University lecturers' experiences of the self-evaluation of their academic programmes

M.Phil.The Founding Document of the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) (January, 2001) stresses the importance of quality and accountability in South African higher education institutions. These institutions will no longer operate in isolation, but are accountable to governmental bodies. Quality assurance is considered to be an institution's responsibility, but is not merely an internal activity. The Founding Document clearly indicates that "once the HEQC is satisfied that demonstrable quality assurance capacity has been established across a spectrum of higher education providers, it will use a 'light touch' approach to quality assurance, based on an increasing measure of reliance on the self-evaluation reports of providers" (HEQC Founding document, 2001:15). Based on the above, it is clear that self-evaluation reports of institutions will be of major importance in their quest for accountability. The HEQC will thus to a large extent, depend on self-evaluation by institutions for the orderly execution of their responsibilities. In light of these recommendations, the RAU (Rand Afrikaans University) conducted a self-evaluation pilot project involving three academic departments. The selfevaluation that was conducted was not merely the collection of data, fact finding or check listing, but a frequent, critical self-analysis of strengths and weaknesses of academic programmes that should "lead to measures which can be taken in order to improve quality" (Vroeijenstijn, 1995:51). The main purposes of such a self-evaluation are improvement and accountability. Unfortunately, however, the self-evaluation process is not without controversy and disagreement. Academics respond to this process in different ways, and many feel that it infringes on their academic freedom. The general aim of this study was to explore the experiences of academic staff at RAU who were participating in the quality assurance self-evaluation process. This qualitative study employed in-depth interviews and participant observation as datacollection methods. The data was analyzed by using the constant comparative method of data analysis. This study found that there are a wide variety of responses among academics regarding the self-evaluation process. Most of the lecturers realize the value of and need for such an exercise, but there are a number of internal factors (e.g. lack of visible management support, availability of reliable data) and external influences (e.g. requirements of national bodies) that can hinder the process. The academics also considered it to be a time-consuming exercise, but expressed their appreciation for the provision of a structured manual that served as a guideline. They did, nevertheless, stress the need to adapt and organize the exercise, provided in the manual, to their individual needs. Since the national education agenda demands that self-evaluation form an integral part of the transformation and development of higher education, there exists an urgent need to assess and explore the validity and reliability of different selfevaluation methods. This study hopes to contribute to the present body of research by focusing on the responses to such an exercise at the RAU