Quality assurance (QA) has become an important feature in higher education governance in Europe, with policies for increased harmonization and periodic accreditations as pillars. Still, the shift to emphasize quality development and enhancement entails that QA systems can attend to a wider range of considerations than before. This article studies the development in national QA systems and instruments in Denmark and Norway in the 2010s and incorporates welfare state literature to explain the use of QA instruments. The material for the study consists of documents, as well as decisions associated with QA instruments. Following a historical-institutionalist perspective, the article finds notable differences between the two countries, both in the organizations involved and instruments used. Denmark has emphasized the study programme level through periodic accreditations, while Norway has practiced one-off institutional accreditations and supervisions. The findings show an emphasis on relevance and employment in Denmark, and university status in Norway. The article considers the differences in light of features of higher education systems and politico-administrative regimes, but also highlights similarities in layering of instruments and the use of QA for social democratic welfare state goals. In this way, the findings illustrate that QA systems could serve distinct purposes despite harmonization.

质量保证 (QA) 已成为欧洲高等教育治理的一个重要特征，以加强协调和定期认证的政策为支柱。尽管如此，强调质量开发和增强的转变需要质量保证系统可以比以前更广泛地考虑。本文研究了 2010 年代丹麦和挪威国家质量保证系统和工具的发展，并结合福利国家文献来解释质量保证工具的使用。研究材料包括文件以及与 QA 工具相关的决定。本文从历史制度主义的角度出发，发现两国在所涉及的组织和使用的工具方面存在显着差异。丹麦通过定期认证来强调学习计划的水平，而挪威则实行一次性的机构认证和监督。调查结果显示，丹麦重视相关性和就业，以及挪威的大学地位。文章根据高等教育系统和政治行政体制的特点考虑了差异，但也强调了工具分层和使用质量保证实现社会民主福利国家目标的相似之处。通过这种方式，研究结果表明，尽管协调一致，QA 系统仍可以服务于不同的目的。文章根据高等教育系统和政治行政体制的特点考虑了差异，但也强调了工具分层和使用质量保证实现社会民主福利国家目标的相似之处。通过这种方式，研究结果表明，尽管协调一致，QA 系统仍可以服务于不同的目的。文章根据高等教育系统和政治行政体制的特点考虑了差异，但也强调了工具分层和使用质量保证实现社会民主福利国家目标的相似之处。通过这种方式，研究结果表明，尽管协调一致，QA 系统仍可以服务于不同的目的。