@article{SeyfriedReith2019,
  author    = {Seyfried, Markus and Reith, Florian},
  title     = {Mixed methods for research into higher education},
  series = {Theory and method in higher education research},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {Theory and method in higher education research},
  publisher = {Emerald Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  isbn      = {978-1-83867-841-8},
  issn      = {2056-3752},
  doi       = {10.1108/S2056-375220190000005008},
  pages     = {111 -- 127},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Mixed methods approaches have become increasingly relevant in social sciences research over the last few decades. Nevertheless, we show that these approaches have rarely been explicitly applied in higher education research. This is somewhat surprising because mixed methods and empirical research into higher education seem to be a perfect match for several reasons: (1) the role of the researcher, which is associated with strong intersections between the research subject and the research object; (2) the research process, which relies on concepts and theories that are borrowed from other research fields; and (3) the research object, which exhibits unclear techniques in teaching and learning, making it difficult to grasp causalities between input and results. Mixed methods approaches provide a suitable methodology to research such topics. Beyond this, potential future developments underlining the particular relevance of mixed methods approaches in higher education are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Seyfried2019,
  author    = {Seyfried, Markus},
  title     = {Undisclosed desires},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {109},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43304},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-433040},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Following decades of quality management featuring in higher education settings, questions regarding its implementation, impact and outcomes remain. Indeed, leaving aside anecdotal case studies and value-laden documentaries of best practice, current research still knows very little about the implementation of quality management in teaching and learning within higher education institutions. Referring to data collected from German higher education institutions in which a quality management department or functional equivalent was present, this article theorises and provides evidence for the supposition that the implementation of quality management follows two implicit logics. Specifically, it tends either towards the logic of appropriateness or, contrastingly, towards the logic of consequentialism. This study's results also suggest that quality managers' socialisation is related to these logics and that it influences their views on quality management in teaching and learning.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PohlenzNiedermeier2019,
  author    = {Pohlenz, Philipp and Niedermeier, Frank},
  title     = {The Bologna Process and the harmonisation of higher education systems in other world regions},
  series = {Innovation : the European journal of social sciences},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Innovation : the European journal of social sciences},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1351-1610},
  doi       = {10.1080/13511610.2019.1637248},
  pages     = {481 -- 494},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The Bologna Process has inspired harmonisation strategies for higher education systems in other parts of the world. However, developments in other contexts are not much under review in the European debate. The present article describes the case of Southeast Asia and the attempt to promote harmonisation of its higher education systems. It further compares the processes in ASEAN and the European Higher Education Area to then discuss open questions for future comparative research. To do so the authors re-contextualise data from a study in ASEAN against the background of future research needs in the field of higher education harmonisation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SeyfriedReith2019,
  author    = {Seyfried, Markus and Reith, Florian},
  title     = {The seven deadly sins of quality management: trade-offs and implications for further research},
  series = {Quality in higher education},
  volume    = {25},
  journal   = {Quality in higher education},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1353-8322},
  doi       = {10.1080/13538322.2019.1683943},
  pages     = {289 -- 303},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Quality management in higher education is generally discussed with reference to commendable outcomes such as success, best practice, improvement or control. This paper, though, focuses on the problems of organising quality management. It follows the narrative of the seven deadly sins, with each 'sin' illustrating an inherent trade-off or paradox in the implementation of internal quality management in teaching and learning in higher education institutions. Identifying the trade-offs behind these sins is essential for a better understanding of quality management as an organisational problem.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Brase2019,
  author    = {Brase, Alexa Kristin},
  title     = {Spiele um Studium und Lehre? Zur mikropolitischen Nutzung von Qualit{\"a}tsmanagementsystemen an Hochschulen in Deutschland},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43737},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-437377},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {IX, 228},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Die Wissenschaftsfreiheit ist ein Grundrecht, dessen Sinn und Auslegung im Rahmen von Reformen des Hochschulsystems nicht nur der Justiz, sondern auch der Wissenschaft selbst immer wieder Anlass zur Diskussion geben, so auch im Zuge der Einf{\"u}hrung des so genannten Qualit{\"a}tsmanagements von Studium und Lehre an deutschen Hochschulen. Die vorliegende Dissertationsschrift stellt die Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie vor, die mit einer soziologischen Betrachtung des Qualit{\"a}tsmanagements unterschiedlicher Hochschulen zu dieser Diskussion beitr{\"a}gt. Auf Grundlage der Pr{\"a}misse, dass Verlauf und Folgen einer organisationalen Innovation nur verstanden werden k{\"o}nnen, wenn der allt{\"a}gliche Umgang der Organisationsmitglieder mit den neuen Strukturen und Prozessen in die Analyse einbezogen wird, geht die Studie von der Frage aus, wie Akteurinnen und Akteure an deutschen Hochschulen die Qualit{\"a}tsmanagementsysteme ihrer Organisationen nutzen. Die qualitative inhaltsanalytische Auswertung von 26 Leitfaden-Interviews mit Prorektorinnen und -rektoren, Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement-Personal und Studiendekaninnen und -dekanen an neun Hochschulen ergibt, dass die Strategien der Akteursgruppen an den Hochschulen im Zusammenspiel mit strukturellen Aspekten unterschiedliche Dynamiken entstehen lassen, mit denen Implikationen f{\"u}r die Lehrfreiheit verbunden sind: W{\"a}hrend die Autonomie der Lehrenden durch das Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement an einigen Hochschulen unterst{\"u}tzt wird, sind sowohl Autonomie als auch Verantwortung f{\"u}r Studium und Lehre an anderen Hochschulen Gegenstand andauernder Konflikte, die auch das Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement einschließen.},
  language  = {de}
}