English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Quality assurance has been recognized as being important in higher education; however, there are numerous reports that it is challenging to engage faculty members in quality assurance processes in a meaningful way. A frequently cited reason for faculty members’ resistance is that they find the process to be authoritarian and non-collegial. This paper presents a case study which shows that changing the tone of the language used to communicate with academics about the institutional quality assurance process—from a bureaucratic and authoritative tone to a more collegial one—can serve as a countertactic to help mitigate the resistance of faculty members to this process. Using corpus-based techniques, we investigate the language used in documents to communicate with faculty members about quality assurance. We then demonstrate that, following a linguistic revision to introduce a more collegial tone to these communications, faculty members appear to be more willing to engage in the quality assurance process in a meaningful way.

Language and Quality Assurance: A Case Study Highlighting the Effects of Power, Resistance, and Countertactics in Academic Program Reviews