The long-standing tension between accountability and improvement has been a focus ofQuality in Higher Education since the inception of the journal in 1995 and it continues to be a key perennial debate internationally (Williams, 2016). In this issue, it is the focus of a discussion of contemporary Namibian higher education. Ngepathimo Kadhila and Nangula Iipumbu describe the implementation of new quality assurance processes at national and institutional levels: they argue that there is much work to be done by the sector as a whole to instil a sense of ownership of quality assurance process and practice amongst academics. Similarly, there has been much debate about how students, as a key stakeholder in higher education, can take ownership of quality processes. In this issue, two articles explore various facets of the role of students in contemporary quality processes. In their article on Italian higher education, Serafina Pastore, Amelia Manuti, Fausta Scardigno, Antonella Curci and Monica Pentassuglia argue that despite the wide acknowledgement of the potential for student feedback, there is litte evidence that Italian students actually take part in the quality process for a range of reasons, partly including traditional notions of deference. In contrast, in their study of Erasmus Mundus programmes, Rediet Adebe and Krisztina Ford have found that students are much more willing to be involved in quality processes. However, they argue that organisational culture, national policies and regulations are the main barriers to such participation. At the core of many of the debates about quality in higher education is a concern with the efficacy of standards and performance indicators. In this issue of Quality in Higher Education, two articles contribute to this debate. Khaled Alzafari and Jani Ursin assess the implementation of the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) across different European countries and highlight the impact of national differences on the implementation of the ESG. In the context of German higher education, Theodore Leiber identifies a comprehensive set of performance indicators for learning and teaching and argues that learning and teaching quality must be approached in a holistic way across the four subdomains of learning and teaching environment, teaching processes, learning processes, and learning outcomes and their assessment. Leiber’s work is unusual because he addresses one of the fundamental conundrums of the quality debate: how learning and teaching are actually measured. Occasionally, however, new issues emerge and one of the most prominent has been digitalisation and its potential impact on quality management. QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2019, VOL. 25, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1607984

中文翻译：

---

社论

自1995年《期刊》问世以来，问责制与改进之间的长期紧张一直是《高等教育质量》的关注重点，并且一直是国际上多年以来主要的辩论（Williams，2016）。在本期中，这是当代纳米比亚高等教育的讨论重点。Ngepathimo Kadhila和Nangula Iipumbu描述了在国家和机构级别实施新的质量保证流程：他们认为整个行业还有很多工作要做，以在学者之间灌输对质量保证流程和实践的主人翁感。同样，关于作为高等教育的主要利益相关者的学生如何拥有质量程序的所有权，也存在许多争论。在这个问题上，两篇文章探讨了学生在当代质量过程中所扮演角色的各个方面。Serafina Pastore，Amelia Manuti，Fausta Scardigno，Antonella Curci和Monica Pentassuglia在其有关意大利高等教育的文章中指出，尽管人们广泛认可学生的反馈潜力，但有大量证据表明，意大利学生实际上参与了学生的质量过程一系列原因，部分包括传统的尊敬概念。相反，Rediet Adebe和Krisztina Ford在研究Erasmus Mundus计划时发现，学生更愿意参与质量过程。但是，他们认为组织文化，国家政策和法规是这种参与的主要障碍。关于高等教育质量的许多辩论的核心都与标准和绩效指标的有效性有关。在本期《高等教育质量》中，有两篇文章对此辩论做出了贡献。Khaled Alzafari和Jani Ursin评估了欧洲不同国家/地区实施欧洲标准和指南（ESG）的情况，并强调了国家差异对ESG实施的影响。在德国高等教育的背景下，西奥多·莱伯（Theodore Leiber）确定了一套全面的学与教绩效指标，并认为必须在学与教环境，教学过程，学习过程的四个子领域中，以整体的方式来提高学与教质量。 ，以及学习成果及其评估。Leiber的工作与众不同，因为他解决了质量辩论的一个基本难题：如何实际衡量学与教。但是，偶尔会出现新问题，最突出的问题之一就是数字化及其对质量管理的潜在影响。高等教育质量2019，卷。25号 1，1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1607984