Quality assurance with respect to university teaching in South Africa: A narrative analysis

In this paper, national research projects underway which are aimed at establishing national standards on lecturing capabilities within a new national qualifications framework, are argued to typify a policy narrative informed by functionalist understandings of education, curriculum and evaluation. This narrative is counterposed with two others, found largely but not exclusively in the historically white liberal English-speaking universities, which critique that narrative, arguing that curriculum development, the evaluation of courses and programmes, and the assessment of teaching, are complex activities which are context-bound, and incapable of being reduced to the measurement of the performance of certain capabilities. In the analysis undertaken in the paper, the two critiques identified are argued to be at odds with the dominant policy narrative partly because, although much of the language and the intentions are similar, at base lie fundamentally different concepts of quality. The dominant narrative is argued to regard quality as 'fitness for purpose', where the overall purpose of higher education is assumed to be singular and uncontested, and as meeting certain pre-specified standards. The critiques understand quality either in the liberal sense as an absolute to be aspired to, or in a more constructivist way, as significantly adding to existing levels of development in particular sectors, thereby contributing to greater justice and equality in South African society. These different understandings have different implications for the assurance of quality in university teaching. The power differentials between the narratives are explored and it is argued that unless a way is found to accommodate the different perspectives, resistance to the dominant narrative might undermine its implementation. In this paper a metanarrative 'told' by the comparison of the three narratives, which attempts to take into account the conceptual dissonance examined, is put forward. It is suggested that, in order to lead to a policy-relevant narrative on quality assurance with respect to university teaching, a conceptual distinction between 'quality' and 'standards' be made. With this conceptual separation, policies may be developed to assure both standards and quality, using different methodologies and different implementing bodies in such a way that potential resistance to the dominant narrative may be averted.