In some senses, this book is an attempt to understand the humble feedback form. You may have encountered one while taking courses at university or, perhaps, after being discharged from hospital or receiving help from the police. In universities, students are asked to spend a few minutes ticking boxes or assigning a numerical grade to such statements as ‘The course met the objectives set’ and offering comments or suggestions. The figures are converted into tables of percentage scores by a central department and used in the university to assess performance. They may even be posted on a website, and be referred to in aggregate terms in government reports comparing the performance of different universities.

Although many people complete these forms without giving them a second thought, it is interesting to consider that they are a relatively recent development. University courses were delivered and assessed during the 1970s without using them, and there was far less emphasis on measuring or improving quality in public sector agencies. More generally, quality assurance has only recently emerged as an occupation, or sub-field, of management. Today, there are many complaints by public sector professionals about the damaging effects of bureaucracy and ‘red tape’ created by this new form of regulation. On the one hand, government remains committed to improving the delivery of public services. To use a phrase often found in press releases issued by the civil service, the aim is to ‘drive up’ standards in health, education and criminal justice. On the other hand, professionals and other public sector workers often complain about a burden of paperwork caused by form filling, report writing and preparation for inspections (Power, 1997; O’Neill, 2002; Marquand, 2004). There is also resentment against what is perceived to be an ever-expanding bureaucracy created by quality assurance, including staff employed to prepare for inspections and maintain quality procedures.

This book will consider the conceptual and political issues raised by attempts to measure quality from a sociological perspective that is interested in day-to-day work and everyday experience. Although there have been some thought-provoking academic books about these issues, the authors write in general terms about society, employing abstract concepts such as risk, trust or governmentality, rather than looking at the concerns and problems of the people promoting or implementing quality assurance initiatives, or their effect on particular organisations.