The articles in this issue of Quality in Higher Education provide interesting and valuable perspectives on quality in higher education in several countries from a wide range of regions. There are contributions from Bangladesh, East Africa, the European Union, Georgia and Kosovo. The issues covered by the articles relate to the Bologna Process and its impact, student engagement with quality processes, implementing quality assurance processes in developing regions and the value of professional doctorates in developing economies but the focus is largely on the tensions and challenges of developing quality assurance, not least the effectiveness of quality assurance processes in improving teaching and learning. Tashmin Khamis and Sam Scully analyse an internal quality assurance framework used across East Africa to make comparisons with indicators of quality that are known to affect teaching effectiveness and student learning. The authors highlight the need for quality assurance agencies to develop internal quality assurance frameworks for programme review that focus the quality of the learning experience to ensure improved programme provision. In a study of Bangladeshi higher education, Naureen Rahnuma describes how a quality assurance framework has developed rapidly over the course of a decade and reflects on the challenges of operationalising national protocols at institutional level. Rahnuma highlights how a robust internal quality assurance framework is indispensable to hasten the process of programme accreditation. Fjolla Kaçaniku explores the development of quality assurance and enhancement processes in Kosovo, which has developed rapidly in recent years under the influence of the Bologna Process, highlighting the tension between quality control and quality improvement. The author argues that in Kosovo, quality assurance has been highly politicised, characterised by a struggle for power between external stakeholders, such as the government, and internal stakeholders, such as the academics. The tension between the needs of the European Union and the needs of individual member states is highlighted in an article by Maria Manatos and Jeroen Huisman in which they explore the different ways in which national accreditation agencies interpret the European Standards and Guidelines. The authors explore the translation processes that take place and show that national quality assurance frameworks often deviate from the Standards and Guidelines, whereas review panels remain faithful to the domestic frameworks. QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2020, VOL. 26, NO. 1, 1–2 https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1743501

中文翻译：

---

社论

本期《高等教育质量》中的文章为来自不同地区的多个国家的高等教育质量提供了有趣而有价值的观点。来自孟加拉国，东非，欧洲联盟，格鲁吉亚和科索沃的捐款。文章涵盖的问题涉及博洛尼亚进程及其影响，学生参与质量流程，在发展中地区实施质量保证流程以及发展中经济体中专业博士学位的价值，但重点主要放在发展质量方面的紧张和挑战保证，尤其是质量保证流程在改善教学方面的有效性。Tashmin Khamis和Sam Scully分析了整个东非使用的内部质量保证框架，以与已知会影响教学效果和学生学习的质量指标进行比较。作者强调指出，质量保证机构有必要制定内部质量保证框架以进行计划审核，该框架应集中学习经验的质量，以确保改善计划的提供。在对孟加拉国高等教育的研究中，Naureen Rahnuma描述了质量保证框架在过去十年中如何快速发展，并反思了在机构层面实施国家协议的挑战。Rahnuma强调了健全的内部质量保证框架对于加快计划认证过程必不可少的作用。FjollaKaçaniku探索了科索沃的质量保证和增强流程的发展，近年来，该发展在博洛尼亚流程的影响下迅速发展，突显了质量控制与质量改进之间的紧张关系。作者认为，在科索沃，质量保证已高度政治化，其特征是政府等外部利益相关者与学者等内部利益相关者之间为争取权力而斗争。Maria Manatos和Jeroen Huisman在一篇文章中强调了欧盟需求与各个成员国需求之间的紧张关系，他们探讨了国家认证机构解释欧洲标准和指南的不同方式。作者探讨了所发生的翻译过程，并表明国家质量保证框架通常与标准和准则有所出入，而评审小组仍然忠于国内框架。高等教育质量，2020年，卷。26号 1，1–2 https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1743501