Quality in Practice : Exploring Programme Leaders’ Engagement, Interpretation, and Response to Internal Programme Evaluative Frameworks

Mckenna, Aisling and Ashwin, Paul (2026) Quality in Practice : Exploring Programme Leaders’ Engagement, Interpretation, and Response to Internal Programme Evaluative Frameworks. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.

Text (2026mckennaphd)
2026mckennaphd.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs.
Download (3MB)

Abstract

This thesis explores programme leaders’ experiences of engaging with formal programme evaluation in an Irish higher education institution. It examines how programme leaders interpret quality within their roles and how formal evaluation processes align to their responsibilities for maintaining and enhancing academic programme quality. The study also considers how evidence-informed practice shapes programme leaders’ understanding of quality in evaluative work. Using an IPA approach, the research draws on semi-structured interviews with 20 programme leaders in a single institution. The findings reveal a disconnect between the intent of policy driven quality guidelines for the evaluation of programme quality and their practical interpretation by programme leaders. Formal evaluations are often positioned as bureaucratic exercises for reporting and accountability rather than tools for enhancement. Contributing factors to this positioning include a perceived external ownership of the process, a restrictive evaluative scope, and a reliance on quantitative metrics to derive inferences on quality. In response to these limitations, programme leaders developed parallel evaluative practices aimed at planning quality enhancement. These locally developed evaluations were characterised by strong local ownership and a context specific scope. Local evaluations tended to adopt an inclusive approach to evidence and prioritised stakeholder perspectives and narrative feedback over quantitative metrics. This thesis argues that in this study, quality assurance and enhancement exist within distinct evaluative domains, framed by different conceptualisations of quality, methodologies, and evidence. It argues for a simplification of formal processes and reduction of the administrative burden associated with policy-driven assurance. Further, it advocates for institutional recognition of local evaluation systems that more effectively serve the purpose of improving academic quality. Finally, the research argues that evidence-informed practice must evolve beyond a reliance on metrics to include professional judgement and a broader range of narrative-based data that reflect the complex, context-sensitive realities of academic programmes.