Thesis (PhD (Curriculum Studies))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Organisational culture and external quality assurance in higher education have both
drawn significant attention to their promise of greater organisational effectiveness and
efficiency and enhanced, improved higher education respectively. In recent years, these
constructs have been linked by an assumption that an organisational culture that is
amenable to change would be more receptive to the introduction of formal external
quality‐assurance structures, systems and instruments, as these are aimed at effective
and efficient higher education practices, processes and outcomes. However, this
assumption has not been sufficiently tested given that there are significant philosophical,
conceptual and methodological controversies and contestations surrounding both
constructs. While the organisational culture literature has been littered with a
proliferation of paradigms and, albeit, fragmented theories, there has been a paucity of
theory building in the corresponding literature on quality in higher education in general
and on the impact of external quality assurance on institutions specifically.
A qualitative case study was conducted at a newly merged university of technology to
investigate two taken‐for‐granted assumptions: first, that organisational cultures are
homogenous, unitary and centred around shared values and could therefore easily be
manipulated (usually from the top by management), and second, that the introduction of
external quality assurance is an unproblematic technology that will be accepted without
question by higher education institutions as it was premised upon the laudable aim of
improving the quality of those institutions. A conceptual four‐perspective framework was
developed to critically evaluate the literature and provide the basis for the threedimensional
model used in analysing the findings. The research generated several key
conclusions that appear to challenge commonly held and articulated positions with
regard to organisational culture and external quality assurance. First, organisational
culture should be considered as being more ephemeral than concrete, multidimensional
than singular, characterised simultaneously by conflict, consensus and indifference and in
a constant state of flux. Second, external quality assurance is not necessarily a value‐free
and neutral exercise aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning, as promised
in its early conceptualisation and implementation. Third, multiple cultures may exist
simultaneously, interact with and influence each other constantly and of course
determine interactions within the organisation and the nature of engagement with
externally originated initiatives. Fourth, external quality assurance has purposes that go
beyond its often morally just and public‐good motives as it tacitly and overtly acts as an
agent of control, empowerment and transformation and simultaneously as an agent of
the state, though not necessarily to the same extent. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Organisatoriese kultuur en eksterne gehalteversekering in hoër onderwys het albei die
aandag in groot mate gevestig op hulle belofte van groter organisatoriese
doeltreffendheid en doelmatigheid en gevorderde, verbeterde hoër onderwys
onderskeidelik. In die afgelope paar jaar is hierdie konstrukte byeengebring deur ʼn
veronderstelling dat ʼn organisatoriese kultuur wat vatbaar is vir verandering, meer
ontvanklik sal wees vir die invoer van formele eksterne strukture, stelsels en instrumente
vir gehalteversekering, aangesien dit op doeltreffende en doelmatige praktyke, prosesse
en uitkomste vir en van hoër onderwys gerig is. Hierdie aanname is egter nie voldoende
getoets nie gegee die feit dat daar aansienlike filosofiese, konseptuele en metodologiese
strydvrae en twispunte ten opsigte van albei konstrukte bestaan. Terwyl literatuur oor
organisatoriese kultuur deur ʼn magdom paradigmas en weliswaar gefragmenteerde
teorieë oorweldig is, was teoriebou in die ooreenstemmende literatuur oor gehalte in
hoër onderwys in die algemeen en oor die impak van eksterne gehalteversekering op
instellings in die besonder redelik skaars.
ʼn Kwalitatiewe gevallestudie is onderneem by ʼn universiteit van tegnologie wat onlangs
saamgesmelt het om twee aannames wat as vanselfsprekend aanvaar is, te ondersoek:
eerstens, dat organisatoriese kulture homogeen, unitêr en óm gedeelde waardes
gesentreer is en dat dit dus maklik gemanipuleer kan word (gewoonlik van bo af deur die
bestuur), en tweedens, dat die invoer van eksterne gehalteversekering ʼn
onproblematiese tegnologie is wat sonder teenspraak deur hoëronderwysinstellings
aanvaar sal word, aangesien dit op die prysenswaardige oogmerk van verbetering van die
gehalte van daardie instellings gegrond is. ʼn Konseptuele raamwerk bestaande uit vier
perspektiewe is ontwikkel vir die kritiese evaluering van die literatuur en dit verskaf die
grondslag vir die driedimensionele model wat vir die analise van die bevindings gebruik is.
Die navorsing het verskeie belangrike gevolgtrekkings na vore laat kom wat algemeen
geldende en duidelik bepaalde posisies ten opsigte van organisatoriese kultuur en
eksterne gehalteversekering blyk uit te daag. Eerstens moet organisatoriese kultuur
beskou word as efemeries eerder as konkreet, multidimensioneel eerder as enkelvoudig,
terwyl dit gelyktydig deur konflik, konsensus en onverskilligheid gekenmerk word en in ʼn
gedurige toestand van wisseling verkeer. Tweedens is eksterne gehalteversekering nie
noodwendig, soos in die vroeë konseptualisering en implementering belowe, ʼn
waardevrye en neutrale oefening gemik op verbetering van die gehalte van onderrig en
leer nie. Derdens kan veelvuldige kulture gelyktydig bestaan, met mekaar in interaksie
tree en mekaar voortdurend beïnvloed en natuurlik interaksies binne die organisasie en
die aard van betrokkenheid by inisiatiewe wat ekstern ontstaan, bepaal. Vierdens het
eksterne gehalteversekering oogmerke wat veel verder strek as die motiewe daarvan wat
dikwels moreel geregverdig en vir die openbare beswil is aangesien dit stilswyend en op
overte wyse optree as ʼn agent vir beheer, bemagtiging en transformasie en tegelyk as ʼn
agent van die regering, alhoewel nie noodwendig tot dieselfde mate nie.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/1467 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Naidoo, Dhanasagran |
| Contributors | Kapp, C. A., Erasmus, A. S., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Education. Dept. of Curriculum Studies. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0031 seconds