Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences
Skip Navigation Links
Available Issues
Editorial Board
Information for Authors
Review Process
Links and Contacts
  Zanko J Med Sci:  Dec. 2016; 20 (3): 1520-1530

Perspectives of teaching staff about quality assurance process in Hawler Medical University: Q-methodology


Background and objective: quality assurance is the planned and systematic review of an institution to determine whether or not acceptable standards of education and infrastructure are being met, maintained and enhanced. This study intended to explore the perspectives of teaching staff about quality assurance process with the aim of uncovering commonalities and discrepancies among staff from the different educational background.

Methods: This explorative study was conducted in Erbil governorate, Iraq. Data were collected using Q methodology, a technique for eliciting subjective views and identifying shared patterns among individuals. A sample of 40 teaching staff in Hawler Medical University from the different educational background and academic titles were invited to sort a set of 42 statements reflecting various aspects of the quality assurance process into a distribution on a scale of nine from "disagree most" to "agree most." By-person factor analysis was used to derive latent views through centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation of factors.

Results: Analysis of the participants’ Q sorts resulted in identifying four distinct views and experiences of quality assurance process: (i) Accepting the current quality assurance process with constructive criticism, (ii) Actively opposing the quality assurance process, (iii) General satisfaction with quality assurance process and (iv) Students’ feedback concern. The typical characterizations that were associated with each view were highlighted.

Conclusions: This study revealed different patterns of views and experiences of teaching staff about quality assurance process and recognized the particular issues related to each pattern.

Keywords: Quality assurance; Hawler Medical University; Kurdistan region; Erbil.


1. Sauvca. Quality assurance in South African universities. Views from SAUVCA’s National Quality Assurance Forum; 2002.

2. Materu P. Higher Education Quality Assurance in Sub-saharan Africa: status, challenges, opportunities, and promising practices. World Bank Working Paper No.124.

3. The World Bank; Washington D.C. USA; 2007. Harvey L, Green D. “Defining Quality.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 1993; 18(1):9–34.

4. Ncayiyana, Daniel J. Higher Education Quality Assurance and Accreditation in South Africa.”; 2006.

5. Stensaker B. Trance, Transparency and Transformation: The Impact of External Quality Monitoring on Higher Education.” Quality in Higher Education 2003; 9(2):151–9.

6. Khailany B, Linzey S. quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Kurdistan Region. Available at Accessed at 8 Feb 2016.

7. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. On route to quality: The reformation of Higher Education in Kurdistan Region, Iraq; 2011.

8. Shinebourne P, Adams M. Q-methodology as a phenomenological research method. Existential Analysis 2007; 18(1):103-16.

9. Davis CH, Michelle C. Q methodology in audience research: bridging the qualitative/quantitative ‘divide’? Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 2011; 8(2):559–93.

10. Brown SR: Q Methodology. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Edited by Given LM. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008.

11. Chinnis AS, Summer DE, Doerr C, Paulson DJ, Davis SM. Q-Methodology: a new way of assessing employee satisfaction. J Nurs Adm 2001; 31(5):252–9.

12. Karim K. Q methodology-advantages and the disadvantages of this research method. J Community Nurs 2001; 15(4):8–10.

13. van Exel NJA, de Graaf G. Q methodology: A sneak preview. 2005 []

14. Smith NW. Current systems in psychology: history, theory, research, and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2001.

15. Perz J, Ussher JM, Gilbert E. Constructions of sex and intimacy after cancer: Q methodology study of people with cancer, their partners, and health professionals. BMC Cancer 2013; 13:270.

16. Smith NW. Current systems in psychology: history, theory, research, and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2001.

17.Brouwer M. Q is accounting for tastes. Journal of Advertising Research 1999; 39(2):35-9.

18. Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and Interpretation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012.

19. Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Educ Res 2005; 20(2): 206-13.

20. Stainton R R. Q methodology. In Rethinking methods in psychology. Edited by Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995:178-92.

21. Schmolck P. PQMethod software. 2002 []

22. Brown SR. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1980.

23. Watts S, Stenner P: Doing Q methodology: theory, method, and interpretation. Qual Res Psychol 2005; 2:67–91.

24. Shinebourne P: Using Q method in qualitative research. IJQM 2009; 8(1):93–97.

25. Donner JC. Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: an introduction to the methodology. In Social Analysis: Selected tools and techniques. Edited by Bank TSDFW. Washington, D.C: The World Bank Social Development Department; 2001:24–59.

26. Wong BM, Levinson W, Shojania KG. Quality improvement in medical education: current state and future directions. Med Educ. 2012; 46(1): 107-19.

27. Filipe HP, Silva ED, Stulting AA,  Golnik KC. Continuing Professional Development: Best   Practices. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2014; 21(2):134-41.

28. Husain M, Khan S. Students' feedback: An effective tool in teachers' evaluation system. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2016; 6(3):178-81.

29. Cohen P, McKeachie W. The role of colleagues in the evaluation of teaching. Improv Coll Univ Teach.1980; 28:147-54.