Quality Management Mechanisms: A Review of Nigerian University Principal Officers

GE-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
VOLUME -3, ISSUE -5 (May 2015) IF-4.316 ISSN: (2321-1709)
QUALITY MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS: A REVIEW OF

NIGERIAN UNIVERSITY PRINCIPAL OFFICERS
Adetunji, A. T., Ogunleye, K. A. & Adeleru, G. S.

Bowen University Iwo, Osun State, Nigeria*
Department of Business Administration
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to uncover quality management mechanisms that are considered necessary
for the implementation of quality management in the context of Nigerian universities. A
standard literature review was used to review the relevant literature on quality, quality
management and Nigerian universities. The literature suggested a number of techniques and
approaches or tools that are features of quality management but missing are important
mechanisms that need to be in place to properly implement quality management in
universities. Fifteen participants were involved across five universities. A purposive sampling
method was used to select these five universities. The findings revealed three common major
mechanisms that, while not identified as important factors in implementing quality
management in other countries, are suggested by participants to be key in the Nigerian
context.
Keywords – assessment, mentor, quality, quality management, implementation, principal

officers, university, Nigeria
INTRODUCTION
The study of total quality management has received huge attention across a variety of sectors
although it has not been considered in depth in the study of university education, especially in
Nigeria where universities are growing daily. Many stakeholders involved in the
development of university education such as the National Universities Commission (NUC),
the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB), the National Examination
Commission (NECO), parents as well as students have continued to question the existence of
A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories.
GE- International Journal of Management Research (GE-IJMR)
Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia
Page 135
universities and their operation with respect to how they might improve the quality of
services they deliver, given the fact that access was the major problem noticed in Nigerian
universities in the late 1990s by a small number of researchers (Utulu, 2001; Okebukola,
2002).
The question of how to improve the quality of service delivery and other clarify (such as lack
of fundings, student overcrowding in the university due to lack of proper monitoring and
projection on the part of the government, which has led to an increase in graduate
unemployment) for universities to begin producing graduates with skills relevant to the
development of the nation. In an attempt to better the services rendered by universities, the
Nigerian government has put forward wide-ranging solutions to the problem of access, one of
the major factors identified by Adetunji (2015) as preventing principal officers in Nigerian
universities from providing a quality service due to student numbers outgrowing the space
available. Akinyemi and Abiddin (2013) remarked that the purpose of university education is
instrumental in the development of the nation‟s growth via its human resources while Ibadin
et al. (2005) expressed the view that economic improvement has been said to be the main
relevance of university education in any country. Bourner (1998) also stressed that the most
critical function of a university is considered to be the development of skills that drive
learners to learn or find out for themselves, rather than simply imparting subject knowledge.
Many authors (such as Welsh and Dey 2000; Fogarty, Catts and Forlin, 2000; Srikanthan and
Dalrymple, 2007) with the intention of improving services in higher education have defined
quality as a means of measuring activities and human involvement as a tool for improvement.
The commonly shared view on quality improvement is that researchers focus attention on
customers as the driver for quality. No wonder the quality definition put forward by the
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2004: 1) focused on the student, defining
academic quality as „how well the learning opportunities provided to students enable them to
achieve their award‟. This involves ensuring the suitability and effectiveness of teaching, the
overall background organisation, and the assessments and learning opportunities provided to
students. Again, this definition has been criticised based on the fact that it is too general to be
readily implemented (Eagle and Brennan, 2007; Doherty, 2008; Veiga et al., 2012). In
Page 136
contrast, Cheng‟s (1995) definition of educational quality in Lammers and Murphy (2002) is
more holistic, although it is still generic as it covers the whole process of education. Cheng
states that the character of set features in the input, process and output of the education
system that provides services that entirely satisfy both internal and external strategic
constituencies by meeting their explicit and implicit expectations is quality education (p. 23).
Similar to the issue of educational quality is the issue of standards, which is another term that
is broadly subjective and may be understood in a variety of ways (Doherty, 1997, 2008). The
most frequently cited primary text by Yorke (1999) made the distinction that while quality is
the totality of all the features that stimulate the students‟ experience, academic standards refer
to the set of expectations about the students‟ programme of study.
Conversely, Doherty (1997) referred to the nature and levels of student attainment required as
assessment or output standards. Likewise, Lomas and Tomlinson (2000) proclaimed that
standards are measures of outcome that provide faultless and unambiguous judgments about
whether the outcomes are satisfactory. They also claimed that the standards set for a
programme of study are inevitably linked to the outcomes and ensure a definite level of skills
and knowledge from graduates of that programme. However, this study agrees that if quality
is defined as standard, then using a quantitative approach will be acceptable. Otherwise, there
is a gap to fill and a need to uncover what quality mechanisms there are to those who are
directly involved in the university system. Those directly involved in the context of this study
are referred to as principal officers who are in a position of authority, deciding on what
happens on a daily basis in the university. For the purpose of these paper, they are those who
hold key positions such as those of vice-chancellor, registrar, bursar, university librarian,
chairman of committee of deans, deans of faculty, director of academic planning and any
other senior administrative positions as specified in the organisation structure of the
institution.
AREA OF THE STUDY

The study was undertaken in the Western part of Nigeria where a number of university
systems had been reviewed in terms of the quality of the students being produced and the
standards being used by the institution. A key characteristic of standards is that they are never
Page 137
static, although Morley and Aynsley (2007) and Cartwright (2007) flagged the issue that
what constitutes desirable graduate qualifications and characteristics are the standards. Marsh
and Roche (2000), Clayson and Haley (2005) and Ekundayo and Ajayi (2009) added that the
increasing focus on student satisfaction and university modifications might increase claims of
falling academic standards and grade inflation. In support a declaration made by Rolfe (2002)
and Stensaker et al. (2011) was that by all indications, students consider university primarily
as a route to a career and are indifferent to whether high standards are maintained or achieved
in the process of their study. They write that the community, which contributes to higher
education through general taxation, may reasonably suppose that it is the purpose of
university to produce well-rounded citizens who are sensitive to the needs of vulnerable
groups and who may be prepared to sacrifice some self-interest for the common good
(Akinola, 2013).
Instead, Gallifa (2009) noted that there are increasing claims that students now tend to shop
around for the easiest courses with the highest grades while Adetunji (2014a) is of the
opinion that Nigerian students go for courses that are marketable such as accounting,
business administration and information technology rather than other courses such as
sciences and humanities. The opinion of Nigerian students, as identified in the work of
Adetunji (2014a), was that marketable courses would give them the chance to get a better job
immediately after school. This assertion by Nigerian students has its roots in the Nigerian
government‟s purpose in establishing university education, as explained in Adetunji (2014b):
to produce manpower that would fill the ministries. However, one of Adetunji‟s (2014b)
respondents lamented that the ministries are now filled up, and it is time the Nigerian
government started looking for ways to make university graduates more relevant in society
by redefining the purpose of creating university education in the first place (Gallifa and
Batelle, 2010). Otherwise the approach will continue to damage the future career of Nigerian
students. It is then not surprising that Salmin (2009) and Obasi et al. (2010) complained about
the fact that Nigerian university students continue to graduate in civil engineering and
electrical engineering annually, yet there are no good roads and the country still struggles to
provide a constant supply of electricity and water. Therefore, if any changes are made to
Page 138
resolve these problems, it will definitely involve the support of university management, the
principal officers in the Nigerian university.
Conversely, Akinyemi and Abiddin (2013) challenged the assertions of Gallifa (2009) that
students shop for easy courses, as they found that lecturers who give students lighter
workloads are in fact not rated positively. They discovered that there is a positive relationship
between grades obtained by students and their evaluation of the teaching because students
perceive that they have learned more when they obtain good grades, not because they have
been taught properly. However, similar to the problem of defining quality is the problem of
defining the purpose of creating a university sector, as described by Doherty (2008), who
argues that the purpose of universities has a closer link with the concepts of quality and
standards. Alani (2008) maintained that it is impossible to arrive at a single particular purpose
for any system of education, as the needs of the various key actors (such as parents,
sponsors/mentors, employers, students), although overlapping in many respects, are also
different. No wonder Basheka (2009) defines education as a process, while the role of the
education manager is to plan, design and implement an efficient and effective learning
system, which is open to the needs of the learner and society. Doherty (2008) debates that
educational institutions are typically complex organisations embedded within even more
complex communities, where knowledge is fragmented into specialised areas and educators
are engaged in the highly individual activity of teaching. Therefore sufficient leverage is
required to make changes in such a complex system.
From a more general view, Harvey (2005) and Eagle and Brennan (2007) both elaborated that
the objective of university education is to develop the acquisition of knowledge and skills for
both intrinsic and instrumental purposes. In support of this, Obasi et al., (2010) also
emphasised that the role of private or public universities is to enhance societal cohesion and
ensure that their graduates are able to live up to general expectations of the labour market and
add value to the community in general. Another claim made by Heyneman (2006) and
Modebelu and Joseph (2012) stressed that the more a university demonstrates professional
standards and good behaviour, the more likely it is that its students will contribute to social
capital: that is, be willing to work towards a common goal and towards an understanding of
Page 139
diversity. Therefore if students are to be able to demonstrate good behaviour and improve the
community there is a need for university management to identify what quality mechanism
and tools will be use to ensure that students are involved in the process of their learning.
METHODOLOGY
The aim of this paper is to investigate quality management mechanisms that can influence the
improvement of quality management implementation in Nigerian universities. The paper
gathers information from those involved and responsible for the implementation of quality
management within Nigerian universities via university principal officers (such as the vice-
chancellor, dean of faculty and director of academic planning) in order to identify
mechanisms rightly responsible for the implementation of quality and its associated aspects
by studying the behaviour, perception and beliefs of principal officers. The study focused on
15 principal officers from six universities – two federal, two state and two private –located in
different parts of the country (excluding the northern part) – see Table 1).
The paper employed in-depth individual interviews as the main research instrument to collect
data for the study. The use of in-depth interviews as a research tool for this paper has the
advantage of providing the researcher with an opportunity for in-depth probing, enabling
better understanding of the respondents‟ beliefs, perceptions, views, thoughts, feelings and
experiences in relation to the areas covered in this paper.
Table 1
University type Informants
Vice-chancellor Dean of faculty Director of

academic
planning
Federal 1 A1 A2 A3
2 B1 B2 –
State 3 C1 C2 C3
4 D1 D2 D3
Page 140
Private 5 E1 – E3
6 F1 F2 F3
QUALITY MECHANISMS IDENTIFIED

One vice-chancellor (D1) identified that quality management mechanisms are different
approaches or techniques set to run or maintain quality in an institution. A few respondents
also held that quality mechanisms are different approaches or methodologies used to maintain
quality. Six participants (A1, A2, C2, D2, D3, F1) mentioned that quality mechanisms are
facilities and processes that have been put in place to ensure that quality standards are met.
They were asked further about the arrangement that should be put in place to implement a
quality mechanism. The sub-themes discussed in this paper are not intended to undermine
other mechanisms, but for the purpose of this study attention is to be paid to the following.
Assessment
Five participants identified assessment as a tool for quality management. Two of the
participants mentioned that if a quality mechanism is introduced and the quality management
mechanism does not involve adequate assessment to implement quality, then policies on how
to manage quality management will just be words on paper. A director of academic planning
(A3) highlighted that Nigerian universities need to develop assessment mechanisms that are
practicable and not just paper documents. One director of academic planning (E3) expressed
the opinion that though efforts have not been made to ascertain how best to improve on the
quality of the institution in terms of student intake and transformation, his university has, for
example, tried to improve what it gives to the students by monitoring the assessment process
through the examination of papers by internal examiners, external examiners and moderators.
However, this is not enough if it is not generally accepted by all the participants involved in
the running of the daily activities of the university from department to faculty as well as
inter- and intra-faculty activities. One of the vice-chancellors also pointed out that:
I think we make assessment clear in that there is a procedure on how to assess. If you
were not satisfied with the result of the assessment, your paper would be reviewed
Page 141
until the panel is satisfied with it. We do this to assure the quality of the certificate
issued to the student. (E1)
A question was raised about when assessment should start – should it be when the student has
finished their examinations, as the vice-chancellor (E1) above was referring to? Other
respondents were of the opinion that the physical assessments to measure are student output
in term of class exercises to test what students have been learning over a 12- to 13-week
period. A contrary opinion was put forward by a vice-chancellor (F1) that for assessment to
work properly it has to be designed into the curriculum of study, into the academic calendar
as well as into the student admission process. In his opinion students need to be aware that
unless they are successful at each level of assessment they will not be able to satisfy the
criteria for the final assessment which contributes to the quality of their study.
Furthermore, a dean of faculty explained that in most cases, assessments are used for
programme delivery in order to find out if the method of delivery suits the students (F2). The
question put forward here by dean of faculty is, what if students needs are different and do
not pay attention to learning? The Dean of faculty agreed that it means that such assessment
or result from such students cannot be use to generalise otherwise assessment will not
measure the true value of student knowledge. A director of academic planning also agreed
that assessment accuracy is the ability of the lecturer to demonstrate a high level of integrity
and utilise techniques to study student knowledge and abilities as well as to make effective
judgement on student performance whether design or not (F3). One vice-chancellor
maintained that assessment is the easiest method of collecting information from both students
and lecturers in order to identify areas that need development (C1). Another informant
expressed that his department did not only assess for improvement purposes, but also to
discover which of the teaching methods students enjoy and what makes them enjoy it, and
which methods they dislike and why. All this information is put together in his institution for
the training of lecturers at the beginning of the session. He stressed that:
I think assessment should be considered as a strong quality management tool or
mechanism. (C3).
Page 142
University community eye for quality

Collectively, four vice-chancellors pointed out that if the executive head or management team
has a vision for quality but the rank-and-file lecturers or staff are not ready to work in line
with the principal officers‟ goals then there will be conflicts of interest (A1, B1, D1, F1). The
conflicts of interest the participants were talking about here will cause the mechanisms to fail
to function correctly in that there is no collective effort to develop a common practice for the
community. One dean of faculty (F2) emphasised that it takes more time to educate people
when there is a need for quality. Another vice-chancellor suggested that even when all efforts
are made to introduce and implement quality, there is still some abuse of quality along the
line (C1). The abuse referred to by this participant arises, for example, when the head of
department fails to comply with the rules and regulations because he feels that, as he is the
head of department, nobody can query him. This will have a negative impact on how other
staff embrace other components of the administrative system and service delivery that
together make up quality. Meanwhile, one director of academic planning explained the need
for lecturers to appreciate quality first, before they could understand how to implement it
(A3). An interviewer asked if what they refer to is a clear vision for quality. One of the deans
of faculty clarified by saying:
I think you need to like, embrace, associate yourself with the word ‘quality’ first
before you can have a clearer picture of it. (A2)
Furthermore, one vice-chancellor mentioned that:

As a principal officer, our role is very demanding that we do not have the time to
evaluate our supporting workers whether or not they comply with instructions that we
pass on to them . . . I believe that to make the system work, we all need to know that
quality is everyone’s responsibility, including students and end users: I mean the
employers of our graduates. (A1)
One vice-chancellor (D1) added to the discussion by saying that if a quality culture is to be
developed, institutions need everyone to get involved and comply with the guidelines for the
implementation of quality management. At the moment, not everyone is involved, as it is
difficult to change the orientation of the lecturers, who should be more responsible for the
Page 143
implementation of a quality community, because they do not know what quality is and how
important it is for them to continue to deliver quality services.
Proper mentoring
One of the vice-chancellors (C1) suggested that if quality is appreciated as a community, then
employees will be thinking of transferring what they know into the new generation – so that
they can continue to develop the culture for quality in the university through mentoring,
guiding and support. Three respondents (A1, B2 and D3) mentioned that the mentoring of
new and young graduates and students encourages them to be more productive and makes
them more fulfilled in their chosen profession, which is better than leaving them to work on
their own without proper guidelines Another participant, director of academic planning (A3)
mentioned that new employees need to be mentored into the system, otherwise there would
be no continuity, because even though academies are autonomous, they need support to
develop themselves. One of the participants claimed that academics are autonomous, but only
when they know what to do, how to do it and when to do it. He also supported mentoring as a
mechanism to sustain good practice (C3).
One dean of faculty from a private university (D2) revealed that mentoring goes a long way
in the university system. He pointed out that mentoring in universities cannot be compared to
mentoring in any other sector. He highlighted that mentoring should cover a range of
services, including supporting students with well maintained power and water supplies and
ensuring that students can get to their classes on time and that they can read their books when
they should. One director of academic planning (E3) was also of the opinion that until
students are given the necessary support, any mechanism used will continue to fail because
the objective of university is to equip students with knowledge that can be translated into
workplace activities. The review of the survey results is strongly consistent with the principal
officers‟ values identified in the interviews.
CONCLUSION
This study identified three major mechanisms that are particular to the universities studied in
this context. The paper does not suggest that these are only the quality management
mechanisms available, but pays more attention to these mechanisms because of the emphasis
Page 144
and claims made on them by the participants. The three mechanisms identified by the 19
principal officers from Nigerian universities are fundamental to the development of a quality
culture in their opinion. It was observed from this study that instead of focusing on other
factors that are difficult to achieve, the three suggested mechanisms in this study can help
improve the quality culture within the university. The study reveals that the principal officers'
mindset on the issue of quality management is very important if quality is to be achieved at
all in Nigerian universities. From the study of these 19 participants, it was obvious that what
will change the student mindset on university education from wanting easy, marketable
courses will be the ability of the university itself to be prepared to move away from the
traditional approach of doing things. University principal officers now need to embrace the
responsibility to determine how they want their universities to move forward. They need to
see learning as a continues process within which they also need to continue to develop
themselves in order to confront contemporary issues. Education as an institution needs to
change as the demand for economic improvement continues to change. This is the only way
in which any mechanisms suggested can yield a meaningful outcome. The objective of this
study is to identify quality mechanisms from principal officers' responses with reference to
theoretical perspectives.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE
This paper has contributed to knowledge through a review of the relevant literature and
empirical research related to university education, quality, quality management and
approaches to quality management mechanisms principals see as tools for improvement. The
study has contributed to practice through exploring how principal officers approach quality
management in the university. The paper has uncovered the true state of affairs by identifying
the importance of principal officers‟ roles and duties with regard to quality. The paper also
looks backwards to study the mechanisms that needs to be in place for the easy
implementation of quality management in Nigerian universities.
Page 145
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adetunji, „Niyi (2014a). Government policies in relation to quality management
implementation: A Review of Nigerian Universities Principal Officers. Journal of
Organisational Studies and Innovation, 1(1), 22-34
Adetunji, A. T. (2014). A critical realist study of quality management in Nigerian
universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University, South
Wales, United Kingdom. 
Adetunji, A. T. (2015). Implementing government policies in university education:
Challenges Faced by Nigerian Universities‟ principal officers. Net Journal of Social
Sciences, 3(1), 9-16. 
Akinola, O. B. (2013). Principals‟ Leadership Skills and School Effectiveness: The Case of
South Western Nigeria. World Journal of Education, 3(5), 26-33.
Akinyemi, G. M. & Abiddin, N. Z. (2013). Quality Administration and Management in
Higher Education in Nigeria: Implications for Human Resource Development. International
Education Studies, 6(4), 225-235.
Alani, R. A. 2008. Accreditation outcomes: quality of access to university education in
Nigeria, Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 301-312.
Basheka, B. (2009). „Management and academic freedom in higher education institutions:
implications for quality education in Uganda‟. Quality in Higher Education, 15(2), 135-146.
Bourner, T. (1998). “More knowledge, new knowledge: the impact on education and
training”. Education + Training, 40(1),11-14.
Cartwright, M. (2007). “The rhetoric and reality of „quality‟ in higher education”. Quality
Assurance in Education, 15(3), 287-301.
Clayson, D. E. & Haley, D. A. (2005). "Marketing models in education: students as
customers, products, or partners". Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 1-10.
Doherty, G. D. (1997). “Quality, standards, the consumer paradigm and developments in
higher education”. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(4), 239-248.
Doherty, G. D. (2008). “On quality in education”. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3),
225-65.
Eagle, L. & Brennan, R. (2007). “Are students customers? TQM and marketing
perspectives”. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44-60.
Page 146
Ekundayo, H. T. and Ajayi, I. A. (2009). Towards effective management of university

education in Nigeria. International NGO journal, 4(8), 342-347.
Fogarty, G., Catts, R. & Forlin, C. (2000). Identifying shortcomings in the measurement of
service quality. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(1), 425-447.
Gallifa, J. (2009). “An approach to find out student‟s motives and influences in the selection
of studies and university. Results from six years of continuing institutional research in a
multi-campus system in Spain”. Tertiary Education and Management, 15(2), 173-91.
Gallifa, J. & Batelle, P. (2010). Student perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus
higher education system in Spain. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(12), 156-170.
Harvey, L. (2005). “A history and critique of quality evaluation in the UK”. Quality
Assurance in Education, 13(4), 263-276.
Heyneman, S.P. (2006). Heyneman, S. P. (2006). The effectiveness of development
assistance in education. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 9(1), 7–25.,
[Online]. Available at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0206/ijge/heyneman.html
[Accessed 31 October, 2014].
Ibadin, V. O., Shofoyeke, A. D. & Ilusanya, G. 2005. “The History of Private Sector
Participation in the Provision and Management of Education in Nigeria”. In G. O. Akpa; S.
U. Udoh & E. O. Fagbamiye (eds) Deregulating the Provision and Management of Education
in Nigeria. Jos, Nigeria:Nebula5.4, December 2011.
Lammers, W. & Murphy, J. (2002). "A profile of teaching techniques used in the university
classroom". Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 54-67.
Lomas, L. & Tomlinson, K. (2000). “Standards: the varying perceptions of senior staff in
higher education institutions”. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(3), 131-139.
Marsh, H. W. & Roche, L. A. (2000). "Effects of grading leniency and low workload on
students' evaluation of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders?”.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 202-28.
Modebelu, M. N. & Joseph, A. (2012a). Strategic Planning Procedure: An Imperative for
Effective Management of Higher Education in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences. [Online]. Available at
http://www.mcser.org/images/stories/MJSSSpecialissues/MJSS%202012%20Special%20Issu
e%20vol%203%20no%2015/Modebelu,%20M.pdf [Accessed 3 July 2014].
Page 147
Morley, L. & Aynsley, S. (2007). “Employers, Quality and Standards in Higher Education:
Shared Values and Vocabularies or Elitism and Inequalities?” Higher Education Quarterly
61(3), 229-249.
Obasi, I. N., Akuchie, R.C . & Obasi, S. N. (2010). “Expansion of Higher Education Access
through Private Universities in Nigeria (1999-2009): A Decade of Public Policy Failure?”,
Paper presented at a National Conference on Education for Nation Building and Global
Competitiveness, organized by NERDC at the International Conference Centre, Abuja.
Okebukola, P. 2002. The State of University Education in Nigeria. Abuja. National
Universities Commission (NUC). Issues” in Refocusing Education in Nigeria: A Book of
Readings. Oriaifo, S.O. et al (eds) Benin City, Da-Sylva Influence.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, (2004). "A brief guide to quality assurance
in UK higher education". [Online]. Available at http.www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/heGuide
/guide.asp [Accessed 10 July, 2014].
Rolfe, H. (2002). "Students' demands and expectations in an age of reduced financial support:
the perspectives of lecturers in four English universities". Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 24(2), 171-182.
Salmin, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. World Bank
Publications.
Srikanthan, G. & Dalrymple, J. (2007). “A conceptual overview of a holistic model for
quality in higher education”. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(3), 173-
193.
Stensaker, B., Harvey, L. & Amaral, A. (2011). Accountabilty in higher education: global
perspectives on trust and power. New York: Routledge.
Utulu, C. C. 2001. “Quality of University Education in Nigeria: Problems and Solutions”.
Journal of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management,
29(1).
Veiga, A., Rosa, M. J., Tavares, D. & Amaral, A. (2012). “Why is it difficult to grasp the
impacts of the Portuguese quality assurance system?”, European Journal of Education, 48(3),
454-470.
Welsh, J. F. & Dey, S. (2000). "Quality measurement and quality assurance in higher
education". Quality Assurance in Education, 10(1), 17-25.
Page 148
Yorke, M. (1999). “Assuring quality and standards in globalised higher education”. Quality
Assurance in Education, 7(1), 14 - 24.
Page 149

Quality Management Mechanisms: A Review of Nigerian University Principal Officers

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Quality Management Mechanisms: A Review of Nigerian University Principal Officers

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

GE-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

VOLUME -3, ISSUE -5 (May 2015) IF-4.316 ISSN: (2321-1709)

QUALITY MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS: A REVIEW OF

Adetunji, A. T., Ogunleye, K. A. & Adeleru, G. S.

Keywords – assessment, mentor, quality, quality management, implementation, principal

AREA OF THE STUDY

University type Informants

Vice-chancellor Dean of faculty Director of

QUALITY MECHANISMS IDENTIFIED

University community eye for quality

Furthermore, one vice-chancellor mentioned that:

Ekundayo, H. T. and Ajayi, I. A. (2009). Towards effective management of university

También podría gustarte