Higher education institutions and the higher education systems are crucial drivers for the further evolution of knowledge economy, knowledge society and even more so knowledge democracy. Therefore, it is essential to determine, what the governance of higher education should be. Central in this context is to interlink quality assurance and quality enhancement with organizational development in higher education.

Epistemic Governance is designed to cross-connect the quality understandings of academia with internal and external governance measures, so to create here mutual references. Epistemically “blind” governance cannot lead to long-term sustainable development in academia. In final consequence this implies: “This emphasizes our understanding that all forms of comprehensive and sustainable quality management in higher education must also refer to the underlying epistemic structure of higher education (at least implicitly)” (Campbell and Carayannis, 2013, p. 27).

Looking for a core definition of Epistemic Governance, the crucial statement is: “‘Epistemic’ governance of and in higher education therefore requires that the underlying epistemic structure of higher education and, more particularly, also the underlying paradigms of the produced knowledge are being addressed. Epistemic governance refers directly to the underlying ‘knowledge paradigms’ of higher education that carry and drive higher education” (Campbell and Carayannis, 2013, p. 27).

Quality management is being carried by two principles: quality assurance and quality enhancement. Quality assurance fulfills more tasks of a quality control, and thus may be classified as a “necessary condition”. The “sufficient condition”, however, is the quality enhancement of quality development. While in the short run the quality control matters, the quality enhancement is more important in the long run (Carayannis and Campbell, 2021). There is a need to interlink and to find a balance between quality development and organizational development, and this is exactly the goal of Epistemic Governance. Therefore, Epistemic Governance is crucial for developing forward the teaching, research and learning at Higher Education Institutions, and their innovative performance.

Quality management (quality assurance and quality enhancement) should be based on quality, obviously. One way to structure quality is to identify specific “quality dimensions”. In conventional wisdom, often the following quality dimensions are being indicated to be of importance for higher education:

(1) “Efficiency” refers to achieving the highest possible output while using the least amount of input, essentially optimizing the ratio between input and output.

(2) “Relevance” can be interpreted in two main ways. Firstly, it can refer to the significance of something within higher education, such as its importance to academic research communities. Secondly, it can pertain to its usefulness and applicability in real-world contexts, including its relevance to society and the economy.

(3) “Viability”, often referred to as “sustainability”, evaluates the organizational and institutional framework supporting long-term sustainability in higher education. This assessment considers the structures and processes that facilitate education, research, and societal engagement activities over time. It brings together the social and institutional dimensions of higher education, ensuring that educational institutions can effectively fulfill their missions while adapting to changing circumstances and needs.

(4) “Effectiveness” or “effectivity” measures the degree to which objectives or goals are achieved and actualized. Unlike efficiency, effectiveness is more complex to quantify. It can be assessed based on various factors including quality, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability, resulting in different effectiveness profiles depending on the context and priorities. “Effectiveness may serve as an example for a ‘higher’ or ‘advanced’ dimension, focusing on the question: how effective is university research? Effectiveness often is used as a policy term and should express the degree of achievement of certain (research) objectives. Still, in practice, a consistent operationalization (application) of that concept often proves difficult. Within our line of argument, the ‘effectiveness’ may be modeled as a combined derivation of ‘first level’ dimensions, allowing the statement of specific and distinct effectiveness profiles for various institutions (or disciplines). Consequently, different ‘effectivenesses’ arise: some institutions might do better concerning efficiency, others perhaps demonstrate saliency with regard to relevance” (Campbell, 2003, p. 130).

Quality management in higher education encompasses both internal and external aspects of governance or oversight. Internally, it involves the mechanisms and processes put in place within educational institutions to ensure high standards in teaching, research, and other activities. Externally, it can involve oversight by external entities such as government bodies or accrediting agencies to ensure that institutions meet specified quality standards and objectives. In practical terms, quality management already can refer to different, well-established, and experienced approaches. Common in this regard are certification or certificate; accreditation; assessment or evaluation; and audit or review (see Figure A for a visualization).

In practice, there often is an overlap between the various approaches and procedures used for quality assurance and enhancement in higher education. Conceptually, it is often challenging to clearly define boundaries between these approaches. When there is a conceptual overlap, it may lead to the recognition of a “two-tier” or “two-level” system of quality assurance and enhancement. For instance, an institutional audit may examine whether the institution has processes in place for self-evaluation of teaching and research. This could be seen as a form of “meta-evaluation” (evaluation of evaluations), where the audit provides a broader or different perspective on the evaluations conducted by the institution itself.

Epistemic Governance has the capability and capacity to ensure that all these specific measures of quality assurance and quality enhancement are interconnected with the underlying quality understandings (and quality dimensions) in higher education. Epistemic Governance shows a route into a future of higher education governance.

^REFERENCES

^{Campbell, David F. J. (2003). The Evaluation of University Research in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Germany and Austria, 98-131, in: Philip Shapira / Stefan Kuhlmann (eds.): Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Camberley: Edward Elgar.}

^{Campbell, David F. J. (2019). Global Quality of Democracy as Innovation Enabler. Measuring Democracy for Success. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-72529-1).}

^{Campbell, David F. J. / Elias G. Carayannis (2013). Epistemic Governance in Higher Education. Quality Enhancement of Universities for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business. New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6).}

^{Campbell, David F. J. / Elias G. Carayannis (2016a). The Academic Firm: A New Design and Redesign Proposition for Entrepreneurship in Innovation-Driven Knowledge Economy. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 5:12 (pp. 1-10) (DOI: 10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1) (http://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1).}

^{Campbell, David F. J. / Elias G. Carayannis (2016b). Epistemic Governance and Epistemic Innovation Policy. Technology, Innovation and Education 2:2 (pp. 1-15) (DOI: 10.1186/s40660-016-0008-2) (http://technology-innovation-education.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40660-016-0008-2).}

^{Carayannis, Elias G. / David F. J. Campbell (2021). Democracy of Climate and Climate for Democracy: the Evolution of Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 12 (4), 2050-2082 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00778-x).}

^{Dr. David F. J. Campbell is Associate Professor for Comparative Political Science at the University of Vienna and Head of the Center for Higher Education Governance and Transformation at the University for Continuing Education Krems in Austria.}