Angela Yung Chi HOU, Yusuf OLDAC*, Yabing LIU, Elaine Xinzi OW YONG, and Anatoly OLEKSIYENKO
Updated: Jan 13, 2026
In their paper titled 'How do Quality Assurance Agencies in Asia Measure Higher Education? Exploring Approaches, Emerging Standards, and Challenges', Hou, Su, Zhou, Tao, Lin, Chen, and Hill (2024) examine how national quality assurance (QA) systems in Asia operate under the influence of neoliberalism and global shifts in higher education. The study provides a timely analysis of the standards frameworks focusing on accountability as a core driver for change and increasingly shaping the diverse nature of higher education systems across the continent. The authors have identified three primary standards currently emphasised by Asian QA agencies: institutional governance and management, teaching and learning, and student learning support and resources. Furthermore, the research points to employability and digitalisation as significant emerging standards within the sector. A key challenge highlighted is stakeholder engagement in the development of these new frameworks.
As the Centre for Higher Education Leadership and Policy Studies in Hong Kong, we found this paper insightful for academic practice and policymaking and have written a critical commentary, discussing implications for the future of quality assurance and broader policy developments within Asian higher education and beyond. In this forum paper, Angela Hou begins the forum discussion by presenting her observations on emerging trends and how quality assurance agencies could respond innovatively to them. Afterwards, Yusuf Oldac reflects on how QA practices compare to rankings and why higher education scholars like to compare them. Meanwhile, Yabing Liu and Elaine Ow Yong provide reflections on the QA practices in Hong Kong and Singapore. Finally, Anatoly Oleksiyenko discusses agential dilemmas in the quality assurance practices in higher education.
***
Are Quality Assurance Agencies Ready to Respond to New Trends with Innovative Practices in Higher Education?
Angela Yung Chi Hou
Since the 2000s, as the role of higher education has expanded, institutions have faced increasing pressure to demonstrate accountability, provide value for money, and maintain relevance in both global and local contexts (Harvey, 2018; Kaiser et al., 2022). Currently, the quality of higher education institutions is monitored within the national regulatory framework, and governments in many contexts play a vital role in measuring the performance of HEIs through external quality assurance organizations (Martin & Stella, 2007; Karakhanyan & Stensaker, 2020). Following the national agenda, External Quality Assurance Agencies (EQAA) were also commissioned to develop external QA schemes and review standards that “stipulate IQA mechanisms in the regulatory framework to ensure the quality of local HEIs and programmes” (Kaiser et al., 2022, p. 399). In this context, however, Harvey and Newton (2007) expressed concern that an increasing tension between accountability and improvement would “de-motivate staff who are already involved in innovation and quality initiatives” (p. 231). In other words, it is being debated whether EQAA are able to respond to emerging global trends in higher education by applying more flexible and innovative practices.
The 2020 pandemic significantly impacted higher education, bringing greater scrutiny to the quality of new providers and non-traditional education formats. This shift emphasized aspects such as distance learning, virtual internationalization, short-term learning programs, the third mission of universities, social impact, and sustainability (Mok et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2022). On one hand, an ongoing debate analyzes whether these new learning models can uphold educational quality; on the other hand, the efficiency and relevance of existing quality assurance systems become a new global concern in the era of the post-pandemic. In response to the changing higher education landscape in the post-pandemic era, in 2022, the INQAAHE (International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies) published the new guidelines titled International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (ISGs) with three new QA modules about cross-border education, short learning programs, and distance education (INQAAHE, 2022). The INQAAHE’s new guidelines and standards aim to facilitate the EQAAs to develop innovative paths to quality higher education and to build a sustainable society.
Quality assurance is a monitoring system that facilitates a continuous self-improvement of higher education institutions while ensuring accountability. Given that EQAAs are regarded as a quality gatekeeper in higher education, they have to demonstrate their creditability and accountability to gain public confidence (Ewell, 2007; Hou et al., 2015). Moreover, EQAAs must demonstrate their efficiency, relevance, and transformative power, especially in interactions with varying stakeholder engagement. To achieve expected consequences and address varying stakeholders’ needs, in the midst of QA transition and transformation, EQAAs are expected to foster a holistic quality assurance framework that balances national agendas and global development. Nevertheless, international networks and governments should not be excluded as part of this underpinned process. To conclude, given that quality assurance is not merely a passing fad but a remarkably successful management system (Westerheijden et al., 2014), a sustainable and effective QA system is underpinned by the transformative role of external quality assurance agencies (EQAAs), which provide a critical mechanism for securing relevance and accountability in higher education. /p>
Global Rankings versus Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Yusuf Oldac
Discussions about the differences between global rankings and quality assurance are always interesting for higher education scholars, as was the case in our discussions with Prof Hou about her recent collaborative publication (Hou et al., 2024). There are several important differences between the two that can be highlighted. For example, one focuses more on processes (quality assurance), while the other focuses more on outcomes (rankings). Also, teaching, learning, and governance matters have always been more in focus for Quality Assurance (QA) agencies than for global rankings, which are more interested in research outputs (though not exclusively). These could mean that when looked from students' perspectives, who have study experience as their direct relationship with universities, quality assurance could be more relevant. Yet, students still make their higher education choices based on rankings rather than quality assurance reports (e.g., Dearden et al., 2019; Hazelkorn, 2015). What could possibly be the reasons behind this?
There could be many reasons behind this. One explanation is that QA agencies are not as good at publicising their results to a broader audience as ranking companies are. QA agencies may not be as dynamic as the ranking companies, which have to ensure that more people see their results to stay relevant and keep financial sustainability. By contrast, QA agencies are sometimes supported top-down by governments and meso or macro-level institutions (Federkiel, 2008). Hence, they may not feel the need to explain their findings to a larger audience, and as a result, students may be unaware of these insights.
Further, long QA reports are not as attractive as short, quantified rankings tables (alas, at the expense of depth). QA assurance reports provide qualitative, in-depth descriptions of the processes in higher education institutions and recommendations for improvement. This is not as easy to digest as the global ranking tables, which provide overly simplified ‘competition results’ style tables.
The nature of rankings also gives global rankers an advantage. When positional competition is involved in any comparison, human beings have the inherent motivation to ‘be’ (or at least to ‘look’) better than others. This situation significantly influences students' choices, as they aim to maximise their prestige (see Hazelkorn, 2015). After all, a degree from a higher-ranked institution in an overly simple, quantified ranking table may seem more tempting to prospective students. In contrast, prospective students cannot compare themselves to others through lengthy reports that summarise the strengths and weaknesses of higher education institutions, which are primarily found in QA agency reports.
This section reflected on the differences, similarities, and strengths of rankings agencies versus quality assurance agencies in higher education, recognising that these two operate in different realities. Their existence in universities is not mutually exclusive. Even though they both claim to evaluate universities, they serve different purposes and focus on different aspects of higher education institutions (Federkeil, 2008). This situation means they will both continue to co-exist, even if this is at the expense of academics and staff workloads in filling out forms, preparing data for them, and preparing lists of participants for ranking company surveys.
From Accountability to Autonomy? Rethinking the Role of EQAAs in Research Quality under Hong Kong’s Policy-Driven Higher Education System
Yabing Liu
The article “How do Quality Assurance Agencies in Asia Measure Higher Education? Exploring Approaches, Emerging Standards, and Challenges” by Hou et al. (2024) offers a comprehensive overview of how Asian external quality assurance agencies (EQAAs) negotiate the interplay between global accountability pressures, national policy agendas, and emerging demands in higher education. While the study focuses on standards such as teaching, employability, and digitalization, one aspect that particularly resonated with me is the broader implication of quality assurance (QA) for research governance in neoliberal systems. As someone researching doctoral education and academic identity in Hong Kong, I found the discussion highly relevant for understanding the structural forces shaping individual scholars’ academic identity during the everyday academic life.
Hong Kong’s QA landscape reflects many regional patterns identified in the article: a strong emphasis on accountability, transparency, and performance-driven evaluation (Hou et al., 2024). Much like the Asian EQAAs surveyed, Hong Kong institutions operate under an audit culture where “quality” tends to be equated with measurable outputs. Although the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) plays a formal role in external QA, research quality is primarily governed by state-level mechanisms such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and competitive funding schemes administered by the Research Grants Council (RGC) (Fearnside & Chung, 2017). These mechanisms embody what Hou et al. (2024) describe as a shift toward standard-based QA, prioritizing quantifiable indicators, citation metrics, and “international competitiveness,” often at the expense of contextual and mission-driven interpretations of quality.
What this raises for me is the question: What is the role of EQAAs in Hong Kong’s research environment when national policy imperatives dominate the definition of quality? The article suggests that across Asia, EQAAs operate in a complex space between state control and global standards, often struggling to mediate between diverse stakeholder expectations. In Hong Kong, however, QA for research appears less mediated and more centralized, with the government and UGC setting the evaluative agenda. This creates a potential blind spot—while universities optimize for performance metrics, there is limited room for EQAAs to advocate for broader notions of academic value such as interdisciplinarity, community engagement, or social impact.
Connecting this to my research on Mainland Chinese Doctoral Students (MCDS) in Hong Kong, the implications are profound. Doctoral students are situated within a research ecosystem heavily regulated by QA logics. Their identity formation—how they understand “success,” “good research,” or “being an academic”—is shaped by this environment. Supervisors, too, navigate institutional pressures tied to research outputs, funding expectations, and international rankings. For many MCDS, academic identity formation becomes entangled with audit culture: publishing for evaluation cycles, aligning research topics with funding trends, and internalizing productivity norms (Horta & Li, 2022). Hou et al. (2024)’s analysis helped me reflect on how QA systems indirectly discipline doctoral learning trajectories, narrowing the space for experimentation, agency, and self-formation.
At the same time, the study’s discussion on emerging standards such as digitalization, equity, and social impact offers an opportunity to rethink Hong Kong’s QA approach. If EQAAs embrace more holistic frameworks, research quality could be understood not only as performance but also as relevance, responsiveness, and ethical engagement—dimensions that matter fundamentally to the doctoral experience and to the future academic workforce.
Ultimately, this reading group deepened my awareness of how QA structures are not merely procedural systems but part of the larger ecology of academic identity production. For Hong Kong to sustain a vibrant research culture, there must be ongoing reflection on how QA frameworks can balance accountability with creativity, support, and the developmental needs of emerging scholars.
Explore the Logic of Higher Education Quality Assurance in Singapore
Elaine Ow Yong
Quality Assurance: A Government-Led Structure
Singapore’s higher education quality assurance (QA) operates under the Ministry of Education (MOE), with the Higher Education Operations Division (HEOD) responsible for conducting audits with the assistance of external review panels. Universities retain operational autonomy, but their development is guided by MOE’s direction. Institutions are required to conduct periodic benchmarking exercises in accordance with MOE stipulations. This framework has produced consistent standards, minimal inter-institutional disparities, and strong academic outcomes, features emphasised in Tharman’s 2004 speech. Lo (2014) argues that QA in Singapore has not been neutral technical practice: it has been instrumental in (re)configuring the higher education landscape to fit shifting state priorities. This political configuration has direct implications for QA. External quality assurance (EQA) remains structurally difficult because the system is built to validate itself. Singaporean’s common saying “ownself check ownself” captures this logic: most QA processes are conducted internally. Internal evaluation is not problematic on its own, but without credible external oversight the system develops blind spots.
Economic Indicators and Outcome-Based Quality Assurance
Singapore’s QA system is also deeply tied to its economic agenda. Singapore has consistently communicated that the role of education is to serve economic growth and economic purposes (Mok, 2000). Under such principles, QA is structured around tangible indicators, such as graduate employability, relevance to labour market needs, and contribution to national competitiveness. This approach aligns with Singapore’s long-standing strategy of treating higher education as an economic instrument. Lo (2014) notes that universities are expected to supply a steady stream of “quality graduates” to sustain growth. Employment surveys from public universities consistently reported strong employment outcomes in the past decades. However, in 2024 and 2025, fresh graduate unemployment reached historical high levels. 4,300 and 6,000 fresh graduates, out of roughly 18,000 remained unemployed (MOM, 2025). Global economic pressures matter, but the scale of the shift raises deeper concerns. When a QA system relies heavily on tangible and quantifiable indicators, its vulnerabilities become clear the moment those indicators fail to behave as expected.
Justification of Government-Led QA Structure
State-led quality assurance in Singapore’s higher education becomes more comprehensible when viewed through the country’s structural realities. Upon independence in 1965, Singapore faced an acute lack of natural resources and domestic markets. As Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew famously put it, “Singapore's only natural resources are its people.” Under this resource-as-people logic, three features shape the governing system: A geopolitical imperative to remain ahead of others, a small state cannot afford complacency. A demographic constraint that requires maximising every individual’s potential, wastage is unaffordable. A national philosophy that legitimises stringent merit-based selection, elite formation is not only rationalised but required.
The government-led QA system thus evolved as a structural necessity. Its task was to produce reliable, disciplined graduates capable of executing national strategies. Graduates are shaped to be competent employees and compliant citizens, traits that are essential for Singapore’s economic growth. However, the question today is not whether these policies are normatively right or wrong. Rather, within such a tightly governed configuration, citizens possess limited room for genuine educational choice. Singapore’s higher education is no longer a neutral arena of individual competition; it is embedded in a broader state strategy where survival, not autonomy, is the overriding priority.
Quality Assurance Amid Agential Dilemmas in Higher Education
Anatoly Oleksyenko
In an era of degree mills and fake universities, quality assurance has become an important process for screening out the dubious constructs created by entrepreneurial profit-seekers of higher education (Eaton et al. 2023). This importance remains undiminished in light of these entrepreneurs often seeking to manipulate quality inspections to create a façade of legitimacy (Garwe, 2020). Masterfully regulated by governments and their electorates, quality assurance becomes vital in preventing abuse and corruption within systems where university autonomy is undermined by corporate elites serving their own interests (Martin, 2016; Mattar, 2022).
Unfortunately, the well-intended oversight tends to increase bureaucracy and empower administrators to burden teachers and students with paperwork, diminishing the time they have to devote to the intellectual endeavours that underpin the quality of work expected of them (Cardoso et al. 2019; Dourgkounas, 2025). The problem intensifies with the expansion of mass higher education threatening to undermine the quality aspirations of both stakeholders: universities, which may entertain various revenue-generating schemes that distort perceptions of quality, and governments, which seek to maintain control while encouraging universities to survive through entrepreneurial schemes.
Beyond the politics, quality assurance becomes more meaningful when students and their households are vigilant about the providers' intentions and implementation processes (Merebishvili et al. 2017; Wood & Su, 2019). Do universities and their programs provide well-designed and well-equipped educational experiences that empower learners and graduates for a holistic life? Do they shape both the attitudinal and technical capacities necessary for adaptation in ever-changing societies and economies? The questions might be numerous. Can students and their parents genuinely ask these questions and get reliable information and assurances from universities? Do they have sufficient voice and influence mechanisms to control the quality of teaching and learning at their chosen universities and colleges? In the increasingly complex and politicized landscape of higher education, agency-related concerns should be given priority and the utmost attention.
As is well-known, institutions differ in their approaches to monitoring participation at secondary and tertiary levels. Merely maintaining full rosters makes little sense when students are physically present in overcrowded lecture halls, but mentally disengaged, lost in social media channels. Chasing these students through digital tunnels may be entertaining for quality assurers but imprudent for cultivating deep engagement with the intellectual knowledge needed to develop the skills necessary for high-level knowledge production and innovation – skills that competitive economies seek. Turning classes into laboratories of fun and entertainment can help keep students present, and possibly boost evaluation scores for teachers and courses – alas, this approach does not necessarily prepare graduates to successfully deal with the boredom and labor-intensive realities of their future workplaces.
In highly-reputed universities, quality assurance is often presumed to be managed by the professors themselves. Indeed, prestige drives awareness of knowledge production to be judged by top competitors worldwide. Professors are expected to admit, teach and graduate not only consumers of such knowledge, but also co-producers and promoters of the university’s prestige – something in which intellectually ambitious students are interested. These universities thus have scores of fully engaged stakeholders whose capital and sustainability of reputation depend on recruiting and retaining the best scholars and students. Failing to maintain high standards in teaching and research is often costly and can be increasingly noticeable in global rankings and journal metrics. Recognition from peers at the top universities in various elite leagues often renders quality assurance less bureaucratic and more collegial (unless a self-defeating manager takes over these collegial processes, usually with a self-defeating agenda and poor outcomes).
In the expansive realm of profit-making higher education, which global neoliberalism has been encouraging and nurturing over the past two decades, quality assurance is an entirely different matter. Rooted in perceptions derived from non-academic businesses and governmental audit offices, quality assurance in some countries has become a form of technocratic entertainment, focused on sophisticated tables and graphs that are supposed to improve teaching and learning. However, the technocratic data-driven reports and recommendations often have little relevance to the lived experiences of students and teachers, whose workloads are increasing, processing capacities are diminishing, and motivations are changing in response to societal and educational disruptions and crises. As long as these teachers and students are able to separate the wheat from the chaff amid these disparate interventions, the quality of higher education can still be assured. At the same time, the measurements will continue to bother many stakeholders and thus deserve a deeper investigation, as Young et al (2025) argue in their recent publication.
***
For scholars and practitioners in the field of higher education, the reflections in this forum paper highlight the tension between standardised quality assurance frameworks and the diverse realities of higher education institutions, presenting accountability metrics as an ongoing balance for academic practice. The challenge lies in reconciling quantitative demands, the need for transparency and also the increased workload of academics with the core mission of higher learning. Scholars are invited to engage deeply with these vital dilemmas, ensuring that necessary balances are struck for the higher education sector to thrive effectively in Asia but also in a global landscape.
References
Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2019). Internal quality assurance: a new culture or added bureaucracy?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 249-262.
Dearden, J. A., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. L. (2019). Strategic manipulation of university rankings, the prestige effect, and student university choice. Journal of marketing research, 56(4), 691-707.Dourgkounas, G. (2025). Bureaucracy and control. The case of quality assurance. Academia, (39-40), 94-111.
Eaton, S.E., Carmichael, J.J., Pethrick, H. (eds) (2023). Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education. Ethics and Integrity in Educational Contexts, vol 5. Springer, Cham.
Ewell, P. (2007). The ‘quality game’: external review and institutional reaction over three decades in the UNITED STATES. In D.F. Westerheijden et al. (eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 119–153). Springer
Fearnside, R., & Chung, K. (2017). Cross-border quality assurance: case study of Hong Kong and Macao. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 11(2), 81-94.
Garwe, E. C. (2019). Quality assurance agencies: Creating a conducive environment for academic integrity. South African Journal of Science, 115(11-12), 1-7.
Harvey, L. & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming quality evaluation: moving on. In D.F. Westerheijden et al. (eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 225–245). Springer.
Harvey, L. (2018). Lesson Learned from Two Decades of Quality in Higher Education. In E. Hazelkorn, H. Coates, and A. C. McCormick, Research Handbook on Quality, Performance and Accountability in Higher Education, edited by (pp. 15–29).
Hazelkorn, E. (2015). The Effect of Rankings on Student Choice and Institutional Selection. In Access and Expansion Post-Massification (pp. 107-128). Routledge.
Horta, H., & Li, H. (2022). Nothing but publishing: the overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2131764
Hou, A. Y. C., Hill, C., Ince, M., Lin, F. Y, Chen, E. (2022). Preliminary exploration of crisis management approach on higher education and quality assurance in Taiwan under COVID-19 pandemic: relevance to other contexts? Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15(3), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.1919390
Hou, A. Y. C., Ince, M., Tasi, S. & Chiang, C. L. (2015). Quality Assurance of Quality Assurance Agencies from an Asian Perspective: Regulation, Autonomy and Accountability. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9358-9
Hou, A. Y. C., Su, E. H. C., Zhou, K. Z. W., Tao, C. H. Y., Lin, A. F. Y., Chen, Y., & Hill, C. (2024). How do quality assurance agencies in Asia measure higher education? Exploring approaches, emerging standards, and challenges. Higher Education Policy, 1-23.
Kaiser, F., Melo, A. I., & Hou, A. Y. C. (2022). Are quality assurance and rankings useful tools to measure ‘new’ policy issues in higher education? The practices in Europe and Asia. European Journal of Higher Education, 12(1), 391-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2094816
Karakhanyan, S. & Stensaker, B. (2020) ’The landscape, the players and developmental trends’, in S. Karakhanyan and B. Stensaker (eds.) Global trends in higher education quality assurance: Challenges and opportunities in internal and external quality assurance (pp. 11-36). Brill: Amsterdam.
Lo, W. Y. W. (2014). Think global, think local: The changing landscape of higher education and the role of quality assurance in Singapore. Policy & Society, 33(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.09.002
Martin, M. (2016). External quality assurance in higher education: how can it address corruption and other malpractices?. Quality in Higher Education, 22(1), 49-63.
Martin, M., & Stella, A. (2007). External quality assurance in higher education: Making choices. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 85. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO. 7-9 rue Eugene-Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France
Mattar, M. Y. (2022). Combating academic corruption and enhancing academic integrity through international accreditation standards: The model of Qatar University. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(2), 119-146.
Merabishvili, N., Tsereteli, M., & Bellon, E. M. E. (2017). Should the students be engaged in the higher education quality assurance?(Perspectives of students and quality assurance department). The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 7, 52-62.
Mok, K. H. (2000). Impact of globalization: A study of quality assurance systems of higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparative Education Review, 44(2), 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1086/447601
Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., Ke, G., & Cheung, J. O. W. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on international higher education and student mobility: Student perspectives from mainland China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research, 105, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101718
Tharman, S. (2004). To light a fire: Enabling teachers, nurturing students. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, 29 September.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., Maria J. Rosa, & Anne Corbett, A. (2014). Next Generations, Catwalks, Random Walks and Arms Races: Conceptualizing the Development of Quality Assurance Schemes. European Journal of Education, 49 (3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12071.
Wood, M., & Su, F. (2019). Parents as “stakeholders” and their conceptions of teaching excellence in English higher education. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 21(2), 99-111.
Young, G., Huijser, H., Mørcke, A. M.. & Serbati, A. (2025) Measurement and transformation: what, how, and why we measure in academic development research. International Journal for Academic Development, 30:4, 451-459, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2025.2577496