There are many studies on the role of technology in facilitating equality, quality, and effectiveness in higher learning in the last decade. This study aims at exploring the sustainability of a postgraduate program in a USA context following the COVID surge. Relational assurance is employed through qualitative methods, and frameworks to make sense of higher learning systems, and curricula through the authors’ ontological, epistemological, and place-based contributions following the move to online delivery in 2021. A qualitative case study approach was employed combining semi-structured interviews with faculty and focus-group interviews with graduate students for gaining a deeper understanding of the observables documenting one postgraduate program of educational leadership in Central Texas. The primary expectation of postgraduate students and faculty members is a sense of community. The program reflects a sense of belonging and reality present in local schools, communities, and policy/practice. The meaning of community also includes a common purpose, members committed to a common good, a sense of belonging, and emotional interaction following the COVID surge, the shift to digital technology, and alternative modality of content delivery. This article contributes to the international literature by redefining the quality, value-based, and relational assurance of higher education postgraduate programs. In responding to current conditions and needs while aiming to build sustainable and responsive communities by inviting community members for the assets they bring, their commitment to the region’s development, and further deepen their sense of diversity, inclusion, and collective action for the public good.
Introduction
The sharp shift to knowledge technology and digital literacy in system delivery placed a huge strain on all social systems, including that of higher education, particularly postgraduate programs in dealing with the current life conditions, and eco-system needs (An and Oliver, 2021; Arar and Chen, 2021; Arar et al., 2022; Oliver and Gourlay, 2018). As of 2022, all aspects of education, including higher education, have been in a radical state of flux. In particular, institutions of higher education are being faced with a barrage of challenges in their response to the evolving conditions. Their need to re-design or re-imagine their system of delivery emerges another barrage of questions regarding the ongoing dangers of the pandemic and the public awakening to race-related issues. Moreover, a crucial challenge is to identify and implement appropriate social justice measures at a systemic level that meet student body needs, both locally and internationally (Apple et al., 2022; Arar and Chen, 2021; Arar et al., 2022; Littlejohn et al., 2021).
Postgraduate education is a key element within the framework of higher learning and is the last stage in the educational process of higher education that aims to integrate the individual into the labor market, since the individual acquires specialized new knowledge, and skills. It also provides higher education institutions the opportunity to contribute to the development of democratic and sustainable communities (Arar et al., 2022; Mintzberg and Laasch, 2020). In addition, postgraduate education programs are a consequence of the wider culture of educational institutions and of the ideological background of higher education systems. Each program of postgraduate education deals with constant challenges both in terms of disciplines, structure, leadership, and governance as well as issues of equity, diversity, accessibility, and levels of success (Altbach, 2011; Arar et al., 2022; Edwards, 2005; Mampaey, 2017). These challenges are the driving force for redefining the quality of postgraduate education to meet current changes in social systems witin community context. The quality of a postgraduate program is an institutional characteristic, and according to the literature (Brown et al., 1999; Chapman, 1981; Galotti and Mark, 1994; Hoyt and Brown, 2003), it is an individual’s main criterion for choosing a postgraduate program. Therefore, upgrading the quality of postgraduate programs and the perception of higher learning by higher education institutions is essential for their growth and sustainability. The challenge of quality and how it is envisioned in graduate education programs has critical significance as it determines whether virtues and values are brought closer to “higher learning,” as envisioned by Guajardo et al. 2019 (p. 142) in which, a year before the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, they described how higher learning could be considered as “lifeworlds” (Habermas, 1984; Hilal, 2021; Sergiovanni, 2000). The critical component of effectiveness and dignity is the humanity we bring to this exchange and point of contact between systems and people in the world. This point of contact is where the systems become the mediating institutions between policy and practice, between process and humanity; a gap that still exists in current literature dealing with access, and success in higher education in the knowledge technology era. Therefore, redefining the new quality standards in terms of humanitarian standards and less in terms of quality techniques is a challenge for the dynamics of university leadership and governance.
Quality, as Deming (1986) put it, is a philosophy and not a technique. The perception of quality is a matter related to experiences and environmental stimuli. COVID-19 changed the stimuli of the educational reality and, as a result, reflections about the perception of quality, and effectiveness came to the surface. It simply highlighted the key role of the authenticity of the learning environment and the programs, relationship with community. Energy and action in the learning process, and the expansion of knowledge beyond the individual, as capacity building at the collective (society) level is the biggest challenge of higher learning. This different perception is discussed in the current paper that quality assurance must be transformed into relational assurance. Hence, the relationship management strategy in higher education is directly related to the internal support and awareness of universities in their role as a relational agency.
This paper is a case study of a postgraduate program at a US university, through which we analyzed the redefining of quality in higher education following the pandemic and the transition to an online mode of delivery. The current global dynamic era, and particularly, the US higher education system (including graduate education), is highly competitive in terms of quality. The concept of competition in American graduate education (and in higher education more generally) is related to all the dimensions that govern a program, such as the academic level of faculty members, the students, and even the funding (Bernhard, 2012; Moodie, 1988). All of these provide some measure of quality. Indeed, in American graduate education, the concept of quality is closely related to the cost of attending graduate programs.
The cost of attending a postgraduate program in the US, even at a state university, poses social dilemmas and raises questions as to whether the coveted “quality” of postgraduate programs is social and humanistic in nature or merely limited to the quantitative and measurable qualitative evaluation criteria used to attract more sponsorship or even subsidies from the state. Given the allocation of resources, even the attraction of high-level academic staff depends on the qualitative performance of graduate programs, assessed using quantitative data (Banta et al., 1996; Bernhard, 2012; Rhoades and Sporn, 2002). Hence, graduate education in the USA is based more on the comparison of quantitative data, on the relationship between usability, attractiveness, and performance, and less on a humanistic approach, such as one based on values. The evaluation of postgraduate programs, and by extension, the assurance of quality, is carried out by accrediting bodies. It includes the self-evaluation of the programs, with particular emphasis on the concept of “the customer” and less on “the student.” The question, therefore, is whether focusing only on the “numbers” and on practical skills can produce an authentic learning process and be the quality drivers of creative and progressive learning.
Since 2020, after the Coronavirus pandemic, economic crises, the movement of immigrants, and climate change, there has been a collective outcry against systemic racism (Pak and Ravitch, 2021: xi). Subsequently, new standards have been set in the relationship between quality and a humanitarian approach—a new reality that has posed constraints and challenges for higher education institutions at all program levels but particularly regarding postgraduate programs, given the age difference, and the mid-career population that tend to follow these programs.
Given the above challenges, the gap in knowledge, the current need to reimagine our higher education system, and consequently postgraduate programs in place, this paper seeks to explore through an empirical case study the key features and challenges facing higher education postgraduate programs in redefining content and system of delivery to better meet learners and community needs. Moreover, our aim is to analyze factors that contribute to the relevance of higher education programs in meeting global/local dynamics in the knowledge technology and pandemic era and ultimately to the sustainability of postgraduate programs at one university in North America. More specifically, the following main research questions guided our inquiry: (1) What are the articulated and identified motives and expectations of input, output, relational processes, and impact of students in choosing face-to-face graduate programs?; (2) What are the emerging values, characteristics, and practices of a system based on relational accountability?; (3) What opportunities does the “post-COVID-19” narrative present for a re-imagining of assessing access, equity, and successful/responsive evaluation of the programs by the students? And (4) how higher learning programs can effectively address the new vision of knowledge technology that will lead to program sustainability and enhanced social responsibility?
Theoretical framework
Higher learning is the link between society, democracy, and sustainable communities. In their work, Ross-Gordon et al. (2015) documented the impact of a doctoral program in educational leadership in transforming learning and the learners, fostered through critical reflection, discourse, and praxis within its graduates, and impacted the community as well. The programs built a sense of responsibility and social interest among individuals, which enhances their ability to further support, cultivate democracy, and the development of humanity. All these are prerequisites for the inclusion of, and sensitivity to, diversity (Omi and Winant, 2014). Changes in society are shaped by higher learning. The real purpose of the higher learning will only be achieved when “departmentalized structures intended to bring faculty together as communities of practice, and discipline plans implemented to teach students lessons, and enhance civility become ends in themselves” (Sergiovanni, 2003: 16). Therefore, the learner, that is, student, professor, community members, and support staff, is the basis of the higher learning.
In the pre-COVID-19 era, higher learning not only had a more quantitative and administrative approach, in terms of quality and effectiveness, but also a measure of shortsightedness in the quality process, for example, accessibility issues. The focus was (and to a large extent still is) on more technical process’ quality characteristics, such as quantitative evaluation, and program composition based on system characteristics (Harvey, 2009; Newton, 2010; Nguyen, 2021; Seyfried and Pohlenz, 2018; Woodhouse, 1999). Moreover, there were pressures for a more marketized approach and evaluation of the result based on economic and technical terms, such as the evaluative position of the programs in the world ranking, based on the demand, the value of the degree, and the professional rehabilitation (Middlehurst et al., 2009; Middlehurst and Teixeira, 2012; Woodhouse, 1999). The measure of effectiveness has become outputs and production and not impact and transformative change for the public good.
The sharp shift to knowledge technology following the pandemic highlighted this gap in the way higher learning relates to social and humanitarian circumstances. The quality has taken a relational approach. The issue of the current era is the view of higher learning as an integral part of society, not only as a philosophy but as a praxis, namely, when reality and humanity are reflected in the higher learning through action (Arar and Chen, 2021; Arar et al., 2022; Hilal, 2021; Nguyen, 2021; Perrin and Wang, 2021; Tight, 2021). The emphasis on the learner has to do with the participation of learners in the design of the learning process, the satisfaction of all learning needs, the contribution to the formation of sustainable communities, and the substantial support in the development of the social network (Arar et al., 2021).
Hence, what is the focus of today’s challenges? The focus of the challenges is on three dynamics. The first is the individual learner which includes genetics, cognition, behavior, development, diversity, the brain and learning, thinking and language, pathology, the individual and society, as well as nature and the environment (Schleicher, 2019; Vygotsky, 1998; Waks, 2016). Second is the knowledge which includes ontogenetic knowledge, phylogenetic knowledge, the classification of knowledge, the quantification of knowledge, knowledge as a complex dynamic system, the social distribution of knowledge, curriculum and planning, declarative and non-declarative knowledge, and knowledge engineering (Chen and Tzivion, 2018; Druker, 2017; Edwards, 2005; Tyler, 2013). It also involves the evolution of human culture which includes a combination of biology, cognition, genetics, and emotions. The third is the mediating environment which consists of family, society, culture, learning organizations, pedagogy, knowledge technology, policy and praxis, variables and their definition, assessment and evaluation, feedback systems (cybernetics), practical knowledge, epistemic knowledge, the economy, and the political environment (Shulman, 2004).
But how is knowledge technology and digital literacy involved in relational assurance? Here are some remarks on the knowledge-creation process in the education sciences: it is a process that draws on several sources. The major part draws on the praxis of teaching and learning, in which millions of teachers worldwide take part. The education research community is extensive, creative, and active, but the complexity of the research subjects makes it difficult to formulate shared basic concepts. Hence, the new shift in higher education requires active participation, authenticity, and collaboration. This process is dynamic and critical.
Gordon (2003: 27) stressed the following three program components in discussing a doctoral program in educational leadership: technology, diversity, and research integration throughout program curriculum (See: Diagram 1). He went on to argue that core course includes technology, diversity, and research. Students also complete a series of traditional quantitative and qualitative research courses and electives in technology, diversity, and advanced research as mapped in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1. Presents three program components.
To sum up, higher learning is the connecting link for the development of sustainable communities as it has an impact on graduates and the wider community, which brings the following questions to the fore: How can the program’s impact be increased through greater relevance and meet current local needs more fully? What happened to the diversity and technology components, given the current knowledge revolution, and the increasing demands of the digital era while dealing with highly diversified communities?
Epistemological and conceptual underpinning
At this point of departure, we propose to bring the collective experience of three scholars who have worked in the enterprise of higher learning within the traditional higher education structure and witness global changes, recent turbulence, disruption, and the need to reimagine current needs through higher education programs. The authors invite the reader to this space of public discourse because of three guiding principles:
(1) We agree that access to higher learning and universities has become the great equalizer for the growth of knowledge within the family, for building relationships within cohorts and their ecology, and for a certain level of economic mobility, though we know this issue is problematic, given the variables of race and gender in society in the United States.
(2) The global pandemic has moved issues of access, equity, quality, and excellence to the forefront. We propose these issues have also magnified other “viruses,” which we will refer to as the viruses of racism, sexism, and classist forms of discrimination. Each is presented differently within its local ecology.
(3) Model a process on how to use the framework for analysis as a model for re-imagining the ontological, epistemological, and methods for an emerging dialogical relationship between the imagination and practice to a new end of praxis.
As an organizing strategy, we propose to employ the concept Guajardo et al. (2016) used in their community to develop dynamic-critical pedagogies and ecologies of knowing.
our work from the local-level experience of self (micro) to the ecologically grounded organizational work we practice our craft in (meso), and within community (macro), and the more global world we co-exist in yet rarely engage in conversation with.
As technology evolves, knowledge technologies (such as artificial intelligence, learning analytics, and virtual reality) have always been a challenge for higher learning. What has changed during the pandemic is the realization that technology and knowledge are complementary elements; the challenge is to find out how these two elements can be effective in terms of the social extension of the learning process (Dusek, 2006; Hope, 2017). Moreover, views on education—on the way we transmit knowledge and reinforce social values—changed due to a new educational reality that has nothing to do with the traditional way in which higher learning operates. The one-dimensional perspective of the challenges has also changed, while the experiences and the new stimuli of the educational environment have created a new vision of education.
The research of Mampaey et al. (2020) showed that empowerment, normalization, and moral evaluation are the three key elements for universities to manage student diversity. These three elements are not only related to the culture of university institutions but also to the consolidation of quality and efficiency in the learning process. Through social ecology, learners improve the levels of trust in their relationships. Hence, the content of higher learning needs to be relevant to qualitative and social factors, but ensuring relevance does not depend only on the content, but it is also the result of collective efforts and broader perceptions of the social reality, without limits in their perception (Arar et al., 2022).
Therefore, the dimension that ensures a social perspective in higher education and the learning process is relational assurance. Relational assurance stimulates mutual trust through interaction and cultivates collaboration while building trust and social networks. The exploration of the social technologies within their local ecologies gives us the impetus to negotiate the traditional system-level accountability policies into a more humane and ecologically aligned social milieu that gives birth to what we are calling relational accountability. Relational accountability finds roots in the critical reflection and communication culture of social leadership that leads to constructive communication channels, enhances the development of social networks between higher education and the community, and expands higher learning into the lifeworld (Furman, 2012; Fusarelli, 1999; Hilal, 2021; Sergiovanni, 2000). The challenge in this article, therefore, is to redefine what we mean by the quality2 and effectiveness of higher learning, with a view to the future rather than the past. At the core of this proposition is to explore, recalibrate, and re-appropriate the position of power, its utility, and purpose in re-imagining a relational assurance process that moves away from the neoliberal and Skinnerian carrot and stick method of learning to a more sustainable socio-constructivist process of development for teaching, learning, and leading in a rapidly changing world.
Research methodology and design
A qualitative case study approach was chosen, allowing in-depth investigation of the program in a given situation and time (Stake, 2005). The research was implemented in two stages. In the first stage, five semi-structured interviews were conducted with program faculty in gaining meanings about the program structure, curricula, and impact, which then were used to interpret their different worldviews (Cohen and Arieli, 2011). Each interview lasted for 60–70 min and was held using Zoom technology. Then two focus-group interviews were conducted with six students in the Master program, and the same set of interviews was conducted with five students in their second year at the doctoral program. Each session lasted for 90 min. In the beginning, the objective of the study was explained to participants, and anonymity was promised. Participation was consensual, and interviewees were able to terminate the interview at will.
The research partners were chosen following discussion with each program coordinator for reaching further inclusion and diversity. The interviews were guided by questions concerning (1) the motivations for pursuing postgraduate studies in the Educational Leadership and Community Program at a university in North America; (2) identifying the emerging values, characteristics, and practices of the system based on relational accountability; (3) identify students’ evaluation of the program’s moratorium, given the requirements of remote learning, and (4) identify any suggestions regarding the program’s improvement to better meet their needs. The research design and approach were both pedagogical and relational. The researchers’ commitment is to align the onto-epistemological commitment to higher learning as it was to surface the socio-cultural and pedagogical conditions of the moment within its history to best inform the possibilities of what is to come while living in the middle of a global pandemic. Quality assurance became both an ontological way of being as well as a methodological approach to our work as researchers working for systems of inquiry that invite transparency, trust, and dignity to a process for the construction of knowledge.
Analysis of observables
The qualitative data were analyzed thematically using the four stages proposed by Marshall and Rossman (2012): “organizing the data,” “generating categories, themes, and patterns,” “testing any emergent tendencies,” and “searching for different meanings of the themes” so as to be able to identify the main themes in the data, through a search for recurring experiences, and program impact. Simultaneously, the relational approach to the inquiry process allowed the analysis to expand beyond the traditional themes and invited the researchers into the nuances of the emerging stories representing local knowledge, and wisdom informed by social cultural, and political understanding of an emerging commitment to the place, their public institutions, and the development of a more equitable, and sustainable society.
The use of a systematic data collection process through two research stage procedures and peer analysis contributed to the data’s credibility and authenticity (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In addition, the different data collection tools used (interviews and focus group interviews) enabled triangulations of the data derived at each stage, enriched the picture painted, and improved the findings’ internal validity, credibility, and trustworthiness. In addition, the researchers applied member checking. Member checking allows researchers to contact the study participants and share the findings section with them (Mero-Jaffe, 2011). This technique gives the participants a chance to confirm that the findings reflected their own perspectives and not the researchers. The use of systematic data collection procedures and peer analysis contributes to the credibility and authenticity of the data. Since this was a small sample from a specific group of participants, this limits the generalization of the findings to other social contexts. Although these findings are not generalizable, the researchers hope that the reader will extract elements from this research they find useful, thus applying a reader generalizability that places the power back on the reader. Therefore, the reader is invited to judge the applicability of the findings and conclusions to other similar circumstances and conditions. Table 1 presents the central themes and categories identified during the analysis of the findings.
Table 1. Presents central themes, and categories identified.
Theme
Categories
Motivation to pursue postgraduate studies in the program (macro level)
(1) Cohort learning.
(2) Community–district partnership.
(3) Theory to practice.
(4) Social justice focus.
(5) Positive experience.
Program’s alignment with students’ needs (micro level)
(1) Program’s alignment with real-world problems.
(2) Promotion of diverse perspectives.
(3) Constant support.
(4) Enhancing diversity in curricula and faculties.
Faculty perceptions of program’s impact (meso level)
(1) Commitment to equity, diversity, and social justice.
(2) Collective endeavor to community building.
(3) Emancipator moratorium for both faculty and students.
Findings and discussion
From the analysis of the interviewees’ accounts, three main themes emerged: (a) Motivation for pursuing their higher education in the program (macro level). (b) Program’s alignments with postgraduate and doctoral students’ needs (micro level). (c) Faculty perceptions of program’s impact (meso level; Table 1).
The findings enable us to gain a further understanding of the program’s meso level (internal organizational aspects), as it is influenced by the other two levels—community/macro and self/micro level changes in higher education postgraduate programs—and demonstrate how the program reflects diversity and inclusion values and students’ influence on program impact into education and community.
Motivation for pursuing their higher education in the program (community/macro)
Based on the participants’ responses, students’ decisions to pursue their post-higher studies can vary in terms of reasoning. For some, they stem from self-fulfillment, professional development, and aspirations for advancement, including moving to another edge or frontier. Other reasons for choosing the specific program include (a) different functional reasons (e.g., geographical proximity), (b) reputation of the program or alignments to their personal, and (c) professional needs.
The good reputation of the institution’s programs provides the main competitive edge in attracting students, which shows the institution’s awareness of, and sensitivity to, its public image and how the public (student population) perceives its programs. In particular, R mentioned: “I enjoy learning about leadership but through a culturally responsive lens.”
Students value their studies, and experience in the Educational and Community Leadership Master’s Program, because of (a) cohort learning: “I have met wonderful colleagues and learned to enhance my own classroom instruction”; (b) the partnership with community and district, as expressed by R: “I was looking for it emphasized the social justice focus so I thought it would be a woke program”; and (c) theory to practice, that is, A explained “They are applied lessons based on today’s challenges.”
With reference to the doctoral students’ responses about their motivations and choices in pursuing their doctoral studies in the School Improvement program, their views converged to the following reasons: (a) the emphasis on social justice, students’ mentioned: I have no interest in being an administrator but creating change and the emphasis in social justice is what drove me to this program; (b) positive experience in the MA program as described: I went through the M. Ed. program and appreciated the professors, their work, and my relationship with them; and (c) cohort learning, a key factor in this positive learning experience.
Given the above findings, students (at both levels) perceive that the main reason for choosing the program is the respect of the principles of justice and equality and the interaction with the local community. It is widely argued that the relationship between an academic program, the students’ body, and the community needs is crucial for existence, sustainability, for increasing impact and gaining reputation (Hilal, 2021; Nguyen, 2021; Perrin and Wang, 2021). The theory and practice alignment, as students have mentioned, contributes to the development of a community culture of discourse, and hence in breaking out the boundaries of traditional educational research, including research of knowledge in education (Nguyen, 2021; Paudel, 2021).
The development of a scientific community through a mentoring process is a necessary component for success (Paudel, 2021). Educating and developing a scientific community through a mastering and graduate mentoring process is a fundamental element for the basis of sustainable communities. Moreover, the development of a community culture of discourse, the breakthrough of the traditional research in education, including the study of knowledge in education, and deepening in the study of universal issues can also benefit the higher learning from the humanitarian approach (Arar and Chen, 2021). Within the holistic approach, the building of a global research agenda (e.g., migration and educational leadership, ecological education delivery, and instructional and community educational leadership) will favor and strengthen the relational culture to be perceived as a way of life (Hilal, 2021; Paudel, 2021).
In order to reassure incremental developments and changes in higher learning, the first thing is to see how higher learning can better meet current global challenges and future community needs. The way is simple. The educational audience in higher education must be expanded, which is evident from the findings, for knowledge to be disseminated so that social knowledge networks can be created, for the common good. Studying at a university is not something that finalizes the limits of knowledge. The perception of the university as an ecosystem promotes not only the breadth of knowledge but also the creation of sustainable communities (Arar and Chen, 2021).
Given the findings, the program is informed by a social constructivist approach in the design and delivery of instruction, where the students are encouraged to construct the knowledge and apply it while they utilize higher-level thinking skills to steward in a new way of demonstrating higher learning. The social constructivism of the higher learning will help students seek solutions to problems and try to understand the social reality (Willems and Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). The reflection of the community on higher learning contributes to a better understanding of society and social issues while social members (and students) have the opportunity, through interaction, to think, and choose better alternatives to solve problems. However, this reflection should not be seen by academics as a requirement for quality improvement but as a commitment to teamwork and solidarity i.e. relational assurance. Academics may not know how to implement reflection. The leadership will show them the way, and hence relational assurance will acquire substance so that higher learning can be transformed into the concept of the lifeworld (Sergiovanni, 2000, 2003).
Program’s alignments with postgraduate and doctoral students’ needs (self/micro)
The effective satisfaction of learning needs was, and still is, the main priority of educational programs. The difference between the past, the present, and the future lies in how we define the effectiveness of the programs and how we manage efforts to meet all learning needs.
Students expressed their satisfaction with the program as it met their expectations and directed their professional development through relevant curricula, supportive professors, and an inclusive learning environment; “We got a holistic overview of expectations aligned to all classes and the path to certification and the Performance Assessment for School Leaders (PASL).”
However, when students were asked how the Master’s program and the doctoral studies can better meet their needs, students identified areas of how the program could be enhanced and their answers could best cluster as follows: (a) the program’s alignment with real-world problems: “Give us articles that give insight to what administrators are going through like a reflective journal piece”; (b) the promotion of a diverse perspective: “In some of the courses I have participated in, some of it seems to get too political. It also seems that if you do not agree with some people’s stances, politically, then you are shunned, and cut off from finishing your thoughts. Bringing more diversity of cultures, instead of just the usual Blacks, and Hispanics perspectives”; (c) the program’s structured overview: “I did not feel very well informed about this next step”; (d) the modes of delivery: “There were to be an online program choice to better fit in with my personal schedule”; and (e) constant support, especially in developing the action research process: “all professors are expected to meet a standard to teach, share examples, give timely feedback, coach with critical feedback as well as encouragement.”
Within the same framework, doctoral students identified the following areas where the program can be improved to better meet their needs: (a) leadership and policy intersects, that is, students mentioned: “More opportunities to work within schools or projects geared towards the actual school setting would give greater opportunity to see theory, and philosophy in practice”; (b) enhance diversity in curricula, and in faculties, as argued by some: “offer more classes about the history of racism, the construction of race, and ethnicity here in the U.S. AND in other countries around the world”; (c) models of delivery; while preferred face to face then full remote learning and suggested a hybrid model to meet the conditions of the day, as expressed in their answers: “I’m looking forward to being in-person. I wanted to do a face-to-face program for my doctoral because I experienced the online version of my masters, and it left without some of the critical learning that I needed. Consider hybrid model: in-person and Zoom, course meets 2x a month in person, and other 2x in Zoom.”
The complexities of mass-education, the new arenas of interaction between the learner and the digitalized curriculum, and different mediums of delivery that are required for innovative change can be handled through the program, and one course focusing on instructional leadership in the digital era, while using both simplistic and sophisticated technologies, such as AI and Learning Analytic as means for learning, and the leading of new frontiers of learning (An and Oliver, 2021; Chen, 2020; Goksel and Bozkurt, 2019; Zackal, 2021; Zhang et al., 2018).
The emphasis on learning from both past and present and trying to shape the future of the higher learning, while addressing current challenges, expectations, and future learning, and acquisition in terms of accessibility trends are important issues for consideration (Guajardo et al. 2019; Sergiovanni, 2000). The interaction between the higher learning and environmental situations, through the application of knowledge, is necessary for relational assurance.
The above findings confirmed the need for relational assurance. Indeed, the mere recognition of programs for the need of transformational learning does not meet the learning needs nor does it meet the challenges of the new reality. The program needs to be fully integrated and reflected in the different cultural characteristics, global education, and social needs. It is what was emphasized by the participants, the theory to be put into practice. Practice, therefore, will give rise to critical thinking, educational beliefs, and new philosophy in the perception of reality. This will be done through collaborative learning, thoughtful dialogue, and the active participation of students in community development projects. These should all be an integral part of the program.
Faculty perceptions of program’s impact (organization/meso)
The program impact is to maintain a heightened sensitivity to the needs of different groups of students, not only to establish new ways of improving the offered programs but also as a means of establishing good practices that other postgraduate programs can follow.
The views of the faculty members moved in the same context of critical evaluation of the program, while the vision is clearly transformative learning and the spirit of collectivity in learning. The analysis of qualitative data, as derived from the personal interviews, revealed that the program represents a clear identity and collective pride. In regards to perceptions of who we are, and what we are doing well, faculty members expressed in different ways that “there is a strong perception of our commitment to equity, diversity and social justice, it is part of the image we got, and the message we deliver, as we got a good number of students who took the master program… in addition, I think we have a strong faculty, you have been saying and felt that, the collectiveness of our group is a good place to partnership. Nevertheless, community building is key; some of our faculties are fully engaged in community.”
Moreover, the program has been developing, and shifting through the years, to better align and provide a progressive moratorium for future educators, since it was first established. The new faculty has contributed significantly to the formulation of curricula and the further design of the program. The program is underpinned by a strong vision of educational and community development, which is mirrored in the increasing diversity among students, and plays a key role in developing community, as expressed by one professor: “We have three types of students coming to us, high learners, underprivileged change makers, and people seeking status quo.”
According to the responses of the faculty members, the faculties have been dedicated to cultural alignment, expressed through their social DNA, while each faculty has been transformed through the program. Thus, the program was an emancipator moratorium for both the faculty and students, which synergistically brought opportunities to process change towards equity, dignity, and diversity.
This stages a philosophical and methodological conundrum; how do we mix epistemologically divergent views, that is, the values, and approach to programming when the original thought team innovated the program in the late 1990s of the 20th century, how did the curriculum change as the program faculty and student demographics changed during the second decade of the program, and third, how do we negotiate the collection of observables, the shifting of social content, and the reimagining of the social, cultural, economic, and political context of a graduate program and institutions in the midst of a global pandemic? These social constructions and structural challenges force the writing team to employ the framework of the study, a relational accountability framework, as the tool for informing the research design, implementation, and findings. This is the product of a dynamic-critical pedagogy that invites the reader to do what I do, that is, modeling, and not just do what I say and write. This is the utility of higher learning, that is, take the concepts of thought, action, interrogation, and meaning-making as tools for organizational, social, institutional, pedagogical, and epistemological change. Aligned with a new vision of evaluation, accountability, community building, and quality assurance, this inquiry was as much about teaching learning, leading, and community building within this community of learners. In short, the four layers of assessment emerged as a locally informed dynamic logic model: (a) authentic invitation as motivation, (b) deep hospitality when students attend, (c) radical engagement, and participation with local knowledge, and global perspectives (dynamic-critical curricula), and (d) development of dynamic-relational feedback loops that inform the re-imagining landscape of higher learning and the program’s sustainability. The relational assurance process is not an afterthought or an infusion of language at the beginning; it is a part of the social DNA of collective accountability as it is embedded throughout the process and serves as an organic feedback loop to the learning system.
The awareness and sensitivity of the institution to ways of improving the offered program reveal the vigilance of the institution in terms of the training it offers its staff and the philosophy behind its culture, with a clear orientation towards the student. However, the program’s efforts to align with the community and the new reality must be continuous, in order to ensure consistency in values as well as systemic thought.
Implications of the study
The present research is based on a case study of a postgraduate program in the USA; however, the new perception of quality through a progressive, pedagogical, and deeply humanistic approach is a solid foundation of trust for the creation of social networks within the community and the consolidation of social capital (Mampaey, 2017). Therefore, the implications of this study, based on the findings, are important because, through them, it emerges that the one-dimensional perspective of knowledge and useful (measurable) skills in postgraduate education are not the key to social development and human well-being. Although postgraduate education is the last stage of higher education, and the maturity of students’ critical thinking can be taken for granted, underestimating progressive education, the deepening of social values cannot be justified. The social and economic reality cannot be taken for granted, and as established, because this leads to a dead end for the much-desired academic quality, and by extension the maximization of social capital.
The findings of this research clearly revealed, as a necessity, the approach of learner-centered pedagogical culture in higher learning. It is an approach characterized by greater active participation of students in all phases of the educational and learning process. Increased student participation contributes to the development of a sense of responsibility and a greater understanding of knowledge, while educational leadership has a decisive role in the cultivation of a collaboration and communication network for the enhancement of social accountability (Gross et al., 2015). This should be realized by academics so that the higher learning role can be strengthened within the community. Academics should not be limited to superficial compliance in terms of the quality of higher learning, for the sake of improvement (Guajardo et al., 2016; Harvey, 2009). One of the theoretical contributions of this paper is to extend the concept of quality assurance to relational assurance. Based on the analysis of this study, relational assurance refers to the social perspective in the learning process and the creation of a sustainable community environment in higher education. The development of the group-research agenda through spot research mentoring will help the cultivation of a relational culture. Hence, the development of communication channels between the higher learning and the community ensures a social identity and strengthens bonds of trust (Arar and Chen, 2021; Hilal, 2021; Sergiovanni, 2000).
The orientation towards a more humanistic postgraduate education is a matter of understanding the concept of quality and applying social values in practice. But this is the key to the sustainability of graduate programs, the creation of sustainable communities, ecological partnership, and human well-being that can be better articulated in governance and institutional efforts. The answers to the research questions based on dynamic-critical pedagogies, and ecologies of knowing, and the findings of this study, can shed more light on the humanistic approach to the quality of postgraduate education and to understand the implications of this study in the self, organization, and community levels.
Self/micro
While today’s educational policies seem to be dominated by an erroneous perception of people, aspiring to achieve uniform standards as though people were machines. We suggested that the biggest problem for present-day higher education is the persistent oversight of individual learner differences. Ignoring human diversity and failing to address this fact is the primary contributor to educational ineffectiveness and inequality persisting globally. Our charge is to align the student needs, demands, and with their socio-cultural need to be fully effective human beings in the construction, and sustain a democratic system, and a sustainable community.
Organization/meso
A deeper awareness of the value of an actively involved community provides a path to the long-term sustainability of education and consequently to economic growth to better meet community needs, global knowledge development, and a diversified body of students. For the value of higher education to be recognized and appreciated, there needs to be closer ties between higher education institutions and developments in “the outside world” so that they are better placed to adapt accordingly. The transformation for higher learning to be successful requires the in-depth study of human learning and intelligence, multidisciplinary investigation of the essence of the learning population (human diversity), research and development of knowledge technologies, the new relationships between people and knowledge, theoretical support of pedagogy, and universal definitions of the research variables (An and Oliver, 2021). Only then will we have higher learning based on values that reflect those of society and local context.
Community/macro
What opportunities does the “post-COVID-19” narrative present for a re-imagining of assessing access, equity, and successful/responsive evaluation of the programs by the students? Can higher learning effectively address the new vision of knowledge technology that will lead to program sustainability and enhanced social responsibility?
Global education and the development of technology play a leading role in shaping the dynamics of an evolving education market, while mass courses, such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that support distance education, contribute to enhancing lifelong learning, through the opening to access. The challenge is, therefore, to delineate the university-market relationship as well as to re-align the curricula of university institutions so that they better address the demand for microcredentials (Olcott, 2021). The timing for a proactive, relational, and ecologically aligned vision is an opportunity before us, and one we cannot take lightly. The future of our educational and democratic systems needs this type of collaborative leadership, and the future of our children depends on it.
Conclusions
The findings of this research show us the path for the intensity of the new orientation of the higher learning, culture, and process grouned in a relational process. We come to this project from different institutions and places around the world. We do not just want to show the way back from the pandemic surge but, through the results, to extend this discussion to include the social integration of people, ideas, and systems, and the ecologically aligned social technologies that measure, which frames the work we do and the spaces we do it. Postgraduate students are individuals who have already formed their personality, their beliefs, and their values. One might wonder what the impact of the programs, at this stage of higher education, might be in furthering individuals’ awareness of social ecology and in making a meaningful contribution to sustainable solutions for the world’s major problems. The answer is simple. Progressive education and the opening of the social horizon are not exhausted at lower levels of education. And this is clear if one considers the role of higher education in social development. Certainly, higher education contributes the most to improving a country’s competitiveness and the efficient functioning of the market. But can this restrictive view of higher education and the isolation of the social dimension lead to sustainable development? This is the reflection of the present study, and the answer is that, through a highly dialogical and relational process, we may identify a path for the transformation from a technical venture of higher education to a social venture of higher learning that more closely reflects our ecological systems, structures, and lifestyles. We emphasize the need to make adjustments in higher learning to keep pace with a changing environment and that it cannot remain a theoretical exercise but must be put into practice. The application of technology, as an accelerator of human accomplishment, can make that practice a reality, since through the humanistic approach of knowledge the complexity of learning can be effectively unraveled.
Possibilities, implications, and further research
The qualitative case study method used in this study provided a profound picture of the perceptions of graduate students and faculty members of a single postgraduate program in the American context, which likely limits the extent to which our findings can be generalized or applied to different contexts or conditions. Therefore, based on the above limitation, it is suggested to further study postgraduate relational assurance in terms of people, location, culture, and context, interwoven with the global dynamics of higher education. Thus, future analysis of relational assurance in postgraduate programs in higher education should take into consideration the state context, the local ecosystem, culture, and institutional rearrangement processes that prompt the process of change to be reimagined and reframed.
In the current quality assurance era, our findings emphasize the particular nature of relational assurance and sustainability and its highly contextualized dynamic. Without this analysis, quality assurance initiative or practice that aims to lift cultural, ideological, organizational, or contextual barriers particular to the higher education system may be ineffective. Our relational assurance insights should be considered in any future relational assurance process as well as in higher education governance and policy-making, taking into account situational sensitivities, and the socio-cultural structure in which the institution operates.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1. The term “self/micro level” refers to the development of the individual’s personality value system and its intrinsic social values: collectivity, cohesion, justice, and solidarity. In addition, the term “community/macro level” refers to the creation of sustainable communities (at both local and international levels) with a focus on people and on a common vision for the sustainable development of the community. In a sustainable community, citizens have an active role in the consolidation of democracy and social justice and in the harmonization of social values. This is while the term “organization/meso level” refers to the accountability of higher education institutions towards society and the establishment of social values within the organization.
2. By considering only quantitative criteria, the word “quality” refers to the continuous improvement of the learning and educational process so that there is satisfaction among the recipients of the educational services. The term “effectiveness” refers to the effort of a higher education institution to try to achieve its learning goals.
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Altbach P (2011) The past, present, and future of the research university. Economic and Political Weekly 46(16): 65–73.
An T, Oliver M (2021) What in the world is educational technology? Rethinking the field from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. Learning, Media and Technology 46(1): 6–19.
Apple MW, Biesta G, Bright D, et al. (2022) Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education. Journal of Educational Administration & History 54: 245–262.
Arar K, Chen D (2021) The Future of Higher Education: A New Paradigm Shift Addressing Students’ Diversity. In: Van't Land H, Corcoran A, Iancu DC (Eds) The Promise of Higher Education, Springer: Cham. 369–376.
Arar K, Saiti A, Guajardo M (2022) Redesigning and recomputing the future of education: The role of technology, the learning process, personality traits, and diversity in learning systems. Power and Education, Online first.
Arar K, Saiti A, Prokopiadou G (2021) Higher education and equitable life-long learning for diversified students in the digital era. Higher Education Governance and Policy 2(1), 19–30.
Bernhard A (2012) Quality assurance in an international higher education area: a summary of a case-study approach and comparative analysis. Tertiary Education and Management 18(2): 153–169.
Brown RC, Hernandez MY, Mitchell TD, et al. (1999) Factors influencing student college choice between in-state and out- of-state students. Journal of Indiana University Student Personnel Association 27: 30–44. Available from: https://portal.education.indiana.edu/Portals/32/1999_edition.pdf
Chen D, Tzivion E (2018) From curriculum theory to knowledge engineering: solving. In: Proceedings of 8th annual international conference on education & e-learning (EeL 2018), Singapore, 27–28 August 2018, pp. 172–175.
Cohen N, Arieli C (2011) Field research in conflict environments: methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research 48(4): 423–435.
Furman G (2012) Social justice leadership as praxis: developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(2): 191–229.
Fusarelli L (1999) Reinventing urban education in Texas: charter schools, smaller schools and new institutionalism. Education and Urban Society 31(2): 214–224.
Galotti KM, Mark MC (1994) How do high school students structure an important life decision? A short – term longitudinal study of the college decision – making process. Research in Higher Education 35(5): 589–607.
Goksel N, Bozkurt A (2019) Artificial intelligence in education: current insights and future perspectives. In: Sisman-Ugur S, Kurubacak G (eds) Handbook of Research on Learning in the Age of Transhumanism. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 224–236.
Gordon SP (2003) An interdisciplinary Ph.D. in education: developing cultural leaders by mirroring collegial cultures. Journal of Thought 38(4): 23–36.
Gross JMS, Haines SJ, Hill C, et al. (2015) Strong school – community partnerships in inclusive schools are “part of the fabric of the school. We count on them. School Community Journal 25(2): 9–34.
Guajardo MA, Guajardo F, Janson C, et al. (2016) Reframing community partnerships in education: Uniting the power of place and wisdom of people, New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Hilal YY (2021) De-domesticating reflection: the role of school leadership within a colonized lifeworld. International Journal of Leadership in Education 3(1): 1–23.
Hope J (2017) Appropriate use of technology in educational leadership. In: Wang VC, VC, Bain B, et al. (eds) Educational Leadership and Organizational Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 359–388.
Littlejohn A, Gourlay L, Kennedy E, et al. (2021) Moving teaching online: cultural barriers experienced by university teachers during Covid-19. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2021(1): 1–15.
Mampaey J, Schtemberg V, Schijns J, et al. (2020) Internal branding in higher education: dialectical tensions underlying the discursive legitimation of a new brand of student diversity. Higher Education Research and Development 39(2): 230–243.
Middlehurst R, Teixeira PN (2012) Governance within the EHEA: dynamic trends, common challenges and national particularities. In: Curaj A, Scott P, Vlasceanu L, et al. (eds) European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reform. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media BV, 527–555.
Middlehurst R, Goreham H, Woodfield S (2009) Why research leadership in higher education? Exploring contributions from the U.K.’s leadership foundation for higher education. Leadership 5(3): 311–329.
Mintzberg H, Laasch O (2020) Mintzberg on (ir)responsible management. In: Laasch O, Suddaby RD, Freeman, et al. (eds) Research Handbook of Responsible Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 73–83.
Olcott D Jr (2021) Micro-credentials: a catalyst for strategic reset and change in U.S. higher education. American Journal of Distance Education 36: 19–35.
Oliver M, Gourlay L (2018) The research–teaching nexus revisited. In: Davies J, Pachler N (eds) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Perspectives from UCL. London, UK: UCL IoE Press, 21–34.
Paudel P (2021) Online education: benefits, challenges and strategies during and after COVID-19 in higher education. International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE) 3(2): 70–85.
Perrin S, Wang L (2021) COVID-19 and rapid digitalization of learning and teaching: quality assurance issues and solutions in a sino-foreign higher education institution. Quality Assurance in Education 29(4): 463–476.
Rhoades G, Sporn B (2002) Quality assurance in Europe and the U.S.: professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education 43: 355–390.
Ross-Gordon J, Gordon S, Alston G, et al. (2015) Efforts to transform learning and learners: the first decade of an innovative doctoral program. Journal of Thought 49(1–2): 52–70.
Sergiovanni TJ (2003) The lifeworld at the center: values and action in educational leadership. In: Bennett N, Crawford M, Cartwright M (eds) Effective Educational Leadership. London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing, 14–24.
Seyfried M, Pohlenz P (2018) Assessing quality assurance in higher education: quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness. European Journal of Higher Education 8(3): 258–271.
Willems PP, Gonzalez-DeHass AR (2012) School – community partnerships: using authentic contexts to academically motivate students. School Community Journal 22(2): 9–30.
Zhang R, Chen X, Lu J, et al. (2018) Using AI to hack IA: a new stealthy spyware against voice assistance functions in smart phones. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06187.pdf.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
