The influence of soft and hard quality management practices on quality improvement and performance in UAE higher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research examines the debated relationship between quality management and innovation using a multidimensional quality management perspective. The quality performance that is supposed to result from the adoption of quality management is investigated further as a possible mediator between quality management and innovation in the higher education sector. The data needed to test the hypotheses was gathered by sending a survey via the internet to the faculty members at universities in the United Arab Emirates. Applying the approach of structural equation modelling with partial least squares, the hypothesised associations between 175 respondents are evaluated. According to the findings, implementing rigorous quality management has a direct as well as indirect impact on innovation performance via its impact on quality performance. The impacts of soft quality management on hard quality management have indirect consequences on innovation performance. The association between rigorous quality management and innovation performance is moderated in part by quality performance. This study provides one of the initial studies to apply the multidimensional method of quality management in higher education and has the potential to assist directors in better comprehending the interdependencies between soft and hard quality practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".