INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8134
www.rsisinternational.org
Governance Models for Student Involvement in Higher Education: A
Comparative Analysis
Bassam Alhamad
1
, Kajal Hayat
2
1
University of Bahrain
2
Khyber Medical University
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0610
Received: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 18 October 2025; Published: 08 November 2025
ABSTRACT
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.
INTRODUCTION
This paper uses a comparative qualitative research approach to investigate governance models for student
participation in higher education spanning several global regions. Combining concepts from policy documents,
accreditation reports, institutional frameworks, and stakeholder participation systems was the methodical
approach for data gathering, assessment, and comparative analysis that follows. The methodology is based on
participatory governance in higher education (A Amaral & Magalhães, 2002; S J Marshall, 2018), which stresses
a qualitative and document-based strategy to assess institutional governance systems.
The comparative case study analysis relied on the examination of many governance models of student
involvement from Pakistan, Bahrain, the Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia), Europe (UK, Germany), North
America (USA, Canada), and Asia-Pacific (Australia). This approach allows one to systematically evaluate
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8135
www.rsisinternational.org
regulatory policies, student participation mechanisms, and institutional best practices.
In addition, a document analysis method was also included. This involved policies on higher education, including
those of Bahrain's Higher Education Council, the NCAAA in Saudi Arabia, the HEC of Pakistan (HEC), the
Bologna Process, and the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) from national regulating authorities.
Moreover, the article studied the models of university governance, including those related to quality assurance,
student participation in decision-making, grievance handling systems, and quality assurance policies. Policy-
driven governance models, ombudsman systems, advisory boards, student councils, and digital feedback systems
were among other mechanisms for student engagement.
To provide a thorough and holistic inquiry, the acquired data came from many sources:
• Records on accreditation and institutional reports from nearby universities within the selected categories.
• National policy directives demanding student involvement in governance.
• National quality assurance agencies and institutions oversee surveys of student engagement as well as
systems of quality assurance.
• Peer-reviewed publications and case studies examining student engagement in university governance and
decision-making processes.
• Defining the data sources was a key theme area spanning student representation to feedback systems,
quality assurance integration, curriculum creation, grievance resolution, and digital governance
platforms.
Comparative topic research was conducted to identify patterns, analogues, and variances among political
systems. The study followed these instructions:
• system of governance based on institutional policies and regional agendas.
• study of student involvement systems in order to identify mandatory rather than optional participation.
• evaluation of student impact on set policies, quality control maintained, and decision-making process.
• Identifying best practices and limitations; assessing governance effectiveness in support of student-led
initiatives, openness, and diversity.
The comparative method was influenced by studies on higher education governance (Balbachevsky, 2015;
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018), which stress institutional autonomy and regulatory mandates in
establishing student engagement models.
For triangulation and validation, several sources were cross-checked to raise trustworthiness and authenticity.
Legislative frameworks such as ESG, NCAAA, and AQF were compared to university data to verify student
engagement standards. Consistency was examined between national policy and university-level surveys and
polls. Referring to already published work helped one create the theoretical foundation for governance trends
and student participation best practices.
Regarding ethical considerations, since the study largely focuses on secondary sources and document analysis,
ethical authorization was not required. Still, institutional confidentiality is maintained, and all the specified
resources are freely available.
In this methodology, there are research restrictions related to diversity and restricted access to internal university
data. For example, the diversity in political models makes it challenging to provide direct comparisons that
depend on institutional autonomy and country rules. In addition, the study relies on publicly accessible
information; hence, governance efficiency may not be totally reflected. Besides all that, changing national policy
affects governance strategies, so longitudinal research becomes difficult.
This comparative and qualitative approach provides a rigorous approach to looking at systems of governance for
student participation. By means of legislative frameworks, institutional governance reports, and accreditation
documentation analysis, the paper identifies regional best practices, challenges, and opportunities for hybrid
governance models.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8136
www.rsisinternational.org
Governance Models for Student Engagement in Higher Education in Europe
The literature on higher education will cover the importance of student involvement in governance models and
quality assurance (QA) processes. This section examines the foundations, methods, and difficulties of
governance models from a range of areas, with a special focus on student engagement as stakeholders in
decision-making, program assessment, and curriculum creation. Table 1 displays the many models that involve
students in higher education (Alhamad, 2023; Alberto Amaral & Magalhães, 2002; Balbachevsky, 2015;
European-Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018; Stephen James Marshall, 2018).
The Bologna Process and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education
Area (ESG) are legal frameworks that mandate the implementation of comprehensive participatory models by
European universities (Bologna Process, 2007; Harvey & Purser, 2006a). Student representation in university
senates and departmental councils is legally mandated in Germany to promote inclusivity and transparency
(University of Heidelberg, 2023). The Student Partnership Agreement (SPA) paradigm in the United Kingdom
institutionalizes co-creation in curriculum design and governance, with an emphasis on collaboration between
students and faculty (University of Edinburgh, 2020).
The National Union of Students (NUS) in the UK works with university administrations to ensure that student
representatives are engaged at all levels of governance, including committees that focus on curriculum and
quality assurance (The National Unions of Students of Europe, 2002). Student guilds are present in universities
in Australia, and they assist in determining institutional policies. Legislative requirements for student
representation typically provide support for these guilds (University of Sydney, 2022). In Europe, students are
represented adequately in university management bodies (senates) and quality assurance teams due to legal
mandates such as the Bologna Process and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area (ESG) (Bologna Process, 2007; European-Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018).
The National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment (NCAAA) in Saudi Arabia played an
important role in improving the quality of higher education (NCAAA, 2018). The NCAAA has set quality
assurance standards to increase the involvement of students, faculty, and external stakeholders in the decision-
making processes. For instance, the NCAAA's Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher
Education Institutions emphasizes the need to include stakeholders in governance structures, such as academic
boards and quality assurance committees. This participative technique guarantees that a diverse variety of
viewpoints are taken into account while planning for institutions and improving quality (NCAAA, 2018).
For higher education in Europe, the Bologna Process and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in
the European Higher Education Area set standards to allow students to take part in the management of higher
education (Bologna Process, 2007; European-Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018; Harvey & Purser, 2006b).
The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, which were updated in 2015, clearly state that
students must be involved in quality assurance processes. ESG 1.3 states that “students should be represented in
the governance and management of higher education institutions and in the internal and external quality
assurance processes.” This legislative obligation guarantees that students are able to participate in decision-
making bodies, including university senates and quality assurance committees (Bologna Process, 2007;
European-Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018; Harvey & Purser, 2006b).
For example, in Germany and the Netherlands, student representatives are significant members of university
senates and quality assurance committees. They are involved in a variety of activities, including the development
of curriculum and the management of the procedures for institutional accreditation. This level of representation
is considered a best practice for fostering transparency, accountability, and learning environments that prioritize
students (Fowlie & Forder, 2018).
Reflection on Governance Models in Europe
European universities are leading the way in the development of inclusive governance methods. These strategies
are often backed by legislation that ensures that students are included in quality assurance procedures and
institutional decision-making.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8137
www.rsisinternational.org
• University of Edinburgh, UK: The Student Partnership Agreement (SPA) of the University of Edinburgh
promotes collaboration between students and teachers. Students are involved in the creation of the
curriculum, the design of procedures, and the evaluation of quality assurance. This approach is an
example of how partnerships may help foster a collective sense of accountability for the functioning of
an organization (University of Edinburgh, 2020).
• University of Heidelberg, Germany: German universities, including the University of Heidelberg, are
required by law to have students participate in university senates and departmental councils. This ensures
that the government is open and responsible while also giving students the ability to have an impact on
the policies of the school (University of Heidelberg, 2023).
• University of Helsinki, Finland: In Finland, universities such as the University of Helsinki set aside seats
for students on governing boards. This guarantees that students have a say in choices that pertain to
strategy and curricular development (University of Helsinki, 2021).
Governance Models for Student Engagement in Higher Education in Pakistan
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Pakistan has established Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) in
order to make student participation a permanent part of the educational system. In these QECs (HEC, 2020),
students are able to provide feedback on the quality of instruction, the content of the course, and the amenities
of the institution. Even though the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and the National
University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) have created advisory councils and focus groups, digital
platforms for real-time engagement are still in the early stages of development (LUMS, 2021; NUST, 2021).
However, the reinstatement of student unions in 2020 (Punjab University, 2021) provides an opportunity to
revitalize participatory government.
The HEC of Pakistan has urged educational institutions to include students in academic and administrative
committees, particularly in the procedures of program reviews and institutional accreditation. The higher
education literature has placed a substantial emphasis on student participation in governance models and quality
assurance (QA) processes. In this section, different frameworks, mechanisms, and challenges of governance
models from a variety of regions are analyzed. The literature covers various areas of student participation in
decision-making, program evaluation, and curriculum development. Table 1 shows the different models
involving students in higher education.
QECs have been instituted by the HEC in Pakistan to institutionalize student engagement. The quality of
instruction, the content of the course, and the facilities of the institution are all subject to student feedback in
these QECs (Higher Education Commission, 2020). Some QECs, such as the one at COMSATS University
Islamabad, include student representatives on their quality evaluation committees. These committees evaluate
programs and suggest ways to enhance them. Despite the fact that LUMS and NUST have established advisory
councils and focus groups, digital platforms for real-time engagement are still in the early stages of development
(LUMS, 2021; NUST, 2021). Nevertheless, the potential to revitalize participatory governance is present with
the reintroduction of student unions in 2020 (Punjab University, 2021).
The HEC has provided a group of guidelines for students’ involvement. The HEC of Pakistan developed
standards that require higher educational institutions to involve students in academic and administrative
committees, especially in the processes of program assessments and institutional accreditation. There had been
initiatives such as involving student representatives on governing boards at universities like LUMS and NUST,
where they were required to provide feedback on academic policy. Despite the students’ involvement, the
practice varied from one school to another, questioning its governance. Student unions at universities, including
Punjab University, are still in the process of emerging, but they are advocating for more transparency in the
process of making academic choices.
A number of public and private universities in Pakistan have established Student Advisory Councils, which are
made up of student leaders, whether elected or selected, to participate in the feedback process. Their involvement
was noticeable, however limited, in the development of the policies, but more related to campus life, curriculum
development, and extracurricular activities. For instance, the University of Karachi allows student
representatives to propose modifications to programs during faculty meetings, but not directly related to policy
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8138
www.rsisinternational.org
making or more effective governance with clear terms of reference (ToR).
Institutions such as LUMS and IBA Karachi administer feedback questionnaires in the middle and end of the
semester in order to gather student opinions on course design, teaching effectiveness, and learning resources.
The information is then used to assess the program and evaluate the instructors.
In comparison, it is observed that many of the above models are driven by quality assurance, which sets the
student involvement in defined roles. However, the student participation in various levels is not always assured,
as standards provide a generic guideline without specifying the type or expectations of the involvement. The
western models had provided a more interactive and governing role, which was again guided by the quality
assurance models. This emphasizes the role of the regulatory bodies or the quality assurance models in involving
students as key stakeholders. However, the goal of the participation, the extension of this role, and the
governance of ensuring well-defined and systematic involvement are not explicitly set, resulting in various
models of student involvement that do not always achieve the required expectations.
A pilot study at Khyber Girls Medical College of Pakistan (Khyber Medical University-affiliated medical
college) confirmed that the student’s feedback will help in improving the overall quality of the curriculum
(Mahsood et al., 2019).
In another study conducted at Khyber Medical University, the students’ feedback on teachers’ performance was
analyzed. The findings revealed a significant improvement in teacher performance. Teacher’s evaluations by
students proved to be a valuable tool, fostering a collaborative environment where teachers and students worked
together to achieve shared learning goals (Bukhari et al., 2017).
A qualitative study at medical colleges in Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, explored the views of undergraduate
medical students regarding their participation in medical curriculum development. The student’s involvement
increased their motivation to learn, suggested improvement in faculty teaching skills and strategies, enhanced
dialogue with teachers, and supported student self-esteem and productive faculty-student relationships (Qazi et
al., 2019).
Reflections on the Governance Model in Pakistan:
• LUMS has created a solid feedback system that involves handing students questionnaires halfway
through the semester and again at the end of the semester. Students assess the course material, the
instructors' performance, and the effectiveness of the teaching techniques. This information is utilized to
make modifications to the curriculum and to assess faculty members (LUMS, 2021). Advisory groups
that include members of the student population are also involved in strategic decision-making.
• NUST includes students in focus groups and curriculum advisory boards. The QEC's methods ensure
that student feedback is taken into account when developing programs and examinations for
accreditation. Despite these attempts, students might only participate in consultation and not in decision-
making (NUST, 2021).
• The University of Karachi has recently reintroduced student advisory councils as a component of its
governance structure. These committees are responsible for addressing issues related to academic
challenges and participating in discussions over changes to the curriculum (Punjab University, 2021). On
the other hand, the lack of digital venues for participation remains a significant challenge.
• A qualitative study at medical colleges in Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, presents that the students’
involvement increased their motivation to learn, suggested improvement in faculty teaching skills and
strategies, enhanced dialogue with teachers, and supported student self-esteem and productive faculty-
student relationships.
Models Of Governance in the Middle and the Arab Region
In the Arabian Gulf States, frameworks such as Vision 2030 prioritize student participation in institutional
governance and quality assurance processes. Quality assurance authorities such as NCAAA in Saudi Arabia are
heading to frameworks that are transiting from traditional governance to participatory models. While both Saudi
Arabia and Europe are working towards participatory models, they are not adopting the same ways to implement
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8139
www.rsisinternational.org
these models. In Saudi Arabia, the transformation is being driven by national reforms and the increasing
standards of the NCAAA. The idea of including stakeholders is gradually being included in these standards. On
the other hand, participatory governance in Europe is firmly established in legislative frameworks such as the
Bologna Process and the ESG, which require that students be represented as a basic entitlement. The NCAAA's
standards mandate that mission statements and program developments be defined in consultation with major
stakeholders, ensuring their involvement in planning and decision-making (NCAAA, 2018).
The students of King Saud University are actively engaged in curriculum advisory committees and program
evaluations, which is indicative of the broader regional trend towards participatory governance (King Saud
University, 2023). Nevertheless, regional quality assurance organizations, including the NCAAA, promote
student participation; however, they do not require it (NCAAA, 2018). Additionally, Qatar University has
implemented digital platforms for surveys and real-time feedback to ensure that governance remains in alignment
with the most recent technological advancements (Qatar University, 2023).
The HEC Bahrain encourages students to take part in institutional governance by campaigning for their inclusion
in advisory and accreditation bodies. This includes information collected during institutional reviews and quality
audits. Student representation is mandatory in institutional councils, quality assurance committees, and grievance
mechanisms in Bahrain's governance models (Higher Education Council, 2023). The University of Bahrain
(UoB) demonstrates structured student inclusion through the implementation of annual surveys and focus groups
during accreditation processes (University of Bahrain, 2022). Ombudsman positions are responsible for the
resolution of grievances, thereby guaranteeing transparency and impartiality (University of Bahrain, 2022).
Bahrain's leadership in the integration of technology into governance is further demonstrated by digital feedback
platforms, which further enhance student engagement (Ahlia University, 2022). For instance, the University of
Bahrain (UoB) includes student representatives in its Academic Council and Quality Assurance Committees.
This guarantees that their perspectives are taken into consideration when decisions are made.
Both program evaluations and student satisfaction surveys are applied in Arabian Gulf University (AGU) and
Ahlia University to receive student feedback by means of satisfaction questionnaires (AGU, 2023; Ahlia
University, 2022). The results of these surveys affect how teachers are evaluated, how programs are reorganized,
and how resources are allocated. Focus groups for curriculum development are implemented at Ahlia University,
holding student focus groups during program reviews/accreditation cycles to get detailed input regarding the
relevance of the curriculum, teaching methods, and course delivery.
Digital platforms are utilized for student engagement, such as student feedback portals involving students. For
example, feedback portals are used at the University of Bahrain that allow students to share their opinions on the
quality of their courses, learning materials, and overall experience (AGU, 2023; Al‐Alawi et al., 2009; Alhamad
et al., 2018; University of Bahrain, 2022).
Student councils are also implemented in most of the universities in Bahrain (Higher Education Council, 2023).
For example, universities provide student councils the power to work closely with the administrative personnel.
For instance, student councils regularly meet with university management to advocate for improvements to
academic resources and campus facilities. This ensures that the concerns of students are expressed in a fair
manner at the level of governance. Student representatives in other higher-level councils, such as the department,
college, and university councils, are limited in most universities. The usual case is involving them in the councils
when needed (AGU, 2023; Al‐Alawi et al., 2009; Alhamad et al., 2018; Alhamad & Aladwan, 2017).
In the United Arab Emirates, the universities are required, as per the national quality standards in higher
education, to have students be part of advisory groups that evaluate the curriculum (Lizzio & Wilson, 2009). It
is to be noted that the majority of the institutions in the Arab region (for example, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,
Qatar, Oman) have created student unions or councils as part of their governance structure. These groups provide
elected student representatives with the opportunity to express their worries, propose enhancements, and take
part in committees (Lizzio & Wilson, 2009).
Reflection on Governance Models in the Middle East and Arab Region
Bahrain has made great progress in encouraging students to take part in governance as a regular practice. The
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8140
www.rsisinternational.org
Higher Education Council (HEC Bahrain) mandates that students be included in quality assurance committees
and other decision-making organizations.
• University of Bahrain (UoB): UoB is a pioneer in Bahrain because it involves students in every phase of
the quality assurance process. Students participate in university accreditation by sharing their thoughts
in surveys and focus groups. The university's ombudsman system quickly resolves any issues and ensures
that judgments are made in a fashion that is easy to comprehend (University of Bahrain, 2022).
• Ahlia University: Ahlia University frequently conducts focus groups as part of the process of obtaining
accreditation. Students provide feedback on the relevance of the course topic, the professors' level of
competence, and the usefulness of the learning resources. The university's strategic planning includes the
results (Ahlia University, 2022).
• Arabian Gulf University (AGU): AGU has adopted a participatory governance approach, which means
that students are involved in the creation of the institution and the assessment of its quality. Regular
workshops make this collaboration possible by giving students and professors the opportunity to better
understand one another (AGU, 2023). Governance Models from the Middle East Governance paradigms
are shifting in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, due to regional
frameworks like Vision 2030, which stress the need for participatory government.
• King Saud University, Saudi Arabia: Students are involved in the curriculum committees and institutional
quality evaluation panels. These platforms provide students with the opportunity to express their thoughts
on instructional techniques, learning materials, and infrastructure (King Saud University, 2023). That
being said, there are still problems, like the limited independence of student delegates.
• American University of Sharjah (AUS), UAE: AUS promotes student involvement in strategic planning
by organizing seminars and hackathons. This allows students to contribute their innovative ideas to the
development of the curriculum and the policies of the institution. These procedures guarantee that
governance is in accordance with the present standards of the education system, according to the
American University of Sharjah (American University of Sharjah, 2022).
• Qatar University (QU): QU has implemented digital technology for governance, allowing students to
give feedback in real time. This system enables quick action to be done in response to student concerns
and enhances transparency in decision-making (Qatar University, 2023).
Governance Models In North America
Student engagement is prioritized by North American universities through state policies, advisory committees,
and quality assurance mechanisms. Student participation in decision-making processes is mandated by policies
such as the Student Voice Act in specific jurisdictions by the American Council on Education (ACE) (American
Council Education, 2018). Students have the opportunity to influence institutional policies and budget
allocations by participating in Board of Regents meetings as members of the University of California System
(University of California, 2022). In order to fortify student governance in quality assurance processes,
comprehensive surveys and focus groups are implemented (CHEA, 2019).
Reflection on Governance Models in North America
In North America, institutions place a high value on student engagement, as demonstrated by state law, advisory
boards, and quality assurance methods.
• University of California System, USA: Students at the University of California System take part in Board
of Regents meetings, where they express their opinions on budgets, academic programs, and campus
infrastructure. The system's comprehensive survey techniques also increase student participation
(University of California, 2022).
• University of Toronto, Canada: The University of Toronto is mostly overseen by advisory boards and
focus groups. Students work together with instructors and administrators to develop regulations for the
curriculum and criteria for quality assurance (CHEA, 2019).
• Harvard University, USA: Harvard University includes students in its Graduate Council and curricular
committees, which guarantees that their opinions have an impact on academic and administrative
decisions (CHEA, 2019).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8141
www.rsisinternational.org
Governance Models In The Asia-Pacific Region
As per the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (AQF, 2018), Australia integrates student guilds into the
process of academic and administrative decision-making by implementing a governance model that is guild-
based. The University of Sydney and the Australian National University guarantee that students are engaged in
the quality assurance process and the development of curricula (University of Sydney, 2022). The aggregation
of feedback is facilitated by anonymous surveys and digital platforms, which in turn foster a culture of inclusivity
and accountability (University of Melbourne, 2023).
Reflection on Governance Models in Asia-Pacific Region
In Australia, the government is organized around guilds, and student guilds have a significant role in the process
of making decisions.
• University of Sydney: The University of Sydney incorporates student guilds within its academic and
administrative governance. These guilds assist students in pursuing their interests and provide support
with curricular adjustments and quality assurance methods (University of Sydney, 2022).
• Australian National University (ANU): ANU provides seminars on strategic planning that include
students and are conducted by guilds. The college also provides students with several opportunities to
share their thoughts. These activities promote a culture of collaboration between students and university
leadership (Bateman Giles Pty Ltd, 2006).
• University of Melbourne: The digital platforms at the University of Melbourne allow students to remark
on governance problems as they emerge, which supports inclusion and efficiency (University of
Melbourne, 2023).
Strategies For Involving Students As Part Of The Governance Models
There are many different ways to involve students, regardless of the type of governance model. The following
are many methods and strategies for including students as key stakeholders in the quality assurance (QA) process
in higher education: 1) providing a group of practices for students’ involvement in the assessment of the program,
2) providing a group of practices for students’ involvement in curriculum development, 3) providing a group of
practices for students’ involvement in quality assurance standards, 4) providing a group of practices for
acknowledging students’ engagement, 5) providing a group of practices for increased participation from the
community. Table 1 summarizes the various students’ involvement in higher education institutions.
Table 1: Models for Students’ Involvement in Higher Education
Aspect
Pakistan
Bahrain
Middle
East (e.g.,
UAE,
Saudi
Arabia)
North
America
(USA,
Canada)
Asia-Pacific
(e.g.,
Australia)
References
Student
Representat
ion
Student
advisory
councils,
reintroduced
unions, and
participation
in QECs
(HEC
Pakistan).
Mandatory
student
representat
ion in QA
committees
, student
councils,
and
ombudsma
n roles
(HEC
Bahrain).
Representat
ion in
advisory
boards,
curriculum
committees,
and QA
panels (e.g.,
UAE and
Saudi
Vision 2030
initiatives).
Student
advisory
boards,
policies
like the
Student
Voice Act,
representati
on in
governing
boards
(American
Council on
Education).
Student
guilds
integrated
into
academic
and policy-
making
bodies
(University
of Sydney,
Australian
National
University).
(American Council
Education, 2018;
European-
Commission/EACEA/Eur
ydice, 2018; Higher
Education Commission,
2020; Toumi, 2018)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8142
www.rsisinternational.org
Feedback
Mechanism
s
Surveys
conducted
by QECs,
program
feedback
forms, and
focus groups
(LUMS,
NUST).
Digital
portals,
satisfaction
surveys,
and focus
groups
during
program
accreditati
on
(University
of
Bahrain).
Surveys,
focus
groups, and
participator
y planning
workshops
(King Saud
University,
Qatar
University).
Extensive
surveys,
peer
reviews,
and
advisory
board
feedback
(University
of
California
System).
Anonymous
surveys,
guild
feedback
systems, and
faculty-
student
evaluations
(Australian
Quality
Framework)
.
(King Saud University,
2023; LUMS, 2021;
University of Bahrain,
2022; University of
Edinburgh, 2020)
QA
Integration
QECs
include
student
representativ
es for
program
evaluations
and
accreditation
processes
(HEC
Pakistan).
Students
participate
in QA
audits,
satisfaction
surveys,
and
institutiona
l
governance
(HEC
Bahrain).
Regional
QA bodies
like
NCAAA
and CNAQ
support
student
inclusion in
QA (e.g.,
Saudi
Arabia,
Qatar).
Accreditati
on bodies
enforce
student
involveme
nt in QA
processes
(Council
for Higher
Education
Accreditati
on,
CHEA).
National QA
standards
integrate
student
guilds into
QA
frameworks
(Australian
Qualificatio
ns
Framework)
.
(CHEA, 2019; European-
Commission/EACEA/Eur
ydice, 2018; Higher
Education Commission,
2020; The National
Unions of Students of
Europe, 2002)
Grievance
Mechanism
s
Developing
ombudsman
roles in
select
institutions
(e.g.,
COMSATS)
.
Established
ombudsma
n offices to
address
grievances
(University
of
Bahrain).
Piloting
ombudsman
roles in
some
universities,
grievance
redressal
via councils
(American
University
of Sharjah).
Formalized
grievance
mechanism
s through
ombudsme
n or
committees
(University
of
California
System).
Guilds act
as
intermediari
es for
grievance
resolution
(University
of Sydney,
2022)
(American University of
Sharjah, 2022; University
of Bahrain, 2022;
University of Oslo, 2020)
Curriculum
Developme
nt
Feedback
integrated
via surveys,
student
advisory
councils,
and focus
groups
(Institute of
Business
Administrati
on, 2025).
Focus
groups
during
accreditati
on cycles
and regular
feedback
mechanism
s (Ahlia
University)
.
Curriculum
committees
allow
student
input;
occasional
curriculum
hackathons
(American
University
of Sharjah,
2022)
Advisory
boards and
focus
groups
collect
student
input for
curriculum
changes
(University
of
Toronto).
Guilds and
focus groups
propose and
co-design
new
curricula
(Australian
Universities
Accord).
(Ahlia University, 2022;
American University of
Sharjah, 2022; Baird,
2010; Bradley et al.,
2008; Brewer & Walker,
2010; Institute of
Business Administration,
2025; University of
Helsinki, 2021;
University of Toronto
Students’ Union, 2025)
Digital
Platforms
Limited use
of online
feedback
mechanisms
Online
portals for
real-time
feedback
Expanding
use of
digital
platforms
Centralized
online
platforms
for
Comprehens
ive digital
platforms
for
(Higher Education
Commission, 2020;
University of Bahrain,
2022; University of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8143
www.rsisinternational.org
(HEC
Pakistan).
and QA
input
(University
of
Bahrain).
for surveys
and
governance
input (e.g.,
UAE,
Qatar).
continuous
student
engagemen
t
(University
of
California
System).
governance
participation
and
feedback
collection
(Australian
National
University).
California, 2022;
University of Sydney,
2022)(University of
Oxford, 2023).
National
QA
Framework
s
HEC
mandates
QECs to
involve
students
indirectly in
QA
processes
(HEC
Pakistan).
HEC
Bahrain
promotes
active
student
involveme
nt in QA
reviews
(HEC
Bahrain).
Regional
frameworks
(e.g.,
NCAAA,
CNAQ)
support
student
inclusion
(Saudi
Arabia,
Qatar).
Accreditati
on bodies
enforce
student
involveme
nt in QA
processes
(CHEA,
USA).
National QA
standards
integrate
student
guilds into
QA
frameworks
(Australian
Qualificatio
ns
Framework)
.
(AQF, 2018; CHEA,
2019; European-
Commission/EACEA/Eur
ydice, 2018; Higher
Education Commission,
2020; NCAAA, 2018)
Student-
Led
Initiatives
Limited to
union
activities
and campus-
level
advocacy
(Punjab
University).
Student
councils
engage in
advocacy
and
governance
partnership
s
(University
of
Bahrain).
Regional
collaboratio
ns and local
initiatives
for
participator
y
governance
(Arabian
Gulf
University).
Student-
driven
advisory
networks
and
leadership
councils
(Council
for Higher
Education
Accreditati
on, USA).
Student
guilds
manage
initiatives
with
institutional
collaboratio
n
(University
of Sydney).
(AGU, 2023; Punjab
University, 2021; The
National Unions of
Students of Europe, 2002;
University of Bahrain,
2022; University of
Sydney, 2022)
BUILDING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This study is guided by a conceptual framework that links institutional autonomy, student participation, and
digital hybrid models as interdependent drivers shaping governance and quality assurance in higher education
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Linking Institutional Autonomy, Student Participation, and Digital Hybrid
Models
Institutional autonomy represents the degree of policy flexibility, financial control, and academic independence
that institutions possess to design inclusive governance systems. Autonomy provides the structural capacity for
student voice to be institutionalized without excessive external interference.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8144
www.rsisinternational.org
Student participation refers to formal and informal mechanisms, such as representation in academic councils,
feedback systems, and co-creation in curriculum design, that ensure that the student perspective is integrated
into decision-making and policy development. Participation legitimizes governance by fostering transparency
and shared responsibility.
Digital hybrid models integrate e-governance tools, real-time feedback analytics, and online quality assurance
dashboards that extend participation beyond physical meetings. These systems enhance responsiveness,
inclusivity, and data-driven decision-making, especially in post-COVID hybrid environments.
Quality Assurance and Policy Impact occupy the central position in the model, representing the ultimate outcome
of the interaction between these three pillars. When autonomy supports participatory practices and digital
systems are effectively implemented, institutions achieve higher levels of accountability, continuous
improvement, and stakeholder trust.
In this framework, the bidirectional arrows illustrate a dynamic and cyclical relationship: Autonomy enables
participatory governance, while active student involvement strengthens institutional legitimacy. Digital hybrid
systems reinforce both autonomy and participation through transparency, analytics, and feedback loops. The
outcome, which I would name “effective quality assurance,” feeds back into institutional policies, reinforcing
improvement cycles and sustainability in governance.
To reflect the conceptual framework on the different governance models, providing examples will be beneficial.
For example, several institutions in Europe (for example, Germany and Finland) provide institutional autonomy,
encouraging their students to take up roles in governance bodies, such as university senates, faculty boards, and
departmental committees. This is a legal requirement and is referred to as a co-governance model. For example,
the University of Helsinki (University of Helsinki, 2021, 2023) reserves up to 25% of its senate seats for students,
which guarantees that their opinions will have an influence on strategic choices. Similarly, in the United States,
there are several states that have legislation, such as the Student Voice Act, that forces universities to incorporate
students in the decision-making process. Student advisory boards are created by universities in collaboration
with quality assurance departments. For example, the University of California System has student representatives
who attend Board of Regents meetings to discuss changes to governance and policy.
With the same objective of student involvement as part of the governance model, the HEIs in the United
Kingdom and Ireland implement the Student Partnership Agreement (SPA) model, which is used by universities
to outline the specific duties of students and staff in governance. Curriculum co-design and institutional quality
assurance functions are often included in the services that SPAs provide. For instance, the University of
Edinburgh hires SPAs to formally include students in the development of an inclusive curriculum.
Enhancing governance through student involvement is employed by the Scandinavian institutions (for example,
those in Sweden and Norway), using models that feature student ombudsmen who serve as intermediaries
between students and the university administration to ensure that governance is fair.
The digital hybrid model in the Arab region increased and enhanced student involvement; however, some parts
of the region are providing power through effective governance representation, which is to be part of the
hierarchical model. The efforts by the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE)
were supportive and guiding but not enforcive to motivate students to participate in quality assurance, although
the techniques that are employed to do this differ from one region to another. Serious efforts out of the norm in
KSA and UAE include students in participatory workshops for institutional planning and assessment,
participation in accreditation and quality assurance reviews, and provide special emphasis on the involvement
of students in the design of universities. Incorporating students in the curriculum and quality assurance
committees in most regions does not yet have the same level of legislative support for institutional autonomy as
required in the conceptual framework. In spite of the fact that governance models differ across regions, the
integration of digital platforms, mandatory student representation, and structured grievance mechanisms are
prevalent trends. Nevertheless, obstacles persist, including the inconsistent implementation of technology (e.g.,
Pakistan) and the absence of policy mandates in specific regions (e.g., the Middle East). The implementation of
hybrid governance models, which integrate innovative digital tools with traditional practices, is advised to rectify
these deficiencies. The governance model in the Middle East and the Asian region could be upgraded through
engaging students (by policy) to influence institutional policies and budget allocations. In the Middle East, there
had been recent implementations in the last few years involving student representatives on boards that manage
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8145
www.rsisinternational.org
academic-industry linkages, such as being part of Saudi Aramco's Educational Programs. However, this example
is very limitedly implemented in the region.
Comparative Study of Models Of Higher Education Student Governance
Reflecting differences in institutional design, legislative constraints, and cultural circumstances, the governance
models for student involvement in higher education vary widely amongst nations. Trends, best practices, and
challenges in student engagement are found by performing a comparative analysis of governance policies in
Pakistan, Bahrain, the Middle East, Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Supported by regulatory
responsibilities such as the Bologna Process and the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG), European
countries have the most organized systems of student involvement. These systems allow students to participate
in academic senates, regulating bodies, and quality assurance processes. Two examples are the Student
Partnership Agreement (SPA) of the University of Edinburgh and Germany's demand for student involvement
in university decision-making.
Governance models in the United States and Canada likewise give student engagement significant emphasis,
with universities involving students in advisory boards and decision-making committees, including Harvard and
the University of California System. Policies such as the Student Voice Act enable certain states to ensure
responsibility and transparency, therefore motivating student involvement.
Student guilds provide the foundation of basic governing systems in Australian institutions. Though with an eye
towards digital engagement, these guilds actively participate in institutional quality assurance, curriculum
development, and decision-making following a European model.
Although Saudi Vision 2030 encourages student involvement, legally driven involvement is not as robust as in
Europe. Universities like King Saud University and the American University of Sharjah include students on
advisory panels even if enforcement is still unequal. Bahrain exhibits one of the most orderly models in the
Middle East, with required student representation in quality assurance committees and grievance processes at
institutions such as Ahlia University and the University of Bahrain. Still, institutional culture shapes student
impact to some extent.
HEC set up QECs to compile student opinions, basically shaping Pakistan's student government system. While
universities such as LUMS and NUST have established advisory committees, engagement often is more
consultative than directive. Though different institutions use different strategies, digital participation is still
somewhat low. Summarizing, it is observed that Europe and Australia have the greatest student government
systems, whereas North America blends student participation via advisory models. The Middle East and Pakistan
are heading towards participatory democracy even if they struggle to implement it.
To speed up and organize student comments, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain have efficiently applied
digital governance systems. Online methods for quality assurance evaluations, feedback reporting, and
governance engagement exist for students of the University of Sydney and the University of Melbourne.
Bahrain's universities also use digital platforms for real-time student participation. Pakistan has not entirely
merged digital platforms for administration. Institutions like NUST and LUMS perform feedback surveys even
though involvement is not totally systematized. European institutions use digital technology with traditional
student governing structures in hybrid fashion. For instance, the University of Oxford and the University of
Helsinki employ internet portals with required student representation in university councils. Summarizing, using
hybrid systems combining digital engagement with legal obligations (Europe) would enhance student
engagement.
Europe stands out for their very clear student roles in quality assurance (QA). Their universities demand student
involvement in QA audits, accrediting panels, and courses of assessment.
Under advisory councils and feedback surveys in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Pakistan, students
participate in QA processes; yet, in most cases, they lack decision-making authority. Students at King Saud
University and Qatar University engage in program reviews, although a statutory mandate for coordinated
engagement is lacking.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8146
www.rsisinternational.org
Universities in the USA, Canada, and Australia often establish advisory boards for quality assurance and probe
students' level of pleasure. Unlike Europe, though, engagement is institutionally driven rather than legally
enforced. The student seats in bodies of decision-making are reflected in the Bologna Process. While institutional
governance rules North America and Australia, Europe seeks student QA involvement. Though Pakistan and the
Middle East show improvement, they still need stronger legal structures for regular student involvement.
Structural obstacles & insufficient policy implementation were the main challenges. Extending legal
responsibilities to include co-governance duties outside of advisory roles is crucial for enhancing student
engagement. Table 2 shows the comparative synthesis of governance models for student participation in higher
education.
The comparative analysis reveals areas of success and challenges in student governance across several nations.
Lack of policy enforcement and structural barriers.
Digital utilization in student engagement.
Unequal representation and influence.
Table 2. Comparative Synthesis of Governance Models for Student Participation in Higher Education
Region
Legislative Mandate for
Student Representation
Digital Governance
& Feedback
Systems
Extent of Student
Participation in QA
& Curriculum
Governance
Distinctive
Features/Observed
Gaps
Europe
(e.g., UK,
Germany,
Finland)
Legally mandated through
the Bologna Process and
ESG: student seats in
senates, councils, and QA
panels.
Highly digitalized
QA portals (e.g.,
University of
Oxford, Helsinki).
Active co-creation
via Student
Partnership
Agreements
(SPAs).
Mature co-
governance culture;
strong policy
enforcement.
North
America
(USA,
Canada)
State laws (e.g., Student
Voice Act) and
accreditation agencies
(CHEA) require
involvement.
Centralized survey
dashboards and
advisory board
feedback systems.
Students sit on
advisory/regents
boards and
accreditation
teams.
Engagement is
policy-driven but
decentralized.
Asia-Pacific
(Australia,
New
Zealand)
AQF promotes guild-
based governance with
student representation.
Robust hybrid
digital platforms
(Sydney,
Melbourne).
Students co-design
curriculum and
participate in QA
reviews.
Digital governance
is well-embedded;
strong student
guilds.
Middle East
(Saudi
Arabia,
UAE,
Qatar)
QA bodies (NCAAA,
CNAQ) recommend but
do not legally mandate
participation.
Emerging online
feedback and real-
time QA systems
(QU, AUS).
Students engaged
in advisory boards
and focus groups.
Limited autonomy;
participation
depends on
institutional
culture.
Bahrain
(GCC
Model)
HEC mandates
representation in QA
committees and grievance
systems.
Nationally
promoted digital
feedback portals
(UoB, Ahlia).
Students in
advisory and QA
councils; structured
ombudsman roles.
Regional
benchmark for
participatory digital
governance.
Pakistan
HEC establishes Quality
Enhancement Cells
(QECs) to include student
feedback.
Developing digital
engagement, mainly
surveys and forms.
Student councils
and unions are in
the re-emergence
stage.
Implementation is
inconsistent; digital
adoption is
minimal.
These findings direct institutions to carry out the following strategies to raise student participation in governance:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8147
www.rsisinternational.org
Combining digital platforms with traditional controlling mechanisms will increase access and real-time
engagement. Building digital governance tools should not only receive student input but also enhance their
engagement and allow for tracking governance decisions.
Improve legal systems for student involvement. This may demand student seats in bodies of decision-making.
This means that legal responsibilities are extended to include co-governance duties outside of advisory roles.
In line with the decision-making role, the institution should work on developing students’ capacity development.
This may involve providing structured seminars for student leaders on democratic processes. The institution
should make sure that student representatives not only provide views but also actively engage in decisions.
Measuring how student feedback shapes political decisions is critical for this student’s engagement.
Policy Implications and Strategic Recommendations
The comparative review reveals that embedding student voice within governance frameworks requires not only
participatory intent but also enforceable and technologically adaptive systems. The following policy implications
are proposed for developing nations and transitional higher-education systems. Efforts should be implemented
to ensure legislative institutionalization of student voice. Governments could embed student representation
clauses within higher education and quality assurance laws, similar to the Bologna Process or AQF mandates.
In addition, HEIs should integrate hybrid digital governance models through established centralized digital
platforms where students can submit feedback, participate in QA reviews, and track institutional responses in
real time. On the other hand, students should be introduced to structured training on governance literacy to be
leaders on quality-assurance frameworks and data ethics for student representatives. Independent grievance-
resolution offices should be mandated in each institution to ensure impartial handling of student concerns.
Moreover, national QA agencies (e.g., HEC, NCAAA) should align their criteria with ESG principles, requiring
evidence of student participation in program reviews and accreditation cycles. Annual institutional reports should
include student participation indicators (e.g., proportion of committees with student representation, response-to-
feedback ratios).
CONCLUSIONS
For institutions of higher education to be both inclusive and effective, it is necessary that students engage in
governance and quality assurance (QA). Governance models vary from nation to country due to the disparities
in culture, laws, and institutions that exist between them. However, they all have the same goal: to provide
children with the opportunity to participate in activities.
Countries such as Pakistan and Bahrain have made great progress in incorporating student input into their quality
assurance (QA) systems. They have achieved this by using procedures like QECs and mandating that students
take part in organizations that make decisions. Bahrain has implemented grievance mechanisms and digital
platforms, which offer them an edge over Pakistan in terms of digital adoption and the enforcement of
regulations.
In the Middle East, initiatives supported by frameworks such as Saudi Vision 2030 have made participatory
government easier, yet there are still gaps in legislation. It is a legal requirement for colleges in Europe to create
models of representation. These are some of the most effective methods for promoting openness and
accountability. In North America, both state laws and advisory panels place a similar focus on student
involvement in institutions. At the same time, Australia's guild-based approach effectively gets students involved
in governance structures by leveraging digital platforms and collaborative ways.
Even if there are differences across areas, there are also numerous parallels that are becoming more and more
obvious. These include the growing dependence on technology to improve student involvement, the need for
clear regulations about representation, and the desire for efforts that promote the ability to make student
contributions more meaningful. That said, there are still certain sectors where growth is being impeded by
impediments such as outmoded governance structures, insufficient technological infrastructure, and uneven
execution of quality assurance standards. In order to solve these deficiencies, it is vital to build hybrid governance
models that mix historic institutions with current technologies, legislative mandates for student representation,
and a culture of inclusiveness. By tackling these difficulties, educational institutions throughout the world may
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8148
www.rsisinternational.org
make sure that students' thoughts are not only heard but also taken into account when making choices regarding
the future of higher education.
The conceptual framework proposed in this paper integrates institutional autonomy, student participation,
and digital hybrid models as interdependent dimensions of modern governance. When autonomy empowers
institutions to design inclusive systems, student participation ensures transparency, while digital models sustain
continuous feedback and accountability. Together, these interactions reinforce quality assurance and policy
impact, creating a dynamic loop of participatory improvement. The framework therefore provides an analytical
foundation for future research and policy design in inclusive governance. The above-mentioned
recommendations of the policy implications and strategic recommendations section highlight a roadmap for
higher education systems seeking to institutionalize student voice.
In conclusion, strengthening the synergy between institutional autonomy, student participation, and digital
governance can ensure that student voice is not merely consultative but truly decision-shaping. This model
positions students as active partners in ensuring accountability, relevance, and innovation within higher
education institutions. The findings thus offer both a theoretical contribution, through the proposed conceptual
framework, and a practical roadmap for policy reform and institutional enhancement across diverse regional
contexts.
REFERENCES
1. AGU. (2023). Participatory Governance and Student Engagement in Bahrain. Arabian Gulf
University.
2. Ahlia University. (2022). Focus Groups and Accreditation Cycles. Ahlia University.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
9. American Council Education. (2018). Student Voice Act and Governance Models. American Council
on Education.
10. American University of Sharjah. (2022). Annual Report 2022–2023.
https://www.aus.edu/sites/default/files/annual_report_0.pdf
11. AQF. (2018). National Standards and Student Governance. AQF Council.
12. Baird, J. (2010). Proceedings of Australian Universities Quality Forum 2010. In null: Vol. null.
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8149
www.rsisinternational.org
14. Bateman Giles Pty Ltd. (2006). Review of the Australian Universities quality agency, final report,
May 2006. In null: Vol. null.
15. Bologna Process. (2007). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESG). European Higher Education Area.
16. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H. & Scales, W. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education
Final Report. In null: Vol. null.
17. Brewer, A. & Walker, I. (2010). Proceedings of the Australian Quality Forum 2010. In null: Vol. null.
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
19. CHEA. (2019). The Role of Students in Institutional Accreditation. CHEA.
20. Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, E. (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna
Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union.
21. ENQA. (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education
Area (ESG). ENQA.
22. ENQA. (2023). Student Participation in QA Processes. ENQA.
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.
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
25. Harvey, L. & Purser, L. (2006a). EUA Bologna Handbook: Making Bologna work. In null: Vol. null.
26. Harvey, L. & Purser, L. (2006b). EUA Bologna Handbook: Making Bologna Work. European
University Association.
27. Higher Education Commission. (2020). Quality Assurance Framework in Higher Education
Institutions. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.
28. Higher Education Council. (2023). Student Involvement in Governance: Policy Guidelines. Higher
Education Council Bahrain.
29. Institute of Business Administration. (2025). Student Council and Societies.
https://www.iba.edu.pk/society-guidelines.php
30. King Saud University. (2023). Student Involvement in Quality Assurance Frameworks: Saudi Arabia
Case Study. King Saud University.
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
32. LUMS. (2021). Student Feedback and QA Integration: Annual Report. LUMS.
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.
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
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
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
37. NCAAA. (2018). Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education
Institutions. NCAAA.
38. NUST. (2021). Quality Enhancement Strategies and Student Involvement. NUST.
39. Punjab University. (2021). Reintroduction of Student Unions and Advocacy Roles. Punjab University.
40. Qatar University. (2023). Digital Transformation in QA and Governance. Qatar University.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8150
www.rsisinternational.org
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
42. The National Unions of Students of Europe. (2002). European Student Handbook on Quality
Assurance in Higher Education (ESIB, Ed.).
43. Toumi, H. (2018). Higher Education Council to hand out 355 “controversial” degrees. Gulf News.
44. University of Bahrain. (2022). Annual Report on Student Feedback Mechanisms. University of
Bahrain.
45. University of California. (2022). Annual Governance Report. University of California System.
46. University of Edinburgh. (2020). Student Partnership Agreements: A Case Study. University of
Edinburgh.
47. University of Heidelberg. (2023). Student Representation in Governance. University of Heidelberg.
48. University of Helsinki. (2021). Annual Review 2021. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/about-us/university-
helsinki/annual-reviews
49. University of Helsinki. (2023). Mandated Student Participation in Curriculum Committees. University
of Helsinki.
50. University of Manchester. (2023). Financial Statements for the year ending 31 July 2023.
https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=71367
51. University of Melbourne. (2023). Digital Platforms for Governance and Feedback. University of
Melbourne.
52. University of Oslo. (2020). Ombudsman Roles and Student Grievance Mechanisms. University of
Oslo.
53. University of Oxford. (2023). Digital Platforms for Participatory Governance. University of Oxford.
54. University of Sydney. (2022). Student Guilds and Governance Structures. University of Sydney.
55. University of Toronto Students’ Union. (2025). About UTSU. https://www.utsu.ca/about/