Standardized framework for institutional audit for quality in Ghanaian Universities

This study develops a standardized framework for institutional audits in Ghanaian universities, addressing implementation challenges that compromise audit effectiveness. Through qualitative research, 35 stakeholders across four public and three universities participated in semi-structured interviews, analyzed using thematic analysis grounded in New Institutional Theory. Five themes characterize audit understanding: academic standards alignment, continuous improvement, accountability enhancement, quality assurance alignment, and external recognition. Five implementation challenges emerged: absent standardized frameworks, inadequate preparation, resource constraints, limited improvement implementation, and insufficient stakeholder engagement. Universities demonstrated enhancement capacity through eight improvement measures when supported with clear guidance. Theoretically, the study advances New Institutional Theory in developing countries' higher education by showing how coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures shape institutional audit behavior in resource-constrained contexts. Practically, it provides the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) and African quality assurance agencies with an evidence-based, context-responsive strategic framework that standardizes audit processes while promoting continuous improvement.

Introduction

Higher education institutions worldwide face mounting pressure to demonstrate accountability and quality through systematic external evaluation mechanisms. Institutional audit has emerged as a primary quality assurance tool, with sophisticated frameworks implemented in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and South Africa providing measurable improvements in educational quality and institutional effectiveness (Kooli, 2019). Ghana presents a unique case study for institutional audit framework development due to several intersecting factors that distinguish it from other African higher education systems.

First, Ghana's ambitious expansion of higher education access has resulted in enrollment growth from 95,000 students in 2005 to over 547,050 by 2020 (Ghana Commercial Bank, 2023), creating unprecedented pressure on quality assurance systems that were designed for smaller, more manageable institutional sizes. This rapid expansion occurred without corresponding development of quality assurance infrastructure, creating systematic gaps between institutional capacity and regulatory expectations. Second, Ghana's regulatory environment underwent significant transformation with the Education Regulation Bodies Act 2020 (Act 1023), which mandated systematic institutional audits without providing the standardized frameworks necessary for effective implementation (Republic of Ghana, 2020). Unlike South Africa's gradual quality assurance evolution over two decades or Australia's systematic framework development, Ghana's regulatory transformation occurred rapidly, creating implementation challenges unique to this accelerated reform approach. Third, Ghana's position as West Africa's higher education hub, hosting students from 16 countries (Ghana Tertiary Education Commission, 2022), creates regional implications for quality assurance effectiveness that extend beyond national boundaries. Ineffective audit systems in Ghana affect not only domestic quality standards but also regional higher education credibility and student mobility across West Africa (Yussif, 2024). Fourth, Ghana's institutional audit system exhibits resource constraints typical of developing countries, where limited funding, inadequate technological infrastructure, and capacity gaps affect audit implementation effectiveness (Anomah, 2025). These resource limitations require innovative approaches that balance international quality standards with practical implementation possibilities in resource-constrained environments. Moreover, Ghana's institutional audit landscape is shaped by socio-political and cultural dynamics, including centralized governance traditions, hierarchical administrative structures, and strong expectations of deference within academia (Osei-assibey, 2021). These contextual factors influence how audit requirements are interpreted, negotiated, and implemented across universities, affecting consistency, responsiveness, and institutional engagement. Ghana presents a fascinating case study of a country that is proactively building sophisticated institutional audit system for its higher education system, yet still grapples with the deep-rooted, practical challenges of implementation.

Ghana's institutional audit system operates without the standardized frameworks that characterize successful international quality assurance models, creating systematic implementation challenges that compromise audit effectiveness (Odjidja, 2023). Since 2018, the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) has conducted institutional audits under regulatory mandate, yet these audits lack comprehensive standardized frameworks to guide implementation, evaluation, or improvement processes (Asamoah et al., 2025). Comparative analysis with established international models reveals significant deficiencies in Ghana's approach. Australia's Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) operates a risk-based framework with seven standardized domains, achieving effective performance ratings through systematic assessment scales and predictable seven-year cycles (Australian National Audit Office, 2020). New Zealand's Academic Quality Agency demonstrates how standardized peer review models promote enhancement through international benchmarking and predictable eight-year audit cycles (Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities, 2024). South Africa's Council on Higher Education provides the most relevant developing-country model through comprehensive frameworks featuring 16 standards across four focus areas (Council on Higher Education, 2021). Despite extensive international literature on institutional audit frameworks, significant knowledge gaps persist regarding standardized framework development in African higher educational settings. Limited empirical evidence exists about framework development processes, stakeholder engagement strategies, and implementation challenges in resource-constrained developing country environments (Hassan and Ahmad, 2025).

Theoretical foundation: new institutional theory and quality assurance

Building on New Institutional Theory, this study advances the position that institutional audit frameworks exert measurable influence on key quality assurance outcomes in universities (de Freitas and da Silveira, 2021). The pursuit of legitimacy is a central driver in this process. As highlighted in a study on Ghanaian political institutions, legitimacy, comprising input, throughput, and output dimensions is a critical factor in building citizen trust. Translating this to the higher education context, the legitimacy of an institution in the eyes of stakeholders (government, students, accreditors) is paramount for its survival and success. Institutional audits can be viewed as a mechanism for legitimizing universities' operations and quality claims. Within this theoretical logic, coercive pressures generated by regulatory requirements are expected to strengthen institutional accountability by compelling universities to demonstrate compliance, transparency, and adherence to external expectations. Mimetic pressures, arising from the tendency of institutions to emulate practices of high-performing or benchmarked universities, are anticipated to promote continuous improvement as institutions adopt established quality enhancement mechanisms to maintain legitimacy and competitiveness. This is particularly relevant in the African context, where the legitimacy and utilization of institutional research data are often contested, shaped by power dynamics and institutional culture. Likewise, normative pressures embedded in shared professional standards and sector-wide quality assurance norms are presumed to enhance external recognition, as alignment with accepted standards signals credibility to regulators, stakeholders, and international partners. Articulating these theoretical linkages provides greater analytical clarity by demonstrating how institutional audit frameworks are not only compliance tools but also drivers of accountability, improvement, and legitimacy within Ghana's higher education system.

Quality in higher education: a multidimensional understanding

Quality represents a foundational concept requiring thorough understanding before effective implementation can occur. The concept of ‘quality' transitioned from its industrial and commercial origins of the 1980s into higher education and other professional service sectors (Ashraf and Ahmed, 2022). Teaching and learning quality in tertiary education has emerged as a strategic concern worldwide over recent decade. The notion of quality proves multidimensional and subjective, with interpretations as diverse as the various objectives and criteria associated with higher education. Quality is essentially a value judgment, open to varying interpretations by different stakeholders, such as governments, employers, students, administrators, and faculty (Tere et al., 2020). Educational stakeholders interpret quality through distinct lenses shaped by their individual needs and perspectives.

Seyfried and Pohlenz (2022) performed an extensive literature assessment on “quality” in higher education, developing five main categories: exception (denoting distinctiveness and excellence), perfection (stressing flawless execution), fitness for purpose (linking quality to provider-defined objectives), value for money (evaluating quality through efficiency metrics), and transformation (focusing on qualitative student development) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Five-dimensional framework showing interconnected aspects of quality in higher education. Source Seyfried and Pohlenz (2022:18).

These five dimensions create a comprehensive framework for understanding quality in higher education. Exception-based quality focuses on elite performance and distinctive achievement that sets institutions apart from peers. Perfection-oriented quality targets zero-defect approaches and flawless execution of educational processes (Kadhila et al., 2021). Fitness for purpose aligns quality measurement with institutional mission and stakeholder expectations. Value for money approaches quality through cost-effectiveness and resource optimization. Transformation-focused quality prioritizes student development and learning outcomes enhancement. Understanding these multiple quality dimensions becomes essential for developing effective audit frameworks that can accommodate diverse institutional missions while maintaining consistent evaluation standards. Quality assurance mechanisms must recognize this multidimensional nature while providing clear guidance for institutional improvement. This extends to the measurement of individual academic performance, which is a core component of overall institutional quality. Research on performance measurement dimensions for university lecturers, including in African contexts, has identified key areas such as subject knowledge, student-lecturer relations, organizational skills, and communication skills as critical for evaluating and enhancing teaching quality. An effective institutional audit framework should therefore assess whether universities have robust, multi-dimensional performance measurement systems in place for their academic staff.

Quality assurance in tertiary education

Quality assurance involves a methodical evaluation procedure designed to assess if an institution or program complies with, sustains, and improves recognized standards of education, scholarship, and infrastructure (Lucander and Christersson, 2020). In educational settings, quality assurance provides the structure for intended and planned activities to ensure institutional quality. Quality assurance encompasses both internal and external dimensions. Internal quality assurance refers to systematic approaches utilized by institutions to assess their operational efficacy and functional performance, with the premise that responsibility for quality resides naturally with the higher education institution (Hadi et al., 2023). External quality assurance denotes external quality assurance agencies and their diverse quality assurance schemes used to evaluate the functioning of tertiary education institutions (Gaston, 2023).

The relationship between internal and external quality assurance proves dynamic and complementary. Internal systems provide the foundation for institutional self-regulation and continuous improvement, while external systems offer independent validation and comparative assessment (Boughey, 2021). Effective quality assurance requires integration of both dimensions, where internal processes inform external evaluation and external feedback strengthens internal systems (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Framework showing internal and external components of quality assurance system.

International institutional audit frameworks

Australia's comprehensive risk-based approach

Australia's Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) operates the most sophisticated risk-based institutional audit framework globally, demonstrating how standardized approaches can achieve measurable quality improvements. The Higher Education Standards Framework features seven clearly defined domains covering student participation, learning environment, teaching quality, outcomes assessment, qualification processes, governance structures, and institutional recognition (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, 2021). Their risk assessment methodology employs systematic four-point rating scales with annual comprehensive evaluations, achieving “effective or largely effective” performance in three of four evaluated areas according to Australian National Audit Office assessments (Australian National Audit Office, 2020). The framework's strength lies in its predictable seven-year registration cycles for established universities, combined with material change notification requirements within 14 days, demonstrating how standardization can maintain both accountability and flexibility.

New Zealand's enhancement-focused model

New Zealand's Academic Quality Agency (NZAQA) pioneered enhancement-focused peer review approaches that demonstrate how standardized frameworks can promote improvement over mere compliance. Their Cycle 6 framework (2017–2024) features international benchmarking with overseas auditors, thematic targeting of specific outcomes like Māori and Pasifika student success, and predictable eight-year audit cycles (Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities, 2024). The system's evolution, including the 2024 transition to Universities New Zealand management, reflects sector maturity and demonstrates how frameworks must adapt as systems develop. This model shows measurable improvements in targeted student outcomes through systematic framework application, proving that standardized approaches can achieve substantive educational gains.

South Africa's developing country model

South Africa's Council on Higher Education provides the most relevant developing-country model through their comprehensive CHE Institutional Audit Manual 2021. The framework covers four focus areas with 16 comprehensive standards, addressing governance influence on quality, integrated quality management systems, institutional coherence, and system effectiveness (Council on Higher Education, 2021). Their four-point assessment scale ranges from weak to mature quality assurance systems, with specific attention to transformation goals and historical disadvantage remediation. This approach demonstrates how standardized frameworks can address developing-country challenges while maintaining international quality standards.

Stakeholder perspectives and implementation challenges

Faculty and administrator perspectives

Faculty perspectives on quality assurance vary significantly based on their experiences with bureaucratic compliance vs. meaningful improvement processes (Kleijnen et al., 2011; Cardoso et al., 2013). When audit frameworks provide clear preparation guidelines and improvement pathways, faculty view quality assurance as enhancing teaching and learning rather than imposing administrative burdens. Quality managers operate as institutional intermediaries who translate external audit requirements into internal improvement processes (Seyfried and Pohlenz, 2018). Quality managers rely on personal qualities and expert knowledge rather than positional authority to influence institutional responses to audit requirements (Osseo-Asare et al., 2005).

Resource and capacity constraints

International research identifies resource allocation and capacity building as primary challenges in institutional audit implementation. Time constraints represent major challenges, as conducting thorough audits requires significant institutional investment that can strain regular operations (Scott and Guan, 2023). Inadequate training and capacity building limit institutional ability to conduct effective internal audits and prepare systematically for external evaluation (Kooli and Abadli, 2022). Resource allocation challenges encompass difficulties in dedicating sufficient human, financial, and technological resources to support comprehensive audit processes (Ghaith et al., 2023). The complexity and scope of institutional audits can overwhelm institutions, particularly when evaluation criteria vary across different audit cycles without clear preparation guidance.

Standardization vs. flexibility tensions

Research reveals tensions between standardization needs for consistent evaluation and flexibility requirements for institutional autonomy and diversity. Successful frameworks balance these tensions through principle-based approaches that establish clear outcome expectations while allowing multiple pathways for compliance (Stensaker, 2018). The European Standards and Guidelines demonstrate how standardized frameworks can accommodate diverse institutional missions while maintaining evaluation consistency across 48 countries (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, European Students' Union, European University Association, & European Association of Institutions in Higher Education, 2015). This approach shows that standardization and flexibility can be integrated through careful framework design that respects institutional diversity while ensuring quality accountability.

Drawing on the literature and the identified research problem, this study addresses Ghana's documented implementation challenges, including the absence of standardized evaluation frameworks, inadequate preparation protocols, resource allocation constraints, limited improvement implementation mechanisms, and insufficient stakeholder engagement strategies. The study develops an evidence-based framework informed by international best practices and grounded in stakeholder experiences. The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: How do stakeholders in Ghanaian public universities understand institutional audit as a quality assurance mechanism?

RQ2: What implementation challenges do Ghanaian public universities encounter in conducting institutional audits?

RQ3: What standardized strategic framework can enhance institutional audit effectiveness in Ghanaian public universities based on stakeholder experiences and international best practices?

These research questions guide the investigation into how institutional audit functions within Ghana's higher education system while identifying specific barriers to effectiveness and developing practical solutions grounded in both empirical evidence and proven international approaches.

Methodology

Participants and design

To strengthen the analytical breadth of the study and respond to the need for a wider institutional lens, the research adopted a purposive sampling strategy that incorporated perspectives from both public and private universities in Ghana. In total, 35 senior administrators were selected from four public universities and three private universities to reflect the diversity of governance structures, audit practices, and quality assurance cultures across institutional types. Participants included Vice Chancellors, Pro-Vice Chancellors, Registrars, Quality Assurance Directors, and Faculty Deans. Selection criteria considered institutional history, recent engagement with external audits, and a minimum of two years in their current positions to ensure rich experiential knowledge.

The study adhered to established ethical standards, securing informed consent from all participants, ensuring confidentiality, and obtaining institutional approval before data collection. Researcher reflexivity was maintained throughout the study by continuously reflecting on positionality, prior professional exposure to quality assurance systems, and potential interpretive biases, thereby strengthening the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.

Across institutions, participants demonstrated substantial professional experience, with 75% having served in their current roles for more than four years, and 85% holding doctoral qualifications. The study employed a qualitative multiple case study design situated within an interpretive paradigm, which emphasizes understanding how individuals construct meanings from their lived experiences in organizational contexts (Pilarska, 2021). This comparative approach enabled the study to contrast how public and private institutions navigate audit demands, thereby extending the scope beyond a single institutional category.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection relied on semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 60 min each, conducted via web conferencing. The study incorporated document analysis of institutional audit reports and quality assurance policies to triangulate data. The study employed constructivist thematic analysis, grounded in understanding that data analysis is an interpretive act through which meaning is actively constructed (Charmaz, 2014). Following Braun and Clarke's (2021) reflexive thematic analysis methodology, analysis involved six stages: immersion in data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report.

Results

Understanding of institutional audit as quality assurance

Five primary themes characterize how university stakeholders understand institutional audit as a quality assurance mechanism, emerging from responses by all 20 participants across the four universities.

The themes presented in Table 1 provide the foundation for understanding how stakeholders conceptualize institutional audit. The narrative below elaborates on each theme, drawing on participants' perspectives to illustrate their practical meaning within university settings.

Table 1

Table 1. Themes on University stakeholders' understanding of institutional audit.

Alignment with academic standards

Across both institutional types, participants conceptualized institutional audit as a strategic mechanism for ensuring alignment with academic benchmarks. In public universities, audits were perceived as essential for demonstrating compliance with national regulatory expectations, whereas private universities highlighted audits as critical for consolidating academic legitimacy and strengthening market competitiveness.

A Vice Chancellor from a public university explained:

“Curriculum alignment is not just about meeting regulatory requirements; it is about ensuring our graduates are prepared for the demands of the job market and academia. Our institutional audit helps us achieve this balance by continuously assessing our programs” (VC3).

Similarly, a Pro-Vice Chancellor from a private university emphasized pedagogical enhancement:

“Quality teaching is at the heart of our academic mission. Institutional audit provides us with a framework to assess and improve our pedagogical approaches, ensuring that our faculty members adopt the best teaching practices” (PVC4).

A Quality Assurance Director added that the use of audit outcomes to shape faculty development is central across both sectors:

“Through institutional audits, we identify areas where faculty development programs are needed. We align our training initiatives with audit findings to continuously enhance teaching effectiveness” (DQA4).

Proposition 1 (P1): Institutional audit frameworks are positively associated with alignment with academic standards and improvements in academic quality, particularly in curriculum relevance and pedagogical effectiveness, across both public and private universities.

Continuous improvement culture

The study revealed that institutional audits foster a dynamic culture of continuous improvement in both public and private institutions, though the motivations differ slightly, as has been advanced by scholars who have explored the dynamic capability to ensure continuous progress and improvement in standards. Public universities focused on strengthening their internal systems to meet external expectations, whereas private universities emphasized leveraging audits to secure a competitive advantage. Nineteen participants underscored continuous improvement as a defining feature.

A Director of Quality Assurance shared:

“We actively collect and analyze feedback from students, faculty, and external stakeholders. This process allows us to continuously refine our academic programs and administrative processes to meet better the needs of our university community” (DQA1).

Another director highlighted sector-wide reliance on data-driven decision-making:

“Data is at the core of our quality improvement efforts. We regularly analyze performance metrics, faculty feedback, and operational efficiency reports to identify trends and areas that require intervention” (DQA2).

A Vice Chancellor added that improvement is sustained through inclusive engagement:

“Quality improvement is not a one-person job; it requires input from everyone in the institution. We have established structured forums where faculty members, students, and administrative staff can provide feedback on policies and academic programs” (VC2).

Proposition 2 (P2): Institutional audit processes promote a culture of continuous improvement by encouraging evidence-based decision-making and stakeholder engagement across both public and private universities.

Enhancement of accountability

Accountability consistently emerged as a central theme across institutional types, although its interpretation varied. Public universities emphasized accountability in terms of stewardship of public resources and compliance with national regulations. In contrast, private universities viewed accountability as essential for maintaining credibility with students, parents, and external partners.

A Quality Assurance Director noted:

“Institutional audits enhance accountability… they ensure our academic practices align with the highest standards” (DQA3).

Proposition 3 (P3): Institutional audit frameworks enhance organizational accountability by increasing transparency, promoting compliance discipline, and clarifying academic responsibilities, regardless of institutional type.

Alignment with quality assurance standards

Participants across the two sectors recognized alignment with national and international quality assurance standards as a fundamental purpose of institutional audits.

A Registrar emphasized:

“Institutional audit provides a mechanism for the university to align with quality assurance standards… it is about upholding the integrity of our academic programs” (RG1).

For public universities, this alignment was essential for meeting statutory expectations, while private universities relied on it to strengthen legitimacy and assure stakeholders of academic rigor.

Proposition 4 (P4): Institutional audits promote strong alignment with national and international quality assurance standards, safeguarding program integrity and academic credibility across public and private universities.

External recognition and accreditation

This theme received the highest number of references and cut across institutional types. While public universities associate audit outcomes with reinforcing their national and regional reputations, private universities viewed accreditation and external recognition as crucial for competing in an increasingly competitive higher education landscape. As a Registrar expressed:

“External recognition through accreditation… assures us that our programs stand shoulder to shoulder with global benchmarks” (RG2).

Proposition 5 (P5): Effective engagement with institutional audit processes increases the likelihood of achieving external recognition and accreditation, thereby enhancing institutional reputation and competitiveness in both public and private universities

Implementation challenges

Five primary challenges emerged affecting audit effectiveness across participating universities.

The challenges outlined in Table 2 highlight significant systemic barriers that undermine the effectiveness of institutional audits. These include inconsistent frameworks, limited preparation time, resource shortages, unclear criteria, and complex institutional processes. Together, these issues illustrate the multifaceted difficulties universities encounter during audit implementation.

Table 2

Table 2. Implementation Challenges.

Institutional improvement measures

Universities implemented eight key measures to enhance their institutional audit processes.

The measures in Table 3 show universities' deliberate efforts to strengthen their internal quality systems and better position themselves for institutional audits. These actions reflect a shift toward greater preparedness, coordination, and professionalization of quality assurance activities. They illustrate an increasing commitment to fostering a more coherent, responsive, and improvement-oriented audit culture across institutions.

Table 3

Table 3. Improvement measures.

Enhancement recommendations

Participants proposed six strategies for enhancing institutional audit practice.

The recommendations presented in Table 4 highlight stakeholders' views on how institutional audit processes can be strengthened across universities. These suggestions reflect a shared desire for clearer expectations, stronger capacity, improved communication, and more predictable audit timelines.

Table 4

Table 4. Enhancement recommendations.

Discussion and strategic framework

The findings reveal how institutional audit functions as a quality assurance mechanism while identifying implementation challenges that compromise effectiveness. The research demonstrates that university stakeholders understand institutional audit through five dimensions, yet systematic implementation challenges limit audit effectiveness.

New institutional theory application

The findings demonstrate how New Institutional Theory's three isomorphic pressures operate within Ghanaian universities‘ engagement with institutional audit. Coercive isomorphism was evident in universities' compliance with GTEC requirements, reflecting external regulatory pressures. Mimetic isomorphism is manifested in institutions adopting practices from successful counterparts. Normative isomorphism appeared through shared professional beliefs about quality assurance importance among university leadership.

Strategic framework for Ghana

Based on the empirical findings, a comprehensive strategic framework was developed for conducting institutional audits in Ghanaian public universities. The framework integrates inputs (resources, policies, stakeholders), processes (planning, data collection, evaluation, reporting), outputs (audit findings and recommendations), and outcomes (quality enhancement, improved standards, institutional reputation), for addressing the five systematic implementation challenges identified in the research. The framework operates as an integrated system where each component logically feeds into the next, creating a cycle of continuous improvement. The connection is not linear but iterative, with outcomes feeding back to inform future inputs and processes. This interconnected flow demonstrates how the framework systematically addresses the audit implementation challenges. For example, the “Lack of Standardization” is solved by having clear Policies (Input) guiding the Processes, and “Limited Improvement Implementation” is solved by ensuring the Outputs are explicitly linked to improvement-focused Outcomes. A detailed explanation of how the components- Inputs, Processes, Outputs, and Outcomes connect to form a cohesive and dynamic system for effective institutional auditing is provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Strategic framework for conducting institutional audits in Universities in Ghana. Source Author's Construct.

The proposed framework operationalizes New Institutional Theory through systematic approaches that address implementation challenges while promoting both institutional legitimacy and authentic improvement (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The framework's input-process-output-outcome model recognizes institutional audit as a complex system involving multiple stakeholders, processes, and environmental factors that influence audit effectiveness.

The framework consists of five interconnected components that directly address implementation challenges revealed in the findings. The inputs component encompasses resources, policies, and stakeholders, addressing resource allocation challenges identified by 75% of participants through systematic approaches to capacity building and resource optimization (Kooli and Abadli, 2022). The processes component includes planning, data collection, evaluation, reporting, and feedback, resolving standardization concerns through clear preparation protocols and communication frameworks that 85% of participants identified as lacking in current approaches. The outputs component produces comprehensive audit reports with findings and recommendations, addressing limited understanding of audit criteria by providing standardized evaluation frameworks with clear expectations (Matear, 2021). The outcomes component generates enhanced quality assurance, improved policies, and strengthened institutional reputation, promoting a continuous improvement culture that 95% of participants viewed as essential for institutional development. The framework acknowledges environmental influences through consideration of the regulatory environment, institutional culture, available resources, and global trends that shape audit effectiveness in Ghanaian higher education. Resource allocation challenges reflect broader systemic issues requiring systematic resolution through capacity-building support and resource optimization strategies. Universities require coordinated professional development for quality assurance personnel, adequate technological infrastructure for evidence management, and clear resource allocation guidelines that enable effective institutional preparation. The framework includes comprehensive capacity-building mechanisms addressing identified resource constraints while building on universities demonstrated improvement capabilities. Stakeholder engagement limitations require structured involvement mechanisms that ensure diverse perspectives inform audit processes while maintaining evaluation consistency. The findings reveal that universities value collaborative approaches but lack systematic frameworks for meaningful stakeholder participation. International models demonstrate how structured stakeholder involvement enhances audit legitimacy and educational value while supporting institutional improvement goals.

Implications and conclusion

Theoretical contributions

This research advances understanding of institutional audit implementation through New Institutional Theory, demonstrating how standardized frameworks function as institutional mechanisms that promote both legitimacy and improvement. The framework development addresses gaps in African higher education quality assurance literature, where limited empirical evidence exists about implementation challenges in resource-constrained environments. The study extends quality assurance scholarship by providing analytical tools for understanding how external pressures shape university responses while maintaining institutional autonomy.

Policy implications

The findings provide GTEC and other African quality assurance agencies with evidence-based guidance for developing effective audit systems. The research demonstrates that implementation challenges result from systemic framework deficiencies rather than institutional inadequacies, suggesting that standardized approaches can resolve these issues. Regulatory bodies should establish systematic capacity-building mechanisms, develop clear resource allocation guidelines, and implement structured stakeholder engagement protocols that transform audit processes from compliance exercises into learning opportunities.

Regarding the contextual contribution, it is essential to emphasize that distinctive socio-political and cultural dynamics significantly influence the implementation of institutional audit frameworks in Ghana. These include strong state involvement in higher education governance, hierarchical administrative cultures, and expectations of respect for authority that affect how audit recommendations are interpreted and acted upon. Additionally, the collaborative but compliance-driven orientation of Ghana's regulatory environment, particularly the expectations of the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), influences institutional responsiveness to audit outcomes. By situating audit practices within these contextual realities, the study provides a more grounded understanding of why institutions react differently to audit processes and how local norms shape quality assurance behaviors.

Institutional practice implications

Universities require systematic support for audit preparation and implementation, including professional development for quality assurance personnel and technological infrastructure development. The eight improvement measures implemented by participating universities provide actionable templates for other institutions seeking to enhance audit readiness. Quality culture development emerges as both an outcome and an input for effective audit implementation, requiring systematic integration with institutional strategic planning initiatives.

International applicability

The standardized framework offers systematic approaches for addressing implementation challenges while building on proven international practices adapted for developing country conditions. The research demonstrates how standardized frameworks can resolve implementation challenges while supporting institutional development goals, providing guidance for other developing countries establishing or enhancing their quality assurance systems.

The proposed institutional audit framework has broader significance for African higher education systems, where institutions face similar pressures related to accountability, quality assurance, and global competitiveness. The framework provides a transferable model that is adaptable to regional contexts, such as the harmonization initiatives under the African Union's Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA 16–25). The emphasis on structured evaluation, transparency, and continuous improvement of the model can inform regional policy dialogues, support cross-country benchmarking, and enhance the development of a coherent continental approach to higher education quality assurance

Conclusion

This study successfully developed a comprehensive strategic framework for conducting institutional audits in public universities in Ghana, addressing systematic implementation challenges that have compromised audit effectiveness. University stakeholders demonstrated substantial understanding of institutional audit as a quality assurance mechanism through five dimensions while implementing eight improvement measures that show institutional capacity for systematic enhancement when provided with appropriate guidance. The research contributes to quality assurance scholarship by examining institutional audit through New Institutional Theory, providing analytical frameworks for understanding how standardized approaches serve as institutional mechanisms promoting both compliance and improvement. Implementation of this framework will enhance audit effectiveness, promote authentic institutional improvement, and support development of a quality culture across Ghanaian higher education.

Limitations

The study focused exclusively on public universities in Ghana, limiting applicability to private institutions. Four universities from eleven public institutions provided the sample, potentially affecting representation. The qualitative approach provided rich insights but may not capture quantitative impacts systematically. Future research should examine framework implementation effectiveness and explore comparative experiences across diverse African settings.

Data availability statement

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

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by UNISA College of Education Ethics Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

EO: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation. SM: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Methodology, Supervision, Conceptualization.

Funding

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

Conflict of interest

The authors declare 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 not used in the creation of this 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

Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities (2024). Academic audit. Available online at: https://www.aqa.ac.nz/academic-audit (Accessed January 3, 2025).

Google Scholar

Anomah, S. (2025). Assessing the institutional readiness and capacity for AI adoption in public audit institutions in developing countries: evidence from Ghana. Telemat. Inform. Rep. 20:100260. doi: 10.1016/j.teler.2025.100260

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Asamoah, M. K., Ansong, J. D., Mackin, E., Agyekum, B., and Eshun, S. N. (2025). The influence of quality assurance on achieving development education goals. Discov. Educ. 4:468. doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00694-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashraf, M. A., and Ahmed, H. (2022). Approaches to quality education in tertiary sector: an empirical study using PLS-SEM. Educ. Res. Int. 2022:5491496. doi: 10.1155/2022/5491496

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Australian National Audit Office (2020). Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency's Regulation of Higher Education (Report No. 25 2019-20). Commonwealth of Australia.

Google Scholar

Boughey, C. (2021). The Structure and Nature of the Research Field on Teaching and Learning in South African Higher Education (Research Report No. 4). South African Research Chair on Teaching and Learning.

Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual. Res. Psychol. 18, 328–352. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., and Santos, C. (2013). Different academics' characteristics, different perceptions on quality assessment? Qual. Assur. Educ. 21, 96–117. doi: 10.1108/09684881311293089

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, 2nd Edn. London: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Council on Higher Education (2021). CHE Institutional Audit Manual 2021. Pretoria.

Google Scholar

de Freitas, V. B., and da Silveira, M. A. P. (2021). Institutional theory and the isomorphic pressures in the search for knowledge: a study in an APL of Goiás–Brazil. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 8, 113–126. doi: 10.22161/ijaers.82.15

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147–160. doi: 10.2307/2095101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education European Students' Union, European University Association, & European Association of Institutions in Higher Education. (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). ENQA.

Google Scholar

Gaston, P. L. (2023). Higher Education Accreditation: How It's Changing, Why It Must. Taylor and Francis. doi: 10.4324/9781003445074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghaith, Y., Ghosh, U., Guerra, M., Hammouri, Q., Alkhuzaie, Y., and Ghaith, M. (2023). Quality management application and educational performance in higher education institutions: a bibliometric analysis. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 11, 1657–1666. doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2023.7.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghana Commercial Bank (2023). Ghana education sector report.

Google Scholar

Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (2022). Annual report 2022.

Google Scholar

Hadi, S., Kristiawan, M., and Wardiah, D. (2023). Internal quality assurance system in effort to improve the quality of education. Mudir: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan 5, 361–368. doi: 10.55352/mudir

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassan, M. M., and Ahmad, A. R. (2025). Systematic literature review on the sustainability of higher education institutions (HEIs): dimensions, practices and research gaps. Cogent Educ. 12:2549789. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2549789

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kadhila, N., Iipumbu, N., and Matengu, K. K. (2021). “Continental approaches to promoting quality assurance in higher education in Africa: an historical reflection,” in Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Eastern and Southern Africa (London: Routledge), 249–259. doi: 10.4324/9781003141235-27

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kleijnen, J., Dolmans, D., Willems, J., and van Hout, H. (2011). Does internal quality management contribute to more control or to improvement of higher education? A survey on faculty's perceptions. Qual. Assur. Educ. 19, 141–155. doi: 10.1108/09684881111125041

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kooli, C. (2019). Governing and managing higher education institutions: the quality audit contributions. Eval. Program Plann. 77:101713. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101713

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kooli, C., and Abadli, R. (2022). Could education quality audit enhance human resources management processes of the higher education institutions? Vision J. Bus. Perspect. 26, 482–490. doi: 10.1177/09722629211005599

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lucander, H., and Christersson, C. (2020). Engagement for quality development in higher education: a process for quality assurance of assessment. Qual. High. Educ. 26, 135–155. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2020.1761008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matear, S. M. (2021). Impact of institutional quality audit in the Aotearoa New Zealand university system. Qual. High. Educ. 27, 375–391. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2021.1948675

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Odjidja, J. (2023). Assessing internal quality assurance mechanisms at selected private universities in Ghana. J. Educ. Pract. 4, 144–161. doi: 10.37745/bjmas.2022.0170

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Osei-assibey, C. (2021). Assessing public perception on audit expectation gap: a study in Sekondi Takoradi Metropolis. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci. 3, 1–24.

Google Scholar

Osseo-Asare, A., Longbottom, D., and Murphy, W. D. (2005). Leadership best practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective of the EFQM excellence model. Qual. Assur. Educ. 13, 148–170. doi: 10.1108/09684880510594391

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pilarska, J. (2021). “The constructivist paradigm and phenomenological qualitative research design.” in Research Paradigm Considerations for Emerging Scholars (Multilingual Matters), 64–83. doi: 10.2307/jj.22730542.10

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Republic of Ghana (2020). Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023). Ghana Publishing Corporation. Available online at: https://ntc.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Education-Regulatory-Bodies-Act-1.pdf

Google Scholar

Scott, T., and Guan, W. (2023). Challenges facing Thai higher education institutions: financial stability and perceived institutional education quality. Power Educ. 15, 42–58. doi: 10.1177/17577438221140014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Seyfried, M., and Pohlenz, P. (2018). Assessing quality assurance in higher education: quality managers' perceptions of effectiveness. Eur. J. High. Educ. 8, 258–271. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1474777

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Seyfried, M., and Pohlenz, P. (2022). Five perspectives on the role of quality assurance in higher education: efficiency, control, resistance, power and improvement. High. Educ. 84, 17–32.

Google Scholar

Stensaker, B. (2018). Quality assurance and the battle for legitimacy: discourses, disputes and dependencies. High. Educ. Eval. Dev. 12, 54–62. doi: 10.1108/HEED-10-2018-0024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tere, T., Seta, H. B., Hidayanto, A. N., and Abidin, Z. (2020). Variables affecting e-learning services quality in Indonesian higher education: students' perspectives. J. Inf. Tech. Educ. Res. 19, 259–286. doi: 10.28945/4489

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2021). Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021. Australian Government.

Google Scholar

Yussif, A. (2024). Factors inhibiting quality higher education delivery: empirical evidence from the University for Development Studies (UDS). Glob. J. Educ. Res. 4, 16–22. doi: 10.24018/ejdevelop.2024.4.1.290

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar