Page 97 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final

© Proceedings of the Ruhuna Quality Assurance Sessions 2021 (RUQAS 2021)
st
21 September 2021

1, and Figure 1, the majority of respondents are senior academics of the university system who have
been actively involved with QAS by giving a contribution to the QA activities in different ways.

Figure 2: Impression of academics on QA

Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c show that respondents generally have a positive impression about the QA
reviews though the evidence is weak. Moreover, as shown in Figure 2d, the respondents believe that

the expected evidence of the QA reviews are clear enough. But, several researchers have highlighted
reluctance from academic staff for active contribution to the QA process and unwillingness to accept

quality audit type evaluations which affected their autonomy, freedom, and professional status

(Anderson 2006; Imbulgoda 2019; Peiris et al., 2014). However, these results do not meet too much
resistance from academics for the QA process.

Figure 3: Validity and objectivity of the review results

80