Governance Models for Student Involvement in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis

The global importance of students' involvement in governance and quality assurance (QA) processes in higher education has grown. Students are recognized as essential stakeholders for institutional transparency, accountability, and relevance, as they are the primary beneficiaries of educational outcomes. This review paper examines governance models for student involvement in higher education across multiple regions, analyzing policies, standards, and governance frameworks from 2019 to 2024. The paper employs a comparative qualitative methodology of practices in Pakistan, Bahrain, the Middle East (e.g., UAE, Saudi Arabia), Europe (e.g., UK, Germany), North America (e.g., USA, Canada), and the Asia-Pacific (e.g., Australia), analyzing the different policies, accreditation reports, and institutional frameworks to reflect on student involvement, for example, in curriculum development, decision-making structures, and quality assurance mechanisms. The paper systematically reviews key policies, including the Bologna Process, the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG), and national accreditation frameworks such as the NCAAA in Saudi Arabia and HEC in Pakistan. A significant focus is placed on digital governance models, participatory decision-making structures, and hybrid approaches that integrate institutional autonomy with stakeholder inclusion. The findings highlight the impact of regulatory mandates, student advisory councils, and digital feedback platforms on ensuring transparency and accountability in higher education governance. For example, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan managed to increase the participation of students through the Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs), which have made student participation official through the establishment of student councils, surveys, digital engagement, and grievance procedures. Bahrain provided another good example of a systematic process, as it requires students to participate in quality assurance committees. This is done through program-specific student advisory committees, student councils, ombudsman positions, and digital feedback platforms. In North America, universities prioritize student participation through state legislation, accreditation standards, advisory committees, and thorough feedback channels. In contrast, schools in the Asia-Pacific region, such as those in Australia, include student guilds in academic and policy-making processes. This paper ends with recommendations for improving student participation by implementing hybrid governance models, creating policy frameworks that balance institutional autonomy with stakeholder inclusion, and encouraging digital transformation.

Education

1. AGU. (2023). Participatory Governance and Student Engagement in Bahrain. Arabian Gulf University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahlia University. (2022). Focus Groups and Accreditation Cycles. Ahlia University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Al‐Alawi, Y., Al-Kaabi, D., Rashdan, S. & Al-Khaleefa, L. (2009). Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement: A Case Study of the University of Bahrain. Quality in Higher Education, 15(1), 61–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alhamad, B. (2023). Quality Assurance Breaking Down Barriers with External Stakeholders: An Investigation of Current and Potential Roles of Stakeholders. In S. T. Saeed & K. H. Sherwani (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Middle East: Practices and Perspectives (Vol. 54, pp. 19–48). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120230000054002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Alhamad, B. & Aladwan, R. (2017). Internal Quality Assurance- Enhancing HE quality and graduate employability (U. IIEP, Ed.). IIEP, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002613/261356E.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Alhamad, B., AlJawder, O. & Dahneem, E. (2018). Enhancing employability opportunities through student empowerment at University of Bahrain. In ANQAHE (Ed.), Third ANQAHE Regional Conference, Quality Higher Education in the 21st Century, Achieving Effectiveness and Adding Value, National Bureau for Academic Accreditation and Education Quality Assurance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Amaral, A & Magalhães, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A Amaral, G. A. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 1–21). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9946-7_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Amaral, Alberto & Magalhães, A. (2002). The Emergent Role of External Stakeholders in European Higher Education Governance. In Alberto Amaral, G. A. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 1–21). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9946-7_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. American Council Education. (2018). Student Voice Act and Governance Models. American Council on Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. American University of Sharjah. (2022). Annual Report 2022–2023. https://www.aus.edu/sites/default/files/annual_report_0.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. AQF. (2018). National Standards and Student Governance. AQF Council. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Baird, J. (2010). Proceedings of Australian Universities Quality Forum 2010. In null: Vol. null. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Balbachevsky, E. (2015). The Role of Internal and External Stakeholders in Brazilian Higher Education. In S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro & P. Pillay (Eds.), Higher Education in the BRICS Countries: Investigating the Pact between Higher Education and Society (pp. 193–214). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9570-8_10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bateman Giles Pty Ltd. (2006). Review of the Australian Universities quality agency, final report, May 2006. In null: Vol. null. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bologna Process. (2007). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). European Higher Education Area. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H. & Scales, W. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education Final Report. In null: Vol. null. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Brewer, A. & Walker, I. (2010). Proceedings of the Australian Quality Forum 2010. In null: Vol. null. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Bukhari, A., Mahboob, U., Atiq, S. & Ahmed, J. (2017). SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDENT’S FEEDBACK ON IMPROVING THE TEACHING PRACTICES OF THE FACULTY. KHYBER MEDICAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL, 8(3), 142. https://www.kmuj.kmu.edu.pk/article/view/16196 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. CHEA. (2019). The Role of Students in Institutional Accreditation. CHEA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, E. (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. ENQA. (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). ENQA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. ENQA. (2023). Student Participation in QA Processes. ENQA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. European-Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report. In A. and C. E. A. Education (Ed.), Chapter 5: Opening Higher Education to a Diverse Student Population. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Fowlie, J. & Forder, C. (2018). Employability, work placements, and outward mobility: views from England and Germany. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 8(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-10-2017-0084 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Harvey, L. & Purser, L. (2006a). EUA Bologna Handbook: Making Bologna work. In null: Vol. null. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Harvey, L. & Purser, L. (2006b). EUA Bologna Handbook: Making Bologna Work. European University Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Higher Education Commission. (2020). Quality Assurance Framework in Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Higher Education Council. (2023). Student Involvement in Governance: Policy Guidelines. Higher Education Council Bahrain. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Institute of Business Administration. (2025). Student Council and Societies. https://www.iba.edu.pk/society-guidelines.php [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. King Saud University. (2023). Student Involvement in Quality Assurance Frameworks: Saudi Arabia Case Study. King Saud University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K. (2009). Student Participation in University Governance: the Role Conceptions and Sense of Efficacy of Student Representatives on Departmental Committees. Studies in Higher Education, 34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802602000 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. LUMS. (2021). Student Feedback and QA Integration: Annual Report. LUMS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mahsood, N., Khan, N., Ahsan, A., Aziz, S. & Ali, I. (2019). Medical Student’s Feedback on Foundation Module of Integrated Curriculum at Public Sector Medical College: A Pilot Study. Journal of Medical Sciences (Peshawar), 27, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Marshall, S J. (2018). Internal and external stakeholders in higher education. In Shaping the University of the Future: Using Technology to Catalyse Change in University Learning and Teaching (pp. 77–102). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7620-6_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Marshall, Stephen James. (2018). Internal and External Stakeholders in Higher Education. In Stephen James Marshall (Ed.), Shaping the University of the Future: Using Technology to Catalyse Change in University Learning and Teaching (pp. 77–102). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7620-6_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Millican, J. (2014). Higher Education and student engagement: implications for a new economic era. Education + Training, 56(7), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2014-0077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. NCAAA. (2018). Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education Institutions. NCAAA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. NUST. (2021). Quality Enhancement Strategies and Student Involvement. NUST. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Punjab University. (2021). Reintroduction of Student Unions and Advocacy Roles. Punjab University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Qatar University. (2023). Digital Transformation in QA and Governance. Qatar University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Qazi, A., Mahsood, N. & Mahboob, U. (2019). Perceptions of the undergraduate medical students about their engagement in curriculum development. The Professional Medical Journal, 26, 1884–1891. https://doi.org/10.29309/TPMJ/2019.26.11.3092 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. The National Unions of Students of Europe. (2002). European Student Handbook on Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESIB, Ed.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Toumi, H. (2018). Higher Education Council to hand out 355 “controversial” degrees. Gulf News. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. University of Bahrain. (2022). Annual Report on Student Feedback Mechanisms. University of Bahrain. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. University of California. (2022). Annual Governance Report. University of California System. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. University of Edinburgh. (2020). Student Partnership Agreements: A Case Study. University of Edinburgh. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. University of Heidelberg. (2023). Student Representation in Governance. University of Heidelberg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. University of Helsinki. (2021). Annual Review 2021. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/about-us/university-helsinki/annual-reviews [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. University of Helsinki. (2023). Mandated Student Participation in Curriculum Committees. University of Helsinki. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. University of Manchester. (2023). Financial Statements for the year ending 31 July 2023. https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=71367 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. University of Melbourne. (2023). Digital Platforms for Governance and Feedback. University of Melbourne. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. University of Oslo. (2020). Ombudsman Roles and Student Grievance Mechanisms. University of Oslo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. University of Oxford. (2023). Digital Platforms for Participatory Governance. University of Oxford. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. University of Sydney. (2022). Student Guilds and Governance Structures. University of Sydney. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. University of Toronto Students’ Union. (2025). About UTSU. https://www.utsu.ca/about/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study