Page 98 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final

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

However, Figures 3a and 3b show the respondents have concerns over the validity and objectivity of

the review results. It reflects the trustworthiness of the QA reviews among respondents and impacts on

the sustainability of the QA programme. The majority are not confident that the review results reflect
the actual situation and the results are objective. Bandara (2018) also has highlighted that review teams

have made subjective decisions because some areas are not covered by the standards in review
manuals. Therefore, QA authorities have to formalize the QA review process further building trust

among the stakeholders.

Figure 4: Time consumption of evidence collection and document preparation for QA
reviews

Generally, review teams expect a variety of hard and electronic documents as evidence for the external

reviews (Jensen, Kohler, Jones, Lindesjöö and Banaszak, 2010). But several scholars have highlighted
that this time-consuming documentation and review-based evidence preparation are the main reasons

for reluctance from academics for active contribution to the QA process (Anderson, 2006; Imbulgoda,

2019; Peiris et al., 2014). Figures 4a and 4b also show that the opinion is divided on the effectiveness
of the time spent on evidence collection and document preparation. Therefore, information systems

based evidence accumulation and summary report generation mechanism will formalize the QA

process while increasing the transparency of the evaluation process.

Figure 5: Provision of past evidence required for QA reviews

81