ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Educ., 29 April 2026

Sec. Higher Education

Volume 11 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1820196

Analyzing quality culture in higher education: a screening framework applied to university practices

  • 1. Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

  • 2. Lietuvos Inzinerijos Kolegija HEI, Kaunas, Lithuania

Abstract

Quality culture has become a central concern in higher education as institutions move beyond compliance-oriented quality assurance toward more holistic approaches. However, the concept often remains abstract, with limited methods to evaluate how it is integrated into university practices. This study addresses this gap by designing and applying a screening framework that operationalizes quality culture into five evaluative aspects: Cultural Components, Structural Elements, Binding Factors, Continuous Improvement, and Stakeholder Participation. Using qualitative content analysis of institutional presentations from fourteen European universities, the framework was applied to analyze how these aspects are reflected in practice. The results indicate strong alignment in Structural Elements and Continuous Improvement, while Cultural Components and Stakeholder Participation appear less consistently integrated. Binding Factors, including leadership, communication, and trust, are generally acknowledged but tend to be operationalized implicitly. These findings suggest the framework's applicability across diverse institutional contexts and highlight its potential to support institutional self-evaluation, guide targeted quality enhancement, and inform future research on quality culture.

1 Introduction

In an increasingly competitive and globalized higher education landscape, quality has become a paramount concern for universities worldwide (Amtu et al., 2021; Berhane, 2023; Dzimińska et al., 2018; Elken and Stensaker, 2018; Fialho et al., 2023; Grek and Russell, 2024; Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024). Over the last two decades, this focus has intensified, driven by public concerns for accountability, the strategic use of quality indicators, and international initiatives like the Bologna Process, which aim to create comparable and trustworthy higher education systems (Bendermacher et al., 2017b; Grek and Russell, 2024; Sattler and Sonntag, 2018). Early institutional responses relied heavily on formal quality assurance systems; however, these top-down approaches often proved insufficient, as they were perceived as bureaucratic procedures that neglected academic autonomy and treated faculty as passive receivers of policy (Bendermacher et al., 2017b; Dzimińska et al., 2018).

In response, attention has shifted toward more holistic approaches that integrate formal structures with institutional values and practices, leading to the emergence of the concept of quality culture. The European University Association (EUA, 2006) defines quality culture as a combination of cultural/psychological (shared values, beliefs, and commitment) and structural/managerial (defined processes and tools) elements. This dual perspective suggests that for quality initiatives to be effective, they must be embedded in an environment where all internal stakeholders—leadership, staff, and students—share a collective responsibility for quality (Bendermacher et al., 2017b; Elken and Stensaker, 2018; Harvey and Stensaker, 2008; Loukkola and Zhang, 2010; Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024; O’Sullivan, 2017; Sukardi et al., 2024; Sursock, 2011).

Despite its positive connotations and widespread adoption in policy discourse, the exact meaning and configuration of quality culture remain subject to debate. While extensive research has identified factors that shape quality culture—such as leadership, communication, trust, participation and others—there remains a scarcity of frameworks to operationalize this multifaceted construct in higher education (Fialho et al., 2023; Grek and Russell, 2024; Herminingsih, 2021; Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024). As a result, universities often refer to quality culture in strategic documents without clear means of analyzing its practical manifestation.

To address this gap, the present study develops and applies a screening framework that conceptualizes quality culture through five interrelated aspects: Cultural Components, Structural Elements, Binding Factors, Continuous Improvement, and Stakeholder Participation. Drawing on qualitative content analysis of institutional presentations from fourteen universities, the study examines how these aspects are represented in practice, which appear most prominently expressed, and which are less extensively addressed. In this way, it provides both a structured analytical lens for examining quality culture and empirically grounded insights into its representation across institutional contexts.

The proposed framework is not intended to replace comprehensive evaluations (e.g., Bendermacher et al., 2017b; Berings and Grieten, 2012; Sattler and Sonntag, 2018), but to act as a first step in a layered approach. This is particularly relevant given the complexity of quality culture as a dynamic interplay between structural-managerial and cultural-psychological elements. As Sattler and Sonntag (2018) argue, empirically operationalizing this multifaceted construct is a critical challenge that limits an institution's ability to conduct systematic self-analysis and derive targeted interventions. This challenge is compounded by the findings of Nygren-Landgärds et al. (2024), who observe that while the concept of quality culture is commonly used in higher education, its meaning often remains ambiguous in institutional documentation and varies across contexts. By enabling a structured analysis of how quality culture is articulated in practice, the framework helps to make these variations visible and provides a basis for more context-sensitive and in-depth investigation.

1.1 Theoretical framework: core conceptualizations

1.1.1 Approaches to the quality culture phenomenon

Quality culture is consistently portrayed as a dynamic, contextual, and socially-constructivist phenomenon (Bendermacher et al., 2017b; Berings et al., 2010; Dicker et al., 2019; Harvey and Stensaker, 2008; Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024; Vettori, 2012). Harvey and Stensaker (2008) note its complexity and ambiguity, suggesting that it cannot be transferred from one organization to another; it must be developed internally by each institution. There is no single correct quality culture, and it can vary even within subcultures of an institution (Bendermacher et al., 2017b).

The idea of quality culture as a “way of life” is also prominent. The perspective by Harvey and Stensaker (2008) suggests that quality culture is an evolving, dialectical process that cannot be separated from the everyday reality of the institution. Vettori et al. (2017) discuss quality culture approach, which aims to ensure that quality processes are integrated into broader management routines and are seen as useful by staff rather than as an additional burden. Herminingsih (2021) implies that the pursuit of quality is not a temporary project but an ongoing, integrated part of the institution's daily operations. Nygren-Landgärds et al. (2024) reinforce this, stating the approach is reflected in how university staff discuss and address quality in their everyday work.

Quality culture is widely conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, encompassing interconnected layers that operate at individual, collective, and organizational levels. Building on this understanding, scholars have proposed frameworks that disaggregate quality culture into analytically distinct yet interrelated dimensions. Sattler and Sonntag (2018), for example, distinguish normative, strategic and operative elements within the formal–structural domain, alongside collective and individual criteria within the organizational–psychological domain. Bendermacher et al. (2017b) conceptualize quality culture as a configuration of internal organizational conditions, work-related psychological dispositions, and concrete quality enhancement practices. Other studies further operationalize quality culture through empirically observable dimensions. Dzimińska et al. (2018) propose a trust-based model integrating structural and cultural components with action-oriented domains such as partnership, empowerment and ownership. Similarly, Dicker et al. (2019) empirically capture the multidimensional nature of quality culture through stakeholder perceptions across areas including teaching and learning, support services, facilities and relationships, while Sukardi et al. (2024) emphasize organizational values, ethics, beliefs and behavioral norms as key dimensions.

1.1.2 The EUA framework and dimensions of organizational culture

A recurring foundational definition of quality culture stems from the European University Association (EUA, 2006), which refers to it as an “organizational culture that intends to enhance quality permanently” (p. 10) and allows to identify two distinct, yet interdependent, elements: 1. Cultural/Psychological element, encompassing shared values, beliefs, expectations, and commitment towards quality among individuals in the institution, and 2. Structural/Managerial Element, referring to defined processes that enhance quality and aim at coordinating individual efforts (Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024; Sursock, 2011). The first one refers to the understanding, flexibility, participation, hopes, and emotions of stakeholders; while the second one includes tasks, standards, and responsibilities (Harvey and Stensaker, 2008).

The synergy between these two elements, often linked through effective communication, participation, and trust, is highlighted as crucial (Dzimińska et al., 2018; Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024). Researchers (Bendermacher et al., 2017b; Sattler et al., 2013) explicitly describe leadership and communication as binding elements between these structural/managerial and cultural/psychological dimensions, facilitating quality culture development by creating trust and shared understanding. Dzimińska et al. (2018) highlight that “trust could lower the resistance to change, create more loyalty and improve reputation of HEIs and through the quality culture development prepare the HEIs for the further engagement in organizational changes leading to more sustainable development” (p. 16). Other findings (Budiana et al., 2023) support this by illustrating how transparent communication of organizational culture can build this trust and reputation in the digital era.

Quality culture is fundamentally understood as a topic-specific aspect of organizational culture, and a positive organizational culture is foundational to institutional quality (Cheng, 2022; Daloya and Halevy, 2013; Maull et al., 2001). Organizational culture is generally defined as the collective standards of thinking, attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and customs within an organization, encompassing both visible elements such as behaviors, language, and rituals, and less visible components such as perceptions of value and myths about good work (Adina-Petruţa, 2014). Culture is further understood as focusing on values, beliefs, and norms of individuals that coalesce into shared meanings within organizations (Amtu et al., 2021). Models of organizational culture commonly draw on the framework that distinguishes tangible artifacts, espoused values, and shared basic assumptions, emphasizing that quality culture assessment must move beyond visible tools to address deeper values and commitments (Katiliute and Neverauskas, 2009; Sattler and Sonntag, 2018; Schein, 2004).

1.1.3 Linking quality culture to quality assurance and quality management

Quality culture is consistently positioned as a concept that evolved beyond or is a successor to traditional quality assurance and quality management (Dzimińska et al., 2018; Elken and Stensaker, 2018; Katiliute and Neverauskas, 2009; Vettori, 2012). Dzimińska et al. (2018) note that it emerged as an answer to academicians' skepticism towards bureaucratic quality assurance and management, which was often seen as burdensome and focused on accountability rather than enhancement. Vettori (2012) similarly points out that academics were reluctant to engage with management schemes, making quality culture a solution that complements structural dimensions with organizational values. This tension is empirically supported by evidence showing that, while staff recognize the value of quality assurance systems, there remains a persistent risk that such systems are perceived as mere “box-ticking exercises” (Twomey, 2023). Externally imposed quality assurance reforms have been shown to contribute to situations in which quality becomes synonymous with achieving high evaluation scores, leading to frustration and strategic compliance rather than a genuine commitment to internal improvement (Geven and Maricut, 2015).

A key distinction is drawn between quality assurance processes and quality culture, whereby quality assurance is understood as tangible and more readily addressed through institutional decision-making, while quality culture, grounded in shared values, beliefs, expectations, and commitments, is more complex and resistant to change (Do et al., 2020; Ehlers, 2009). Despite this distinction, quality assurance and quality culture are widely understood as intrinsically linked. European policy frameworks establish a direct and supportive relationship, positioning quality assurance as a central mechanism for the development and sustainability of quality culture within higher education institutions (Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), 2015). Empirical research also highlights a reciprocal relationship between internal quality assurance activities and the formation of quality culture, suggesting mutual influence between these dimensions (Do et al., 2020; Iqbal et al., 2023; Loukkola and Zhang, 2010). Internal quality assurance has additionally been framed as a structural framework for embedding quality management across institutional functions, with its effectiveness dependent on cultural factors such as integrity, commitment, and dynamism among institutional actors (Okuneye, 2023).

A well-developed quality culture transforms quality assurance from a set of procedures into a shared institutional value, making the interdependence between them central to modern quality management. The authors of the case study (Vettori et al., 2017) exemplify this, describing an internal quality assurance system intentionally developed to create a quality culture that ensures communication and organizational learning. Their approach embeds quality assurance in routine activities and prioritizes dialogue among stakeholders. Similarly, it is argued (Stensaker, 2007) that for quality assurance to be effective, its primary concerns should be to rationalize, improve work processes, and stimulate learning within the institution. This shift in focus is essential, as the same quality processes can either stimulate or hinder impact depending on the context in which they are embedded. Likewise, Twomey (2023) concludes that quality assurance must become a lived and meaningful experience, driven by staff ownership and visible management commitment. The effectiveness of formal monitoring is often limited in institutions where a quality culture is not well-established, suggesting that quality assurance systems both promote and rely on such a culture for their success.

1.1.4 Embedding quality culture in continuous enhancement

Quality culture is directly related to improvement, development, and enhancement within universities, moving beyond mere compliance to fostering a deeply embedded commitment to progress. As mentioned above, the EUA (2006) definition explicitly links quality with enhancement; Adina-Petruţa (2014) highlights quality culture as a “key for continuous improvement, sustainable competitive advantage and excellence in the context of the knowledge-based society” (p. 3,805); Bendermacher et al. (2017b) similarly argue that higher education institutions should foster a quality culture where “structural/managerial and cultural/psychological elements act in synergy to continuously improve education” (p. 39). This underscores that improvement is not merely an outcome but an ongoing, integrated process.

The focus on improvement and enhancement signifies a shift from a purely regulative or compliance-driven approach to quality, as also noted by several authors. Loukkola and Zhang (2010) advocate for an “all-encompassing approach” that is derived from an institution's own strategic goals and aims for continuous improvement, rather than a culture of mere compliance with external demands. Sursock (2011) reinforces that quality culture is the most effective way to “ensure and improve quality levels and support a dynamic of change in universities” (p. 6). Vettori (2012) emphasizes quality culture as a tool for reflection, serving as a common starting point for future enhancement.

Quality culture is described as having emerged in response to academics' skepticism towards burdensome and bureaucratic quality systems, with its development contributing to the sustainable development of higher education institutions (Dzimińska et al., 2018). The phenomenon is further presented as an alternative to bureaucratic universities characterized by rigid management routines, aiming instead to support development and improvement processes in higher education (Elken and Stensaker, 2018). A genuine quality culture is understood as one that moves beyond the fulfilment of formal obligations and fosters a deeply embedded, proactive and ongoing commitment to development and enhancement (Saepudin et al., 2021). Evidence also suggests that compliance-oriented quality structures are insufficient in the absence of high-quality interaction and meaningful developmental practices (Ligozat and Buyck, 2024). An effective quality culture is therefore conceptualized as a dynamic force for continuous improvement, grounded in values such as trust, participation and shared responsibility, and supported by formal quality assurance systems used as enabling tools rather than mere compliance mechanisms (Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024).

1.1.5 The role of stakeholders in shaping quality culture

Stakeholder participation is a pivotal aspect for both driving quality improvement and cultivating a strong quality culture within higher education institutions. The rationale for this broad involvement stems from the understanding that quality is a multidimensional term, perceived differently by various groups such as students, academic and administrative staff, and employers (Dicker et al., 2019; Schindler et al., 2015). Therefore, involving all these groups in discussions is crucial to ensure diverse perspectives and needs are integrated into quality conceptualization and initiatives. The EUA (2006) explicitly states that quality culture requires its structural and managerial elements to be linked through effective communication, participation, and trust among individuals, groups, and stakeholders. Adina-Petruţa (2014) similarly highlights that quality culture includes the “participation, unity and trust of the individuals, groups and stakeholders involved with the quality” (p. 3,808). For Amtu et al. (2021), encouraging the participation of all stakeholders is a focus of current reforms for developing internal quality practices and achieving high quality. This comprehensive engagement transforms quality from a top-down mandate into a collective responsibility, highlighting the importance of active participation by all stakeholders in higher education quality improvement (Savickienė, 2006).

Stakeholder involvement takes various forms and contributes directly to the development of a quality culture and continuous improvement, including participation in governance and consultation bodies (Loukkola and Zhang, 2010). Such contribution is central to building ownership and commitment, fostering a genuine sense of responsibility, pride and willingness to move beyond formal duties (Bendermacher et al., 2017a). An effective quality culture is also characterized by the engagement of leadership, staff, students and external stakeholders, framing quality enhancement as a collective exercise aimed at implementing meaningful change (Sursock, 2011). Empowering participants and strengthening their sense of ownership are therefore essential, as sustainable partnerships depend on the recognition of all actors in the educational process as equal contributors (Dzimińska et al., 2018).

Despite its recognized benefits, achieving meaningful stakeholder participation faces significant challenges. Staff resistance to top-down approaches to quality may foster mistrust and reduce the willingness of those whose engagement is essential for advancing quality improvements (Perovšek, 2016). Rigid systems of ongoing quality monitoring also risk discouraging staff and casting doubt on their professional competence (Dzimińska et al., 2018). The EUA (2006) emphasizes that quality processes should combine both top-down and bottom-up elements in a balanced way to keep regulations from becoming excessive.

To overcome these challenges, leadership plays a critical role in actively and strategically cultivating conditions for bottom-up engagement through trust-building, effective resource allocation, role clarification, community empowerment, and open communication, thereby creating synergy between managerial structures and the professional culture of the institution (Bendermacher et al., 2017b). Professional and committed leadership is further identified as crucial for introducing quality-oriented change through clear and persuasive communication, transparency, and the active involvement of students, academic staff, and institutional management (Dzimińska et al., 2018). Valuing all stakeholders by recognizing their skills, individual contributions, and strengths is also highlighted as essential for encouraging collaboration and supporting effective relationship management (Ülker, 2023).

Ultimately, the development of a quality culture requires participation to extend beyond formal involvement towards a credible sense of shared responsibility and active engagement, supported by open communication, trust-building, and adaptive leadership capable of addressing institutional challenges. Although these aspects are widely recognized, each institution needs to adapt them to fit its own context and priorities.

1.1.6 Key aspects of quality culture for the screening framework

While the researchers consistently emphasize that quality culture cannot be simply copied-pasted and should be developed by each university, identifying the key or dominating aspects of quality culture is nevertheless profoundly useful for shaping these individual university-fitting approaches. The prevailing aspects serve as a fundamental conceptual framework and common guidelines that institutions can adapt and localize, fostering their quality culture.

Identification of key aspects provide a shared language and a foundational model for understanding what quality culture entails, even if its specific manifestations vary. Even if a university's quality culture is unique, this conceptualization provides the essential components that any university could take into account developing quality culture. Additionally, these dominating aspects could function as critical guiding principles for tailored evaluation and enhancement of quality culture. Thus, the key aspects provide the essential scaffold upon which each university can build its unique quality culture, enabling purposeful action and informed adaptation.

Scholars consistently stress that quality culture is composed of both cultural components and structural elements, which together create the foundation for any sustainable approach. The EUA (2006) definition, further developed by researchers, highlights shared values, beliefs, expectations, and commitment as essential cultural components, while simultaneously underscoring the importance of structural processes, tools, and responsibilities. These two dimensions are interdependent: cultural aspects provide meaning and motivation, whereas structural elements ensure coherence and continuity. Without this dual perspective, quality initiatives risk being reduced either to empty rhetoric or to technocratic procedures with little ownership from staff and students.

Studies, analyzing quality culture, emphasize the binding role of leadership, communication, and trust in connecting structural and cultural aspects. Bendermacher et al. (2017b) and Sattler and Sonntag (2018) describe leadership and communication as “bridging factors” that integrate managerial procedures with shared values, fostering collective understanding and trust. Similarly, Dzimińska et al. (2018) argue that trust reduces resistance to change, enhances loyalty, and strengthens universities' reputations, while Budiana et al. (2023) illustrate how transparent communication is key to building credibility. These contributions point to the necessity of leadership that is not only strategic but also participatory, cultivating an environment where communication and trust sustain quality-related practices in the long term.

A further recurring theme is the orientation toward continuous improvement as the ultimate aim of quality culture. Bendermacher et al. (2017b), Loukkola and Zhang (2010), and Sursock (2011) argue that genuine quality culture cannot be limited to compliance or periodic reviews but must embed an ongoing process of learning, reflection, and enhancement. Vettori (2012) and Nygren-Landgärds et al. (2024) similarly frame quality culture as a dynamic force that transforms quality assurance into a developmental practice, allowing institutions to evolve continuously in response to changing contexts. This understanding positions continuous improvement as not merely a procedural goal but as an ingrained institutional mindset.

Finally, stakeholder participation and ownership are widely recognized as essential elements of quality culture. The EUA (2006) and Adina-Petruţa (2014) highlight the necessity of linking structural and cultural aspects through inclusive participation, while Bendermacher et al. (2017a) and Dzimińska et al. (2018) underline that real progress depends on active engagement and empowerment of students, staff, and external partners. Meaningful involvement helps to create a sense of ownership and shared responsibility, moving beyond token consultation toward collective commitment. As Sursock (2011) and Ülker (2023) point out, such engagement ensures that quality enhancement is not perceived as externally imposed but emerges from within the academic community.

Taken together, the reviewed approaches converge on a set of core ideas that consistently emerge across the resources and lead to a framework based on five key quality culture aspects:

  • Cultural Components – shared values, beliefs, expectations, and commitment to quality

  • Structural Elements – defined quality processes and tools

  • Binding Factors – leadership, communication, and the fostering of trust

  • Continuous Improvement – orientation toward improvement through systematic enhancement

  • Stakeholder Participation – engagement and ownership by internal and external stakeholders.

The proposed framework offers a holistic yet accessible entry point for higher education institutions to reflect on how their practices align with the main aspects of quality culture. It provides a concise set of dimensions that can be used to conduct a rapid diagnostic of institutional cases. By checking against the proposed list, areas of strong alignment as well as aspects requiring further attention can be quickly identified. The screening framework is thus useful both as an evaluation tool for initial mapping and as a gateway to more in-depth analysis in cases where weaker alignment is detected. This fast-track approach is not intended to replace comprehensive evaluations but to serve as a set of guidelines that help institutions prioritize where more detailed assessment and development efforts are most needed.

2 Materials and methods

The proposed framework for screening quality culture was pilot-tested through the analysis of institutional practices at fourteen European universities. The empirical material was collected during the international Erasmus + BIP event “Fostering Quality Culture in Higher Education Institutions”, hosted by Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in 2025. The event involved universities from both the Transform4Europe alliance and other European higher education institutions representing Austria (1), Bulgaria (1), Czechia (1), Cyprus (1), Finland (1), Germany (2), Greece (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Portugal (1), Slovenia (1), and Sweden (2). The main aim of the event was to share effective practices, strategic methods, and key stages in developing a sustainable quality culture.

For this study, we analyzed institutional presentations delivered by the participating universities. These presentations provided structured accounts of practices, strategies, and governance mechanisms aimed at strengthening quality culture.

Given the multidimensional and context-specific nature of quality culture, we adopted a qualitative, interpretive research design. The institutional presentations were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, guided by the five interrelated aspects of quality culture defined in the framework: Cultural Components, Structural Elements, Binding Factors, Continuous Improvement, and Stakeholder Participation.

The analysis followed a deductive coding approach, guided by the five predefined aspects of quality culture. The coding framework was applied systematically to identify how each aspect was represented across the empirical material, while allowing for interpretive refinement in capturing variations in expression and emphasis. The coding was conducted manually to enable close engagement with the data, which was appropriate given the moderate size and qualitative nature of the dataset. To enhance the reliability of the analysis, a subset of the material was independently reviewed by two authors, and decisions were discussed to ensure consistency, conceptual alignment, and the resolution of discrepancies.

The empirical analysis followed a two-phase interpretive strategy. In the first phase, each university case was coded individually to assess the presence and relative emphasis of the five quality culture aspects, using illustrative examples to contextualize the findings. The second phase involved a cross-case synthesis to identify recurring patterns, common strengths, and under-addressed areas across the institutional cases.

To operationalize this strategy, we formulated the following research questions:

  • Descriptive: How are the five groups of quality culture aspects represented in the practices of universities?

  • Analytical: Which quality culture aspects appear most prominently, and which are less extensively addressed within each case?

  • Evaluative: To what extent do institutional practices reflect the theoretical components of quality culture as defined in the framework?

As emphasized by

Harvey and Stensaker (2008)

,

Bendermacher et al. (2017b)

, and

Nygren-Landgärds et al. (2024)

, quality culture cannot be meaningfully reduced to standardized indicators or quantitative metrics. It encompasses shared values, beliefs, leadership behaviors, and participatory dynamics embedded in institutional contexts. While quantitative methods may capture the existence of formal systems, they are limited in revealing the deeper meanings and lived experiences that constitute a culture of quality. In contrast, qualitative methods provide the analytical flexibility needed to examine both explicit practices and implicit assumptions, offering a richer understanding of how quality culture is interpreted and enacted across diverse higher education settings.

3 Results

3.1 Representation of quality culture aspects through examples

The findings presented in this section illustrate how the five key aspects of quality culture are reflected across the analyzed universities. Drawing on institutional presentations provided by quality experts, this subsection focuses on select examples that most clearly demonstrate alignment between institutional practices and the theoretical dimensions of quality culture. These representative cases highlight the diversity of ways in which universities interpret and embed quality culture in practice. The discussion follows the structure of the analytical framework introduced earlier. For each aspect, we present descriptive illustrations drawn from the empirical material, accompanied by brief interpretive remarks clarifying how the observed practices correspond to the conceptual components of the framework.

To maintain institutional anonymity and ensure the focus remains on patterns rather than individual cases, the universities are referenced descriptively (e.g., “one university”, “another institution”) rather than by name or coded identifiers.

3.1.1 Cultural components

At one university, quality culture is described as “characterized by shared values, beliefs, expectations, and commitment to excellence” in education, research, and support activities. The institutional vision articulates a common aspirational goal of being “a leading creator of an innovative, knowledge-based society”. The university also emphasizes the “further development of a common culture of quality”, indicating that this aspiration is seen as essential for both the present and the future. Together, these statements illustrate how shared values and collective commitment are embedded in the university's vision, shaping a unifying sense of purpose that reflects the cultural dimension.

Another institution defines quality culture as “shared values—education quality as a common goal”. The university believes that quality enhancement should be a “both top-down and bottom-up process”, indicating an inclusive and participatory commitment. It applies a collaborative approach, integrated with strategic planning, which helps “to build a quality culture at the institutional level”. Initiatives encouraging dialogue and reflection are used to engage staff in discussions on quality, showing how shared understanding is cultivated through joint endeavors. These practices illustrate how to embed quality as a common institutional goal rather than an externally imposed requirement.

A further example illustrates fostering quality culture through a set of shared values and a strong, institution-wide commitment to excellence, framing quality culture as a “collective commitment to continuous improvement in all aspects of the institution's work”, supported by a student-centered approach and ongoing professional development for staff. This description demonstrates how cultural components are operationalized through shared expectations and professional engagement, where quality is seen as a collective goal. The institutional practices support that these shared values become embedded in daily academic and administrative practice, sustaining a common sense of purpose and commitment to excellence across the university community.

3.1.2 Structural elements

In one institutional case the focus is on structured quality processes through an extensive set of internal monitoring systems and external quality assessment procedures, operating on principles such as “process approach”, “compliance”, “accountability”, and “continuous improvement”. Internally, quality is monitored through strategic and financial oversight by the Council and Senate, annual internal audits, and examinations of academic integrity. Externally, the university undergoes accreditation of study fields, system certification, international evaluations of scientific institutions, and external monitoring of projects, alongside control of funding and procurement procedures. This comprehensive system demonstrates how clearly defined and formally embedded processes form the structural backbone of the institution's quality culture.

Another university outlines a highly structured Quality Framework designed to meet diverse requirements, including “external regulations”, “international standards”, and “institutional obligations”. A key element of this framework is its tiered system of review and feedback mechanisms, which organizes quality processes by frequency—regular, annual, and periodic. Such a multilayered framework illustrates how structural organization and scheduled procedures help ensure systematic monitoring and alignment with internal and external expectations.

One more university describes a clear organizational structure for quality assurance, supported by defined governing and operational bodies and the active participation of lecturers and students in co-developing curricula. Its quality processes include biennial reviews and “data-informed decisions” using Key Performance Indicators, evaluations, and external audits. The university also applies standardized workflows, templates, document formats, and a shared digital database. These practices show how standardized tools and data-driven mechanisms operationalize quality culture by embedding consistency, transparency, and accountability across institutional levels.

3.1.3 Binding factors

One university defines its quality culture through “openness, learning, commitment, and communication” and a “sense of community, working together towards the same overall goal”. Trust is fostered by “not being afraid to raise problems or areas for improvement – not punished if you do so (applies to both staff and students)”. The institution also identifies “the need for more feedback, especially from the top level”, and “greater transparency – staff, students, and external stakeholders”. These statements imply leadership and communication function as mutual reinforcers: open dialogue, transparent feedback, and psychological safety build the trust necessary for quality improvement to occur collectively.

At another university, leadership is identified as a key principle of quality management and excellence, while values such as “community, collaboration, and openness” inherently foster communication and contribute to building trust among stakeholders. Additionally, stronger adherence to the Code of Ethics and the principles of responsibility and integrity are expected to further enhance trust within the university community. This example illustrates how ethical leadership and shared values provide the relational foundation that binds members together, aligning individual and institutional responsibility for quality.

A further case highlights “effective communication on quality issues” as a core component of quality culture. The university has established a network of quality coordinators serving as “intermediaries” between administration and academics, it holds annual meetings that create a “platform for discussion” and “sharing of best practices”. These mechanisms exemplify how structured communication channels and participatory leadership help translate collaboration into trust, ensuring inclusivity in quality work.

3.1.4 Continuous improvement

One institutional example shows that quality culture is based on the “PDCA model for continuous improvement”, indicating that ongoing enhancement is a core methodological principle. This commitment is operationalized through annual analyses followed by improvement plans derived from outcomes. The university also recognizes that program improvement and monitoring remain further challenges within its quality processes. These practices illustrate how regular quality loops institutionalize a learning-oriented mindset, positioning improvement as an integrated and recurrent element of quality culture.

Another university identifies “continuous improvement of quality in academic and administrative operations” as a central pillar of its quality framework. This institution focuses on “designing strategies aimed at improving the quality of education and research”. The university continuously develops new programs and services, strengthens strategic collaborations, and upgrades digital tools to meet growing needs. Such initiatives show how a forward-looking approach to improvement links strategic development with quality enhancement, reinforcing innovation as part of institutional culture.

One more university defines its quality culture through a commitment to “continually adapt to meet the evolving needs of students, faculty, and employers”. The inclusion of “continuous improvement and feedback loops” among its quality challenges demonstrates recognition of enhancement as an ongoing institutional responsibility. This example reflects how responsiveness and adaptability serve as cultural markers of quality, ensuring that improvement remains an enduring and collective pursuit.

3.1.5 Stakeholder participation

At a particular university quality culture is characterized by the “involvement of internal and external stakeholders”. This is implemented through the Study Program Committee, which includes teachers, students, and employer representatives. The university also lists “stakeholder engagement and communication” and “regular involvement of all stakeholders” as challenges, acknowledging their ongoing importance. These practices illustrate how shared participation operationalizes the principle of inclusiveness, embedding quality within a network of co-responsible actors.

Another example demonstrates the focus of quality culture on a “participative and integrated understanding of quality”. It highlights the significance of an efficient feedback system that includes input from alumni, teaching staff, administrators, students, external peers, auditors, coordinators, and governing bodies. Viewing quality as a “common task” is identified as a key success factor. This perspective reflects that engagement and shared responsibility foster ownership, transforming quality from compliance into a collaborative practice.

A further case emphasizes “responsible participation” and “collaborative knowledge” as core institutional values. Its quality system actively involves stakeholders through “disseminating, involving, and consulting” them to improve teaching and learning. While “ensuring stakeholder engagement” is identified as a continuing challenge, the university explicitly frames its quality culture around “enhancing collaboration”. This approach demonstrates that stakeholder engagement functions both as a means of improvement and as a defining feature of a mature quality culture built on shared ownership.

3.2 Variation and extent of addressing quality culture aspects

The five aspects of quality culture vary in their representation across the 14 analyzed universities. While institutional practices demonstrate broad alignment with the theoretical framework, none of the aspects are entirely absent across the cases. However, differences emerge in the depth, consistency, and explicitness with which these aspects are addressed. In some institutions, certain aspects are presented as well-established and embedded in practice, while in others they are framed as areas for further development or ongoing challenges. This indicates that variation lies not in the presence of the aspects themselves, but in their level of operationalization and integration into institutional practice:

  • Cultural Components. Most universities show strong declarative alignment with this aspect. Vision and mission statements frequently refer to quality as a “common goal” or a matter of “shared responsibility”, and many explicitly express a commitment to excellence. However, several institutions acknowledge challenges in translating these declarations into widespread engagement. Commonly mentioned obstacles include limited staff commitment, insufficient stakeholder awareness, dependence on individual efforts, and difficulty building a unified quality culture across diverse academic communities. This suggests that while values and commitments are clearly articulated, their consistent integration into institutional life remains an ongoing endeavor for many.

  • Structural Elements. This aspect demonstrates the highest and most consistent alignment with the theoretical framework of quality culture. All universities have well-established internal quality assurance systems, formal program accreditations, systematic data collection via surveys, and governance mechanisms such as quality boards and committees. Many apply structured methodologies like the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle. These elements indicate a high degree of operationalization and institutionalization of formal quality tools and processes.

  • Binding Factors. Alignment with this aspect is more variable and often implicit— especially with regard to trust. Leadership is generally visible through the involvement of senior roles (e.g., Rectorate, Vice-Presidents, Deans) and in some cases through leadership training initiatives. However, leadership is often embedded within broader governance structures rather than being directly linked to cultural development. Communication is widely recognized as essential and facilitated through mechanisms such as feedback systems, internal networks, regular meetings, and the dissemination of reports. Nevertheless, several universities identify shortcomings in information flow, lack of top-level feedback, and fragmented communication. Trust is rarely addressed directly; instead, it is typically seen as an implicit outcome of transparency, accountability, and inclusive practices. The presentations also reveal a tension in some cases, where trust is articulated as a future goal or value, while current practices remain rooted in audits, data requests, and formal control mechanisms. This suggests a potential contradiction between espoused values and operational approaches, highlighting challenges in embedding trust as a lived component of quality culture.

  • Continuous Improvement. This aspect is consistently and strongly represented across all cases. Ongoing enhancement is clearly embedded in institutional visions and strategies and is operationalized through quality loops (e.g., PDCA cycles), annual reports, action plans, stakeholder feedback, and reviews. It is positioned as a core value and a driver of adaptation and long-term development.

  • Stakeholder Participation. This aspect is addressed through a wide range of formal mechanisms, including surveys, advisory boards, co-development of curricula, and regular consultation processes. Institutions often emphasize quality as a “shared responsibility” and highlight student-centered approaches. However, many also report challenges that remain in achieving comprehensive and consistent engagement. Identified barriers include limited staff involvement, variable awareness levels, reliance on individual initiative, quality assurance fatigue, and divergent stakeholder expectations.

A consolidated summary of these findings is provided in

Table 1

, which outlines the extent and manner in which each of the five quality culture aspects is addressed across the 14 universities.

Table 1

Universities 1, 4, 7, 10, 13Universities 2, 5, 8, 11, 14Universities 3, 6, 9, 12
1. The university most extensively addresses structural elements and continuous improvement through its accredited systems, strategic planning, and explicit vision; cultural components are well-articulated, and stakeholder participation are pursued through various mechanisms despite implicit fostering of ownership; binding factors are present through training and outreach but their day-to-day implementation and the fostering of trust are more implicitly addressed.2. Continuous improvement and structural elements are covered most comprehensively, with clear processes and a strong focus on ongoing development. Stakeholder participation and cultural components are also well-addressed, though with identified areas for improvement. Binding factors of university leadership and communication are acknowledged less thoroughly, primarily through identified needs for enhanced feedback and transparency, and fostering of trust is an implicit outcome.3. Structural elements and continuous improvement are strongly represented through established processes, external review, and comprehensive future plans. Stakeholder participation is addressed through existing surveys and future initiatives, though engagement issues are recognized as a current challenge. Cultural components, and binding factors of leadership and communication are present but clearly identified as areas for future strengthening, with trust implicitly addressed.
4. Continuous improvement, structural elements, and stakeholder participation are incorporated most extensively through detailed processes, structures, and direct involvement, whereas cultural components and binding factors of university leadership, communication and trust at university are addressed less uniformly, facing challenges in consistent staff commitment and ongoing needs for more transparent communication.5. Structural elements, continuous improvement, and internal stakeholder participation are extensively represented through comprehensive framework and multi-layered feedback mechanisms. Cultural components are clearly articulated, and binding factors of leadership and communication are integrated through robust structures and systematic feedback, while fostering of trust is implicitly addressed and external stakeholder engagement is recognized as an area needing further development6. Cultural components, structural elements, and continuous improvement are widely tackled through explicit definitions, comprehensive processes, and core principles. Communication is also a key success factor, while leadership is represented through strong governance and fostering of trust is implicitly achieved through transparency and accountability. Stakeholder participation, despite having specific mechanisms and a student-centered approach, are identified as a challenge in practice.
7. The University most thoroughly addresses structural elements and continuous improvement through explicit systems, detailed mechanisms, and development initiatives. Stakeholder participation is also well-addressed, with clear mechanisms for engagement, while ownership implicitly fostered. Cultural components and binding factors of leadership and communication are also widely handled. Within this framework, trust is implicitly fostered.8. The university most broadly incorporates structural elements and continuous improvement through its quality management system and explicit, cyclical mechanisms. Stakeholder participation is also strongly emphasized and operationalized. While cultural components are established through mission statements, and binding factors of leadership and communication are integrated through key roles and regular stakeholder contact, commitment towards quality and the fostering of trust appear as future goals or implicit outcomes.9. Continuous improvement and structural elements are addressed most robustly, demonstrating comprehensive frameworks and an inherent focus on systematic development. The cultural components and stakeholder participation are also sufficiently covered, with values, engagement, and participation explicitly detailed, and commitment and ownership implicitly integrated. Binding factors of university leadership and communication are present as principles but are less explicitly detailed in their practical implementation, while trust is implicitly addressed.
10. Structural elements, continuous improvement and stakeholder participation are clearly represented through explicit systems and mechanisms, and cultural components are well-articulated by principles and a shared task approach; however, binding factors of leadership are less explicitly detailed, and communication, despite being central, has acknowledged areas for improvement, with trust implicitly fostered by transparency and visible actions.11. Continuous improvement and structural elements are best acknowledged through thorough approaches and a clear strategic and operational focus. Cultural components and stakeholder participation are recognized but require further attention to strengthen their pervasive establishment and address stakeholder awareness. Ownership and the binding factors need the most significant further development to overcome fragmentation and enhance overall awareness.12. The university most extensively addresses structural elements, continuous improvement and stakeholder participation through explicit models, detailed responsibilities, and dedicated committees, though consistent stakeholder engagement is an acknowledged challenge. Cultural components are actively fostered, and binding factors of leadership and communication are integrated through governance and regular meetings; however, fostering of trust is implicitly addressed as an outcome of these systematic quality endeavors.
13. The University broadly refers to cultural components, structural elements, continuous improvement, and stakeholder participation through explicit values, detailed processes, and engagement mechanisms. Communication is also well-addressed through various actions, while leadership is primarily defined by the responsibilities of certain bodies, and fostering of trust is identified as an area of ongoing development.14. The University most broadly covers stakeholder participation, structural elements and continuous improvement through explicit systems, frameworks, and a highly student-centered approach; cultural components are actively being defined; leadership and communication are primarily addressed through student-staff partnerships, with trust implicitly fostered by shared ownership and transparent engagement.

Representation of quality culture aspects across the practices of 14 universities.

Beyond the patterns summarized in Table 1, variation is also evident in how quality culture is discursively framed across institutions. The language used in the institutional presentations reflects a combination of prescriptive and descriptive styles, ranging between conformity-oriented and ownership-oriented expressions.

Some institutions predominantly employ a language of conformity, emphasizing alignment with external standards, regulatory frameworks, and formal accountability mechanisms. This discourse reflects a narrowing of quality culture towards structural elements, prioritizing compliance with established norms and institutional obligations over broader cultural engagement.

In contrast, other institutions adopt a language of ownership, highlighting internal values, shared responsibility, and collective commitment. Quality culture is framed as a process of continuous improvement, participatory engagement, and the active involvement of staff and students as co-creators, indicating a more internalized and value-driven orientation.

Several institutions use a hybrid form of expression, combining conformity and ownership to navigate external expectations and internal development. This mixed discourse reflects ongoing efforts to balance accountability requirements with internally driven quality enhancement.

4 Conclusions

This study suggests that five interrelated aspects—Cultural Components, Structural Elements, Binding Factors, Continuous Improvement, and Stakeholder Participation—provide a useful lens for analyzing how quality culture is expressed in university practices, as reflected in institutional presentations. The findings indicate that quality culture is not uniformly embedded across institutions but is configured through varying combinations of structural, cultural, and relational dimensions. In particular, formal structures and Continuous Improvement appear most consistently emphasized, while value-oriented components and Stakeholder Participation are less fully integrated into everyday institutional practices.

The analysis further indicates that Binding Factors—leadership, communication, and trust—play a critical yet often implicit role in connecting formal structures with underlying values. While these elements are frequently acknowledged at the strategic level, their operationalization remains uneven, with trust, in particular, emerging more as an implicit expectation than as a deliberately managed component. This points to a recurring tension between formally established systems and the relational dynamics required to sustain a more embedded quality culture.

Within this context, the proposed screening framework, developed in this study, serves as a structured analytical lens for examining how different aspects of quality culture are articulated across institutional settings. Rather than functioning as a prescriptive evaluation tool, it enables the identification of patterns of emphasis, omission, and imbalance, thereby supporting a more nuanced understanding of how quality culture is interpreted and enacted in practice.

From a practical perspective, the framework may support higher education institutions in reflecting on the relative prominence of different quality culture dimensions and in identifying areas for further development. From a theoretical perspective, it contributes to conceptual clarity by organizing a complex and often ambiguously defined concept into a set of interrelated aspects, providing a basis for further interpretive, comparative, and context-sensitive research.

5 Discussion

The findings highlight quality culture as a multidimensional phenomenon that requires balance between formal structures and internalized values. While structural mechanisms are often well developed, their effectiveness depends on the explicit operationalization of binding factors such as leadership, communication, and trust. This is consistent with Iqbal et al. (2023), who identifies quality culture as a mediator between academic motivation and institutional performance. Without meaningful integration of these relational dimensions, institutions risk prioritizing procedural compliance over genuine enhancement, echoing the “forms in search of substance” described by Geven and Maricut (2015).

The results align with the European University Association's (2006) conceptualization of quality culture as an interplay between structural–managerial and cultural–psychological elements. The strong presence of Structural Elements and Continuous Improvement is consistent with earlier observations of well-established quality assurance systems across Europe (Loukkola and Zhang, 2010). However, the weaker operationalization of Binding Factors supports Bendermacher et al.’s (2017b) argument that leadership and communication are critical for connecting these dimensions. Moreover, the tendency for trust to emerge implicitly resonates with Dzimińska et al.’s (2018) trust-based model, which emphasizes intentional trust-building as foundational for sustainable institutional development.

Challenges related to Stakeholder Participation mirror findings by Nygren-Landgärds et al. (2024), who observe persistent ambiguity between strategic rhetoric and everyday practice. This reinforces Harvey and Stensaker’s (2008) distinction between reactive and regenerative quality cultures, suggesting that participation must evolve beyond formal mechanisms toward deeper ownership. In this context, the screening framework responds to the quality culture paradox identified by Perovšek (2016), offering institutions a way to diagnose misalignment before pursuing more intensive interventions.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The empirical material is based on institutional presentations, which reflect curated and strategic representations of practices rather than direct observations of their implementation. As such, the findings may overemphasize formal structures and intended approaches, while underrepresenting informal dynamics and everyday practices of quality culture. This may partly explain the stronger visibility of structural elements and the more implicit treatment of relational dimensions such as trust and communication. In addition, the use of a single data source limits the depth of insight and does not allow for triangulation with perspectives from different stakeholders. These considerations suggest that the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than exhaustive representations of how quality culture is enacted in practice.

The proposed screening framework offers a useful foundation for advancing research on quality culture, enabling longitudinal and comparative approaches to examine how institutional practices evolve over time and across contexts. In line with Elken and Stensaker (2018), greater attention should be paid to everyday “quality work” in order to better understand how quality is negotiated and enacted in practice. The framework presented here may support such investigations, particularly in addressing the ambiguity frequently observed in institutional documentation, where the meaning of quality culture often remains unclear or undefined (Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024).

As a diagnostic instrument, the framework can help institutions to identify areas of weaker alignment before undertaking deeper, context-specific analysis. Further empirical testing across diverse public and private institutions would strengthen its applicability and diagnostic robustness (Amtu et al., 2021; Do et al., 2020). The framework may also be extended to explore departmental subcultures (Sattler and Sonntag, 2018) and to assess how digitalization and emerging competencies are strategically integrated into quality cultures. Ultimately, by supporting clearer conceptual framing in internal documentation and practice, the framework provides a starting point for distinguishing between compliance-driven systems and genuinely embedded cultures of continuous improvement owned by the wider university community (Nygren-Landgärds et al., 2024).

Statements

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

IS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SP: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI tools were used for language editing and clarity improvement. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Summary

Keywords

binding factors, cultural components, evaluation, higher education, improvement, quality culture, stakeholders, structural elements

Citation

Savickienė I and Pilkienė S (2026) Analyzing quality culture in higher education: a screening framework applied to university practices. Front. Educ. 11:1820196. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1820196

Received

28 February 2026

Revised

02 April 2026

Accepted

07 April 2026

Published

29 April 2026

Volume

11 - 2026

Edited by

Rany Sam, National University of Battambang, Cambodia

Reviewed by

Nikolai Alexandrovich Chubarov, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Russia

Msher Ahmed, Kirkuk University, Iraq

Updates

Copyright

© 2026 Savickienė and Pilkienė.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Izabela Savickienė

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Share on WeChat

Scan with WeChat to share this article

Article metrics