@article{ReithSeyfried2018, author = {Reith, Florian and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Balancing the Moods}, series = {Higher education policy}, volume = {32}, journal = {Higher education policy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Basingstoke}, issn = {0952-8733}, doi = {10.1057/s41307-018-0124-6}, pages = {71 -- 91}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Quality management (QM) has spread around the world and reached higher education in Europe in the early 1990s (Mendel, 2006, 137; Kernegger and Vettori, 2013, 1). However, researchers were rather more interested in national quality assurance policies (macro-level) and accreditation systems (meso-level) than in intra-organizational perspectives about the day-to-day implementation of quality assurance policies by various actors (micro-level). Undoubtedly, organizational change is a challenging endeavor for all kinds of groups. On the one hand, it provides the opportunity of further development and innovation, but on the other hand, it exposes organizations and actors to the risk of losing established structures and accepted routines. Like in many other organizations, actors may not necessarily perceive change as a promoter of innovation and development. Instead, they may consider change as a threat to the existing status quo or, as March points out, as an "interplay between rationality and foolishness" (March, 1981, 563). Consequently, change provokes either affective or behavioral actions (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999, 308-310), such as, for example, resistance. Anderson (2006, 2008) and Lucas (2014) have shown, for example, that academic resistance is an important issue. However, Piderit characterizes resistance as a multidimensional construct (Piderit, 2000, 786-787) subject to a wide variety of issues related to quality and QM. Although QM has been described as a "fashion" (Stensaker, 2007, 101) in the higher education sector that provokes many different reactions, its implementation in higher education institutions (HEIs) is still a rather unexplored field. Thus, the evidence provided by Anderson (2006, 2008) and others (Newton, 2000, 2002; McInnis et al., 1995; Fredman and Doughney, 2012; Lucas, 2014; etc.) needs to be expanded, because they only consider the perspective of academia. In particular, the view of other actors during the implementation of quality assurance policies is a missing piece in this empirical puzzle. Nearly nothing is known about how quality managers deal with reactions to organizational change like resistance and obstruction. Until now, only a few studies have focused on intra-organizational dynamics (see, for example: Csizmadia et al., 2008; Lipnicka, 2016). Besides the lack of research on the implementation of quality assurance policies in HEIs, quality managers seem to be an interesting subject for further investigations because they are "endogenous" to institutional processes. On the one hand, quality managers are the result of quality assurance policies, and on the other hand, they influence the implementation of quality assurance policies, which affect other actors (like academics, administrative staff, etc.). Here, quality managers, as members of an emerging higher education profession, are involved in various conflict lines between QM, HEI management and departments, which need further research (Seyfried and Pohlenz, 2018, 9). Therefore, the aim of our paper is twofold: firstly, to answer the question of how quality managers perceive resistance, and secondly, which measures they take in situations of perceived resistance. We offer a new research perspective and argue that resistance is not merely provoked by organizational change; it also provokes counter-reactions by actors who are confronted with resistance. Thus, resistance seems to be rather endogenous. To theorize our argument, we apply parts of the work of Christine Oliver (1991), which provides theoretical insights into strategic responses to institutional processes, ranging from acquiescence to manipulation (Oliver, 1991, 152). We, therefore, investigate the introduction of QM in teaching and learning, and the emergence of quality managers as higher education professionals as one of the results of quality assurance policies. Consequently, the introduction of QM may be considered as an institutional process provoking reactions and counter-reactions of various organizational units within HEIs. These circumstances are constitutive for how quality managers deal with resistance and other reactions toward organizational change. We use this theoretical framework to analyze the German higher education sector, because this particular case can be considered as a latecomer in New Public Management reforms (Schimank, 2005, 369) and Germany is a country where academic self-governance plays a very important role, and strongly influences academics' behavior when it comes to organizational change (Wolter, 2004). Our empirical results are based on a mixed-methods research design and integrate half-structured interviews and a nationwide survey at the central level in German HEIs, which excludes faculty members of QM (decentral level). They reveal that quality managers take different types of action when resistance occurs during the implementation of quality assurance policies. Furthermore, quality managers mainly react with different tactics. These tactics seem to be relevant for convincing academics and for the enhancement of their commitment to improve the quality of teaching and learning, instead of provoking further resistance or avoidance practices. This article proceeds as follows: the next sections describe the context and explain our main theoretical concepts referring to the work of Oliver (1991) and others. After that, we present our case selection and the methodological framework, including the data sources and the operationalization of selected variables. Finally, we provide our empirical results about quality managers' perceptions on resistance and we draw conclusions.}, language = {en} } @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} } @article{ReithSeyfried2020, author = {Reith, Florian and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement und das Puffern externer und interner Anforderungen}, series = {Qualit{\"a}t in der Wissenschaft}, volume = {14}, journal = {Qualit{\"a}t in der Wissenschaft}, number = {2}, publisher = {UVW Univ.-Verl. Webler}, address = {Bielefeld}, issn = {1860-3041}, pages = {44 -- 49}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The following article deals with the new-institutionalist concept of buffering. The concept describes in short, how organizations cope with external and internal demands in order to gain or maintain legitimacy. The article applies this approach to quality management in higher education. We argue, that the introduction of quality management is a reaction to external demands to achieve more quality in teaching and learning. Simultaneously, it functions as a buffer for other organizational subunits within the higher education institution and tries to prevent them from becoming overloaded with external demands. Based on interviews from a research project, the article shows, that both quality managers and higher education managers partly perceive quality management as service unit, which prevents the departments from exaggerating external demands.}, language = {de} } @article{SeyfriedReith2020, author = {Seyfried, Markus and Reith, Florian}, title = {Strength of weakness}, series = {Journal of higher education policy and management}, volume = {43}, journal = {Journal of higher education policy and management}, number = {3}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1360-080X}, doi = {10.1080/1360080X.2020.1812802}, pages = {298 -- 314}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The paper investigates quality management in teaching and learning in higher education institutions from a principal-agent perspective. Based on data gained from semi-structured interviews and from a nation-wide survey with quality managers of German higher education institutions, the study shows how quality managers position themselves in relation to their perception of the interests of other actors in higher education institutions. The paper describes the various interests and discusses the main implications of this constellation of actors. It argues that quality managers, although they may be considered as rather weak actors within the higher education institution, may be characterised as having a strength of weakness due to diverging interests of their principals.}, 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} }