Asia Pacific Educ. Rev.
DOI 10.1007/s12564-015-9358-9
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies from an Asian
perspective: regulation, autonomy and accountability
Angela Yung-Chi Hou • Martin Ince •
Sandy Tsai • Chung Lin Chiang
Received: 4 August 2014 / Revised: 27 January 2015 / Accepted: 30 January 2015
 Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2015
Abstract As quality guardians of higher education,
quality assurance agencies are required to guarantee the
credibility of the review process and to ensure the objec-
tivity and transparency of their decisions and recommen-
dations. These agencies are therefore expected to use a
range of internal and external approaches to prove the
quality of their review activities. Quality assurance agen-
cies in Asia are attempting to enhance their quality ca-
pacity through several internal and external approaches.
The purpose of this study is to explore internal and external
quality assurance mechanisms used by quality assurance
agencies in Asian nations, through an international survey
of 17 APQN full members and their use of the International
Network of Quality assurance Agencies in Higher Educa-
tion and the Asia–Pacific Quality Network guidelines. The
balance between external review and autonomy is dis-
cussed at the national and international levels. The chal-
lenges and strategies that Asian quality assurance agencies
A. Y.-C. Hou (&)
Graduate School of Educational Leadership and Development,
Fu Jen Catholic University, 510, Jhongjheng Rd.,
Sinjhuang City, Taipei County 24205, Taiwan, ROC
e-mail: 035440@mail.fju.edu.tw
A. Y.-C. Hou
Office of International Education, Fu Jen Catholic University,
510, Jhongjheng Rd., Sinjhuang City, Taipei County 24205,
Taiwan, ROC
M. Ince
Martin Ince Communications Limited, London, UK
S. Tsai
C. L. Chiang
Fu Jen Catholic University, Sinjhuang City, Taipei County,
Taiwan, ROC
are facing and dealing with are presented as a conclusion at
the end of the paper.
Keywords Internal quality assurance
External quality
assurance
Quality assurance agency
Higher education
Introduction
More than 100 countries across the globe have established
higher education quality assurance (QA) mechanisms of
varied types, based on a range of purposes and processes,
including auditing, accreditation, evaluation, ranking and
benchmarking (APQN 2012a). As quality guardians of
higher education, quality assurance agencies are required to
guarantee ‘‘the credibility of the review process and to
ensure the objectivities and transparency of their decisions
or recommendation’’ (Martin and Stella 2007, p. 91).
As public concern over the accountability of quality
assurance agencies escalates, they are expected to
demonstrate to stakeholders that they are serious about
accreditation activities and have a positive impact on
higher education. ‘‘Quality assurance agencies are desig-
nated to be self-critical, objective and open-minded’’
(Costes et al. 2012, p. 28) in checking the quality of higher
education institutions. This expectation has led to the
recognition by quality assurance agencies of external re-
view as a legitimate exercise at the national and interna-
tional levels. This is referred to as ‘‘accountability of
accreditation.’’ Eaton (2011) states that the accountability
of quality assurance agencies refers to how, and how much,
quality assurance agencies accept responsibility for the
quality and results of their work and are openly responsive
to constituents and the public. Quality assurance agencies
are therefore expected to undertake varying internal and
123

external approaches to prove the quality of their review
activities (Woodhouse 2004).
The USA was the first nation to develop a recognition
system for the quality of quality assurance agencies at the
national level. In 1998, the Council for Higher Education
(CHEA), the American recognition organization, an-
nounced its standards for recognition of American ac-
creditors (CHEA 2006). Germany also developed a
recognition scheme at an early stage, essentially because of
its decentralized accreditation system. German quality as-
surance agencies are supposed to be accredited by the Ac-
creditation Council of the Foundation for the Accreditation
of Study Programmes, which acts ‘‘as the central decision-
making body of the foundation to define the basic require-
ments of the process and takes care that any accreditation is
carried out on the basis of reliable, transparent and inter-
nationally recognized criteria.’’ (GAC 2010, p. 1).
The international recognition system for quality assur-
ance agencies was initiated in Europe for the purpose of
regional integration in higher education. In 2005, the
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education (ENQA) stated that its full membership criteria
would involve achieving part III of Standards and Guide-
lines for Quality assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESG) (ENQA 2005; ENQA 2010).
Similarly, the European Quality Assurance Register for
Higher Education (EQAR), a register of quality assurance
agencies established in 2008, requested applicant agencies
to demonstrate their substantial compliance with ESG
through an external review by independent experts (EQAR
2013).
Over the past decade, Asian nations have developed
their own quality assurance system, by setting up a national
accreditor whose principal role is to accredit local tertiary
education institutions and academic programs. Even before
the establishment of their current national accreditor, local
accreditors, including professional accreditors, had
emerged in Asian countries. In order to ensure the quality
of these quality assurance agencies, some nations have
developed a recognition system for them. Take the
Philippines for example. It has two recognition bodies
certified by the Commission on Higher Education of the
Philippines (CHED). All accrediting agencies operate un-
der the umbrella of the National Network of Quality As-
surance Agencies (NNQAA) and of the Federation of
Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines. However, there
are no specific standards for recognition.
Driven by global forces in higher education, Asian na-
tional quality assurance agencies are now being challenged
to demonstrate that the quality of their own operations
meets externally determined as well as international stan-
dards. In recent years, other international networks of
quality assurance in higher education, such as the
123
A. Y.-C. Hou et al.
International Network of Quality assurance Agencies in
Higher Education (INQAAHE), and the Asia–Pacific
Quality Network (APQN), have published guidelines or
principles of best practice for the self-review of quality
assurance agencies. The ASEAN University Network
(AUN) has also published guidelines for quality assurance
to assist quality agencies ‘‘inside and outside ASEAN in
relation to harmonization of quality assurance frameworks
and development of professionals in quality assurance’’
(AUN 2014a). The ASEAN University Network Quality
Assurance Guidelines was intended ‘‘as a manual and
reference for the distinct and unique quality assurance
movement in the ASEAN region’’ (AUN 2014b, p. 2).
The main purpose of this study is to explore the internal
and external quality assurance mechanisms of quality as-
surance agencies in Asian nations through an international
survey of 17 APQN full members using INQAAHE and
APQN guidelines and semi-structured interviews with 11
top administrators of quality assurance agencies. The
challenges and strategies that Asian quality assurance
agencies are facing and dealing with are presented as a
conclusion at the end of the paper. Based on these research
aims, five research questions are addressed, as follows:
1. How was the recognition system for quality assurance
agencies developed?
2. What is the current development of quality assurance
in Asian higher education?
3. How did Asian quality assurance agencies enhance
their quality through the internal quality assurance and
external review?
4. How can Asian quality assurance agencies strike a
balance between external review and autonomy?
5. What is the role of the governments and international
quality assurance networks in quality improvement of
Asian quality assurance agencies?
Literature review
Development of recognition scheme of quality
assurance agencies
Quality assurance is ‘‘a process of establishing stakeholder
confidence that provision (input, process and outcomes)
fulfills expectations or measures up to threshold minimum
requirements’’ (INQAAHE 2013a). Since quality assurance
became recognized as a profession in recent years, quality
assurance agencies are supposed to be ‘‘under review and
development to ensure that they remain current and rele-
vant’’ on the basis of a systematic scheme for quality
(Woodhouse 2010, p. 79). Governments, driven by pres-
sure for accountability, also impose external review on
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies
quality assurance agencies, and in the 1990s, several in-
ternational networks stated that they considered peer re-
view ‘‘an important tool available to the quality assurance
agencies to strengthen their credibility and accountability’’
(APQN 2012c, p. 2).
Szanto (2010) proposed four tiers of a quality assurance
pyramid intended to ensure the overall quality of a higher
education system. At the first level, higher education in-
stitutions need to develop an internal quality assurance
mechanism for self-assessment. Quality assurance agencies
conduct an external review at the institutional and program
levels, and this is the second level. The third involves
recognition bodies aiming to recognize quality assurance
agencies in terms of professionalism, resources, indepen-
dence, self-enhancement mechanisms, etc. In most coun-
tries, a Department of Education plays the role of
recognition body. Few countries set up an independent
recognition organization to review quality assurance
agencies externally. International quality assurance net-
works are considered the final quality guardians to ‘‘review
the reviewers,’’ that is, they scrutinize agency reviewers to
see whether reviews are conducted in an appropriate
manner and in adherence to international standards (see
Fig. 1).
Martin and Stella (2007) categorized the current
recognition modes of quality assurance agencies into five
types, including Built-in checks, Umbrella organization
mechanism, Periodic assessment of agencies, Registration
of agencies and Following the principles or practices of the
international networks. In Built-in checks mode, quality
assurance agencies are required to submit their plans and
annual reports to the governing bodies, particularly gov-
ernment, which will make them public to ensure trans-
parency and strengthen accountability. Most public
agencies follow this model. In umbrella mode, quality as-
surance agencies need to obtain regular national recogni-
tion from an independent umbrella body, such as the
Council for Higher Education (CHEA) or the Accreditation
Council of Germany (GAC), as an accountability measure.
This applies especially to a diversified quality assurance
system. Periodic assessment of agencies emphasizes that
the external assessment is launched by some internal need,
Level one
Higher Education institutions (self assessment)
Level two
Quality Assurance Agencies (external review)
Level three
Recognition Agencies (national review of reviewers)
Level four
International Networks of Quality assurance (international and regional review of reviewers)
Fig. 1 Four tiers of quality assurance pyramid
such as meta-evaluation. The registration mode is charac-
terized by stipulating that quality assurance agencies
should comply substantially with a specific standard in
order be admitted to an international register, such as the
European Quality assurance Register for Higher Education
(EQAR). In the last mode, ‘‘following the principles or
practices of the international networks,’’ quality assurance
agencies conduct a regular external review on the basis of
the criteria and guidelines of international networks to
maintain their membership. This applies to the members of
the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies
in Higher Education (INQAAHE), the European Asso-
ciation for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)
and the Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN) (Table 1).
Generally speaking, European and US agencies tend to
belong to ‘‘Umbrella’’ and ‘‘Registering’’ models, due to
the existence of a well-developed higher education quality
assurance system. Most public agencies involved in na-
tional audits fall into the mode of ‘‘Built-in checks.’’ At
present, more and more quality assurance agencies are in
pursuit of autonomy and internationalization, and are
moving to the modes of ‘‘Periodic assessment’’ and ‘‘Ad-
herence to international principles.’’ These include the
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
(TEQSA) and the Higher Education Evaluation & Ac-
creditation Council in Taiwan (HEEACT).
Internal and external quality assurance approaches
by quality assurance agencies
As the public becomes more concerned with the effec-
tiveness of quality assurance activities, demonstrating the
‘‘quality of quality assurance’’ is an area of growing in-
terest for all quality assurance agencies (APQN 2010).
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies consists of
internal and external quality assurance (IQA and EQA),
which indeed are so much ‘‘two sides of the same coin that
the activities are inextricable interrelated’’ (Vroeijenstijn
2008, 1). Both internal and external quality assurance will
help in decision-making processes by the agencies.
According to the International Network of Quality as-
surance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)
(2013a), internal review means ‘‘a process of quality re-
view undertaken within an institution for its own ends.’’
Here, internal quality assurance is considered as the part of
the external process that an institution undertakes in
preparation for an external quality assurance. Several in-
ternational networks have engaged in developing guideli-
nes for the self-improvement of quality assurance agencies.
In order to underpin European quality assurance agencies’
own development and self-improvement, Standard 3.8
(entitled ‘‘Accountability procedures’’) in the European
standards for external quality assurance agencies (ESG)
123

Table 1 Comparisons of the Models of quality assurance of quality assurance agencies
Items Types
Built-in checks Umbrella model
Recognition/ Government Recognition body
supervising
body
Level/nature National Independent
Procedure submit their plans and Review externally
annual reports
Approach External Internal and external
Feature Accountability Quality assurance
Examples Malaysia qualification CHEA (US), GAC
Agency (MQA) (Germany)
Source: Martin and Stella (2007). External quality assurance in higher education: making choices. Paris: UNESCO
states that European ‘‘agencies should have in place in-
ternal assurance procedures for their own accountability’’
(ENQA 2005, p. 26). Founded in 1999, the International
Network of Quality assurance Agencies in Higher Educa-
tion (INQAAHE) aims to be a platform for information
sharing on good practices for quality improvement in
higher education between quality assurance agencies
(Woodhouse 2004). To assist in the self-review of quality
assurance agencies, it has developed good principles and
practices, entitled the Guidelines of Good Practice in
Quality Assurance (GGP). In the first section, the guideli-
nes state that external quality assurance should have ‘‘a
system of continuous quality assurance of its own activities
that emphasizes flexibility in response to the changing
nature of higher education, the effectiveness of its op-
erations and its contribution toward the achievement of its
objectives’’ (INQAAHE 2009, p. 7). These indicators will
be of practical assistance for quality assurance agencies in
reviewing their level of quality assurance operations
(ENQA 2005; INQAAHE 2009; Blackmur, 2008a).
Several internal quality assurance approaches are gen-
erally undertaken by quality assurance agencies them-
selves, such as collecting feedback from reviewed
institutions through satisfaction surveys and having formal
or informal meetings, seminars and congresses with
stakeholders (Marcos 2012). Recently, some agencies have
organized focus groups and conducted meta-evaluation to
gather information. These different tools for internal
quality assurance might each have their advantages and
disadvantages. Take satisfaction surveys, for example.
Anonymous surveys tend to be positive and do not permit
more interaction with respondents. In addition, any new
ideas to emerge will probably not come from the institution
being assessed. In contrast, focus groups seem to be a faster
123
A. Y.-C. Hou et al.
Periodic assessment Registering Adherence to international
principles
Quality assurance agencies International International networks
network
Institutional Regional International
Meta-evaluation Review Self-enhancement
externally
Internal Internal & Internal
external
Quality enhancement Quality Quality enhancement
assurance
TEQSA (Australia) EQAR INQAAHE, ENQA, and
HEEACT (Taiwan) members APQN members
and more efficient way to gather opinions. However, their
limited number of participants makes it difficult to tell
whether all the information they produce is accurate and
unbiased (Marcos 2012). In response, quality assurance
agencies have started to adopt multiple methods to gather
feedback from macro- and micro-perspectives.
Internal quality assurance is a major element of the
quality assurance of quality assurance agencies (ENQA
2012). However, a study by the European Association for
Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) reviewing
34 European quality assurance agencies’ self-review re-
ports found that only 65 percent of the agencies comply
with accountability standards. It concludes that the imple-
mentation of internal quality assurance mechanism is still
developing (ENQA 2010). But its arrival has already
brought with it several impacts on quality assurance
agencies, such as internal knowledge of the organization
itself, the creation of a methodology for internal checks and
awareness of the weaknesses and strengths of an organi-
zation (Llavori, 2010).
External reviews mean ‘‘a process that uses people ex-
ternal to the program or institution to evaluate quality or
standards’’ (INQAAHE 2013a). In other words, an external
quality review undertaken by a third party, which might be
a government, a recognition body or an international net-
work, is intended to recognize the quality of the agency’s
activities. Nowadays, ‘‘the shift from internal improvement
toward external accountability seems to prevail’’ (Szanto
2010, p. 12) among quality assurance agencies.
In fact, several quality assurance agencies began early in
the 1990s to review themselves through an external review
mechanism, such as the Middle States Association of
Schools and Colleges (USA), the Higher Education Quality
Council (UK), the University Grants Committee (Hong
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies
Kong), the German Accreditation Council (Akkreditier-
ungsrat) (Germany) and the North-Central Association of
Schools and Colleges (USA). The major reasons for ex-
ternal review include the need to renew recognition status,
assisting in the development of the future plans and ac-
tivities of the agency and demonstrating that it meets the
stakeholder’s expectations (Szanto 2010).
Quality assurance networks have started to review
quality assurance agencies externally by a set of criteria in
order to grant or maintain membership. The European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA) is the first organization to review all its members’
status externally, including their quality assurance proce-
dures for higher education, official status, activities, re-
sources, mission statement, independence, criteria and
process, and accountability. It emphasizes that this external
review should be objective and provide ample evidence for
the given agency meeting (or not) the European standards
for external quality assurance agencies (ESG) and thereby
the ENQA membership criteria (ENQA 2005).
In 2009, the International Network of Quality Assurance
Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) undertook an
‘‘adherence review’’ of its members to the INQAAHE
Guidelines of Good Practice. Unlike the European Asso-
ciation for Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA),
the external review is applied voluntarily by its members.
Up to the present, ten members have been recognized in
accordance with the INQAAHE Guidelines of Good
Practice (INQAAHE, 2013b). The review standards in-
clude the agency’s governance, resources, quality assur-
ance, reporting of public information, relationship with
institutions, standards and internal reviews for institutions,
evaluation, decision, and appeals systems, collaboration
with other quality assurance agencies and policy on cross-
border higher education. For the review, it uses a panel of
international experts to undertake an on-site visit. A final
report indicating specific areas in which shortcomings are
observed is presented to the reviewed agencies for follow-
up actions. Take the Sistema Nacional de Accreditacion de
la Education Superior (SINAES) review for example: the
final review report states,
SINAES met fully ten of the INQAAHE Guidelines
and it provided several commendations for how
carefully SINAES had structured the agency and its
accreditation programs to meet and, in some cases,
exceed the international good practices… by meeting
fully or substantially all of the INQAAHE’s Guide-
lines, SINAES is well positioned to maintain its ex-
cellence and credibility in the future. (INQAAHE
2010, p. 3).
With the support of the World Bank and UNESCO, the
Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN) was established in
Hong Kong in 2003 ‘‘to enhance the quality of higher
education in Asia and the Pacific region through strength-
ening the work of quality assurance agencies and extending
the cooperation between them’’ (APQN 2012b). It has
criteria for membership review in place, including the na-
ture of the operations, mission statement and objectives,
staff, profile of reviewers, independence, resources, review
criteria and processes, and quality assurance. Like the In-
ternational Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in
Higher Education (INQAAHE) and the European Asso-
ciation for Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA),
it has proposed some specific principles, called the ‘‘Chiba
Principles,’’ for quality assurance agencies and institutions
(in 2008) (APQN, 2010). In 2012, supported by the Global
Initiative for Quality assurance Capacity (GIQAC), it
conducted a pilot study on assisting its member agencies to
undergo peer reviews. The Quality and Accreditation
Council established under the University Grants Commis-
sion (UGC) in Sri Lanka was the first member to take part
in the initiative against the criteria drawn from APQN’s
membership criteria, the Chiba principles and the
INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice (APQN 2012c). In
2014, the APQN decided to launch the Asia Pacific Quality
Register (APQR) to serve a quality hallmark ‘‘for global
stakeholders on trustworthy quality assurance agencies in
Asia Pacific’’ (APQN 2014, p. 2).
Anatomy of Asian quality assurance agencies and their
assessment tools in era of mass higher education
In recent decades, higher education in Asia has been in the
massification phase. Enrollments have increased by over
50 %, and in East Asia and Pacific, the gross enrollment
rate has reached the world average level (Calderon 2012,
Marginson et al. 2011). Due to the variations in demo-
graphic and economic development, national higher
education systems are vastly different in size and growth.
For example, China with its 1.3 billion population has more
than 2,300 higher education institutions, compared to 1.2
million Timor-Leste with one university.
Massification generates access to higher education, but
it also increases public concern over the quality of insti-
tutions and students. As a result, it poses several challenges
to quality assurance and management in higher education.
To respond to this trend, Asian governments determined to
develop national quality assurance systems in higher
education, including national or professional accreditors.
Quality assurance systems in Asian nations are diverse
in terms of size, maturity, budget, nature, subjects and re-
view approach (Stella 2010). In most Asian nations, the
principal role of a national accreditor is to accredit local
tertiary education institutions and academic programs.
Even before the establishment of a national accreditor,
123

numerous local accreditors emerged in Asian countries,
such as the Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute in
1996 and the Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan in
2003. To date, half of the Asian nations have more than
two accrediting bodies, including Japan, Hong Kong,
China, Philippines and Taiwan (APQN 2012a). These local
accreditors are self-funded agencies, ‘‘without any inter-
vention of central governmental in its establishment or
functioning’’ (Martin and Stella 2007, p. 82). They review
certain groups of universities or types of program via a
voluntary approach.
Several quality assurance agencies have been set up for a
long time and are trying to make further improvements, such
as the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA)
founded in 1947 (Hou 2014). Some have well-established
policies and procedures that can be learned by other agen-
cies, like the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Aca-
demic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ). Some
new agencies have recently established their policies and
procedures, for example, the National Center of Public Ac-
creditation (NCPA) established in Russia in 2009.
Most Agencies are pubic organizations funded by gov-
ernment. A few are self-funded by charging applicant in-
stitutions fees, such as the Accrediting Agency of
Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines
(AACCUP). Yet, even these still receive partial support
from government. Asian agencies vary in size and budget,
too. The biggest is the Malaysia Qualification Agency
(MQA) with 320 staff, while the smallest, the New Zealand
Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZAAU), employs one
staff member only. Annual budgets of the agencies ranged
from 0.03 million USD to 33.3 million USD.
In terms of review subjects, more than two-thirds of
agencies undertake reviews both at the program and at the
institutional levels, such as the Accreditation Committee of
Cambodia, the Higher Education Evaluation and Ac-
creditation Council of Taiwan, and Yunnan Higher
Education Evaluation Center. A few have implemented
institutional evaluations in response to the growing number
of higher education institutions. These include the National
Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evalua-
tion (NIAD-UE, Japan), the Office for National Education
Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA, Thailand)
and the National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC, India). In addition to higher education institutions,
some agencies, as the one nationally recognized quality
assurance agency, have to accredit vocational educational
schools. These include the Malaysia Qualification Agency
(MQA), the General Department of Education Testing and
Accreditation (GDETA) and the Office for National
Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA).
‘‘Accreditation,’’ ‘‘Evaluation’’ and ‘‘Audit’’ are the
three major assessment tools adopted by Asian quality
123
A. Y.-C. Hou et al.
assurance agencies. The Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA) defined ‘‘accreditation’’ as ‘‘a pro-
cess of external quality review created and used by higher
education to examine colleges, universities and programs
for the purposes of quality assurance and quality im-
provement’’ (CHEA 2008, p. 12). In other words, ac-
creditation ‘‘is a voluntary process of approval of an
institution or program by an accrediting agency or body’’
according to its own mission and goal (WASC 2008). The
Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and
Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) and Higher
Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan
(HEEACT) adopted the ‘‘Accreditation’’ concept to assess
programs and institutions.
‘‘Evaluation’’ involves decisions by peers and/or stake-
holders concerning an individual institution’s achievement,
excellence and/or potential. It ‘‘focuses more on how
successfully the institution is achieving its goals and ob-
jectives’’ (NIAD-UE 2007, p. 4). It often involves a culture
of self-reflection and self-improvement. National Institu-
tion for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation
(NIAD-UE) is among one of the agencies in this sphere.
As with the previous terms, ‘‘audit’’ focuses more on
‘‘evaluating processes rather than evaluating quality’’
(INQAAHE 2013b). Instead of assessing the institution, the
aim of ‘‘audits’’ is to ensure that the institution has clearly
defined internal quality monitoring procedures linked to ef-
fective action and implementation (INQAAHE 2013b). The
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZAAU)
has adopted ‘‘audit’’ in its institutional assessment.
To sum up, Asian nations have developed their own
systems to ensure the quality of their higher education in-
stitutions, with either a single national agency or a diver-
sified framework. For example, in Indonesia, the National
Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BANPT)
(Indonesia), as a public organization, has conducted ac-
creditation of programs and universities via a mandatory
approach. The accreditation fees were borne by the gov-
ernment. In Japan, NIAD-UE has conducted university
evaluation of public universities using a mandatory ap-
proach, and again, the cost was covered by the government.
In contrast, the other private agency, the Japan University
Accreditation association (JUAA), has engaged in volun-
tary evaluation of private universities which pay fees for
this service.
In response to the growing global reach of higher
education, some Asian nations started to welcome inter-
national accreditors, particularly US accreditors, wishing to
provide cross-border quality assurance services for local
institutions (Ewell, 2008). This development led to de-
mands by governments and institutions for international
accreditation to be integrated into the national quality as-
surance framework (Hou et al. 2015). Accreditors emerged
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies

at local, national and global levels in East Asian countries,
including China, Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan.
Research method and subjects
The research adopted a qualitative approach to collect the
relevant data, including an online survey and quality as-
surance experts’ interviews. First, an online survey tar-
geting twenty-six the Asia–Pacific Quality Network
(APQN) full members was conducted in 2011 to discover
their current situation in the development of internal and
external quality assurance mechanisms. Three international
quality assurance experts from APQN and INQAAHE were
invited to review whether the questionnaires were appro-
priate. The on-line survey was mailed to 26 contact persons
on the Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN) official Web
sites, mainly those in charge of international affairs. Based
on the INQAAHE and APQN principles, the questionnaires
were developed into six sections, including basic infor-
mation, current situation of external review, internal re-
view, review procedures and items, and challenges and
strategies to enhance quality in quality assurance agencies.
Replies were received from 17 of 26 nations, seven from
East Asia, seven from Southeast/South Asia and three from
the Pacific. Table 2 shows the distribution of the APQN
full members and the respondents by country and region.
To facilitate data analysis, all respondents were given a
shortened code for their agency from A1 to A17.
In addition, the opinions of 11 heads of Asian quality
assurance agencies, including Hong Kong, Japan, New
Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, Malaysia,
India and Indonesia, were collected through semi-struc-
tured interview or e-mail from February to May, 2012. The
interviews focus on the top administrators’ attitudes to the
quality assurance of quality assurance agencies, their per-
ceptions of the characteristics of internal and external re-
views, the approaches their agencies use for self-
improvement, the challenges they faced in the procedures
of external and internal reviews, and their preferred ex-
ternal review mode. All interviewees were given the other
shortened code from B1 to B11.
While distributing online questionnaires through e-mail,
the respondents were informed that the interview results
would be used for academic purposes only. They gave their
permission with their informed consent. Data from the
interviews were analyzed using the Miles and Huberman
(1994) method for generating meaning from transcribed
and interview data. Their methods of noting patterns and
themes; clustering items into categories; building logical
chains of evidence through noting causality and making
inferences; and making conceptual coherence allow
typically large amounts of qualitative data to be reduced
(Cohen et al. 2007). In addition, triangulation involving
using multiple data sources in an investigation to produce
understanding was adopted as a method for verification of
major findings (Patton 2001). There are two major limita-
tions of online surveys and email contacts. One is the low
rate of full response. Some target groups are not patient and
motivated enough to answer all questions. Complexity is
the other problem. Online questionnaires cannot be too
complex and complicated, or the respondents may not
understand them properly (Dillman 2000).
Major findings
Quality assurance agencies’ responses and their attitude
toward internal and external quality assurance
mechanisms
1. Over 80 percent of the responding agencies indicate
that they have a self-evaluation or internal quality as-
surance mechanism in place on a regular basis.
According to the survey, 14 out of 17 have a self-evalua-
tion or internal quality assurance mechanism in place.
Cyclical review mainly ranges from a one-year to a four-
year timetable. Two agencies adopted APQN’s principles
for internal review, and six applied both the INQAAHE
and APQN guidelines as one of the references for self-
assessment. When it comes to the approaches to internal
review, the most popular methods are ‘‘using internal re-
flection mechanism to take actions or react to internal and
external recommendations for improvement,’’ ‘‘collecting
external feedback via interview or survey from the expert,
reviewers or evaluated institutions for future development’’
and ‘‘collecting the feedback and opinions from the
staff/council/board.’’ Four agencies have developed ‘‘Key
Performance Indicators’’ for internal evaluation (see
Table 3). The survey also showed that some agencies have
adopted multiple methods to gather feedback. For example,
the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and
Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) set up ‘‘Focus
group meetings with program operators’’ to collect insti-
tutional feedbacks. National Accreditation Agency for
Higher Education/(BANPT) (Indonesia) conducted a cus-
tomer satisfaction survey to visualize the impact of its
quality assurance procedures on higher education from a
wider perspective. The Japan University Accreditation
Association (JUAA) has just started to launch an internal
system by setting up a Self-Evaluation Committee.
2. More than half of these agencies have been reviewed
externally, either by government or by a recognition
authority, particularly in terms of the indicators of
‘‘effectiveness and efficiency’’ and ‘‘review procedures.’’

123
 A. Y.-C. Hou et al.

Table 2 Distribution of the respondents by country and region Table 4 Number of review items selected by agencies
Area Country Receiving Respondent Review items No. of agencies
institutions institutions
Effectiveness and efficiency 10
East Asia Russia 3 2 Quality assurance criteria and processes 10
Japan 2 2 Resources 9
China 2 2 Mission 8
Taiwan 2 2 Quality of reviewers 8
Hong Kong 2 1 Internal quality assurance improvement 7
South Korea 1 0 Independence 6
Mongolia 1 0 Internationalization 6
Subtotal 15 9
Southeast/South Asia Cambodia 1 1
Malaysia 1 1 criteria and processes including review standards, on-site
Vietnam 1 1 visit, makeup of the panel, publication of a report, follow-
Philippines 2 1 up procedure.’’ The item on ‘‘having adequate and pro-
Indonesia 1 1 portional resources’’ is chosen by nine, making it the third
Thailand 1 1 most popular standard. Eight agencies chose ‘‘the mission
India 1 1 and goals of quality assurance reflect in the agency’s pro-
Subtotal 8 7 cesses and results’’ and ‘‘quality of reviewers, including
Pacific New Zealand 2 1 their characteristics, selection and training of reviewers, no
Australia 2 0 conflicts of interest.’’ ‘‘Having in place internal quality
Samoa 1 0 assurance procedures to inform and underpin its own de-
Subtotal 3 1 velopment and improvement’’ is ranked in sixth place.
Total 26 17 Respondent agencies indicated that ‘‘independence’’ and
Response rate 65.4 (%) ‘‘internationalization’’ are regarded as the least important
items. Government regulation is more important to them
than these factors appear to be. Most of them are reviewed
Table 3 Number of agencies adopting internal quality assurance by national government, which would lead to a lack of
mechanism autonomy and less attention to internationalization
Internal quality assurance mechanism No. of
(Table 4).
agencies

Internal reflection (to collect feedback and opinions
from the staff/council/board)
Internal feedback (to take actions or react to internal
and external recommendations for improvement)
External feedback (to collect feedback via interview or
survey from the experts, reviewers or evaluated
institutions for future development)
Key performance indicators (to use KPI to ensure
accountability)
Others (focus group meetings with evaluated program;
customer satisfaction survey)
Compared to the large number of the agencies developing
internal review mechanisms, only ten agencies have an ex-
ternal review in place, and seven of them are compulsory. Six
are reviewed by government authorities, and two are re-
viewed by national recognition agencies. The review cycle is
usually 5–6 years. When it comes to external review items,
ten agencies responded that they have been reviewed for
‘‘effectiveness and efficiency’’ and ‘‘quality assurance
11 A growing awareness of internal quality assurance
mechanism among quality assurance agencies
9
The survey shows that awareness of the importance of
9 developing internal quality assurance mechanisms is
growing among quality assurance agencies. Several re-
spondents agreed that quality enhancement was a ‘‘must’’
4
for a quality assurance agency’s quality.
2 Enhancing quality of quality assurance agency is a
must, as a means of collaborative quality improve-
ment, especially because we are using government
budget that are supposed to be accountably utilized,
maintain agency’s integrity and sustain the organi-
zational growth in response to ever increasing and
changing stakeholder’s needs and demands. (A15).
According to quality assurance agency’s administrators,
the internal quality assurance mechanism has been inte-
grated into strategic plans and embedded into organiza-
tional structures.

123
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies
The department of training collected the feedbacks
from the surveys over institutions, panels and board
members, in which are integrated into three year
strategic plan (Interviewee B1).
We have a research Department to enhance our
quality internally. The department publishes the in-
formation collected through the network and the re-
sults of researches on quality assurance. It forms the
network of quality assurance researches and Higher
Education institutions, as well as quality assurance
agencies (domestic as well as international). Each
research plan is embedded in the Plan-Do-Check-
Action (PDCA) cycle to develop and verify the
quality assurance criteria and processes. (Interviewee
B3).
Most agencies expected to be reviewed externally
by international networks instead of government
The survey shows that more than a half of responding
agencies have been under governmental control through
external review, particularly Southeast Asian agencies.
Two Southeast agency heads stated:
The review reports belong to Ministry of Education and
its annual report must be sent to the Ministry of
Education for accountability purposes. (Interviewee
B9).
Our agency would submit the final report to the Prime
Minister directly. (Interviewee B7).
In order to gain more autonomy, the survey and the
interviews both showed that most agencies expected to be
reviewed externally by ‘‘the board members from interna-
tional quality assurance network’’ or ‘‘experts or scholars
from other quality assurance agencies invited by the
agency itself’’ instead of by governments. At the same
time, they expected to build international capacity and to
strengthen global recognition by either being audited by
international networks or taking part in international ac-
tivities. For example, the New Zealand Universities Aca-
demic Audit Unit (NZUAAU) has been comprehensively
adhering to the INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice
(Interviewee B5). Higher Education Evaluation & Ac-
creditation Council Taiwan (HEEACT) is planning to ap-
ply for the INQAAHE external review. One agency said
that it has tried its best to improve its accountability
through various international activities,
As a quality assurance agency, we always does col-
laborative quality improvement through various
means, including customer satisfaction survey,
inviting international reviewers for various purposes,
and building mutual recognition agreement with
some other countries for collaborative quality im-
provement purposes, such as staff exchange, sharing
the good practices with external quality assurance
regional and international network. (Interviewee B4).
Challenges for implementation internal quality
assurance and external quality assurance
According to the survey, most respondents indicated that
the transparency of internal quality assurance still needs to
strengthen. One-third of the agencies have not published
their annual reports, self-review report or other relevant
quality report to the public yet. They are still learning to
communicate with other stakeholders on their internal re-
view outcomes, such as by having formal meetings to get
feedback from staff, experts and board members, and
holding informal talks to collect opinions from institutions,
reviewers and employers (A3, A5, A6, A8, A12, A17). On
the other hand, they also complained about the lack of time
and resources for internal quality assurance implementa-
tion, including ‘‘hardly making time for internal quality
assurance of our own,’’ ‘‘difficulties in setting criteria and
benchmarks for internal quality assurance’’ and ‘‘budget
constraints’’ (A2, A3).
However, several quality assurance heads stated that
successful internal quality assurance implementation
should heavily rely on the quality of staff and would like to
invest in staff training.
‘‘If staff of quality assurance agencies can share re-
sponsibilities with each other, it will definitely
strengthen the commitment of the whole organization
to internal quality assurance mechanism’’ (Intervie-
wee B2)..
Our agency developed a good reward system for staff
and sent them to take part in international seminars
and workshops. In addition, the agency initiated an
internship program for the staff to learn from outside
(Interviewee B6).
In addition, it was found that the private quality assur-
ance agencies perceive the costs of external quality assur-
ance as being more prohibitive than the public agencies do.
Some private quality assurance agencies could not undergo
external review at an earlier stage because both the agency
and staff would have lacked maturity, and the national
legal framework would have been incomplete (Interviewee
B10 & Interviewee B11). One quality assurance agency’s
President stated that,
It is easier to conduct an internal quality assurance.
However, an external quality assurance is more dif-
ficult as it involves much cost (Interviewee B2).
123

Discussion
A balance between autonomy and accountability
As discussed above, Asian quality assurance agencies are
aware of the importance of accountability and agreed that
internal and external review could contribute to their
creditability and accountability nationally and worldwide.
However, external reviews address critical issues at the
national levels regarding autonomy and independence
(Dill, 2011).
The study found that most Asian quality assurance
agencies reviewed or regulated directly by governments
tended to lose their autonomy over quality assurance op-
eration. Southeast Asian national quality assurance agen-
cies established as governmental agencies are under direct
government control. Likewise, East Asian agencies tend to
be a buffer body where the government still plays a major
role in the agency. They are both usually considered as
extended arms of government, because they are primarily
funded by the state. For example, ONESQA (Thailand),
established as a public organization in 2000, is the only
Thailand quality assurance agency responsible for ‘‘de-
velopment of external quality assurance criteria and
methods’’ and for ‘‘conducting evaluation of educational
achievements to assess quality of institution’’ according to
National Education Act of 1999. In contrast, HEEACT
(Taiwan) falls into the category of a buffer body. It was
established as a non-governmental agency jointly endowed
by the Ministry of Education and 153 colleges and uni-
versities based on the 2005 Revised University Law.
However, it remained financially dependent on govern-
mental funding. In fact, both types of agency are expected
to serve government functions, particularly use of ac-
creditation outcomes in educational policy making and
funding allocation. Although most agencies claimed that
they have autonomy over review procedures and decisions,
they admitted that it was not easy to enhance their level of
‘‘autonomy’’ because of their close affiliation with the
government. In comparison, self-funded and private agen-
cies are more autonomous than public and quasi-govern-
mental ones, due to their independent funding and
resources.
Several scholars have expressed their concerns over this
issue. Brown (2013) has stated that when the government
develops quality assurance initiatives as a part of higher
education reform strategies, its intervention in quality as-
surance design becomes inevitable. Martin & Stella (2007)
also pointed out that ‘‘Getting the government to support
the quality assurance process without losing any of the
agency’s autonomy or affecting its functioning is certainly
an option to be considered’’ (p. 80). Dill (2011) indicated
that even truly independent government audit or
123
A. Y.-C. Hou et al.
recognition agencies would ‘‘exhibit substantial variations
in subjectivity and rigor’’ (p. 445). The accrediting body
may feel obliged to carry out the government’s wishes
rather than those suggested by its own agenda and mission
(Hawkins et al. 2006; Ewell 2008). This suggests that the
autonomy and independence of the agency will be threat-
ened when the government maintains bureaucratic control
of its internal governance and external review. In order to
manage this dilemma, quality assurance agencies have to
be more accountable for quality of their work and are
obliged to demonstrate that their professionalism in quality
assurance will not be affected by this external control.
Is international network review an appropriate
approach?
Based on the analyses above, external review is indeed
seen to be more challenging to implement independently
than internal quality assurance. The study shows that Asian
quality assurance agencies preferred the review service of
international networks to governmental audit for two major
reasons. First, they wish to gain more autonomy. Second,
compliance with international network guidelines would
build their international capacities. It was also believed that
an international external review of quality assurance op-
erations would promote the national and global reputation
of a quality assurance agency (Hou 2014). According to the
survey and interviews, INQAAHE and APQN are both
international organizations of quality assurance, and Asian
quality assurance agencies expected to be reviewed by
them. Up to the present, two Asian quality assurance
agencies have been recognized in accordance with the
INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice, the Tertiary
Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZAAU)
(INQAAHE, 2013b). In response to its members’ needs,
the Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN) is now planning
to launch Asia Pacific Quality Register in 2015 with a
combination of Chiba principles and APQN membership
review criteria as review standards.
Quality assurance agencies’ attitude toward self-
regulation through adhering to international network stan-
dards demonstrates that they would like to undertake their
operations autonomously and independently. Yet, Black-
mur (2008b) doubted whether international reviews are
truly independent or sufficiently robust. Dill (2011) was
also worried about the effectiveness of external review by
international networks. Take the European Association for
Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), for ex-
ample, only 17 out of 44 national European quality as-
surance agencies approved by the European Association for
Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) success-
fully were registered in the European Quality assurance
Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies
Register for Higher Education (EQAR) (Westerheijden
et al. 2010). In addition, King (2009) pointed out directly
that ‘‘rules, protocols and procedures become the means to
demonstrate regulatory good practices as part of corporate
self-defense rather than actual desire for improvement’’ (p.
90). Nonetheless, these worries about whether international
audit can actually improve Asian quality assurance agen-
cies will remain in respect of both INQAAHE and APQN.
Conclusion
The results of the study indicated that Asian quality as-
surance agencies intended to develop internal quality as-
surance mechanisms, particularly by reacting to internal
and external recommendations for improvement, having
interviews or surveys from expert reviewers or evaluated
institutions and collecting feedback from the staff and
council, or board members. Generally speaking, govern-
ments are mainly responsible for the external quality as-
surance of Asian quality assurance agencies. However,
most Asian quality assurance agencies expressed their
interest in using the principles and guidelines of interna-
tional networks to prove their accountability, although the
effectiveness and objectivity of these international
evaluations remain a major concern. Indeed, there is an
urgent need to establish common guidelines and basic
principles for all quality assurance agencies, especially for
some developing and centrally controlled countries in
Southeast Asia. Compared to governmental audit, inter-
national evaluation in Asia is more acceptable and reliable
at present. APQN is working aggressively with Asian
quality assurance agencies to implement a quality label
initiative.
The massification of higher education has sped up the
development of quality assurance in Asia and made it serve
specific functions for governments and higher education
institutions. Asian quality assurance agencies have adopted
several positive strategies to enhance the quality of quality
assurance operations, such as appointing excellent evalua-
tors, developing more effective programs on evaluator
training, deepening collaboration with other quality assur-
ance agencies, engaging more in research activities on
higher education and related issues, and even attempting to
stabilize their financial bases. In addition to the good
practices already in place, they aggressively develop their
international capacity through taking part in regional and
global quality assurance networks to build trust among in-
stitutions, governments and the public.
Inevitably, these agencies’ autonomy will continue to be
challenged if they are affiliated closely with public au-
thorities and reviewed externally by them. But it will be
worth observing and investigating whether international
networks rather than governments will be able to play a
major and neutral role in the quality recognition of Asian
quality assurance agencies. It can also be foreseen that
demands for cyclical internal and external review to ensure
the accountability of the quality assurance agencies will get
stronger. As David Woodhouse, former president of
INQAAHE, has said,
Quality assurance agencies need to work at their own
quality assurance, just as they expect their institutions
to do. As educational institutions are constantly being
exhorted to exhibit continuous quality improvement,
and we quality agencies must do the same. (Wood-
house 2007, p. 7–8).
References
ASEAN University Network (AUN). (2014a). Official website
Retrieved December 18, 2014, from http://www.aunsec.org/
qualityassurance_details.php?id=3.
ASEAN University Network (AUN). (2014b). ASEAN University
network-quality assurance guidelines. Retrieved December 18,
2014, from http://www.aunsec.org/pdf/aunwebsite/01_AUNQA
GuidelineManual.pdf.
Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). (2010). Chiba principles.
Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.apqn.org/.
Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). (2012a). Assessing quality in
higher education: Electronic package for reviewers’ training.
Shanghai: APQN.
Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). (2012b). Official website.
Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.apqn.org/.
Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). (2012c). Peer review of
quality assurance Agencies. Unpublished.
Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). (2014). Discussion paper on
Asia Pacific quality register (APQR). Unpublished.
Blackmur, D. (2008a). A critical analysis of the INQAAHE guide-
lines of good practice for higher education quality assurance
agencies. Higher Education, 56(6), 723–734.
Blackmur, D. (2008b). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?: The review of
the Australian universities quality agency. Quality in Higher
Education, 14(3), 249–264.
Brown, R. (2013). Mutuality meets the market: analyzing changes in
the control of quality assurance in United Kingdom higher
education 1992–2012. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(4),
420–437.
Calderon, A. (2012). Massification continues to transform higher
education. University World News, 2(237). Retrieved June 7,
2014 from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.
php?story=20120831155341147.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in
education. New York: Routledge.
Costes, N. et. al. (2012). First external evaluations of quality
assurance agencies—lessons learned. Retrieved December 15,
2010, from http://www.enqualityassurance.eu/files/ENQA%
20workshop%20report%2010.pdf.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2006).
Recognition of accrediting organizations policy and procedures.
Washington, DC: CHEA.
Dill, D. D. (2011). Governing quality. In R. King, S. Marginson, & R.
Naidoo (Eds.), Handbook on globalization and higher education.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
123

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design
method. New York: Wiley.
Eaton, J. (2011). US accreditation: Meeting the challenges of
accountability and student achievement. Evaluation in Higher
Education, 5(1), 1–20.
European Association for Quality assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA). (2005). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance
in the European higher education area. Helsinki: ENQA.
European Association for Quality assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA). (2010). First external evaluations of quality assurance
agencies—lessons learned. Helsinki: ENQA.
European Association for Quality assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA). (2012). Internal quality assurance benchmark. Hel-
sinki: ENQA.
European Quality assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR).
(2013). EQAR at a glance. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from
https://www.equalityassurancer.eu/about/introduction.html.
Ewell, P. (2008). US accreditation and the future of quality
assurance. Washington, DC: CHEA.
Germany Accreditation Council (GAC) (2010). Criteria for the
accreditation of accreditation agencies. Retrieved November 11,
2010, from http://www.akkreditierungsrat.de/index.php?id=
44&L=1.
Hawkins, D., et al. (2006). Delegation and agency in international
organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hou, A. Y. C. (2014). Quality in cross-border higher education and
challenges for the internationalization of national quality assur-
ance agencies in the Asia–Pacific region–Taiwan experience.
Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 152–163.
Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., Ince, M., Chen, H. J., Chiang, C. L., &
Chan, Y. (2015). Is the Asian quality assurance system for higher
education going glonacal?: Assessing the impact of three types
of program accreditation on Taiwanese universities. Studies in
Higher Education, 40(1), 83–105.
International Network for Quality assurance Agencies in Higher
Education (INQAAHE). (2009). Guidelines of good practice in
quality assurance. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://
www.inqualityassuranceahe.org/main/capacity-building-39/
guidelines-of-good-practice-51.
International Network for Quality assurance Agencies in Higher
Education (INQAAHE). (2010). INQAAHE review report:
Sistema nacional de acreditacion de la educacion superior
(SINAES). Retrieved November 10, 2011, from http://www.
inqualityassuranceahe.org/main/capacity-building-39/review/
inqualityassuranceahe-review-reports.
International Network for Quality assurance Agencies in Higher
Education (INQAAHE). (2013a). Quality glossary. Retrieved
January 26, 2013, from http://www.apqn.org/.
International Network for Quality assurance Agencies in Higher
Education (INQAAHE). (2013b). GGP aligned agencies.
Retrieved January 26, 2013, from http://www.apqn.org/.
123
A. Y.-C. Hou et al.
King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Llavori, R. (2010). Self-assessment of agencies and self-assessment
report: an agency perspective—the case of the National Agency
for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain (ANECA).
European Association for Quality assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA), 14–16. First external evaluations of quality assurance
agencies-lessons learned. Helsinki: ENQA.
Marcos, S. (2012). Learning from each other-using benchmarking to
develop Internal quality assurance, European Association for
Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), (Internal
quality assurance benchmarking) (pp. 13–16). Helsinki: ENQA.
Marginson, S., Kaur, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Global, local, national in
the Asia–Pacific. In Marginson S. Kaur & E. Sawir (Eds.), Higher
Education in the Asia–Pacific (pp. 3–34). Dordrecht: Springer.
Martin, M., & Stella, A. (2007). External quality assurance in higher
education: making choices. Paris: UNESCO.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd
ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation
(NIAD-UE). (2007). Glossary of quality assurance in Japanese
higher education. Tokyo: NIAD-UE.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stella, A. (2010). The Chiba principles: A survey analysis on the
developments in the APQN membership. Shanghai: Asia–Pacific
Quality Network.
Szanto, T. (2010). Background and purposes of external reviews of
quality assurance agencies: ENQA membership, national pur-
poses. European Association for Quality assurance in Higher
Education (ENQA). First external evaluations of quality assur-
ance agencies-lessons learned. Helsinki: ENQA.
Vroeijenstijn, T. (2008). Internal and external quality assurance—
Why are they two sides of the same coin? Retrieved March 31,
2012, from http://www.eahep.org/web/images/Bangkok/28_
panel_ton.pdf.
WASC. (2008). Handbook of accreditation 2008. Alameda: WASC.
Westerheijden, D. F. et al. (2010). The Bologna process independent
assessment: The first decade of working on the European higher
education area. Retrieved July 16, 2014, http://www.doc/
bologna_process/independent/_assessment_l_detailed_rept.pdf.
Woodhouse, D. (2004). The quality of quality assurance agencies.
Quality in Higher Education, 10(2), 77–87.
Woodhouse, D. (2007). Quality of quality assurance agencies, 1–7.
Retrieved December 10, 2011, from http://www.inqualityassur
anceahe.org/Upload/Presentations/AsiaPacificQualityNetwor
kAnnualConferenceFebruary2007.doc.
Woodhouse, D. (2010). Internationalization of quality assurance: The
role played by the networks. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from
http://www.auqualityassurance.edu.au/files/presentations/interna
tionalisatioofqualityassurancetheroleplayedbythenetworks.pdf.