How can one create a culture for quality enhancement?

Abstract

This report is the final result of the project ʹHow can one create a culture for quality enhancement?ʹ, commissioned by NOKUT, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education, in the autumn of 2015. The project sought to increase the knowledge base about possible measures to increase the quality of education at a national, institutional and programme level, with a specific emphasis on creating quality cultures. The work was carried out by the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, the Netherlands and the Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University, Belgium.

Full text

How Can One Create a Culture for Quality Enhancement?
Final Report
October 2016
Andrea Kottmann
Jeroen Huisman
Lisa Brockerhoff
Leon Cremonini
Jelle Mampaey

2

3
CONTENTS
Preface .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1. Aim and research questions ................................................................................................................ 10
1.2. Structure of the report ........................................................................................................................ 11
2. Research design: methods and data ............................................................................................................ 12
2.1. Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 12
2.2. Case studies ......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3. Case selection ...................................................................................................................................... 12
3. Defining quality culture ................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1. Different notions of quality culture ..................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Reflection ............................................................................................................................................. 15
4. Policies and instruments for establishing or enhancing quality cultures ..................................................... 17
4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2. National policies .................................................................................................................................. 17
4.3. Institutional policies and instruments ................................................................................................. 18
5. Quality Cultures in practice .......................................................................................................................... 24
5.1. Good practices at organisational/institutional level ........................................................................... 24
6. What makes quality cultures work? ............................................................................................................. 27
6.1. Important factors for establishing quality cultures at the individual level .......................................... 27
6.2. Important factors for establishing quality cultures at the organisational level .................................. 31
6.3. Reflection ............................................................................................................................................. 34
7. Case studies .................................................................................................................................................. 35
7.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 35
7.2. Framework ........................................................................................................................................... 35
7.3. Quality Culture ..................................................................................................................................... 35
7.4. Formal structure and organisational factors ....................................................................................... 36
7.5. Individual factors ................................................................................................................................. 36
8. CETLT – Birmingham City University ............................................................................................................ 38
8.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 38
8.2. How CELT promotes quality culture in teaching and learning............................................................. 39
8.3. Factors of importance of the quality culture ....................................................................................... 44
8.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 45
9. Genombrottet and the Pedagogical Academy – The academic development unit at the Faculty of
Engineering at Lund University ............................................................................................................................. 47
9.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 47
9.2. Quality culture ..................................................................................................................................... 50

4
9.3. Factors of importance for a quality culture ......................................................................................... 51
9.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 53
10. EDLAB – University of Maastricht ............................................................................................................ 55
10.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 55
10.2. Quality culture ..................................................................................................................................... 57
10.3. Factors of importance of the quality culture ....................................................................................... 58
10.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 61
11. bioCEED, Norway ..................................................................................................................................... 62
11.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 62
11.2. Introduction to bioCEED ...................................................................................................................... 63
11.3. How bioCEED promotes quality culture in teaching and learning ....................................................... 63
11.4. bioCEEDʹs perspective on ʹquality cultureʹ .......................................................................................... 65
11.5. Factors of importance of the quality culture ....................................................................................... 66
11.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 68
12. Center for Teaching Quality Development (ZfQ) – University of Potsdam .............................................. 69
12.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 69
12.2. Structural implementation of quality work at the University of Potsdam .......................................... 72
12.3. Quality culture ..................................................................................................................................... 75
12.4. Factors of importance of the quality culture ....................................................................................... 76
12.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 78
13. Comparing the cases ................................................................................................................................ 80
13.1. Form .................................................................................................................................................... 80
13.2. What quality cultures were found? ..................................................................................................... 80
13.3. Differences in quality policies .............................................................................................................. 82
13.4. CTLs Policies in pratice ......................................................................................................................... 83
13.5. What makes approaches in enhancing quality cultures successful? What are hindrances?............... 84
14. Conclusions/Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 87
14.1. Enhancing quality cultures in teaching and learning: a new research and policy topic ..................... 87
14.2. Establishing a baseline of shared values defining high quality teaching and learning is essential to
enhancing quality cultures at higher education institutions ............................................................................ 87
14.3. Motivation ........................................................................................................................................... 88
14.4. Leadership ........................................................................................................................................... 89
14.5. Participation in professional development ......................................................................................... 89
14.6. Data-driven enhancement ................................................................................................................... 90
14.7. Closing reflection ................................................................................................................................. 91
15. References ............................................................................................................................................... 92

5
PREFACE
This report is the final result of the project ʹHow can one create a culture for quality enhancement?ʹ,
commissioned by NOKUT, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education, in the autumn of 2015. The
project sought to increase the knowledge base about possible measures to increase the quality of education at
a national, institutional and programme level, with a specific emphasis on creating quality cultures. The work
was carried out by the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, the Netherlands
and the Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University, Belgium. The project was
coordinated by Andrea Kottmann (CHEPS) and prof. Jeroen Huisman (CHEGG).
The authors of the report would like to thank NOKUTʹs staff members Ole-Jacob Skodvin, Ingvild Andersen
Helseth, Helen Bråten and Marie-Louise Damen for their helpful feedback on intermediate reports and for the
pleasant cooperation.
A special thank you goes out to the staff and interview partners at the institutions studied. Without their support
and willingness to answer our questions this study would not have been possible.

6

7
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background of the study
This report is the result of the project ʹHow can one create a culture for quality enhancement?ʹ, commissioned
by NOKUT, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education. The work was carried out by the Center
for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, the Netherlands and the Centre for Higher
Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University, Belgium. The project sought to increase the knowledge
base about quality cultures in teaching and learning, possible measures to increase the quality of higher
education at national, institutional and programme level, with a specific emphasis on creating and enhancing
quality cultures.
Questions of ensuring quality culture are obviously not new, but have become more salient in recent times,
particularly the question of how to manage such cultures. In a search for a proper point of departure, EUA´s
(2006) definition of quality culture was chosen. It defines quality culture as the organisational culture that intends
to enhance quality permanently and is characterised by two distinct elements: a cultural/psychological element
of shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitment towards quality and a structural/managerial element
with defined processes that enhance quality and aim at coordinating individual efforts.
Key lessons
From our study the following key lessons can be drawn:
- Establishing a baseline of shared values that defines high quality teaching and learning is important to
successfully implement further quality work or quality management and to enhance quality cultures.
- The motivation of academic staff to engage in quality work can be triggered by framing teaching and
learning activities as having similar traits as research activities. Integrating teaching achievements in
career schemes institutionalises the importance of teaching and learning. Offering resources, in
particular time, to staff to engage more strongly in teaching and learning activities gives impetus to
quality enhancement.
- Effective leaders are those who commit themselves to implementing changes with careful timing and
convincing narratives. A blended leadership style – bottom-up collegial initiatives combined with a
managerial vision – is particularly relevant.
- Staff are more strongly motivated to engage in professional development if goal conflicts (e.g. time
constraints due to prioritizing research over teaching) are prevented and if professional training is
embedded in communication structures that allow teachers to discuss and exchange their experiences.
Creating a quality culture may be a challenge, the same goes for sustaining it. Institutionalising regular
reporting and reflecting on achievements are important mechanisms. Formal and institutional
accreditation may support sustainability, but sufficient attention must be paid to continuing the
involvement and ownership of academics.
How did we arrive at these lessons?
The general project question was broken down in two sub-questions. The first sub-question was: Quality
(enhancement) cultures: what do we know? A literature study was carried out to explore questions related to
the concept of quality culture, national policies and organisational strategies to enhance quality cultures in
teaching and learning, and realised and perceived effects of quality culture practices at the institutional level.
There was a limited amount of literature pointing at drivers and inhibitors of quality culture. It should be borne
in mind that much of the research so far was small-scale and carried out in specific contexts, which puts limits to
the generalisability. Also, most studies were not explicit about the potential outcomes of enhancing quality
cultures and the drivers/inhibitors affecting these outcomes but not others.

8
That said, the literature pointed at the following factors of influence at the individual level:
- Perceptions, values and beliefs of individual teachers;
- Teachers´ motivational factors (including potential goal conflicts);
- Professional development activities related to teaching and learning;
- Leadership styles.
At the organisational level, the literature review revealed the following factors:
- Support from institutional leadership;
- Communication;
- Data driven reflection of enhancement activities;
- Design of enhancement instruments;
- Decision-making structures;
- Provision of sufficient resources/staff development.
The second sub-question was: What are the perceptions and experiences of practitioners working in
communities to promote or enhance quality culture? With respect to communities, the focus was on Centres of
Teaching and Learning (CTLs), representing a broad set of organisational initiatives that intend to enhance quality
(cultures). Five case studies from five countries were selected:
- Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CELT), Birmingham City University, United Kingdom;
- bioCEED, Centre of Excellence in Biology Education, Norway;
- Genombrottet, The Academic Development Unit at the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden;
- EDLAB, Maastricht University, the Netherlands; and
- the Zentrum für Qualitätsentwicklung in Studium und Lehre (ZfQ, Center for Teaching Quality
Development), University of Potsdam, Germany.
For these case studies, documents were analyzed and interviews and focus groups – with CTL leaders, quality
and teaching and learning experts and practitioners – conducted. The case studies intend to describe and analyze
the interplay between the elements that build a quality culture.
The case studies revealed four generic factors that play a role for (creating a) quality culture and quality
enhancement:
- Leadership: Here commitment of leaders was emphasised, as well as “walking the talk”. Furthermore
blended leadership, combining managerial and academic values in teaching and learning, was deemed
important, and also addressing the collective (not solely targeting individual teachers).
- The provision of resources: It seemed imperative to create time and space for academics. In other
words, money may not be the key issue, but reducing workloads and offering expertise seem to be key.
- Communication: This is linked to leadership, but also goes beyond it. It relates to creating a shared
language and a baseline of shared values defining high quality teaching to talk about learning and
teaching and to share good practices. Furthermore emphasising that teaching is something that can be
learned appeared to be helpful.
- Recognition of teaching and learning activities. With respect to the recognition of teaching and learning
activities, it appears to be helpful to create mechanisms that institutionalise attention to teaching and
learning (vis-à-vis research). Valuable instruments are: teaching awards, creating career paths,
institutionalising leadership roles and making career progress on teaching and learning achievements.

9
Closing comment
It should be emphasised again that the findings – and therefore also the key lessons – need to be qualified in
light of the limited amount of research, the small scale of some of the studies, the different conceptualisations
of quality (culture) and enhancement, the different contextualisations and furthermore differences in foci of the
outcomes (e.g. what counts as a relevant outcome: learning outcomes, student achievements, student
satisfaction or staff satisfaction?). It should also be stressed that the factors identified in the case studies are
based on the experiences and perceptions of the interviewees. They obviously build on their context-dependent
expertise and experiences. This puts limitations to the generalizability of the findings.

10
1.1. AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
ʹResearchers have addressed quality culture(s) in teaching and learning in higher education both in the academic
and practitioners´ literatures. Several studies have defined or deconstructed the concept of quality cultures
(Harvey, 2009; Harvey and Stensaker, 2008; SHEEC, 2010; Vlasceanu et al, 2004; Ehlers, 2009). Shared values,
institutional commitment to quality, management of quality and monitoring of quality are key elements of
quality cultures mentioned by Vlasceanu et al (2004). Ehlers (2010) argues quality culture to be a new approach
to quality assurance, which replaces control- and compliance-oriented patterns. Key elements are change,
development and innovation of quality as well as enabling the different groups of stakeholders to engage in
issues of quality. Harvey (2009) and Harvey and Stensaker (2008) suggest that quality culture has been existing
in academic communities for a long time, rather than being a ʹnewʹ thing that needs to be implemented by
managers.
Recent analyses have specifically looked into the management of quality cultures (Kleijnen et al, 2011; Kleijnen,
2012; Berings et al, 2011, Sattler et al, 2013). For example, in a study of the Dutch universities of applied science,
Kleijnen et al (2012) showed that academic programmes are more efficient when systematic quality assurance
procedures were embedded in clear communication structures and open value systems allowing for quality
learning rather than for quality control.
Whereas the literature provides a number of quality cultures concepts not much is known how these cultures
can or should be established and how quality can be enhanced and sustained. Therefore, the aim of the project
ʹHow can one create a culture for quality enhancement?ʹ is to map current knowledge about measures working
well and stimulating quality development in higher education at a national, institutional, and study programme
level (through examples of good practice).
The general question has been broken down in two sub-questions. The first sub-question is Quality
(enhancement) cultures: what do we know? By carrying out a literature review, the following questions were
addressed: What is meant by the concept of quality culture? What policies and instruments have been developed
by national policy makers and institutional leadership to enhance quality cultures in teaching and learning? How
do quality cultures work in practice? And what – according to the literature – are realised and perceived effects
of quality culture practices at the institutional level?
The particular perspective taken for analysing the literature is the change from quality control to quality care
(Ehlers, 2009). So far, there has only been little research on the enhancement of quality cultures (see also
Bendermacher et al, 2016). Research has focused more strongly on the implementation of internal and external
quality assurance or management. Therefore, in their review on studies on quality management in higher
education Bendermacher et al (2016, p. 4) focus on ʹinstitutional arrangements for assuring, supporting,
developing and enhancing, and monitoring the quality of teaching and learningʹ (see also Council of Higher
Education, 2004, p. 28). This perspective is promising as the authors were able to design a framework or
configuration of how quality cultures are currently constituted in higher education (ibid., p. 13). They argue that
quality cultures develop from the interplay of organizational context, structures and processes and outcomes.
The second sub-question is Quality (enhancement) cultures: what are the experiences and perceptions? This
question is geared towards current quality culture practices and focuses on experiences and perceptions of those
working in communities to promote or enhance teaching and learning quality. Obviously, such communities exist
in many different forms and structures. This project zooms in on structured initiatives that can be subsumed
under the term ʹCentre for Teaching and Learningʹ (CTL)
1
. To answer the second sub-question, five case studies
have been conducted. Guiding questions included, inter alia:
- How do CTLs in higher education work to create a culture for quality enhancement?,
- What factors impede or further success in enhancing quality cultures according to CTL
practitioners?,
- What role do CTLs see for leadership, training and communication in enhancing quality cultures?,
- What do the CTLs perceive to be best practices and why?
1
It is important to stress we are generally interested in initiatives that intend to enhance quality (cultures), not necessarily initiatives focusing
only on stimulating excellence in teaching and learning, neither solely centres that already have proven to be excellent (see also chapter 4).

11
1.2. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Chapter 2 discusses the research design. Chapters 3 to 6 will provide answers to the first sub-question (what do
we already know?). Different concepts and definitions of quality cultures will be presented in chapter 3; chapter 4
will address main policies/instruments intending to enhance quality (cultures) that were found in the literature;
chapter 5 offers a couple of examples of research suggesting good practices of quality cultures in teaching and
learning; chapter 6 presents a literature review of factors that contribute to the success – defined in different
ways – of quality cultures, both at the individual and organisational levels. In chapters 7 to 13, the five case
studies are introduced, presented and compared. The final chapter (chapter 14), draws conclusions and
reflections.

12
2. RESEARCH DESIGN: METHODS AND DATA
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
The study used two main tools to answer the research questions. For the first sub -question, the main method
was a literature review. To search for relevant literature, a number of databases have been used, most
importantly Google scholar, Web of Science and Scopus. Also national and discipline-specific databases have
been explored. Among these were for example the German Fachportal-paedagogik.de as well as other national
databases. Moreover, references from relevant articles were used for further searches. Different types of
literature, namely journal articles, monographs, grey literature and internet documents were included. Search
strings were in different languages, besides English, these were mainly German and Dutch. Central keywords
used were: quality culture, organizational culture, higher education, instruments, enhancement, communication,
leadership, Qualitätspakt Lehre, Anreize, Exzellenz, Centre for/of excellence in teaching and learning,
Qualitätskultur, quality management, quality control, and improvement. In terms of geographical coverage, the
search focused on the countries included in the study but also on the United States and Australia. Although the
search focused on the most recent literature, also earlier literature (prior to 2005) provided useful insights. Thus,
the search was not limited to a certain time period.
2.2. CASE STUDIES
For the second sub-question, we used the case study method. By means of document analyses such as
institutional policy papers, interviews and focus groups – with CTL leaders, quality and teaching and learning
experts and disciplinary practitioners – data has been gathered on elements of quality culture in order to describe
and analyse the interplay between the elements that build a quality culture. This allowed to map and compare
quality cultures from different systems. It was envisaged to select 10-15 persons per case study (CTL) for
interviews and participation in focus groups. In the preparation for the visits, interview protocols were
developed. Protocols were crafted in a flexible way to allow for addressing local specificities and contexts. Two
different protocols were developed: For CTL staff and for teachers. A slightly adapted version of the latter was
used for the focus groups. The interview guides were structured into different sections with multiple questions
and possible prompts, allowing the researchers to choose the questions applicable for the specific interview. This
allowed to compare the cases and to take into account the specifics of the cases studied.
Additionally, before contacting the different institutions the researchers agreed on an optimal selection of
interview participants and focus groups. Our choice for the combination of interviews and focus groups was
based on trying to make use of insights from key experts in one-on-one interviews and potentially less explicit
insights from experts and practitioners emerging in the interactive setting of a focus group (ultimately,
adaptations had to be made in light of availability of interviewees at the different locations). With regard to
conclusions drawn from the cases it has to be born in mind that differences in data gathering might have biased
these to some extent. However, the case study researchers compared notes after the fieldwork and thought that
a fair amount of saturation was achieved and that the data provides of a rich set of facts, experiences and
expectations.
2.3. CASE SELECTION
The aim with respect to the choice of cases was to rely on a relatively broad set of international experiences,
hence a focus on experiences in five different countries. The initial literature search pointed out that interesting
quality culture, excellence in teaching and learning, and quality enhancement developments were taking place
(or took place) in England, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Within these countries, the research
teams were able to find suitable case studies.

13
The following table provides an overview of the interviews and focus groups conducted in the different case
studies.
TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS BY CASE
Name of the CTL
Interview/
Focus group
Description
bioCEED
Norway
18 interviews
Face-to-face as well as Skype interviews with bioCEED
staff (leadership, work package leaders, teachers and
students) and non-bioCEED staff (teachers)
Genombrottet
Lund
6 interviews
Face-to-face interviews with Genombrottet senior staff
(including head of unit), new staff member and staff
members from the central development unit
Focus group (5 participants)
Teachers strongly connected to the development unit
(all ETP recognised teacher, except for one teacher)
Focus group (4 participants)
Teacher not frequently engaged in activities of
development unit
EDLAB Maastricht
10 interviews
Face-to-face interviews with director and administrative
staff (4), staff liaising with EDLAB on intermediate level
(2), teachers/academic staff at faculty level (4)
ZfQ Potsdam
Focus group (3 participants)
Teachers not participating in training
5 interviews
Face-to-face and telephone interviews with teachers
participating in training/ZfQ activities (3), director of
ZfQ (1), Vice-Rector for teaching and learning (1)
Focus group (3 participants)
Students
Focus group (7 participants)
Staff from ZfQ
Birmingham City
University
Interview
Face-to-face interview with Pro-Vice Chancellor
Focus group (5 participants)
Staff from Centre for Enhancement of Learning and
Teaching
Focus group (4 participants)
Students
Focus group (6 participants)
University academic staff
Focus group (4 participants)
Academic Services (Quality and Transforming the
Curriculum Project)

14
3. DEFINING QUALITY CULTURE
3.1. DIFFERENT NOTIONS OF QUALITY CULTURE
Similar to the notion of quality in higher education (Harvey and Green, 1995), also for quality cultures various
definitions are available. Harvey (2009) states that the term is open to interpretation and needs careful
deconstruction. Harvey and Stensaker (2008) point out that the term actually denotes more than transforming
quality assurance procedures into daily/every day and embedded practice. Quality cultures “reflect the way in
which a group of people … address the issue of quality in their lived, every day, existence.” (Harvey, 2009, p. 3).
From their point of view, defining quality cultures needs to take into account how an individual is involved in
social life. Based on Mary Douglasʹ Grid-Group scheme, including group-control and external rules as major
controls for individual behaviour, four ideal-types of quality cultures are defined:
- Responsive Quality Culture – primarily evaluates its own practice in the light of external quality
requirements and contributes to an improvement agenda;
- Reactive Quality Culture – focused on avoiding external threats (e.g. a negative reputation). A culture
which sees quality as something that is ʹimposedʹ from the outside environment and, thus, focuses on
individual aspects of quality;
- Regenerative Quality Culture – typical of a ʹlearning organisationʹ in which quality consciously is
embedded in daily operations;
- Reproductive Quality Culture – which emphasises the maintenance of the status quo (changes lead to
internal resistance).
With these ideal types Harvey and Stensaker intend to provide a theoretical tool that helps understanding what
kind of quality culture is already existing in an organisation/higher education institution. University leaders
should thus be aware that establishing a quality culture does not necessarily mean bringing a new element into
their institutions. Instead, it is primarily a process of changing an already existing quality culture.
Besides pointing out that quality culture is not a new thing in higher education institutions, the literature also
suggests that the culture of an organisation and its educational quality are not independent from one another.
Quality stems from a broader cultural perspective and culture is an instrument for improving organisational
performance (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008, p. 431ff).
The European University Association (EUA) has formulated the following definition of quality culture: An
organisational culture that intends to enhance quality permanently and is characterised by two distinct elements:
on the one hand, a cultural/psychological element of shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitment
towards quality and on the other hand, a structural/managerial element with defined processes that enhance
quality and aim at coordinating individual efforts (EUA, 2006, p. 10).
This definition suggests (organisational) quality culture (see also: Berings and Grieten, 2012; Bollaert, 2014;
Brown, 1997; Harvey and Stensaker, 2008; Irani et al, 2004; Kuh and Whitt, 1988; Maull et al, 2001; Powell, 1995;
Prajogo and McDermott, 2005) has different dimensions or aspects:
- It includes ʹhardʹ and ʹsoftʹ aspects. Hard aspects are e.g. quality management, strategies, and
processes; ʹsoftʹ aspects are e.g. values, beliefs and commitment;
- It is a specific kind of organisational culture which encompasses shared values and commitment to
quality. Higher education organisational culture is ʹthe collective, mutually shaping pattern of norms,
values, practices, beliefs and assumptions that guide the behaviour of individuals and groups in an
institute for higher education and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning
of events and actions on and off campusʹ, according to Kuh and Whitt (1988, p. 28);
- It is a collective responsibility. It is both a top-down responsibility of management (to put in place
appropriate procedures) and a bottom-up involvement of academic and administrative staff and
students;

15
- It presupposes that quality management strategies and processes and organisational culture are in
tune (see also Irani et al, 2004; Maull et al, 2001; Powell, 1995; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005);
- It is a ʹsocial-constructivistʹ phenomenon shaped by the organisational context and also by the
developmental phase of the quality management process within the organisation (Berings and
Grieten, 2012; Bollaert, 2014; Harvey and Stensaker, 2008)
Bendermacher et al (2016) indicate that quality culture is an organisational culture in which all stakeholders,
internal and external, through critical reflection contribute to the improvement of quality. Hence, it reflects a
shift from control, accountability and regulation, to autonomy, credibility and educational enhancement based
on an institutionʹs experiences, expertise and values.
Ehlers (2009) also addresses the shift in institutional approaches to quality in teaching and learning that move
from regulation and control to enabling or facilitating quality cultures. To achieve positive impacts on the quality
of teaching and learning, Ehlers states that quality management and quality assurance should facilitate quality
literacy as well as organisational learning and development. Additionally, cultural elements already existing in
the organisation have to be integrated. A quality culture in higher education should thus ideally include the
following (Ehlers, 2009, p. 352–353):
- A structural element representing the quality system of the organisation. This can for example be an
existing quality management approach for higher education, the tools and mechanism in place to
assure and enhance the quality of the organisation.
- The enabling factors which represent those factors supporting organisations to incorporate quality
regimes into their culture.
- The quality culture element which represents the manifested artefacts, symbols, and rituals of an
organisation.
- Transversal elements which link different components to each other through participation, trust and
communication.
In keeping with the EUAʹs framework, elements of quality cultures in teaching and learning in higher education
therefore include:
- Structural dimensions (embedded quality management strategies and policies, training and
development, clear responsibilities, communication, implementation mechanisms, and stakeholder
involvement);
- Cultural dimensions (elements that can be found in the already existing quality cultures) and
- Psychological dimensions (quality-supportive leadership, shared values, staff ownership and
commitment and teamwork);
- Leadership, commitment and communication stood out as central binding concepts in the interaction
between elements (i.e. they have both ʹstructural/managerialʹ and ʹcultural/psychologicalʹ aspects).
Based on earlier studies by Quinn (1988) and concepts such as Hofstedeʹs cultural dimensions, Berings (2006)
explained the role of quality culture and its relationship to educational and organisational outcomes as a
balancing act between three pairs of competing values or ʹbipolaritiesʹ. Each bipolarity consists of a value
associated with managerial prisms (innovation, collective orientation and system control) juxtaposed to a value
associated with the traditional academic world (tradition, individual specialization and self-determination). The
challenge for higher education institutions – and especially for their quality management systems – is to find
creative solutions for the three polarities in this model (Berings, 2006).
3.2. REFLECTION
The narrative above demonstrates that quality culture is hard to define because of its multifarious constituents,
the uniqueness of each institution’s organisational culture and various structural/managerial efforts to simulate
shared values and beliefs, but also because of its ʹtaken-for-grantedʹ connotation (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008).

16
At the same time, the question of ensuring quality culture has become more salient because of the decrease in
public funding for higher education at a time when governments and societies are demanding more
accountability.
An important reflection is that much of the scholarship exploring quality in higher education favours a technical-
rational approach which deems rationality the primary (or even sole) justification for quality-related practices in
institutions. This approach focuses on structural and formal aspects of an organisation, such as the distribution
of roles and responsibilities. However, alternative perspectives (e.g. political and symbolic) have emerged as well
(Ramirez 2013). Political perspectives look at organisations as collections of coalitions that hold different
interests and may adhere to diverging agendas. Consequently, actors compete for scarce resources and for
maximising their decision-making role within the organisation (see also Brennan and Shah 2000). Symbolic
perspectives emphasise the importance of culture, symbols, rituals and analogies in organisational processes
(Ramirez 2013). From these perspectives, managing quality (cultures) is to a large extent non-rational and ridden
with interest and power struggles.

17
4. POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING OR ENHANCING QUALITY
CULTURES
4.1. INTRODUCTION
In the recent years both governments and higher education institutions have shown increased interest in the
quality and excellence of teaching and learning. Several initiatives have been implemented at national level to
raise awareness about the issue and to stimulate institutions to develop instruments to achieve high quality
teaching and to care for the quality of teaching. This section describes selected national initiatives and a number
of instruments used at the institutional level.
4.2. NATIONAL POLICIES
At the national (i.e. the system level), quality culture refers primarily to whether and how the system supports
institutionsʹ quality cultures. National regulations on quality assurance and accreditation, schemes to stimulate
higher education institutions to develop innovations in teaching and learning, or financial incentives to care for
quality are among the most important examples.
National regulations on external accreditation intend both to secure institutional quality standards and to
support public trust. In addition, most regulations also aim to incentivize institutions to communicate about
quality and hence strengthen institutional quality cultures. However, in the literature we find very different
opinions about the success of accreditation regulations and procedures in achieving this goal. Brockerhoff et al
(2015) analyse the role of the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisationʹs (NVAO) institutional audit in enhancing
quality cultures. They refer critically to NVAOʹs self-evaluation, stating that “the institutional audit has an
important positive effect on the quality culture” (ibid., p. 45). The authors agree with the claim that overall there
is sufficient quality of higher education as the vast majority of institutions successfully passes the audit. However,
they slightly disagree with the second claim that there is a positive link between improving quality culture and
improved quality as there is no model and no evidence for this relationship. Moreover, quality culture is not
defined. Also Westerheijden (2013) is critical about the role accreditation or quality assurance procedures play
in improving, enhancing or establishing quality cultures at institutions. He considers the strong focus on
regulations, procedure, the bureaucratic overload and the lack of coordination between internal and external
quality assurance as problematic (see also Stensaker et al, 2011).
The European University Association (EUA) (2006) points out that quality assurance is a component of quality
culture (Loukkola, 2010). The EUAʹs 2002-2006 project on quality culture posits that external quality assurance
is useful and that, somehow, a quality culture will make European universities attractive (see also Harvey and
Stensaker, 2008). New Public Management (NPM) ideologies emerging at the end of the last century meant that
the ʹculturalʹ aspect of, and its influence on, quality was relatively weak (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008). Also,
external and internal structures for evaluating or enhancing quality have gained ground (Schwarz and
Westerheijden, 2004). Partly as a result of globalisation and the Bologna Process, one can observe a shift in
definitions and paradigms (emphasised, inter alia, by the EUAʹs ʹQuality Cultureʹ project, 2002-2006) that
dominate international and national policy agendas. For instance, the pursuit of excellence is an increasingly
important goal, both at system and institutional levels.
Excellence of teaching and learning is also a topic frequently addressed by main national level stakeholders. For
example, the German Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK), and the
Council for Arts, Humanities and Science (Wissenschaftsrat) have widely discussed the quality of teaching and
learning. Both stakeholders issued papers with recommendations to improve the quality of teaching and learning
(Kultusministerkonferenz, 2005; Wissenschaftsrat, 2008). While the KMKʹs paper does not mention the term
ʹquality cultureʹ, the Wissenschaftsrat sees it an outcome of quality management. This quality culture is mainly
understood as an ongoing discussion on strategic goals for teaching and learning within the institutions. It also

18
includes feedback and support with regard to enhancing quality (Wissenschaftsrat, 2008, pp. 85–86). These
discussions resulted in schemes stimulating excellence in teaching and learning. In the recent decade, a number
of policy initiatives have been implemented in Germany. Among these are the Stifterverband competition for
excellence in teaching – completed in 2010 – (Brockerhoff et al, 2014) and the current Quality Pact for Teaching.
None the less, neither scheme however puts forward explicit criteria for high quality teaching and learning or
quality cultures. Rather, these are (or have been) developed throughout the projects by the institutions
themselves (Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft, 2013).
Sweden, Finland and Norway have taken a different route to stimulate high quality teaching and learning, and
establishing Centres for Excellence in Education. The Swedish and Finnish schemes have already been
terminated, Norway continues its scheme. The schemes use different forms of funding (e.g. match funds,
financial support to implement quality improvement measures). Most importantly is that the schemes assign an
ʹexcellence statusʹ to the institution that rewards earlier achievements. In her analysis of bids of institutions
receiving excellence status, Bråten (2014, p. 8) states that these often have a common culture or a shared
understanding of goals, strategies and identity among staff, students and leadership when sending the
application. The Norwegian SFU scheme selection criteria require, inter alia, institutions to report on their
“documented quality in educational activities” (NOKUT n.d., n.p.). These are outcome, process and input factors
that refer to structures and processes as well as to cultural elements that are assessed in the selection
procedures. Further criteria for awarding the funding are the quality of the center’s and of its plan to stimulate
excellence in education, i.e. centres have to document their existing and planned excellence. It is important to
stress that with setting up the centres in Scandinavia, the governments did not solely want to support quality
teaching and learning at those centres, the schemes do target the whole higher education system.
Furthermore, many governments require quality indicators as accountability measures, which brings the analysis
to the institutional level. Higher education institutions themselves also use these indicators for marketing
purposes (Boyle and Bowden, 1997; Sutic and Jurcevic, 2012). Providers are therefore intrinsically and
extrinsically motivated to engage in change processes and to ensure that a quality culture is embedded within
the organisation (Bendermacher et al, 2016). From a providerʹs perspective, quality management has become
an integral part of institutional activities (Sahney et al, 2010). Many argue that quality culture in teaching and
learning reflects student demands for continuous educational improvement (e.g. Ardi et al, 2012; Doval and
Bondrea, 2011).
4.3. INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS
Despite a substantial body of information on different schemes to promote a culture of quality in teaching and
learning, there is no ʹtoolkitʹ of instruments that practitioners and researchers of different institutional and/or
national affiliations can easily draw upon. One of the problems is the friction between a seemingly uniform
conceptualisation of teaching excellence (reflecting a ʹtaken-for-grantedʹ notion of quality culture) and the “[…]
absence of systematic and transferable principles and conceptualisations [enabling] institutionally-generated
responses to excellence to emerge” (Gunn and Fisk, 2013, p. 47). Consequently, it is difficult to make cross-
institutional and cross-sectoral comparisons and generalisations regarding the instruments used (Land and
Gordon, 2015).
That said, in its analysis of the three rounds of the ʹquality culture projectʹ, the EUA (2006) points out ways
institutions can support quality culture according to three dimensions, including (a) strategy, policy and planning
to provide an internally coherent definition of quality and ensure its consistency with the institutional mission,
(b) structures such as Quality Assurance Units or Centres of Teaching and Learning (CTLs) to facilitate and
maintain the quality commitment of its members, and (c) internal evaluations of programmes and activities.
In the OECD/IMHE project on quality teaching Hénard and Roseveare (2012) identified a number of institutional
initiatives intending to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Among these were Centres for Teaching and
Learning Development, professional development activities, and studentsʹ evaluations (ibid., p. 7). Based on case

19
studies of North-American and European higher education institutions (Hénard, 2009) the study derives seven
main policy levers fostering high quality teaching at institutional level (Hénard and Roseveare, 2012):
- Raising awareness of quality teaching;
- Developing excellent teachers;
- Engaging students;
- Building organisation for change and teaching leadership;
- Aligning institutional policies to foster quality teaching;
- Highlighting innovation as a driver for change;
- Assessing impacts.
Other studies focus on different conceptions of excellence in teaching and learning which can lead to
implementing different instruments to support excellent teaching practice. For example, Gibbs (2008) identified
twelve different conceptions, including inter alia “exhibiting certain teaching behaviours in a skilful way”,
“exploiting benefits from disciplinary research”, “creating effective learning environments”, “developing the
teaching of others” and “leadership in teaching” (Gibbs, 2008, pp. 9 ff.).
More recently, Land and Gordon (2015, pp. 6 ff.) identified four ideal modalities to support excellence in T&L.
These modalities reflect different levels of excellence, namely (a) the competence level, which focuses on
professional development of (new) teachers
2
, (b) the proficiency level, which rewards excellence in T&L, (c) the
advanced proficiency level, which credits more than simple proficiency (for example innovation in T&L practices,
and leadership), and (d) the expertise/high recognition level, which emphasises, inter alia, impact on learning
outcomes, exceptional teaching ideas, or the creation of entire new institutions.
These different ways of framing policies and/or instruments do help to delineate quality culture instruments, but
more conceptual work is needed. Taking an inductive approach based on a literature scan, this review covers the
most frequently used institutional initiatives and policies. The following examples of instruments to promote a
quality culture in teaching and learning will be examined in more detail:
- Centres for Teaching and Learning (CTLs, including Centres for Excellence (CETLs));
- Teaching excellence awards;
- Career paths (promotion and incentives);
- Communication structures (including sharing of best practices).
4.3.1. CTLS
3
As mentioned earlier, many countries stimulate institutions to excel in teaching and learning. A major instrument
are funding schemes supporting CTLs and CETLs. In the recent years, Norway (NOKUT – SFU), the UK (HEFCE –
CETL), Finland (FINHEEC – CEUE) have been stimulating the establishment of CTLs at higher education
institutions. In Sweden (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) also an excellence scheme had been
established. The scheme awarded institutions the status ‘Center of Excellent Quality in Higher Education’ but did
not provide funds to the institutions (Elam and Johansson, 2008). While the Norwegian funding scheme (starting
in 2011) is rather recent, the initiatives in Finland and Sweden have already been terminated. The HEFCE CETL
scheme (2005 – 2010) entailed a competitive procedure where institutions had to propose their plans for
enhancing the quality of teaching and learning by setting up such a centre. Competitive procedures are also part
of the other funding schemes.
CTLs are ʹnodesʹ of teaching- and learning-focused activities, whose purposes are to enhance quality (and
sometimes excellence) in teaching practices and to invest in that practice in order to increase and deepen its
impact across a wider teaching and learning community (Saunders et al, 2008). In the Anglo-Saxon context, the
goals of CTLs, include, inter alia, engaging in innovations in teaching in higher education; engaging in the
implementation of teaching and learning initiatives; fostering top-down/bottom-up communication on
2
One could argue that at this level developing a quality culture in teaching and learning is about aligning performance with the system-
level conception of quality as achieving minimum standards (for example for accreditation purposes).
3
As most of the available research has been carried out on British CETLs, there is particular attention to this scheme in this paragraph.

20
educational initiatives; and disseminating scholarship in (and on) teaching and learning and education
development (Chalmers and OʹBrien, 2005). Professional development is also seen as an important task for a CTL
(Challis et al, 2009). Some CTLs also engage in research on innovations in teaching and learning (Clark and
Saulnier, 2010).
At the level of higher education institutions CTLs have been established in various ways. For the CETLs funded in
the HEFCE scheme evaluations found that CETLs are part of the structure of the organisation and may be (a) a
new stand-alone centre, (b) based within, or closely linked to, an existing central support unit for teaching and
learning development or a careers centre, (c) based within a department or faculty/school (HEFCE, 2011).
Saunders et al (2008) point out that CETLs are mostly located within one institution but may also take the form
of partnerships with other organisations (both tertiary providers and non-higher education institutions).
According to the survey of the 74 English CETLs (with a 86% response rate) conducted by Saunders et al (2008),
23% of CETLs were partnerships, mostly with other higher education institutions and, to a lesser extent, with
non-HEIs or a mix. CETLs may have a disciplinary or a thematic and/or cross-disciplinary focus. Saunders et al
found that about 45% of English CETLs were cross-disciplinary, 20% had an Arts and Humanities focus and 23%
had a Maths and/or Sciences focus. One CETL surveyed reported having a Social Sciences focus. Staffing
structures typically include a small core team (sometime including students as interns) led by a director (HEFCE,
2011).
A CTLʹs activities and outputs are diverse but may include for example developing curricula, diagnostic and
evaluative tools and toolkits, support materials for staff, e-learning and communication systems and piloting of
new approaches to teaching and learning such as inter-active learning approaches. CTLs are also important in
dissemination and promoting internal development activities. The focus on improving teaching practice means
that CTL staff need to be abreast of the field, and thus are often involved in research projects and peer-reviewed
publications (HEFCE, 2011).
The establishment of CTLs has become widespread across higher education institutions (Gosling, 2009;
Lieberman, 2005). Mostly these centres do not operate as excellence centres but merely as centres for teaching
and learning providing a similar range of services as described above. Recently, research has started to
investigate the impact of these centres and their activities on higher education teaching and learning. Bélanger
et al (2011) as well as Nadler et al (2012) investigate their effects on teaching practices of teachers and learning
outcomes of students. Both studies are positive about the impact and found for teachers a change in teaching
practices and for students of these teachers an increase in learning outcomes. Clark and Saulnier (2010) and
Lieberman (2005) study the impact of Centres for Teaching and Learning beyond teaching practice. Lieberman
(2005) finds that these CTL can contribute to organizational learning and development if they are able to function
as laboratories. Clark and Saulnier (2010) state that centres can support effectively the implementation of
institutional initiatives when taking a mediator role in integrating top-down management and bottom-up efforts.
Holt et al (2011) find for Australian Teaching and Learning Centres that a new paradigm defining more clearly the
role of centres has emerged. Their study evidences that more innovative centres can act as a hub or node for
networking that facilitates learning across the higher education institution. Therefore, the centre leadership
should consider a number of points of leverage (Holt et al, 2011, pp. 9 ff.), among these are inter alia: preparation
of new continuing staff, establishing communities of practice and implementing compulsory casual teaching
development programs.
However, a strand of literature is critical about CTLs, as emerges for example in the evaluation of the HEFCE
CETLs (Saunders, 2011; Saunders et al, 2008; Gosling and Turner, 2014). Some of the CETLs were contested, i.e.
not well accepted by academic staff. These CETLs were mostly characterized by a lack of a clear mission and/or
a mission overload, not acting autonomously and mostly not able to provide resources to participants. Further
reasons for contestation were a lack a support from institutional leadership and that centre leaders were lacking
transformative capacity. Saunders et al (2008) mention that those CETLs that were not aligned with existing
cultures, practices and strategies, not built after a long consultation process and did not connect to prior planning
of the institution were less effective. Effective CETLs on the other hand were well integrated in the strategic
planning, represented on decision making bodies, had a clear mission and a cross-disciplinary focus and acted in
institutions that already actively supported teaching excellence.

21
4.3.2. TEACHING EXCELLENCE AWARDS
Specific national and institutional awards to promote excellence in teaching are another increasingly popular
instrument. These are targeted competitive funds provided to institutions, programmes, teams or individuals. A
national award effectively credits a tertiary provider (or a programme) with an ʹexcellence-in-teaching statusʹ.
Awards granted by institutions credit individuals or teams of individuals.
Awards may focus on different aspects, such as the teaching and learning practice, the innovative nature of
teaching and learning initiatives (both in class-room and online activities, for example), their dissemination and
best practice sharing, etc. (Land and Gordon, 2015, pp. 6 ff.). They may have a number of specific goals. For
example they may be aimed at reducing drop-out rates, at creating clear standards for teaching excellence, or at
improving infrastructures. A key goal of a national-based award is to bridge the gap with the established notion
of excellence as purely research-led (Brockerhoff et al, 2014). Awards can be either ex post (based on an
evaluation of past performance) or ex ante (based on future plans).
An example of such an instrument is the German Wettbewerb Exzellente Lehre (Competition for Teaching
Excellence) which started in 2010. Its purpose was to develop excellence in teaching, to strengthen the teaching
function and to increase the attractiveness of undergraduate programmes in Germany (Brockerhoff et al, 2014).
Awards may favour a number of activities related to different conceptions of quality in teaching. In their study
of the German Competition for Teaching Excellence, Brockerhoff et al (2014, pp. 242 ff.) point out the
recommended activities for teaching excellence given by the German Science Council and the KMK for the
competition. These are divided in structural activities and cultural activities. Structural activities include a range
of actions that pertain directly to the functioning of teaching and learning, for example providing infrastructure,
information and counselling, improving student evaluations, improving the programme structure and content
(for example through the introduction of elite trajectories within a degree), adjusting the organisational structure
(for example by introducing a dean of education). Cultural activities concern communication and development
patterns that can affect the quality of teaching (e.g. introducing ʹteaching daysʹ to promote dialogue, reward
teaching through pay or sabbatical, promote staff development through coaching, co-teaching, sitting in on
lectures, and to develop a strategy for teaching).
The example just mentioned is indicative of the goals of teaching excellence awards, and of the types of activities
that it means to engender. However, worldwide there are many examples of ʹteaching excellence awardsʹ.
Examples are, inter alia, the UKʹs National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS), managed by the Higher Education
Academy, which supports individualsʹ professional development in learning and teaching
4
, and the Fulbright
Distinguished Awards in Teaching Program sponsored by the US Department of State, which provides the
opportunity to take part in a professional development programme for teachers
5
.
The Australian Awards for University Teaching operated through the government’s Office for Learning and
Teaching is an example of a national award for programmes that enhance learning (known as APEL, ʹAwards for
Programs that Enhance Learningʹ)
6
. These awards recognise learning and teaching support programmes and
services that contribute to the quality of student learning and the quality of the student experience of higher
education (Land and Gordon, 2015, p. 7).
Finally, teaching awards may also be institutionally driven. For example, the University of Bath in the UK runs the
ʹBest Team in Support of Student Learning Awardʹ, which is funded by the Alumni Fund. This institutional award
“[…] recognises exceptional and/or innovative team work and collaboration in the delivery of learning and
teaching.” The award focuses on the innovative or transformational contribution to the student experience in
learning and teaching
7
.
Innovation awards deserve a place in their own right because “whereas many schemes are content to reward
scholarly high quality teaching and learning practice that may draw on established and well-tried pedagogical
4
The NTFS is currently being reviewed to understand how it can contribute to identifying and recognising teaching excellence across the
sector (see: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/recognition-accreditation/national-teaching-fellowship-scheme-ntfs)
5
See: http://tntp.org/blog/post/10-awards-for-great-teachers
6
See: http://www.olt.gov.au/awards/nominations
7
See: http://www.bath.ac.uk/learningandteaching/progressing-your-career/teaching-awards/best-team-supporting-student-learning-
award/index.html

22
models, other approaches specifically seek to celebrate innovative practice at classroom, programme, or
institutional policy level” (Land and Gordon, 2015, p. 9). Examples might be the ʹChancellor’s Awards at the
University of Edinburghʹ
8
or Australia’s ʹCitations for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learningʹ.
.
For institutional teaching prizes there has also been research on how to design award criteria to effectively
reward teaching excellence (Gibbs, 2008a; 2008b). Gibbs finds that award schemes that are not clear on what is
valued as good teaching and that do not have a clear underlying concept of teaching excellence mostly fail to
achieve goals such as promoting innovative teaching practices. Higher education institutions are also awarding
innovations in teaching and learning, such as the TRANSArk initiative. It aims to encourage excellence in the
teaching of architects at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology at Trondheim
9
(Land and Gordon,
2015, p. 8).
10
The Centre was developed in an application for the Norwegian SFU scheme. Unfortunately the
SFU- status was not awarded but the institution decided to establish the centre.
4.3.3. CAREER PATHS: INCENTIVES AND PROMOTION
Institutions can promote a culture of (high) quality in teaching and learning through a teacher-related career
path and promotion system. Promotion in a teaching career is based on achieving certain thresholds although
these are often vague. In some cases (e.g. the Netherlands) a certain certification such as a BKO or SKO is
necessary for promotion. Other systems (e.g. Singapore) are stricter and require more evidence including for
example a course folder, evidence of contribution to curriculum and peer reviews.
However, to date an institutional career-path policy is weak (vis-à-vis the research promotion system for
academic staff). Many teaching staff rely heavily on external teaching awards for promotion cases. Indeed, a
recognition such as the ʹLeadership in Faculty Teaching Awardʹ (Ontario, Canada) may be linked to promotion
criteria within institutions.
11
Graham (2015) investigated for the UK how promotion procedures are related
teaching achievements in engineering sciences. In her study, she found that there is a gap between the
perception of academic staff and university management with regard to the imp ortance of teaching
achievements for their careers and promotion. While most academic staff perceive teaching engagement has
having no value most of university leaders and HR managers were stressing its importance. According to her
findings hindrances to the recognition of teaching of achievements are primarily due to the following six key
issues (Graham, 2015, pp. 3-4):
- “1. An overwhelming emphasis on research reputation and income is seen by many to pervade all
aspects of university culture, dominating promotion priorities both for career advancement within
institutions and for academic mobility nationally and internationally.
- 2. The measures used to evaluate teaching contribution are seen to be poor indicators of achievement
and impact. They are therefore often attributed little weight by candidates when preparing their cases
and are perceived to be accorded little weight by promotion boards when evaluating these cases.
- 3. The difficulties associated with identifying and collecting evidence of international leadership in
teaching/education appear to leave many academics struggling to build a robust teaching-based
promotion case to professorial level.
- Some university policies and practices, such as annual appraisal processes, appear to reinforce negative
perceptions among academic staff about how teaching is valued, with the result that few prioritize this
aspect of their professional role and fewer still apply for teaching-based promotion.
- For many in the engineering education community, a policy/practice gap is seen to exist, where
university policies for recognizing and rewarding teaching achievement are not perceived to be
consistently followed by promotion boards in practice.
8
See: http://www.ed.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.106874!/fileManager/ChancellorsAwards2013.rtf
9
See: http://www.ntnu.edu/transark
10
See: http://www.olt.gov.au/awards/citations
11
See: http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/facultyawards/facultyEligible.html

23
- University resource allocation models are understood to recognize research quality and student
numbers, but not teaching quality. The incentive structures at departmental level therefore do not
encourage academic managers and, most importantly, department heads, to invest in cases for
promotion based on excellence in teaching rather than in research.”
Sources of evidence for assessing teaching quality for promotion to professorship are scant compared to the
assessment of research performance. Moreover, there remains a strongly-held belief that changes to promotion
system are confined to teaching-focused career track and that above a certain ʹthreshold level for acceptable
teachingʹ, career rewards become more marginal (Graham, 2015).
On the other hand, some institutions started using incentives to motivate professors to engage in high quality
teaching (Becker et al, 2012), for instance through performance agreements and additional funds for high quality
teaching and introductory phase of recent professors. In a study of German higher education institutions, they
did not find any application of performance agreements to engage (recent) professors for high quality teaching.
Most institutions surveyed found it difficult to set performance goals for teaching. Additional funds on the other
hand were used in the internal distribution of teaching funds. Trainings or coaching during the first months of
appointment intend to increase the commitment of recent professors to the organisation and high quality
teaching.
4.3.4. COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES
Communication and best practice sharing is necessary to ensure instruments mentioned hitherto can be
successful. According to Roxå and Mårtensson (2009), communication can be – with reference to Goffman (1956)
ʹfront stageʹ (formal) or ʹbackstageʹ (informal). Moreover, it can be intra-institutional and inter-institutional
(engaging a broader community of practice).
Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) have explored how academic teachers engage in sincere discussions about teaching
and learning. These conversations appear to include only a limited number of selected peers – a ʹsignificant
networkʹ. Furthermore, the conversations mainly occur backstage and therefore remain hidden from the
majority of colleagues. It is during these conversations that teachers develop or maintain a personally integrated
understanding of teaching and learning. As these conversations are outside the official agenda, teachers have
the opportunity to carefully choose when or whether to bring a personal opinion into the open and potentially
challenge a teaching and learning strategy or any other part of an institution’s or a department’s official agenda.
Communication across tertiary education providers and between teachers is equally pivotal to promote a
teaching and learning quality culture across the higher education system. Several rewards schemes consider
dissemination and best practice sharing as important award criteria (Land and Gordon, 2015; NOKUT, n.d.).

24
5. QUALITY CULTURES IN PRACTICE
This chapter
12
will present some current practices of quality cultures in teaching and learning. It will refer to a
couple of descriptions of (what are seen as) good practices at the institutional level as well as to factors at the
individual and organisational/institutional level that contribute to a successful enhancement of quality cultures.
It needs to be borne in mind that these practices serve as examples. Much more research will be needed to arrive
at solid conclusions about what factors affect quality cultures and quality enhancement.
5.1. GOOD PRACTICES AT ORGANISATIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL
As has already been stated above, empirical research on enhancing quality cultures is scarce (Bendermacher,
2016, p. 4). Studies mostly do not investigate interventions enhancing quality cultures but quality management.
Studies on implementing internal quality assurance have been in the forefront also due to the special focus of
the two EUA projects on quality cultures (Sursock, 2011; Vettori, 2012; Vettori et al, 2007). Describing and
analysing practices of enhancing quality has only recently been addressed by researchers (Leest et al, 2015b,
2015a).
In this chapter, we will offer a couple of examples of descriptions of good practices as found in the literature. The
first is taken from the case studies that have been feeding the SHEEC (Scottish Higher Education Enhancement
Committee) project on Managing enhancement (SHEEC, 2010). The second is a study of enhancement of quality
cultures through communication in a university of applied science (Boentert, 2013). Finally, we refer to the study
of Leest et al (2015b) that summarizes characteristics of good practice regarding enhancing and developing
quality cultures in teaching and learning.
5.1.1. SHEEC PROJECT
In the SHEEC project, the development of institutional quality cultures is one instrument among others enhancing
the quality of teaching and learning (SHEEC, 2010). It finds that q uality cultures include formal, technocratic
processes (top-down) but also bottom-up communication aiming to establish shared understandings. The report
states three good practices for establishing more bottom-up driven communication:
- The project DEEP – Documenting Effective Educational Practice – is run by a number of US higher
education institutions. These institutions were achieving results above expectations when it comes to
graduation rates and survey scores. Stimulation of student engagement and strong community-
building around shared experiences, values and norms was central to the projects. This was by shared
learning experiences (student participating actively in research of staff) or offering positions to
students at the institution. Also establishing ceremonies and rituals contributed positively to a
stronger commitment of the students to the institution.
- At the South Eastern University in the FYR Macedonia there was an initiative to implement a culture of
reflective debate. This was to overcome the traditional style of teaching and learning which was
mostly characterized by transmission of knowledge and memorization of facts rather than critical
thinking. With setting the goals of changing the prevailing teaching and learning style the institutions
also implemented measures that made it possible for teachers to reflect upon their teaching and to
learn new practices.
- The third example mentioned by SHEEC is located at the Laurea University in Finland. Here the roles of
teachers and students have been redefined to achieve a change in teaching and learning styles. Rather
than being transmitters of knowledge, teachers now act as “researchers, regional developers and
pedagogues” (SHEEC 2010, p. 17) who accept students as junior colleagues. Staff development has
been implemented to achieve this.
The examples presented by the SHEEC report should be understood as interesting examples rather than as good
practices. The common denominator is that building communities and having shared values is important. What
12
Unfortunately, this chapter will not address the practice of system-level quality cultures as there are hardly any studies on the topic yet.

25
instruments and factors support the process does not become clear, also expected outcomes of the quality work
are mostly not mentioned.
5.1.2. UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES MÜNSTER, GERMANY
Some years ago the University of Applied Sciences in Münster, Germany achieved self-accreditation rights. In
the process, the review committee assigned the institution to have a very strong quality culture. The committee
pointed to the good interplay between formal structures and processes and the shared understanding of quality
assurance in the institution. Further, the more natural character of quality assurance processes being a routine
and widely accepted among staff has been mentioned. This was identified as a main outcome/result of
management. As a key to success, Boentert (2013) finds the stimulation of continuous and vivid communication
around quality issues through management. The quality management system integrates communication in four
different areas in a structured way including organized talks between management and staff. Also opportunities
to exchange of ideas and innovations were organized. There was special attention that exchanges allowed for
developing shared ideas and understandings of quality management. Four areas of communication had been
established:
- Definition of goals
The institution’s development plan defined strategic goals with the help of academic scorecards. The
plan describes besides strategic main goals also intermediate steps, instruments as well as indicators
measuring goal achievements. The institutional leadership, the central quality management team,
deans and the quality assurance officers at the level of the faculties had agreed on these goals,
instruments and indicators in a continuous communication process. (Boentert, 2013, pp. 130–131).
Besides this communication, publications such as leaflets informed staff about strategic goals
instruments and expected outcomes.
- Optimizing processes
Optimisation included two aspects: firstly, administrative structures and processes around teaching and
learning were integrated in an institution wide ICT system (called FINDUS) that was accessible to all staff.
Beside forms and descriptions of processes, the system provided a feedback routine that asked for
potential improvements of the system. Proposals for improvement were discussed and integrated into
the system. Secondly, teaching and learning processes became optimized. Teachers participated in
professional courses to improve their teaching skills. Further, a forum (Ideenwerkstatt gute Lehre) was
established that stimulated teachers to discuss issues around teaching and learning.
- Critical questions
In the area ʹcritical questionsʹ, the institutional evaluation was discussed. It was decided to have a
decentral structure where each faculty could decide on its own evaluation regulations. These faculty
evaluations had to consider a set of indicators shared across the institution but faculties were allowed
to design their own indicators. The shared indicators were defined cooperatively by the decentral
quality officers.
- Sustainability
Finally, annual talks were carried out to discuss achievements and problems with regard to strategic
goals stated in an academic scorecard. These talks take place for each faculty with the university
leadership, the quality officers and faculty leadership taking part. Besides these talks, also the voices of
students and administration were heard in separate annual talks.
Careful consideration of the central and decentral stakeholders’ interests has strongly facilitated the
communication and supported the acceptance of quality assurance practices as a routine. Further aspects such
as actors being result-oriented and able to compromise as well as a respectful manner in the communication
were also helpful. In addition, establishing a decentral quality assurance regulations geared toward the needs of
the faculties was found as a major success factor. External demands and of the central level of the institution
played a less important role when designing these regulations (Boentert, 2013, pp. 134–135).

26
5.1.3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURES IN DUTCH STUDY PROGRAMMES
In their qualitative study, Leest et al (2015b) investigated 12 degree programmes at Dutch universities (4
programmes) and university colleges (8 programmes).
13
These 12 degree programmes were identified as good
practice programmes with the help of an initial web-survey done in the same study. In the study, quality culture
was defined as a ubiquitous form of care for quality. This would be reflected inter alia by quality integrated in
daily routines and processes. Quality cultures were also regarded as part of the organizational culture. The study,
however, distinguished different quality culture types based on the Competing Values Framework of Quinn and
Cameron: Family, Clan, Adhocracy or Market. The majority of the twelve degree programmes studied were
assigned to a type representing a mix of Family and Adhocracy. These programmes were characterized by a
mostly collegial type of leadership, which made room for flexible adjustments and shared values.
Summarizing the twelve case the authors found that good practice programmes with working quality cultures in
teaching and learning are characterized by the following (Leest et al, 2015b, pp. 122–127):
- Regarding cultural aspects, the degree programmes had flat hierarchies, student focus, low thresholds
for communication and informal communication. Open communication including students, teachers
and management were prevailing. The programmes were also committed to trust, respect and
collegial feedback. Communication also left room for making mistakes. Formal as well as informal
communication was focusing on the quality of teaching and learning and was based on a shared vision
high quality teaching and learning.
- The good practice programmes also had roles for students and integrated them in the quality care.
This was often done for formal processes, in particular student evaluations where student
organisations took the role of organizing evaluation talks.
- The leadership style mostly valued participation and informality. Leadership was perceived as being
reliable and integer. Further, it recognized teachers as professionals and made teaching and learning a
shared responsibility. In the good practice programmes, leadership was able to create a feeling of
ownership of the quality care among teachers.
- Teachers in these degree programmes were open for communication and exchange, they were
strongly intrinsically motivated and interested in improving their skills respectively teaching in their
discipline. The majority of them were eager to cooperate and acted as team players. Having a shared
vision of quality care and high quality teaching and learning was also very important. Within the
teaching teams mutual respect for and interest in professional expertise was important, it allowed to
build a community providing a safe room for exchange and feedback.
- The role assigned to and the acceptance of internal and external quality assurance by teachers was
important. Teachers assign value to external quality assurance processes and have an intrinsic
motivation to learn from the external review. Accreditation is seen as an opportunity to reflect,
innovate and improve current practices. Internal quality assurance on the other hand is mostly
accepted as daily routine and is perceived as an organizational need rather as an administrative
burden.
- Finally, in the good practice programmes teaching and learning was related to research and to labour
market demands. Integrating students in current research and preparing them for later job
requirements was found to be very motivating for students as well as for teachers. Also student
engagement increased when they participate in their teachersʹ research.
13
Most studies dealing with quality cultures do not refer to any outcomes of the enhancement. We only found one study researching the
change of selected outcome indicators in relation to the implementation of quality assurance and quality management. In an empirical
research of 44 departments of Flemish higher education institutions applying quality management, Berings (2010, p. 55ff) found that the
implementation of care for quality (integrale kwaliteitszorg) was more probable in departments where a collective orientation was
prevailing. Testing two further indicators, student satisfaction and satisfaction of staff, the study revealed that student satisfaction is
correlating positively with a collective oriented culture. Staff satisfaction on the other hand, was positively related to a collective culture as
well as to a more people-oriented organizational culture.

27
6. WHAT MAKES QUALITY CULTURES WORK?
The descriptions presented so far make it difficult to clearly distinguish instruments enhancing quality cultures
and factors that make the instruments effective. Also what a quality culture is and what the expected outcomes
of quality cultures are often remains unclear. In the following, we will concentrate more strongly on factors –
found in the relevant literature – that arguably facilitate or impede the enhancement of quality cultures at the
individual and the organisational level.
6.1. IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR ESTABLISHING QUALITY CULTURES AT THE
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
With the individual level, we refer to the teachers engaging in quality cultures in teaching and learning. To date,
there is only limited literature available that deals with factors that facilitate or impede the enhancement of
quality cultures at the individual level. However, taking a broader perspective, and including all factors
influencing the development of quality cultures, we were able to identify factors from four different areas. These
were:
- Perceptions, values and beliefs of individual teachers. Here we will focus on the construction of values
and their role in changing individual and hence organisational behaviour.
- Motivational factors. In this section, we will focus on factors impacting on the motivation of teachers
and potential goal conflicts of academics.
- Professional development activities related to teaching and learning.
- Leadership styles. Discussing these, we will investigate their influence on enhancing quality cultures.
6.1.1. VALUES, BELIEFS AND PERCEPTION
Values are the core element of culture (Hofstede, 2001). As a central sociological concept, there is a variety of
definitions. When it comes to research on quality management a prevailing definition states that values are
“desirable, motivational goals that transcend any situation and guiding principles for people’s lives” (Kleijnen et
al, 2013, p. 154). These values are seen to only indirectly influence action since there is a gap between preferred
values and values which are implemented in practice. However, individualsʹ preferred values are of importance
for change initiatives, since they give an indication of what is important to people (Kleijnen et al, 2013).
Furthermore, the way individual factors affect perception, beliefs and values is important for developing and
enhancing quality culture.
The literature review by Bendermacher et al (2016) highlights the importance of a fit between individual and
organisation values for the development of a quality culture. In a small-scale study by Skelton (2012b) shows that
such a fit prevents value conflicts. The study also investigated how value conflicts are perceived by individuals. It
concludes that value conflicts can lead to “(…) personal and professional discomfort for the individuals concerned
– a sense that they were not teaching in a way that was fundamentally ʹrightʹ and/or morally defensible” (Skelton,
2012b, p. 264). Significant value conflicts could hinder initiatives to change teaching as people resist or even
leave the organization. Furthermore, value conflicts were found to affect individual wellbeing and satisfaction
and hence have an impact on individual motivation. Teachers facing value conflicts would often choose a strategy
of ʹcompromiseʹ. This strategy implies that teachers are aware of structural limitations they cannot influence but
they try to engage in selected practices that are in line with their own values (Skelton, 2012b). This implies that
individual value conflict might act as hindrances to the full implementation of change initiatives. The study by
Kleijnen et al (2013, pp. 160ff) however shows, that a link between individual and organizational values can be
established by for example focusing on ʹinvolvement, cohesion, flexibility and innovationʹ rather than on values
linked to ʹstability, control and information managementʹ. Additionally, involving teachers in decision-making
tightens the link between individual and organisational values.

28
The development of shared values or understandings of high quality teaching or quality cultures needs to respect
the way how individual teachers select their approach towards teaching. Gregory and Jones (2009) conclude
from their qualitative study among Australian higher education teachers that both environmental and individual
factors influence the choice of a certain perception of teaching. Environmental factors include the teaching
delivery method, subject content, student cohort, workload demands, support services and policies and
processes of the institution. Individual factors are a number values such as high academic standards, active
student participation, equity, teaching and diversity. These beliefs, values and preferences affect how teachers
interpret their role and perception of students. Environmental and individual factors are seen to be interrelated
since individual beliefs, perceptions and values affect how individuals interpret environmental contexts.
However, in case of a strong individual values, teaching approaches are chosen regardless of environmental
factors.
Other research indicates that communication with significant others is important for the selection of a teaching
approach. Conversations in significant networks are seen to “continuously construct, maintain and develop an
understanding about teaching and learning” (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009, p. 555). These have implications for
teachersʹ identity construction and practices. In their survey study (106 participants from different disciplines),
they found that discussing teaching issues takes place in trustful environments and between a small number of
colleagues. Thus, most teachers talk to five to ten colleagues from their own discipline, department, and
institution but also from other institutions. Having no partner from their own discipline was only mentioned by
a minority (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009). The content of these conversations often oppose the official agenda
and are not seen as day-to-day talk. Rather, these conversation were seen “to deal with important disciplinary
content, and challenges about how to support studentsʹʹ (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009, p. 553). Applying this
perspective to influencing teaching approaches, Roxå, Mårtensson and Alveteg (2011) argue that pedagogical
developers intending to influence teaching and learning cultures have to consider these important significant
networks. The authors argue that influencing only the hub (a central person in a network with many connections
to other people) changing the culture might fail. Rather, since trust for meaningful teaching conversation is seen
as important, the link between significant others is important as well. Thus linking two existing clusters directly
is seen as a valuable strategy. The importance of trust was also reflected in a study on micro-cultures in teaching
and learning by Mårtensson and Roxå (2015). The authors describe micro-cultures as constructed through culture
and stabilized through “norms, traditions, recurrent practices, tacit assumptions, and so on” (Mårtensson and
Roxå, 2015, p. 194). These micro-cultures have an influence on peopleʹs behaviour. The study identified as
success factors a strong commitment to teaching, a shared sense of the purpose of their work and its future
direction. Additionally, trust between all members and a supportive system within the micro-cultures had effects
on fulfilling the high standards of teaching and shared values for education displaying a shared responsibility for
the quality of teaching (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2011).
6.1.2. MOTIVATION
The quality of teaching and learning is linked to the motivation, satisfaction and commitment of individuals
(Lourdes Machado et al, 2011; Esdar, 2015; Esdar et al, 2013).
There are various studies exploring how motivation for teaching is constructed. They are often based on large
sample sizes, but are conducted within a single higher education system, limiting insight in how context (system-
level) variables affect motivation. While common sense often sees financial incentives as a source of motivation,
research challenges this perception. Various studies have shown that financial incentives such as merit pay,
performance related budgeting, management by objectives or teaching awards are not the main drivers for
motivation and behaviour change (Lourdes Machado et al, 2011; Henke and Dohmen, 2012; Müller-Hilke, 2010;
Stegmüller et al, 2012; Wilkesmann and Schmid, 2012). According to Henke and Dohmen (2012), the impact of
performance-based funding depends on the actual operationalization of the performance indicators and does
not automatically have an effect on individuals. Rather, financial incentives can be seen as one factor out of a
variety of factors influencing motivation and stronger engagement for teaching activities (Becker et al, 2012;

29
Lourdes Machado et al, 2011). Stegmüller (2012) states that most teachers are intrinsically motivated for good
teaching. This intrinsic motivation mostly has stronger effects than extrinsic motivation (Esdar et al, 2015).
Factors influencing motivation are system, organizational and social factors (Stegmüller, 2012). Also, engaged
and motivated students were identified as a strong driver for motivation (Kızıltepe, 2008; Skelton, 2012b).
Besides this, the following factors stimulate motivation (Stegmüller, 2012, p. 111):
- Contact and interaction with students,
- Autonomy and flexibility as teacher,
- Workload,
- Nexus between research and teaching and
- Material incentives for teaching.
Environmental conditions for teaching, value of teaching, feedback and recognition of teaching activities were
mentioned less frequently. Also success in teaching, cooperation between teachers, transparent teaching
engagement, career relevance of teaching, student competences, development opportunities in teaching, close
link with research activities (content-wise) and variation in teaching seem to play a less important role. These
findings correspond with those of Kızıltepe (2008) who found that besides the strong influence of engaged
students, career related factors and social factors are important for the motivation. As demotivating factors, less
engaged students, economical factors as for example low income, structural and physical characteristics as for
example high numbers of students or inadequate material were identified. Research related factors such as low
opportunity to do research and factors related to working conditions such as lots of bureaucracy or high teaching
loads were mentioned less frequently. Furthermore, basic need satisfaction of autonomy, competence and
relatedness influence the teaching motivation with the basic need of competence has a stronger effect on
teaching motivation than autonomy (Esdar et al, 2015). Furthermore, intrinsic motivation was highest for those
individuals with high satisfaction of all basic needs. Lower motivation for teaching was found for teachers with a
low satisfaction of relatedness (Esdar et al, 2015). Social factors influencing the motivation of teachers were
identified by Stegmüller et al (2012). They found that the influence on teaching engagement (reported and
desired) was positively influenced by the level of openness of colleagues to teaching, autonomy in teaching,
importance of including teaching qualification in staff selection, and support during the start of their teaching
careers.
As seen above, research has shown that the motivation to teach is related to many different factors. However,
these findings are context-dependent. That said, motivation was deemed important, although it has different
sources and monetary incentives are often not the main driver. Rather, student engagement and the recognition
of teaching are found to be important drivers for teaching motivation.
Besides motivation, other factors such as goal conflicts have an impact on teachersʹ engagement with teaching
(Esdar, 2015). Goal conflicts can lead to dissatisfaction and have an effect on the performance of individuals. In
higher education, goal conflicts often arise between teaching and research due to time constraints. These goal
conflicts (at least in the German context) are more explicit for young academics since they have uncertain career
paths (Esdar, 2015). Understanding how goal conflicts appear and what the effects of the goal conflicts are, will
help to implement a quality culture without increasing the risk of an increase in goal conflicts for staff. Research
on goal conflicts has shown that basic need satisfaction for autonomy, competence and relatedness are
important to decrease goal conflicts, whereby especially autonomy had a strong influence (Esdar et al, 2015). To
diminish goal conflicts, the authors advise, besides a system in which autonomy, competences and relatedness
are valued, to offer courses in time management. Winter, Taylor and Sarros (2000) studied role overload in an
Australian context and found that role overload leads to goal conflict that subsequently leads to low levels of job
feedback and low level of influence in decision making and ultimately to dissatisfaction. The effects of goal
conflicts were also shown in a small scale interview study by Skelton (2012a) who found that goal conflicts as
well as value conflicts lead to frustration, identity crises and decisions to leave the organization. This strong
impact of goal conflicts and dissatisfaction among staff is important to consider for change initiatives.

30
6.1.3. PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A related (although less studied) factor is the motivation of teachers (and academic staff in general) to participate
in professional development aimed at enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Academic staff often
oppose professional development activities, especially when they perceive a conflict between these programmes
and the widespread value of academic freedom (Mårtensson et al, 2011). In a recent study it has however been
argued that teaching staffʹs active involvement in professional development, in particular of academic teachers,
is necessary to improve quality. It should also be noted that the evidence is based on a single case study of a
research-intensive institution in Sweden only (e.g. (Mårtensson et al, 2011). In this study it is found that quality
enhancement “must be owned” (Mårtensson et al, 2011, p. 52) by the academic staff. This ownership is partly
reflected in their involvement in professional development activities. Otherwise, the academic staff “will at best
comply instrumentally with the formulated strategy, but not charge the teaching with personal involvement”
(Mårtensson et al, 2011, p. 55). Hence, motivation of academic staff to be actively involved in professional
development is quintessential, at least in this institution, and it is especially high when they perceive a fit
between their academic identity and the professional development activities. This perceived fit can be managed,
not by “brute external pressure” (Mårtensson et al, 2011, p. 53) but by the alignment of professional
development with academic freedom through a combination of documentation (e.g. from educational research),
pedagogical courses, stimulation of open debate and building relations between teachers.
Analogously, based on data collected through questionnaires with 171 faculty members in Portugal, it is found
that emancipatory and pedagogical motives of faculty staff are important factors underlying the participation in
professional development (Veiga-Simão et al, 2015). In specific, emancipatory and pedagogical motives are more
important than instrumental and practical motives. In a thematic analysis of a random sample of 30 statements
on teaching written by lecturers with a postgraduate certificate in teaching and learning in higher education, it
has also been found that the motivation to engage in professional development also depends on factors such as
staffʹs ambition, purposefulness, moral alertness and openness to learning (Fitzmaurice, 2008). Moral alertness
was strongly emphasized and included personal values such as honesty, respect, responsibility, care and
compassion.
6.1.4. LEADERSHIP
Finally, much of the relevant literature addressing the individual level is related to leadership. Leadership is a
crucial factor underlying quality enhancement in higher education as this sector is generally seen to be resistant
to change (Bolden et al, 2008). Based on a single case study of a research-intensive institution in Sweden, it is
found that quality enhancement requires leaders with clear vision and careful timing (Mårtensson et al, 2011).
In particular, leaders have a specific role in changing structures and regulations that inhibit academic teachers in
their commitment to quality enhancement. Hence, leaders need to listen to the experiences of teachers and
support them when necessary.
Leadership has also been discussed in the context of leadership styles (Bryman, 2007; Berings, 2006). In a
literature review of studies investigating effective leadership in higher education, Bryman (2007, p. 697), for
instance, identified 13 effective leadership styles, including elements such as communication skills, personal
attributes and process-oriented behaviours. Based on Quinnʹs Competing Values Framework, Berings (2006)
argues that leadership in higher education is most effective when it adapts to organisational culture, core values
of the organisation and of academic staff.
The broader literature on leadership in higher education is also relevant and there seems to be a growing
consensus that organizational change (including quality enhancement) depends on ʹblended leadershipʹ, which
is for instance demonstrated in a multiple case study of seven English university colleges, based on data collected
in 140 interviews with employees in the higher education sector (e.g. Collinson and Collinson 2009). Blended
leadership combines bottom-up, horizontal influences on the one hand and top-down, vertical influences on the
other.
Since the early 2000s, studies on leadership styles advocate ʹdistributed leadershipʹ (Bolden et al 2008). This
leadership style is characterized by informal, bottom-up influence involving the entire staff. It also favors a

31
relational approach. In specific, distributed leadership is based on three premises: leadership as a group property,
open boundaries of leadership and distributed expertise.
However, scholars have gradually started to realize that effective leadership also requires top-down influences,
although mixing bottom-up and top-down influences is quite challenging (e.g. Bolden, 2011; Bolden et al, 2008;
Bolden et al, 2009; Collinson and Collinson, 2009). Based on interviews with 152 leaders in 12 UK higher
education institutions, it was for instance found that the experienced tension between these two types of
influences is widespread, alongside other related tensions such as between individual autonomy and collective
engagement, academic and administrative authority, and stability and change (Bolden et al, 2008). Despite the
need for bottom-up, collective leadership, higher education institutions still need visionary leaders to inspire
change in turbulent environments. A visionary leader for instance can unite bottom-up influences. Hence the
ability to manage dialectical tensions is probably the core characteristic of effective leadership in contemporary
higher education. Although recent developments have forced higher education institutions to become more
ʹmanagerialʹ, i.e. implementing hierarchical structures and top-down influences, it cannot be ignored that
“[t]here remains a deep-seated desire for collegiality” (Bolden et al, 2009, p. 257).
In practice, blended leadership bears the risk that managerial power may gradually overshadow bottom-up
influences (Bolden et al, 2009). It should also be noted that power dynamics may also play out at the level of the
informal influences in that staff with a high reputation and a strong network are probably able to exert stronger
informal influences (Bolden et al, 2009). To achieve blended leadership there seems to be no ʹone-size-fits-allʹ
approach, rather each higher education institution may develop its own structures, systems and processes of
blended leadership. Blended leadership is “a dynamic negotiation and exchange between the centre/top and
schools/departments and amongst informal networks of colleagues and peers” (Bolden et al, 2009, p. 270).
Accordingly, the concept of blended leadership may especially be useful as an analytical tool to investigate the
experiences of individuals in higher education institutions facing not easily solvable tensions. That being said, a
quintessential property of blended leadership seems to be the “formal (and intentional) leadership orchestrated
from the top” on the on hand and the “informal (potentially unplanned) leadership emerging from across the
organisation” (Bolden et al, 2009, 2009, p. 271). In other words, to be effective, leadership needs to strike a
balance between these different types of influences.
The tendency towards blended leadership can also be identified in the broader organisational literature, hence
insights from this literature can shed light on effective leadership in higher education (Bolden, 2011). There is an
increasing awareness that (blended) leadership studies draw on a narrow, essentialist ontology that
conceptualises leadership as an attribute at the level of individuals and/or organizations (see also Bolden et al,
2009). Gradually, leadership scholars are realising that effective leadership may not be a personal or
organizational attribute, but may rather be situated at the level of rhetoric. From this non-essentialist
perspective, effective leaders are those who are able to build convincing narratives and discourses that unite all
external and internal stakeholders.
6.2. IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR ESTABLISHING QUALITY CULTURES AT THE
ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL
Singling out factors facilitating or impeding the enhancement of quality cultures at the organisational or
institutional level also required taking a broader perspective. As studies on the topic are scarce, also studies
researching the implementation of quality management and quality assurance have been scanned. The literature
review identified the following factors at the organisational level:
- Support from institutional leadership
- Communication
- Data driven reflection of enhancement activities
- Design of enhancement instruments
- Decision structures
- Provision of sufficient resources/staff development

32
6.2.1. SUPPORT FROM INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
One of the most important factors to successfully implement internal quality assurance is the support from the
institutional leadership. This support involves a number of things. Donzallaz (2014, pp. 31–32), in her analysis of
implementation processes in Swiss universities, states that support from institutional leadership means foremost
that it commits itself to the quality assurance system and integrates it in its daily practice (also mentioned by
SHEEC, pp. 28–29). Also having decided clearly about the design of the system (e.g. operating on central or
decentral levels?), the quality goals to be achieved and the relation of quality managment to the strategic goals
of the universities is crucial for smooth implementation. A similar variety of support from institutional leadership
is also mentioned by Yorke (2000). As principles of management for quality, he mentions that academic leaders
should develop a ‘vision and strategy, establish a sense of necessity, create a guiding coalition, communicate
widely and continually ... and be prepared to listen, develop a shared commitment, generate some early success,
consolidate and embed the gains, and do not rest on laurels’ (Yorke, 2000, pp. 30-32). Also, the style of leadership
matters. Vettori et al (2007, p. 24) mention that “… strong leadership does not mean to determine and enforce
a multitude of decisions in person, but to negotiate them in a way that makes them acceptable and allows for
the delegation of responsibility.” As mentioned already earlier, leadership styles that were supportive, focusing
on participation and sustaining shared visions and values make implementation processes easier. Huson (2015)
states the importance of encouragement of communication and participation. The SHEEC report indicates that
management structures should promote and sustain shared values. In general, communication should have an
academic rather than a managerial tone (Sursock, 2011, p. 51).
6.2.2. COMMUNICATION
As with any organizational change, communication matters also for the implementation of internal quality
assurance. Communication is not only about the amount of information provided, it is about different aspects of
quality including the organization of communication and its content. Communication structures should allow
different stakeholder groups in the university to voice their opinion, eventually their critique as well as ideas
about the internal quality management: the structure should thus be open and allow feedback. Boentert et al
(2010) refer to this as careful communication, which means that relevant actors have to be identified, project
structures and later structures for the management system that allow integrating staff and also cooperation with
them have to be created, and finally that targeted information should be provided and consultation should be
possible.
Academic staff often opposes organizational change as it might put additional administrative burdens on them.
Therefore, communicating short-term benefits are important. Boentert et al (2010) conclude from their case
study that showing clearly the short-term benefit of participating – i.e. showing how the new system/change will
benefit participants (for example quality management systems reducing required efforts for re-accreditation
etc.) contributes to its success (see also Petzoldt et al, 2008, pp. 91–92).
6.2.3. DATA-DRIVEN REFLECTION OF ENHANCE MENT ACTIVITIES
Showing short-term benefits of internal quality assurance system requires that it has sufficient instruments to
monitor outcomes and indicators reflecting changes. SHEEC (p. 3) indicates that “[e]ffective data gathering (often
using tools and frameworks) to inform action is also an important cornerstone of a quality culture.” This means
that data gathering should not only focus on the outcomes of the system but also include achievements of other
higher education institutions to be able to contextualize achievements. The introduction of reference points as
benchmarks is also considered to be helpful in evaluating and improving. Universities that have successfully
enhanced quality cultures and established student centred learning have often maintained and developed
“structures which create the opportunity for reflection on experience by drawing on appropriate ranges of
evidence including national and international benchmarks.” (SHEEC, p. 18) This was for example done in Australia
where teaching and e-learning quality indicators have been developed for a community of universities. Also in

33
Germany, a network of universities establishing a shared (networked) internal quality assurance system report
that the possibility to compare is helpful for contextualizing achievements (Fischer-Bluhm, 2007).
6.2.4. DESIGN OF ENHANCEMENT INSTRUMENTS
The design of instruments or the internal quality assurance systems account also for its successful
implementation. Well-designed instruments or systems are aligned with other activities of the university and its
internal stakeholders. At the level of the institution it is required that the instrumen ts to ensure and enhance
quality should not contradict or disturb other activities, in particular universitiesʹ core processes research,
teaching and knowledge transfer. Rather quality assurance work or care should reinforce those (SHEEC 2010).
This applies also to the more ʹimmaterialʹ aspects of quality instruments, for academic staff will often refuse
instruments that do not connect to their shared goals, visions and values.
6.2.5. DECISION STRUCTURES
Respecting the autonomy of academic staff is also important when decisions to implement internal quality
assurance systems are taken. Research has investigated top-down vs. bottom-up processes. Donzallaz (2014)
states that a good interplay of top-down decisions and bottom-up participation is most successful, and will make
implementation more effective (see also the section above on blended leadership). Positive effects will most
probably unfold when the university leadership decides top down on the way the quality assurance system is
implemented (based on a prior consultation of internal stakeholders), on clear descriptions of tasks for different
participants, on distribution of resources (also in the long run) and how the quality assurance system will relate
to internal evaluation and monitoring. With bottom up participation the following should be addressed: co-
decision on implementation, participation in designing instruments, and expectations of decentral units about
the quality assurance should be clearly considered (Donzallaz 2014, pp. 34–35). Also Petzoldt et al (2008) indicate
that the fundamental decision about the implementation of the quality assurance systems should be shared
among institutional leadership and internal stakeholders. The coordination of the implementation process
should be left to the institutional leadership who should be clear about the expectations and interests of the
decentral units. There is, however, a limit to centralizing decision processes: “As the results of EUAʹs Quality
Culture Project have shown (2006, p. 17), centralised strategies ensure the uniformity of efforts and their
compatibility with the institutional mission, yet are less inclined to generate ownership for quality processes on
any other level than the managementʹs” (Vettori et al, 2007, p. 24) Decision structures should assign clear
responsibilities but should also involve as many people as possible executing quality tasks.
6.2.6. PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT RESOURCES/STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Organisational change often represents additional work to academic staff as it eventually burdens them with
administrative work and a change to their routines. Getting used and incorporating new routines as daily practice
requires resources (in particular time) as well as a learning effort. Therefore, successful implementation of
internal quality management requires provision of sufficient resources as well as staff development. When it
comes to resources, the spending of time and money for the implementation should be made clear to the
participants. Further, spending resources should be planned with a long-term perspective rather than short-
term. Making time available for staff to learn about the new routines and get used to them will also support the
success of the implementation. Training and staff development however should consider their professional or
academic identity to secure their engagement (SHEEC). Leest et al (2015a, p. 69) indicate that professionalization
of staff and teachers should take place in a team where team members are willing to learn together, benefit from
each other’s expertise, provide feedback and are motivated to learn.

34
6.3. REFLECTION
The literature review has yielded a set of factors that are – in different ways – related to quality cultures and
quality enhancement. Some of these factors are contextual, others are directly affecting quality culture. But
ʹaffectingʹ needs two qualification which limits reaching straightforward answers to the central research question
of this chapter. First, most studies did not research what outcomes could or should be of quality cultures.
Satisfaction among staff and students has been used to measure the effects of interventions for quality
improvement, but arguably these are only a few aspects of potential outcomes. Expected outcomes clearly need
to be addressed in the upcoming institutional case studies. Second, given the different notions of what actually
quality and quality culture is, it is difficult to compare the different studies.

35
7. CASE STUDIES
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Based on the literature review a working definition of quality cultures was arrived at. In addition, the
questionnaires used for the interviews and focus groups in the case studies draw on the framework developed
by Leest et al (2015).
7.2. FRAMEWORK
The analytical framework for the case studies starts from the approach by Leest et al (2015) and the NVAO (2014)
(see figure 1 below). The framework does not have an explanatory function in the current study; it was mainly
used to get on overview of factors and further variables that need to be considered when investigating quality
cultures. Therefore, the different elements (quality culture, formal structure, organizational and psychological
factors) have been operationalized in more detail.
FIGURE 1: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK RESEARCHING QUALITY CULTURES
7.3. QUALITY CULTURE
Based on the literature, a working definition of Quality Culture has been elaborated. Quality culture is an
organisational culture that intends to enhance quality permanently (EUA, 2006) and is characterised by:
- Shifting from ʹcontrolʹ, which emphasises an exclusive attention to accountability and regulatory
compliance to ʹcareʹ, which is concerned with autonomy, credibility and educational enhancement
based on the institutionʹs experiences, expertise and values;
- Balancing between two sets of values (as opposed to the primacy of one over the other): managerial
values focused on innovation, collective orientation and system control, and academic values focused
on tradition, individual specialization and self-determination;
- Sharing values and commitment to quality also thanks to the influence of other elements of
organisational culture such as norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions. These elements guide
the behaviour of the organisationʹs members and provide a framework to interpret the meaning of
events and actions on and off campus.

36
To analyse these three characteristics of quality culture, data gathered for the three pillars in the framework
(formal structures, organisational and psychological factors) will be used. The analyses will reveal for example
what instruments, values, communication structure, control or care orientation are combined at the institutional
level to distinguish between different quality cultures.
7.4. FORMAL STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS
The review revealed national and institutional instruments as well as factors that facilitate or impede the
enhancement of quality culture. To research what formal structures are in place at the national and
organisational level, the following aspects will be investigated:
- External instruments stimulating higher education institutions to care for quality or improve the quality
of teaching and learning. Besides external quality assurance frameworks, these can also be national
schemes like additional funding rewarding achieved or planned excellence (projects) in teaching and
learning.
- Internal instruments refer to policies implemented at the organisational level. These range from CTLs to
the establishment of communication structures stimulating discussions about teaching and learning
among staff. Besides these, also teaching awards and incentives will be investigated. Further to that.
The case studies will explicitly ask for instruments that have not been covered by the literature review.
The case studies will also investigate the availability of institutional strategies and goals for improving
the quality of teaching and learning.
With regard to organisational factors the case studies will address those factors that have been identified in the
literature review. These are context factors but also the way the instruments are implemented at the
organisational level:
- Support from institutional leadership
- Communication
- Data-driven reflection of enhancement activities
- Design of enhancement instruments
- Decision structures
- Provision of sufficient resources/staff development
Further to that, the case studies explicitly ask for factors that have not been covered by the literature review.
7.5. INDIVIDUAL FACTORS
Factors contributing to quality culture at the individual level have been clustered into four groups:
- Values, beliefs, perceptions,
- Motivation
- Leadership and
- Participation in professional training.
Regarding the first group, some specific factors could be identified. Because values are the core of organisational
cultures and hence of quality, the case studies investigate what values are preferred by individuals at the
different levels of the organisation. A special point of interest is if there is a certain baseline of shared values with
regard to the quality of teaching and learning in the institution that support promoting the importance of
teaching and learning. The case studies have collected data on the following topics:

37
- Preferred values with regard to teaching and learning supported by different groups in the institutions
- Communication on teaching issues, including aspects like trust between staff members
The second cluster of indicators driving the data collection relates to the motivation of teachers. Their general
motivation for teaching as well as their motivation to change their teaching practices and to engage in high
quality teaching was collected with the help of the following concepts:
- Intrinsic motivation for teaching
o Perceptions of autonomy
o Perceptions of competence
o Perceptions of relatedness
- Perceptions of goal congruency
o Time constraints
o Status of teaching (relative to research)
- Responses to extrinsic motivation
The case studies also studied the particular leadership style that was prevailing in the institution under review.
Besides concepts such as managerial and collegial steering, distribution of power across the different hierarchical
level and the preferred styles of leading/implementing changes (bottom-up, top-down, blended leadership) the
case studies studied the following aspects of leadership styles:
- Clear vision
- Careful timing
- Supportive skills
- Communication skills
- Process-oriented behaviours
The last cluster addressed the participation of teachers in professional training. This also addresses the
motivation of teachers, i.e. what hinders or drives them to engage in enhancing their teaching skills. Factors
considered in this area were:
- Perceptions of autonomy
- Emancipatory and pedagogical motives such as:
o Ambition to develop personally and professionally
o Motivation for teaching
o Purposefulness
o Moral alertness
o Openness to learning.

38
8. CELT – BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
8.1. INTRODUCTION
Birmingham City University (BCU) is a strongly teaching oriented former polytechnic. This document draws
lessons from the activities of its centre for excellence in teaching and learning (ʹCELTʹ
14
). CELT is a central
university department that initiates and develops policy and support to enhance the quality of the student and
staff learning experience. It provides guidance and funding that bring together innovators from across the
university to embed the University Learning and Teaching Strategy
15
.
8.1.1. THE UNITED KINGDOMʹS HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
The United Kingdom (UK) includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (as well as smaller British Isles).
Higher education is organized and administered locally, with each country having their own local ministries.
Across the UK, the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act remains the primary legislation governing higher
education (QAA 2015). The Act abolished the binary divide that existed until 1992 and which had led to a divide
between a more prestigious university sector and a less prestigious professional higher education sector.
16
There are currently over 350 publicly funded higher education institutions in the UK. In England, there are 133
institutions with degree awarding powers. They are defined by the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills (BIS) as ʹrecognised bodiesʹ and include 105 universities. ʹListed bodiesʹ are those institutions that do not
have degree awarding powers but do provide courses leading to recognised UK degrees through validation
arrangements with recognised bodies. In addition, there are numerous private providers, which are mostly very
small. The number of higher education students has grown over time – it was 1.9 million in 2000 and reached
about 2.3 million in 2015 (+16%) (Kottmann et al, 2015; QAA 2015; HESA website, 2016
17
).
Quality assurance is the (delegated) responsibility of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)
18
,
an independent body that coordinates the inspections for education programmes. The QAA produces reports for
the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) and levels of institutional funding are contingent to
being above a certain threshold of quality. Institutions receiving the lower two scores (on a four-point scale) must
develop and implement action plans and in most circumstances undergo a follow-up review
19
. Finally, tuition
fees for undergraduate study were introduced in 1998 and were raised several times over the years, currently
being at a maximum of £9,000 per annum (QAA, 2015).
Within this system, there are several other elements that play a role in teaching quality in higher education.
Three are particularly relevant because of their visibility and the importance institutions and students attribute
them:
- The Higher Education Academy (HEA) is a professional institution focusing on the contribution of
teaching to the student learning experience
20
. It is jointly owned by Universities UK (UKK)
21
and
GuildHE
22
, and is funded by the four funding councils in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
as well as by subscriptions from universities, colleges and other organisations
23
. Among its activities,
HEA is notable for some important services – it provides fellowships and it accredits professional
14
At BCU the name of the centre is ‘Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching’ (CELT) and will be designated as such throughout this
report.
15
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/celt
16
To some extent this divide persists between research universities and former polytechnics.
17
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/free-statistics
18
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/QAA-Review-2014.pdf
19
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2011/201136/11_36.pdf
20
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/about/mission-vision-and-values
21
Universities UK is an advocacy organisation for universities in the United Kingdom (see:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Pages/home.aspx)
22
GuildHE is one of the two recognised representative bodies for Higher Education in the UK. It is a Company Limited by Guarantee and a
Charity. It was founded in 1967 as the Standing Conference of Principals, registered as a company in 1992 and became GuildHE in 2006
(see: http://www.guildhe.ac.uk/about/)
23
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/about/governance

39
development programmes. HEA Fellowships are a professional recognition scheme. A HEA fellowship is
an ʹinternational recognition of a commitment to professionalism in teaching and learning in higher
educationʹ and demonstrates that practice ʹis aligned with the UK Professional Standards Framework
(UKPSF)ʹ
24
. There are different categories of fellowship, including Associate Fellow, Fellow, Senior
Fellow, and Principal Fellow. The latter two are typically awarded to experienced staff. All fellowships
can be gained either through an experiential route and through an accredited route (i.e. one has to
complete required HEA-accredited courses). HEA also awards the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme
(NTFS), which recognizes individual professional development in teaching, regardless of seniority (i.e.
ʹsuccess depends only on excellence, not what stage you are at in your careerʹ). Higher Education
providers in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland can make nominations to NTFS. Finally, HEA accredits
professional development programmes delivered by tertiary providers and it applies the UKPSF (i.e. the
HEA accreditation provides ʹexternal and independent confirmation that professional development is
aligned with the UKPSFʹ
25
);
- The national postgraduate certificate in teaching and learning (PGCert) is a mandatory qualification to
be allowed to teach (PGCert holders may apply to become HEA fellows as part of the accredited route)
26
;
- The National Student Satisfaction Survey (NSS) is conducted annually to gather data on student
experience. It is targeted at final year undergraduate students, it asks 23 questions covering teaching,
feedback, academic support, organization of the courses, learning resources, and personal
development (as well as a question on ʹoverall satisfactionʹ)
27
.
8.1.2. BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
The case described in this section is Birmingham City University (BCU). It has around 23,500 students from 80
countries and is made up of four faculties. Each faculty covers a range of subjects and specialisms. The faculties
include Health, Education and Life Sciences (five schools), Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment
(two schools), Business, Law and Social Sciences (three schools), and Arts, Design and Media (10 schools).
BCUʹs early history can be traced back to the five individual colleges which were brought together as ʹThe City of
Birmingham Polytechnicʹ (designated in 1971). Subsequently further colleges were incorporated into the
Polytechnic. In 1992, the Further and Higher Education Act abolished the UKʹs earlier binary system allowing all
polytechnics to adopt the title of ʹuniversityʹ. As a result, the ʹCity of Birmingham Polytechnicʹ became the
ʹUniversity of Central England in Birminghamʹ. In 2007, the University changed its name to today’s ʹBirmingham
City Universityʹ. As a former polytechnic, BCU is strongly focused on teaching.
8.1.3. INTRODUCTION TO CELT
CELT is a central department of BCU, part of the executive management structure
28
. It initiates and develops
policy and support that enhances the quality of the student and staff learning experience. It was established to
uphold and enhance BCUʹs teaching and learning quality standards. Building upon a strong partnership with BCU
Studentsʹ Union, CELT provides guidance and funding that bring together innovators from across the university
to embed the University Learning and Teaching Strategy.
8.2. HOW CELT PROMOTES QUALITY CULTURE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
According to the University website, CELT performs its mission through a number of activities and initiatives to
promote academic staff development, the use of (new) learning technologies and student engagement
29
. To
24
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/recognition-accreditation/hea-fellowships
25
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/services/accreditation
26
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/recognition-accreditation/fellowships/accredited-route-hea-fellowship
27
http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/content/NSS2015_Questionnaire.pdf
28
See the full organisational structure (pdf document) at: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/corporate-information/directorate
29
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/celt

40
structure the findings, we identify three dimensions (each further disaggregated). The dimensions include (a)
what the CELT does (its activities), (b) what CELT is (its ʹnatureʹ) and (c) how CELT wants to promote itself.
8.2.1. TYPES OF ACTIVITIES
The case suggests that CELTʹs activities to promote quality in teaching and learning can be clustered in three
types of tasks – service provision, resource provision, and advocacy.
First, CELT provides a service. It organizes and conducts pedagogic training for staff, staff development, and
supports faculty in their development of technology-enhanced learning. For example, it delivers the University’s
Postgraduate Certificate Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (PGCert), which is mandatory to continue
working at the university as teaching staff. Participants achieving the required standard within the PGCert
programme are also accredited as HEA Fellows. Moreover, CELT manages several HEA accredited courses for
both academic and support staff, such as on curriculum design, innovative teaching, and tutoring
30
. On the whole,
CELT also provides expertise (i.e. staff can come proactively to CELT to gain insights in new ways of teaching, ask
advise individually or request mentoring for faculty). However, CELTʹs research tasks are relatively weak vis-à-vis
its management, organizational and promotional activities.
Secondly, CELT provides resources, in money and time. As an institutional department, it not only initiates
projects but administers funding requests from faculties. For example, faculties may apply for funds to support
innovative teaching ideas or to initiate Student Academic Partnerships (SAP), Student Academic Mentoring
Partnerships (StAMP), or Collaborative Partnerships. Funding levels may change depending on CELTʹs capacity
but discretionary funding is earmarked for these faculty-run initiatives. Strategically, this promotes acceptance
of CELT across faculties (as opposed to deeming it an additional bureaucratic organizational layer). CELT also
provides time for staff. For example, it currently seconds a number of BCUʹs teaching staff from across the
University to work on learning and teaching projects such as the ʹLead Academics for Technology Enhanced
Learning and Teachingʹ (LATELTS).
31
Staff are seconded for 40% their time.
Next, CELT is an ʹadvocate for changeʹ across the entire institution. While it is generally acknowledged that CELT
started as a service provider, institutional leadership indicated that the centre has become a driving force for
change especially with regard to improving the student experience. Academic staff and students characterized
CELT as somewhat of a champion for the student experience. In practice, the centre disseminates information
and knowledge about new ways of teaching that put the student at the centre (e.g. SAP and active learning); it
seconds staff to work on teaching and learning projects (see also below) and, it conducts much ʹunseen
negotiationsʹ to involve academic staff and represent what is happening and the opportunities.
Table 2 provides a snapshot of CELTʹs main activities classified according to the three dimensions described above
and their contribution to quality culture. We propose this summarization as an ʹideal pictureʹ to make sense of
CELTʹs activities under the perspective of its contribution to different aspects of quality culture within the
institution. Naturally, there are overlaps across the different dimensions and across the different elements of
quality culture.
32
30
See also http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/celt/academic-staff-development/accredited-courses
31
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/celt/faculty-secondments
32
See also http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/celt

41
TABLE 2: CELTʹS MAIN ACTIVITIES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO QUALITY CULTURE
Description
Contribution to Quality Culture
Research-
informed
Teaching
Practice-
informed and
active T&L
Control/ care
balance
Shared
values
PGCert
(service)
Through an MEd (Masters of Education)
framework, CELT delivers the Universityʹs
educational development courses for
academic and academic-related staff. This
includes the Postgraduate Certificate Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education (PGCert) and
additional HE-specific modules that can be
studied at Postgraduate diploma and Masterʹs
degree level (Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education). The PGCert is mandatory for
teaching staff
√
√
Other
professional
development
courses
(service)
A number of other (accredited) courses and
modules, e.g. on innovative teaching,
curriculum design etc.
√
√
SAP
(resources)
A scheme to allow students and staff to work
together on joint projects. Faculties may either
bid for funding at the time of the call or submit
proactive proposals.
√
StAMP
(resources)
A programme of peer-to-peer support for
students. Faculties may either bid for funding
at the time of the call or make a proactive
proposal
√
Collaborative
Partnerships
(resources)
Larger SAP-type projects with a stronger inter-
disciplinary emphasis. Faculties may either bid
for funding at the time of the call or make a
proactive proposal
√
Learning tools,
and facilities
(resources)
CELT manages a portfolio of (virtual) systems
that can support innovative teaching (Moodle,
Shareville, etc.)
√
√
Graduate+
(advocacy)
An award for students completing an extra–
curricular award programme beyond
classroom activities. The purpose is to create
employable graduates with more than subject-
based knowledge. There is no financial gain (it
does not replace existing programmes such as
SAP/StAMP) but it provides evidence of extra-
classroom learning skills. Students follow
workshops and conduct practical activities
(e.g. part-time work, study abroad, or
volunteering and community action).
√
√
Teacher awards
(advocacy)
Staff excellence awards such as ʹlecturer of the
yearʹ, ʹteam of the yearʹ, which recognize staff
accomplishment and encourage performance
across the institutions. These ʹExtra Mile
awardsʹ are run by the Studentsʹ Union with
university support.
√
Dissemination
and promotion of
Quality teaching
(advocacy)
Through regular channels (e.g. newsletter) and
innovative ideas (e.g. the learning labs for
projects presenting for 10 minutes max at
special institutional gatherings. The Student
Success advisor is also an ambassador for T&L
and works with CELT
√
√
External projects
(advocacy)
CELT participates in a number of projects to
disseminate/share internationally good
practice
√
√

42
8.2.2. THE ʹNATUREʹ OF CELT
CELT supports improvements in general pedagogy and teaching methodologies through the initiatives mentioned
above (i.e. it does not deal with field-specific pedagogy). It does so (also) thanks to its decisive role as a project
funder and its position within the institution as a central department. Indeed, CELT is strategically important for
the whole university not only de facto (as in the case of discipline-based centres which may or may not have spill-
overs across all faculties), but institutionally. Moreover, all teaching staff interacts with CELT as the central unit
responsible for managing and running the PGCert, which is mandatory for all teaching staff to maintain their
position. Other activities, such as the curriculum transformation programme
33
, use CELTʹs support to run
trainings and workshops for the staff involved. Although the latter activities are not mandatory, they are well
attended (inter alia) because the university management expects and to some extent insists that staff join. Staff
are often reminded of these events, there is much informal communication, and all respondents (including e.g.
academic staff, CELT staff and institutional management) indicated that staff motivation is generally high and
genuine.
8.2.3. HOW CELT PROMOTES ITSELF TO STAFF AND BEYOND THE UNIVERSITY
CELT promotes itself at several levels, i.e. within the institution, within the country and internationally. It does
so primarily in three ways. First, it shares best practices across the institution. Each faculty has a committee
structure, which includes a quality committee and a committee for student experience in teaching and learning.
At faculty committee meetings CELT can showcase good practices from across the institution. Secondly, CELT
disseminates its results beyond the institution through regular channels (e.g. newsletters), networking activities,
participation in conferences, and publications. An interesting example of the latter is the publication edited by
Nygaard et al (2013), which required each chapter to be co-authored by a student as a concrete example of the
teacher-student partnership philosophy CELT aims to spread. Third, because CELT is a central department it
provides visibility to the university as a whole and participates in a number of externally funded projects together
with other universities (e.g. via HEFCE)
34
.
8.2.4. BCU AND CELTʹS PERSPECTIVE ON ʹQUALITY CULTUREʹ
CELT has a decisive role in influencing the institution’s approach to quality culture. As a main and centrally
positioned actor within the organization, CELT influences ideas and practices of quality cultures in teaching and
learning though its many activities and its capacity to provide resources. Once the university top management
(i.e. the Pro-Vice Chancellor) agrees on the university’s priorities with the team, faculties bid with CELT for the
funding allocations. Yet, unsurprisingly there is no unanimous definition of ʹquality cultureʹ at BCU.
This project’s literature review, identified three constituent traits to define ʹquality cultureʹ, namely:
- Shifting from ʹcontrolʹ (which emphasises an exclusive attention to accountability and regulatory
compliance) to ʹcareʹ (which is concerned with autonomy, credibility and educational enhancement
based on the institution’s experiences, expertise and values);
- Balancing between two sets of values (as opposed to the primacy of one over the other): managerial
values focused on innovation, collective orientation and system control, and academic values focused
on tradition, individual specialization and self-determination;
- Sharing values and commitment to quality also thanks to the influence of other elements of
organizational culture such as norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions. These elements guide
the behaviour of the organization’s members and provide a framework to interpret the meaning of
events and actions on and off campus.
Based on the material and data available it is hard to state that the BCU as a whole has established this kind of
quality culture. Respondents have different opinions about what ʹquality cultureʹ in teaching and learning is
33
A major current reform of the taught curricula to focus more on widening participation in the local area trough more practice-based
teaching, applied knowledge and relevance for employability
34
HEFCE’s ‘learning gain’ programme is one example. CELT is leading (as BCU) one of these projects with other universities, See e.g.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/lg/projects/

43
depending inter alia on their roles. Students emphasize the need for speedy and clear feedback as well as
employability. For teachers ʹquality cultureʹ is more strongly related to student engagement and student
satisfaction. At the management level specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are crucial.
35
At the same time,
BCUʹs concept of culture of quality in teaching and learning appears to be shaped more homogeneously than in
other examples described in this comparative report.
Certain elements are shared across the university. In broad terms, ʹquality cultureʹ at BCU can be defined by the
following key dimensions:
- Research-informed teaching: the underlying belief is that teaching and learning needs to b e
underpinned by scholarship and research. Reportedly, this is one of the reasons why BCU participated
in the recent Research Excellence Framework – to capitalize on research whilst remaining true to its
teaching mission;
- Secondly, BCU is committed to ʹpractice-based teachingʹ. There is a shared understanding across the
institution that involving students in practice is necessary (and several teachers come from practice).
The nature of BCU as a former polytechnic also contributes to this understanding because most
programmes have traditionally been practice-based;
- The ʹstudent comes firstʹ is a buzz expression at BCU. In fact, it means active teaching and active learning,
and is one of the cornerstones of what CELT advocates. It takes two key forms. On the one hand,
students are seen as the academicsʹ partners, for example in conducting research (initiatives such as
SAP are designed to promote this understanding). On the other hand, students are expected to be ʹpeer
supportersʹ for other students (the StAMP programme is an example). The use of technology to enable
participatory teaching where students and teachers interact as peers is seen as necessary and desirable;
- Finally, employability and the concept of ʹlife-wide learningʹ are key descriptors of this universityʹs
notion of quality culture (a programme such as ʹGraduate+ʹ is an example of this focus).
36
Regarding a shift from ʹcontrolʹ to ʹcareʹ it is hard to see what prevails. On the one hand, BCUʹs paradigm appears
still skewed towards ʹcontrolʹ since leadership and staff working on quality are very conscious of exogenous
pressures such as the SSN or formal requirements (e.g. PGCert). On the other hand, individual responsibility for
good teaching is seen as essential, it is incentivized and rewarded and leadership actively supports individual
initiatives, through CELT. Several interviewees suggested that this coexistence was also related to levels of
ʹinstitutional maturityʹ (the more mature an institution is, the less top-down management). The cases suggests,
thus that, that there is a balance and that CELT does play a role in maintaining that balance.
The fact that there is some consensus about the notion of quality culture across the provider (albeit with the
caveats mentioned above) is likely due to the following reasons, emerging both from the case:
- The nature of CELT: as a central unit (responsible inter alia for the compulsory PGCert), CELT
disseminates a unified view of what a good teaching and learning should be in this institution;
- The nature of the provider: as a former polytechnic (upgraded to university as part of the 1992 reforms),
BCU is a teaching-focused institution. Hence, the teaching vs. research ʹprestige divideʹ is minimal and
a shared understanding of what good teaching means can develop. At the same time, this element also
gives stronger leeway to CELT as an organizational unit: as reported during the site visit by all groups
interviewed (with the exception of students) teachers know that they must go through CELT for the
mandatory trainings, and a centre focused on teaching and learning in this kind of institution is likely to
have a stronger role than in research institutions;
- Thirdly, there are significant external pressures which translate in a relatively strong internal steering
and an institution-wide strategic plan that gives heavy weight to KPIs for teaching. For example, all
respondents (with the exception of students) indicated the importance of the National Student Survey
(NSS) in influencing teaching. Institutional leadership and academic staff identified this as a sign of the
35
This aspect is strongly influence by exogenous pressures such as the National Student Survey, which play an important role in the UK
36
To some extent this may relate again to the post-1992 nature of BCU, with a strong emphasis of teaching and connection with the local
economy for their graduates

44
marketization of higher education and the shift towards a consumerist view of students. While this is
not necessarily something positive, respondents contended that it is something inevitable.
8.3. FACTORS OF IMPORTANCE OF THE QUALITY CULTURE
This section discusses some of the key factors emerging from the BCU case, which have a bearing on the
development of a culture of quality in teaching and learning. Here we emphasize the lessons learnt from the case
as opposed to the institutional interpretation of quality culture. The factors are classified into formal structures,
organizational structures and individual elements, as developed in the literature review.
8.3.1. FORMAL STRUCTURES
Formal structures that affect quality culture in teaching and learning are related to the organizational aspects
described below. Exogenous pressures and demands also influence how formal structures evolve within the
institution. Key elements that promote quality cultures under this perspective include policy alignment and the
need to respond to exogenous requirements. BCU works closely with the HEA and has its own accreditation rights
for the different fellowships. Moreover, exogenous triggers such as the NSS and the forthcoming Teaching
Excellence Framework, as well as recognition by professional bodies strongly influence the development of a
shared quality culture and intra-institutional policies. When it comes to structure, the central nature of CELT and
the importance it has in institutional decision-making when it comes to funding quality related initiatives has
significant effects on the development of an institution-wide quality culture
8.3.2. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS INFLUENCING QUALITY CULTURE
The case pinpoints a number of organizational factors that are said to be instrumental in fostering or hampering
the development of a quality culture at BCU. These can be clustered into three broad groups, namely (a)
leadership style, (b) human resource management (HRM) and (c) communicating visibility and success. While
they are clustered for analytical purposes, these three factors overlap to some extent. Leadership styles clearly
must align with HRM expectation from all staff, and HRM elements such as pathways must be communicate d
and lead to acknowledgement and rewards.
First, commitment and support from senior management at institutional level is essential. Management monitors
whether KPIs are being achieved, whether formal QA requirements are met, whether the Strategic Plan is
followed, etc. BCUʹs leadership believes (and this is acknowledged across the institution) that effective
monitoring can be achieved only through visible commitment and building trust. Therefore, an important facet
of leadership styles is the ability to encourage staff motivation and commitment by creating an environment of
trust towards management, between colleagues and in the system. ʹLeading by exampleʹ boosts the leader’s
credibility and acceptance of change. In BCU, this was illustrated by the Pro-Vice Chancellor’s decision to become
a HEA Principal Fellow, since it was being requested of senior academic staff for progression purposes.
An interesting point concerns the relationship between leadership styles and ʹinstitutional maturityʹ and the
effect of this relationship on institutional notion(s) of quality culture. Respondents indicated that to promote
quality culture the leadership style must reflect the degree of institutional maturity. Lower levels of institutional
maturity require more robust top-down management while in very mature institutions there can be more
delegation to faculties on a range of domains. The latter implies less central steering on quality of teaching and
learning and a stronger disciplinary focus. The BCU case is interesting in that it is shifting from a more top-down
to a more bottom-up approach while supporting a generally unified understanding of quality culture through
CELT. At the same time, students mentioned that while CELT is a central department with a decisive role, schools
are relatively autonomous in applying what CELT suggests.
Secondly, HRM is crucial to engender quality in teaching and learning. On the one hand, staff is given
opportunities for professional development for example through the courses provided by CELT; on the other
hand, suitable pathways for teachers and managers involved in quality of teaching and learning (e.g. recognizing

45
and rewarding educational leadership). For instance, BCU introduced a parallel structure for career progression
in teaching and learning which includes a ʹprofessorial routeʹ and ʹleadership routeʹ, linked to the achievement
of different milestones (such as different HEA fellowship levels).
Finally, institution-wide acknowledgment (for example in the form of teaching awards and events to showcase
individual successes) is crucial. It not only strengthens individual motivation, but it is a way of sharing information
on new practices and experiences.
It is perhaps important to note that educational leadership and the achievement of educational goals are very
important at BCU. While few universities would deny this, at BCU it has a special relevance because of the
providerʹs teaching mission. All respondents (CELT staff, academics, and management) emphasized how
important educational leadership is and how acknowledging success, providing opportunities for career
progression and personal development (such as the examples mentioned heretofore) are necessary.
8.3.3. INDIVIDUAL FACTORS INFLUENCING QUALITY CULTURE
As in other cases, there is a variety of individual factors that affect quality culture including, inter alia, motivation,
lack of time etc. However, the following two elements emerged explicitly during the BCU case study as
particularly relevant (as indicated particularly by management):
- Trust and fear of being judged: participating in CELT (voluntary) activities might be seen as suggesting
that teachers are not doing their work properly. CELT is, after all, a central unit not made up of teachers,
but primarily of experts on teaching and learning. Hence, one might construe asking for CELT support
as an ʹadmission of failureʹ in teaching. Strategies to overcome this include, as referred to above,
supporting intrinsic motivation, e.g. by showcasing good practices, leading by example, and spreading
the view that teaching is not a ʹprivateʹ matter and that critique is never ʹpersonalʹ.
37
CELTʹs ʹacademic
leads in faculties programmeʹ is also designed to address this problem. Academic leads are seconded
staff whose time is paid at 40% by CELT. They mentor other colleagues on technology enhanced learning,
curriculum change or other relevant themes. Academic leads are selected through a process led by the
dean and since they are faculty colleagues but also work closely with CELT, they are meant as liaisons
between faculty staff (ʹcolleaguesʹ) and CELT (the central unit of ʹexperts on teaching and learningʹ); So,
why do academic leads help to overcome the problem (whatever the problem is);
- Initiative fatigue: too many initiatives cause people to prioritize on where they want to participate and
what they find relevant. This can lead to staff resistance and risks hampering quality culture.
8.4. CONCLUSION
The case suggests that overall there is a common understanding of quality culture in teaching and learning at
BCU. This can be defined as a culture where research- and practice-based teaching is promoted centrally, and
where there is a balance between a central steering and bottom-up initiatives. Several factors contribute to
promoting this institution-wide culture of quality and to maintaining this top-down/bottom-up balance. Amongst
them, leadership style (and ʹleadership by exampleʹ) appears to be the most important as is provides legitimacy
for organizational demands such as progression requirements (fellowships, etc.).
CELT has an important role in shaping a common understanding of quality culture in teaching and learning. This
is due in part (according to some respondents primarily) to the nature of the institution as a teaching provider.
A centralized and powerful CELT is fully accepted also because teaching is truly at the heart of what BCU is. This
implies that building a culture of quality in teaching and learning depends (also) on the nature of the institution
itself. At the same time, as mentioned in this report, there is a question about the impact of institutional maturity
on shaping quality culture(s) and on defining the degree of uniform understanding across the whole institution.
Finally, the case highlights that quality culture does not develop because of one element alone (e.g. by leadership
commitment). Instead, many factors play a role, such as intrinsic motivation, leadership examples, trust, visibility,
37
This is what in other cases was referred to as ‘applying a research culture to teaching’

46
rewards, student participation (which can be enhanced by providing students with opportunities to work on
campus as part of a team rather than outside the university or not at all), parallel career paths – which equal
ʹprestigeʹ etc.

47
9. GENOMBROTTET AND THE PEDAGOGICAL ACADEMY – THE ACADEMIC
DEVELOPMENT UNIT AT THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AT LUND UNIVERSITY
9.1. INTRODUCTION
Genombrottet (The Breakthrough Project) is the academic development unit at the Faculty of Engineering at
Lund University in Sweden. The unit organizes a number of activities to increase the quality of education in the
engineering. This includes the offer of a diverse set of courses on, inter alia, pedagogy and leadership. Since 2001
Genombrottet organises the ʹPedagogical Academyʹ, which is a promotion scheme for teachers at the Faculty of
Engineering. The aim of the Academy is to improve the status of teaching and learning and to enhance the
pedagogical competences of staff in the Faculty of Engineering.
9.1.1. SWEDISH HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
In Sweden, higher education is mainly provided by public sector institutions and by a few independent education
providers. An autonomy reform in 2011 had major effects on the Swedish higher education system. The reform
provided universities with more autonomy, for example in building their internal governance structure and
decision-making processes (NIFU, 2014). However, the overall responsibility for higher education lays by the
Swedish Parliament and the Government. These bodies decide on overall objectives and guidelines for higher
education and are responsible for the allocation of funding. Approximately 80% of the total revenue of higher
education institutions comes from public funding, 5% from other public sources 10% from private sources and
other 5% from EU and other sources (UKÄ, 2016).
Currently, there are 44 higher education institutions in Sweden. These are 31 public sector institutions and
13 institutions from independent providers. Institutions differ with regard to the degree awarding rights. Full
universities can award Bachelor, Master and Doctoral degrees. Currently, this applies to 25 public sector
institutions and four institutions from independent providers. The remaining institutions do not have rights to
award doctoral degrees, but Bachelor and Master degrees. (UKÄ, 2016). The Swedish Higher Education Authority
(UKÄ), a government agency, is responsible for awarding these rights. Degree awarding rights are assigned in an
assessment done by the Swedish Higher Education Authority, results of the assessment are also used to allocate
a small amount of public funding (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, 2011). The last round of
assessments was done in 2014. It focused on students’ degree projects and self-evaluations of the institutions.
Additionally a survey among former students investigated to what extent programs met their described learning
outcomes. Currently, the evaluation system for higher education institutions is redeveloped and supposed to be
decided in 2016.
In the autumn semester 2015 ca. 343,300 students were enrolled in the first and second cycle programmes and
18,443 students in third cycle programmes at Swedish higher education institutions. The number of first and
second cycle students dropped from 365,000 in 2010 (UKÄ, 2016). Admission in Swedish higher education is
centrally organised by the Swedish Council for Higher Education (UHR). They organise a pooled admission
through a central webpage. Individual institutions, however, decide on the admission of the individual student
(UKÄ, 2016). The Council is also responsible for entrance tests, information on studying in Sweden, widening
participation and the recognition of foreign higher education degrees (UHR website). Since 2011 students from
outside the EU/EEA (except Switzerland) have to pay tuition fees, for other students education is still free.
Swedish students can get financial support for living expenses from the government. The financial support
consists of a grant and a student loan from the Swedish government. The majority of students receive financial
support (UKÄ, 2016).
As mentioned above, from the autonomy reform in 2011 the universities gained more autonomy and the number
of legislations for universities declined (NiFU, 2014). Some regulations were even abolished, among those the
regulation on quality or academic development. Before the reform, national regulations for the pedagogical
development of university teaching stipulated that every teacher needed to attend 10 weeks of compulsory

48
pedagogical training. Most institutions replaced the national policy with institutional policies. At Lund University
teachers must attend five weeks of pedagogical courses. Thus, the reform assigned responsibility for quality
assurance and development to each individual institution.
9.1.2. LUND UNIVERSITY
Lund University is organised into eight fairly autonomous faculties. The autonomy of faculties is reflected not
only in their different organisational structures but also in different organisation of teaching and learning (for
example across faculties different grading systems are applied). Besides the existence of a central unit for
academic development (AHU - Division for higher education development,) some faculties – including the
faculties of Engineering, Medicine and Science – have their own academic development units. There are
institution-wide guidelines for academic development, these are related to the national framework for
pedagogical courses.
9.1.3. INTRODUCTION TO CTL
Genombrottet is the Faculty of Engineering’s academic development unit. It is also funded by that faculty. The
unit runs different activities such as courses for teachers or educational leaders. The course catalogue includes
compulsory courses for teachers but also tailor-made courses for teacher groups or departments. The latter
courses are gaining in importance. Besides courses, the unit runs the Pedagogical Academy, a promotion scheme
that recognizes teachers as ʹexcellent teaching practitionerʹ (ETP). Additionally, the unit regularly publishes
newsletters on teaching and learning where teachers can, for instance, publish results from studies on teaching
practices. The unit also regularly organises conferences on teaching and learning at the faculty and the
institution. All activities are based on two fundamental ideas about quality teaching: first, the activities foster a
change in perspective from teaching to learning; second, activities are based on a scholarly approach to teaching
and learning (or the scholarship of teaching and learning). Besides these two guiding principles, activities intend
to encourage and develop the quality of communication on teaching and learning.
Historically the unit developed from the central unit for academic development. In the beginning, the unit was
placed within the HR department of the faculty but recently it has been placed within the Centre of Engineering
Education
38
. Placed outside the organisational decision-making structure, the unit primarily does consultancy,
i.e. advising others, but not taking an active role in decision-making. Besides its advisory/consultancy role, it also
carries out research on teaching in engineering education. Genombrottet can be seen as a knowledge hub for
teaching and learning in the Faculty of Engineering. Physically, the unit is located in a separate building and thus
not attached to any specific department. It provides a meeting platform to discuss teaching and learning for each
faculty member.
The development unit is well connected within the faculty, throughout the institution and also has a strong
national and international reputation. Within the faculty the unit is well known, not only because of the
compulsory courses every teacher has to attend but also because of its long existence, its newsletters, and its
conferences. Additionally, members of the unit are present as consultants in faculty committees. Furthermore,
the staff of the unit have a close relationship with the student union at the engineering faculty. Beside the good
network within the faculty, the development unit also has strong ties to the central academic development unit
and other faculty-level development units at Lund University. These connections are built up both on staff hired
by central and decentral units and through cooperation in course offerings. The unit also has a strong network
outside of Lund University, staff members are for example present at conferences on either engineering
education or academic development in general. Additionally, staff members are active in publishing academic
articles on these topics and are invited to represent their unit and work nationally and internationally.
38
The Centre for Engineering Education is a centre which offers various activities for the engineering faculty in relation to teaching and
learning. Besides the unit of Genombrottet which is responsible for pedagogical development in the faculty, the centre also offers
specialized courses for PhD students, as for example academic writing courses.

49
9.1.4. THE PEDAGOGICAL ACADEMY
The academy was founded in 2001 and offers a recognition scheme for excellent teachers, the excellent teaching
practitioner (ETP). All teachers at the faculty can apply to be recognised as an ETP. ETP awards lead to an increase
in salary and in the teaching grant for the teachers’ departments (LTHs Pedagogical Academy, 2015). The
academy’s goal is to promote excellent teaching, value individual efforts in teaching and learning as well as
develop faculty-wide quality of teaching. To be eligible for the Academy teachers have to commit to enhance
student learning and to a scholarly approach to teaching and learning. To apply for recognition as ETP teachers
must submit a teaching portfolio, a CV with a special section on pedagogical activities, a recommendation letter
from the head of the department, and testimonials of a discussion with at least two ETPs on the portfolio’s
contents (Faculty of Engineering, 2005). An assessment group of teachers who are already members of the
Academy judges the quality of the applications against three criteria: (1) the focus on student learning, (2) a
visible effort in development over time and (3) a scholarly approach to the applicant’s teaching development.
Based on the assessment group’s conclusions, the ETP committee consisting of the assistant dean, the assistant
dean for undergraduate studies, two teachers from the academy and two student representatives, determines
whether to award an ETP or not (Faculty of Engineering, 2005).
The ETP status cannot be withdrawn. ETPs, however, are expected to continuously develop their own and others’
teaching (Faculty of Engineering, 2005). The system of recognition is similar to the promotion of researchers thus
the Academy is not considered a special ʹclubʹ among staff. Through the application process, teachers further
develop their knowledge of teaching and learning and develop into reflective practitioners. Additionally, within
the faculty the ETP status is regarded as an essential preparation for talking about teaching and learning in a
professional manner.
The number of ETPs in the different departments differs. In some departments, the majority of teachers are ETPs,
in others there are only one or two teachers who achieved the ETP-Status. However, since the academy is already
running since 2001, an increasing number of ETPs are recognised in the faculty. Furthermore, because current
educational leaders have an ETP recognition, interviewees expected that in the future there will be a knock-on
effect.
TABLE 3: GENOMBROTTET’S MAIN ACTIVITIES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE QUALITY CULTURE
Description
Contribution to Quality Culture
Scholarship
of teaching
and learning/
focus on
student
learning
(shared
values)
Communication/
shared language
Recognise
teachers own
approach to
teaching
(lower value
conflict)
Care/control
balance
Academy
Teachers can apply to become an excellent
teaching practitioner (ETP). To become recognized
as ETP teachers have to pass an application process.
When awarded the ETP teachers and departments
receive extra funding.
v
v
v
v
Courses
The unit offers compulsory courses for pedagogical
development and tailor made courses. Besides the
focus on scholarship of teaching and learning and
student learning no specific teaching method is
advertised. Communication about teaching is seen
as important.