INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4058
Assessing Quality Assurance Mechanisms and Challenges: A Study of
Private and Public Tertiary Institutions in the Gambia
AKINOLA Oluwatoyin Bolanle
1
*, BABOU Ceesay
2
1
Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile - Ife,
Nigeria
2
National Accreditation and Quality Assurance Authority, P. O. Box 1087, Banjul, The Gambia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000333
Received: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 20 October 2025; Published: 11 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This study compared quality assurance mechanisms in private and public tertiary institutions in The Gambia,
employing a convergent mixed-methods design. Data were collected from 11 out of 19 accredited institutions
through surveys, interviews, and checklists guided by National Accreditation and Quality Assurance Authority
(NAQAA) indicators. Results revealed significant differences between private and public institutions in
admission criteria, physical facilities, and internal assessment. Key challenges included a limited number of
Quality Assurance specialists, funding constraints, and bureaucratic delays. These findings highlight the need
for targeted policy reforms to strengthen Quality Assurance systems, build institutional capacity, and
streamline resource allocation processes.
Keywords: Quality Assurance Mechanisms, Tertiary Education in The Gambia, Private Tertiary Education
Institutions, Public Tertiary Education Institutions
INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of post secondary education institutions, particularly across Africa, Asia, and Latin America,
has heightened concerns about academic quality, relevance, and sustainability. Within this context, quality
assurance has emerged as a key mechanism for protecting academic standards, enhancing institutional trust,
and improving student learning outcomes. According to Harvey (2024) Quality Assurance is meant to ensure
that education remains “fit for purpose”. Fitness for purpose entails producing competent graduates, and
creating broader societal value. It has been acknowledged as a strategic transformative tool that enables
institutional improvement and enhances institutional resilience and global competitiveness, thereby making it a
precursor of educational goal attainment in all ramifications (Oktarina et al., 2023; Asamoah et al., 2024;
Baasanjav, 2024; Durmuş Şenyapar, et al., 2024).
Quality assurance mechanisms of educational institutions are the structured systematic processes and
procedures designed to ensure that all the inputs, processes, services and outputs/ outcomes of educational
institutions meet established quality standards and stakeholder expectations. These practices are usually
determined and monitored by national and global education frameworks (Ansah et al., 2017; European and
African Union Commissions, 2024; Kayyali, 2023).
Quality assurance mechanisms are crucial for evaluating institutional performance and goals against
established standards to ensure compliance in a bid to attain effectiveness of education (Williams & Harvey,
2015; Williams 2016; Seyfried & Pohlenz, 2018; Manarbek & Kondybayeva, 2024). In the Gambia as in most
other nations, quality assurance mechanisms are a prerequisite for achieving the goals of post secondary
education institutions of learning, particularly as this level of education occupies a central role in human
capacity building and national development globally. In The Gambian education terrain, post secondary
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4059
education is categorised into two; the tertiary education institutions and the higher education institutions.
Tertiary education institutions being those post secondary education institutions which are non degree
awarding such as, apprenticeship centers, professional certification schools and vocational skills acquisition
centers while higher education institutions are universities (degree awarding institutions). In The Gambia, most
of the post secondary education institutions fall within the category of tertiary education institutions (Council
for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2022; Touray & Adesopo, 2022). As encapsulated in the
Gambian policy statement, the goal of tertiary education is to ensure individuals attain “self-fulfilment,
personal development, and the pursuit of lifelong learning” (The Republic of The Gambia, 2014, p. 5). Tertiary
education, therefore, plays a vital role in alleviating poverty, particularly in low- and medium-income countries
(World Bank, 2024). However, the extent to which tertiary education can achieve personal development, self-
enhancement, and socio-economic liberty depends on the qualities or standards upheld by the tertiary
education provider. This therefore makes the investigation of quality assurance mechanisms as pivotal
instruments of goal attainment at this level of education critical.
As formal providers of post-secondary education through public and private institutions, colleges, technical
institutes, and vocational schools, tertiary education institutions must adhere to set standards of scholarship to
promote academic excellence, lifelong learning, and personal development. Recognising the need for quality
assurance in higher education, governments worldwide have established regulatory frameworks to maintain
high educational standards.
The principal governing body of post-secondary education in The Gambia is the Ministry of Higher Education,
Research, Science, and Technology (MoHERST) (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA] 2022).
Established in 2007, MoHERST manages and coordinates higher education in The Gambia, to transform the
country into a knowledge-based society (CHEA, 2022). Similarly, the National Accreditation and Quality
Assurance Authority (NAQAA), established in 2015 has the mandate to design and ensure the implementation
of a quality assurance framework for high-standard education in The Gambia (Republic of The Gambia, 2019).
The NAQAA framework outlined essential quality standards that tertiary education providers in The Gambia
are required to follow. These cover areas such as admission criteria, availability and functionality of
institutional quality assurance units, qualification of trainers, and the quality and adequacy of physical
facilities.
While the NAQAA framework provides a road map for maintaining high standards, there is little empirical
evidence on how the implementation of this road map may vary between private and public institutions in The
Gambia. Existing studies have examined quality assurance in other contexts, but none have systematically
compared adoption across Gambian tertiary education institutions. This gap may limit policymakers’ ability to
design targeted interventions. Therefore, this study investigated the extent to which private and public
institutions in The Gambia adopted quality assurance practices and the challenges faced in assuring quality.
Quality Assurance
The concept of ‘quality” in quality assurance is timeless, it has found usage in contemporary times (Misztal &
Ratajszczak, 2025). In modern-day use, quality has become a hallmark of excellence (Anttila & Jussila, 2019).
Anttila and Jussila (2017) noted that the concept of quality depicts the level of conformity to a set rule, where
variations are categorised with prefixes such as low and high. A synthesis of these conceptualisations shows
that the understanding of quality, from the philosophical and idealist narratives to a standards-based
measurement, has shaped how it is operationalised today.
Building upon the foundational understanding of ‘quality’, several works have described quality assurance.
Among these, there is a consistent assertion that quality assurance is the process by which a product or service
is evaluated to meet the highest standard (William, 2016; Seyfried & Pohlenz, 2018; Tight, 2020; Bhat &
McCammon, 2021; Klein et al., 2023). Williams (2016) defined quality assurance as internal or external
policies and processes organisations follow to maintain quality. This definition suggests that quality assurance
is a self-regulatory mechanism for institutions and an external oversight imposed by regulatory bodies.
Agreeing with Williams (2016), Klein et al. (2023) argued that quality assurance is a process that ensures
quality is attained. Quality assurance in the light of varying definitions can be described as a quality
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4060
management process which ensures that the standard of excellence is maintained to meet or exceed it (Tight,
2020; Klein et al., 2023). The level of quality assurance implementation may vary significantly across sectors.
It is, therefore, mandatory to examine quality assurance practices of the different categories of tertiary
education institutions.
Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Tertiary Education
Quality assurance mechanisms in tertiary education is traceable to the movement for better quality
management practices, which began in the early twentieth century (Williams & Harvey, 2015; Kayyali, 2023;
Mtitu, 2025). This period was characterised by the demand for greater standardisation in education, which was
largely influenced by the success of the industrial quality control model, leading to the development of
frameworks to promote high standards (Williams & Harvey, 2015; Kayyali, 2023). The earliest forms of
quality assurance practices in tertiary education were primarily concerned with maintaining the minimum
standard of education for continuous improvement (Kayyali, 2023). Quality assurance practices have
considerably evolved in response to global educational demands to encompass institutional audits and
assessment reviews (Kayyali, 2023; Mtitu, 2025).
Seyfried and Pohlenz (2018) assessed quality assurance in German higher education institutions and managers’
perceptions of effectiveness of the institutions. Utilising Ordinary Least Squares Regression Analysis, the
study found that quality assurance was supported among higher management, and collaboration between or
among tertiary institutions of learning in Germany improved perceived level of effectiveness. Akpo and Ernst
(2020) expanded the focus to public and private higher education institutions. Operating from a context that
differed from Seyfried and Pohlenz (2018), Akpo and Ernst (2020) examined the perceived impact of External
Quality Assurance (ESA) on private and public tertiary education institutions in Namibia. Adopting a
descriptive case study approach and concurrent mixed methods, the study found a high level of awareness of
the external quality assurance among tertiary education providers and a moderate impact on service delivery in
Namibia.
The significance of the studies conducted by Seyfried and Pohlenz (2018) and Akpo and Ernst (2020) lies in
their contribution to the understanding of stakeholder perception of quality assurance and external quality
assurance within the German and Namibian tertiary education institutions, providing insights into how key
institutional actors engaged and viewed quality assurance mechanisms across different educational systems.
However, the studies were silent on the quality assurance mechanisms. Asiyai (2020) attempted to fill the gap
by assessing best practices for quality assurance in tertiary education and their effects on the Nigerian
educational administration. The study discussed five core concepts: facilities, innovation, teaching, human
resources, and curriculum. The study concluded that to achieve high-quality tertiary education in Nigeria, these
concepts must be aligned with market demand. Utilising a narrative review approach, Bhat and McCammon
(2021) examined the importance of quality assurance and quality improvement in Low and Middle Income
Countries. The researchers discovered that quality assurance mechanisms in Low and Middle Income
Countries were limited but growing steadily. Some of the identified barriers to quality assurance mechanisms
were found to be resource limitations, training disparities, and inadequate funding.
In a study undertaken by Arthur and Kuranchie (2022) on quality assurance practices and challenges
encountered therein in private universities in Ghana, it was found that quality assurance practices, adopted as
part of strategic performance management activities, utilised both internal and external mechanisms. The study
showed that private tertiary universities established internal mechanisms such as the establishment of
functional quality assurance units, manned by senior level academic staff to systematically monitor
institutional activities, thus ensuring alignment of such activities with organizational objectives; strict
adherence to regulatory bodies criteria for student enrollment, staff recruitment, development and promotion;
utilization of students’ feedback for academic staff assessment, tracer studies for monitoring graduates’
perception of utility of knowledge acquired in the universities for work place effectiveness. This included
employer performance of graduates’ work place performance. The quality assurance practices adopted by the
universities, comprised compliance with mentoring universities’, national and international regulatory
frameworks that institutions must comply with to avoid sanctions. The study found two categories of
challenges to quality assurance practices in Ghanaian private universities. These were: External and Internal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4061
related challenges. External related challenges, emanated from mentoring universities and regulatory bodies; in
form of irregular supervisory visits to the universities, high cost of supervision and bureaucratic bottlenecks.
Internal related challenges were: bureaucratic bottlenecks, inadequate personnel for effective running of the
institutional quality assurance units, insufficient facilities and funds. In a similar study, Appau et al. (2022)
investigated quality assurance practices among private Colleges of Education in the Ashanti region of Ghana.
The study found that quality assurance mechanisms contributed to achieving the corporate mission and vision
of private colleges.
Although studies from Germany, Namibia, Nigeria, Ghana, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan provided insights into
quality assurance implementation, they cannot be directly applied to the Gambian context due to differing
systems and regulations. No study to date has systematically compared the adoption of quality assurance
mechanisms across private and public tertiary institutions in The Gambia. This study thus addressed that gap.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The study was hinged on the stakeholder theory of Freeman (1984) and the resource dependence theory of
Pfeffer and Salancik (1978). The Stakeholder Approach, presented a broad view approach to organizational
management. The theory challenged the opinion that the sole reason for the existence of organisations was to
generate profit for the owner/s. It opined that business owners or founders were not the only entities with
interests in the success or failure of such organisations; Freedman (1984) termed entities with an interest in
such organisations ‘stakeholders’. A stakeholder, therefore, has become known as someone, an organisation, or
a body with an interest in the existence of another organisation (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022). Stakeholder
theory highlighted how diverse groups of students, staff, government, and society place demands on tertiary
institutions, influencing their adoption of quality assurance practices. Resource dependence theory
complements this by explaining how institutions’ reliance on external resources, particularly government
funding and accreditation of regulatory bodies, shape their behaviour. Together, these frameworks provided a
lens to interpret why private institutions, facing higher survival pressure, may adopt quality assurance
mechanisms more rigorously than public institutions that rely on state support.
Objectives of the Study, Research Questions and Research Method
Objectives of the Study
To fill the identified gap, the study:
1. Compared the quality assurance mechanisms adopted by private and tertiary institutions in The Gambia;
and Identified the challenges to quality assurance mechanisms in private and public tertiary
institutions in The Gambia.
Research Questions
The following research questions were raised to guide the study:
1. How does adoption of quality assurance mechanisms differ in private and public tertiary
institutions in The Gambia?
2. What are the challenges to quality assurance mechanisms in private and public tertiary institutions in The
Gambia?
Hypothesis
The following research hypothesis was formulated to guide the study:
Hoi There is no significant difference between the adoption of quality assurance mechanisms in private and
public tertiary institutions in The Gambia.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4062
Research Method
The study adopted the parallel convergent mixed method research design to address the stated objectives. This
design facilitated data collection from participants through direct engagement. The integration of quantitative
and qualitative data from the sample created a complementary methodological framework where the limitation
of one was mitigated by the strength of the other. Hence, the parallel convergent design aided a thorough
evaluation of the quality assurance practices of private and public tertiary institutions in the Gambia.
The population for the study comprised all 19 registered and accredited non degree awarding institutions in
The Gambia. These institutions had been accredited by the National Accreditation and Quality Assurance
Authority (NAQAA) to offer courses in Accounting, Banking and Finance, Business Management, Electrical
and Electronic Engineering, Electrical Installation, Travel and Tourism. Due to the small population, the study
utilised a sample size consisting of all the tertiary institutions. The sample consisted of all the 11 Heads of
institutions, two trainers from each of the institutions and all eight members of the NAQAA Technical Unit
that gave consent to participate in the study.
Three research instruments: a questionnaire, an interview guide and a checklist were used to collect data for
the study. The questionnaire, designed by the researchers using the NAQAA specifications as guidelines,
validated by experts and had a reliability index of 0.82 was administered on Tertiary Institutional Heads and
Trainers. The instrument for collection of qualitative data was an interview guide designed by the researchers.
The researchers assured the credibility of the interview guide by using different perspectives:interviews,
observations, as well as the NAQAA Act and The Gambian Tertiary and Higher Education National Policy to
verify aspects of reality as presented by the participants of the study. Credibility being a criterion of
trustworthiness (equivalent to internal validity for qualitative instruments) according to Bryman (2012).
The interview guide was used to gather data from the members of the NAQAA technical team. These
information was utilised for assessment of quality assurance practices of tertiary institutions as perceived by
the monitoring NAQAA Officials. The checklist was used to ascertain availability, adequacy and functionality
of resources within the institutions.
Results
The results from the analysis of data collected for the study are presented based on the research question
formulated and the hypothesis raised.
How does the adoption of Qquality Aassurance Mechanisms differ in private and public tertiary institutions in
The Gambia?
Table 1: Mean Analysis of adoption of Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Private and Public Tertiary
Institutions in The Gambia
Indicator N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public
AIQAU 8 3 7.13 6.00 0.99 2.00 0.35 1.5
FIQAU 8 3 9.88 9.67 0.35 0.58 0.13 0.33
AC 8 3 11.88 11.00 0.35 1.00 0.13 0.58
QT 8 3 11.75 11.33 0.71 1.15 0.25 0.67
QAPFs 8 3 15.13 13.33 0.83 1.53 0.30 0.88
IMIA 8 3 16.00 14.33 0.00 2.08 0.00 1.20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4063
Key: Availability of Institutional Quality Assurance Units (AIQAU); Functionality of Institutional Quality
Assurance Units (FIQAU); Admission Criteria (AC); Qualification of Trainers (QT); Quality and Adequacy of
Physical Facilities (QAPF); and Institutional Moderation of Internal Assessment (IMIA).
Table 1 displayed the mean analysis of adoption of Quality Assurance Mechanisms in private and public
tertiary institutions in The Gambia. The data showed significant variations between the categories of
institutions across the six criteria defined by NAQAA. Data analysis revealed that private institutions achieved
a mean score of 7.13% compared to 6.0% of public tertiary institutions in Gambia. The 18% performance gap
indicated that private tertiary institutions adopted more internal quality assurance practices to monitor and
evaluate the quality of education compared to public tertiary institutions. The standard deviation of 0.99 for
private tertiary institutions and 2.00 for public tertiary institutions suggested that private tertiary institutions
displayed consistency in terms of availability of quality assurance units (AIQAU). The high standard error of
AIQAU for public tertiary institutions showed that while some institutions had institutional quality assurance
units, others did not.
Analysis of the data further showed the functionality of the institutional quality assurance units (FIQAU) in
The Gambian institutions. Private tertiary institutions recorded a higher mean score of 9.88% when compared
to public tertiary institutions with a mean score of 9.67%. Nevertheless, the high mean scores and the low
standard deviation of 0.35 and 0.58 respectively for both categories of institutions suggested that the FIQAU in
The Gambian tertiary education system was above average. The admission criteria (AD) for both categories of
institutions were also assessed. The data analysis showed that private tertiary institutions (x
=11.88%)
outperformed public tertiary institutions (x
= 11.00%) by 8% in terms of compliance with admission criteria
stipulated by NAQAA. The standard deviation (s =0.35 for private and s =1.0 for public institutions) further
showed that private tertiary institutions in The Gambia observed stricter compliance levels with NAQAA
stipulated admission criteria when compared to public tertiary institutions.
The analysis of data on Quality of Trainers (QT) showed a mean score of 11.75%( x
=11.75%) for private
tertiary institutions and 11.33% (x
= 11.33%) for public tertiary institutions. The standard deviation for both
categories of institutions was 0.75 and 1.15. The Quality and Adequacy of Physical Facilities (QAPF) scores
showed substantial differences, with 13.3% recorded for private tertiary institutions and 15.13% for public
tertiary institutions. The Institutional Moderation of Internal Assessment (IMIA) recorded a mean score of
16.00% and a standard deviation of 0.00 for private institutions compared to a mean score of 14.33% and a
standard deviation of 2.03% for public tertiary institutions.
What are the challenges of Quality Assurance Mechanisms?
To answer this research question, data collected by means of the open-ended items of the questionnaire
administered on institutional heads were collated and analysed. Analysis of the the data showed that the most
common challenge encountered by both categories of institutions was the inability of the institutions to attract
and recruit adequate number of quality assurance specialists. Other challenges identified were inadequacy of
funds to invest in physical structures and maintain existing facilities, bottlenecks in obtaining government
support and delays in releasing approved funds, a shortage of quality assurance personnel, and incompetence
(resulting from lack of sufficient training) in implementing NAQAA stipulated Quality Assurance
Mechanisms.
4.3 There is no significant difference between the adoption of quality assurance mechanisms in private tertiary
institutions and the adoption of quality assurance practices in public tertiary institutions in The Gambia.
The hypothesis, There is no significant difference between the quality assurance mechanisms adopted in
private tertiary institutions and quality assurance practices adopted in public tertiary institution in The Gambia
was tested at 0.05 level of significance. The results of the analysis of data is presented in Table 2.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4064
Table 2: Quality Assurance Mechanisms adopted by Private and Public Institutions
Indicator Institution Type N Mean SD Df t p
AIQA Private 8 7.13 0.99 9 1.29 0.23
Public 3 6.00 2.00
FIQA Private 8 9.88 0.35 9 0.74 0.48
Public 3 9.67 0.58
AC Private 8 11.88 0.35 9 2.29 0.04
Public 3 11.00 1.00
QT Private 8 11.75 0.71 9 0.74 0.48
Public 3 11.00 1.00
QAPF Private 8 15.13 0.83 9 2.57 0.03
Public 3 11.33 1.15
IMIA Private 8 16.00 0.00 9 2.51 0.03
Public 3 13.33 1.53
The results from the hypothesis testing showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the
Quality Assurance Mechanisms of private and public tertiary institutions in The Gambia, in terms of
Admission Criteria (AC) with a p-value of 0.04, Quality and Adequacy of Physical Facilities (QAPF) with a p-
value of 0.03, and Institutional Moderation of Internal Assessment (IMIA) with a p-value value of 0.03. Other
Quality Assurance Mechanisms, such as Availability of Institutional Quality Assurance Units (AIQAU),
Functionality of Institutional Quality Assurance Units (FIQAU), and Qualification of Trainers (QT), showed
no statistical significant difference at 0.05 level of significance.
DISCUSSIONS
The results from the comparative analysis of the adoption of quality assurance mechanisms in private and
public tertiary institutions in the Gambia showed that The Gambian Government, through the governing
umbrella of NAQAA, had taken steps to ensure minimum educational standards. This finding aligns with the
observations of Williams and Harvey (2015), Kayyali (2023), and Mtitu (2025) that quality assurance
mechanisms have evolved from quality control mechanisms to wider institutional audits and reviews for
standardization. The finding of this study substantiates the claim by showing that moderate to high level of
compliance existed in terms of adoption of the key quality assurance mechanism indicators designed by
NAQAA. However, the study found that on the average, private institutions in The Gambia displayed greater
adoption of quality assurance mechanisms compared to public tertiary institutions, probably because of the fear
of closure in relation to the precepts of the stakeholder theory which shows that though the private institutions
are owned by individuals and groups, the government of The Gambia through regulatory agencies, NAQAA
and MoHERST have a stake in the institutions such that institutions that do not comply to regulations as
stipulated will be shut down; to avoid the risk of closure, private institutions ensure optimal compliance with
stipulated regulations.The higher level of compliance by the private institutions could also be explained with
the resource dependence theory which posited that such institutions are dependent on external resources. If a
tertiary institution does not achieve full accreditation, it will be difficult for such an institution to get the
requisite number of students or seek for government financial support to keep such an institution afloat while
in the case of public institutions, the government is the major financier that must provide resources to keep the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4065
institutions functional and as a result can not shirk the responsibility of providing resources to the institutions
that depend on it for survival.The risk of closure according to the analysis of data collected, is lower for public
institutions as they are owned by the government which employs officials of regulatory agencies; it may be
difficult to shut down Government owned institutions. This finding is consistent with that of Aburizaizah
(2022) and Khan et al. (2024), who found differences in the adoption of quality assurance mechanisms across
institutional types in Saudi Arabian and Pakistan, respectively. Notwithstanding, the insight from the data,
which showed that private tertiary institutions had stronger internal quality assurance structures, measured by
the mean score of Availability of Institutional Quality Assurance Unit (AIQAU), corroborates the finding of
Seyfried and Pohlenz (2018) that high management support for quality assurance promotes greater perception
and impact of quality assurance in tertiary education.The stronger adoption of quality assurance mechanisms
by private institutions can be linked to their reliance on market competitiveness and accreditation survival, a
position related to the resource dependence theory. Unlike public institutions, which often depend on state
support, private providers must consistently demonstrate compliance to attract students and avoid closure. This
may explain the performance gap observed in admission criteria and internal assessment. The findings from
the qualitative data showed that private and public tertiary institutions in The Gambia faced similar and
significant challenges in the adoption of quality assurance mechanisms. The foremost challenge was the
inability to attract and recruit qualified quality assurance specialists to assist with quality assurance practices
implementation. This finding is in line with that of Bhat and McCammon (2021), also Arthur and Kuranchie
(2022) who found that although quality implementation was growing drastically, it was still hindered by
insufficiency of resources and training barriers. Furthermore, the finding from Aburizaizah (2022), and Arthur
and Kuranchie (2022) that government bureaucracy limited institutional creativity agrees with the finding of
the current study that the bottlenecks in obtaining government support and delays in releasing approved funds
were critical challenges limiting the adoption of quality assurance mechanisms in The Gambia. The findings
also suggest that government bureaucracy and limited funding disproportionately hindered public institutions,
underlining the importance of policy reforms that ensure the timely disbursement of resources and capacity-
building initiatives for Quality Assurance personnel.
CONCLUSION
Quality assurance is central to the credibility and effectiveness of tertiary education in The Gambia. This study
showed that while both public and private institutions adopted quality assurance mechanisms, private
institutions demonstrated stronger compliance in critical areas. This might not be unconnected to market
pressures of remaining credible to get more students, thus illustrating resource dependence of these category of
institutions for survival. Persistent challenges such as inadequate funding, scarcity of quality assurance
specialists, and bureaucratic delays threaten sustainable quality improvement.
Limitation of the Study
The limited number of institutions, 11 out of 19, that consented to participation in this study, which resulted in
the study not being able to adopt the total enumeration sampling might have implications for generalizability
of the findings of this study.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:
1. Policy makers should streamline government funding through e-governance platforms to reduce
bureaucratic bottlenecks.
2. Proprietors of the tertiary institutions should invest in structured quality assurance training and capacity-
building workshops for staff.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4066
REFERENCES
1. Aburizaizah, S. J. (2022). The role of quality assurance in Saudi higher education institutions.
International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 100127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100127
2. Akpo, S. E., & Ernst, G. F. (2020, July 30). Perceived impact of external quality assurance on public and
private higher education institutions in Namibia. Ssrn.com.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4242800
3. Ansah, F., Swanzy, P., & Nudzor, H. P. (2017). Balancing the focus of quality assurance frameworks of
Higher Education Institutions in Africa: A Ghanaian context. In S. L. Renes(Ed.) Global voices in Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68665
4. Antilla, J., & Jussila, K. (2019). Striving for benefits of sustainability from interactivity of quality and
innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2(12), 409 -419.
5. Anttila, J., & Jussila, K. (2017). Understanding quality – conceptualization of the fundamental concepts
of quality. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(3/4), 251–268.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqss-03-2017-0020
6. Appau, A. R., Agyei, I. K., Adu-Agyem, J., & Owusu, A. S. (2022). Quality assurance practices in
selected private colleges of education in the Ashanti region, Ghana. SIBATIK , 3(2), 271–288.
https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=3924433
7. Arthur, G. A. ., & Kuranchie, A. (2022). Quality assurance in private higher education institutions in
Ghana: Practices and challenges. Social Education Research, 3(2), 342 - 353.
https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.3220221604
8. Asamoah, M. K., Ansong, J.D., Mackin, E., & Agyekum, B. (2024). The influence of quality
assurance on achieving development education ethical goals. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs-
5932885/vl
9. Asiyai, R. I. (2020). Best practices for quality assurance in higher education: Implications for educational
administration. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(5), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1710569
10. Baasanjav, G. (2024). Higher education quality assurance: Sustainable development policies in H.
Batmend & O. Ganbold (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on quality assurance in Higher Education.
Transforming education: New generation of learners. Atlantis Highlights in Social Sciences, Education
and Humanities (pp. 125 -132). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-382-5_5_18
11. Bhat, L., & McCammon, C. (2021). The importance of quality assurance and quality improvement in
low- and middle-income settings. Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports, 16(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-020-00623-y
12. Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2022). Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present and
future. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 797–809. Sagepub. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270221127628
13. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods.Oxford University Press.
14. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2022). CHEA Annual Report 2022 -2023.
https://www.chea.org-chea-annual-report-2022-2023
15. Durmuş Şenyapar, H. N., & Bayındır, R. (2024). Quality assurance in higher education in the 21st
century: Strategies and practices for new generation universities. Higher Education Governance and
Policy, 5(2), 115 -133. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1573331
16. European and African Union Commissions (2024). African standards and guidelines for quality
assurance in higher education. http://hdl.handle.net/2445/126939
17. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
18. Harvey, L. (2024). Extended Editorial: Defining quality thirty years on: quality, standards, assurance,
culture and epistemology. Quality in Higher Education, 30(2), 145–184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2024.2355026
19. Kayyali, M. (2023). An overview of quality assurance in higher education: Concepts and frameworks.
International Journal of Management, Sciences, Innovation, and Technology, 4(2), 1-4.
https://ijmsit.com/volume-4-issue-2/
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4067
20. Khan, S., Taj, S., e-Huma, Z., & Younas, A. (2024). A comparative study of quality assurance policies in
public and private universities of Pakistan. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 13(4), 1013–1021.
https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.4.82
21. Klein, T. A., Seelbach, C. L., & Brannan, G. D. (2023, March 6). Quality assurance. PubMed; StatPearls
Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557503/
22. Manarbek, G., & Kondybayeva, S. (2024). Quality assurance practices in higher education: Lessons from
the U.S. and implications for Kazakhstan. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies,
5(3), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.61186/johepal.5.3.66
23. Misztal, A., & Ratajszczak, K. (2025). Possibilities of using contemporary quality management methods
and tools for the sustainable development of the organisation. Sustainability, 17(2), 617.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020617
24. Mtitu, E. A. (2025). Exploring factors for the introduction and implementation of quality assurance
systems in selected higher education institutions in Tanzania. Cogent Education, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2025.2455767
25. Oktarina, N., Rusdarti, R., Yulianto, A., & Wahyuni, K. (2023). The role of quality assurance in
improving the quality of education. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal, 13(4), 264-
275. https://doi.org/10.18844/cerj.v14i4.9119
26. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. Stanford Business Books.
27. Republic of The Gambia (2019). National accreditation and quality assurance act, 2015.
https://www.naqaa.gm-content/uploads/2019/08/NAQAA-ACT-pdf
28. 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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1474777
29. The Republic of The Gambia. (2014). National tertiary and higher education policy 2014 – 2023.
Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Technology.
30. Tight, M. (2020). Research into quality assurance and quality management in higher education. Theory
and Method in Higher Education Research, 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-
375220200000006012
31. Touray, Y., & Adesopo, A. (2022). Higher education reforms: A crux in The Gambia’s National
Development Agenda. East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3(4), 134-148.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/eajess.V3i4.205
32. Williams, J. (2016). Quality assurance and quality enhancement: Is there a relationship? Quality in
Higher Education, 22(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2016.1227207
33. Williams, J., & Harvey, L. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education. In The Palgrave International
Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance (pp. 506–525). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-45617-5_27
34. World Bank. (2024). Tertiary education overview. April 9, 2024.
https://www.worldbank.org/topic/tertiaryeducation.
