, L., Melle, E. van, & Carsten, J. (2019). Drawing an exam – exploring didactical relations. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen). https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/da/publications/d4da5b85-5882-47af-8e1c-f72003edca3b
32. Henschke, N., & Roberts, L. (2017). Narratives as a mode of research evaluation in citizen science: understanding broader science communication impacts. Journal of Science Communication, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040203
33. Hysa, E., & Rehman, N. U. (2019). Assessing the Teaching Quality of Economics Programme: Instructor Course Evaluations. Integration of Education, 23(4), 556–567. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.097.023.201904.556-567
34. Jarvis, D. S. L. (2014). Regulating higher education: Quality assurance and neo-liberal managerialism in higher education—A critical introduction. Policy and Society, 33(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.09.005
35. Kamusoko, R. (2020). Critical Analysis of the Applicability of the ISO 9001 Standard in Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of African Higher Education, 6(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v6i1.10671
36. Lacy, J. W., Nnoka, C., Jock, Z., & Morreale, C. (2026). LLM sentiment quantification reveals selective alignment with human course-evaluation raters. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 10, 100545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100545
37. Langfeldt, L. (2001). The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 820–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631201031006002
38. Law, D. C. S. (2010). Quality assurance in post‐secondary education. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011016007
39. Leeuwenkamp, K. J. G., Brinke, D. J., & Kester, L. (2017). Assessment quality in tertiary education: An integrative literature review. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 55, 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.08.001
40. Lindsay, A. (1985). The Unfulfilled Potential of Institutional Review. Higher Education Research & Development, 4(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436850040106
41. Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2010). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 61(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9360-4
42. Macnamara, J. (2024). Human Research Ethics Review Challenges in the Social Sciences: A Case for Review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09532-9
43. Matthews, V. O. (2025). Towards an Inclusive Approach to Evaluation of Teaching. International Journal of Higher Education, 14(5), 1. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v14n5p1
44. McGivern, G., & Ferlı́e, E. (2007). Playing tick-box games: Interrelating defences in professional appraisal. Human Relations, 60(9), 1361–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707082851
45. Mitchell, K. M. W., & Martin, J. W. (2018). Gender Bias in Student Evaluations. PS Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909651800001x
46. Mohapatra, Dr. R. R. (2026). Aligning Teacher Education with NAAC Standards: The Role of IQAC. INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 10(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem57846
47. Molas‐Gallart, J., & Castro‐Martínez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of “Third Mission” indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207x263592
48. Moriau, L., Tondeur, J., Bertone, J., Huysmans, M., Temmerman, M., & Meurs, P. (2021). The engagement CUBE: a dialogical tool for designing, facilitating and monitoring engaged research and teaching strategies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(4), 783–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-03-2021-0126
49. Nkonki-Mandleni, B. (2021). Monitoring and evaluation of university-community impact in driving transformation agenda. South African Journal of Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-1-5679
50. Nwaneri, M., & Szent‐Iványi, B. (2025). Doing the ‘Donor Dance’: Agency in Unequal NGO Partnerships in Nigeria’s Farmer–Herder Conflict. VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 36(5), 791–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-025-00763-x
51. Osei‐Tutu, A. A. Z., Odame, E. D., Bawa, J., & Amponsah, S. (2025). A collection of voices on higher educational access, quality and equity in Africa: A systematic review. Review of Education, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70115
52. Rahnuma, N. (2020). Evolution of quality culture in an HEI: critical insights from university staff in Bangladesh. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09313-8
53. Ribosa, J., Corcelles, M., Morodo, A., & Durán, D. (2023). Reducing teachers’ resistance to reciprocal peer observation. European Journal of Education, 59(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12606
54. Rodríguez, J. B., & Seedhouse, P. (2020). Affiliation and negative assessments in peer observation feedback for foreign language teachers professional development. Applied Linguistics Review, 13(6), 1077–1101. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0001
55. Sivasubramaniam, S., Dlabolová, D. H., Králíková, V., & Khan, Z. R. (2021). Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00078-6
56. Tavares, O., Sin, C., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2016). Academics’ perceptions of the impact of internal quality assurance on teaching and learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1262326
57. Wendling, L. (2023). Evaluating Community-Engaged Research in Promotion and Tenure. Metropolitan Universities, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.18060/26658
58. Williams, A. E. (2026). Detecting and Explaining Educational Coherence Collapse. In Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). European Organization for Nuclear Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18377343
59. Winch, J. (2021). University scholarship activities on module evaluation questionnaires at a British University. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 16(2), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/heed-01-2021-0008
60. Yerznkyan, Y., BURNAZYAN, I., & BOSTANJYAN, L. (2025). CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON PEER OBSERVATION IN TEACHING. Foreign Languages in Higher Education, 29, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.46991/flhe.2025.29.1.101
61. Yuzkiv, H., Slipchuk, V., Batechko, N., Mykhailichenko, M., Yanchytska, K., & Serhii, K. (2022). Internal Quality Assurance of the Education Program at Higher Educational Institutions. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 11(9), 98. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v11n9p98