Search

This paper outlines the contribution made by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) towards enhancing the integration of sustainable development concerns in Africa through its initiative, the Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in Africa (MESA) Universities Partnership, during the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD). The paper underscores Africa’s wealth and diversity of natural resources while illuminating sustainable development challenges facing the region in order to highlight the need for African universities to respond appropriately. It furthermore outlines the role of education in sustainable development and attempts to contextualise higher education in Africa by exploring universities’ (historical and current) role with regard to ESD. The paper goes onto describe the MESA partnership and list the programme’s key milestones by outlining ESD innovations in African universities, as well as by examining ESD in terms of its global impact and influence on policy to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper takes the external quality assurance of English universities and colleges as an example of regulation in higher education as undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Regulatory scholarship generally has been largely disinterested in higher education and the paper applies a 'regulatory lens' to higher education quality assurance. It reports the findings of a research project on the role identities and perceptions of the auditors recruited by the QAA from the academic community for undertaking institutional audits. It suggests that such a group may be regarded as 'regulatory intermediaries', facing both 'upwards' to the regulator, and 'down' to those being regulated. As such, they have an important function in the delivery of external quality assurance regulation and the paper reports on how they mediate and understand a range of frequently conflicting pressures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores international comparisons of the extent of commonality or diversity in the main national external quality assurance frameworks for higher education. It has been suggested, from an European survey, that there are common features in national quality assurance frameworks (van Vught and Westerheijden (Quality Management and Quality Assurance in European Higher Education: Methods and Mechanisms) 1993; Luxembourg, Commission of the European Communities, Education Training Youth). The paper extends the survey, tapping other comparative reports. These comparisons show that a `general model' of external quality assurance does not universally apply, but that most elements of it do apply in most countries. We conclude that the `general model' provides a starting point from which to map deviations. In each country, there may be specific additions of elements or omissions from the model, but more usually there are modifications or extensions of elements. These variations are determined by practicalities, the size of the higher education sector, the rigidity/flexibility of the legal expression of quality assurance (or the absence of enshrinement in law), and the stage of development from state control of the sector. Some additions to the `general model' are suggested. The paper also considers efforts to produce an international scheme for external quality assurance of higher education, and the applicability of the `general model' to the transfer of quality assurance frameworks from country to country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methodological diversity has enriched higher education research. One area about which little is known is the dynamics of multi-investigator multi-institutional projects. This paper examines what happens inside a large-scale, team-based research project with an emphasis on decision points related to methodology and reporting results. Systematically reflecting on the tensions that emerged during one effort can give license to other investigators to openly discuss and manage more productively the decisions and struggles in their research and avoid pitfalls that could compromise the research endeavor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]