Do subcultures play a role in facilitating academic quality?—A case study of a Saudi higher education institution

The study investigates whether and how subcultures within higher education institutions influence the facilitation and realisation of academic quality criteria. Focusing on a Saudi state university, it explores the emergence and role of different departmental subgroups in meeting accreditation standards set by the National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment (NCAAA). The purpose is to move beyond the assumption of a unified organisational culture to understand multiple coexisting subcultures—some supportive, some resistant—and their practical effects on quality work. The research is timely given recent organisational, legal, and social changes in Saudi higher education, including evolving leadership practices and loosening gender segregation, which may alter cultural dynamics and quality processes.

The paper reviews organisational culture (OC) scholarship highlighting divergent views: culture as a unified, leader-controlled system versus organisations as mosaics of multiple, mutable subcultures. It critiques unified/control culture perspectives for overreliance on snapshot, quantitative assessments of visible manifestations (values, norms) and for neglecting deeper assumptions, subcultures, and resistance. In higher education, much culture–quality research assumes leaders can shape a unified quality culture measured through shared values, overlooking influences of national culture and personal characteristics on subculture formation. Prior subculture–quality studies often infer subcultures from value differences between the organisation and subgroups, sidestepping deeper cultural analysis due to methodological difficulty. The review calls for qualitative, ethnographic examinations of broad cultural manifestations (assumptions, beliefs, values, artefacts) to reveal how subcultures interact with quality standards in HEIs.

Design: Single-organisation, qualitative ethnographic case study of a Saudi state university (pseudonym: Century University). Access spanned January 2020–March 2021. Sampling and site selection: From five NCAAA-institutionally accredited universities initially contacted (three private, two public), one public university granted suitable access. Among ~160 academic programmes, four programmes across different colleges that had NCAAA accreditation or a final NCAAA visit participated. Programmes were anonymised as A1, A2, B, and C. Data collection: Triangulated methods—document analysis, observations, and interviews. Documents included quality monitoring manuals, quality management and accreditation systems, and national regulations. Observations covered facility visits, internal meetings, staff training on NCAAA accreditation (including contentious discussions about support), and parts of final NCAAA examiner visits. Interviews proceeded in two phases: (1) unstructured interviews with 11 high-level officials (e.g., vice-rector, deans, vice deans of quality, female section lead, high-quality committee members) to elicit university history, recent changes, and subculture emergence; (2) private, face-to-face semi-structured interviews with departmental members from target programmes exploring subgroups, values, roles, and intra/intercultural relations. In total, 40 interviews were conducted; 29 were with quality subgroup members; 13 interviewees were female. All but six interviews were audio-recorded (exceptions mostly high-level officials) and transcribed verbatim; detailed notes were taken when recording was declined. Interviews lasted 40–100 minutes. The researcher kept electronic notebooks integrating observation notes, document analyses, and interview data and conducted follow-up site visits and interviews as needed. Data analysis: Grounded theory procedures (Strauss & Corbin) using open coding to identify patterns and dimensions, axial coding to connect and theme core categories, and selective coding to integrate themes into coherent theoretical groups. Iterative, regular review facilitated linking events and perspectives and validating claims across data sources.

- Multiple subgroups coexist within departments, with divergent impacts on quality work. A distinct 'quality subgroup' emerged in each programme, positively influencing the accomplishment of NCAAA standards, while contra subgroups (e.g., 'old-timers' preferring traditional pedagogy; 'gurus' asserting expertise and dismissing standards) resisted change and hindered progress, notably in A2, B, and C. A1, being relatively new, showed fewer resistant subgroups and greater openness to change. - Quality subgroup emergence and role: Quality subgroups formed as programmes contracted with NCAAA, moving through phases of (a) emergence, (b) taking the lead, and (c) maintaining gains post-accreditation. Members reported clearer, more consistent teaching and management practices after adoption of standards (e.g., consistent use of syllabi, learning outcomes, and course reporting). - Female-led quality leadership in A2: A2’s most distinctive quality subgroup formed in the female section, led by a respected visionary who mobilised commitment, reframed challenges, and sustained motivation. Increased male–female collaboration was observed, with several participants anticipating stronger female leadership in quality work. - Recruitment and socialisation strategies: Quality groups actively recruited new members via workshops, meetings, and induction for newcomers to preempt negative influence from resistant subgroups. They targeted specific personal characteristics associated with effectiveness in bureaucratic HEI contexts: commitment, organisation, flexibility, passion, social intelligence (e.g., building rapport, conflict avoidance), diplomatic skills for cross-unit coordination, and patience to endure delays and maintain morale. - Leader involvement: Quality groups leveraged leadership to legitimise and enforce quality work by (1) integrating heads/deans into quality decision-making (e.g., council agenda, appointments, recognising excellence) and (2) influencing leadership nominations to place quality-oriented members in key roles (e.g., vice-dean for quality). This accelerated collaboration and reduced resistance; in A1, it enabled development of award-winning systems supporting quality processes. - Cultivating a 'quality culture': Common practices included rewarding excellence, reiterating quality values in formal/informal settings, and visible messaging. B linked quality to disciplinary identity and competitive first-mover goals in NCAAA listing, boosting engagement. A2 uniquely framed quality using Islamic principles (e.g., Quranic verses, hadith) and emphasised 'volunteering' to sustain effort amid resource constraints, which diffused from female to male sections. - Post-accreditation sustainability: Recognising risk of complacency after accreditation, groups enacted strategies to keep quality 'alive' (succession planning, manuals, continuous workshops, routine council discussions, ongoing review of course reports) and to maintain motivation through rewards, public recognition (e.g., WhatsApp/Twitter highlights), and community-building events. These practices helped maintain continuous improvement beyond accreditation as an end in itself. - Contextual changes: Leadership turnover and budget revisions, expansion from primarily Islamic programmes to broader fields, and loosening gender segregation shaped subculture dynamics and quality structures. Quantitative details: 40 interviews conducted (29 with quality subgroup members; 13 females). Access period Jan 2020–Mar 2021. Four anonymised programmes (A1, A2, B, C).

Findings demonstrate that subcultures materially shape the facilitation of academic quality in HEIs. Quality subgroups—through targeted recruitment, leader engagement, cultural framing, and sustained recognition—enhanced adherence to NCAAA standards and enabled accreditation. Conversely, entrenched subcultures ('old-timers', 'gurus') impeded change by privileging traditional practices or personal authority over institutional standards. This challenges unified culture assumptions and underscores the necessity of diagnosing and working with intra-organisational cultural plurality to advance quality. The study also shows that aligning leadership structures with quality work, selecting members with specific interpersonal and resilience traits, and culturally resonant framing (e.g., Islamic values, volunteering) can convert resistant climates and maintain quality beyond accreditation. Emerging female leadership and increased cross-gender collaboration appear to be consequential facilitators under recent Saudi social reforms, suggesting shifting cultural resources available for quality improvement.

The study contributes by: (1) reinforcing critiques of unified organisational culture perspectives, evidencing multiple coexisting subcultures with divergent effects on quality; (2) advancing culture–quality literature through an ethnographic analysis of deep cultural manifestations (assumptions, beliefs, values, artefacts) and their linkage to concrete quality practices and accreditation outcomes; (3) illuminating intra-subcultural dynamics and their management implications—leaders who recognise and navigate subcultural tensions can better steer quality initiatives; (4) highlighting the performance value of recruiting individuals with traits such as social intelligence, diplomacy, and patience for quality roles; and (5) offering rare ethnographic insights from Saudi HEIs, including increased female participation and leadership in quality work. Practical implications include engaging leaders formally in quality governance, strategic recruitment and induction into quality subgroups, culturally resonant narratives to motivate participation, and post-accreditation systems to sustain continuous improvement. Future research should examine the generalisability of identified personal traits across sectors, rigorously assess how stressing specific Islamic values affects work performance, and investigate the work–life interface and organisational supports for Saudi women as their participation increases.

The research is a single-organisation case study, which may limit generalisability. While suggestive, the links between emphasising Islamic values and improved performance could not be established at the subgroup level across all cases. The identification of effective personal characteristics (e.g., social intelligence, diplomacy, patience) may be context-specific to bureaucratic state universities and not necessarily unique to HEIs. Data collection was not exclusively focused on gender dynamics; thus, conclusions about female leadership and interaction effects are preliminary. Some high-level interviews were not audio-recorded, relying on detailed notes, which may constrain verbatim analysis.