Purpose This study aims to address the paradox of universities claiming to cultivate intellectual autonomy while pedagogical structures systematically activate conformity pressures, investigating when social proof triggers epistemic vice (intellectual cowardice and sloth) rather than operating as a legitimate heuristic for discerning expert opinion. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study employed the Critical Incident Technique and semi-structured interviews (60–90 min) with 18 postgraduate students recruited from several Indonesian universities. Participants narrated critical incidents of tension between their judgment and group consensus. Data were analyzed using predominantly theory-driven reflexive thematic analysis, with a coding framework derived from Vice Epistemology, Social Identity Theory, and Dual-Process Theory and inductive refinement at the subtheme level. Findings Three thematic areas emerged. First, social proof operates as an affective and moral crisis rather than merely as a cognitive mechanism. Second, four operational conditions jointly determine when participants retrospectively evaluated their own conformity as vice rather than justified deference: awareness of disagreement, explicit epistemic task framing, access to capacity/evidence, and the absence of severe coercion. Third, intellectual character develops through habituation, each suppression easing the next, with metacognitive awareness unevenly distributed among the students. Originality/value This research translates Vice Epistemology’s abstract concepts into a heuristic framework of four candidate conditions for distinguishing culpable conformity from justified deference, illustrated through participants’ accounts and offered for empirical testing rather than as validated diagnostic criteria. It foregrounds the moral phenomenology of academic conformity, a dimension rarely examined in social-psychological accounts; extends the Critical Incident Technique to epistemic phenomena in education; connects everyday conformity to research-integrity and quality-assurance concerns; and proposes five theory-informed institutional redesign hypotheses for implementation and testing in graduate education.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how higher education institutions (HEIs) can be structured and managed to ensure both the quality of education and inclusivity, in light of criticisms that HEIs often fail to accommodate all students and do not consistently produce graduates with the desired levels of quality and employability skills. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative research approach with a historical research design was used. Data was collected from 21 open-access empirical and literature review documents, including abstracts published in English between 2015 and 2024 and were analysed thematically. Findings The findings indicate that fostering a transformative and inclusive culture is fundamental for ensuring both inclusivity and the quality of education in HEIs. The findings also reveal that strengthening internal monitoring, evaluation and leadership mechanisms, alongside the provision of training for instructors in pedagogical practices, support inclusivity and the achievement of desired educational standards. It was again found that the provision of relevant curricula plays a critical role in equipping graduates with the employability skills required in the labour market. However, HEIs faced several challenges, including difficulties in maintaining consistent quality, limited capacity to produce graduates with market-relevant skills, constrained financial and human resources (HRs), inadequate infrastructure to support inclusive education (IE), digital divides and curricula that are not always aligned with industry or societal needs. Research limitations/implications This study used a qualitative approach based on a review of existing literature. While this approach provided valuable insights into quality assurance (QA) and IE in HEIs, the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative methods through a mixed-methods approach, incorporating the perspectives of instructors and students, could generate richer, more comprehensive and empirically grounded findings on the challenges and opportunities related to QA and inclusivity in HEIs. In addition, this study did not examine important student-related variables, such as completion rates, disability status, gender, urban–rural background and socio-economic characteristics, all of which may significantly influence access, participation and academic success in higher education. Future research should therefore explore these dimensions to provide a more holistic understanding of QA and inclusive practices in HEIs. Further, investigation is also needed to assess the extent to which government-supported scholarship and student loan schemes have effectively benefitted students with education needs (SENs) and contributed to equitable participation in higher education. Practical implications For HEIs to achieve accreditation and attract international students, there is a need to ensure that the quality of teaching and learning and the infrastructural system are improved. HEIs will also need more collaborations and partnerships in academic exchange programmes with other institutions to ensure that their degree programmes are competitive, comparable and meet international standards. Social implications There is a need for the involvement of students, parents and the community in the development and implementation of IE and QA in HEIs. For these to take place, there is a need for the governments to invest in education and increase the proportional budget directed to HEIs. Originality/value This study provides a discussion on QA and inclusivity in HEIs and contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the strategies required to ensure both quality and inclusivity for all students. It is argued in this study that, to achieve these goals, HEIs need to develop comprehensive QA policies, standards and guidelines for IE and actively involve key educational stakeholders in the process. African Governments should strengthen scholarship programmes for both male and female students through loans boards (LBs) and provide essential assistive technologies for students with disabilities, including braille materials, computers, hearing aids and screen readers. For this to be a reality, it requires increased budgetary allocations to HEIs, particularly for investment in technology to support inclusive and high-quality education for all students. The provision of a continuous professional development (CPD) programme for university instructors remains equally imperative.
Purpose Quality education is critical to developing competent human resources in clinical settings. Identifying the factors that influence educational quality can help improve educational programs. This study, conducted at X University of Medical Sciences, aims to explain these factors from the perspective of diverse stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach This six-month qualitative study used a conventional content analysis approach. Twenty participants: university faculty, clinical instructors, students, education development officials and patients were purposefully selected until data saturation was reached, ensuring maximum diversity. Data were gathered through semistructured interviews (20–65 min) and analyzed concurrently using an inductive method. Findings Data analysis yielded 5 themes and 23 subthemes. Four themes reflected structural barriers to educational quality: the marginalization of education relative to clinical service, limited facilities amid rising student numbers, a career outlook shaped by credentialism and declining intrinsic motivation and inconsistent curriculum supervision. The fifth theme, student flourishing in the presence of competent faculty members, emerged as the richest (nine subthemes) and most central: across all stakeholder groups, instructors’ morale-building, motivational support and conflict-management skills, and innovative teaching methods were described as compensating for the very deficiencies identified in the other themes, rather than merely coexisting alongside them. Research limitations/implications This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in a single university setting, which may limit the transferability of the findings to other contexts. Second, as a qualitative study, the findings are based on interpretive analysis and may be influenced by researchers’ perspectives. Finally, the mediating role of capable faculty members was conceptually derived from thematic relationships rather than statistically tested. Future studies using mixed-methods or quantitative designs are recommended to further validate the proposed model. Practical implications Balancing education with research and treatment in university policies. Increasing educational budgets and equipment. Strengthening curriculum oversight and standardizing assessments. Providing career and educational counseling to enhance genuine motivation for learning. Paying attention to the economic and social status of professors and providing professional development. Social implications These measures can pave the way for improving the quality of education by training a skilled and capable workforce. Future studies can examine the impact of these innovative interventions with a mixed approach. Psychometric testing of the proposed dimensions can be used in future studies in different university communities. Originality/value Participants perceived faculty competence as capable of compensating for structural deficiencies, suggesting that it may act as an enabling factor. Drawing on role-modeling theory extended here beyond professional education to educational quality more broadly, the findings suggest that investment in faculty development may yield faster and greater returns than investment in infrastructure alone.
Purpose This study aims to examine how quality assurance (QA) logics interact with university social responsibility (USR)-driven capstone design courses operating in contrasting field contexts. It addresses the challenge of evaluating practice-based, community-engaged programmes within audit-oriented QA regimes that privilege standardised, positivist indicators. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on two longitudinal capstone projects in Taiwan (an industry-driven project in an indigenous mountainous community and a culture-driven project in a rural agricultural township), the research uses a qualitative multiple-case study design. Using thematic analysis of course documents, student reports, field observations and stakeholder interviews, this study compares how field conditions and driving logics shape the rhythm of design thinking and the forms of quality evidence that can be generated. Findings The analysis identifies two distinctive operational patterns: a linear convergence mode in the industry-driven case and a recursive divergence mode in the culture-driven case. These contrasting rhythms lead to markedly different QA profiles: the industry-driven case produces traceable outputs aligned with conventional performance indicators (e.g., branded products, market responses), whereas the culture-driven case yields more diffuse but deeper process evidence (e.g., participation trajectories, shifts in local identity and patterns of community engagement). Applying uniform QA expectations to such heterogeneous USR capstone courses risks misrecognising educational value and undermining contextually appropriate pedagogy. Originality/value Building on participatory and developmental QA literature, this study empirically articulates the mechanism linking field heterogeneity to pedagogical rhythm, and subsequently to quality evidence profiles. Rather than merely advocating for context-sensitivity, it operationalises how QA frameworks can accommodate plural evidence portfolios while supporting accountability in capstone design education.
Purpose This paper aims to present a game-based assessment (GBA) methodology for systematically assessing graduate attributes within an accreditation-oriented framework in higher education. The study focuses on an activity that generates structured evidence to support the assessment of learning outcomes, addressing challenges of authentic evaluation in engineering programmes.Design/methodology/approach A GBA tower-construction activity was designed and implemented at three curricular stages (initial, intermediate and advanced) in a Civil Engineering programme at the University of Costa Rica. The activity combined observable performance indicators with a percentile-anchored normalisation to produce 0-100 scores for five graduate attributes. Data was collected from 28 student teams (more than 110 students) and complemented by a survey on clarity, fairness and value.Findings Results reveal differentiated progression: design and development; environment and sustainability; and teamwork improved significantly; problem analysis remained stable; and project administration and finances increased gradually. Students reported high clarity and adequacy of conditions, supporting feasibility and acceptability.Practical implications The GBA methodology provides a potentially adaptable framework for generating structured, performance-based evidence in exploratory programme-level quality assurance applications to support programme dashboards, thresholding and continuous improvement in outcomes-based accreditation processes.Originality/value While gamification is widely studied as a pedagogical strategy, empirical uses of GBA as an assessment mechanism are scarce and they rarely produce structured evidence for programme-level outcomes. This study reframes gamification as a programme-level assessment support mechanism, contributing a novel, context-sensitive approach that aligns authentic performance tasks with comparable, accreditation-relevant outcome indicators in higher education.
