The Development Mechanism Of Internal Quality Assessment Institution In Higher Education

With the implementation of China’s first-round large-scale undergraduate teaching level assessment in 2003, assuring the quality of talents training of higher education has become a social consensus and establishing and improving internal quality assurance system of higher education institutes has drawn great attention. Driven by the reforms orienting "review-and-evaluation" and "management, running and assessment" separation from the Ministry of Education, a battery of higher education institutes have set up independent quality monitoring bodies or assessment and assurance departments, by names of quality management offices, monitoring and evaluation of teaching quality centers or offices, which have become a new department in coordinating and managing school quality assurance system. On one hand, their emergence has played an active role in optimizing organizational structure of University Quality Assurance System and promoting the quality of talents training. On the other hand, subject to the performance level of their operation and recognition from within the university, such departments have always been faced with difficulties in the process of operation and development. Most of the existing research has put forward ideas in construing or improving the rational model of this kind of departments in the sense of "ought-to-be", and these research has always been largely from the perspectives of "structure-function" management and sociological theories. However, this article takes the "new institutional organization theory" as the analytic angle and focuses on studying the developmental mechanisms of this kind of departments from the actual level in the sense of "as-it-is", hoping to put forward some suggestions to tackle the problem effectively.Taking the internal quality assessment and assurance institution (IQAAI) of H university as an example and focusing on the dual effects of the institutional environment and technological environment on it, this study observes and analyzes the founding, evolution, behavior and predicament of the IQAAI, employing the "new institutional organization theory" as the basic perspective and analytic framework. The main analytic method adopted here is case study, together with literature analysis, scene observation, survey interviews, quantitative statistics and analysis and other technical means. The conclusion is as follows:the emergence and development of IQAAI in higher education institutes is more for the legitimacy need of the institutional norms than for technical purposes. Thus, its development doesn’t really center on the technical requirements of improving the quality of school talents training, but limited by the norms of institutional environment.Our study suggests that:Firstly:the emergence of the IQAAI in higher education institutes is more of a result of the compliance with technical norms and the requirements of institutional legitimacy elements from top-down and outside-in. It has not been aimed or expected for technical purposes to effectively improve the teaching level, or to ensure the quality of talents training.Secondly:In the development of the IQAAI, the institutional environment plays a vital role. The mcchanism of its influence varies in different stages of IQAAI. Institutional environment exerts its influence, guiding and motivating the organization mainly through impacting distribution of resources, before the IQAAI becomes an official body of the organization. Once elevating to the status of an official body of the administration, institutional environment contains and shapes the organization directly through the norms and standards.Thirdly:in order to better suit their own survival and development, the IQAAI would seek to transform the external institutional environment continuously. The transformation is mainly achieved through two ways:1. to exert influence on the rules and procedures through their own technical expertise in the field.2. to transform the internal institutional environment and its associated networks directly according to relevant policies and regulations.Fourthly, the difficulties of the IQAAI in higher education institutes can be traced back to the structural contradictions between institutional environment and technological environment. There are two major structural contradictions, one is caused by the conflict between efficiency and observance of the rules and the other one can be blamed on the clash between different rules and requirements within the institution environment. Generally speaking, in order to ease these contradictions, the IQAAI will choose to decouple its functions from its organization and emphasize the confidence and loyalty to the organizations.Fifthly, compared to the leading role played by the institutional environment in the development of IQAAI, technical environment plays a subordinate role in the formation and development of IQAAI. And it requires certain premises for its effective function. For instance, when the legitimacy crisis of the IQAAI is linked to performance evaluation or the IQAAI tries to strengthen their legitimate existence through technical means.At last, we put forward three suggestions based on the previous five points. First, further standardize and improve the construction of institution system in relevant fields, both from the national and institute level. Second, the IQAAI in higher education institutes need to constantly raise the level of their services. Third, the organizations should make full use of their diverse institutional environments to advance its own development.