Received: 29 October 2018 | Revised: 20 March 2019 | Accepted: 25 March 2019

DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12227

ARTICLE

Twenty years of research on total quality

management in Higher Education: A systematic
literature review

Kanwal Nasim | Arif Sikander | Xiaowen Tian

School of Business and

Governance, Murdoch University, Perth, Abstract
Australia Faced with intensified global education competition, uni-
versities and other Higher Education institutions are imple-
menting Total Quality Management (TQM) to keep rivals
at bay. Meanwhile, research interest in TQM in Higher
Education is growing. This paper reviews the achieve-
ments and limitations of extant research on TQM in Higher
Education, and discusses directions for future research. The
paper finds that extant research focuses on (1) teaching and
learning but neglects research and industry engagement; (2)
an isolated factor (e.g., teacher) but neglects other factors
(e.g., facilities); (3) the Higher Education sector in advanced
countries but neglects the Higher Education sector in devel-
oping countries; and (4) TQM as a phenomenon but neglects
theory development and integration. Future research needs
to address these limitations, adopt a more holistic perspec-
tive, and take a more inclusive and comprehensive approach
to TQM in the Higher Education sector.
抽象
概要：面对激烈的全球性教育竞争，大学和其他高等教育机构都
在实施全面质量管理（TQM）以保持竞争力。同时，人们对全面质
量管理研究的兴趣也在增长。本文回顾高等教育全面质量管理研
究的成就和局限，并探讨今后的研究方向。本文发现以往对全面
质量管理的研究1）侧重教学而忽略科研和行业参与，2）侧重某
个单一因素（如教师）而忽略其他因素（如设施），3）侧重发达国

Higher Educ Q. 2019;00:1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hequ © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 1
2 | NASIM et al.

家的高等教育而忽略发展中国家的高等教育，4）侧重全面质量管
理现象而忽略全面质量管理的理论发展和`整合。今后的研究应
该克服这些局限性，采取一种更加整体的视角，以一种更加包容
而全面的方法去研究高等教育的全面质量管理。

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N

The exact origin of the term Total Quality Management (TQM) is not clear. However, the concept was certainly
related to Feigenbaum's (1961) book titled Total Quality Control, and was developed in the midst of intensified in-
ternational competition between Japanese firms and their western counterparts in the period between the 1960s
and the 1980s (Martínez‐Lorente, Dewhurst, & Dale, 1998). While there was no consensus on the definition of
the concept, TQM was widely considered as consisting of organisation‐wide efforts to develop a climate in which
an organisation continuously improves its ability to deliver high‐quality products and services to customers. TQM
was first adopted in manufacturing industries. It was acknowledged that quality is a key to success in international
competition, and that quality management is a holistic, comprehensive and coherent process that involves all
employees, managers and staff in an organisation. TQM is a source of innovation, an integral part of corporate cul-
ture, and an important contributor to the competitive advantage of an organisation over rivals (Douglas & Judge,
2001; Irani, Beskese, & Love, 2004; Singh & Smith, 2004).
TQM concepts and practices were introduced in the 1980s to the service industries, including the education sec-
tor. The development of TQM in the education sector was directly related to the intensified competition among edu-
cation institutions, particularly Higher Education institutions, across the globe in the accelerated globalisation process
(Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, & Fisscher, 2013). To attract students, schools, colleges and universities explicitly or implicitly
implemented TQM to improve the quality of student learning. Following this development, research on TQM in edu-
cation first surged in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) in the 1990s. Sallis (2002, p. 9) noted that,

Much of the pioneering work on TQM was carried out in the US and by further education colleges in
UK. The US initiatives developed somewhat before those in Britain, but in both countries the surge
of interest occurred from 1990.

The research interest in TQM in the education sector then spread to other parts of the world (Militaru, Ungureanu,
& Chenic, 2013).
Underlying the surge of interest in TQM in education was a belief that quality education is a key to winning
in the global education competition, and that the core idea of TQM applies to education management as it had
allied to other industrial sectors (Militaru et al., 2013). Feigenbaum (1994, p. 1) suggested that quality education
is determined by the way that all people involved ‘think, act, and make decisions about quality’. This view was
further supported by Sallis (2014, p. 1) who opined that ‘the total in TQM dictates that everything and everybody
in the organisation is involved in the enterprise of continuous improvement’. As regards Higher Education, Lewis
and Smith (1994) pointed out that while assessment and accreditation in universities and other Higher Education
institutions have traditionally focused on inputs and outputs, a TQM approach integrates inputs, processes and
outputs. Scholars have tried to implement TQM principles applied in industries to the Higher Education sector,
and cautiously improved them so that they can fit in the Higher Education settings (see e.g., Asif, Awan, Khan, &
Ahmad, 2013).
Nevertheless, Higher Education is different from other industrial sectors in many ways. It is very challeng-
ing to take into account the unique features of the Higher Education sector in implementing TQM practices
(Venkatraman, 2007). It is equally challenging to undertake research on TQM in the Higher Education sector.
NASIM et al. | 3

It is very useful to review extant research on TQM in Higher Education to see what progress the research has
made, what are problems that the research has encountered, and what are possible directions for future research.
Although several scholars have undertaken literature review (e.g., Ahire, Landeros, & Golhar, 1995; Hietschold,
Reinhardt, & Gurtner, 2014; Sila & Ebrahimpour, 2002), none of them specifically focused on TQM in the Higher
Education sector. To fill this gap, in this study, we undertake a comprehensive systematic literature review of pub-
lications related to TQM, and provide answers to these questions.
The organisation of the paper is as follows. The next section describes the methodology we used in the sys-
tematic literature review. Section 3 presents the results of the review. Section 4 discusses the contributions and
limitations of extant research, and highlights possible directions for future research. The final section concludes
the paper.

2 | M E TH O D O LO G Y

As shown in Figure 1, we followed Bruijn‐Smolders, Timmers, Gawke, Schoonman, and Born (2016) method of
systematic literature review. We first determined the scope of research, criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and
search terms, and then undertook study selection and data extraction.

2.1 | Scope of research

The primary focus of this study was on research on TQM in Higher Education. We were mainly interested in the
progress that has been made in this research area, the limitations in this research area, and the promising direc-
tions in future research in this area. Specifically, we asked the following questions:

1. How has the research on TQM in Higher Education evolved over time?
2. How have scholars been researching on TQM in Higher Education?
3. What are the focuses of the research on TQM in Higher Education?

2.2 | Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

To get a robust picture of what has been rigorously debated about TQM in the Higher Education sector, we de-
cided to restrict the review to peer‐reviewed journals, books and book chapters in both the education and man-
agement disciplines published in English language only.1
There are a large number of studies on TQM in Higher Education that have been published in languages other
than English. Due to the difficulty in retrieving the sources and the constraints in translating them into English,
we followed Sila and Ebrahimpour (2002) to exclude these sources from our selection process. Thus, our review
was restricted to journal articles, books and book chapters published in English. Furthermore, we restricted our
review to research materials directly related to quality management in Higher Education. We excluded studies
that discussed concepts other than TQM from our search. For example, if a research has discussed teaching and
learning (T&L) but did not discuss it in relation to TQM, then it was excluded.

2.3 | Search terms

We undertook a preliminary review of the selected sample of journal articles, books and book chapters and found
that the following terms were often used in discussing TQM‐related practices in Higher Education, and were most
relevant to our study.
4 | NASIM et al.

Papers, book chapters and books identified

Identification
through journal+googlesearch
(n = 1191 )

Papers, book chapters and Papers, book chapters

Screening

books screened and books excluded

(n = 1191) (n = 1116 )

Full-text Papers, book chapters

and books assessed for
Eligibility

eligibility
(n = 75 )

Papers, book chapters and

Included

books included in synthesis

(n = 75 )

FIGURE 1 Search procedures

• Total quality management or TQM

• Quality management
• Total quality
• Quality

We therefore used these terms in our literature search.

2.4 | Study selection and data extraction

Following the method described above, our search resulted in a download of 12,414 articles, books and book
chapters. We examined the titles, abstracts, and preface of these articles, books and book chapters for their rel-
evance to the study, and reduced the pool to 1,191 that contained concepts relevant to this study. We read and
analysed each of the 1,191 articles, books and book chapters to determine whether the respective search terms
were discussed. Out of the 1,191 articles, books and book chapters, 1,116 were dropped because they focused
TA B L E 1 Summary of analysed articles

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year
NASIM et al.

1 Abramo et al. Research output Institution Empirical Italy Research and Higher Education 2009
technology
transfer
2 Allen, Boezerooy, De Graduate Graduates Empirical Netherlands Sociology European Educational 2000
Weert, and Van Den employment Research Journal
Velden
3 Barrie, Ginns, and T&L Students Case study Australia Teaching and Assessment and 2005
Prosser learning Evaluation in Higher
Education
4 Becket and Brookes Quality assurance Higher Education Review paper UK Higher Journal of Hospitality, 2008
institutions Education Leisure, Sports and
Tourism Education
5 Bennett and Nair T&L Students Empirical Australia Learning and Assessment and 2010
teaching Evaluation in Higher
Education
6 Billing T&L Higher Education Review paper UK Quality Journal of Higher 1998
institutions Education Policy and
Management
7 Boyle and Bowden Quality assurance Higher Education Case study UAE Quality devel- Assessment and 1997
institutions opment group Evaluation in Higher
Education
8 Bradley and Lim Community University Case study Australia Psychology Assessment and 1997
service Evaluation in Higher
Education
9 Brooks Quality assurance Universities Review paper USA HE The Review of Higher 2005
Education
10 Brown T&L Institution Book UK Psychology Book 2004
11 Brown and Knight T&L HE Book UK Teaching and Book 2012
learning
|
5

(Continues)
 6

TA B L E 1 (Continued)
|

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year

12 Brown, Bull, and T&L HE Book UK Health and so- Book 2013
Pendlebury cial sciences
13 Bugday Ince and Quality assurance HE Qualitative Turkey Education European Journal of 2014
Gounko study Higher Education
14 Cardoso et al. Quality assurance University Review paper Portugal Higher Assessment and 2016
Education Evaluation in Higher
Education
15 Chang, Nyeu, and Research output Universities Case study Taiwan HE Higher Education 2015
Chang
16 Chen, Sok, and Sok T&L HE Quantitative Taiwan Business Quality Assurance in 2007
studies Education
17 Ciriaci and Muscio Graduate Students Empirical Italy Economics and European Educational 2014
employment finance Research Journal
18 Collins and Park Quality impact Universities Case study South Korea Geography Higher Education 2016
19 Dey Quality assurance HE Case study India Education European Journal of 2011
Higher Education
20 Doherty Industry HE Book UK Education Book 2003
engagement
21 Dynan and Clifford Industry University Case study Australia Quality Assessment and 2001
engagement department Evaluation in Higher
Education
22 Elken and Stensaker Knowledge HE Case study Norway Education European Journal of 2011
management Higher Education
23 Ewell Quality assurance HE Review paper USA Higher Quality in Higher 2010
Education Education
24 Farr‐Wharton T&L University Empirical Australia Commerce and Assessment and 1997
administration Evaluation in Higher
Education
NASIM et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 1 (Continued)

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year
NASIM et al.

25 Freed Quality HEIs Book USA Higher Book 1997

management Education
26 Fry, Ketteridge, and T&L HE Book UK Educational Book 2008
Marshall development
27 Girot, Miers, Coles, and T&L Health profession Case study UK Health and Assessment and 2006
Wilkinson social care Evaluation in Higher
Education
28 González and Wagenaar Quality assurance Higher Education Review paper Spain Health and European Educational 2003
institutions social care Research Journal
29 Gvaramadze Quality implemen- HE Case study UK Education European Educational 2008
tation culture Research Journal
30 Haapakorpi, Geirsdóttir, Quality assurance University's man- Case study Finland HE European Journal of 2013
and Jóhannsdóttir agement and Higher Education
academics
31 Hattie Research output University Review paper USA Education Higher Education 1997
32 Haug Quality assurance Higher Education Review paper Spain HE European Educational 2003
institutions Research Journal
33 Hodgkinson and Brown Quality assurance Faculty and staff Case study UK Business Higher Education 2003
studies
34 Hodson and Thomas Quality assurance Higher Education Review paper UK Computing Higher Education 2003
institutions
35 Holley and Harris Industry City development Qualitative USA HE Innovation in Higher 2018
engagement study Education
36 Houston and Studman T&L Universities Review paper New Zealand Quality Assessment and 2001
management Evaluation in Higher
Education
37 Jackson Facilities Library Review paper Canada Library Canadian Journal of 2017
Higher Education
|
7

(Continues)
 8

TA B L E 1 (Continued)
|

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year

38 Kanji, Tambi, and Quality Institution Quantitative USA and Business Total Quality 1999
Wallace implementation Malaysia studies Management
culture
39 Kellermann and Graduate Graduates Empirical Austria English European Educational 2000
Sagmeister employment Research Journal
40 Lagrosen, Seyyed‐ T&L HE Quantitative Austria and Management Quality Assurance in 2004
Hashemi, and Leitner Sweden and economics Education
41 Lim Quality assurance Developing Review paper Australia International Assessment and 1999
countries business and Evaluation in Higher
politics Education
42 Looney T&L Academics Review paper France Education and European Educational 2011
social policy Research Journal
43 Lundquist T&L Higher Education Review paper Sweden Quality Teaching in Higher 1998
institutions technology & Education
statistics
44 MacAlpine T&L Academics Empirical Hong Kong Engineering Assessment and 2001
Evaluation in Higher
Education
45 Mårtensson et al. T&L Universities Review paper Sweden Educational Studies in Higher 2014
development Education
46 Mergen, Grant, and Quality impact Institution Qualitative USA Business Total Quality 2000
Widrick paper studies Management
47 Moss, Kubacki, Hersh, Knowledge Higher Education Empirical Australia and Management European Educational 2007
and Gunn management Slovenia and marking Research Journal
48 Nicholls Research output Universities Review paper Australia Tertiary educa- Higher Education 2007
tion studies Quarterly
49 Nightingale and O'neil T&L HE Book chapter Australia Education Book Chapter 2012
NASIM et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 1 (Continued)

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year
NASIM et al.

50 Ntim Quality Higher Education Empirical Ghana Education Higher Education 2014
implementation institutions
culture
51 Nygaard and Belluigi T&L Stakeholders Review Denmark Management Assessment and 2011
working with education Evaluation in Higher
quality of HE Education
52 Olaskoaga‐Larrauri, Quality University Empirical Spain Business European Educational 2016
Barrenetxea‐Ayesta, implementation department studies Research Journal
Cardona‐Rodríguez, culture
José Mijangos‐
Del Campo, and
Barandiaran‐Galdós
53 Prosser et al. T&L Students Qualitative UK Teaching and Studies in Higher 2003
study learning Education
54 Rmasden T&L HE Book Australia Teaching and Book 2003
learning
55 Ruben T&L HE Book USA Communication Book 2018
and or-
ganisational
psychology
56 Ruben Excellence HE Book chapter USA Communication Book Chapter 2007
and or-
ganisational
psychology
57 Ruben et al. Excellence Academic Review paper USA Communication Leadership and 2007
department and or- Organisational
ganisational Development Journal
psychology
|
9

(Continues)
 10

TA B L E 1 (Continued)
|

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year

58 Sabet, Saleki, Roumi, T&L HE Quantitative Malaysia Business International Journal 2012
and Dezfoulianj studies of Business and Social
Science
59 Sahney, Banwet, and T&L HE Review paper India Engineering The TQM Magazine 2004
Karunes
60 Santiago, Carvalho, and Research output University Empirical Portugal Education European Educational 2008
Relva Research Journal
61 Smith T&L Academics Review Australia Higher Assessment and 2008
Education Evaluation in Higher
Education
62 Snyder Quality assurance Academics Review paper Sweden Quality European Educational 2007
management Research Journal
and leadership
63 Soliman and Soliman T&L Academics Review Australia Education Assessment and 1997
studies Evaluation in Higher
Education
64 Spencer‐Matthews Quality Academic Action research Australia Business Assessment and 2001
implementation department Evaluation in Higher
culture Education
65 Tan and Goh Research output University Case study Malaysia Policy research Higher Education 2014
and interna-
tional studies
66 Tavares, Sin, Videira, T&L Academics Empirical Portugal Higher Assessment and 2017
and Amaral Education Evaluation in Higher
Education
67 Üçtug and Köksal Quality impact Department Case study Turkey Engineering Assessment and 2003
Evaluation in Higher
Education
NASIM et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 1 (Continued)

Author’s
S.No. Author(s) Research theme Unit of analysis Methodology Country discipline Journal Year
NASIM et al.

68 Urwin and Di Pietro Graduate Graduates Empirical UK Business Higher Education 2005
employment studies Quarterly
69 Venkatraman T&L HE Review paper New Zealand Information Quality Assurance in 2007
management Education
70 Waghid Community University Case study South Africa Education Higher Education 2002
service
71 Webbstock Quality assurance University Review paper South Africa Tertiary educa- Assessment and 1997
Teaching tion studies Evaluation in Higher
Education
72 Weerts and Sandmann Industry Universities Qualitative USA Organisational The Journal of Higher 2010
engagement study leadership Education
73 Welsh et al. Quality impact University Review USA Higher Assessment and 2001
Education Evaluation in Higher
Education
74 Willis and Taylor Graduate HE Review paper USA Management Total Quality 1999
employment and marketing Management
75 Zhao Industry HE Review Australia Quality Assessment and 2001
engagement management Evaluation in Higher
Education
|
11
12 | NASIM et al.

zĞĂƌͲǁŝƐĞĞƚĂŝů

&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ

Ϯϵ
Ϯϳ

Ϯϯ
ϮϮ
Ϯϭ
ϮϬ

ϭϳ
ϭϲ
ϭϵϵϳͲϮϬϬϭ ϮϬϬϮͲϮϬϬϲ ϮϬϬϳͲϮϬϭϭ ϮϬϭϮͲϮϬϭϳ

FIGURE 2 Year‐wise sample detail

ŽŽŬͬ:ŽƵƌŶĂůͲǁŝƐĞĚĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ

Ϯϳ
ϮϬ
ϭϵ
ϭϰ
ϭϮ
ϭϭ

ϵ
ϴ
ϰ

ϰ
ϯ

ϯ
ϯ

ϯ
Ϯ

Ϯ
ϭ

ϭ
ϭ

FIGURE 3 Book/Journal‐wise sample detail

on concepts unrelated to TQM in Higher Education. The remaining 75 articles, books and book chapters were in-
cluded for further examination. We read through the 75 articles, book chapters and books including the literature
review, theoretical framework, methodology, results, and if available, the questionnaire items in the appendix of
each article, book, and chapter. Table 1 presents the details of the 75 searched studies.
Figure 2 presents the year‐wise detail of the 75 journal articles, books and book chapters. It seemed that the
interest in research on TQM in Higher Education surged over the 1997–2001 period, and then decreased over
the 2002–2006 period. It resurged over the 2007–2011 period, but decreased again over the 2012–2017 period.
This reflected the changing and fluctuating trends in the study of TQM in higher education. The recent decline of
interest was possibly related to the limitations of the research that we will discuss in the last section of the paper.
Figure 3 presents the books//journal‐wise details of the 75 studies. Clearly, most of these studies were pub-
lished in three journals, i.e., Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, European Journal of Education, and Higher
NASIM et al. | 13

Education. All of the three journals are highly ranked journals in Higher Education, indicating that TQM have been
of interest to premier journals in Higher Education.

3 | R E S U LT S

The search produced some results that are of particular interest to us. We discussed these results in relations to
research themes, unit of analysis, research methodology, country of origin and author's disciplinary affiliation.

3.1 | Research themes

Multiple themes were found in these studies. As shown in Figure 4, T&L ranked first in the research themes (26).
Other themes were related to quality assurance (15), research output (6), industry engagement (5), graduate em-
ployment (5), quality implementation culture (5), quality impact (4), community service and facilities (3), knowledge
management (2), excellence (2) and quality management (2) respectively. Although some authors did not explicitly
mention the term of TQM, they discussed concepts that were directly related to total quality improvement in a
Higher Education institution. For example, Weerts and Sandmann (2010) studied the role of industry engagement
that was a two‐way approach through which Higher Education institutions and community partners collaborated
towards the enhancement of the quality of Higher Education. Likewise, some authors suggested that quality
enhancement could be achieved by improving the delivery methods of teachers and the learning experience
of students (Looney, 2011; Mårtensson, Roxå, & Stensaker, 2014; Prosser, Ramsden, Trigwell, & Martin, 2003).
Importantly, Ruben and colleagues discussed the Balridge framework, particularly the impact of the Excellence
in Higher Education (EHE) approach, and the adaption of the framework to the specific circumstances of colleges
and universities (Ruben, 2005; Ruben, Russ, Smulowitz, & Connaughton, 2007). Ruben (2005) believed that the
Baldrige framework indeed offers very useful insights for Higher Education institutions provided that assess-
ments are done properly. 2

3.2 | Unit of analysis

These studies examined TQM in Higher Education with a focus on different levels, different focal groups and dif-
ferent entities. Figure 5 presents the distribution of unit of analysis of the 75 studies. A large number of studies

ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚdŚĞŵĞͲǁŝƐĞĚĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ
ϯϱ
Ϯϲ
ϮϬ
ϭϱ
ϴ
ϳ

ϲ
ϱ

ϱ
ϰ

ϰ
ϯ
ϯ

ϯ
Ϯ

FIGURE 4 Research theme‐wise sample detail

14 | NASIM et al.

hŶŝƚŽĨĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐͲǁŝƐĞĚĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ

Ϯϴ
Ϯϭ
ϭϮ

ϭϮ
ϵ
ϵ

ϵ
ϴ
ϳ
ϲ
ϱ

ϱ
ϰ
ϰ

ϰ
ϯ
ϯ
Ϯ

ϭ
ϭ

ϭ
FIGURE 5 Unit of analysis‐wise sample detail

(30 in total) focused on TQM at the level of universities and other Higher Education institutions (e.g., Welsh,
Alexander, & Dey, 2001), whereas a few focused on TQM at the academic department level (e.g., Üçtug & Köksal,
2003). Moreover, some studies focused on TQM in relation to faculty staff (e.g., Looney, 2011), whereas others
focused on TQM in relation to students (e.g., Ciriaci & Muscio, 2014) and/or external stakeholders (e.g., Nygaard &
Belluigi, 2011). Furthermore, some focused on TQM in Higher Education in relation to the library (Jackson, 2017),
the country (e.g., Lim, 1999), and the city (e.g., Holley & Harris, 2018).
It is interesting to note that although the research on TQM in Higher Education has primarily focused on the
level of universities, institutes or groups within these Higher Education institutions, it has recently started to
examine TQM in Higher Education in relation to other issues, including the ‘library’ that helps enhance quality of
teaching and research, ‘city development’ that can contribute towards quality improvement of Higher Education
institutions within the city, and developing country environments that affect quality improvement in Higher
Education.

3.3 | Methodology

Researchers in the study of TQM took various approaches. In the order of the most frequently to the least fre-
quently used, as shown in Figure 6, the methodology included literature review (33), qualitative approach (25), and
quantitative approach (17). In the review papers, authors systemically evaluated the extant literature on quality
management in Higher Education (Cardoso, Rosa, & Stensaker, 2016; Jackson, 2017). In qualitative studies, they
focused on education systems with particular reference to different countries (e.g., Dynan & Clifford, 2001). In
quantitative studies, they obtained feedback from teachers and/or students to assess the impact of improved
practices on the quality of T&L (Urwin & Di Pietro, 2005), the quality of graduates (Kellermann & Sagmeister,
2000), the quality of research output (Ciriaci & Muscio, 2014), and the quality of knowledge sharing (Abramo,
D'Angelo, & Di Costa, 2009).
NASIM et al. | 15

DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐLJͲǁŝƐĞĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ

ϰϰ
ϯϯ

ϯϯ
Ϯϱ
Ϯϯ
ϭϳ

YƵĂŶƟƚĂƟǀĞƐƚƵĚŝĞƐ YƵĂůŝƚĂƟǀĞ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁWĂƉĞƌ

FIGURE 6 Methodology‐wise sample detail

3.4 | Country of origin

Figure 7 presents a country‐wise analysis of the 75 studies. Most of the studies examined TQM in Higher Education
in developed countries, particularly Australia (13), UK (13) and the US (12). Only nine studies examined TQM in
higher education in developing countries, including Turkey (2), South Africa (2), Malaysia (2), India (2), and Ghana
(1). This was not an unexpected result since Australia, the UK and the US are English‐speaking countries and only
articles, books and book chapters written in English were examined in our systematic literature review. In addition,
TQM practices and research in Higher Education were more advanced in developed than developing countries.
There was little information available about TQM implementation in Higher Education in developing countries.

3.5 | Author's discipline

Figure 8 presents the distribution of the disciplinary affiliation of authors (leading author for co‐authored papers,
books and book chapters) of the 75 studies. Thirty‐nine studies were written by authors from the education
discipline: general education (17), Higher Education (14) and business studies (8). The remainder of studies were
written by authors from a variety of disciplines, including quality (7), engineering (3), health and social care (3),

ŽƵŶƚƌLJͲǁŝƐĞĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ
ϭϯ ϭϳ
ϭϯ ϭϳ
ϭϮ ϭϲ
ϯϰ
ϯϰ
ϯϰ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ƵƐƚƌŝĂĂŶĚ^ǁĞĚĞŶ
ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂĂŶĚ^ůŽǀĞŶŝĂ
h^ĂŶĚDĂůĂLJƐŝĂ

ĞŶŵĂƌŬ

EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ

^ŽƵƚŚ<ŽƌĞĂ

EĞǁĞĂůĂŶĚ

^ǁĞĚĞŶ
ƵƐƚƌŝĂ
ĂŶĂĚĂ

h

^ŽƵƚŚĨƌŝĐĂ

ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂ
&ŝŶůĂŶĚ
&ƌĂŶĐĞ

,ŽŶŐ<ŽŶŐ

DĂůĂLJƐŝĂ
EŽƌǁĂLJ

dƵƌŬĞLJ
WŽƌƚƵŐĂů
^ƉĂŝŶ

h<
'ŚĂŶĂ

/ŶĚŝĂ

/ƚĂůLJ
dĂŝǁĂŶ

h^

FIGURE 7 Country of origin‐wise sample detail

16 | NASIM et al.

ƵƚŚŽƌΖƐŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĞͲǁŝƐĞĚĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ

Ϯϯ
ϭϵ
ϭϳ
ϭϰ
ϴ ϭϭ
ϳ ϵ
ϯϰ
ϯϰ
ϯϰ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
Ϯϯ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ
ϭϭ

FIGURE 8 Author's discipline‐wise sample detail

dŚĞŽƌĞƟĐĂůƐĂŵƉůĞͲǁŝƐĞĚĞƚĂŝů
&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ

ϴϱ
ϲϰ
ϱ
ϰ

ϰ
ϯ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϭ

ϭ
ϭ

FIGURE 9 Theoretical anchor‐wise detail

communication and organisational psychology (3), management education (2), management and marketing (2),
teaching and learning (2), psychology (2), sociology (1), research and technology transfer (1), policy research (1),
library (1), international business and politics (1), geography (1), English (1), economics and finance (1), comput-
ing (1), commerce and administration (1), management and economics (1) and information management (1). It is
interesting to note that although researchers from multiple disciplines were doing research on TQM in Higher
Education, half of them were from the education discipline. This indicated that the idea of TQM was no longer
limited to manufacturing industries, and has been accepted by researchers in the Higher Education sector as well.
NASIM et al. | 17

3.6 | Theoretical anchor

It is interesting to observe that most of the authors doing research on quality management in Higher Education did
not draw on any specific theory. As shown in Figure 9, out of the 75 papers, books and book chapters under study,
64 did not emphasise on any specific theory. The remaining 11 studies drew on organisational change theory
(4), Malcolm Balridge award (3), Deming's Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act framework (2), quality management theory (1) and
critical systems thinking (1), respectively (see Billing, 1998; Doherty, 2003; Dynan & Clifford, 2001; Hodgkinson
& Brown, 2003; Houston & Studman, 2001; Nightingale & O'neil, 2012; Ruben, 2007, 2018; Ruben et al., 2007;
Spencer‐Matthews, 2001; Venkatraman, 2007).

4 | D I S CU S S I O N A N D CO N C LU S I O N

4.1 | Contribution of extant research

Extant research has made important contributions to the literature of TQM in Higher Education in many areas,
particularly in the area of T&L. As shown in Figure 4, T&L ranked the first in the research themes of extant studies,
which does not come as a surprise given that T&L is the main reason for the existence of universities and other
Higher Education institutions. Researchers have examined T&L from different angles, including quality assurance
and accreditation (Boyle & Bowden, 1997), improvement in teaching approaches (Looney, 2011; Prosser et al.,
2003), and the learning experience of students (Mårtensson et al., 2014). It is important to note that research on
T&L has drawn attention from scholars who work on TQM in Higher Education in developing countries. For ex-
ample, Boyle and Bowden (1997) considered student learning as the prime goal in quality improvement in Higher
Education, and conducted a case study on quality assurance in the United Arab Emirates. They proposed a basic
model in which a set of enabling factors conditioned effective quality assurance, and affected the learning out-
come of students. Similarly, Dey (2011) studied quality assurance in Indian universities, and noted that quality as-
surance systems had to pay attention to advances in information technology to address the growing opportunities
in open universities and distance learning. This is a welcoming development. Moreover, Brown and Knight (2012)
also studied T&L and, proposed that it is not only about providing feedback to students but also about develop-
ing students' ability to assess their own performance and potentials. Ramsden (2003) suggested that university
teachers can improve their teaching if they incorporate findings from research into their teaching and learning
processes.
Moreover, extant research has contributed to the literature of TQM in Higher Education by connecting Higher
Education institutions with the wider society. In particular, extant research suggested that quality improvement
has to be achieved by integrating all resources available, both inside and outside the Higher Education sector. As
shown in Figure 5, unit of analysis in extant studies is fairly diversified, ranging from university (Welsh et al., 2001),
academic department (Üçtug & Köksal, 2003) and library (Jackson, 2017) to city development (Holley & Harris,
2018) and country development (Lim, 1999). The wide spread of unit of analysis indicates a growing consensus
that TQM is an all‐embracing process that involves not only academic staff, students and management in Higher
Education institutions but also a wide range of stakeholders in the wider society. This is consistent with Ruben
(2018)'s view that quality management in Higher Education is expected to not only involve educators, university
administrators, and students, but also all stakeholders who are interested in Higher Education.
Furthermore, extant research has contributed to the literature on TQM in Higher Education from diversified
disciplinary perspectives. As shown in Figure 8, scholars from different academic fields have participated in the
research, including education, business and management, health and social care, engineering, sociology, research
and technology, psychology, policy studies, marketing, library studies, international business, geography, English
language, economics and finance, computing and commerce. They conducted research using a variety of method-
ologies. Apparently, TQM research in Higher Education has become an interdisciplinary endeavour. Importantly,
18 | NASIM et al.

about half of the scholars are from the education discipline, indicating a great potential to integrate academic
advances in education with developments in other disciplines in the research on TQM in Higher Education.

4.2 | Limitations of extant research

A main limitation of extant research on TQM in Higher Education lies in the lack of a holistic approach. The TQM
concept emphasises the entirety and totality of quality management. Ironically, extant studies tended to focus
on individual parts of Higher Education quality management, including faculty, students, library, T&L, industry
engagement and research, but neglected the integration of them in a holistic TQM framework. A Higher Education
institution needs to involve academic staff, students, facilities and other resources in TQM processes to enhance
the quality of T&L, the quality of research and the quality of industry engagement. All the elements and compo-
nents interact with one another to achieve desired quality outcomes. For instance, it is hardly possible for a Higher
Education institution with poor research quality to deliver high quality T&L and industry engagement. The interac-
tion and interconnection between different parts, elements and components of TQM have not been sufficiently
examined, especially through a system approach lens.
Another limitation of extant research is the neglect of organisational performance in theoretical modelling and
empirical investigation. Similar to organisations in other industries, a Higher Education organisation is aimed to im-
prove performance. To an extent, TQM is to help an organisation achieve this goal. In our review of the 75 studies
from 1997 to 2017, unfortunately, we did not find any discussion on the overall performance of Higher Education
institutions. Although Üçtug and Köksal (2003) touched upon performance, they focused on faculty performance
only. The failure in linking TQM with university performance is attributed to the treatment of inputs resources,
TQM processes, and quality outcomes as separate parts, rather than a whole system for high performance.
A third limitation of extant research lies in the lack of theory development. As shown in Figure 9, very few
studies paid attention to theoretical development. Lack of theoretical integration may have contributed to this
problem. TQM covers a wide range of issues which need to be examined from multiple disciplinary perspectives.
As shown in Figure 8, scholars in this research area were indeed from many different disciplines with diversified
theoretical backgrounds. In our review of the 75 studies, the few studies that paid attention to theory develop-
ment drew on theories from one discipline only. It is difficult to make significant advances in this field if theories
in different disciplinary areas are not properly integrated in research. Moreover, the lack of integration of theories
from different disciplinary areas is likely to lead to pitfalls in theoretical framing and empirical investigation as
illustrated above.

4.3 | Recommendations
First and foremost, we recommend that a holistic framework specifically related to TQM in Higher Education
should be developed. The framework needs to incorporate a systems view and take into consideration inputs,
processes, and outputs. On the input sides, the framework has to include resources that can be mobilised and
utilised to enhance quality, such as faculty resources, facility resources, student resources and resources outside
a university. It is important to note that students are not only customers for the service which a higher education
institution provides, but active players in T&L, research and industry engagement. It is important to treat students
as a kind of input resources and mobilise them for quality improvement. As regards processes, the framework
needs to comprise all the processes and activities through which quality is managed, such as T&L, research and
industry engagement with stakeholders outside the university. On the output sides, the framework needs to first
consider the quality of outcomes of TQM activities, such as the quality of T&L, research and industry engagement,
and then link quality improvements in these areas to the overall performance of a Higher Education institution. It
is critical to develop consistent measures of institution performance in Higher Education, such as university rank-
ing, student satisfaction, and graduate employment.
NASIM et al. | 19

To develop a credible and valid holistic framework to link TQM with the performance of a Higher Education
institution, it is imperative to draw upon theories from different disciplines and combine them into a coherent
framework. In particular, management discipline has developed some theories on strategy and organisational per-
formance. For example, the resource‐ and capability‐based theory in management is very relevant in this regard,
and can be used to link inputs, processes and outputs in a holistic framework of TQM in Higher Education. It helps
address several key issues in the holistic framework. These issues may include: How to acquire the input resources
that are needed for quality improvement? How to develop organisational capabilities to manage these resources
to enhance quality in T&L, research and industry engagement? How to link resource acquisition and capability
development to the formation of a competitive advantage in a Higher Education institution in intensified global
competition? A challenge that future research needs to address is to integrate management theories, such as the
resource‐ and capability‐based theory, with theories from education and other disciplines.
Furthermore, we recommend the use of advanced quantitative methods in empirical research. As indicated above,
TQM in Higher Education is a complex system. To unveil the linkages and connections between different parts of the
system, say, inputs, processes and outputs, it is necessary to develop complex estimation models. In particular, struc-
tural equation modelling techniques are recommended as they can provide estimates of the relationships among multiple
variables in a complex model simultaneously. The implementation of structural equation modelling requires, however,
the development of valid questionnaires for collection of survey data. Effort needs to be made in this direction.
Our study indicates that extant research has made substantial progress in TQM in Higher Education. The prog-
ress is most significant in the area of T&L, the way it links TQM in Higher Education institutions with the wider
society, and the extent to which it uses theoretical perspectives from diversified academic disciplines. However,
extant research suffers from a number of limitations, including the absence of a holistic approach, the neglect of
overall performance of a Higher Education institution, and the lack of theoretical development and integration.
We suggest that future research aims to build a holistic framework that includes inputs, processes and outcomes
of TQM, and which links TQM with organisational performance. We also suggests that future research integrates
theories from different disciplinary areas to unveil key relationships in a holistic framework, and uses advanced
statistical techniques such as structural equation modelling to address problems in estimation of complex rela-
tionships in the holistic framework. We acknowledge, however, that our systematic literature review is restricted
to English language studies alone and may miss important research in other languages. In addition, some studies
may have used different terms of quality management, including culturally sensitive terms, which are not included
in this review.3 Future research may address this limitation.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very valuable comments and suggestions, and
the Editor Professor Ruth Harris for the very helpful guidance provided during the review process. This research
was completed while one of the authors, Kanwal Nasim, held a PhD Research Training Scheme (RTS) Scholarship
from the Australian Government.

ORCID

Kanwal Nasim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3398-6323

E N D N OT E S
1
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggestion to include books and book chapters in the review.
2
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for comments on this point.
3
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for making this point.
20 | NASIM et al.

REFERENCES

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? Higher
Education, 57, 155–171. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9139-z
Ahire, S. L., Landeros, R., & Golhar, D. Y. (1995). Total quality management: A literature review and an agenda for future
research. Production and Operations Management, 4, 277–306. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.1995.tb000​57.x
Allen, J., Boezerooy, P., De Weert, E., & Van Den Velden, R. (2000). Higher education and graduate employment in the
Netherlands. European Journal of Education, 35, 211–219. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-3435.00019​
Asif, M., Awan, M. U., Khan, M. K., & Ahmad, N. (2013). A model for total quality management in higher education. Quality
& Quantity, 47, 1883–1904. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9632-9
Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., & Fisscher, O. A. (2013). An integrated management systems approach to corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 7–17.
Barrie, S., Ginns, P., & Prosser, M. (2005). Early impact and outcomes of an institutionally aligned, student focused learn-
ing perspective on teaching quality assurance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 641–656. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/02602​93050​0260761
Becket, N., & Brookes, M. (2008). Quality management practice in higher education‐What quality are we actually enhanc-
ing? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education (Pre‐2012), 7(1), 40. Retrieved from http://libpr​oxy.murdo​
ch.edu.au/login​?url=https​://search-proqu​est-com.libpr​oxy.murdo​ch.edu.au/docvi​ew/21790​7425?accou​ntxml​:id=12629​
Bennett, L., & Nair, C. S. (2010). A recipe for effective participation rates for web‐based surveys. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 35(4), 357–365. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93080​2687752
Billing, D. (1998). Quality management and organisational structure in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 20(2), 139–159. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13600​8 0980​200203
Boyle, P., & Bowden, J. A. (1997). Educational quality assurance in universities: An enhanced model. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), 111–121. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93970​220202
Bradley, G., & Lim, D. (1997). Relevance and Quality of Universities' Community Service: A study of Griffith University.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), 197–210. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93970​220208
Brooks, R. (2005). Measuring university quality. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 1–21. https​://doi.org/10.1353/
rhe.2005.0061
Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
Brown, R. (2004). Quality assurance in higher education: The UK experience since 1992. London: Routledge.
Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing learners in higher education. London: Routledge.
Bruijn‐Smolders, M., Timmers, C. F., Gawke, J. C., Schoonman, W., & Born, M. P. (2016). Effective self‐regulatory pro-
cesses in higher education: Research findings and future directions. A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education,
41(1), 139–158. https​://doi.org/10.1080/03075​079.2014.915302
Bugday Ince, S., & Gounko, T. (2014). Quality assurance in Turkish higher education. European Journal of Higher Education,
4(2), 184–196. https​://doi.org/10.1080/21568​235.2014.890523
Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 950–965. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​938.2015.1052775
Chang, D. F., Nyeu, F. Y., & Chang, H. C. (2015). Balancing quality and quantity to build research universities in Taiwan.
Higher Education, 70(2), 251–263. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9841-y
Chen, C. Y., Sok, P., & Sok, K. (2007). Benchmarking potential factors leading to education quality: A study of Cambodian
higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2), 128–148. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09684​88071​0748901
Ciriaci, D., & Muscio, A. (2014). University choice, research quality and graduates' employability: Evidence from Italian na-
tional survey data. European Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 199–219. https​://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.2.199
Collins, F. L., & Park, G. S. (2016). Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: Reflections from the frontier of globalizing
higher education. Higher Education, 72(1), 115–129. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9941-3
Dey, N. (2011). Quality assurance and accreditation in higher education: India vis‐à‐vis European countries. European
Journal of Higher Education, 1(2–3), 274–287. https​://doi.org/10.1080/21568​235.2011.617567
Doherty, G. (Ed.). (2003). Developing quality systems in education. London: Routledge.
Douglas, T. J., & Judge, W. Q., Jr. (2001). Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: The role of
structural control and exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 158–169. https​://doi.org/10.5465/3069343
Dynan, M. B., & Clifford, R. J. (2001). Eight years on: Implementation of quality management in an Australian university.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(5), 503–515. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93012​0 082069
Elken, M., & Stensaker, B. (2011). Policies for quality in higher education–coordination and consistency in EU‐policymaking
2000–2010. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(4), 297–314. https​://doi.org/10.1080/21568​235.2012.663240
Ewell, P. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What's happened and what's different? Quality in
Higher Education, 16(2), 173–175. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13538​322.2010.485728
NASIM et al. | 21

Farr‐Wharton, Y. (1997). Translating policy into practice: The teaching and learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 22(2), 211–224. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93970​220209
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1961). Total quality control: Engineering and management, the technical and managerial field for improv‐
ing product quality, including its reliability, and for reducing operating cost and losses (No. TS156. Q3 F45). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1994). Quality education and America's competitiveness. Quality Progress, 27(9), 83. Retrieved from
http://libpr​oxy.murdo​ch.edu.au/login​?url=https​://search-proqu​e st-com.libpr​oxy.murdo​ch.edu.au/docvi​ew/21477​
5878?accou​ntxml​:id=12629​
Freed, J. E. (1997). A culture for academic excellence: Implementing the quality principles in higher education (ASHE‐ERIC
Higher Education Report, Vol. 25, No. 1). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont
Circle.
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (Eds.). (2008). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing
academic practice. New York: Routledge.
Girot, E. A., Miers, M., Coles, J., & Wilkinson, G. (2006). An exploration of the ‘value‐added’of higher education for the
health and social care workforce: The lecturers' perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1),
121–133. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93050​0262429
González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2003). Quality and European programme design in higher education. European Journal of
Education, 38(3), 241–251. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-3435.00144​
Gvaramadze, I. (2008). From quality assurance to quality enhancement in the European Higher Education Area. European
Journal of Education, 43(4), 443–455. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00376.x
Haapakorpi, A., Geirsdóttir, G., & Jóhannsdóttir, G. (2013). The usefulness of quality assurance for university manage-
ment and academic staff: A case study of Finland and Iceland. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(2), 206–219.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/21568​235.2013.772353
Hattie, J. (1997). Measuring quality in universities: An approach to weighting research productivity. Higher Education,
33(4), 453–469. https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10029​56407943
Haug, G. (2003). Quality Assurance/Accreditation in the Emerging European Higher Education Area: A possible scenario
for the future. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 229–241. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-3435.00143​
Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R., & Gurtner, S. (2014). Measuring critical success factors of TQM implementation success-
fully—A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21), 6254–6272. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00207​543.2014.918288
Hodgkinson, M., & Brown, G. (2003). Enhancing the quality of education: A case study and some emerging principles.
Higher Education, 45(3), 337–352. https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10226​8 0504729
Hodson, P., & Thomas, H. (2003). Quality assurance in higher education: Fit for the new millennium or simply year 2000
compliant? Higher Education, 45(3), 375–387. https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10226​65818216
Holley, K. A., & Harris, M. S. (2018). “The 400‐Pound Gorilla”: The Role of the Research University in City Development.
Innovative Higher Education, 43(2), 77–90. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9410-2
Houston, D., & Studman, C. J. (2001). Quality Management and the University: A deafening clash of metaphors?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(5), 475–487. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93012​0 082041
Irani, Z., Beskese, A., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Total quality management and corporate culture: Constructs of organisa-
tional excellence. Technovation, 24(8), 643–650. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00128-1
Jackson, B. (2017). The representation of library value in extra‐institutional evaluations of university quality. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/11205/​336
Kanji, G. K., Tambi, A. M. B. A., & Wallace, W. (1999). A comparative study of quality practices in higher education insti-
tutions in the US and Malaysia. Total Quality Management, 10(3), 357–371. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09544​12997884
Kellermann, P., & Sagmeister, G. (2000). Higher education and graduate employment in Austria. European Journal of
Education, 35(2), 157–164. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-3435.00014​
Lagrosen, S., Seyyed‐Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 61–69. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09684​88041​0536431
Lewis, R. G., & Smith, D. H. (1994). Total quality in higher education (Total Quality Series). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Lim, D. (1999). Quality assurance in higher education in developing countries. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
24(4), 379–390. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93990​240402
Looney, J. (2011). Developing high‐quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. European Journal of Education,
46(4), 440–455. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01492.x
Lundquist, R. (1998). Quality improvements of teaching and learning in higher education: A comparison with develop-
ments in industrial settings. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 51–62. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13562​15980​030104
MacAlpine, M. (2001). An attempt to evaluate teaching quality: One department's story. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 26(6), 563–578. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93012​0 093896
22 | NASIM et al.

Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Stensaker, B. (2014). From quality assurance to quality practices: An investigation of strong
microcultures in teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 534–545. https​://doi.org/10.1080/03075​
079.2012.709493
Martínez‐Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Total quality management: Origins and evolution of the term.
The TQM Magazine, 10(5), 378–386. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09544​78981​0231261
Mergen, E., Grant, D., & Widrick, S. M. (2000). Quality management applied to higher education. Total Quality Management,
11(3), 345–352. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09544​12006865
Militaru, M., Ungureanu, G., & Chenic, A. Ş. (2013). The prospects of implementing the principles of Total Quality
Management (TQM) in education. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1138–1141. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2013.10.003
Moss, G., Kubacki, K., Hersh, M., & Gunn, R. O. D. (2007). Knowledge management in higher education: A com-
parison of individualistic and collectivist cultures. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 377–394. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00314.x
Nicholls, M. G. (2007). The development of a benchmarking methodology to assist in managing the enhancement of univer-
sity research quality. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4), 539–562. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00371.x
Nightingale, P., & O’neil, M. (2012). Achieving quality learning in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Ntim, S. (2014). Embedding quality culture in higher education in Ghana: Quality control and assessment in emerging
private universities. Higher Education, 68(6), 837–849. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9747-8
Nygaard, C., & Belluigi, D. Z. (2011). A proposed methodology for contextualised evaluation in higher education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 657–671. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93100​3650037
Olaskoaga‐Larrauri, J., Barrenetxea‐Ayesta, M., Cardona‐Rodríguez, A., José Mijangos‐Del Campo, J., & Barandiaran‐
Galdós, M. (2016). Between efficiency and transformation: The opinion of deans on the meaning of quality in Higher
Education. European Journal of Education, 51(2), 257–269. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12141​
Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the
quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 37–48. https​://doi.org/10.1080/03075​07030​9299
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Ruben, B. D. (2005). Excellence in higher education: An integrated approach to assessment, planning,and improvement in col‐
leges and universities. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Ruben, B. D. (2007). Higher education assessment: Linking accreditation standards and the Malcolm Baldrige criteria.
New Directions for Higher Education, 2007(137), 59–83. https​://doi.org/10.1002/he.246
Ruben, B. D. (2018). Quality in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge. https​://doi.org/10.4324/97813​51293563
Ruben, B. D., Russ, T., Smulowitz, S. M., & Connaughton, S. L. (2007). Evaluating the impact of organizational self‐assess-
ment in higher education: The Malcolm Baldrige/Excellence in Higher Education framework. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 28(3), 230–250. https​://doi.org/10.1108/01437​73071​0739657
Sabet, H. S., Saleki, Z. S., Roumi, B., & Dezfoulian, A. (2012). A study on total quality management in higher education
industry in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(17), 209–215.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K., & Karunes, S. (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total quality education: A stu-
dent perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(2), 143–166. https​://doi.
org/10.1108/17410​4 0041​0515043
Sallis, E. (2002). Total quality management in education (3rd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Sallis, E. (2014). Total quality management in education. London: Routledge.
Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., & Relva, R. (2008). Research and the universities' image. European Journal of Education, 43(4),
495–512. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00370.x
Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2002). An investigation of the total quality management survey based research published
between 1989 and 2000: A literature review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(7), 902–970.
https​://doi.org/10.1108/02656​71021​0 434801
Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. J. (2004). Relationship between TQM and innovation: An empirical study. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 15(5), 394–401. https​://doi.org/10.1108/17410​38041​0540381
Smith, C. (2008). Building effectiveness in teaching through targeted evaluation and response: Connecting evaluation to
teaching improvement in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 517–533. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/02602​93070​1698942
Snyder, K. M. (2007). The European Education Quality Benchmark System: Helping teachers to work with information to
sustain change. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 425–435. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00315.x
Soliman, I., & Soliman, H. (1997). Academic workload and quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2),
135–157. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93970​220204
NASIM et al. | 23

Spencer‐Matthews, S. (2001). Enforced cultural change in academe. A practical case study: Implementing quality
management systems in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 51–59. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/02602​93002​0 022282
Tan, Y. S., & Goh, S. K. (2014). International students, academic publications and world university rankings: The im-
pact of globalisation and responses of a Malaysian public university. Higher Education, 68(4), 489–502. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-014-9724-2
Tavares, O., Sin, C., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2017). Academics' perceptions of the impact of internal quality assurance on
teaching and learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1293–1305. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​
938.2016.1262326
Üçtug, Y., & Köksal, G. (2003). An academic performance measurement system and its impact on quality of engineering
faculty work at Middle East Technical University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), 251–262. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/02602​93032​0 0005​9612
Urwin, P., & Di Pietro, G. (2005). The impact of research and teaching quality inputs on the employment outcomes of
postgraduates. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(4), 275–295. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2005.00298.x
Venkatraman, S. (2007). A framework for implementing TQM in higher education programs. Quality Assurance in
Education, 15(1), 92–112. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09684​88071​0723052
Waghid, Y. (2002). Knowledge production and higher education transformation in South Africa: Towards reflexivity in uni-
versity teaching, research and community service. Higher Education, 43(4), 457–488. https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10152​
11718131
Webbstock, D. (1997). Quality assurance with respect to university teaching in South Africa: A narrative analysis.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), 173–184. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93970​220206
Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary‐spanning roles at research universities.
The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–657. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00221​546.2010.11779075
Welsh, J. F., Alexander, S., & Dey, S. (2001). Continuous quality measurement: Restructuring assessment for a new tech-
nological and organisational environment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(5), 391–401. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/02602​93012​0 081970
Willis, T. H., & Taylor, A. J. (1999). Total quality management and higher education: The employers' perspective. Total
Quality Management, 10(7), 997–1007. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09544​12997181
Zhao, F. (2001). Impact of diversification of financing sources on higher education quality. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 26(5), 427–436. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​93012​0 082005

How to cite this article: Nasim K, Sikander A, Tian X. Twenty years of research on total quality
management in Higher Education: A systematic literature review. Higher Educ Q. 2019;00:1–23. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/hequ.12227​