{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02177177177177177, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.732323232323233, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is the Asian quality assurance system for higher education going glonacal? Assessing the impact of three types of program accreditation on Taiwanese universities

Tertiary education institutions are currently learning to integrate and balance the needs of varying stakeholders, including local students, national governments, and the global market. These three dimensions combine into the concept of a ‘glonacal’ – global + national + local – region of higher education. At the same time, quality assurance influences higher education in terms of policy decisions and processes, putting more emphasis on teaching as a core function of universities, and leading to an increased bureaucratization and heavier administrative workload. Yet, there is little evidence of the consequences of the glonacal approach for the quality of teaching and learning within universities and colleges. The main purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of the glonacal quality assurance system of Asian higher education through a case study of the effects of three program accreditations on higher education institutions in Taiwan (Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan [HEEACT], Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International [AACSB International] and Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan [IEET]).