Morrison, MicheleKlinger, DonAl Aufi, Maryam2026-09-082026-09-082026https://hdl.handle.net/10289/18624Quality assurance (QA) continues to gain increasing global attention as higher education systems expand and diversify in response to massification, internationalisation and demands for accountability. Despite being embedded in many national and institutional frameworks for decades, QA remains a growing concern, particularly regarding its conceptualisation, implementation, and impacts on academic work. Academic staff, as key stakeholders in delivering education, are at the forefront of experiencing and interpreting QA processes, policies and practices. This study examines academics’ perceptions of how QA processes, policies, and practices shape academic work in higher education in Oman. The context of this study is the University of Technology and Applied Sciences (UTAS) with a focus on teaching aspects, performance appraisal, and professional development. A qualitative case study methodology was employed across three academic colleges in four UTAS branches. The study used semi-structured interviews with 18 academic staff members, conducted via Zoom, as the primary data collection method. It is supplemented by document research to provide contextual understanding and enrich the data. Thematic analysis was applied to identify themes and meanings within participants’ experiences. NVivo software was used to manage and organise the qualitative data, enabling systematic coding and development of themes. Reflexivity was maintained throughout the research to account for my positionality and interpretation. The analysis presents two interconnected dimensions of QA: implementation and impact. Findings reveal that participants perceived the implementation of the QA system as dominated by compliance-oriented mechanisms, superficial engagement and bureaucratic documentation that marginalises genuine academic voice. Participants reported significant changes in their academic work, namely curriculum, pedagogical approaches and assessment practices. However, observable changes appeared to be driven more by external factors, such as technological developments and COVID-19 disruptions, than QA mechanisms themselves. Participants also reported intensified teaching standardisation pressures, the surveillant performance appraisal system and mandatory professional development requirements. The findings reveal interwoven tensions and persistent questions that echo global debates on QA in higher education. Key concerns include the continued lack of a conceptual consensus on the definition and purpose of QA, the prioritisation of compliance over academic improvement, and bureaucratic processes that constrain rather than enable autonomy and academic freedom. QA mechanisms at UTAS functioned primarily to ensure conformity and institutional discipline. This study makes several important research contributions. It contributes to the limited research on QA in the context of Oman by exploring how the QA system shapes academic work. This contribution extends to the broader Gulf and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) contexts, where similar centralised governance and top-down QA policy implementation exist yet remain under-researched. This creates opportunities for comparative research and establishes a baseline for longitudinal investigation tracking QA development in the region. This study also contributes to global debates on QA in higher education by both echoing widespread tensions and advancing understanding of how these tensions demonstrate with a centralised governance context. The study offers recommendations to enhance QA implementation at both policy and institutional levels. It advocates operational principles, including inclusivity in policy development, responsiveness to disciplinary diversity, transparency in expectations and processes, and trust-based rather than surveillance-oriented approaches. Underpinning these principles is the need for flexibility, autonomy and academic freedom in teaching and professional development, allowing academics to innovate pedagogically, make context-appropriate decisions and engage in meaningful professional growth rather than conforming to QA requirements and surveillance-based performance management.enAll items in Research Commons are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.quality assurancehigher educationacademic workacademic autonomyOmanaccreditationperformance appraisalprofessional developmentqualitative case studycompliance cultureThesis