As growing numbers of countries adopt market-oriented policies for steering higher education, there is increasing interest in accountability mechanisms that improve the capacity of colleges and universities to independently assure the quality of their academic degrees and student learning. Academic audit, first developed in the UK and subsequently adapted to countries such as Sweden, New Zealand and Hong Kong, offers such an approach. What problems have these countries encountered in implementing academic audits with regard to: the focus of audits; the selection and training of audit teams; the nature of audit self-studies; the conduct of audit visits; audit reports; and audit follow-up and enhancement activities? This paper reviews the lessons learned from these early experiments with academic audit and suggests guidelines for the design and implementation of effective audit processes.
[Copyright of Quality in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320020005945]

This paper describes the moves towards greater inclusion in the Hong Kong education system and the problems that have arisen from those moves. It then describes the introduction of an adapted version of the Index for Inclusion, called the Indicators for Inclusion in Hong Kong, in order to stimulate greater progress. As the adapted Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion are developed in a unique education culture and based on a particular notion of inclusion, it may be of interest to international readers to see the impact of culture differences in shaping the Indicators. Further, the Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion are connected with school self‐evaluation and performance standards. The interaction between inclusion and school evaluation will be explored. The paper questions the use of the indicator system to drive inclusion in Hong Kong and the assumptions regarding the capacity of schools for self‐review.
[Copyright of International Journal of Inclusive Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110500430674]

The 'Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review' (TLQPR) recently completed in Hong Kong had an emphasis on education quality work. This paper analyses how, from the perspective of academic staff in one university in Hong Kong, the good intentions embedded in that idea are enhanced or subverted by the broader 'quality system' setting in which staff operate. A 'critical incident' survey suggested that useful changes would involve the following. First, focus on a 'lean' philosophy and an associated examination of the extent to which (essentially administrative) system requirements are 'adding value' to the fundamental aims of achieving quality in teaching and learning outcomes. Second, build adaptability into the system by giving staff the maximum flexibility to translate a minimal set of overall requirements into activities. Third, tolerate staff and groups who 'break rules' in rational and well-intended ways to optimise intended outcomes. Fourth, develop a culture of trust between staff and management.
[Copyright of Quality in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074899]